from the lombard corridor coalition regarding the lombard street corridor transit project and chestnut street projects. so commissioners, the point of clarification with a request for presentation was submitted to the office. the president of the commission approved it on the agenda but the timing is such that we do not have time to invite the sfmta to be able to present on the details, but we can, if that's what she would like a future meeting we can invite them to present on the details could this item is on the agenda is a discussion and action item. it's not required but is on the agenda to allow you the full range of options of what you should decide whatever you would like to do. >>i want this to be a form where we hear these issues in public. and get ahead of them.

whether we could get out of this we will see but certainly i appreciate you coming out tonight to educate us on the issue >> thanks. ontario northland up my family has been on the corner of fillmore and lumbar since 1914 believe it or not. we are here-your comments on the last billboard item number 3 is just perfect segue because there are parts of the plan for lombard street that the sfmta that is planning that is completely anti-small business. there's 2 main things that one is there going to remove 47 >> thank you. parking places along the corridor and the 2nd thing is, the moving bus stops. currently, there in front of buildings without any private driveways or residences. there'll called caldwell banker >> i'd like to welcome offices and the honda repair shop. they're moving 10 of

these bus stops across the everyone to the small business commission meeting on thursday, march 17, 2016, and the start street in front of small time is 201 businesses and private driveways. it's so illogical this is the regular meeting of the small business commission and so anti-small business. there are 10 of us here to get today's meeting it trifsz live him to be very brief with an and the small business commission thank 3 to 4 services introduction that this business and sfgovtv staff for trifgz and owners behind me, but i want you to know, we have 650 airing the small business commission meeting the meeting petition signers who agree with can be viewed on sfgov channel what were going to say. all these petitions were signed in 78 or live streamed by small businesses on lombard street. the reader business owners. employees, customers, sfgovtv.org and click on watch sfgov 2 members of the public please take this opportunity to silence our phones and other electronic devices and public comment property owners. literally, 650 people along the corridor were during the meeting is limit it 3 absolutely and directly affected by these changes. so, we know-i was a small business minutes per speaker unless established by the presiding owner for 30 years. that's officer of the meeting speakers are requested but not required where my heart is. so we all know that this would be negative impacts the loss of to state their name and. >> (speaking spanish.) and it

will insure that proper spelling that much parking with moving of the speakers name are the stops in front of small stores. they deny it but we do not. we written record and please know it's going to happen. were some articles we found over the weekend that gives specific examples from berkeley and new deliver to the secretary prior to approaching the elect york these exact same changes how business is went down 20%, legislature is sign-in sheet to etc. the sfmta, unfortunately, be added to the mailing list 12306d if we could have the why we do not know to not do one study on the impact of office of small business slide please. these plans on small the office of small business businesses. now, how they can owner small business is the get away with that and do it anyway, we just don't central point and assistance and referrals for enterprises and small businesses in san francisco we provide free one-on-one understand that. we met with them 4 times with engineers and planners. we have said every single time this is so anti- assistance to help each client small business. take away all parking and accessibility and with their goals and needs our putting the bus stops and all the people right in front of services are the check list of the small shops. they just required registration permits and licenses and zoning completely ignore the argument could they want to just talk about transit efficiency and requirement connect you the city resource

partners to develop a plan, assess finance and legal and pedestrian safety. so, they claim they've had a outreach. they're doing outreach with the technical support or any other community and business owners. none of us know anything about assistance you made need the san francisco small business commission is here to support this except by word-of-mouth and rumor that that information you through the stages of our started to trickle in about 6 months ago. these fans have business presidential stop by our office city hall room 10 been in the works for 2-3. they never consulted one that landowner, one business owner, monday through friday call 4125454 6124 about 3 impression gov. sfgovtv.org and we provide but one resident. so these plans were created. they have services in english, chinese and this high in the sky idea of how this is going to be great for san francisco could reveal it's going to really really really harm small businesses you're talking about earlier. spanish. >> thank you commissioner adams so we'll move on to item one what you should know being on here, we are here for lombard street specifically today, but they're planning to do this on van ness avenue, on post street, on geary,. there's 24 sdmadz commissioner adams different major streets in san commissioner dooley francisco are parking is going to be removed and they're going to put these have the buses commissioner dwight stopping in the lane of traffic rather than pulling over to the

commissioner ortiz-cartagena side. so, here is the real rub, commissioner tour-sarkissian commissioner yee-riley and that is that no one oversees the mta. appointed by commissioner is a zone us mr. president, wroum move on to the mayor. we talked to regina and she said, you know, they item two general public comment it allows member of the public can kind of do-i don't article to comment general on matters you but any rate you guys don't have power over the mta and we within the commission purview certainly don't because as a and suggests new agenda items community and group we've met for the commission future with them 4 separate times and they have not given us and ate consideration that is public them an inch on the changes we wanted which was less loss of comment on items not on today's parking and not moving those bus stops in front of small agenda. >> any members of the public businesses. so, we would like that want to comment on items to work with you at all possible. i was so delighted to not on today's agenda welcome. >> thank you good afternoon small business commission and there's no businesslike small business like all business i know hear your presentation how pro-small business and are everybody about it is appealing worried about that a move to the suburbs. that's what were trying to tell the mta. if everything that traffic will there's no parking of drive to marin and shop. they won't stop on lombard street. so what we allow in any business before

when your got that business bow would like to work with you from here on out i'm sorry were coming so late in the game but we do not realize this would have been an option for us. we would like to work with but no people like small business your commission to insist that people they smile when hair low mta be more inclusionary, do and you'll have a big money role and you got lots of dough impact studies, before they make these changes and then because- your small business after to make sure they're not negatively impacting small businesses. we want will grow. transparency. so much of this was done behind closed doors >> your small business will g w before we even knew about it. little more honesty would be nice. because some of the reports are very fact grow. >> yeah. thank you. >> awesome we wish the part stretching let's just say. so please can form some kind of a liaison with you to work to about dough were true. >> any other members of the public that want to today before we precede well. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'll not sing i'm prevent not just on lombard although that's why we are here, really looked into it because it's all throughout the city and friends of ours who live throughout the city are all freaking out in their individual neighborhoods. we ace washington give you a little are trying to finally get a bit of background i've been hold city coalition going but anyway. we just want you to around city hall for 20 know this is happening. thank

something years around the you. now some business owners districts before our director from lombard are coming up >> we may have a couple questions for you. i do. if i worked with us so i'm getting understand, there are holdouts ready to say i have knowing i'm the fillmore corridor ambassador that's me so been there for many years and getting ready to have at the corners recommended as well as some buildout for bus the fillmore ambassador state of stops as well. that those dildos all were moving the fillmore i plan to give a 10 parking. as i see in the year review of what the fillmore presentation was started in 2005 right now >> yes. the removing parking on the corner so that pedestrians-there will be since this is the small business administration i have a few parked car >> visibility issues. so the things to say i was very put it net result of that is the removal of 47 >> 47 parking space. this way harden when i find out >> what is the total number of parking spaces presently today? one of our members in our community business owner got with the effective was the much money from the city and percentage loss? >> i do not know. because that wouldn't be an important thing to look at is because 1%, 10% county as a matter of fact she was the or 30%. biggest recipient and there was >> i can't open this for a restaurant krolt from the city

that was bankrupt is there any public comment. if we can answer the >> they said there are 110 way for this a conflict of interest is person that was appointed to the san francisco parking meters on lumbar street small business commission small so be a little over 40%. business commission and pujd up >> and that's a proxy for the to the vice president of the number of parking spaces. then, small business and when i stopped putting the bugs the you mentioned there intending area how can this be the to put some of the bus stops in fillmore that is able to go past front of existing driveways. so everything else and even to open they are picking imminent a business across the street she's on our commission i guess you resolved that she's not on the commission but it is gray the fillmore we have history of domain on the driveways? >> correct. which means residents are also going to lose the ability to park in front of their own driveways. corruption what you call pay to >> how do they get? play and selected and protected >> were losing all the private- that's what we have that's been with the bus stops the private driveways at all our problem she can tell you the >> how you get in and out of director how it has been your driveways? particularly b6 stagnated and now leonardo she's the queen my queen i'm ace the coordinator ambassador i have to we don't have a bus stop in front of our driveways no because as you all know about street is retarded, 100,000

say i'm disappointed how does that work where one of our cards that go up and down lombard. when we come home usually park in the driveway. commissioners got loops to open we wait for the traffic, and up a business across the street then we go around the block and go in the garage. now were in the fillmore but it costs going to no ability to park in the driveway. were going to over one hundred thousand have people waiting in the bus dollars u thoughts you can't pay your rent this is not right in stop could america you don't say thirty to >> i don't mean to be daft but pay your represent and open up how do you get your card into 09 business that's a conflict of your garage under the new interest i know who i'm talking situation? >> they're going to take up buildout and make a driveway. about my name is ace on the case >> you still be able to access get into your garage, but it i'd like to invite to you to the western edition that's the one thing see i'm having ocii coming affects the accessibility of it for you >> correct. there's a safety out there i'll be with you, we issue also. we have studies we need you commissioners that are could show you that say it's unsafe to people waiting in driveways and we brought that involved to come out here my name is ace on the case i'll be back. >> thanks for your comments any other public comment public

they don't care. >> the other question i have is whether the bus stops as proposed also includes shelters or whether their shelter was comment is closed. on to the first time item. stops? >> i think they're sheltered. so the be >> to be a visual obstruction of storefronts as well. >> item three and four the pertinent is sick so i'd like to >> correct. >> those were my commission recommend we move those later question. commissioner adams >> first off, steve cornell, you are right.i want to give and move on to item 6 the pertinent is here i'll call into the record item 5 which is a excuse me - item yes 5 sorry a prosecution and discussion of office of the tax steve cornell a shout out. this is something he brought polk street to our attention years ago and we met with mta and they were going to more community-we actually had a clerks online business joint meeting appear with mta popularity we have jorge's the treasurer of the office of tax collector providing you with a and mta says, there's a problem, let us know and we have been letting him know. i presentation. agree with you. it does seem >> thank you. good afternoon. like you're falling on deaf ears. this is not just a i'm jose cisneros the new business registration the act of

lombard street issue. it's a polk street. it's gary. i live registering a business is in upper market and regarding available entirely online by lost hours and i can tell you that it's a pain to part. inviting the san francisco business portal i know you're familiar with ensues sfgovtv.org trying to find parking is not what it used to be and it's going into the neighborhoods in 3 short steps businesses can people in the neighborhood can park. it just becomes-so i want apply and sign and pay remotely to thank you for coming and organizing because that's how online from the k34069 of their home helping businesses to succeed is essential to the economy and will allow us for more revenue after the past 5 we have to do it. we will have to get other places but, steve, you call this a few years ago. this is the start happening on years we've focused on the van ness and sure enough, so i have to give you a shout out for that one. because i've been business tax and payment and seen it myself. it's the-i know filings on line for the experience of the taxpayers and the city has this transit first the annual business registration policy. i get that. however, renewal has been online for all businesses for a number of years that transit first policy is we know that businesses of all sizes will benefit but for small not cookie cutter and it doesn't fit all areas. people businesses like the contractors and seeking a building permit perhaps in a timely way and

hairdressers for they're first stall or nonprofit being to still live on hills could still have to drive down the hill to shop and i keep hearing people who live up on twin peaks and register without having to come drive to know we valley anymore because they can't park. what do they do? the drive down to daly city and shop. so, and traffic us to city hall or waiting for a mail that can take something does have to be done. i don't know, director gourmet a number of days will save 7, 8, 9 and increase the efficiency for the businesses this who should have a joint meeting milestone wouldn't have happened with mta. i don't know if that will help, but we've got to get through that. this is starting without this community and the to become a bigger problem than commission mostly the office of economic workforce development the office of labor & standards enforcement and our xhifsh 311 a few years ago. speak it is going to be citywide. there's no doubt about it. already people are saying it's so hard to park in san francisco. i i want to talk about business don't go into the city very much anymore. lumbar street is registration here in san francisco again something i know. >> know a lot about san francisco has one and 5 thousand registered businesses which pay 1.2 builds her year to our a highway. the federal highway. there's all these cars commuters, taurus, to treat it

office the business takes that like any of the street as well as everything else is just ridiculous includes the registration fee >> i would not have a problem with the transit lanes if they would let us build parking that was distrusted the grow structures in neighborhoods again. >> that's what i suggested. they shot me down on that one resident and the business >> this in 1972 ordinance out there when they were to start building parking structures in expenses and the transient that neighborhoods and i believe the last one that was built was in concludes my remarks and the user taxation r all are paid north beach where the police station is. that was the last every year and the majority of one built. to me, it's like that to open up that discussion one and 5 thousand businesses again. if you want to have are, in fact, small businesses some of them very small businesses business registration these transit lanes, you have gone have to put some parking under the law in san francisco structures in. maybe we all get is required for anyone engaging in san francisco common examples a fixed place of business and soliciting or having a business for 7 days or more or driving on together and just put a ballot initiative on there and say but still some parking structures san francisco streets for in the city. i know the transit business purposes it is a people first won't like that but you know, after a while people do drive. i hate-it should be required first step for anyone seeking a variety of permits or licenses to operate including all us together. >> we try. believe me, we tried. there's a lot of the department of public health businesses on the lombard that

the office office of short-term have had hospitals will speak rental and police department next people can bring their dogs on the bus. they have this business registration is required within 15 days of operation and valid from july 1st to june 30th and pollyanna thing well if we take away all the parking and would make the bus is a little quicker everybody's got take the bus. but that's not going annually registrations must be to happen. it's unrealistic. ruined by may 31st the fees for >> i see the schedule properly here in the mta presentation, new businesses range if as little as $75 to as much as summer of 2016 is so near-term treatment. i presume that is $35,000 per year based on the something-something that's more type of business activities asia annual gross resident of those businesses they were set by the pavement brains. the reviewing voters as partly of i 2012 and permitting caltrans and bidding and awarding the bits. proposition e the grow recipient construction is to begin in summer of 2017. so roughly tax their pro rated for the businesses to start mid year 15-16 months before construction is scheduled to picture the treasurer's office i'm proud to say the first city begin. so, there's obviously department to have the citywide not a lot of time because were looking at summer for reviewing contract with docking you sign and permits once i get permit for the electronic technology it's done. >> the vote unfortunately is

that replaces the need for a wet tomorrow at 1 pm. >> the vote on? on where? signature on the application with an easy and trusted digital bedecked at the sfmta board signature online i'll talk about how we're doing meeting. i wish we had moved to come here months ago but we didn't. 0 so far we offered this online >> commissioner tour-sarkissian just a month ago and that in that time nearly seven hundred >> i do have a question. you businesses have registered online and 80 percent of those met with him 4 times and you completed the application their said you had an architect with digital signature and their payment in less than one hour you. >> we do not have an pretty fast cleared to coming to city hall or waiting for a 2 architect. we did not. we were week period the rank of just citizens. we met with them 3 times as citizens and then we met once with mark farrell's businesses covered the game bet in many of them city vendors office and his 8. >> i been reading but the that use the website to remedy sfmta has in mind, but in my and do business in the city i'm excited to bring this news and record i don't have what you again want to appreciate auto the support and systems out of

your commission as we are able submitted to them to did you cement anything in writing? >> i did and i can give you a to assist theusinesses more copy. the tech that is something that each time you efficiently every year thank met with them you made your request same, anything- you. >> great news will this help to streamline the registering for the or. >> everyone has to register >> we've e-mailed summary comes. we sent him the studies good we 40 studies for all over the short-term rental folks the country that say, don't put would able to use this facility yes and i think 24 will be something speak might make sense for the businesses like that for bus stops in driveways. it's dangerous for the people waiting. it's dangerous for the people backing out and they just really dismissed us. everything else they do online. >> i propose you submit >> thank you for making this whatever you submitted to the sfmta to this body so at least happen. we can gauge and understand >> thank you. >> commissioner. what your concerns are. in >> thank you for everything you've done for small businesses i know when i finishes got on the commission you were streamlined the business permit writing. so we can weigh it with and maybe invite sfmta to tell us why they're rejecting you know instead of getting you outright. i see some compelling know having to pay 10 different times over the year one it is issues of safety. due in march and people know it now with the business portal and

>> there are plans parts of the plan they're really good. really oriented toward safety working with us we have ms. and were also those parts. but augustine your department did a then they started saying that very good job and again will say putting the bus stop in front of the driveway argue outreach from apparently tax receptors is great i hear barley a people from 9 q and a and others your team has done a fantastic job and letting people know what the deal say, i want to you're doing a great job. >> thank you commissioner adams you guys are a great channel for us to reach the small businesses from the city there are many and not connected to our office and not an easy way to reach them so we appreciate our partnership. >> great. thank you very much

for coming and presenting today. >> any other questions or comments. >> okay awesome thank you. >> thank you treasurer cisneros. >> david. >> public comment sorry. >> do we have any public comment on this item seeing none, public comment is closed move on to the next item. >> we'll move on to item number 3 is the discussion and possible action to the board of supervisors on file number 160141 the public employee annual salary ordinance amendment to the small business commission and the mayor's office of economic workforce development for the fiscal year 2015-2016 and 2016-2017. >> so this particular - this is - this particular ordinance is establishing the position that is will be for the legacy

business regulatory and management of the historical preservation fund. >> do we need to read into the record since hillary is not here i'm happy to take any questions for you the - there is a dollar amount associated with this registration targeted is the 9774 which is a senior community development specialist and the amount of money targeted for 3 months to get us through to the ends of this budget circle but looking at to the next budget - >> so a 3 month number. >> yes. a 3 month number and, yes oval office budget that position is included in with all the

other positions. >> okay commissioner adams. >> this makes is that position a permanent position by the office of our office. >> right now i mean - it is a permanent exempt right now. >> that's fine. >> it establishes it and the doing the supplemental allows for the beginning of you know hiring for this position and having this position in this current budget circle. >> okay. any other comments before public comment? so what are we are doing today is meeting for the 3 months do we have to do it again for the next - >> well, you - we live in the next either next commission meeting our the following review the overall budget for the 2016-2017 which that.

>> will include the ongoing solution. >> the supplemental is just to augment the current budget we're in so we have to first establish the position the dollar amount amount any public comment on related to this item only. >> absolutely positively no problem. >> i just left from mayor's office of economic workforce development i left there i told him the item is on this we have oewd in any community. >> would you like to comment on this item. >> sir, sir. >> i've been at this game for 25 years start my time over you didn't stop that guy from singing i'm serious about what

i'm saying right now i see you have opportunity the oewd create a new position or something i'm sorry, i wasn't here but right now there is so much conflict of interest in city hall i call is silly hall mayor ed lee i don't know what the hell you're doing i don't care the fbi is watching him your department the small business commission you all fiddle with oewd i have big problems and create another position where is the paperwork what kind of a position you'll get to oewd is that the director you're talking about i don't know what you're talking about are you equating creating a new position for this agency and get it from oewd i don't know that about i'm my name is ace on the

case damn it i'm on the case give me information 0 but it tells us you all going to get $300,000 for a position and i'm talking about what you commissioners have done in the fillmore let me say this i'll be back at city hall i'm the czar for t for the out ward immigration i'll be the prime example of media downstairs but i'm also the financial coordinator ambassador this gives me 3 i don't need our permission i'm on a mission so if we can work together in any community the best it is i'm not going to have the flimflam man and try to clean up like gas co-tried to

clean up city hall we look at it as the fill no more we can't fill it we got no businesses you come down and found out no black businesses the fillmore have you read the papers all the businesses are clotted down except one or two you have the commissioners thriving and people openly up across the street you asked me about business-related to here you better ask somebody my name is ace on the case you'll see my face that is part of my case the question i want to get the information and talk with you mr. mayor and all of that do members of the public want to comment on this item seeing

none, public comment is closed okay commissioners we have an action item here. >> i would motion to approve it the extra person for the office to take care of the legacy business the next 3 months o months. >> roll call vote commissioner adams commissioner dooley commissioner dwight commissioner ortiz-cartagena commissioner tour-sarkissian commissioner yee-riley and commissioner seiu. >> thank you, commissioners so the motion passes in support of establishment of position for the 2016-2017 actually, well anyway as it's written. >> okay next item, please.

>> >> next item please is item number 4 which is discussion and possible action item for the board of supervisors on file number 160152 an operational to the smakz and the mayor's office of economic workforce development of $343,000 plus from the general reserve for the 2015-2016 budget so the total amount is an agree congratulated amount on page 2 broke down so we have there is a general fund for funding a portion of historic preservation grant program then there is $25,000 for general services for professional services and this is primarily to have a brand identity tool website so we have

and marketing materials right. >> and then the general fund for the 3 months worth of salary for the position. >> uh-huh. >> so and at this point i've been - the establishment for the grant program will be primary targeted for the rent stabilization fund those fund can be allocated as long as there is funding the program for that. >> okay. >> for the record this is all related to prop f. >> like it is the registry. >> prop j commissioners any discussion on this item opening it up for public comment anyone from the

public wish to comment seeing none, public comment is closed. okay. so do we have an action. >> do we have a motion. >> yes. i'll motion we approve the appropriating for the grants for the administrative costs for prop j the legacy business and the historic general fund. >> roll call vote please. commissioner adams commissioner dooley commissioner dwight commissioner ortiz-cartagena commissioner tour-sarkissian commissioner yee-riley and commissioner seiu all right. mr. president, that motion passes in support of supplemental. >> next speaker, please. >> discussion and possible action item to amend the board of supervisors file number 160064

this is the police code for the bonds for new child this ordinance i'll not read we've read into the record last at the last meeting commissioners you, you which i see not to take an official action but provided the verify with a list of amendment in your packet is a summary of those amendments and the results of what was take into consideration or not and i'm happy to read through and read into the record those amendments and like to let you know behind the list is the third version of the legislation i've highlighted all the changes as it relates to each of those items so it's right here. >> is it necessary to read

into the record. >> i think maybe we might want to highlight the ones of particular importance to you and that way if you choose to have discussion around it i also would like to let you know there is one amendment you didn't get to discuss because it wasn't the first version when supervisor wiener presented it to you and it is around multiple employers and do want to let you know that was amended as recommendation by the chamber of commerce from the chamber of commerce here and if you like for him to speak to that. >> so, so our certainly welcome to invite him up in eir they're proposed amendment that was put into the legislation. >> okay. >> just to review some of the key highlights some of the most more amendments you requested to

amend the definition of a covered employer and not below 50 or more employers supervisor tang did work to try to amend to that existence and in the end didn't have the votes to do it she offered another alternative which was 60 employers or more the effective date is july or excuse me - the covered employer is 20 employees by july - january 1st, it will apply to 15 employees and jill excuse me - that should be 2017 not 2018 that that will apply to employees with 20 to 49 employees and amend this your second amendment is to that the

covered employee will have to work for 12 months prior to leave and works two hours a week none of those amendments were expected and so it stays as to that the employees is able to take the leave after 90 days or - it's not they're able to take leave the employee takes the leave after 90 days the employer is subject to the paid leave requirement and that it applies to all employees that work 8 hours or more and the supervisor wiener did include the employee reimbursement clause the commission did recommend that it start as it if an employee returns to work after leave but leaves the employment 6 months after during that window of time

that they would reinforce the employee six months was not expected at 90 days and then the civil reenforcement the private right of action was struck i want to highlight for o for the record that i as the on the wage tax board and one of the key finding of the taxation the wage task force was that the most fiscal means of dealing with wage theft best for the employee and is by having strong government actions so it reiterates the need of not needing to have the civil reenforcement the l l e was more

effectively able to corridor the efforts with the city attorney and the district attorney and the state to be able to engage in action on on behalf of the employee so just want to remember that the what this assess task force which you know, i think kind of speaks their finding and recommendations speaks to the fact it the private right of action is not absolutely necessary and then we have the multiple employers amendment i don't know if you want to invite mr. lazarus up to - >> yes. of course. >> come on up. >> good afternoon, commissioners. >> thank you. >> here i am what do you want to know.

>> the commission hadn't had an opportunity to read through the multiple employers so if you could maybe - >> i've read it but you had comments just this sounds like. >> we've had communications with our staff does this section hope will do what we hope it will do obviously the office of labor & standards enforcement can clarify any of the provisions we believe this does at least on the surface meet the concern about a covered employer properly commuting the amount of number of money owed an employee because of employers you have to be qualified under the the state law you have the document that says what your weekly pay is up to 6 weeks that is based on accumulation of wage

information the employee provides for multiple employers you'll be able to get that documented and determine from our own was this you pay looking at the 55 percent the state is covering how much is our percentage and as i read it you'll apply that percentage shared to the 45 percent that you - and their supposed to provide prove of payment and maybe have to be defined more clearly i'm sure your department will be involved and this is about as clear as he make it the other change minimize the impact to the most important one that looks like the fact it an employer may require if it is on the books the apply to use 2 weeks of accumulated vacation and this is towards - it is a

little bit unclear you have to understand how it works the state allows on employer so require 2 weeks of vacation to be termed before it starts you don't have to do it is the option of the employer is it i was the employer in this case i'll say use the two weeks under that ordinance which allows you to mandate the use of two weeks towards the 45 percent. >> right. >> so you're going into 3 e three or four weeks you're paying the person against an accrual of was this against the book the now exposure could be minimized as long as the employee has vacation on the books so there are a number of changes that minimize or recognize the concerns we had with that legislation still not perfect i think we're

stuck with that definition of micro versus small versus the regular sized businesses we currently at the 20 thresholds probably exclude one thousand employees the city from coverage in this or other health care security ordinance for example, if you go to 50 your excluding 50 thousand of total 200 thousands of employers against the 60 thousand employees working for the city it is more than the supervisors with bite off we got the extension to the extra 6 months and maybe changes at the state level during that time to reduce the liability. >> thank you for everything on that jim. >> any questions. >> perfect thanks jim all right. commissioners any

comments. >> can we make the board of supervisors like run a business and meet a payroll so they said how things work. >> (laughter). want to make snarly comments >> i think about this because i wonder do they know what it is like to meet a payroll again, i have been hearing from a lot of people on the street this one is really bugging people it just - and that's what i get as a small business commission commissioner, i need to get that off my chest lastly it has been a task and well, like when we considered minimum wage we see the state likely to adopt a $15 or minimum wage program and as we consented back then we thought this should have been

taken care of at the state lovely level with no specific counties the state of california this is another similar ordinance i believe that should be deferred to the state if this is something that supervisor wiener would like to take on if he becomes a state represent that would be fantastic but don't see how this commission can endorse something that puts one more thing that puts san francisco businesses at a disadvantage to their counterparts not to mention simply the added burden on small businesses generally so i personally like to see this taken to the state and at the same time the i state can address the provision all of those things minimum wage this ordinance and the tip law that

is a state of california law that we discussed during the minimum wage destruction are all things to be dealt with every time we deal with these on a local level we hurt the small businesses the city if we want all the small businesses to move out of our city we're doing the right thing but i don't know that is the right thing to do commissioner dooley. >> i agree with sxhths and particularly the first 3 items that were adopted particularly in terms of restaurants. >> uh-huh. >> i feel that you know saying you couldn't work 8 hours and still be able to get this covered is pretty outrage that means that many restaurants will have all kinds of very, very part time people qualify and of

course the same with the 90 days saying if they leave after 90 days they don't have to repay it - if you'll make the employers pay the fees got to be commitment on the employees side to make it fair which say they cannot just you know run in do this and get the money and leave over 90 days that's only 3 months i think those are extremely negative small businesses and especially the food industry. >> i agree. >> commissioner yee-riley. >> yes. >> i read this economic environmental impact report the negative impacts on the small businesses as well as the city they recommend more gradual move up to 100 percent gradual wage

improvement and given the benefits increases so would this be take into consideration as well. >> i think outside the box. >> given the responsiveness to the suggestions we've made so far no, they've shown they're not willing to bulge on anything about inconsequential items at this point. >> i this is one of the concerns around the timing of the ownerships of economic study reports so this economic study report came out the day before the budget committee hearing hearing so the ability for you to be able to have this exposition fogs to comment and have that information sort of defend our recommendations not able to and so one has to question as to how much the supervisors have the ability to be able to digest that

information and give consideration so - >> well, i'll say this is one more example of how which points it the fact the motivation behind this legislation is something other than purely altruistic intentions towards the employee it certainly didn't take into consideration the effect on small businesses and the employers of the very people they're attempting to have her it is pretty obvious what is going on that is makes my oxen more strong commissioner ortiz-cartagena. >> i don't want to take up more time but for the record when will we stop with this crazy legislation that as you said not the interest of the small businesses i wanted to

know when this stops. >> commissioners any other comments okay public comment? do we have any members of the public that want to comment on this item seeing none, public comment is closed so at this point, i think that we said we will not take a position until we had a response to our request at this point, i think that we either can take no action or take a position can do how think >> i like what william said i want to take a position and reject this and coming from the san francisco small business commission enough is enough is enough and i think we should take the position to you can what we're all represent small businesses it is bad and i want to give jim and the chamber kudos you have been fighting against this one

but this is a bad piece of legislation i mean it should be take up at this stage and i would be happy to make the motion to say you know what this is wrong small businesses in san francisco have had enough and we are not going to go with this piece of legislation. >> the motion so reject this legislation and yeah. >> i second. >> okay. >> and commissioners if under recent milling any additional sort of things that you want to use as examples we can go through the motion but talk about i mean you've talked about for me to add - >> i will say add the 20 person it is ridiculous small businesses in my opinion is one and less employees. >> certainly is an issue with

the inconsistentlycy we applied the term small businesses needs to be harmonized the city and county and in the state of california and the federal government. >> i would like to just say a couple of things again like mentioned to supervisor wiener i hate that we are confined to the benefits of a low wage worker has to be pinned against an owner i do think that i agree with commissioner dooley a little bit more of a commitment on behalf of the 90 day element i think should have been considered accountant more, however, the precars stats of

the businesses applies to the workers i can't stop thinking about 3 i feel frustrated we're in this position and someone that wants to support both worker rights and small business rights. >> again, i think that you can if this was dealt with at the state level levels the playing field but items that come before for our small businesses community as confronted within our confines the county lines puts us at a disadvantage to our soured counties and other businesses the united states and the rest of the world you know. >> just to further our comments commissioner dwight so we take action on the last year

and actually entertained for the amendment and nothing of real value so it is like come on man i'll motion enough is enough bringing this legislation up here. >> do we have a motion to reject this item do we have a second. >> i will. >> second. >> motion by commissioner hyde's and seconded by commissioner dooley. >> yes. >> yes commissioner yee-riley seconded the motion. >> second commissioner yee-riley sorry. >> all right. >> so commissioner adams commissioner dooley commissioner dwight commissioner ortiz-cartagena commissioner tour-sarkissian

commissioner yee-riley and commissioner seiu no that motion passes 6, one and so commissioners because i am able to write a more eloquent response i do think that there might be some benefit for you including some additional comments to the supervisors in guidance around the fact that one that neither the - i mean, we don't know by the fact that the economic analysis report comes out the day before the hearing didn't allow for either the decision maker body and the public let lesson it commission to take a look at the economic analysis. >> didn't allow for those who

have experience running the businesses this effects to weigh in and provide our wisdom there that item or that any oat items that is rushed in agreement with commissioner it puts you us in an awkward position to be pitted against the employees and that also is frankly you know is an affront for the small business owners of that county so the supervisors in doing something like that puts us in a bad light and will pass it regardless of where we is so they'll add injury to insult and piles this on top of of us as small business owners i'm a small business owner and they're not so they know not have what they speak and what they legislate and makes us look bad we look like we're 3i9d against the very

people we day to day support with a paycheck so it is an affront to the commission and an affront for the small business communities. >> i'd like to add that ultimately this type of legislation ini ironicly harms the employees of small businesses because faced with more and more financial pits the small business employers who are generally pretty supportive of their employees will be pushed against the wall and the fallout will be hiring less employees. >> so the common refrain this small business owners will find a way to make accommodation so i think i occurring the supervisors to look at what has happened to the manufacture in the united states of america our fellow trade policy has caused our middle-class jobs to be

gutted in the merchandising sector not coming back by looking at this example you can see that if we continue to make it disadvantageous for small business to exist in this county they've leave as merchandising jobs left overseas and will not come back you'll lose them and there be replaced by formula retail use and big retailer and large companies and result the home generation of our city and the reason that people come here it is different we've losses one of the major differentiation when is tourism hopefully, the weather will not change we'll lose the other ones this i think we've said enough

at this point. >> but that provides me with with some supplemental information then providing a straight up and down. >> and navigate we have a responsibility to come to this commission given the time we have had to look at this and consider the first time. >> item 7 the embarcadero report you've heard the presentation last meeting so i did draft a letter to the sfmta

board because of their timing the meeting was the next day the letter would not have gotten to them if i submit by e-mail i went and make a presentation on your behalf the board passed they approved the project but they did clearly state that because of approving the project things are not necessarily that didn't mean it is finalized and things can't be workout and directed the staff to work with the business communities on the issues period of time albert i highly respect will help facilitate this over the next come up three to four months there are some unique residential issues that need to be dealt with and he provided a 134ur78 but we will be working on doing a much -

he's going to work with the team and with me but motion his team will be developing a mustache stronger nexus not nexus but outreach and inventory of the list of concerns he'll work with me in terms of the feedback i will assess whether when it is appropriate time to come back before you and i will be giving you periodic update since it is two weeks i don't have much in terms of what is happening with the outreach at this point so page 2 the outreach in terms of what peter is dealing with on

that particular issues with that, i have reached to director reiskin working with our goals from the december planning session to now start scheduling at least bio monthly that we have it on our calendar bio monthly and/or schedule as needed with a presentation in between time presentations from the sfmta so again, this commission and the body is not hearing from the community at the 11th hour or 11th hour hour and something minutes the commission can provide input and direction to the sfmta staff as they're developing the project on the page 2 item 7 there is different ways dee and i have

had a conversation there is different ways to either approach this either but you know what are the current projects that are soon coming, you know, that will soon meet their timeline to deliver in terms of the lombard street do we work is that way or work at it by category such as muni forward and those are some of the specific projects under muni forward it has - there are transit projects and block projects or do you want me to approach it by naked commercial district it didn't have to think one way or another but give thoughts in terms of by the neighborhood and what are all the projects that

interact with muni and then i know that you know commissioner dwight is interested in terms of also looking at the infrastructure the planning this allows for me to schedule with deanne a presentation on not only 9 specific projects but operationsly how things function when do the projects get decided or what is muni forward i'm not sure i can answer with muni forward is under that umbrella what do you mean and what are the goals and objectives they use am i - so there may be some large informational items you may want to have sfmta present open to give you the backward

and knowledge when you're looking projects we have a better understanding as to the overall approach and the methodology that the department is taking in doing those projects if that makes sense. >> yeah. well, i think any major projects that are blooming the near term we should be know about those and then we should contact the business associations in business associations plural in the district that are effected the areas that are effected and see if they have comment on what is happening you could imagine a case they've had enough discussion and it is going on but highly unlikely likely this

will be a situation where some things are rushed along and both the business owners and perhaps the residential community feels they haven't had enough time so - >> i think we also need to at the beginning get the overview we might be well-off ahf with the next meeting about, about outreach and innovative the groups it out the city to focus on that as a general concept and move into the mower specifics after that. >> i think that is a good way to get folks out to the meeting and we can also as a commission hear what they're saying you know the different groups and maybe help us to prioritize chronicles to deeper dive to

after that. >> we should also at least reach out to if we this of a neighborhood associations in those cases you know for example, this proposed moratorium on formula retail o polk street is you know very interesting that it is being pushed through and yet recent polls the residents suggest there is a overwhelming support for the case they're trying to prevent through legislation that is the ability for whole foods to put in a market at the lombard i location this is directed as a specific piece of property and unfortunately will cause a moratorium for the entire area and i think that is one thing for the business owners to weigh in on it but the community to weigh in so the business owners can also hear with the community

is saying because when this item was discussed with the merchant the business owners decided to vote tore the moratorium on formula retail they might finds the customers local don't agree with them so the importance for the businesses community to hear this and this is a forum for that the same will happen with the infrastructure projects maybe i know as we're discussing the bulb outs and moving stops we might hear from the community does or does not want so the dialogue between those two at least helps the business owners you know guide their own discussions; right? >> in this case of polk street i would say that there maybe need for more discussion and

spent a lot of time with those groups they're generally speaking people including residents are owned and operated to formula retail but perhaps this particular project could be carved out if this is the case but this is a case where maybe we don't want to suggest throwing the whole thing out but coming to a majority decision on one case and let it go forward what i've heard it is not only about whole foods but thai have quite a few of formula retail and want to keep the small business ratios in order. >> yeah. so that's a whole discussion but this general concept that while we intend to that of this for small business owners to come and talk about but a representative from the

neighborhood come if they want to make the invitation to them those are certainly things that happened at the planning commission and that the sfmta meetings as well but you know we shouldn't be a silo for small businesses when it comes to issues that effects the business owners and the residents especially the business owners is not always perhaps even more and more frequently not recipient of those communities their - either commuting into the city or live somewhere else in the city and hear in the dmuts not just the people from there. >> just also one of the things i'll bring up the 14 mission record project that is - there was outreach but it is weird how

someone else happened. >> it happened overnight. >> yeah. the worse catastrophic effects have there been outreaches to the needles and the business association we could given a lot of input with the social impact. >> again, the spirit of this not to you know - my comments on the leave will no doubt provoke response from the supervisors we're not obstructionist the problem when you don't engage the public being residents business owners and employees the dial you cut yourself off from the best source of information the people know day to day what the neighborhoods looks like and what is happening

the neighborhood so when you broad brush stroke it and say oh, you know vision zero we have to make every street the city ha have bulb outs those blanket statements and moving on major infrastructure and projects based on a global view simply is not the right way it is not democratic and smart you have basically said oh, well we'll include a few surveys you can't pay people to spend time for the people what we already know if you don't avail yourself of the best information you're not going to end up doing good prongs and law. >> that's why it is important to encourage the small business community and the small business

organization to be in touch with their neighborhood residential organizations because then when you move forward you have more of a convenience even if you don't agree you know that the outreach at least amongst the people the community has been done and unfortunately, that is what happened sometimes with only the residential people know about something but it could affect the business communities. will get what we they want but can express their postures and agree to disagree or not agree in their disagreement it is out there and discussed rather than happening and having a bunch of grumbling. >> this is one other forum we can bring together the residential and the business

communities on things that effect both and those two are entering recommended because, in fact, most small businesses are community businesses in their neighborhoods so i'll bet if you look at most small businesses and drew a circle they get 80 percent of their consumers it is coagulate to be probably within walking distance of their site and ever more within walking distance and not drive or park anywhere you have to know what the people who are within walking distance thinks. >> great so what i hear from the commission is that two things in terms of next steps is to get a list of projects and their dates, and then to invite

well definitely invite sfmta and dee in a to oversee the engagement of sfmta to kind of present commissioner dooley you time to have other departments as well just to hear about the overall. >> yeah. the overall 0 process. >> muni forward is that they're working title for the outreach. >> muni forward as i said, i too am i'm not educated on exactly what the concept of muni forward if you go to their website and you click on projects the category shuns they have are muni forward and transit and project by project street and sidewalk projects and can click on if you want to select by neighborhoods - so i think this is one of the reasons

i'm thinking it might be good in terms of of anything under the muni forward project what is muni forward cover is it an umbrella for matt haney it is pedestrian and bicycle and - >> i think inviting mta here to give us a little bit more background on muni forward actually means the other thing we want to start the discussion on when we do, in fact, shatter those o start those projects how to make it less - how do we moderate the impacts on the neighborhoods both the businesses and residents i suggested before how do we make those projects such that, you know, that they - they engage with the community rather than blocking off the community you know the digs is interesting why not in some way sounds like a little

bit weird celebrate and explain to them and show the progress rather than directing people to a website with a web cam that engages people as to what is going on what is good that is happening so people are not grumbling and saying i'll take my business he was where i might be able to step agriculture the threshold and say this is better i'll suffer through and having you can i know going through the maze to get to the business rather than blowing it off once you retrain yourselves so i think if we can prevent people from retraining themselves away from the area of impact and keep them engaged it had been better on the other side of the project

look at what is happening on union square half of the businesses will leave and have - it will be everything will be a fresh start but a shame that the businesses that had to survive what is going on of 4 years of construction so i think they could have they meaning whoever the powers that be could have engaged the public better like the way the astro turf down the hall but now a walled avenue disaster zone some ways to have an item eric garcetti through the lifecycle project commissioner ortiz-cartagena. >> you brought up something that popped on idea into any head some of the businesses the main scare area have been

complaining about the parking and the employees and those two have been going up in pricing the community garages but a tangible piece this is under the office mta that the garages maybe they do offer something to the businesses that you know park and use those facilities but maybe they have a compensation for employees and owners working the area that are invented by the area. >> that's an interesting idea yeah. >> commissioner dooley. >> did bottom line for us you will us will be going forward how can we work a way that the public is actively engaged the

number one thing that people does not appreciate being told it is a done deal what something they never had any engagement with so we'll be asking how can we change that process. >> right how can we do our port a facilitate earlier engagement. >> i have a question commissioner tour-sarkissian. >> to sum up we'll invite sfmta to give us a general idea of things and some sfmta as well, a a subsequent stage of presentation would be the outreach how they're doing and consider our outreach to the various local merchant organizations so i guess for us to be effective in our view we have to

have an understanding of what is going on and second we need to know how they are connecting with the various neighborhoods and we have to invite the various groups to come in express their concerns and give their input. >> yeah you know my sort of global view of this this - our meeting is a place that the mta feels it can convene one of the outreach modes to small businesses to have an outreach session here because - and in so doing and now and then they know where the project will happen and announcing to the business organizations in this neighborhood hey as part of our

outreach program we convene a meeting at the small business commission and we you know here's when it will be on the agenda we invite you to attend that meeting so in this forum they can both - the mta can make their presentations and the business community can express their comments and that we can help to guide that conversation we are here as representatives of the small business community but representatives of city hall to help facilitate that dialogue so one will hope that you know we might ask we see that the small business community might forgot to ask we deal it in every neighborhood as time goes on we'll have sort of our own institutional living to know when a here is the things we

need to know and you're in our neighborhood you might not know you need to know this we know you need this we've seen it a dozen times and the benefit of having that here the commission is that it is on the record it is you know a forum that can be viewed by others watching the videos reading the transcripts at a at a later time rather than an outreach meeting that happens the community that everyone says oh, we accident that i didn't see the video ass things are not subject to the same kind of sunshine rules. >> the lombard street axiliary is a textbook thought how we can help local businesses and if we had had the opportunity if we had given the opportunity for

those people to come and express themselves and draw the attendance of sfmta we could have made an impact early on i think that is a very effective way of bringing the parties before this commission. >> yeah. >> it should be a process like we have to be educated and be aware of what is going on to be able to contradict and trick the attendance. >> we had a cha retina dog patch i can tell you you can't do it in one meeting we're looking at parking and all of dog patch so the mta came in and they put down sheets of paper and said for the next thirty minutes we'll breakdown into groups and look at the that concludes my remarks and streets you can't talk about the places in front of our building in

thirty minutes neither the times what do the residents and the business owners think they're important but if they go off and make a plan on that one design i am not nothing way accomplished we do we sit down and talk about that quite frankly i don't care i have parking in any building and tell my employees oh, well when i saw how complicate not only did he care i have a fantastic appreciation for how compacted is not to say that the mta voters are nefarious but they go down their own path without having the full knowledge of the constituents there are in their minds their own best constituents they're

the transportation professionals great you go to school so learn that's what they do everyday. >> urban mr. haney independence economics. >> they're living in their own world and can't possibly know the details the residents and the business owners know 0 looking at something that is simple as parking meters is really complicated let alone you talk about digging up the streets and moving the bulb outs and bus stops that hard wires the neighborhood and was that can't be undone so you will live with for decades; right? and the effects will be there's no going back from this except in another lifetime so i think that you know the more we have the powwows and make that commission as part of progress the process will not play out here

it is not practical but it should be one stop on the list of things that happen the process i think it has to be early. >> yeah. >> that's the main jest of our whole deal we would like we want to make a bit of a change in terms of how early the planning process the community gets to see a proposal with the possibility of having their input considered seriously where now we go to those communities meetings and basically, they is a hero it is this is what we're doing and that is not working we know it is not working anywhere. >> that process simply provokes no and the process of getting to, yes is a long process but you know those things don't

happen overnight years the plan lombard was years the planning now suddenly we see that it is actually driven by a deadline that is set by the state of california because of the paving lombard their nickel not ours we're in a rush to have a finality we have dealt with our own processes we wait until the last minute and we being the mta so, now we find ourselves in an awkward position yeah timing issues and connective issues but it didn't say away with the fact that we have a lot of people that are effected and suddenly they are effected in ways that jeopardizes their way of life it effects them both

so getting those things into the discussion process far, far earlier they will get much better results and happier consumers in the end and again, this is not as soon as everyone gets what we want those things are opposed so this is a sort of out of priorities and gaek there are be winners and losers but the losers don't feel stunned so - >> and just listening it sounds like what is valuable too for the commission to create somewhat of a check list of things to insure that as each project come forward to make sure that you know if it is around parking the bus stops not just where the bus zones been

but the bus stops the various things consisting or consistently one they will know they need to address and are prepared but to for you to say you know those are the key things were going to be always looking at and assessing including the outreach in terms of the physical - layout of the project in terms of a chick list. >> yeah. i think on that check list other adjacent projects happening simultaneously what is the process for outreach when do they have a meeting here or the community and check back in perhaps here so we can say okay. is everything okay. and the final okay. we're going forward this is what will happen everyone has their say and not everybody will be happen their

consist of the process the middle and make that process draws out over years who knows but anyway, i think having a check list a list of exceptions is not just us calling them on the carpet but exceptions from the small businesses community and the associations as well so - >> and then just one other kind of additional element from that meeting that relates to the scheduling of things we may move up as an individual item maybe relevant to the budget which didn't come up at lombard but the sfmta meeting and the direction from the board to the staff to look at expending are

parking meter hours to offset the budget the reduction in the budget by the sfmta board approved reducing the towing fees and so that's creating like a $3 million and something budget reduction in revenues and so the sfmta board directed the staff to look at parking meter extensions so this is not just some days but the evenings so i already mentioned it to deanna this might be we might hear this is as a first item especially a budget item for the budget circle before we get into the other - so just to put that on your radar yes.

>> mr. president, before we move on to the next item please this item is a discussion item i think that considering the importance of this item maybe the next meeting should be an also possible action item we talking about having a check list and having an approach this seems to be a crucial role for the commission and i heard you mr. president, talk about this i think we ought to have a quote/unquote protocol and maybe make it an action item. >> that's a good idea and refine it and tweak it so speaks for itself and have it implemented as part of our you know activities and protocol is a great construct and thinking of that as a protocol and first

design the protocol review it in a meeting and have an action item to ratify it and make that part of standard operating procedure and let others departments know about that and then, of course, welcome them to comment it on having a protocol that we blessed and taken action is a good idea thank you. >> thank you, commissioner. >> i agree with that but also think we need more sight into what parking pieces we can hold accountability with mta and the response why you didn't include the community pollute well the community changed by the time we started the planning process a different group of people and now 10 years down the line we have to have a sense of where

why they're a bit distracted from the the community in terms of of what we understand we should understand a little bit how had works and how we can actually do in terms of affordability with this i'll agree with you. >> okay. >> okay anyone from the public wish to comment seeing none, public comment is closed. >> what's next. >> so i'd like to provide you with an update those on the legacy business and resolution fund so we do have on the website the application process and the application or the applications instructions and process and the application and that's under the programs drop

down the o s d program i have distributed to you the job description for the person so and if you needed it again let me know but the person will be managing ever go from start to finish in terms of working with the supervisor or is nomineeably landowner inquires working with the application process, routing it to h pc and prep it to you and agenda and predominantly work with the business and making staff relthsz to you and then managing the historic preservation grant program and in terms of the historic preservation grant program though i have been working with

oewd to - i'm ready somewhat concerned about on the business assistance grant if - making sure that something is designed and developed it creates a certain amount of responsibility around the allocation of funding of government dollars; right? of taxpayer dollars. >> absolutely. >> and how do we construct that in relationship to who is written so i just want you to know that i'm working with oewd to kind of figure out some ways in which we can do that and hopefully have something for you within the next month to give some consideration and look to.

>> right. >> and then with that, and we'll also i need to work with commissioner tour-sarkissian to finalize over requirements for the rent stabilization grant it is probably a few things that we need a insure better in the needs or that the property owner provides. >> so you make a fantastic point we're looking at taxpayer dollars and very important that we have a protocol for doing that which respect that those expenditures i think that that's why it is important to continue if think of that as a two-part one the registry and the martin of

concept of legacy businesses this is straightforward you have a marketing campaign that is important to the fabric and the look and feel of the city the other is the fund how it gets dealt with i think that is vital important we don't let those two get their shoe laces tied toegd tote we need the registry to move forward as quickly as possible to populate that listed and promote those businesses as part of our legacy business you know collection of legacy businesses and had discussion whether to concrete at tiers on that list 25 years is an arbitrary number but they

regard them as full-time businesses we have the turns out to increase the marketing campaign with other tiers they're not eligible for financial assistance this is a lotta's fountain earthquake thing but fall into what makes san francisco special from a small business point of view so i think this in and of itself this is huge from the san francisco small business commission and the oewd i want this to move forward we have the forum online that people what registration register and so i see the application for funding to be different from the application from registry it should be a smooth and quick one

almost self-service can you you prove a bunch of things the application for funding is a total different bar for getting over because we have to make some judgment about whether the money that is spent really is going to do help that business or whether we're sort of delaying the invent of the taxpayer money. >> i'm concerned i'm sure we've heard the small businesses that would want to apply for the legacy program are being threatened with eviction they wanted to raise their rents and that financial part of being able to perhaps off the landlord an incentive to allow them to stay is all right. coming up right now. >> i read about the market in favor ; right? we'll see more of that as people become aware of program so we do need to you

know try to get these going. >> leases are come up for renegotiation everyday i agree the sooner i want to be acknowledge that those two things one is more involved that we should be no less diligent in making is happen as quickly as possible but the registry can happen sooner than later let's get that done. >> i think that commissioner dwight i'm very much of the same mind the registry is one thing and i do have some concerns that there is a certain amount of not - we're looking at the registry second from the preservation fund; right? in terms of deciding you know -

there's entities that may not consider the registry if not the fund there and so i've had to have some conversation with they're not necessarily for profit entities but nonprofit entities and you know you've - i've forwarded those some conversation that things get muddled in an entity losing their space that is visually important we develop this why i propose the $25,000 to the program to develop a good marketing branding program that for our legacy businesses because we want legacy businesses who are not interested in engaging the

preservation funds to be on there >> absolutely absolutely. >> and so we want businesses on the registry that don't qualify for some other age brackets, if you will, i think that you can actually make the case the registry itself will make the fund more palateable for taxpayers they'll see the value of registry yeah. this is a celebration of businesses and now i see it and in hits holistic sense i agree we should make an effort to help the businesses older 25 you know blah please be advised the ringing of and use of cell phones, whatever that blas class the great thing about the registry you can kick someone out it was sfefr and now you've in there in a way we didn't intend but once you give someone

money you can't take it back but oh, 14509d we have a loophole we're closing now and actually, you don't qualify or hey, we increased the registry another group of class a volunteer for 20 to 25 or 15 to 20 that can be more fluid but for the financial thing you have to nail it pretty tight but you start giving out money oh, my gosh can we take the money back no so again, i see much less risk in moving forward fast with the registry i see much more of a need both as the fiduciary responsibility and also with respect to those whole e we'll get money no take backs we'll be

krth of the program and not just forgot about it and oh, that will happen later but let's get the registry done make it as sfefr as not belabor the plants as applicants for financing we can come back to it and you know let's look at all the do it like a quarterly oh, down the list glad those guys are here does anyone know let's call them up and cherry pick companies we know. >> we have to be be careful through our standards should, clear for the legacy. >> absolutely. >> because this is a the first step and you can't then is oh, well you, we may put you on the registry will you main you

shouldn't be i'm sorry you're right we ought to have clear standards for legacy businesses and as far as disp,z&e, finance governance money we can be held responsible if we don't do our job properly. >> you can imagine a business that is 25 years old that will quality for the rtry and not quality for the mey there are requirements around the funding that they've been in and intellectualsly the city we might want to put someone on the registry for example, from the dellly relocated to san francisco largely in san francisco a legacy business but today they'll not quality maybe for funding but not the registry if they moved into town i'll agree that day you can put them

on registry their fount the city and over 25 years old and moved back to the city i'll not feel reluctant to put them on the registry whether they'll meet the qualification for a disbursement is an inspire different thing. >> one thing for the registry and one for support and financial. >> i'll not say two definitions but a finer definition for funding than the definition for legacy i would call it there is here's all the criteria for the registry and then a level oh, you say by the way, if you want funding there are more criterias.

>> rather than two existences independence. >> we'll move forward we should - see how it goes. >> i'm saying that registry can more over time to be more inclusive and representative of what wire trying to accomplish from a promotional stand point a large part is promoting those businesses and having people recognize them as legacy businesses the other the preservation angle and the preservation angle as it relates to dispetersburg funds. >> 0 e so no tier for a i couldn't be number of years. >> no we've independence the legislation definition is 25

years and older. >> it is thirty years but then the but there is under circumstance like possibly losing their space this lob, of course, i think we'd have to write this i mean, i'm realizing there is more specification that will need to be provided to the nominate or it wior will be if the criteria for the thirty-year-old businesses to be on the registry of which makes

them eligible so that's the criteria that as additions the business to the community or neighborhood or some kind of you know something that the business closes or moves out of the city will be a significant loss to san francisco and or community so but those are the things i'm robert's rules of order we need to draft more specific direction to the nominator and let's not say legacy business but that is we can define this notion of you

know a long-standing business the city of san francisco the commission can do that find a supervisor in support of legislation that not not because of no money this is not something that needs to go before the voter, in fact, as a small business commission we believe there is a marketing program we of the want the city to expand the notion of quote legacy to include some younger businesses and so we would like to incorporate it into the promotion of the legacy business that would be an interesting project to initiate and get sponsorship with the supervisor what supervisor will not want to my business other businesses less than thirty businesses there are businesses that are 10 and 15 and 5-year-old that

people regard as institution in their neighborhoods today that would be unhappy if they left you know but we could find a broader marketing pronounce the reason we think about 3 we'll appropriate money for a campaign for the legacy if we even underneath the surfaced this might be bigger do do things that have a seal oh, we have been in business for thirty years but think of this as system rather than all we're thinking about is we're getting more bang for your buck the formation of the pr campaign and the look and feel of the registry but the other parts

didn't have to go to expanding the notion of the registry and it's a milestone. >> we could take a leadership role in benefiting san francisco; right? >> i would agree i think that that can also have tangib benefr someone to support their business or they have an engagement with the city to be working out for ♪ a lot of ways and increase the businesses an example of landmark kind of businesses that corner store in the movie that a

renegotiate the lease it burned down and there was a movie about san francisco but not taking 25 year mark but is still considered a neighborhood landmark and they need a letter in terms of renegotiating might help >> might be so - and have a suggestion yeah. >> i think the idea of having a wider access to a registry is a good idea but from a management point of view from a legal point of view from a lending point of view we have to be consistent if we are running a registry that is going to be a port of entry for the preparedness we ought to be careful not to be mick apples and oranges

i'm saying under the circumstances to regard and assist and otherwise have a legacy business - businesses included the registry we may as a body if it is possible i don't know if it is possible to create a non-mandated registry and have that separate and distinct from something that is going to be the piping for financial i mean implementation i have a you know i'm kind of concerned in kind of bringing the legacy businesses into the registry maybe we can but not maybe mix what was from us to pick and to create this legacy business registry and

create this funding that's my. >> well the funding i mean the funding by definition already has constraint separate registry it. >> (multiple voices). >> i'm disagreeing we ought to be careful we have a form letter we're inviting people to complete the forum and join the registry and fulfill the requirements and so we ought not to confuse the consumer the person that will be applying hoping this may be next they're on the registry they're a legacy business and oh, by the way, we didn't tell you there is another milestone if you're on the registry you have to qualify for the funded.

>> the fact is if you meet the bar for registering as high for funding you'll not get anyone registered except companies that are dire straights if i'm an thirty-year-old business and want to be on the registry i don't want to give you the information required for the funding so i might say oh, well not worst the mind and effort i want to make registering as simple as possible and prove you were start before the date that makes you eligibility and prove will have a san francisco business license not much more than that and give me some photos. >> is that a right of registry. >> (multiple voices) >> i mean we have two spate

mandates i'd like to see the registry process be more sfefr and not because we have to - i know the we are from the funding we're the keepers of some taxpayers money here so that we should treat with you know - >> i think we need to do it right now as written okay. >> that's fine that's fine. >> where we can review that. >> (multiple voices). >> the legacy business is a separate ordinance that went into effect already so. >> just for point of

clarification prop j. >> should be listed as two separate items and not the same; right? >> prop j made some administrations to the registry so but this is the only relevance to the registry with prop j. >> so - >> proximate cause was a development item. >> right? but i would like to see the office of small business move on the registry for it is online i hey, i want to get on the registry i want to point them to a forum we have one pdf they can fill out and we can modify that format let's get feedback from the people that

fill it out and i'm total fine with not expanding the distinction but i think we ought to think about that i think that would be an awesome kind of - kind of enhancement, if you will, of that program that supervisors didn't contemplate at the time and then i think prop j we have to do we we need to do to make our thing to make that a liability program so. >> if it passes we'll definitely the office will definitely have funding to develop the you know sort of the brand identity of the registry that $25 is more the marketing

of the program for the historic preservation i don't think that that would need the marketing. >> going forward we have two separate items like item 9 and that's fair you're right. >> i mean yeah correct; right? so we have it. >> because the grant allocations vufb - not required to come before you for approval unless you decide that is something you want to do >> so once we set up the administrative angela's and the grant and the approval guidelines for the two funds programs then it will be. >> the actual giving the grant. >> uh-huh. >> i'll suggest the commission

review at least the first grants to make sure that that - >> being done. >> right. >> to our satisfaction. >> i have a point of clarification the $25,000 is to promote the registry; correct? >> to develop the marketing. >> the brand identity. >> the brand identity of the registry as a right now defined or as we're discussing it. >> as dined now. >> so marketing i would like to have i think a website you know that is linked if our website but helps you know in whatever form or fashion it the website needs to be designed to market and brand that registry so for sf travel to other

individuals to link to or people want to write a store. >> let's relook at the brief so. >> right. right continue rfp and the commission will be reviewing and approving the rfp. >> okay. all right. so i think we haven't called for public comment. >> any public comment on this item? that we've exhausted seeing none, public comment is closed. >> all right. move on to item 9 director's report so commissioners, i want to provide you with an update on the staffing for the commission and the small business exaggerate team we'll be making final decisions and hopefully, i'll be able to report out on by the end

of the week for the two positions donna the director of the office of labor & standards enforcement is retiring he hoped we'll be able to acknowledge her but her scheduled in permit and this week is her last week i want to wish her the best she's been an exemplar leader in the department for trying to facilitate what is mandated for her office to enforce but working well with the business community as well thank you for that and acknowledge bob from the chamber of commerce who will be leaving his role as the director there and for his you know close work with the this body the commission is very

supportive small business and the open space program development with the chamber want to acknowledge and thank him being a great partner also on friday i spoke with the president of the hates street merchant association in 2017 the 50 anniversary of the program and she reached out because - >> what. >> 50th. >> that long? >> yeah. >> so she reached out because as part of the moving forward project that is verified to uc w they want to do a bulk of their work in 2017 not going to - which will be not a good

converge of two things the 40 nancy pelosi was very big a lot of business and people that came to the upper hate she reached out to me and i talked with the director of the omens we might assembly a point and figure out how best to manage wanted to extend that you know again, the knowledge of the christmas has put it out with lombard street and willing to support our business is getting out there so. >> let the record reflect i don't remember because i was sick (laughter). >> i think those are probably the essential things i want to just report out on for today. >> if you have any questions.

>> nope. >> great. >> we will move on to item number ten which is president's report. >> president's report oh, so as you maishtd i'm on the board of the chamber of commerce it was with sadness we he had accepted bobs resignation a ascertain is about to begin for a new want for the chamber of commerce bob has done a great job in his 3 years we are sad is a to see him go it is for personal reasons we had our board meeting so say our good bias to him i'm also the co-chair the small business week we have a meeting work hard regarding that things are great adam and his team do a fantastic

job and exhausted their minimum goals and everything is on track for that week and the flavors event is well, almost through all the planning stages it is great and then i that's all i have to report this time around. >> thank you item 11 is vice president reports. >> i participated the working solutions breakfast along with dick - and commissioner dwight. >> that was a great event. >> it was a great event. >> and also my case o'farrell street opened up two weeks ago in the castro going good stronger it one for midweek i'm very happy about that. >> item 12.

>> i'm sorry commissioner tour-sarkissian. >> no. >> do we have any other offering they'd vice president report. >> item 12 commissioners report. >> commissioners any reports. >> i couldn't make it to the working solution breakfast but i conducted an interview for the candidates and we have a new secretary position along with commissioner dwight. >> any other all right. item number 13 is general public comment. >> so do we have any members of the public that would like to comment on anything. >> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> item number 14 is new business. >> does anyone want to propose any new business and i want to mention on item 7 not

necessarily the infrastructure of getting us all the stuff we've exhausted i need assistance with the rapid plan just a catastrophic on a fragile economic society we have it is literally effecting the latino coordinator from thirty to 16 and then in addition with the extension of the possibly the parking meters it is very scary especially a community think a month to month lease and is there a group or groups that we should invite or what's the next - what can we do here. >> i will get with the nonprofit chair meta and see if we can't get the business constituents and try to organize unfortunately there are so many- there are not as strong and

traditional neighborhoods but getting them one voice and coalesce was it here. >> i have a question what is is guidelines the milestones. >> it is all right there so. >> what are the next - >> well, first before the extension of the parking meters so that is another diagram and 24 to 16 not removed the parking meters it is done even though it is not in effect no going back but it will somehow to find solutions in a retroactive. >> what can we do. >> what can we do and when can we do the timing is important what you propose so we can you know since we're talking about new business. >> like i said by the next meeting we'll cooperate with

gabriel at meta and get sfmta the dialogue. >> i have the feedback but getting solutions as in terms of parking the segment for the people the demographics people don't drive the restaurants had to move out for gentrification and the cities policy of transit first is. >> they've paint the red line down the middle of mission. >> that is we're not surprised i want to back him up that surprised a lot of people what two weeks notice that happened. >> talking about the taxi turn and bus on. >> i get it 24 guess my business burden from a city residents i have family in

lovett so part of northern part of city i get it as a resident but the impact on businesses the funeral business it was urban intended consequences. >> in burr necessarily they've painted. >> but unfortunately sort of a postmortem to understand the effect this thing proposed elsewhere the city as well i think; right? >> those brt lanes; right? and i remember the commission proposing paint the sidewalks and the streets as paint it pave it and paint it you can't undo concrete. >> there recent a consequence we're trifsz and bringing the folks out and wait for some of the others. >> and from this this is a

good way to develop a check list and do sort of - you know an assessment in terms of of what the list to be working on and the concern and the deficit to the agency to the board of supervisors to the of it's done it's done but monitoring in terms of what are the result of that so it informs future projects. >> best practices involve from the consequences of the actions good and bad we should understand the consequences so we can promote folding that into the best practices. >> it is quite a beginner typical case case study you have such a negative impact so in the

sense of bringing these issues before the commission it is crucial that that happen i mean in that project. >> yeah. unfortunately in my community it is over behind because the leases are month to month. >> right. >> it is i don't get a loan or sell my lease boom gone gone forever. >> perhaps commissioner you can send me the list of concerns for the full commission what has been discussed i will send a link to the from the sfmta that website so that for those that are not familiar with the projects you can do reading and background but then figure out you know ask sfmta to address some of the things

that's on your list. >> okay. >> at the then invite the community and also i can invite the invested neighborhoods there is some overlap with the missions. >> there is there is. >> okay. so i can also invite - >> all right. any other new business. >> okay. so new business is closed. >> sfgovtv the slide show please or the slide. >> as our custom we begin those san francisco small business commission with a reminder that the office of small business is the only plays to start our business and the best place for getting the answers with our new e.r. existing business the office of small business is your first stop when you have a question about what to do next and it is the official forum to voice our concerns regarding policies and

projects and issues that effect the economic vitally felt small businesses the city of san francisco so if you need assistance with a small business matters start here okay all right. >> do - item number 15 is adjournment. >> i move >> all in favor, say i. >> i. >> okay. we're done. >> the meeting is adjourned at

>> >>[gavel] >> i would like to welcome everyone to the small business commission meeting. the meeting is monday, march 14. this is a regular meeting of the small business commission. the meeting is being called to order at 5:32 pm. tonight meeting is being televised live in the small business commission thanks meeting services and sfgtv for televising and airing the small business commission meeting. reviewed on asset 2, 78 or live stream going to sfgtv.org and watch sfpd.2.

members of the public these take this opportunity to silence your phones and other electronic devices. public comment during this meeting is committed to 3 min. per speaker unless otherwise est. by the providing officer of the meeting. speakers are requested but not required to state their names, completion of a speaker card while optional will help insure proper spelling of the speaker's name. in the written record of the meeting. please deliver your speaker cards to the duke commission sec. prior to approaching the lectern. additionally there's a sign in sheet at the table. if you would like to be added to the commissions mailing list. sfgtv, if we could have our slide, please? do we have a-do

you have our slide sfgov tv? well president went out you >> suffice to say, as our new custom would begin each small business commission meeting with a reminder that the office of small business is the only place to start your new business in san francisco and the best place to get answers about doing business the matter what stage you're in in san francisco. the office of small business should be your first stop when you have a question about what to do next. you can visit us in person in city hall open monday and friday 8-5 pm. call us on the delta 415 on the delta 41555461304 or visit us online at s of government work. if you need assistance with small business mentor matters start here. at the office of small business. >> thank you sfgtv. call to

order item number one. will call. commissioner adams, here. dooley, here., dwight, here. tour-sarkissian, here., riley, here., zouzounis, speed, present. and commissioner surtees is absent. we have a quorum. >> waistcoat started. >> will move on to item number 2 which is general public comment. >> at this point we open the floor for general public comment. anything not on our agenda today is this a good time to make recommendations for things for future consideration here at the small business commission were to raise any points of interest you want to raise ticket to have anybody who would like to offer public comment at this point? seeing none, public

comment is closed. item number 2 >> item number 3 is discussion of possible action to make aggregations to the board of supervisors on file number 160065, during this is the please code paid parental leave for bonding with new child. the ordinance amends the please go to require employers to provide supplemental compensation to employees receiving state paid family leave for the purpose of bonding with a new child. this is a discussion and possible action item. today, you have the legislative sponsor supervisor scott wiener to present >> welcome, supervisor. >> thank you for having me tonight. to begin i have to leave in about 15 min. or so, 20 min. but when i leave august

hours in my office whose work deeply in this legislation will be able to stay and continue to answer any questions. so, commissioners, this legislation will make san francisco the first city in the country to guarantee 6 weeks of fully paid parental bonding leave to all workers, including our lowest paid workers in any business with 20 or more employees. it is surprising and frankly, troubling that a significant portion of people in our country and give birth or adopt or foster a child today and be required to go back to work tomorrow. for many, the choice is between bonding with a new child and putting food on the table. that is a choice that people should not have to make. even though study after study has shown time spent bonding with the child is critical for the health and development of the child, and

of the family economic realities, for many, mean that bonding has to take a backseat. the vast majority of the world has recognized the importance of paper rental leave and us, provide mothers and often fathers time off from work to help build the necessary foundation for a new family. the united states, on the other hand, shamefully at the back of the line and is one of only 4 countries in the world that does not require paid maternity leave. the other 3 countries are swaziland, and papua new guinea. instead about half of the us employees have the right to take 3 months off, but unpaid , this is unworkable for all too many workers in this country. as we have so many times before, san francisco should lead the way for our state and for our country to expand access to give parental

leave. nationally, whereas about half of the us workers can take unpaid time off, only 4% have access to paid family leave for their employers. the percentage of employers offering fully paid maternity leave has acquired substantially in recent years from 17% in 2005, 29% in 2014. we are moving in the wrong direction. only half of first-time mothers take any leave at all. some large firms that we read in the papers are leading the way for the workers which is great. among states and california is one of just 3 states along the new jersey and rhode island to offer some form of paid parental bonding leave. in many ways, california leads the us, who were still very far behind the rest of the world even here in california. california's

program is paid for by employees through the state disability fund. which in turn funds the paid family leave program. it was est. in 2004 and provides workers with 55% of their salary for up to 6 weeks. you can maintain about half of your pay for some workers that work for other workers it doesn't work and they can't make ends meet on 55%. even with this limited access the state program has translated into concrete benefits. mother use the program are more likely to initiate breast-feeding and to continue breast-feeding for approximately twice as long as mothers who do not use the program. the program average length of leave taken by new mothers from 3 weeks--between 6 and 7 weeks and the greatest gains are among mothers with lower levels of education, unmarried mothers, bettina mothers and african-american

mothers. men who take 2 or more weeks off after the birth of a child are more involved than fathers who take no leave. 83% of workers in lower-level jobs who use the program return to their previous employers. 83%. which is a 10 point improvements compared to workers who did not use the program. they leave and productivity improves productivity boil and row. even with these positive statistics from the california program there's a lot of room to grow. many do not participate in the state program because they can't afford that pay cut. the proposal before you today bears the state structure and takes the 55% to 100%. it is completely based on the structure of the state program including the income caps at

our ordinance would require full wage replacement for 6 weeks. we are honored to have the unanimous support of both the commission and status of women in the youth commission. i want to thank you for considering this legislation and i hope to have your support. i will say that we have made some amendments to the legislation. for example, when we introduced it he added the 90 day requirement that you been there for 90 days. would you be making tomorrow some additional amendment by way of substitute legislation based on feedback that we've received from the business community and we been in close discussion and dialogue with various individual businesses and some of the business association, including several large group meetings with representatives of various business coalitions. we proactively solicit feedback and we received very thoughtful feedback and we've accepted a number of the amendment that were offered by the business community. so, i'm happy to answer any questions.

>> commissioner adams >> on page 4, line 17, the 20 employees. is that negotiable, the 20 employees? >> there has been a suggestion i think that the chamber of commerce to increase to 50 employees. the problem is, the sadistic we have and correct me if i'm wrong, is that about 96% of workers work at a business that is fewer than 50 employees. so, that would exempt the overwhelming majority of workers from the legislation. even though i understand the motivation behind that request we intend to keep it at 20. >> what is hard to swallow is, and having getting a lot of feedback from small businesses,

this is going to be huge burden on a lot of small businesses, and that's why i asked that question. i mean, right now with all the other ordinance that we have to deal with in this town are you don't have to deal with it in the state of california, it's this may be the straw that makes rakes the camels back. i like what you're doing and everything, but that 20 is really really going to hurt some small businesses. i know the pain the difference between 55 and 100%. am i correct? beta yes >> what do you do if your small business new hire someone for that 6 weeks to come in and you're paying someone for the other. that's what i'm getting at. >> a couple things. first of all, these employees) are entitled to take the 6 weeks. so, were not creating a new thing. they're entitled to take the 6 weeks toured the state

came up with a program for sites we so that to encourage people to take the lead and are entitled to do that right now today. so, in terms of the logistical issues putting aside the money for the moment, but the logistical issues of an employee taken off in your tobacco and employee, first of all were talking about 6 weeks were not talking about a long-term leave under this legislation but again they're entitled to do it today. if you're going to have this it should at least be meaningful. the other piece of it i want to just mention is that this is tied to the state legislation. if the state disability percentage goes up, and there's been a push for a wild to try to increase to 80%, if that happens, under this legislation the employer contribution automatically goes down to 20% or whatever the differential is, without any need for additional legislation. so, i hope the state raises it to 80%. we will see. that change

would automatically happen. the other thing-a couple other points. the issue of part-time workers has been raised. this starts at 8 hours per week which we adopted from the paid sick leave ordinance. unlike some other ordinance for example the health or security ordinance, if you whether your working 10 hours or 40 hours. healthcare costs are the same. if you're working 8 or 10 hours a week your benefits in terms of the 45% is dramatically lowered and then someone working 40%. so, in terms of the part-time worker issue, it is purely scalable. your etiquette at 10 hours a week is going to be 75% lower than a worker working 40%. so i think

that's an important thing to note. it's not the same as the healthcare security ordinance. where it cost the same no matter how many hours you are working. the last thing i want to note, maybe mr. powers can remind me of the number, the number of paid parental disability claims in san francisco including public employees not just private, is 5500 per-in a year. 5500 for all all those in favor say, aye including public employees. this is not a tidal wave kind of thing. so, i don't think the impact will be in the same universe as some of these other ordinance have been. >> commissioner dooley >> how did you come upon the 90 days minimum requirement? that seems a little bit short to have this kick in. is that the same as the states?

>> no. we came up with the 90 days and maybe mr. power can >> we came up with a 90 days. one of the operating principles that were trying to follow here is to be as consistent with the way the state does things so that we don't introduce totally new paradigm or the local employers, the state when it is looking at how the benefits impacted for the employee, they look at 90 day windows. with the course of the previous year. so they look to see how much employee has made within those 90 days and then they choose basically the window that is the most beneficial for the employee. because the structure to look at 90 day windows, we introduce that topic. that aspect for all the window considerations for the ordinance. the threshold requirement for how long with

the work for the employer and amendment don't be making has to do with how long if they decide to not come back to work voluntarily whether not have to pay [inaudible] it will come up to a 90 day perspective. try to keep it consistent across the ordinance with the state >> the other question, with california's benefit in this particular instance where we don't want to provide it a gap where the state doesn't cover you and the employer has to provide 100% because the employer is going in the gadget >> i think the state is more lenient. >> that's what were trying to ascertain. >> the state is more lenient. the commission wants to provide feedback on that how long you have to work there to qualify, we are happy to take that into consideration. i think that is a flexible area. as mr. power

mentioned, were going to be putting in an amendment to require a return to work afterwards for a period of time because we had heard a concern that people may not return to work and so we wanted to be sensitive to that. >> commissioner sarkis >> you mentioned-i have a question. the outset you said you have a number of amendments you were considering. could you please explain what these amendment are? >> sure. one of them is putting the window afterwards. they have to come back to work for at least 90 days in order not to have to give back the benefits. an in other words, there are some clarifying-i have your list here am i believe . this is from the chamber.

excuse me. so, that's one amendment we're making. >> the worker has to come back to work? >> for 90 days. yes. again that's another >> if the worker does and what happened? >> the employer can recoup the benefit from the employee. so, presumably and again when talking with the chamber and others, employers are not going to go around suing the workers what is frankly not a massive benefits back, but if there were accrued vacation there being cast out something like that they could credit it against that. but that was a request of the business community made and so we had to put that in there. again, we are happy to have a conversation about what the exact- >> homage not sure that's too. be careful about that. does the

state is very ashamed of what you can claw back from employee. if you want to get something back, you have to go after that very specifically not make a deduction against money owed. so we have to look into the legality of that. >> commissioners, the city does have a clawback clause and i put it in your notes and your binder. so, it is inner-city charter under appendix a and they do have a six-month period >> i know from taking my permit manufacturers license test that the board is very strict about what you can-what you can unilaterally deduct from an employee. >> this exhibit a pertains to non-city employee? >> it city employees. the city has set a standard. i'm just identifying it for you. at 12, at 6 months.

>> the city also please fully paisley for 12 weeks. so the city is much richer benefits. again were open to discussion. >> you should look into that and see whether that is all enforceable under the labor law in terms of 90 days and being able to deduct the pay. >> sure. as i mentioned, the chamber of commerce and other groups identified this as a request and so we've honored that request. it is reasonable. totally understand her logistical issues. this actually recouping it. i definitely do not want to represent that the perfect seamless- >> we've all conceded that. no one is going to go after-the cost of hiring an attorney far outweighs the recoup. all right. commissioner, are you

finished? >> i have a follow-up question. >> there was one where the legislation does allow for requirement team of employees to utilize their vacation time first. b can't require that they use paid sick leave first because, under the paid sick leave ordinance that was adopted by the voters and only amended by the voters and does not allow the paid sick leave time to be used for family leave. but can be used vacation time doing that was always the intent and we made some clarifying changes to make it very clear. >> that's the employee's choice, correct? you cannot impose that? can you employees it on the employee vacation time? >> yes in the city does that as well. >> that's your proposal?

>> yes. for vacation but not sick time. you can't do that under the voter adopted paid sick leave ordinance. i mentioned the 90 day clawback period. there was a request to require record retention for only 3 years, and not perpetually and we've made that amendment. then, we change the operative date to january 1, 2017 insert of making it effective 30 days after the mayor signs it. >> the retention is shortened? >> noted i think the original legislation, if i recall there was no specific limit and so we made this consistent with what i believe some other ordinance,, city ordinance i in

terms that can record retention for 3 years. >> these are the 3 [inaudible] >> there's probably a few other small ones. >> there are a whole series of small technical and clarifying amendments to make it more understandable that we are making all those amendment could i can go to the mall but- >> it's eventually can be amended and brought back. >> so, was going to be introducing substitute legislation tomorrow pertaining to all the amendment and then it's scheduled to go to the budget committee next wednesday. so, so 9 days from today >> will we have a chance to look at it again? no? >> we are happy come in tomorrow as soon as is done while the city attorney send it to for you guys to look at it

and were happy to receive additional input. but were telling what the amendment-it's what's before you today with the amendment we've described >> perhaps, for the sake of supervisors time, the detailed amendment maybe some of the smaller things may be under a can go through them a little bit later, but for your ability to weigh in after the amendment are made, it sounds like it's going to budget committee before our next commission meeting. >> commissioner riley >> i have a question. you mentioned the employer can question an employee to use their unused vacation prior to the 6 weeks. does that mean that the employee will be off for 8 weeks if they have 2 weeks unused vacation? >> no. what it means for within the structure of the 6 weeks that portion that's been

paid for, it can be-they can be required to use a patient on an exhaust that before the employer has to pay. >> so, if the employee has 2 weeks of unused vacation, does that mean employer only has to pay 4 weeks? >> i don't want to commit with having a calculator but it would be reduced. i think would actually be because the employer is paying 45% it's proportional to that. socio-2 weeks of paid vacation time model is called 50-50 for simplicity, would actually be 4 weeks out of the-i wouldn't want to do i would want to get that confirmed but that's my anderson >> i think that needs to be clarified. >> it's quite clear in the ordinance and maybe mr. powers comes up you can walk you through it more. but it's very

clear and we made a clarifying amendment tomorrow to make crystal clear that the employer can require you exhaust vacation time for that 45%. meaning, 2 weeks i believe would really be 4 weeks. >> okay. that makes sense. question commissioner adams >> i hope in the future the state and maybe one day our nation can find a way to bridge that tension between small business owner and the workers so that that one benefit doesn't counter the other. i just wanted to- >> i would love to see better overall social insurance in this country, but unfortunately we have a difficult time in congress and even in the state legislature it's been very challenging but thank you. >> measures, i apologize for having to run but mr. power will remain an answer questions. we did thank you,

supervisor. appreciated. any other commissioner questions? commissioner tour-sarkissian >> so, if you have 20 employees, regardless of where they work and you are in the city and county of san francisco, then you fall under this ordinance, correct? >> yes. that's an system without sick leave ordinance, also. >> the question is, if you're not in the city and county of san francisco and if you have one worker in the city, would you be-let's say you have 20 employees, 19 of them live and work outside the city and county and one of them comes in and works in the city. with

this ordinance cover that employee? >> just that single employee. it would not extend the benefits to people who do not will work in san francisco. there's basically two-part test. the first test is looking at whether you employ 20 or more employees and that is basically anywhere. the 2nd part test as an individual employee, if you meet the threshold of requirements in terms of the number of hours and sort of the duration of time you've been with that employer, here in san francisco, those benefits would apply to you but would be you only >> it means it'll only applies only to the employee within the city? >> that's correct. we don't have the legal authority to extend benefits to people do not work in san francisco >> however, if you're an employer in the city and county and you have 19 people living and working outside the city and county in europe one employee am a that applies to all the other worker? >> as i mentioned before,

there's a two-part threshold. the first step is how many employees you have. it doesn't matter where they are. but say you meet that piece. then, the question is, do you have any covered employees? the covered employee means they work in san francisco for-so, if you have 20 employees and 19 of them-and your employer here in san francisco, 19 of your employees are in oakland and one of them is here in san francisco, it only applies to the one in san francisco. not to the 19. beta it doesn't cover the others? >> correct. to be a covered employee to work in san francisco. >> any of the questions? should be open up to public comment? we open this up item up to public comment. would any members of the public to comment ?. stephen cornell with

counsel merger district. one thing to consider is this of course is a lot money to employers in san francisco putting us into another advantage over people in our bay area or wherever art [inaudible] one thing i'd love to see in this legislation is a goes into city contracts. in the city decides to buy this microphone or lightbulb or anything else, that it be required their employees from those companies also have the same vote as we have now. i'd like to see that. otherwise it just doesn't work good you would kill san francisco businesses. actually, as a lot of people coming into san francisco and they don't have somebody physically here. i use the example of coca-cola company. i'm aware of 15 employees that come into san francisco every day. they don't have any physical presence in

the city. the coke machines and all kinds of equipment to make deliveries. how about the handled the candy? thank you. >> thank you. >> good evening good jim rogers san francisco chamber of commerce. we appreciate the opportunity with other business organizations to work with the supervisor's office on this legislation. we suggested as you know on the mom a number of amendment not only from the chamber but from all business advocates and other organization could i gather some of them are working process and the city attorney's office. we look for to seeing the version that is set to be introduced tomorrow at the board of supervisors. from what we understand a number of serious issues they have been resolved and those amendment but i think there's still a number of issues. one goes-i know this is a heavy left-but somehow within the last 10 years we define small business is somebody that has for an

exemption purposes, less than 20 employees. that's micro isn't it that's not small business. i do not we can get off of that. and gives true small business a break from these mandates. it started with the health mandates. with every ordinance, we pick up that 20 threshold and say if you have more than 20 employees you're not small pacific of course you are small business. it's just a whole different level of hr aggravation for a sole proprietor who is trying to do the books and maintain a legal operation under federal state and local law. i think the number of full-time vs. part-time employees, how may i was, again this 8 hour threshold comes out of the healthcare security ordinance good so, the size of the employer's business, the number of employees in the city, when

does this benefit kick in, part-time or full-time, a lot of the clarifying issues we raised, under state law you can take this benefit in daily doses over the course of 12 months. which is a good thing. we want to make sure the 6 weeks of that 45% pay is also something is spread out over a period of time and were not talking about an employee having to take a lump some 6 weeks at once. we appreciate the record retention changes. there is some movement in state law now in the legislature to up the 55% benefit under state law. of course, the issue is that before by being for you. the reason some of these issues don't really apply at the state

level it doesn't matter who the employer is. it matters to your recent employers have been to come up with that income average for your weekly equivalent up to $106,000 a year on the annual basis we get that for 6 weeks paid out of a pot of money and insurance account that employees in california have paid into. now were going to have employers pay that extra 45% here. what happens when the state races that? do we have to continue this on the books of the state ups this to 75% or 80%? there's actually a tax benefit under state tax law to the employee. so, there's still a number of issues. we look forward to working with the supervisor, your staff numbers of this commission over the next few weeks as this legislation goes forward to the board of supervisors. >> thank you. >> scott how we calendar. let me begin by thanking the supervisor for coming before the commission presenting his legislation. i also like to

make a clarification. i believe the supervisor said my percent of the businesses were or excuse me, 90% of the employees work for companies with less than 50 employees. well it may be that 90% of the businesses are, 90% of the employees is way out of whack. in fact the number is about 52% of the people that work the businesses at less than 100. clearly, there were close to 90%. what i hope the commission does is take this under advisement and prioritize the amendment i think that would be important to do. and would appreciate it. the 2 issues i like to address that i think are really critical is i do think the 20 employees is too low. i think 15 employees make sense because it fits with the family medical leave. so, i think 50 makes a

lot more sense and will not impact the businesses with less than 50 and it could be our heavy hit it 2nd thing, i am repeating what mr. lazarus said that is the 8 hours. the 8 hours does not make any sense at all. i know it's an healthcare ordinance,, but i think that is way too low. the federal government under the aca says 30 hours. if you're buying health insurance can buy it under 20 hours. i think that 8 hours definitely needs to be increased. thank you. >> thank you. do we have any other members of the public would like to comment? >> hi. at first like to thank this of her visor and his office for working with us on this issue. in order to protect small restaurants would like to see if you amendment. first, we

like to see the threshold for the number of employees go up to 50 or 100. as others have mentioned, 20 is very small especially for how labor-intensive a restaurant is. additionally come up with a tizzy hours also pushed to at least 20 hours a week since its such an administrative burden for small businesses may have only 20 or 21 employees. we also like to see the number of days employee must work for an employer moved from 90 to either 6 months or one year. the sounds of very high turnover and 90 days is a very short might time to qualify for this program. lastly we have concerns about how employers must calculate the percentage of income for the employee because of fluctuating hours. designers in the legislation, the calculation we would be doing here would be different from how the state would calculate it. i see that also being in a missed read a burden for the smaller business. thank you. >> thank you. anymore public comment? seeing none, public

comment is closed. commissioners and the other comments? >> i want to thank the speakers because they said what i've been thinking. 20 is just way too low. i really appreciate what mr. lazarus said. under 20 is micro. the businesses that have been saying stuff to me in the last few weeks are the ones for just under 50 employees. if we do approve this to go through, the one amendment x i'd like to do is at least make the threshold 50 employees and a least 20 hours work week. >> yes. from the people i've spoken with the general

consensus amongst small amount micro business owners, that this city is just aggressively -i use that word intentionally-making it more and more difficult to operate a small business in the city and county of san francisco. i think it's important for our legislative body to remember that a vital part of our economy to make sure the small businesses don't go out of business or out of the city. every time that we do these things, whether it is getting ahead of the curve on minimum wage were getting ahead on the curb of any of a myriad of benefits that we have used as our patted ourselves on the back for being a progressive city, we have made it harder and harder and harder for small business to operate here to the benefits of small business owners who, by the weight

happened to be the lowest wage employees in the syndicate were whole are hurting alternately very foundation of these jobs for the workers were trying to benefit. none of us are going to benefit this ecosystem withers and dies because we've suffocated it. so, i think what you will consistently hear from this commission, given our charter is to express an advocate on behalf of small and micro businesses, for our survival, that these types of ordinance do not sit well with our community. are all for compromise. when not here to be obstructionist, but we also have to be mindful of that leaving many of these burdens upon ourselves. so, i don't know this is a discussion item for possible action tonight. again, i don't want to come across as obstructionist but think we've

heard loud and clear that certainly the limit, 20 employees or something is untenable to our community. 50 or even 100 is preferred number. so, that alone is a major sticking point. the other points that follow have been stated tonight, and i think they've already been expressed by the chamber and others for your consideration. commissioners,-commissioner dooley >> i think we should also bring up the 90 day minimum employment. i mean, especially in the restaurant industry. we have to make that a longer period of time. whether we want to recommend 6 months or 12 months it definitely has to go higher than 90 days. >> commissioner riley >> i agree with commissioner dooley that 90 days does seem

very short period of time. we need to in the city maybe 6 months to a year. >> also, i agree with you that the 20 employees is very low that would hit all of the restaurants, i think. >> also, one of the speakers i think was mr. cornell, mentioned a lot of these big corporations that are doing business in san francisco but they do not have a physical location in san francisco >> city vendors >> yes. maybe we should recommend some sort of aminorex >> i would suggest that we can make recommendations of these very specific points. i'd also suggest that we are shortly able to have no recommendation. i don't think that it would be -if we were to make a positive recommendation, i know we'll be flying in the face of our constituents we make a negative

one were potentially regarded as being obstructionist. i think we should be very firm on the recommendations we are making the changes in the legislation. some not going to make a motion but i put it to you by fellow commissioners that's a possible course of action. >> i will make a motion. i'm going to make a motion here, but i want the supervisor's office to really listen to this. small businesses in this town are under attack. i'm not kidding when supervisor wiener was standing up here and i'm a fan of supervisor wiener, but this is the kind of thing that's about to break the camels back in this town. when you go into our neighborhood in upper market, we see lots of small business vacancies and quick turnovers that you have not seen in years. when i talk to the small business owners i say why are you leaving? this

is another thing the city is coming in on it it were better off moving down to san bruno or to oakland because the city is squeezing them out. they want to stay here. now, i understand what you want to do with this legislation, and that part i like. my motion would be, first, 6 months at least working at your employment. i like the 20 hours a work per week with the employer within the boundaries of the city. i like the threshold to be raised, at least 250 employees because it is those ones under 51s really worrying me right now that goes along with the security healthcare ordinance.

having an amendment that would require all city vendors-because right now city vendors had to meet lgbt and other humanlike rights requirements. let's make them hunt, but these vendors have this requirement as well. to keep it even keel. if you can listen to us on this, and i would put forward the support these changes, then i'm okay. i do appreciate you been talking to the golden gate restaurant association and the chambers because the restaurants are the backbone of the city. san francisco is known for its restaurants. anywhere you go in the country. but i'm seeing those starting to close a more and more and starting to get frustrating. like pres. dwight said, with a small business commission and after we leave these meetings we hear from our -from these people. that is my motion. >> may i suggest that we pick

up also on the issues that were raised by the supervisor regarding vacation time? verification regarding vacation time. as to the return to work, i think that should be a condition if it's enforceable. since the supervisor is planning on adding that to be amended legislation, should we not at it to your motion? >> i would agree to that. >> okay. do you have a motion? >> yes. the motion is-well is the motion that >> i recommend these changes. >> upon condition of the proposed adoption of these proposed amendments amount which is making that the

employee is eligible after 6 months worth of working, works a minimum of 20 hours a week, that threshold is 50 employees or more, applies to businesses with 50 of them employees or more. that this requirement is applied to all city vendors. and, that the additional amendment that the supervisor was making in respect to the business community's request around the clarifying language around allowing the sick i mean vacation time, the requirement of utilization of vacation time, the record retention for 3 years, the operative date of january 1, 2017, and adding the clawback clause. to the extent that it is enforceable. so, i

have those are the proposed amendment. >> i don't know mr. lazarus mentioned the were a lot of other issues they were discussing but these are the >> these are our conditions for approval. >> is this motion to approve -so, i think we want to be careful that we do not put out there we approve this and requested these conditions c because the director will read we approved it had the conditions.in the conditions are optional. when not adjudicating those good >> so, they have to-i would approve this legislation only if these get put in.

>> i would suggest we have a special session to approve this legislation of these conditions written into the legislation as it is presented before goes to final vote. >> correct >> so, then commissioners appoint of clarification. i will inform the supervisor's office of the proposed amendments, with no final action on approval or disapproval of the legislation and then schedule a special meeting once we-once the commission once we see-i mean schedule a special meeting regardless, actually ;-) scheduled for you than to take final action. so, for and before next week's budget and finance committee meeting. >> yes. that's what i want. >> so, you need to make a motion to propose these amendment be made without--your motion is to propose these amendment be maybe not taking final action

>> where are reserving >> i would change my motion to -for the adoption. >> changing the motion to make our ultimate decision conditional on adoption of these amendment. and that we will wait in between now and the final leslation. >> i'm just making notes. so, commissioners, do i need to read back through with those proposed amendments are? >> no. we are good >> so, with that, with that motion, commissioner adams motion and we have a 2nd. moved and seconded. moved and

seconded. mr. adams aye dooley aye dwight aye tour-sarkissian's ps, commissioners riley aye zouzounis aye. the motion passes 6-0 to submit the 2 supervisor wiener the proposed amendment in and reschedule the hearing for you. >> just thanks for sticking around and also thank you to supervisor f showing up today and thank you to all of you came here for public comment. it'd are you intending to have a special hearing after-when would that be? given this is moving forward at the committee >> i don't know i'll have to check with the city hall, the building on when we'll have an available meeting space. so, i will let you know as soon as i have that determine.

>> thank you. >> item-. commissioners, for item number 4 supervisor tang's office is sick and supervisor tang notified the office and i think each of you, they're not able to be present. so we do represent is for item number 5. do you want to switch those or go ahead and hear item number 4? >> item number 42 if any objection to item number 4? relative to the small business community? >> chart read into the record and then we can have some discussion?. yes >> item number 4 is discussion

and possible action to make recognition to the board of supervisors on 160121. this is changing the special tax district the san francisco sustainable financing accessibility access financing. it's a resolution making changes to the city and county of san francisco special tax district to amend to authorize financing purposes to include accessibility access financing for persons with disabilities. so, for a point of clarification, we have this special financing district that was initially started to help encourage property owners to do solar. that was increased around the stock story and my conversation with patrick--he thought this would be a good application to include it property owners to be able to finance their entryway accessibility. the cost. so that especially substantial

they would not be either to go for a loan or asking the business owner to do it. this is allowing the accessibility, allowing the cost of doing accessibility to your entryway as a means of-you can do this special tax district. as it is for energy efficiency, water conservation. >> it's totally volunteer. >> so, is there any one aware of any impact on small business or any objection from property owners small business owner? edict i personally see this as an option available to business owners. i don't see the negative impact on the contrary. it gives some flexibility therefore on how it could hurt the business >> shall we open up to public comment sous unanimity of 2 stress anything in that regard? so, if i may, we open up for public comment on this item. hello. >> i'm not sure if i don't

need to name the rest of them all the time. i'm not against this but one of the things my concern right now is use of accessibility. who is it accessible for? what is happening in san francisco is there not interpreting the american with disabilities act exactly correctly. they just think it's will chairs and canes . there are people that have autism that cannot walk properly. lou gehrig's is a big one i've had to deal with it recently. one of the cases coming up is one concerning asthma and access to the house because of other issues that

are stopping us. if you vote on this i want you to clarify that be for all the disabilities. it's just not for a wheelchair or cane. because you're looking at somebody that sometimes can walk and sometimes i can't. we are out there, too. i just think there's been a cloning, it has to be for one group. i think it's sad for our society. the tango >> thank you for your comments. any of the members of the public that would like to comment on the same? item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners, any further discussion? is there a motion? >> i would motion to approve and to comply with the

americans with disabilities act. i agree with commissioner huizar cassette. it's an option and i've seen it used for the fulsome street. it's really a benefit for business owners. this is something i would definitely approve. i think supervisor tang for bringing this up because it's another option for the business owner. >> with a motion to approve this item. moved and seconded. >> i just want to comment that supervisor tang has been in the forefront of working with disabled people and pushing forward the agenda could i've worked with myself with her for many years on this. i would really like to say how much i

appreciate how much work she's doing around this topic. to make it work for everyone. >> great. so vocal about >> will call. commissioner adams nay, dooley aye, dwight aye, tour-sarkissian aye riley aye zouzounis aye. the motion passes 6-0. we will move on to item number 5.. presentation