new khiel, they're twice as likely to take paid family leave than men are in the city. we're able to look at the bonding climbs as a percentage of this universe of folks who we think are employed living in san francisco with young children, to get an estimate of what what we call in our report the uptake or the prevalence of pfl claims among the people who are el vibl to take it in the city, and again we see something very disproportionate for gender, the number of claims by female is about 80% of all of the employed women with a young child in san francisco, the number of claims by employed males is only 26% of the number of employed men in the city who have a young child in their household, so again, very disproportionate patterns by gender there. to move on to the economic impact factors, our review of the literature in this policy area suggests that there are

three of which we're really only able to talk about two, but i'll mention three, when the amount of benefit that goes to to a pfl increases, their household has more money to spend, that increases the amount of spending in the household which creates an economic positive ripple effect. on the down side, this additional expense is paid for by san francisco based businesses, so there's a negative economic impact with higher compensation cost for local businesses, the third impact is more long term, it suggests that higher rates of paternal leave or parental leave in particular parental leave for men leads to better educational outcome for children which ultimately has higher productivity benefits for children in the long run and for the society as a whole. it also helps balance out earnings differences over

the long term between men and women and address the issue that career interruption for taking care of children accounts for the long term pay inequities between men and women. given california's relatively recent, it's been 12 years or so, with the paid pfl program, we have not seen the research in this country and in the state on the third point, so we're not able to quantify that, but we don't doubt that we would see something similar in the long term as with what we've seen in other country, we're not able to quantify it at this point, so we're talking about trying to measure the first two impacts. i'm going the skip ahead to this chart, which basically summarizes what we think the direct impacts of this are. a couple of points that are important for this, when you increase the amount of pfl benefits, it's very likely to encourage more people to take paid family leave, indeed,

that's the intent of the legislation. the problem is no local government has ever done this before and the state has never altered the 55% before, so we don't really know how this uptake will change if you make the benefit more luke creative, so what we've done in this report is suggest there's a range of possible outcomes all the way on one end to no change and even though the benefit is more lou captive, the same percentage of employed people take the claim, all the way it goes up to 100% and everyone who has a new child and for a number of reasons, that can't happen, but it's certainly an upper end estimate. so, we've mated both what the increased income to san francisco residents and the increase cost to employers as a result of any of these four scenarios. another point i want to make which is also relevant here is the more people who make

pfl claims, the more that the city of san francisco's economy benefits from an increased draw-down from a state program, so right now, the -- it's paid into a state pool and the san francisco economy benefits from draw-down tos that pool, the more we sweeten that locally, the bigger the draw-down is and essentially the more transfer of funds from the state to the city's economy. but when we review the actual numbers, you can see in the left column here, the increase to san francisco households is anywhere we estimate between about 9 and 27 million a yaoe, it's a reasonably wide range but it certainly wouldn't be more than that, the increase in compensation costs to san francisco employers from their share of it ranges from 16 to 32. the reason the employer cost is bigger than the local benefit is mainly because 55%, only 55% of the

employees who are covered by this live in san francisco, the other 45% live in surrounding communities and commute into the city, so our san francisco based employers will be paying increased pfl benefits to them but the city's economy per se will not be getting as big a share of that. and so when we calculate the economic impact, that kind of leakage effect is one of the major reasons why under all the scenarios, it's a negative economic impact rkts the negative economic impacts are small, we're talking at the small side if there's no change in use of the program, 42 million dollars a year to city's economy and 250 jobs up to 79 million and 480 jobs, just as a couple of point of context, the city's overall economy is 140 million dollars a year in gdp, we're talking about a small fraction, over the

past 11 or 12 year, the city has averaged out good times and bad times, 17 thousand new jobs a year, so the types of jobs foregone under this policy will be a small fraction of even the level of growth that the city currently has. we do make in a concluding slide one recommendation if it's a concern about the negative economic impact and it really flow from the fact that we don't know what the change in uptake will be as we make the benefit more attractive to employees, if that was stepped up and we went from 55% to something higher but not all the way to 100%, we could reduce the cost on businesses in the short term and see what the effect on pfl is and then make i think a more informed tradeoff about what the ultimate economic impact would be. so that's our report in brief, i'm happy to take any questions from you, supervisors. inger >> saoup sore wiener? >> thank you, supervisor

tang, thanks for the report, i appreciate it, so just to be clear, in terms of the economic impact, you indicated that it is small in the context of our 140 billion dollar economy, and the annual average 17 thousand new jobs in san francisco, i also pulled up some of your past reports on other ordinances on the minimum wage ordinance, the -- which was put on the ballot unanimously by the board and with the support of the mayor recently, the -- i think the average job loss per year was about 3 thousand jobs, about 10 times what we have here, the report did not indicate a cost to employers, i'm not sure why but we went through the report, it didn't have -- i'm going to speculate that the cost to employers was dramatically higher than the 16 million,

the 32 million annually here in terms of the minimum wage. and then the health care security ordinance, similarly job impact where as here it's 250 to 480, there, it was 230 to 460, but the economic impact, and this was 10 years ago, so presumably it's higher now just because of growth in the economy, it was 40 million, so significantly two to three times what we have here. and then of course you mentioned the benefits that haven't been quantified of better paid parental leave, better health productivity, etc., and i know it's probably hard to quantify that. >> it's possible to quantify it but the issue with this is the productivity benefits are really reside with the child, so they take a long time to materialize.

>> okay. great. i very much appreciate the report. >> thank you, supervisor. >> thank you, and supervisor wiener, if i may, just one more comment before we go to public comment soon, one issue that was raised by the small business commission as well on monday that i wanted to discuss is about the definition of covered employee, one of their recommendations was that a covered employee is someone who commences employment with employer at least six months prior to the start of a leave period than 90 days which is what you have in the legislation, and secondly, someone who performs 20 hours of work per week versus the 8 hours you have listed so i wanted to see what kind of discussion or thoughts you've had on the small business commission's recommendations. >> i'm sorry, in terms of the threshold being 8 hours versus the higher number? >> yes, as well as working for six months prior to the start of the leave period

versus 90 days. >> so, in terms of the 8 hours in terms of part time workers, so we took that from the paid sick leave ordinance, it starts at 8 hours. one thing that's important to note here with paid parental leave, it's a little bit different than some other ordinances, for example, the health care security ordinance, health care cost are the same whether you're working 10 hours a week or 40 hours a week, here if you're working 8 or 10 hours a week for part time, your paid parental leave benefit is going to be extremely small, so as the employee works less, the cost to the employer is going to go down proportionately, so we were a little bit less concerned about the part time issue than i think would have been the case say for something that costs the same recorders, i think it's much

more relevant in terms of the cut-off when you have a fixed cost, in termser of 90 days versus 180 days, we had taken the 90 days, it was from a different ordinance, i don't remember which one, i'm toep to a discussion whether that's exactly the right number or whether it should be a different number of days, i wouldn't rule out supporting a tweak to that, and i think i expressed that to the small business commission. >> okay, great, thank you. supervisor yee? >> 90 versus 180, does anybody have -- know what the states are in their policy? >> because it's a state, it comes from workers are paying into disability, i don't think there's any -- if i'm not mistaken, i think you can do it on day 1 if i'm not mistaken, some people are nodding in here, it travels with you. >> we will get that

clarified for sure. do you want to go to public comment first then, supervisor? >> we have two more brief presentations, first from julia perish of the legal aid society and dr. curtis chang who's the medical director of adolescent dph and we'll move on to public comment after that. >> thank you, i just have a few slides here that i'm pulling up, but my name is julia perish from the legal aid society employment center and we're a non-profit organization here in san francisco that provides free legal services for low-income workers and i work in family program which is a program dedicated precisely to these issues and something we hear about a lot. to clarify your question if it needs additional clarification, someone is entitled to paid family leave benefits on their first day

of employment, assuming that they have at some point in the past paid into this tax fund, so there's no employer length of service requirement for that. but i just wanted to give a little background in the terms we see care giving needs change, particularly for our callers, today is not the same world that we live in like it was 30 years a most children live in oems where either both parents live or they live in a single parent household, so the model of care with where a child had a dedicated caregiver in the home is no longer relevant and it's particularly irrelevant here in san francisco, and women make up more than half the workforce nationally, they make up a higher percentage here in san francisco, and in nearly one in four households, the mothers are the primary bread winners, and studies show that fathers want to be more engaged in family care giving, so what

we're hearing is really both parents need equal access to equity and leave to care for a new child. and from a national perspective, we're seeing a lot of movement on this end as well, many people have mentioned how the united states is shamefully bemind the rest of the world in terms of paid family leave, and most employees do not have access to a single day of paid leave from their employers for the purposes of bonding or having a new child, so president obama and the national department of labor have been work on this issue and giving grants to try to implement this kind of xhaing in local states and jurisdictions across the country. california was the first state to implement a paid family leave program, and it was really revolutionary at the time, only two other states have followed but many other states are considering similar programs. and just to clarify, the paid family leave program has

been studied in california although it hasn't been implemented for that long, it's been in effect for over 10 years and surveys showed that the majority of employers found that paid family leave had a positive or no noticeable effects on productivity, profitability or performance for their employees and this is particularly true for small business owners who recorded less negative impacts than larger business owners and many say that it reduces absenteeism and turn-over which could be a substantial cost for employers and a lot of women especially turn-over when they need family leave, and the way the program works at the state level, mr. e ga*n also mentioned but i want to reiterate, that 55% of wages that workers are getting is funded entirely by workers, employers do not pay a penny into that fund, no general tax dollars from the

state go into that found, it's through a worker's pay tax deduction, so workers are paying into this insurance tax themselves and they are paying for the entire premium and it is administered through a state agency which is the employment development department, and what we know from the last ten years of paid family leave is that over 1.8 million working families in california have benefited from this benefit to improve their health and well being during a vulnerable time in their live and is the number of men who have used paid leave for bonding has doubled, it remains an unfortunately inequitable number because a third of claims filed are used by men, but a presence of paid leave has allowed more men to increasingly take this benefit which is important for the health outcomes of the child and equity issues. one of the pbs we're seeing is awareness of the state program has decreased since

2011, in 2011, it was low at 43% of registered voters and last year, the field polled another study and it was only 36% of registered voters were aware the state program existed, so this is a problem because workers are paying into this tax fund and this is being taken from their wages and they don't know the program exists so they're unable to use it, but the edd which is the state agency that administers the benefit found that when employers integrate employer benefits with paid family leave, the uses increases, so by offering some employer incentive, it does have the potential to increase the uptake in use of this state benefit that workers are paying for, some other bs we hear about commonly at the employment law center, and this again is based on the employment development department studies, low-income workers make up 46% of the workers that are paying into the

state program but only 12% of workers actually use it, and this is largely because the wage replacement is simply too low, if you are a low wage worker making minimum wage and you have to buy diapers and bottles and all of the other things you need when you have a new child, it is impossible to make ends meet on 55% of your income, so many of the workers that need this wage replacement program the most are barred from taking that, and this is a kind of a parallel issue to the employer -- the employee threshold in terms of moving the employee threshold from 20 to 50 employee, not only do you lose a significant amount of the workforce but you disproportionately exclude low wage workers because low wage workers are likely to work for smaller employers, so you're taking a large chunk out from this benefit, so i would caution

against that, another survey found that even when people barerbacker were aware of paid family leave, their wage replacement level was too low, this is an effective mechanism to help address those concerns, and then also the edd did a market study that included some focus groups and they had focus groups from different parts of the state and different economic backgrounds, but particularly for low wage workers, they cited economic barriers being able to take paid family leave, every income center cited the low-income replace but it was more pronounced for the low wage workers, wage replacement is the biggest barrier for poor people like us, we're barely getting by as it is, the biggest concern was using pfl is money, money, money, and we have to work, nothing stops, the rent doesn't pay for you, this is people that know about the

program but they simply can't afford to use the money that they have paid into the state system in order the bond with their new child, so we think this is a really important step forward that can help incentivize both the state to improve the program and other jurisdictions to follow and that it will really improve the equity of the state's paid family leave program particularly for low wage workers and having other important outcome ts, so thank you very much. >> thank you very much. next, madam khai, i would like for a final presentation invite up dr. curtis chang who is the director of maternal and adolescent public health and the director of public health. >> is it being shown?

so, supervisors, thank you for the invitation to present some local data to you and hopefully my comments will bring some relevance to the question of 20 employees or 50 employees, small and large, and when we could implement. the major questions are what is going to be the health impact on san francisco and what will be the health impact on the individual mothers and children in san francisco, so the brief that has been circulated to you electronically and in paper in front of you summarizes some of the data that we have. so, the summary of the data really is conceptualized by something you can't read right here, this is from professor wilson from columbia, this is publicbacker limbered in the journal of health economics, and the quote that's really most interesting, this is the summary comment that many pediatricians like myself,

health care providers across the city share the same sentiments, if policy makers are concerned with decreasing disparities in child health and well-being between children of different backgrounds, they need to consider the fact that an unpaid maternity leave policy may increase disparities because it only benefits those mothers who can afford to take it, and that really becomes relevant when we think about what the threshold would be for small to medium employers. so, the next data set and i'll just spend a couple of minutes detailing this is to highlight a few key facts, one is that we have nearly 2400 women who are born with medicaid or other public insurance, health insurance in san francisco each year, so that's a surprising number to many people.

it's predominantly white and asian and what people don't realize though is that many of these women even though they're on medi-cal, they're abing hull working, so you could see that 51% work during pregnancy and 42% of those who worked worked through into the month of their delivery, so the key social inequity decision that's in front of us is what are the commonalities and differences between being publicly insured and having job stability and economic security and paid leave rights. it's really highly ror elated between those who are publicly insured and privately insured, so the second group of data is a

disruption, and we have this data on an annual basis describing the disparities between those in san francisco wlo are publicly insured versus privately insured, this highlights the needs and confirms the finding from supervisor wiener's report, julia perish's report about the health consequences of having paid leave. it's imperative that our families and specifically mothers who are insured through medi-cal have leave, that we protect their maternal health because of these disparities. as you can see, nearly 30% of those in san francisco who are publicly insured lost their job or their partner had lost their job. you could see they are threefold high e those with medi-cal, to self-report they

have no practical or emotional support to help them during their pregnancy and postpartum period, and as you can see as an association with the ability to take time off of work during the 6-8 week postpartum visit, you could see those with public insurance, the likelihood they're going the miss their visit is 18% versus only 4% of those privately insured, and this confirms what we find in the literature, many, many women, particularly those who are publicly insured are required or forced to go back to their work regardless of their own maternal health and regardless of the health and development of their baby. in all these social inequities, health disparities and job circumstances contribute to the disparities and health out kolas, you can see the likelihood of preterm birth is two to threefold higher in those with public insurance and you can see the rate of

depression during the postpartum period is 25% for those with medi-cal in san francisco and only 6% with private insurance. so, this data that i have in front of you just describes our look at the american census survey and what we find here is that this really confirms the importance of income security, job security safeguards and the disparities in job control amongst women in san francisco. you could see that amongst the women who choose to be out of labor force instead of being unemployed decreases amongst those who are publicly insured but nearly doubles amongst those who are privately insured. and finally, the last graph is table, describes the health impacts of paid parental leave on women and children, i just want to affirm the -- and confirm

the findings that supervisor wiener's staff has emphasized as well as julia perish, there are really few public policies at a governmental level that have as much data on mothers and children as paid parental leave does, and it's well established in the literature and by major and national organizations that pregnancy will reduce the rate of pree claming ya and low birthrate sx, that's reducing infant mortality, and there's very good evidence that having parental leave will improve physical health of women, many cases through improved opportunity to breastfeed for a longer duration of time, it improves mental health with evidence showing decrease in depression rate, decrease

stress amongst parents and decreasing anxiety by the mother, and for the child, there's great evidence as supervisor wiener highlighted of improving breastfeeding, immunization, infant mortality, child abuse, improves maternal infant interactions and there's good evidence about reducing child behavior problems, improving child cognitive test scores and improving reading and math scores, so all this data is at a population level that's really after hinged by public policy, as a pediatrician, obviously we don't counsel each individual patient to make a choice that's a really personal choice, but we really appreciate the board of supervisors considering this important health impact policy. >> i know dr. emily morasi [inaudible]. er >> we do have some departments here that want

to briefly speak and then we'll start public health. >> emily morasa and i ale hunter. >> good afternoon, vice chair tang, supervisor wiener, i'm [inaudible] executive director on the department of the status of women, and i appreciated the economic impact report provided by ted e ga*n, he's one of the top people in his field but one of his report leaves unanswered is what is the positive economic impacts of healthier babies of, of health year moms and of healthier families, so i want to offer five reasons why it's very important to support this legislation, first, healthier babies and healthier moms, we all know that paid leave for the care bonding with a new child has tremendous benefits for children and their parent, paid leave can lead to healthier babies, the national institute of child health documented that

breastfeeding is fewer illness, better infant sur vao*ifrl, decreased allergies, reduced risk of type 1 diabetes, there's an increase in the glibly hood and the duration of breastfeeding and health benefits go to the mom, there's less postpartum depression, stroerng family, number two, paid parental leave is not only beneficial when the family first welcomes children but throughout all of their lives, women who have accessed to paid leave when they have children are more likely to stay in the workforce, increasing their lifetime wages and retirement security. fathers who take leave are more involved in caring fir their children later in life and taking up a greater share of household work. number 3, gender equality, paid parental leave especially equal amounts of leave for mothers and fathers as supervisor wiener proposes

encourages gender equality, women still bear a disproportionate of burden of responsibility in the home and have penalty ins the workforce, families face a greater financial burden when fathers take leave from work than when mothers do, this reinforces social and economic pressures towards gender roles. number 4, 55 replacement pay is not enough, we are proud of the california lead thing way in the paid family leave program, but the 55% replacement is just not enough for so many families. children are essential will to fabric of our society and economy and we need a broader national structure, so i really support supervisor yee's call to the federal government to have a solution for this but until then, this local legislation is one answer. and finally the benefits

gap, as we've heard several times today, just 12% of parents have access to parental leave r, this adds to a growing benefits gap that separates low wage workers from higher income earners so, when we consider all the positive economic effects ofd leave, it's clear that fully paid parental leave will really benefit low-income families. we have to ensure that all families, parents, children, have the opportunity to thrive in san francisco and i'm very pleased to say that the commission on the status of women at its february meeting voted unanimously to support the legislation. >> thank you, dr. morasi. ms. carpenter? >> good afternoon, supervisors, adele carpenter, director of the youth commission, the youth commissioners did unanimously support this recommendation when it was referred to themser most of them are in class today so they asked us as staff to speak for them,

we are joined by district 6 commissioners, and i wanted to give her a chance to speak. >> hello, supervise source, my name is anna haoe and i'm the district 6 appointee on the san francisco youth commission, so just some background about me, i was born premature and severely underweight, weighing 2 pounds, my mother went back to the workforce and pay for the hospital expense, she was the only one in my family who had a job at that time. i was left in a child care facility, in the few weeks i was there, i was unsocial, refused to eat and showed no signs of any emotion, it came to a point where the child care workers thought i was mentally delayed, after my mother heard these words, she left her minimum wage job and took care of me personally, in the time she was there for me, i learned how to communicate and began developing the way i was supposed to, i began eating more and i began to show

facial expression, i believe having that bonding helped me develop the way i needed to become, the youth that i am today, thank you. >> thank you very much, and i want to note that -- >> iefs, i just wanted to add as well, thank you to every member of the board who's here today for all the work that you've done to support families with new children and thanks to supervisor wiener for your leadership on this issue. you know, this is one of those core gender justice issues that i think frankly it's sad we haven't been able to move the needle on and it's odd to be in this historical moment where we have a woman as a democrat i can front runner, it's up po municipalities to help lead the way on this issue, the fact that many employers do offer parental paid leave, nearly not enough, not only

is it the right thing to do, it's employee retention and employer cost, the risk of speaking too quickly, the paid parental leave policies of this city allowed me to return to my role at the youth commission two years ago after my daughter was born energized and ready to fulfill my role, my wife who works at the school sdrigt as a teacher and didn't have the same leave policies moved to a permanent half time status and took no leave, i think there are major benefits to employers as well as to our working families here in san francisco and we just encourage you to give this a positive recommendation today and do everything you can to extend this to as many san francisco workers and families as possible. thank you. >> thank you very much, and i just want to note that donna lovitt is here, can help and

respond, we'll open it up for public comment, madam chair, may we open it up for public comment? madam chair? i'm trying to follow protocol, madam chair, can we open it up for fub lick comment. okay, it will be two minutes, there will be a soft bell when you have 30 seconds left and a louder ball when the two minutes are up. i'll call a few names. ( calling speaker names ). >> good afternoon, supervisor, my name is vince core nay with the laborers union, we represent many men and women in the city, we usually advocate for a

project, whether it be a housing project, a development project because we represent construction workers, what a lot of people don't know is we represent a lot of very, very low wage workers, most recently, we took on a unit of public employee unit that roughly makes $15 an hour, they're mostly community folks coming from the southeast sectors, most unions would not want to take that on but we have done it time and time again, we're proud of supervisor wiener and the rest of you for considering this, but we believe in the greatest economic expansion of our lifetime, now is the time to make these things happen, now it's time to pass the labor laws, whether it's pension protection or what we're talking about here, the men and women and laborers union are some of the lower paid, they're entitled to that and deserve that, that's what san francisco is about, even though some of my colleague ins the business community will frown on this, we know they can handle it and the time is now and there will be opportunities to negotiate on down the road, we're proud

of what you do and how you stand with not just the police and the firefighters and the people who are doing well in the middle class, for the people we represent who are barely making it and can't afford to stay home and they really need this, you guys are hitting the mark, so thanks very much. >> thank you, next speaker. >> good afternoon, my name is veneer na lisa could be ba, a full time mother of two, first i would like to thank supervisor katy tang for her work in improving parental leave, i'm here in support of the ordinance that require city employers to pay employees so they would receive full wages during their weeks of family leave. i applaud supervisor scott wiener for introducing this legislation, i've known him to be a supporter or children's health and education, 15 years a i gave birth to a healthy baby and while she was perfect in every way, her delivery was

not, i'll spare you all the details by lairing for 36 hours and expensing minor complications during delivery did leave me sick, overwhelmingly fa the teenaged and feeling not myself, i had a generous employer who granted me time off and guaranteed my position within the company when i returned, looking back, had i been burdened with the need to return to work immediately following the birth of my oldest child, it's entirely possible that i would spiral into deeper sadness and would have suffered from long term postpartum depression, as a new mother, i was determined to nurse my daughter but she was colicky, it took a while for her to learn to latch, for the two of us to develop a comfortable rhythm, during those weeks of long nights, i had constant encouragement of my husband who also had paternity leave, new parents

often find themselves worrying and thinking about the what if, we were fortunately spared from those dilemmas and i'm grateful that my husband and i were able to take time off, to take care of and to bond with our newborn, what about the 88% of workers and families who do not have access to basic level of leave, what's happening to baby and is new mothers in san francisco households who can't afford to exist in this 100% wage replacement, what are their answers to the what ifs. thank you for your time. >> thank you very much, mr. lazarus? >> good afternoon, supervisors, jim lazarus, san francisco xhaim ber of commerce, thank you for your work on this and to supervisor tang for her work on her task force on the same subject, we appreciate the opportunity to work with you and your staff and to suggest a number of amendments that you have included. i think there are still a number of issues outstand hating are important to the business community, the issue of the size of employment, somehow we hit a magic

number of 20 ten years ago to exempt micro businesses, but our definition of small business really should be much higher than that. this is -- these types of continued mandates on the smallest employers in san francisco really put at risk the businesses that the city value the most, and we urge you to consider perhaps it's even an extension of time, we appreciate this ordinance would be effective or go operational january 1 of 2017, perhaps for businesses with less than 50 employees, it would be operative january 1, 2018 to see what happens with state law, with federal law and to give them more time and all of us more experience with the legislation. on the civil enforcement issue, in recent year, we've met with advocate and is a number of members of your colleagues at the board of supervisors on other ordinances. the formula retail workers bill of rights, the fair

hire ordinance, the family friendly workplace ordinance and came up with a new provision on [inaudible] enforcement that places the obligation on the city attorney to move forward and enforcing legislation lick this. let's face it, there's a plot of bad experience with and i'm not pointing fingers here, with national ada enforcement, with drive-by litigation and the last thing we want is to open these city mandate ordinances on smaller businesses and have them subject to outside litigation, tla's the reason for the xhaing we've suggested in that area as well. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. mr. algi? >> good afternoon, commissioners, i'm scott halgi, i own a small business in san francisco and i think the first thing that is important to understand is it's more than just this legislation. there are -- it's expensive to do business in san

francisco and if you take the sick leave, the minimum wage, the taxes, the fees, the health care security ordinance, when you put one on top of another on top of another, you've got a situation where san francisco businesses find it hard to be competitive and we do compete with businesses outside of san francisco. the two amendments that i think are the most important is i think the 20 employees should be raised to 50, the impact on that is it would add about 15% of the employment in san francisco would be added, and i think it would be beneficial to get a sense of what the outcomes are of the legislation with 50, and the second thing is the 8 hours that an employee is counted for 8 hours, i think that should be increased to 20, so thank you for the opportunity to speak. >> thank you very much.

>> hi, my name is tiffany lowenburg and i'm a working mother of three children and i wish i had some earth shattering things to share or even maybe more specific stories about myself but it's so obvious that this is legislation that needs to pass. i know the bonding with newborn babies is super porntd, it's a critical time, it's rewarding for the entire family, studies show it's important for your baby's best development, it's been very clear that that is true, so many families have to rush back to work before they're ready and it just shouldn't be like that. this really is an equity issue, the majority of families cannot afford to take the time off from work, they need to be able to do this without having to decide between bad choices and worst choices, so this legislation

would allow all working parents to have the opportunity to bond with their newborn and is we would have these wonderful effects that we all know are true. i spent a lot of my time outside of work involved in education issues where we're trying to figure out how far back do we have to go to solve the root problems of the achievement gap and what fot, and it's just clear, you have to go back to the very beginning to when babies are born, there's clear evidence that when you bond children i

unconscionable, it's a crying shame, we all started as babies, babies do not come to this world as like kindergartners, because in this country, we started invested in children when they enter kindergarten, yet expert rkts dr. curtis chang has said that the first fife year iss critical and the first year is even more critical and the bonding translates into better outcomes for children in the future, so i think that this is a value that should be placed into public policy and i hope those people that need it the most, the lowest income, we have to help our small businesses pay for their lowest income employees, thank you. >> thank you, next speaker.

>> okay, good afternoon, my name is elia fernandez and i'm a pointer voices in san francisco and i'm a grandmother of five kids and one of my daughters has had her baby and she was very lucky to have one year to be with her baby with pay and to be at home and she got paid while being at home and now i wish everybody would be the same, but i guess because my daughter has a good paying job, that's why she had one year, but it would be nice if everybody else would have the same opportunity too, and that's it, thank you so much, and i forgot to mention, i'm a small business owner and i wish i had employees but i don't because i won't be

able to afford it, but thank you so much and it was nice to be here. >> thank you very much. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors, my name is christian pradia, i represent local 648, we represent the men and women that work in the grocery and drugstores in the city. we believe that paid parental leave ordinance is a family-friendly policy, no longer will a person have to choose between work or family. also, this policy will strengthen the family units throughout and provide additional financial security for the working class in san francisco. we're also opposed to any changes in the threshold from 20 employees to 50 employees. we thank supervisor wiener for his work on this issue.

thank you. >> thank you very much. and let me just call the remaining cards i have so others can come up as well. ( calling speaker names ). you can come in any order. it doesn't have to be in the exact order i called, but thank you. >> thank you very much, thank you for this opportunity, supervisors, to let my voice be hear, my name is roberta guise and i head up [inaudible] and i do definitely hear the concerns

about the businesses, they're definitely legitimate, supervisor wiener, you talked about the state of u.s. being at the bottom of the stack of countries that doesn't provide leave, my sisout, the

gap in infant care and this is one solution that that gap, i want to point out there are other child care providers besides large centers, for example, family child care homes normally don't have any employees or if they do, they have one or two assistants, so they would still be exempt, if we're raising it above 20, it will mutter the child care providers who ironically care for children, but would not be able to take the time off to care for their own because they are typically low wage workers so i appreciate you taking that into consideration. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker. >> hi, my name is emily loper, i'm a san francisco resident and i'm an employee here in downtown san francisco, i want to voice my strong -- >> can you speak into the microphone, please. >> i would like the voice my strong support for this paid parental leave legislation which will make san francisco the first city in the nation

to ensure that nearly all employees have access to paid parental leave, this california state program provides up to 55% reimbursement for parents on leave but many workers cannot afford to ta-- cannot afford to take leave on partial wage replacement, this would require san francisco employers to make up that difference, paid parental leave is not only important for parents and children, but it also benefits employer and is the economy at large, economists found that paid leave raises the probability that employees return to work and then work more hours and earn higher wages, in fact, i believe this is the single most important policy for retaining women in the workforce and promoting their growth within organize sashes, this ordinance is also consistent with the obama administration's push for a national paid parental leave policy as the president stated that paid parental leave is not just a women's issue but an economic necessity, the united states is the only industrialized nation that does not require

paid parental leave and i hope san francisco can lead the nation in changing that. i urge you to support this legislation and i really want to thank supervisor wiener for his leadership on this issue. thank you. >> next speaker. >> ( speaking spanish ). >> my name is patricia hernandez, i work for -- >> can you speak into the microphone, please. >> my name is patricia hernandez, i work for local 87, i'm a janitor. >> ( speaking through interpreter ). >> i want to thank supervisor wiener for thinking of this legislation.

if this would have been in law 20 years ago when i had my child, it would have helped me. i have problems when i had my child and medically and my husband almost lost him job because of the constant times we had too go to -- to go to the hospital. it's very important for all the men and women who have their children and especially that are local, thank you, supervisor wiener. >> thank you very much, next

speaker. >> ( speaking spanish ) ( speaking through interpreter ). >> so, my name is jose orosco, i worked as a janitor for several years, i want to thank supervisor wiener for thinking of us and to support. >> thank you, next speaker. >> thank you, supervisors, my name is [inaudible] i'm the political employee of the janitor's union, we're in the front lines often treated as the lowest on the totem pole in terms of the rkforce, this legislation is extremely important, we have talked to thousands of our members who are extremely excited about

this and those across the workforce in this similar type of industry. as a new parent, i've personally experienced this where we had to make the choice in our own family and use up a lot of the sick time that my wife had accrued and as patricia said, when she exhausts that, then you have to start making economic choices for your children, so this is extremely important piece of legislation, thank you for all the supervisors that are supporting this, supervisor yee, supervisor tang, and thank you, supervisor wiener for putting this forward today, we're 100% in support of it. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> hi, good afternoon, supervisors, my name is vivion, i'm the executive director of the filipino executive center, we support supervisor wiener's proposed legislation which is long overdue, we sup pot it because it will support low-income parent who is are barely able to survive on

reduced wages when they file for parental leave, we hope that this measure will have a broader application as currently proposed, it may not immediately make an impact of some of the working class, extremely low wage immigrant family that is we serve, it may serve house keepers who are hired directly by their clients, it may help uber drivers and these are typical immigrant jobs today, more than 40% of today's workforce are called contingent workers, many of them file 1099's in this sharing economy, although we do recognize this measure will have broader application, it will have to go alongside other reforms that will provide safety nets for independent contractual

workers, but we do support this measure today because we see it as a door to even more low-income family friendly legislation in san francisco and hopefully the whole country. we have to start somewhere and this is a great beginning, supervisor, congratulations, thank you. >> thank you very much, next speaker. >> hello, supervisors, my name is shani winston and i'm a recent graduate of san francisco state university, i've been tlao for three years as a director and i recognize katy tang would was on our panel, so hello. and i wanted to let you know a little bit about the women's center and what we do there, we're always brainstorming and coming up with different ideas about how we can better our society and women in the workplace and especially the women within the center are involved with the community of san francisco because it is a commuter school, a lot

of the members do have some questions about the injustices that low wage workers face, especially women of color who can't afford the paid parental leave of 55% at the moment, and we all know that the children -- that there's more expenses when there's children either before or after, so families may face a greater financial burden if the father takes time off from work because of the gender wage gap for women, this perpetuates the stereotype that mothers should stay at home and fathers go to work which subtracts in the economic benefit of women in the workforce, it will create greater gender inequality in the workplace and at home, i support this because providing leave and payments equally for parents, san francisco is making a statement by encouraging the men to share responsibility to take care of their children, this ordinance may seem idealistic but when did

change ever happen without being idealistic, thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors, i'm debbie lur man with the san francisco human services network, we have not taken a position on this legislation but we do believe that paid parental leave is good policy. having said that, i want to speak a little about unfunded mandates for non-profits with city contracts and i want to thank supervisor yee for recognizing the non-profit issue. over the last 10-15 years, we've seen two minimum wage increases, living wage, including paid time off, the health care accountability ordinance, the health care sustainability ordinance which was amended twice to make it more stringent and paid sick leave. the human services network and non-profits are supportive of these law, they are good for our employee and is for the people we serve, but our staff tend to skew young, even in a small

organization, you could easily incur an additional 10 to 20 thousand dollars a year should this legislation pass. so, we are sympathetic to the impacts on business, but unlike business, non-profits cannot raise our prices, we have to absorb the added cost and is the only way to do that as you know is to cut programs and services for low-income populations, and so it is time, we would like to make a statement today that the city acknowledge the hardship that these type of laws impose on non-profits and the hollowing out effect on our organizations and services and we ask that this body consider establishing a mechanism to provide funding when a non-profit employee on a city contract takes the opportunity for parental leave if we have to hire a replacement worker, then we believe that the city should increase the available funding to cover the cost and we hope that you will consider this as part of your deliberations on this issue.

thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> good afternoon, thank you, supervisors, for the opportunity to speak in favor of this ordinance. my name is lala rock, i'm a research fellow at the opportunity institute, we're a non-profit that seeks to increase opportunity for children, youth and families by advancing policies that support healthy families and stable workplaces. we strongly support the bill to expand access to paid parental leave. i wanted to reiterate that access to paid leave is a vital support for healthy and stable families and to echo some of the comments already raised since its inception, california's paid family leave has doubled the median duration for breastfeeding for all mothers who used it and since 2007 has nearly doubled the rate at which biological fathers take time off to bond with their babies, reduced wage replacement is a barrier who

lose income as a result of taking bonding time away from work, for families struggling to make ends meet, partial wage [inaudible] like food and shelter and more difficult for both parents to take leave at the same time. bonding with a newborn is a basic right, it should not be independent on wages, we support this fully. >> thank you very much, next speaker. >> good afternoon, i'm jane bernard powers, dr,, and i co-chair the democratic women in action, san francisco democrat i can women in action, i'm pleased this legislation was conceived. i appreciate both supervisor wiener and tang for putting this together, i appreciate the political will that went behind this and the publicity. i am -- i support this

legislation. i believe that the san francisco deck -- democrat i can issue supports this, this is using research that is decades old that says yes, a good policy like this should be instituted locally and san sco is the perfect place for doing this, i think we have a reputation and a history of addressing social problems through what the supervisors come up with at the local level. the people who have just talked today i thought provided very rich information on why this is compelling, why it works, what could be changed in some ways to make it a little bit better, but i've just heard very impressive comments from a variety of people. i support the extension of this legislation to low wage workers, i think it's a very compelling argument there that there are people who do not have enough money in their family budget to take

time off and there's those low wage workers that i think would be particularly affected by this in a good way, by including their needs. i make no comment about the size of firms, i think it's an important idea but i think the issue is to support the legislation and to institute it and then keep changing it to working on it, perfecting it in a way that you can do once something that has been started, so thank you very much, i really do appreciate this piece of legislation. >> thank you very much, next speaker. >> hi, i'm jessica sender from equal rights advocates, i wanted to mention we strongly support the ordinance and appreciate your leadership in springing this forward, we strongly support the threshold of 20 versus 50, the actual effect of increasing the threshold to 50 is to increase the

employees and this would affect low wage workers, as we heard today, low wage workers are the workers that most need these additional benefits because they cannot live on the current 55% wage replacement rate and do have to make a choice between taking leave at all and putting food on the table, is i would strongly urge you to keep the 20 worker threshold and i would note that many small businesses already do have some paid leave policies in place and those paid leave policies function with those paid leave policies in place, so i would note the studies that have been conducted have shown it increases productivity, increases retention, decreases turn-over and is a net benefit to all employers including small business owners. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> thank you, supervisors, my name is general na gair rising i'm hoar on behalf of the legal aid society employment law center and the working family could will alysing and i thank you for introducing this ordinance and we strongly support it.

i want to speak briefly on the proposed amend md to remove the private right of action, we hope it stays in, by having a private right of action, it will raise awareness and raise compliance, it will reduce the burden on the olse, the office of labor and standard enforcement which will be charged with enforcing this new ordinance. this also is the same labor standard that's in the current minimum wage law which we believe is similar to what we're proposing here today. so, to ensure individuals that have access and have the right to this benefit, that they're empowered to seek or address if they're denied this right, i urge that you keep in the private right of action. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> good afternoon, budget and finance sub-committee, and i gotta surprise especially for you ( singing ).

some of you have always wanted to do, waited so long to bond and you waited so long to make a bond, we got the tickets to paid leave paradise, pack your bags, we'll leave tonight, we got paid leave tickets to paradise, what a surprise, you waited so long to bond, and i'm working my way back to you with a burning love inside, you wanted a vacation away and you're getting paid every day and i'm working my way to you with the burning love inside, we got a vacation away, we're getting

paid every day and the mother and father child reunion is only a motion away and the mother and father child reunion is only a motion away, away, away, only a motion away. thank you. thank you, walter. >> are you lonesome tonight, do you miss me tonight, tell me, dear, are you as mighty as always. >> okay, is there any additional public comment on item number 1 in seeing none, madam chair, may we close public comment. >> alright, public comment is closed. >> okay, if i may. >> supervisor wiener? >> thank you, first of all,

i want to thank all of the public comment that came out, it was compelling on many different levels and i also want to thank the members of the business community, both who testified today and who provided feedback, i know these issues are always challenging and to be clear, i think it would be amazing if we had a federal social insurance program that just covered everyone for however long, for a good amount of time so that all parents could take fully paid leave and i hope that one day we will get there, we're not there right now, and frankly even if we were to adopt a social insurance program instead, that would have payroll impacts as well, and for example the health care security ordinance or other programs that exist, even social security, there's an impact on the employer, so these things have to be paid for, these benefits have to be paid for somehow, right now workers are paying for

55% through their payroll deductions, employees do not pay any of that, i think this is a reasonable shift to get us to 100%. as i mentioned at the beginning, if the governor does the right thing which i think hwill by signing the pending legislation in sacramento, it will raise the state contribution to either 60 or 70% depending on income and that will automatically drop the contribution by san francisco employers who were already seeing a bit of a shift. so, i do colleagues, as i distributed at the beginning, we have the minor technical amendments which i distributed to you in writing, in addition, the city attorney and i i think have come up with an amendment along the lines of what i described at the beginning relating to a possible future federal benefit and i want to just read that into the record.

within 90 days of final enactment of any federal law requiring private employers to provide paid parental leave to employees, or providing government tally funded parental paid leave, the controller shall provide a report to the board of supervisors analyzing the impact of a newly adopted federal law on employers and employees subject to this article 33h as well as any overlap between the federal benefits and benefits required under this article 33h in the report the controller may in his or her discretion recommend changes to this article 33h. so, i make a motion to adopt the amendment i just made plus the amendments that i distributed in writing. >> alright, is there a second to that? seconded by supervisor yee and we'll take that without objection, those amendments are adopted. supervisor yee? >> yes, thank you, and i want to thank the public for coming out again, i think this is a very important

piece of legislation for at least the people that i've always worked with in the field of child care and non-profits and education and so forth, i mean, i remember i took the option when i had my first child to actually take off for six months with no pay and sit with my wife and it really did -- we didn't have a pocketbook, so it didn't matter, and now i'm faced -- my family's faced with the same situation almost with the upcoming event of me being a grand dad soon, maybe my daughter will move back to san francisco because of this, but i want to request that we add some language in there, it's a friendly amendment i guess that we direct the office of labor standards and enforcement and the

controller's office to provide options to minimize or offset cost to the non-profit organizations. is that acceptable? >> can i just get clarification, is this to make recommendations in terms of the city budget? perhaps if through the chair, if supervisor yee, could you clarify? >> yes, i would say because i talked about it earlier and rather than just leaving it hanging out there, we just put some language that says, let's ask directing the two offices to work together to just come up with options to see how we can put -- if we could do a budget fix to help the non-profits. >> okay, so this is basically whether it's in the legislation or a request to the controller to work with olse to come up with an estimate of what the impacts would be of city contractor

non-profits and then so that we can make an informed decision in the budget? >> right. the impact and possibly how we could fund it. >> okay. and to the city attorney or the controller, i'm completely fine with asking for that analysis, the question is we could put that in the ordinance or we could just have the request go out? >> deputy city attorney, john gibner, if you put it in the ordinance, i suggest we put it in an unmodified section in the end because this would be a one-time request of the two departments, it wouldn't be added to the administrative code or the police code, it would just be a separate one-time duty. >> okay, i'm fine putting that in as an uncodify fied section that the board of supervisors is requesting or directing the controller to work with the office of

labor standards enforcement to come up with an estimated cost for city contractor non-profits in order to inform budget deliberations by the board. >> thank you, yes, it's a request. >> of course it's a request. we like to try to direct but we're usually requesting. >> just to clarify, we are putting that in the legislation. >> as an unmodified section. >> so, we have a motion, seconded, without objection, that is amended. alright. and supervisor yee, did you have anything else? >> no, i'm ready to vote on this. >> okay, so i just wanted to make a couple of comments, i mean, really thank you all for coming out and sharing all of your thoughts on this. i really appreciate that. i know that really you can't put a price on the bonding time that people have, that parents have with their children and i know that

both supervisor wiener and i have staff in our office who have either come back from maternity leave or about to go on parental leave, so it's something that we're intertwined with ourselves. one of the things that we had -- i know this is good and bad, we have so many more things to work on, one of the things that we worked on last year for example was trying to figure out better outreach and education on all the different types of benefits that are available to people, whether it's through your private employer, whether it's through the state or the federal government, all of that can be really confusing as with you layer what over each other, so for example, in our office, we had to look at a very complicated spreadsheet to figure out what my aid was able to do, what she was entitled to, so last year for example in city government at dhr, we put into the budget a new staff position, a department of human resources, a paid leave counselor, so that they can provide information to city employees as to what their

different benefits are and we highly encourage that also in the private sector so there's more outreach and education because it is very confusing, another issue that we really want to continue working on is regarding job protection, we know there have been concerns raised about the gaps and where the job protections fall into place, under the family and medical leave act, for example, it applies to companies with 50 or more employees so we certainly have heard loud and clear about job protection, also wanting to make sure that both sets of parents really take that leave. we have seen in mr. e ga*n's economic impact report that it's very heavily skewed that it's mostly mothers taking leave but we also want the other parent to take the leave as well, lots of fisbacker issues to continue working on, i look forward to working with all of you, with all of my colleagues here with supervisor wiener on those issues, so again, i'm supportive overall of this legislation. i want to revisit some of the issues that i had addressed

earlier and i'm happy to just see if we can take a vote on the amendments and if they pass, they pass, if they don't, they don't, so one of the things was regarding the private right of action, again, i understand where supervisor wiener, you're coming from on this, and i think that this is something that is very groundbreaking legislation and i just want to make our employers feel comfortable about this program, so i would like to throw out the motion there about removing the private right of action in this legislation. so, i don't know if supervisor yee, or if anyone else, there is a second, if not, we'll move on? >> i don't think you need a second in a three person committee? >> we don't? okay, so if we can go to a roll call vote on the private right of action. >> and if we can, i appreciate that perspective on it, i do support the private right of action. i do want to say, i'm -- there was a comment made, i

can't remember if it was by mr. lazarus or mr. halgi about some of the challenges around the ada lawsuits against some of our small businesses and that's an issue that i know supervisor tang has done an enormous amount of work on that issue and we've worked with our merchants and our district on that issue and it's a very, very challenging one. i don't think that this is in the same category, you know, when you have people going around saying there's the step up to your store is wrong or there's some sort of physical issue because you have an old building, that's a real -- that's a huge, broad issue. this is about a discrete set of employees who are entitled to parental leave and they get it or not, hopefully every employer will comply, but in terms of our paid sick leave ordinance and our minimum wage ordinance and our private rights of action, i have not seen any evidence

of abuse in those lawsuits and this is a more narrow law because it affects fewer employees, so i very much appreciate the motion but i will not be supporting it. >> thank you for your thoughts on that. job gibner, deputy city attorney? >> just to clarify, the motion -- currently the proposal would allow us civil lawsuits filed by olse, the city attorney, another person acting on behalf of the public as provided by state law or an agrieved person or an organization representing an agrieved person, so it's the latter two, the grieved person or the organization of which that person is a member, those are the private rights of action that you're proposing to remove, is that right? >> right, i do not want to eliminate, thank you for the clarification, i do not want to eliminate stability of enforcing agencies. thank you, madam clerk? >> on the motion made by supervisor tang, supervisor

tang? >> aye. >> supervisor yee. >> aye. >> supervisor wiener? >> no. >> there are two ayes with supervisor wiener in the decent. >> that amendment passes, and the question regarding -- i'm going to hold off on the issue regarding the definition of covered employee, i think i get what supervisor wiener is saying in terms of if you're working fewer hours, then obviously you're contributing less and in any case, i'm going to hold off on that, but going back to the question about the threshold, i'm not saying i'm closed off to the idea of 20 employees but i would like to see if we can move forward first with a 50 employee threshold and do the economic anllys from the controller's office tracking compliance, the outcome, something that the small business commission also asked for in terms of the analysis and then we could revisit whether we can go with the 20 or more employees, so that's something i would like to

make a motion for as well. supervisor wiener? >> i will not be supporting that motion. i think this is a very, very significant issue, if we go from 20 to 50, that means that almost half of workers will be excluded from this legislation, in san francisco, we have adopted for the most part 20 workers as the threshold. the only deviation from that, that i'm aware of, i know the minimum wage applies starting at 1 employee, so in san francisco, i think we have taken the view that we want to be expansive in offering these worker protections, and i just don't want to go in a direction where almost half of all the workers in san francisco would not have this paid parental leave benefit and as we heard in public comment, i believe it to be

the case just that range will disproportionately impact lower paid workers, so i would request that the committee reject this amendment. >> thank you, and sorry, just to add to that, i completely understand that and i said i'm still open to idea of 20 plus employees after we do a little bit more analysis. i think i have just heard time and time again from small business owners just all of the things that we have layered upon them, again, all good things for workers, employees, i absolutely agree, but at some point, we do need to make sure that we are allowing our small businesses to stay here if san francisco and to survive. so, i just -- all i ask is for a consideration for us to go forth with a higher threshold and revisit a smaller threshold later. supervisor yee? >> thank you, supervisor tang. with this particular item that you're recommending for

amendment, i have to agree with supervisor wiener on this. as much as we have to worry about the impacts of maybe the smaller ones, we have to cut it off at some point and i also realize that you're going to have some negative impact and some positive impact and as i said earlier, the positive impact out weighs the negative in this case and if you're going to bring it up to 50, we're going to really eliminate several of the people that came here today that talked about their jobs. many of these people fit in between the 20 and 50. so, for me, i will not be supporting the amendment. >> thank you, supervisor wiener, i'm also wondering if there was a suggestion thrown about about tier the compliance scheduling, your deadline for compliance is

january, 2017, would you be open to considering for companies with the smaller threshold -- sorry, the higher threshold, i apologize, what you have right now, the 20 or more, you would have them comply later, so would you be open to a tiered compliance schedule? >> what i might suggest is that i would be open to january 1, 50 or more is covered and then july 1, 20 to 49 is covered, so an additional six months. >> deputy city attorney is standing up. >> john gibner again, if the committee agrees with this, it sounds simple in concept, i don't know if there will be complications in drafting,

it might be a sentence or it might be more, i'm concerned we need to get the ultimate draft to the clerk by 9:00 tomorrow morning, if the committee adopts this amendment today, we will do our best to get it to the clerk by 9:00 tomorrow, if we miss the clerk's deadline tomorrow, it would be kikd over, there's no board meeting next week. >> that's correct. >> we have an extra week. >> sorry about that, we have some time. >> and i mean, i'm only doing this because -- also i know the chair has expressed concern about this range of businesses so i'm willing to support that change. >> okay, i appreciate that. thank you, supervisor wiener, so i guess roll call on that then, on the tiered for compliance as supervisor wiener stated. >> on the motion, supervisor tang? >> aye. >> supervisor yee? >> aye. er >> supervisor wiener? >> aye. >> there are three ayes.

>> thank you, that amendment passes, alright. supervisor wiener, then i guess we shall just take the item. >> yes, thank you, colleagues, i think this is really a great step forward and again thank you to all the members of the public would were here today. i move that we forward item 1 as amended to the full board of supervisors with a positive recommendation. >> alright. second, and we'll take that without objection then. the item passes. thank you. if we can call item 2, please. >> item number 2, ordinance amend thing building code to require any existing building with a place of public accommodation either to have all primary entries and path of travel into the building accessible by persons with disabilities or to receive from the city ao a determination of equivalent facilitation, technical infeasibility or unreasonable hardship. er >> thank you very much, so i am the sponsor of this item and i just wanted to say

that it's nice that we have soufp groundbreaking pieces of legislation in budget committee today. this one particularly has to do with accessibility and all of our places of public accommodation here in san francisco and it may seem that we have a simple piece of legislation before us today, but it took us about two years or more to work on this to get it to a place where all parties feel comfortable with this legislation including our small business community, so first of all, i would like to thank the department building inspection, richard halarin, our access appeals commission, our mayor's office on disability, [inaudible] from our office of small business, jodee na our city attorney, the dbicac code advisory committee, the council of district merchants, and all of our disability advocates for their support of this legislation and all of their input to make it possible

and of course deanna kezon from my staff, what we have before us today is a first of its kind legislation really in the united states to try to make our places of public accommodation here in san francisco accessible for all, and what we did was we modeled our program off of our existing seismic soft story program where we break up our buildings into four different categories and in each of the different categories, there are different tiers of compliance, so for example, there may be buildings that have a step in front of it or two or more steps or there may be buildings that are pretty much in compliance, so the first tier is that they would have to submit a compliance checklist and the required plans and information to the city, the second tier is to file an application for the required building permits, and thirdly, to obtain the required building permits. i will be making amendments to this legislation that we

have confirmed our non-substantive in nature but i will have deputy city attorney john gibner confirm on the record as well to ensure there isn't a timeline of compliance in terms of the actual construction work knowing it can take time for that to happen, those are the three requirement, three different tier, we feel that is a very reasonable ask of our property owners here to ensure that all people can access the service ins each of our places of public accommodation. to be clear, this makes all of the property owners in compliance with chapter 11d of our state building code, we understand there is the ada requirements which are ongoing in nature, so this in particular is compliance with chapter 11d of the california building code. additionally, we empower our access appeals commission to do more work and that is we are going the allow them to make determinations of technical infeasibility,

unreasonable hardship and so forth, granting again determinations on equivalent facilitation, all of those things are really important because if say a property owner or business is sued, there is this demonstration that a property owner has made an attempt to comply with the requirements set forth here. as you know, there have been many mentions and awareness of drive-by lawsuits where people come by and just sue businesses left and right. that's how i got started on this issue many, many years ago where we tried to did a lot of education and outreach with our small business community on these lawsuits and what they have to do to comply, but we have seen that in a lot of cases, many businesses end up settling with these litigants and they are not in klein after they have settled, we have found that we have tried to provide funding through the city to

allow for free caaspp inspections which are certified specialist program inspections through the state law and that has had some success which is great, but we wanted to make sure that all businesses that provide -- or are places of public accommodation are able to provide services for all and it's good for small businesses to allow everyone to access their services, so again, i want to thank all the parties who have been involved in drafting this really comprehensive legislation and i just want to at this time then, i know i passed out sheets with amendments, so i wanted to read those forthe record, on page 8, lines 20-23, we are going to change the timeline or sorry, the code year that was referenced wrongly for the compliance categories, so on page 8, lines 20 and 23,

we're replacing july 1, 1982 with july 1, 1992, same thing on page 9, lines 12-15 and same thing on page 10, line 6-14. then on page 16, lines 24, 25 regarding building permits, we wanted to clarify that there is no requirement deadline for the completion of the work so the quote will be notwithstanding any other provisions in this code, all workman dated by this chapter 11d must be completed within the time period specified in section 106a for .4, permit expiration of the san francisco building code, and then also in termser of the compliance schedule, we are giving property owners an additional point to obtain the required building permits, right now, we ask for in the legislation currently as written between the time that a property owner files for an application for the required

building permit, we give them three months to obtain the actual building perm, we are now extending the time to one year to obtain the building permit, we think that is very reasonable and it's something that after talking with the various departments, i think we've all come to agreement on. so, with that said, colleagues, i don't know if you have any questions or comments before we proceed to public comment on this. okay, seeing none, then -- okay, alright. so, we will go to public comment and then we'll adopt the amendments afterwards. i think i see virginia [inaudible] here, if you would like to come up first. >> thank you, supervisor tang, and good afternoon, regina [inaudible], the director of the office of small business, the small business commission has heard the legislation and fully supports it. i want to extend my appreciation to supervisor tang and deanna kezon and all the department and is stakeholders that have been involver over the numerous years to create the

legislation. it's very exciting, we are doing something that is groundbreaking and historic nationally and what is -- there are several thing that is are very important i think from the small business perspective with this legislation and what it's attempting to accomplish, and that is it's really bringing together all three departments to help deal with addressing the issues, title 2, we have an obligation to ensure under our title 2 requirements that we're doing as much as we possibly can to achieve access, and when we found businesses had a hard time when they were dealing with their entryway, dealing with historical preservation and dbi and dbw and trying to resolve the issues to make their entryway accessible and there were times when businesses ended up saying, this is just too -- trying to get through this is too costly and too time consuming and i need to get my

business open that they ended up not doing the right thing that they want today do, so it's sad for me that this really identifies where we as a city can strengthen our title 2 requirements and this legislation does just that with bringing our departments together, so that for me is very exciting because we're taking the stand to say that the civil rights of the individuals of our disabilities really matter to us and we're going to work with our property owners and businesses to help make that happen. and that providing the strengthen the access appeals commission is extraordinarily important to be able to have an entity to go to to help sort of resolve some of these complex issues and make some determinations. i also want to state that we will continue to work with our small businesses in promoting the subsidized caaspp inspection, even during this timeline,

businesses will still, if their entryways are not completely accessible are still required the meet their obligation while the property owner is working on their obligation. and we do have some support at the state level coming down where the state has put in some funding and i think it will be eligible in july of this year for grants for doing accessibility -- for doing accessibility on commercial properties, so with that, i just really wanted to encourage your support and express my appreciation to the departments and really excited that we're really accomplishing the goals of upholding civil rights here for the individuals with disabilities. thank you. >> thank you very much to regina and given her role in the small business commission, i also wanted the emphasize that i know there have been some concerns raised about potentially small businesses going out

of business because of these improvements, and what we're asking for is not actually supposed to put small businesses out of business, we have worked with business owners, for example, in district 4 who have already undergone these changes and improvements and they were able to stay open the whole time, we are not asking for you to make your path of traveler, your bathroom in compliance, certainly we hope they're making the efrts to do so, for our purposes, it's for the person can get the service through equivalent facilitation or the front entrance is accessible, so with that then, i'm going the call up our public comment cards. ( calling speaker names ). >> my name is [inaudible],

i'm the community organizer at independent [inaudible] center, san francisco, we are a disability rights advocacy and support organization serving san francisco residents with disabilities and seniors. we would like to strongly support and thank katy tang's office specifically with the collaboration that occurred between disability advocates and the small business owners to further the civil rights of san franciscans with disabilities to be able to access equally small businesses. now, we agree that it will eventually be a good for

small businesses because more folks with disabilities can be able to equally access the services they provide, so again, in conclusion, we would like to thank katy tang's office as well as the city departments, dbi, the mayor's office on disabilities as well as other disability advocates who have worked on this and we appreciate this legislation. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> iem bob [inaudible], i was an advocate privileged to be invited and to participate in this lengthy process and i mention lengthy because i think it's important for the public to understand that it not only took a long time, it took a lot of discussion, there were various city departments, staff and agencies represented. the conference room was

filled, there were people sitting on the sidelines, that's how much interest there was, how much energy and how much input there was to debate, to discuss, to question, to cross question, to re-examine. the very length of this legislation also indicates how thoroughly and well thought out this is done. i'm saying that so i help whatever i can to say, please recommend this to the full board for support. thank you. >> thank you very much, next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, my name is r.e. lee, one thing i would like to represent is the extremely poor people who don't even have a home, now, hear me out with this, think of steam lockers, storage lockers, there are tons of them, now you're doing legislation to help people who already have homes, i've been out at pier 85 xhs

spectacular, there are a lot of shipping containers out there and make sure your legislation lets people do this, there are a lot of people with wheelchairs out there and they would love just to have a small little home which a shipping container could provide. they're big enough where they can move in and there would be no kind of laws on anything outside, they're very handicapped, right, and san francisco is -- everything that san francisco does kind of radiates out into the country, that's why it's very important when san francisco does something, the rest of the world listens, now, the very poor, poor, i'm talking about people who have nothing and there are a lot of people out there with wheelchairs who i'm disabled myself, my left knee, even when you legislate something so it doesn't take so long, see, that's what you have to do, words are fine, but

sometimes you have almost no time left. anyway, do you understand what i'm saying? you have to make sure it's clearly done so that the people that are handicapped may not have much longer to do yet to get rid of all the paper process like taxes and things, sometimes you have to let it go but make sure the handicapped are first, my name is r.e. lee and i represent the poor of the poor of this city, and have a great morning. >> thank you very much, next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, good afternoon, budget sub-committee already, just kidding, yesterday ( singing ) accessibility for disability was far away, now it's you that have made it better today, well, i

believe in your city way, thank you, nothing's gonna turn your wheelchair back now, straight ahead and on the building track now, you're gonna make your dreams come true doing it your way, there is nothing you won't try, never heard the word impossible this time, there's no stopping you, doing it your wheelchair way, you'll make id today, make your wheelchair dreams and disability come handicapped hardships come true and i'll make it come true for me and -- and you. thank you. >> thank you very much.

>> [inaudible]. speak softly, love and hold me warm against your heart, i feel your weather trembling moments star ( singing ) we're in the [inaudible] that only few have every known, wine colored days warmed by the sun, the nights when we all were, speak softly loud so no one hears us but the sky, [inaudible] we'll live until we die, my life is yours and all because you came into my world with love so softly, [inaudible] jesus

christ. you should have like out of soul and historical tradition to promote the business. >> if you're going the sing, just want to make sure we're talking about what we're hearing in committee. next speaker, please. >> have a good day. >> thank you. scott howgi, [inaudible] insurance and i'm not going the sing, i own a small business, i've been very involved in this issue for about 15 year, i also serve on the california commission on disabled access and san francisco, we work all around the state, san francisco is ahead of almost i would say ahead of any other area in trying to deal with the disability issue and working with small businesses. i also come at this from a little different perspective. my wife has been in a wheelchair for five years so i do understand the disabled problems firsthand.

i want to congratulate or thank supervisor tang for this well thought out legislation. i was involved in some of the hearings and they were very intensive and a lot of different sides on that, but i think the stakeholders have been brought together and come up with something that's truly workable. i do think that it's terrific that you've extended getting the permits, i think that's important, san francisco generally is going to take more than three months, the aspect that there's no timeline as far as actually doing the work, i think that's important, i think it's also important that it addresses the entrances, obviously we'd like to see everything addressed but i think the entrance is a good place to start and i urge you to support this legislation. >> thank you very much, any other members of the public would wish to speak during public comment? public comment is closed and i wanted to thank mr. scott

howi, the last speaker because he has worked for many years on this issue, so thank you for that, and i neglected to go to mr. rose for the budget analyst report. >> madam chair and members of the committee, on page 6 *f 6 of our report, we note that two staff positions plus additional operating expenses -- i'm sorry, excuse me. >> ada legislation, number 2. >> sorry. >> yes, that is correct, that two staff positions plus additional operating expenses are estimated to cost 321 thousand 631 in the first year as summarized in table the 2, that's on page 6 of our report and this is for the disability access compliance unit. on page 7 of our report,

we're also note that based on approximately 3500 buildings per year, dbi would generate approximately 336 thousand annually from the administrator fees which are anticipated to cover the annual cost of 321, 631, that's the cost of the disability access compliance unit. our recommendations madam chair and members of the committee i believe are consistent supervisor with which you already stated, supervisor tang, i can read those into the record, we recommend you amend the proposed ordinance to add 6 additional month tos the compliance schedules for the time required to obtain building permits as shown in table 1 and the lead language that specifies that all mandated work must be completed within 18 months of the date and anl casing for a building permit is required to be filed unless an extension of time is granted and we consider approval of this proposed ordinance as amended to be a policy matter for the board of supervisors. >> thank you very much.

colleagues, i guess seeing no questions or comments, then again, i want to thank everyone would was so intensely involved in this legislation, i hope it makes a huge difference in our city, hopefully sends a signal to some of the lit litigants who have come around that san francisco is not a place they should be coming around to, and also wanting to make sure that moving forward, we are trying to time this as many buildings in the next phase of the seismic retrofit program are undergoing their construction to have this legislation be in place so that it's an added reminder that they need to do this work to make their front entrances accessible, so with that, then i guess if we could have a motion to send this forth to the full board. >> i'll move that. >> madam chair? >> sorry, the amendment first. >> so, after all that talk about the amendments, i would like to move that we take the amendments i stated earlier. >> second.

>> alright, so without objection, thank you very much, and as amended, motion. >> i want to again thank supervisor tang for her work on this, it's unsexy but important issue, i know you've been working on it in various forms for a number of years and i want to thank you for doing that, i'm happy to support this. >> thank you, alright, so if we can take that motion and send it forth with a positive recommendation without objection then. alright. thank you. if we can call the next item. >> item 3, resolution authorize thing director of public works to execute agreements with the california department of transportation pertaining to the third street bridge rehabilitation project for the amount of approximately 18.4 million. >> thank you, i think we have someone from public works here. >> good afternoon, supervisors, my name is rachel, transportation financial analyst with san francisco public works, i'm here before you seeking authorization for the director of public works to

sign and execute all documents with the california department of transportation also known as caltrans relate today federal grant funding for the third street bridge rehabilitation project. in the spring of 2015, our application for federal highway bridge replacement and rehabilitation program grant funding was approved. third street bridge also known as the franchises ki o dual bridge crosses over mission creek channel and mission bay neighborhoods, the bridge was constructed in the 1930's and now requires preventative maintenance to ensure existing damage does not worsen and compromise the asset's structural integrity, the project will repair damaged and buckling steel members, damaged well and is the concrete counterweight as well as remove pact result, this means you authorize public works to execute grant documents with caltrans for federal funds, without approval, caltrans will not finalize our design funding

and the project will not move forward. design is anticipated to last through the end of 2016 at which point we will seek authorization from caltrans to proceed with construction. we already have preliminary approval for the construction funding and we'll be seeking the additional 11.47% required local match through the current budget process. i am joined today by the project manager and we would be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you, and i saw in the packet materials there was matching funds of 2.3 million that were required and so i believe we had previously appropriated that, is that correct, the board of supervisors? >> sorry, what was that? >> that there were 2.3 million dollars in matching funds that required that were profusely approved by the board of supervisors, i wanted to confirm that >> that is the portion for the construction match. we have slightly modified the budget, so we are going forward with this current budget process to seek additional match. >> okay, thank you for that.

colleagues, any questions, comments? okay, seeing none, we'll go to the budget analyst report then. >> and madam chair and members of the committee, on page 9 of our report, we note that the total budget for the third street bridge rehabilitation project is 25 million 683, 636 and that's shown in the table on page 10 of our report. of that 25.7 million, it was previous appropriated by the board of supervisors and 5 million 5631 will be requested by dpw in the 2016-17 budget. on page 10 of our report, we note that the 18.4 million in federal highway bridge replacement and rehabilitation program funds requires just as you mentioned madam chair, the city matching funds of 2.3 million which were previously appropriated from general fund revenues by the board

of supervisor and is that was in 15-16 and 16-17 budget, we we recommend that you approve this budget. >> i'm going the open up item 3 to public comment. seeing no members of the public, pub welcome comment is closed, do we have a motion on item 3? colleagues? supervisor yee or wiener? >> i'll move it forward with recommendation. er >> okay, thank you, we'll take that without objection, item 3 has passed, thank you very much, item 4, please. er >> item number 4, resolution retroactively authorize thing san francisco department of public health behavioral health services to enter into an amended multiyear contract for substance use disorder services with the state department of health care services in the amount of 47 thousand 586, 924 for the term of july 1, 2014 through june 30, 2017. >> thank you for patiently

waiting. er >> i want to briefly thank the budget analyst office for the report which addresses and covers the issues quite well and if you have any questions, i can speak for hours about this topic. >> alright, colleagues, any questions, comments? >> no. >> okay, and i think maybe when the budget analyst gives his report, he can talk about the second amendment then that we have before us. >> yes, i can state, madam chair, and members of the committee, that the legislation we note on page 12 of the report retroactively authorizes the second amendment to the city and did state for the department of public health to accept state funding for [inaudible] to dph in 15-16 by a net amount of 7.2

million, that's 11 million 883432 to 8 million 298365, it thereby increases the total contract not to exceed amount by [inaudible] we note on page 14 of our report that dph's total 15-16 budget for substance abuse service iss 68 million 675, 040, that includes the subject 18 million 298, 365 from the state under the subject contract, table 2 on page 14 of our report shows the total sources of the 68.7 million in funds fwr the dph15-16 substance abuse services, we recommend that you approve this resolution. >> thank you, and just in general, i see the increased funding is related to federal and state share of drug medi-cal services and