tv 2022 Chinese Lunar New Year Celebration SFGTV February 23, 2022 1:00am-4:01am PST
so those are the 2 hardest hit areas and it sort of corresponds to the idea that the places that are most directly reliance on tourists and offices are the hardest hit but there's no sector of the city at least at the levelof the district where you see sales tax recovery from before we were in the pandemic . but weekend of january on her happy to prepare that map and send it to the commission if you're interested >> that's a great question to jump in real quick i would be fascinated to see a heat map on where we are aheadof the curve in business formation and where we are behind . >> i'llsee what i can do >> that would be great to see it geographically . i like that you have it kind of broken downby industry as well here, that's really helpful . i'm wondering i guess in your expertise i guess what are some additional data points you would love for the city to be
able to track and be able to see because kind of weird looking at the health of our economy right now but are there other things that we could be tracking that perhaps we don't for whatever reason that you would love to be able to see to see an evendeeper assessment ? >> i think we sort of when we started doing this report, we thought about what are the indicators that are pretty easy to get our public information that can be updated every month without too much of a left. i can't think of an indicators that the city has that we think are really we don't want to report tobe superlong . i can't think of any indicators that wefeel like you're missing . there are things that the city regulates that are very interesting.
some of the questions we spoke about that haven't gotten an indicator . for example we had conversations with the puc about starting wateraccounts and closing water accounts . that's not something set up to create as an indicator but talk about geographic detail. they know everyone. they providewater for everyone . and they know how many people, how many residential customers have shut out their accounts and how many residential addresses haven't turned back on so they have principle better data on things like residential vacancy or migration than what we've been able to look at but in terms of fully baked ready to go indicators uncomfortable that without planning to be completely exhausted we have a pretty good estimate. >> if i could and i apologize
commissioner for interrupting but something i would like to see is asking commercial rents, particularlydowntown . one thing i've noticed anecdotally is that the commercial asking rents appear to be kind of like the coyote when he chases after roadrunne . he stays up in the air above the cliffs. the prices don't seem to be droppingthough we're seeing vacancy decline . >> that's right and i'm sure you remember how thatcartoon ends commissioner . at the moment there is a bit of gravitybeing defined . i think it would be an interesting indicator. the feedback we've gotten when we chaired other presentations is that asking rent is and ask. it's not the nitty-gritty what actually happens. one of the things to keep in mind with that kind of indicator now is there isn't a lot of leasing activity going
on and there is a lot of uncertainty i thinkon the demand side, the tenant side as to what they need .and it probably will take the pandemic reallybeing over . the new rules of the hybrid workplace getting settled before businesses can make a rational judgment about what their office space needs really are. >> just to push back on that just a hair directionally, some idea of what's happening with asking rents would i think certainly be of interest. even just in terms of being able to communicate to people thinking about starting a business or openinga business . theylook, rents are going down. well, they're not going down . but part of i think our work is going back to the primer and pump analogy is trying to encourage new businesses to come. i'd like to get a jumpstart on that as soon as we can if there's an indication rents are dropping, i just haven't seen it yet.
>> i didn't mean to say number we're happy to do it and we have that dataand it would fit on our vacancy chart already . i don't want to oversell the value of theindicator . >>enough and i apologize for interrupting, commissioner huie .>> my question is we have been doing a lot of work with our racial equitysubcommittee . some of that work is also thinking about how do we look at data in terms of or how do we look at equity and use the data to kind of keep up nuances and also help us understand what the overall landscape looks like. like, we looked at access to funds. we looked at other types of metrics in the past but i'm wondering what types of things do you see in terms of thinking
about the recovery and how we are recovering. like, it's quiteclearly not the same for everybody . >> yeah, and unfortunately at the local level we're only beginning to get data of what 20/20 looks like from the resident side with a sort of socioeconomic details. the 20/20american community survey i just started looking at that last friday . but there's obviously a wealth of information that's going to come out from that in later months to inform that. there's also information on the demographics and business owners but it's pre-pandemic. that people have looked at for a long time and there's also information that goes not incredibly up-to-date but it's from 20/20 and early 2021 on
employment like kinds of business in san francisco by race .so one of the issues that i don't think people on about in terms of the importance of small business, and i'm not even sure if it's true to the data point that it's interesting to look at is small businesses doing a better job or a less well job hiring from diverse populations. that's something that data does exist and i haven't seenanyone really look at . in terms of what happened in the pandemic we're dealing with nation national data and it's a complicated set of issues because on the one hand you see the industries that many ethnic and racial groups of employment are highly concentrated at some point more than the most suffering as well as the greatest exposure to public health but on the other hand you see a massive amount of
federal stimulus at least for a year and ahalf over the pandemic . and so it's been a complicated picture somehow. done okay and other households have done not so okay and what happened in 2020 and 2021 probably doesn't a lot of what 2022 is going to be asked the federal, the effects of the federal stimulus there isn't that the tax benefits and those kinds of things and at the end of the day were coming back to the leisure and hospitality industries that lost 40,000 jobs for example. the reality of the economic recovery hasn't been for a lot of people but it's going to hit this year and next year. >> you verymuch . >> thank you. i don't see any more questions. one last question for you, ted for we let you goand thank you
for all this excellent information . why do you track highway state ? >> i was interested. >> i was interested in highway speed early on because i wanted to know if it was an indicator ofpeople not traveling . and very quickly it was an indicator of people traveling. then it was just interesting to seethis divergence between transit and driving . and i really track to see does that continue? for example did we go into a world in which downtown opens but people don't like transit still denmark and its traffic speeds get worse than they were wild heart still haven't recovered or did we get to a world where just we stayed with the traffic we've already had all thenew kind of re-occupancy of downtown comes through the increased transit ridership ? that's really the reason and i
think it's very important your question coming ofthe pandemic and that's what i want to take a look at .>> i think it's one interestingthing about is theindicator of how healthy the economy is doing . as highway speeds go up , things aremore shutdown. people are staying home . yes. it is the opposite of good. okay. so before we let go we have to check in on public comment. matthew, anypublic commenters on the line ? >> we have one person. >> commentor, please proceed. >> can you dome? this is stephen cornell . stephen cornell from the council of district merchants. one comment and a couple potentialquestions . on the indicator of puc and the water lines, i'm not sure how well that would work a lot of buildings have only one waterline going into it with
multiple tenants. maybe dg and he would be another indicator when somebody moves out, the dg and he will usuallyreferred back to the owner of the building . a course when the new one starts up you will have a new, somebodyresponsible for it. maybe if they'll give it to you , pg and e would be a great indicator. on the sales tax for wii including whatever companies like amazon is chipping into our city and if so, can you pull that out and it would be interesting to see that. those two different figures, what the total sales tax is withamazon company and without . that's one and since you're
coming up with an analysis and doing it through the comptroller's office and we are now in the middle of a budget process, what kind of advice are you getting to the department and board of supervisors and are they taking it number one and number two is does the controller have any control over okaying a budget from your advice , your indicators are saying the hotels may not comeback for a while that will obviously make a difference .thank you very much . >> thank you. ted, if you wanted to respond i want tomake that availableto you . >> i'm happy to . we will see what we can do about the teaching together because that would be interesting. i think that the trent pg and e datawould be interesting even if we're talking about commercial buildings . with respect to the question about the sales tax it does not
include what are called sales to the county pool which is coming from out of town online deliveries. and simply by merchants that have an address in that district. i could also share that presentation that has that map so thecommissioners can see what i'm talking about . that one is kindacorrect as it is . with respect to the second point about the controller's office, there is a division of the controller's office that we work with that prepares revenue forecasts and the core function of the controller office is to ensure that the mayor and board of supervisors have accurate financial information. one of the stories mister cornell might not be aware of or might be aware of is the
moment there's a huge divergence between the city's economic story and cities fiscal story. the city has never had a rosier play, it's been a while since the city had such arosy financial condition and its a combination of things like federal funding over the last couple of years . decreased pension costs because the stock market has done so well . increasedrevenues from new revenue sources or because of tax increases . so the controller's office is regularly speaking with decision-makers on budgetary issues and their regularly listening but it's a time in which the economic news is kind of less driving the budgetstory that normallydoes . we will have to see how long the good news last . i don't expect as mister cornell was suggesting we're going to havea fast recovery in the office market .so we will see but generally the controller's office has that covered very well.
>> president:ted, thank you for your time. we very much appreciate this report . it's full for us and helpful for everybody that pays attention to these things and we appreciate your work and everything you do for the city. >> thank you very much. >> president: next item please. >> ted, if you don't mind handing back the controller. maybe i can do it. thank you. okay. item 4, accessible business entrance program, this is a discussion item. the commission will hear a presentationand receive updates regarding accessible business entrance program and today we havejust likely with the department of building inspections . just let me get you the presenter . >> excellent . >>welcome jeff, looking forward
to this and thank you for joining us this evening . >> thank you president laguana and members of the commission. i have been before you i think it was the fourth quarter of last year when we were asking for anupdate , asking for your support for an update on the accessible business entrance legislation thatpassed and the mayor sponsor . we figured you would come back and talk to you not only about where we've been but i think more importantly kind of where we're going. and the work that is coming ahead of us. so want to makesure you can see this . >> we can, you are good to go. >> as i mentioned, the legislation for the accessible business entrance program actually originated in the office of small business working with then supervisor
tang and now executive director tang so the legislation that passed extended theprogram deadline 2 years . the purpose was to help property owners comply with state and federal accessibility laws and also ensuringpeople with disabilities have access to private services . they do this by requiring existing buildings that serve the public to feature primary entrances that are accessible to people withdisabilities . so again, some of this is similar towhat i presented last year but just as a refresher , essentially anything that provides a good or service to the public is considered a place of public accommodation. there are a number of these including bars and restaurants, offices on the ground floor as well as grocery and retail stores in anarray of other businesses and services .
so we have an upcoming deadlin . this june and that is to comply with our compliancechecklist . there are a number of ways that property owner can do this. the first is by doing a priestly screening form so they can certify their qualify for the program. if they believe that they should be away from the program there is a waiver form that they also can fill out and lastly a categorychecklist compliance form . this is for property owners who really understand they need to renovate their property to come into compliance with the ordinance and it can be completed either by an engineer or architect or a certified access specialist or task inspector. that's part of thesite inspection . and then after that is occurring there are two deadlines. one is at the end of this calendar year and that is for
applicants to be able to file their application for building permit. if they do need to make renovations to their property they need to do it by the end of this calendar year and ultimately , that application will go in and the deadline for them to have brought their property into compliance is the end of september 2023. and as a reminder of the legislation that passed last year didn't changereally any of the categories . i believe there was a recommendation to move up the. by which we allow more time for submittal to smallbusiness owners . there was a concern about there not being enough time to submittal of the checklist and be able to file an application so we moved up that deadline and also the deadline forthe application filing . to be given. so if you are a property owner,
compliance is required. really it's also in your interests and something that we are pushing on people to see as beneficial for them and the people theyserve. thedeadlines are coming up fast . june will be here before we know it .and ultimately, we need to make sure that these businesses are accessible to our propertyowners. and to people who need to access them. ultimately , if you are one of the property owners and ultimately or a business owner within a propertythat needs to be renovated , talk toyour property owner about it . make sure they are awareof it . one thing that we strive to do is to improve the information that we have available to property owners to make sure that we from the city are not a barrier for them to be able to access information as it relates to the program or to be able to file the necessary paperwork to come into compliance.
so ifyou haven't had the opportunity , our website at sfgov.org is great.it provides step-by-step information about how to file . gives you timelines on how long it takes to be able to do the work andkind of guides you through every step in the process . and so we're trying to make it easy as possible but we also need to make sure that this ordinance goes into effect and that people have access to goods and services. ultimately if we can keep our small operating owner community from being served with any litigation as it relates to accessibility , federal or state accessibilityrules. with that i'm going to stop sharing my screen .and here to answer any questions that youhave . >> great. commissioners, do we have any questions ?
while they are formulating, jeff i want to thank you for all this work and certainly avoiding ada legislation or litigation is topic du jour as they say in the small business communityand definitely a challenge so anything the city can do to help achieve those ends is helpful . vice president zouzounis. >> vice president: thank you jeff for comingbefore us again . and all the work you've been doing and i just wanted to say thank you for also being so hands-on with our market groups and the neighborhoods that have been hit the worst lately. chinatown, mainly. is there feedback that you all are incorporating with what information actually sticks and
how you're putting it out with some of our merchant communities that you are talking with? or is there a conduit that you work through or is ddi offering resources to these business communities? >> commissioner zouzounis, i'll take an aspect of that and i may pass it over to the office of smallbusiness to talk about the merchant reported . but part of ourstrategy is to focus on property owners . we understand on the ground it's not always that simple but when it comes to who is required to come into compliance we see it as an issue withthe property owners need to come into compliance and we are sending letters . we sent letters last month and we will be sending postcards also the properties that we believe are out of compliance for have not submitted their checklist . so we're going to be focused on
those property owners. i think we're going to try to do it in a way that's not your typical city letter. we want to do it in a way that grabs attention. so that's been i think the take away that we've heard from the engagement that we had with the merchant community in particular and then i would pass it on to your staff to talk about the small business support because we arereally in the ddi side more of the enforcement . >> understood. we will check going inwith them later on that . vice president zouzounis, your good austin markcommissioner dickerson . >> this is really good news. i can tell you a few situations on third street where there has been an issue with the ada.
the walkway and i remember when they were implementing that when i was having construction done on my building i was working able to get it done because the mandate happened right when i was in construction but there were two businesses i know for a fact that could not open their business because the owners were putting the responsibility on the tenants to have the ada compliance or all the renovations done and it hindered them from openingup their businesses . i wanted to make sure i was hearing this clear that their responsibility is on the property owner and not on the businesses that are renting th space . correct? >> to be clear our enforcement is on the property owners. the property owners are going
to be the focus of noncomplianceefforts . that's what we focus on. it's not as we understand it it's not always that simple on the ground between the property owners and the commercial tenants . we are aware that there are times where commercial tenants may have because of the lease they signed with the property owner there may be some desire on the property owner to have the commercial tenants do the work to bring that into compliance but our enforcement is on the property owner. >> thank you so much. >> thank you. jeff, can you tell us how when businesses apply for the determinations, has there been any businesses thathave gone through this process yet ?
how is that going in general? >> it's interesting you mention that. this was a subject of the discussion at one of our recent subcommittees is taking on this issue and trying toclarify what those rules are . as of now i don't have numbers at this moment about how many have applied or filed for those but what i could do is follow up with our staff and come back to you and let staff know how many we've received. but i do know this is something that is currently being worked on and it's really to clarify what exactly the criteria is for receiving that type of hardship. >> i think we would be interested in learning more about that part of it and certainly there's a lot of businesses that have been experiencing hardships . we just had a speaker before
you talking about everything that's happening downtown and we are trying to hang on to every small business like a precious jewel because the minute we lose them, it's very difficult and a lengthy process to replace them. so whatever we can do to help these folks stay in place would begreat commissioners, do we have any other questions before i go to public comment? last call . matthew, anypublic commenters on the line ? >> we have one person left on the line . >> there's one person, you said western mark okay. commenters, please proceed ca stephencornell from the council of district merchants . one comment and maybe 2 comments. this came up many years ago when i was on the commission 100 years ago or whatever and we had free inspections out there and one of the biggest
hangups was businesses did not want theseinspections , the freebies which i thought were terrific idea . they thought this opens themselves up to put their name on the list and they were afraid of lawsuits coming down like if they were told this is, the door doesn't (or whatever and then they don't do it and all of a sudden things happen. that's a big hurdle to get over even though thecity tries to do something . the question i had a little bit off but businesses, it's access to the business. yourfront door, your sidewalk andeverything . they're all part of this responsibility . what happens when we have say homeless hanging out in front forputting up a tent .what happens when somebody puts up their table and is putting, selling merchandise that we're
seeing a lot of, especially in around fisherman's work or mission street? who's responsible? does dbi come in and remove them or is that still in responsibility of the building ownerand the business ? because they do inthe traffic to a business . thank you. >> president: thank you. jeff,you are welcome to respond . >> sure, so dbi is responsible for building safety. where notresponsible for the exterior of the property . that's either a dpw issue or i know there's almost a resolution teamand other meetings to be able to address that issue . but dbi is focused on the interior of properties and integrity and safety of those properties.
>> president:thank you. matthew, anymore public commenters on the line ? >> there are no more public commenters. >> public comment is closed. jeff, thank you for presenting this to us and we look forward to hearing more about how that hardship program is moving along and let's stay in touch. this is an important topic moving forward, certainly. >> thank you commissioners, have a good night. >> president: next item please. >> board of supervisors file 211296, administrative code amending the family fun and friendly workplace ordinance.
this is a discussion and action item. they may take action on an ordinance amending the administrative code to provide the family-friendly ordinance that employees shall be permitted a flexible or predictable working enrichment unless such an arrangement would cause an employer undue hardship, requiring employers to engage in an interactive process to find a mutually agreeable lexical or projectable working arrangement andstrengthening enforcement or make other changes. today we havefrancis hsieh presenting. do you have a slideshow or need anything like that ? >> i do not have a slideshow . >> president: francis, welcome it's a delight to have you and we look forward to hearing about this legislation and the floor is yours . >> thank you chair laguana and good eveningcommissioners. francis hsieh, legislative aging district 1 . thank you for considering this item and inviting our office to present.
i know your staff provided a great review of the legislation so i'll try not to repeat too much but provide more background and context for the legislation as well as some of the supervisors thinking behin introducing it the legislation before you as an update to a law passed by the board of supervisors in 2014 . it was offered by supervisor david shou and it gave employees a right to ask for flexible work scheduling particular to that.but as we know, there's been no change significantly since then even withoutgoing through a pandemic without changing everything . a lot of situations have changed since 2014 and how businesses run and work. last july knowing we are in a different place, supervisor chancalled for a board of supervisors hearing about this topic . it was really to help our
office understand the rights thatworkers have under this ordinance . kind of to consider any improvements we could make to give workers more flexibility and just overall understand what may have been waiting for on the 14th. basically the july zero confirms a lot of these things we already knew. that while the legislationback in 2014 might have been forced for some , work employees to begin sort of critical conversations with the worksite. we knew that it didn't help many workers particularly the most vulnerable andthose that had the most demand on their time. we heard a lot of concerns about administering the benefits . we took all that feedback and did a little bit of research on our own. also with the office of labor standards enforcement, others stakeholder groups and some of
the changes that we've heard about that we are seeking to draw up with this update is the increased need for flexible he. 80 percent of parents with children under five are in the workplace and 25 percent are single parents so the need is great. we also found out 32,000 workers lived with elderly family members. and so many more are actually part of this new sandwich generation that is at home taking care of both their young children at home as well as elderly family members in their home and were all living together. wherenot so nuclear family in san francisco anymore part of that is to be able to afford to live here . we heard stories about workers having to drop outs of the workforce to meet their family obligations which causes a lot of disruption not only for the worker but also the employer to
havethat lack of stability in the workforce . and the overall effect is we also saw a lot less diversity in ourworkplace and particularly as we up in positions of leadership . we also heard from a lot of employers about the need for support and technical assistance and just help administer these needed kinds of mandates san francisco puts on employers all the time so what we have before you today doesn't just update the law to definitions of family but also seeks to expand this access to more workers as well as provide some support for both the employees and employers to negotiate restrictive situations and find resolutions that works for both parties. so he features of this updated policy are now requiring employers to provide flexible
scheduling except when there are cases of unduehardship . we're establishing an interactive process to the employees and employers to help identify practical solutions and working arrangements that will really work for both parties and include flexibility at theworksite . we also are directing working employees even before the pandemic we were receiving seeing an increase in that and to address what happened in th case of telework . also covering more elderly family members other than parents. all of our families are working different and often care for other family members that are just their parents. we also are changing the penalty structure for violations because we understand the cost of care can be different from situation to situation and there isn't one standard for what that costs.
and then that allows the city to kind of pull our blessing off of the standards and sort of order appropriate standards, not just one across-the-board. what we haven't changed is the existing exemption for small businesses with fewer than 20 employees. that seems to have worked or at least we haven't heard that many complaints since 2014 so that is one thing that seems to haveworked. what also isn't completely new is the standard of undue hardship .we borrow that language text to director taylor from the san francisco black patient ordinance which she passed in her time here back in 2017. it's a standard that's been working so rather than create a new one we figured we'd use something that ifit's not broke . we're going to use something that has been in place and has been working and not create a
new standard. that's new to this ordinance but it's not new to the city ordinance and osc is also used the standard. ultimately, behind all of this i believe that when an employer and an employee can have a continuing dialogue about what that worksite looks like and what an adaptive work schedule looks likewe have benefits all around . flexible scheduling helps boost employee morale. it helps improve job satisfaction and for the businesses they seegreater employee retention . they see lower turnover and greater productivity from the workers that have that greater morale on-site. we are operating under the belief that the vast majority of businesses want tomake this work and in fact many already do make this work . we also understand there are just some business models and shelters where this won't work. and that's why we kind of built in the ability to havethat undue hardship standard for not
forcing businesses to accommodate but for the remaining businesses , that we excuse me really want to have a wayto facilitate a conversation . and really encourage businesses and their employees to make this work. we've just gotten, we're on the edge of getting out of two years ofglobal pandemic where we have to figure out how to make everything work in a different way . now we think there is not the time but it's to continue that progress forward to figure those conversations and figure out howwe make this work. so that works not just for the employee but for the employer . does with that commissioners w hope to have your support tonight . i'm happy to answer any questions you might have. thank you very much. commissioners do you have any questions. commissioner huie. >> thank you so much for your
explanation and presentation. just a couple of questions. one is i'm wondering when your were referring to the support for employers what specifically is the support that this new piece of or i guess even the old legislation and nowadding to it would give . >> one of the pieces that the legislation, it didn't happen in the legislation after it was approved was increased budgeting for the department to do some of the outreach and education for employers . so that is something. although that's not a piece of the legislation we are seeing it and we talked to director mulligan at ol as he. we've made a commitment to support additional staffing for him so that he can adequately administer it but also some
additional funding to help with that outreach and technical assistance component. one of the things we heard from businesses that was helpful is just basic things like templates,faq. workshop or like an online video about how to make it work . how do you post notices and what do those notices look like or which osc has committed to doing. it isn't funded in this budget cycle so it's part of the budget add back process so that's one piece that was sort of in the package that we are continuing and also expanding because we feelthat works . it will work better when we help people, when we inform both employers and employees about it and help them make it work for their site. the second thing that's new to this legislation is the
interactive process between the employee and employer where olsc does come inbut there is back and forth that happens and we help moderate that . so that we can get to a resolution so on the employee side they don't just like up and quit or sue the employer or make a claim from the outset. we encourage that dialogue and try to make them figure it out. we have a couple of steps that are called out in the legislation for howthat works . how the back-and-forth works and how much time there is in between those steps. just so that we're ensuring that it is a conversation that's happening and it's not just anoutright , you don't go from 0 to 60 right off thebat . >> i guess i'm trying to understand or maybe this is the second question but in the ideal like working situation,
how does this ordinance come into play and like the hr real ? if the employer is aware of this are you hoping they will proactively offer a flexible work schedule or let everybody know , we're going to be doing this or is this more kind of a employee would be somehow alerted of the ordinance and then file a complaint against the employer ? >> i'm hoping there are no complaints filed. in an ideal world, there are postingrequirements . the employer has many posting requirements, this doesn't just become another one of these and we would hope what that posting might look like could be included with whatever normal
posting you have. and then what we would hope is yes, the employer already has a proactive approach. what we're hearing isgenerally , we don't have a whole lot of complaints actually. employees when they're asking for these typically are getting it. one of the things we heard during the hearing is that out of almost 300 inquiries that the department received there were only four investigations that got started so the complaints are very low . i think overall this is something where employers are working withemployees . like, we're talking about those cases where somebody has been we've heard horrorstories about being denied just a half-hour accommodation . but i think really, what we're seeing is that employers are
already doing this. definitely coming out of the pandemic there has been a lot of flexibility.we figured out a lot of flexibility. we're justtrying to figure out how we can keep doing that . hopefully thatanswers that question . >> yes, i feel like in my experience when i'm seeing as an employer is really that the market forces have already kind of created a situation in which we are being as accommodating and as flexible as we can.and most circumstances because we are all trying to retain team members. so that's why i guess i was wondering about the amendments in terms of bringing this back to the forefront. and other pieces, in terms of flexible work schedule or like flexible the term flexible i'm wondering . is there a definition for that
background? what is considered flexible versus not flexible because one specific scenario i can imagine is that there are some positions right nowthat are full-time positions . let's say a full-time front desk kind of position where you have to have somebody there at that time. and you can't do the work remotely. but should you find it hard that up into two positions, now they kind of become to hopefully full-time positions because you don't want to take away some of these benefits because they're kind of falling back on their hours. i know that's up to the discretion of employers but should you be an employer offers benefits just to people, that's another kind of expense. i'm wondering with with that be something that is considered flexible or where does that spectrum look in terms of undue hardship . and things like that, not be
able to find loopholes of course but because we're already seeing that it's so hard to find people to work in our businesses asit is . >> absolutely and i think that's exactly where we want them to come in because every worksite is different. every business situation is different. and every employer and employee relationship isdifferent . idon't think there's any one definition of what that flexibility looks like . one worker whose trying to if we need to draw up children in the morning. >> ability to look like a 30 minute later shot. for someone who has an elderly parents and needs to be taken to an appointment that might look like 30minutes shifting your lunch break . i think every situation is perfect and what we wanted to make sure there wasn't is that ability to have that back and
forth between the employee and employer to work it out because while some employees might accept the part-time solution but might not. and then it's not for us to dictate or anticipate as these things go to workplace situations but it's what we're trying to do is open up that conversation so that you can work those out. it's up to the employer and the employee to figure out. what does that stability look like, what works for the employer, what works for the employee and kind of come to full resolution as opposed to for example the employer just decides okay, you're going to go part-time now and i'm going to post this down to you . and that might or might not work for the employer but once we have this sort of iterative process where we can go back and forth a little bit, the employer and employee can come to that resolution and is not for us .what is flexible he,
>>. >> i think when you do kind of writing into a board meeting into something like that it is you are dictatingthat there is some definition of flexibility . in some manner that there should be compliance or discussion around. so i think i'm wondering right now. i appreciate your bringing this up to the small business commissionand i'm wondering in the review process or in the interactive medication process, is there someone who will be kind of advocating for the small business owner as well . to use the example again like when you said 30 minutes. could that person just come in 30 minutes later and i can just think about in my private practice, 30 minutes is like who's going to check in my patience for 30 minutes so i'm
going to have to start my whole day 30 minutes later and then like i'm losing not only 30 minutes of time but i would be seeing patients. not me but it's like there's the whole shift that happens in businesses that are at scale i you're talking about 20 people . most people play a crucial role especially if they're coming in right now and notalready on the work schedule . so my question really is is there somebody who's not only just advocating for the worker from that perspective but the nuances that happen when you do open your own small business and recognize you have to shift the whole scale of the business often times to be able to accommodate. >> is what we are talking about in terms of providing extra resources so that they can do
that kind of outreach and education support and frankly the tech support assistance which is what it sounds like you're talking about. i think this is part of the reason we have exempted small business because it's worked in prior legislation and the department hasn't received you know, complaints that hasn't worked. i think the complaints were mostly around like, what ost said their investigation around whether theemployer followed the process . not that they denied accommodations. so i think what that points to me is in large part this is we're able to figure out what works and we're able to accommodate their small businesses for the small business or businesses working to accommodate their employees . otherwise i think we would have heard about this one and gotten
a lot more people protesting and up in arms about this. but there has been inflation. you know, i don't know if there is a lot of people who come in complaining in this case. i know to the board of supervisors there hasn't been a ton of complaints. >> i do for answering my question in your time tonight. >> i do. francis, i don't know if there's any other commissioners asking forquestions . so i have to guess the couple of my own. i want to commend you and commend the supervisor for really trying to make space for workers who need or could use a little bit of accommodation and i understand you're trying to
facilitate as you said a couple of times a conversation . so i want to acknowledge that that's real. i think i don't know if you were able to catch the first half of this commission hearing tonight but we had ted begin talking about the challenges facing our recovery at one of the challenges we've seen is our pace of small business openings is has been actually declining evenpre-pandemic . a pandemic has acceleratedthis . and at the same time we're seeing a surgeon hiring to the point where now are unemploymentlevels are approaching pre-pandemic . i think it's at 3.9 percent currently which is putting as you might imagine a lot of pressure on small businesses
who are struggling to find folks to work for us. and i think there is particularly for the smaller businesses who are particularly susceptible to even minor changes in employment level, i just say if an employer said a order for me to work i need you to blink a really every day i would bring than a lily every day . because i really need the small number of workers i have. i desperately needand i will do anything i can . obviously i can't sacrifice the business but i'll do anything i canbeyond that . so one of the first questions i have, you mentioned this that you weren't really seen complaints coming from small businesses . and i presume by complaints you
mean the workers complaining to olsc. what size of businesses are you seeingcomplaints from ? is there a number where these seem to be gathered? is it businesses with i mean, one could imagine a big corporation like pg and e where it's a lot more bureaucratic but isthere a size of business where you see most of these complaints being centered ? >> not according to the department or olsc. there wasn't a specific kind. i mean, largely the inquiries that came in came in from a more white-collar worker. so sort of the larger corporate
businesses. they weren'tnecessarily inquiries . they were complaints, therewere more inquiries . from those level of workers, the only request when they heard from businesses was mostly for information and as i said the technical information. if i'm going to put together applications what should the application formlook like ? what should be on it? what should my posters look like? where should i post them? it was those complaints so it was more assistance about how topublicize and educate and what the requirements might be on that end . lesscomplaints about it in general . i think as you said, a lot of employers recognize that in
order to retain the workers there all these small accommodations you make and generally we're talking here at a very specificcase when it's about their giving responsibility . we're not talking about having to go see a baseball game or whatever it is. it's not arbitrary. it's something that has to be centered around getting and whether your kidsare older people in your family . so i think that's why i say by and large employers are granting these and their accommodating them . so really in some ways this law is playing catch-up to what is happening and it's by and large happening with most businesses but we are sort of moving back to reflect what all businesses should be doing. because if most businesses can make this work, all businesses
with some limitedexceptions and that's why we usethat undue hardship standard . there will be businesses that aren't able to do it . some things you can't telecommute. some businessesthat model is just not going to work .>> so i think if i understood you it sounds like the body of complaints comes from larger businesses who maybe have more bureaucratic processes in plac and less likely to come from smaller businesses like the ones that the commission represents . you know, i'll just point out i know there's often some confusion about this in the city . but most of our small businesses, the cohort of businesses in thecity is actually pretty stark . so most of your small businesses are 100 employees
are less and that's how we define it in california law as well . then you have a small number but i think it's around 2500 larger businessesthat have over 100 employees . so most businesses just in broad numbers are small businesses. it's about 50,000 ifmemory serves . probably less now):. some of these numbers are unfortunatelypretty old . but i guess the question i would have for you is whether you thought that the supervisor might be amenableto an amendment to increase that threshold . let metell you why i'm raising this question . what when i think about a business that has 20 employees, to me that sounds like a small restaurant. that's pretty close to the average size of small to medium
restaurants in thecity . and then of course in a restaurant i've worked in restaurants. most of us have. it'sour first job or second job, sometimes our hundred job . but not everybody has the same position. you might have ahostess or 2 hostesses . you might have a bartender or three bartenders and five waitstaff and 2 short order cooks and maybe two or three chefs and a dishwasher and busboy. there's allthese different rules . and you know, it seems to me that naturally in a restaurants which is a pretty dynamic situation to begin with and you're already doing everything you can to hang on to your employees, there's a lot of
give-and-take about scheduling just naturally. it's just built-in. but it's into that natural give-and-take if somebody walks into that process and says you know, i need my son. i need to pick up my son or daughter from school at 4:00 when they get out. so i don't ordinarily you would need me here at 2 pm. but my accommodation request is 4:30. and as a result, the other employees, there's no room to give them that accommodation in the future whenthey need it . because all the available oxygen of accommodation has been by threat of the punitive
aspects of this legislation the employer feels that i don't want to get a $50 a day fine. i don't want to be responsible for the cost of care. yes, we're going to give you what you want about i have no flexibility for anybody else. on the one hand i worry about the lack of flexibility in an environment that may be in a normal situationyou might be able to say okay . yes, your son gets out of school at 4 but could you ask your partner two days a week to come in and we can work with you on the other two. can we worksomething out ? instead, because it's this threat of a olsc complaint at the possibility of funds that the employer feels more than need to just dowhat's requested . i certainly would feel that way. so then the question would be do you think there's some
openness or flexibility about raising that number to capture more of the larger employers that seems to be where the body of complaints is and not tie up smaller employers in something that there's already a pretty healthy conversation goingby all accounts . >> i quickly want to look at the data for that. since this is not a piece of the legislation we originally touched and it's already in here in 2014 and from what i remember them supervisor chu, there was a lot of negotiation over this legislation so in some ways we didn't touch thatbecause we were like hey, it seems to have worked . we know we did a lot of work around this . and we actually haven't heard that requestto increase the
number sense that legislation had been in place . it's not one year, it's not 2 years, it's seven years ago or eight years ago. that number hadbeen in place . so we kind of want to take a look at data and want to take a look at why we would revisit something from that period. i will always say supervisor chan expressly committed to revisiting legislation. she's definitely not a one and done person. she's worked in city departments in all different aspects and understands that legislation changes and grows and we probably shouldn't have taken this long to revisit this because knowing how dynamic our workspaces and our business community is , these types of legislation should be looked at alittle more often and updated more often to reflect what's
happening . and if we're wrong and we didn't find that it is difficult for businesses a little bit larger than 20 to make this work on our worksites we'd absolutely revisit the legislation . i hesitate to see something that's been in effect for so long.the first time we're hearing this is an issue is seven years later .>> to be clear and to be fair, where i'm coming from is a place of wanting to support the legislation but a fundamental aspect is the legislation that supervisor chan changed from what supervisor chu had is that it was originally anemployee requesting dynamic and nowit's an employer providing dynamic . that is the part .these are 2 codependent never variables so i understand why you would
look at it and say to yourself well, the 20 threshold wasn't an issue. but the way the legislation was previously it didn't have as much peace to it as it does now. so now that it has a bit more teeth toit , that changes the overall dynamic. that would be my reaction. and i'll just say i don't think a lot of people in the business community or whatever reason this wasn't on the radar and then all of a sudden my phone is getting blown up that heard from allkinds of folks . i think that there is some concern there. but again, i want to emphasize i'm coming from a place of wanting to support the legislation i also want to be mindful of the fact that we are doing fairly poorly with respect to small businesses in
general . and i don't want ... i don't want this to be something that really employers feel obligated to do and it's not even ... for a small employer it mightnot feel like a conversation . it might feel more like this is something i've got to do or i'm going to incur some pretty significant fines .and i have one more question or thought but i think commissioner huie has asked to speak so please proceed. >> i just wanted to voice my support of what you are saying, president laguana. because that's entirely what i'm seeing if this is that minor change from requesting to requiring is a huge change when it comes to also ... i don't
know if it's a power dynamic but it is in the conversation in the interactive process, the small business owner is going to feel under the thumb of having to do this and having to make whatever concessions, not even that they can but make concessions thatthey can . i do believe that we are currently and we've been in an environment in which businesses do not feel supportedby our city . they don't feel supported sometimes by even their community. so that has changed. if we're going to look at our neighborhoods and cities recovering , i think the experience of owning a small business, it should be a wonderfulexperience . and it's like right now, putting in more and more roadblocksin front of them .
it's just not a good time. so i just wanted to lend my voice to this particular piece of the conversation because i do also want to see that we're all finding that people can have flexible work environments that's one of the beautiful things about entrepreneurship is i understand how powerful that is. i can choose how i spend my time but i also feel like we have to be cognizant of how legislation can sometimes feel punitive to people. and it can not always be the most encouraging routetowards a solution . that's just my little interruption so thank you very much. >> thank you, chief ortiz-cartagena. >> i definitely want to focus on what she was saying about
thevirtual deployments , especially after the pandemic i think we need to look at this altogether becausea lot of people choose to work part-time . employees, you could have 40 or 15 ftes on a small business. like commissioner huie, it did change a little and the language isdifferent . i guess i agree with my two commissioners and iwanted to add that . >> president: iq. francis, commissioner huie brought up something i've been thinking a lot about lately which is it seems to me that historically, the city's
approach to small business is when it's looking for policy outcomes and their often if not always wellintended . but the approach to seeking these outcomes is usually it takes on a punitive nature instead of an encouraging nature. i know it's not the time to have this conversation but this particular legislation, i want to make a brief general point that i think it would be helpful to see policymakers go through a process where i understand the knee-jerk instinct is to want to say something's happening, that's not good . how can we punish employers into doing what is best for the city? it would be interesting to see if we took a little more time and thought how can we encourage employersto do the right thing ? what if there was a for
instance in this case and is not appropriate for this legislation but just as a hypothetical what if there was a tax credit for doing flexible work arrangements for some other thing that might be a value to employers or the city. some way of encouraging them and making them feel that this was the path of least resistance and also one that made life easier for them at the same time making it easier for the employees. i'm raising the general point. i understand i'm not trying to rewrite this legislation but just a thought.the question aboutthe undue hardship . again, this is the part where things get a guess the little swirly when we talkabout businesses that are small .
i think one of the first things employers are going to do when an employee presents the letter or the request for a flexible law or this ordinance. naturally the employer will be what is this, i'venever heard of this. i'm going to read up and find out . i think it's another concern for employers particularly the smaller employers that are not don't have attorneys, are necessarily nuanced . what is the criteria for an undue hardship or undue burden. and i know looking through this list, the first one whatever section it is 3 a or whatever. the identifiable costs including but not limited to the cost of productivity lost. hiring employees or transferring toanother facility . so i guess i just want to point
out that for a small employer usually particularly a small business, labor costs are a wide margin your biggest cost. it's the one thing that is usually labor followed byrent followed by supplies . those are your costs. maybe supplies trump rent but neighbor labor is always your biggest cost. if i didn't need the worker for that half hour, why would i bring them in and pay them? if i think about the undue hardshipquestion, the identifiable costs including but not limited to the cost of productivity lost , that suggests there's some kind of judgment here about how much productivity costis enough to trigger the next phase ?
so maybe ... and i think for an employer it's like at some point or another that's afairly subjective analysis . i think we can all agree that if it was going to result in a business closing that obviously is a cost that easily meetsthe threshold . but what if it's reduces the employee, businesses output or businesses performance by some fairly marginal amount. how marginal is too marginal. how does the employer know it's a reasonable position to take to deny the accommodation even given all these other and herons need and desire to accommodate the employee to
beginwith even withoutthe legislation . how do we know where that threshold is ? >> again, that's why we didn't create a new threshold . this is not some threat that we are looking for a definition of what that hardship might mean and that is a significant expense or what operational difficulty would be . or what counts as productivity and what that cost is. we borrowed it from legislation that has been in effect since 2017 in the last ordinance. so this undue hardship standar , this entire section was pulledfrom the legislation . so again, we're not trying to necessarily create new standards and hardships. what we're trying to do is say okay, this is a thing to be
able to define what would be a hardship in this space and in many ways this is also about accommodation and flexibility about caregiving . it's in the same wheelhouse of what we'retrying to accomplish here. rather than create a whole new standard , we should all from existing standardsthat is fairlywell related to this piece of legislation . i think employers , it's 2017. the employers have been, have been retired to implement that more to undue hardship standard that for tonight. so we are somehow we've been able to negotiate through that and figure it out do employers have been able to call cross that out. have been able to make a case for all and we've been able to account for whatever that whol process is . i've been doing it since 2017 .
>> we're creating a new thing that employers don't have to do. they have had to figure out how to make an undue hardship stick. >> i do understand that iwasn't suggesting or i didn't intend to suggest . i guess i could have asked ray's asked the question a little bit differently. i understand that there's legislation in place that establishes what this undue burden hardship is but so far it's just with respect to nursing stations. that's not something that most employers have encountered. so i guess the question is how do we can indicate to the employment community or to the employer community what that threshold is because i'm just telling you that myself from reading the law, i have no idea where that red line is and i have to make a decision without
reviewing case law which most of it i don't think is even public to beginwith . so i'm as an employer i'm ina black box . i don't understand where the threshold is. i understand that it has been adjudicated in the past but i don't know how those cases turned out. i don't know wherethe threshold is . so i have as an employer going back to commissioner huie! that scales are tilted heavily towards getting the employee whatever they asked even if it's if it is a burden to me because there are significant penalties if i guess wrong. >> we don't want employers to makethat guess. this is what i talked about with the technical assistance . andworking with osc so that you
can actually get that support . we absolutely heard from businesses that that was a concern. it is a concern for many of these mandates that san francisco passes where i think we all feel really great about saying that san francisco california is a client but then we don't help the businesses figureout what that means . so that is definitely the commitment we see. it's not something you can write into legislation but to advocate and osc has made a commitment to actually have the staffing were built in. that there is the way that they can call and say i need some advice.my employee is proposed this. this is businesses, i grant x, y, and z and does that mean the underlyingstandard in your eyes. they would be able to help walk you through this .
that is really a technical assistance that wetalked to the department about we're imagining . it's not just for the employee is more about just letting folks know that this law is out there. for theemployer , that is about understanding how to, i don't think the idea is there's just a format. we hope that employer, and have whatever information you need on that forum. whatever disclaimer, all of that stuff is already on there and help you work it out before so that it becomes pretty standard. and what the process is, the employee applies and you take a look and based on x, y, and z you either approve it or deny. or you call that employee and say hey, i can't really give you 45 minutesbut i can give you half an hour . that is part of this is it's those conversations that make
it work but often times because we are for whatever reason, and both employees in and employers, they don't do that back in their house. i get it for the businesses in the room and i've heard most representatives do this already. we're talking about that small business that don't. and i absolutely hear you about the sort of part. but i think in general, when you have employers and employees who follow the law. these laws never touch. we are trying to bribe them up and are taking advantage of the law and are taking advantage o employees. actually making it tough for everybody . it is a badapple that requires us to do some of this . i think to the degree that we can have sort of that positive encouragement we tried to.
i think that's the challenge with this law. there isn't a place where you can you know, as you mentioned with tax incentives. i think what we need to try to put in here is our conversation about flexibility and that influence between the employer and employee and encouraged that to the degree that we can so we don't lose that she space. we do believe and i think what we do see has borne out is that that bears out in the vast majorityof the cases . we're trying to provide structure in cases where it doesn't work out and they need that structure and they need that process. >> i understand and appreciate the intent. i'll say that we and the commission have often heard from minority owned businesses. english as a second language businesses that navigating these technical assistance
isn't always where we want to be. that's assuming that the business owner even has the time to avail themselves of services and that's a secondary challengebut i think we cover that topic . vice president zouzounis, i see you raise your hand. >>. >> you for the back and forth everyone. i think we're getting down to the actual level that a small business is going to see this through. osc has a technical assistance resource for small business owners. it's not a real known thing for small businesses. what, that's not whatthey're going to call for instance that they have . so there needs tobe a cultural shift there . it's really we are goingto have technical assistance for the business owners , and understanding how to make a job application to write an actual
response to arequest , that covers them and whatever that takes. i would love to learn how to the office will partner with arts indicating that. you did mention they were going to do a proactive outreach aroundthat and i'd love to know what that entails . i think that order of operations here that we're trying to get to, we understand the intent and we want this to be conversation, not punitive faith but on paperis going to play out like that ? my question is and if this is in the legislation and i missed it please forgive me but what point is the employee entitled to make a formal complaint about the business? do they have to wait until they get an actual likeofficial type
of denial ? what form does that come in because there could be misunderstandings here. maybe a business owner said wait, let me check in on this and theemployee thinks that's a denial . they get caught up in a process thatkind of jumps the gun . so i'd just like to understand if we're committed getting to a small business owner you have to go through each of these steps to follow through on this process, and then the same communications to them the employee so there not jumping the gun with a complaint before the due diligence the conversation happens. that's kind of my question her . if that makes sense. >> absolutely, it's an excellent question. there are some steps spelled
out in the legislation as well as timelines for windows things have to happen to make sure things are dragging on for months and months at a time. however, i think some of your questions are more implementation which as policymakers there's only so much we can write into the legislation and so much we can included with it. we have to meet our intent to the department and we would certainly work with them throughout the implementation phase to make sure that a lot of these issues that we are hearing do get addressed and how they implemented . but ultimately olsc will be the body where that final complaint comes in and go take a look at and if the employee went straight from misunderstanding into a complaint they would put push it back on the employee and say you have to go backto your employer . that's how we envision it and that's how we would envision the legislation. that's how we would make sure
olsc is implementing it. i can't guarantee it because we don'trun the department and are legally prohibited from doing so . we would certainly commit to them as they are putting together those steps. like, these areflags that we heard and we want to make sure you address . and that knowing and i also address the language issue that for us that is a huge thing for our office also in my previous life in the board that was one of the things i did was help train city employees on the ordinance and how to put that information out there. we still have a long way to go as a city and we certainly the intent is not to penalize people for that. this does have an obligation that is to make sure that it does that educational model language and we should be
penalizing businesses for something that isnot the city's fault for putting out that information in an appropriate language or format. >> thank you for the response and just so you understand where we're coming from , we've seen time and time again the city make legislation which they're asking smallbusinesses to input , implement a larger cultural environmental lever shift that is the aim. the technical assistance piece is never written in. and it's always the mitigation always happens after the fact and by that timewe've moved businesses . so that's just a frustration that we've seen with the economic mitigation, the technical support mitigation not coming at the sametime as the legislation . so maybe it's an education we need to have with the board.
like what are the parameters in what you're not allowed to include in implementation or what's going to be at the behest of the director after the fact so we can understand how much we can push with this legislation because this comes up allthe time . >> will agree with you 100 percent. it is just, we can't direct departments what to do. we can write the policies and it's up to the mayor and executive branch of government to direct departments and there is a very clear line between what we can direct. i think most of us, many of us try to partner with the
partners and have a good relationship and try to help implementation to make sure that implementation sticks with the things that we'veheard, the visions of the legislation and all those pieces . but we can't actually tell the department what to do with its budget . we can't actually even with the things that we add back in the budget process again, what's in the budget in some ways is fully up to the mayor to put in and we can advocate. we become the same kind of advocacy folks at one point to try to get those things in the budget. we're generally very successful because ultimately we still have the power to approve the budget or not but there are limitations and i think that'sfrustrating . i hear yourfrustration because we share that frustration . but it also is about a separation of government . the legislative branch shouldn't be doing everything but we should work as partners and i do hope that we can do
that because we are the ones hearing all these concerns. we are the ones that understand those concerns and want to mitigate them as well and it is our intent to work with the department butthere are some barriers just legally for us to actually direct departments on what to do or how to do it . so i absolutely hear your frustration and i don't know what more to say but we are committed to seeing this legislation through. we did it with our neighborhood business legislation where we actually did see it through and worked with the department to make sure we're staffing and fully rolled out that program and we're makingthe commitment for this legislation we made that commitment with every piece of legislation we work in . we've been in office for a year so maybe we don't have a huge track record of it yet but it absolutely is something that in past year where legislation just won't become what it could
become because of the implementationimplementation and where not there to help guide it as well . >> we would want to work with you with the small business commission and work with olsc to see what that technical assistance lookslike . >> i think that's definitely something our commission and our leadership can have in general with the board. i think with oe wd because we've also seen ewb we support technical assistance between other departments and small businesses but we've also seen city benefits like mediation services or any kind of resource that the city is legislated never gets out to the small businesses. i also don't want to waste the
supervisors time and making laws that are not going to be routinely communicated to those that have to facilitate them. that is i think an important piece for us in this and i know it's structural maybe beyond your review but i think it's something to take back to the board and let them know this is a theme. thank you. >> thank you. besides i just have twomore questions for you . we've beencovering you with questions . usually i do want to say for any members of the public that may be watching, it would typically be the case that it would come before the commission, then go to the committee and go to the board. it was reversed this time because the committee in question only meets once a month andgiven we only meets twice a month , we are now in
sort of ... it's a sharper territory when we are the last stopright before the board . it really feels like we have to do everything we can to represent the interests of small business community and we don't have that insulating layer of another committee hearing afterwards . i want to point out that a little bit of the dynamic here too so i appreciate your patience for wading through these questions . good the first question i have ofthe two questions i have remaining, where almost at the end . is about thepunitive aspect . when the agency determines of violation is secured, the issue a determination order and appropriate relief including an administrative penalty up to $50 for each day or portion
thereof.that the violation occurred or continued. or, and this was added in the legislation or up to the cost of care the employer or person whose rightswere violated in due to the violations . now, i didn't see where cost of care was defined in the legislation. certainly given that some of the triggering events that could trigger somebody to seek a change in their working hours for flexible working conditions is severe, taking care of somebody who's severely ill or needs medical care. there is a question here in my mind about whether now i'm potentially liable to the cost of somebody i don't employee up
to their medical care or particularly because it also says up to the cost of care incurred due to the violation is greater so ifgreater than the $50 . i think one concern for me given particularly for small businessis there's no limiting factor here . i don't identify. there's. there's no way for me to know if and as an employer how much liability i'm incurring by potentially getting into a disagreement about the employeesrequest . so in other words, i could be liable for up to $50 a day or i could be liable for you know, let's say somebody needs around-the-clock nursing care . and oxygen tanks.
who knows what else and that's 150 an hour. and then i now liable for $1000 aday, $2000 a day ? i'm exaggerating slightly but also walking you through. i know that would be an outlier but that also would be what the employer would have to consider as possible come particularly if we're talkingabout somebody who's trying to take care of somebody that still . do you think ... i guess this language that was added up to the cost of care, perhaps you could talk about what the supervisor's office was thinking would be covered by the cost of care and second, you could perhaps talk about whether or not you feel that perhaps there could be some sort of reasonable limit or on how much exposure a small
business might have if the ball didn't bounce their way or it turned out the olsc didn't agree with theirassessment of whether it was an undue burden . >> i think part of it is up to olsc to determine based on the facts presented in the time of the situation. we'retalking about if they found that a violation had occurred . i think our thinking behind it was $50 a day was way too low. i don't know about you but my kids are grown now but not background. but they don't need daycare anymore but even if they did which was 15 years ago, $15 a day would not have. it might have covered the penalty for picking them up
like five minuteslate . but it's recognizing that. >> i have to jump in. >> $50 a day doesn't cover anything. >> i agree $50would cover an entire day of care . but if the employee needed an entireday of care for the child , then they wouldn't be able to worktoday at all . generally i don't agree with fixed numbers because inevitably they wind up being out of whack due to inflation and other externalities. one would think you would say something more like one half of their daily wages for a quarter of their daily wages. and now you have something that's attenuated to you know, whatever that particular employee might make or however minimumwage might change in the future .
$50 a day might have looked like a lot 10 years ago might look like not enough to buy a stick of gum and 50 years from now. so i'm with you on that but to your point and have raised two kids myself. if you need to take care of kids all day than it sounds like you couldn't work that day. >> no, no and it's perhaps a little bit of misspeak. but even for an extra hour $50 is going to cover that. what we're thinking is that amount, that fixed cost doesn't seem to cover if a violation havebeen found much of anything. that's why that cost of care is in their . and you would have to work out with olsc again what kind of documentation is provided and howthat amount would be
determined . i imagine it is an arbitrary determination . >> okay, sure. i can accept it would be arbitrary but istill don't feel like i have a sense of again . it getsback to the same issue as before . i asked an employee or have no ideawhat my exposure is . and looking at this legislation cost of care, it's not defined elsewhere. perhaps it's definedelsewhere in the city code, i don't know what is not defined in this legislation so idon't know what my exposure is as an employer . i don't know how olsc will interpret it . with the cityattorney , with a give guidance on how to interpret this legislation ? >> we're talking about implementation which you know, i can speculate but i can't
give you aguarantee . typically when it comes to damages and it comes to all those things yes,the city attorney's office does involve . yes, there's astandard . yes,there's a process .we deal with claims all the time against the city and specifically in the case of a violation. a determination that a violation best has occurred will really try to dissuade people from getting to that point and being found in violation. >> of course. >> $50 is not going to dissuade somebody from potentially denying. >> i mean, given that olsc doesn't happen instantaneously i as an employer could rapidly envision the clock ticking. >> is from when theviolation occurred .
it's not when the employee filed something until theend of time . specifically they have to make a claim. we are trying to keep this type to acertain period of time and for a specific violation . and not for the employee to file a class actionsuit . it's specific to, we've gone through this entire process. all the denials, all of this. a violation at the end of this it found. >> i had a olsc complaint we had to deal with and in my opinion we eventually agreed it was notfiled in good faith . it took a good 60 8 weeks to get to the bottom ofthat . i seem to recall something like that and my business, it was very stressful. first because you're angry because this isn't right.
it's notjust but will they agree . will i be able to get this resolved . so i guess i understand the cost of care part but over and eight week period, let's say somebody was asking for an hour off to take care of a grandma who otherwise would need a nurse for let's say like a hospice nurse which that can be pretty expensive. i guess i'm just concerned about the lack of a limiting factor . there's no real sort of, you know, there may be as a practical matter they may have reasonable limits but to me as an employer who's trying to
figure out how to navigatethis stuff i don't have any visibility in that . >> i know what you're saying. i think the supervisor and she said it has been open to amendments and if there's language you can propose that helps to define that better or that helps provide that, we would love to hear it and we loveto see it , see what it looks like. i know it's unfortunate, the timing that we would hope to meet before thislegislation . >> i understand. >> but to that case we don't anticipate this being before the board until the march 1 meetingwhich gives us several weeks to actually go back and forth . and if you have proposed legislation you can look at it and there's plenty of time to introduce this atthe board or send it back to committee and if it's substantive .
there is time is why we felt w could go with it . this is not going to be up at the board before april. >> so is not going to be at the board tomorrow which forall i knew is the case and i've been in that situation before by the way .>> not at all. if that were the case we had would never have had permission to go before the committee and weknew because of holiday scheduling. >> i'm not upset about that . >> the proposed legislation or language to address a lot of the issues we talked about. >> last question and we will go to public comment and i will get you outof here . i want to also thank ofc staff and commissioners for hearing me with all these questions. earlier you spoke about willingness to revisit the legislation. i guess the question for me would be how would you or the
staff know if it needs revisiting? in other words, i can see what success would look like. you're not getting any complaints from employees . but it's not necessarily an even distribution of complaints between employees and employers becausefor every employer there are 20 employees . if we had one 20th or we could have far less numerical complaints, but still as a percentage of the whole, there are 400,000 workers that work for small businesses andthere's only 50,000 employees or employers . what's the threshold for revisiting this? >> absolutely. i think it isn'tnecessarily a
specific threshold number . we are very interested in implementation, working with this body and with the olsc and we want to continuethat dialogue as well . we are happy to do a check in after this has been in implementationphase for a certain amount of time . i think we want to hear from this body what makes sense to do that check in and do that temperature check and just say whatare you hearing ? all these things came to light and is it worth, are there other things and all sorts of legislation have unintended consequences bothgood and bad and once we can't anticipate . absolutely something else that none of us thoughtof could have triggered a bigger problem . we would want to hear about that but we want to hear about it immediately, not after
whatever percentage of complaints. but if the city is at the point wherethis body is about it and knows about it , that's good enough for us to say okay, let's reopen and talkabout . >> i wish it always worked like that. >> that's how itshould work . >> that is how it should work and yet it's not. i think our inclination after the past few years is to be very cautious about the health and safety of our small business community because so far we're fighting a losing battle here. we have our work cut out for us. but francis, you've been very generous with your time. before i let you go we need to
go to public comment. check in one last time with my fellow commissioners ifthere are any last questions or comments before we go to public comment. matthew, is there any public commenters on the line s and mark . >> we have onepublic comment. >>please proceed . >> caller: stephen quayle again representing the town district merchants . i have to say what sharkey said is perfect . we haven't had anyinput on this . this is something that needs a lot of work and it's the suggestion that having a threshold of 100 would be perfect. i have to say there's a piece oflegislation that affects a bunch of businesses . my group has businesses in all the littleneighborhoods . every one of them has businesses that have between 20 and100 employees . i went out and surveyed a bunch of them over the weekend. not one of them has ever been consistent, questioned by your
office as to how this is going to beworking or what are the problems withit . if you're going to have legislation , i think bringing in the people who are the recipients of that legislation should be part of it and i think the office is going has done a poor job. to my knowledge there's been no outreach to any organized business community and neighborhoods that was done. there certainly hasn't been any of these hardware stores, the restaurants, and the grocery stores. all of them have 20 to 100 employees. also, all these businesses do not have hr departments. and as sharkey saidearlier we want to be , we need good employees. we dothis . what you're adding in is the whole layer of paperwork and stress or businesses to do it on theirown basis . this is not good. i think one, raising it to 100
as the thresholdbut more importantly , sending it back to committee and before it goes to that committee, bringing in businesses that could give you some advice as to where the problems are. where the opportunities to fix it is a way to have good governance and this is not having good governance where it's just buyingone side coming up with an idea of what's going to happen. you very much for the opportunity . >> thank you. are there any other public commenterson the line west and mark . >> commissioners, first of all, francis, obviously you're not obligated to respond to public comment but i make it available to you if you did want to respond.
>> i feel like we did outreach. we were told that we've worked with the office of laborstatus enforcement that has a distribution list .and that out tothat distribution list . i don't know what to say. >>understood. commissioners, i think it's time to make a motion . having heard ithink questions from each of you , i don't want to just dictate a motion. i want to talk about whatmight be an emotion and see if that's agreeable with everyone . so i think based on what francis saidearlier , one thing that i think we could do is
support this legislation contingent on raising the threshold to 100 employees which it sounds like based on what francis said earlier that most of these complaints are among larger employers and that would certainly i think get out most of our small businesses although not all because there is a curated thing that happens with restaurants where you have these restaurant groups and their cross like four or five restaurants there might be over 100 employees. but i think these employers with less than 100 employees are generally going to be inclined to do everything they can to be flexible to begin with . so i would first suggest that weraise the thresholdto 100 . second , if for whatever reaso that is not acceptable ,
whatever we can do to raise the threshold would certainly be agreeable. then i would also recommend that there be some kind of reasonable put on these finds. i get a little math in six weeks at $50 a day. that's 42days, 2100 . i would recommend perhaps we could do a cap of say no more than 2500 four in the alternat , perhaps i'll be thinking about this. no more than 100 hours of employee's hourly pay.
which would be a bit above what thecurrent minimum wage is in san francisco but wouldbe a number that would be flexible . there's some sort of limiting factor here . third , i've heard vice president zouzounis talk about technical support, perhaps a recommendation that technical support for businesses, english as a second language and disadvantaged communities that that be written into the legislation that would support. i think i caught the meat of the cap. we talked about the size of th businesses . we talked about technical support. i think i caught most of everything we talked about or at least the major aspects of that so is there anything else?
>> would be included in technical support giving a small business a better reference point for the hardship or the accommodation and maybe templated examples or is that all part of technical support ? i know that webrought that up a lot . >> yes. i mean, if that's a yes, sir no question you're answering that i think the answer is yes. i don't, i'm not 100 percent sure ifthat's a yes, sir no question . >> i guess in our recommendation we leave enough space for what makes sense for the board and department where toput these recommendations . you know, if you can't legislate they provide that technical assistance can you legislate that oe wb does?
i don't know. >> another way i guess you could get there is i think we just say it's up to the electives and policymakers but we tried to directionally orient them that some form of tone technical assistance should be baked into the equation. i don't think this body is equipped just yet to make a detailed enough recommendation. one can imagine. if it was a middle layer and i don't feel like i know what i'm playing with here. maybe we directionally orient
the board and say technical assistance and let them figure out what that means . hopefully we would have more experience figuring that out or maybe that's a conversation that we are to borrow aphrase from francis facilitating over the last few weeks , which i am pleased to hear there's some time there to help kind of zero in on what's right. so if that all sounds reasonably agreeable to everybody or i'mnot seeing anybodyvigorously shaking their head no . then carry . >> motion to support this legislation contingent on three factors. one being raising the threshold level of employees over 100. 2 being reasonable funds. no more than $2500 or no more than a certain amount of hours ofemployee pay . and three , providing technical
support more explicitly in the legislation. >> on the second one i want to convey that thoseare just suggestions . and we're trying to start a conversation about that but we're not trying to mandate. >> house a reasonable finds. >> yes, reasonable kaplan finds for example $2500 or how many hours ofpay . that could beagreeable . >> i think it's important for the record because something that we care about is helping small business employees actually get the benefit that big businesseshave. big business employees have . we don't want to create a threshold that then knocks small businesses out of education resources and tools
to give their employeesbenefits to . so i think that's important to get on the record is we want to not be punitive to micro and small businesses but we still want them to have access to the resources that big businesses have fortheir employees . whatever that number landsat for that threshold, please keep in mind if we can include this language in our recommendation we want small business employees to be able to have access to olsc in the same way . >> that's interesting.what we commissioner huie, speak up at this point. feelfree to interrupt or anything , that's fine let's just have a conversation . you know, perhaps like the right way to split the apple
here is to set the threshold for finds at 100 employees. so take all the punitive measures, set the threshold for that 100 employees and some of the nonpunitive measures just raise it just slightly so that we are not getting not burying businesses without hr departments and resources and having to deal with a lot of paperwork.i understand your desire to get max resources but in trying to balance it against the limited ability of really small businesses to beable to . >> i've also seen us negotiate this threshold before when it comes to employee benefits and it ends up with her not getting towards our goal of helping smallbusiness employees get
those benefits to . i want tomake sure we're also findingbalance in . >> i'm trying to islands that . it's just that i think our job here, you asked us. i think we should even ask this question as commissioner huie excuse me about who is representing small businesses . in front of olsc, whose advocating for them . and certainly asked somebody that's worked as an employee and somebody who struggled, on that level i can understand where you're coming from but i feel like and i'm just saying for me our role in this process is just totry to represent and navigate for the small business . so when we balance thosethings , i guess where i'm willing to sort of bend isto say okay . let's maybe 100 threshold for
just any interaction with this law whatsoever. i get it now. we are closing the conversation but perhaps by just taking out some punitive measures it actually is a conversation and that's something that's loaded with a whole lot of possible exposure to finds and stress. >> i'm more amenable to that to just 100 employees and then a small business whenever know about that they can havethis conversation with their employee . we need more tools like i said to help small businesses implement this stuff even if it's informal. >> i do want to say that francis indicated that there has not been a lot of complaints from employees in
smaller businesses and it has been mostly larger businesses so i think when each employee is 1/20 or 1/30 of your entire workforce , there's sort of an inherent need to want to be accommodating as much as possible and otherwiseyou're going to be in trouble . you don't have room to mess around with your people. you've got to be straight with them and it's got to be an even exchange and there's some bad actors out there but they don't stay in business for long. because nobody wants to work for them. so commissioner huie. >> i feel like we're at a point where were negotiating with ourselves right now. which leads me to, i don't know
if this is within our scope to put on the table but i'd like to offer that since we do have time in the timeline and it sounds like the outreach has not quite been as robust and we would like to advocate for i know again speaking of equity for our small businesses i think understanding the outreach already done and the protection will outreach is important in terms of getting diverse voices involved in this conversation and i'm going to authorize i guess that we've done a fairly good job of like keeping back to date with the different merchants associations . atthe chambers , all different types of sectors associations and during the course of the pandemic i think this has become much stronger thanin the past . if our relationship can be of help in your outreach process, i think anyone of us would be
willing to deploy those to be able to get more feedback beyond just what we're talking about here. so in terms of pushing for more small business advocacy i would love to see a little bit more outreach to kind of see what people in this particular sector would be thinking. >> i think it's an important point. every person on this committee has a lot of other communities, a lot of other small businesses and i would generally encourage any supervisor to reach out to anyone of us or all of us when thinking about passing legislationthat might affect small business . i'm always mindful.i actually francis, i wanted to reach out to your office. i heard other people were
peppering you withquestions . i also had other demands on my timebut going forward , certainly we are happy to have these conversations before a commission hearing and unwilling to be good-faith partners in crafting legislation so commissioner huie,i agree . but are you saying you want this in the motionor are you just putting that fight out there . >> i don't know. i'm putting that out there. at this point, not necessarily puttingin a motion but if anybody feels like that's an important issue . i do feel strongly that there should be some sort of mall business advocacy along this process. >> i agree. i guess that's therole that
we're playing . >> but even in the interactions like conversation that asmall business is going to be having . when we talk about technical assistance in sounds like let mehelp this business about what to do in this process . it's not really like, i don't know if that person is going to be on the end of that technical assistance is going to understand what it means to have todo xyz . and i feel like that's been the problem when it comes to you know, the small businesses navigating the bureaucracy because generally people who work atcity hall have ajob . they get a paycheck . somebody that owns a business does not get a paycheck. it's a very different perspective that i think is totally misunderstood which is why we're always this kind of impasse.
i don't think people see that small business owners have to take on such responsibility that financially, for many people it's a huge responsibility and often times it becomes a burden when that responsibility isnot working out in their favor . >> one can imagine how different the dynamic the city would be that if theyscrewed up they didn't get paid for a month . like, that would be different but that's the reality for a small business is if something goes wrong can have a material impact on their personal finances in anegative way . yes, i hear you. i'm going to have to think about that one. i think the commission needs to think about that one. how we might, i wonder if there's something we can come
up with. some mechanism we could promote that would enable i don't know. one would hope for a little bit more thoughtful representation about size. i think the goal here all looking for is a good balance between the worker's interests and interests of the small businessand how do we help them survive and succeed ? that's a really ... that's the holy grail. i thinkwe're going to have to stew on that one and as usual you've given me a lot to think about commissioner . all right, let's get back to this motion. so let me see how this bounces against everybody. a threshold of 100 employees for any punitive measures including administrative fines either olsc or payments to the
employee and then this would enable small businesses to have this conversation and technically subject but doesn't have alot of teeth . so gets everybody you know, if it's helpful to engage with the process but it's less fraught for the small business. then i would say yes. does that seem like the right balancehere ? i'm looking for anybody shakin their head either way . i'm seeing a lot of ... >> i think you summed up the compromise from our conversation . >> carrie, do you have that? >> support this legislation
contingent upon raising the threshold fornegative measures to over 100 employees ? okay. >> and then trying to debate whether we should raise the threshold for just period so we can get most of the smaller restaurants something that's like inherently time-consuming to deal with. >> i would push back on that because i think once you get over 50 businesses, you have some kind of human resources support. >> i agree with 50 but i guess the question for me is in that number between 20. >> from the 2100, that's where the technical service fees comes in and the actual intent of this legislation to tryto bring people into compliance . i don't want to lose that piece. i still think that's important for the left, the last two
years we've been through service workers and small businesses all needthese tools and training . >> fine, well we have a hard stopfor compromise, i'm not going to mess with anymore . so carrie, you have all that. i think everybody understands the motion i'm making. do we need to reread it before we ... >> so contingent upon raising the threshold to 104 punitive measures including more than 100 employees forpunitive measures .but we didn't decide to addanything else to that ? i miss that. >> i was debating whether that 20 thresholdshould be raised . but that didn't, that didn't get a consensus level that i'm seeking. we're just going to stick with the hundred employee threshold
for funds . that is point number one, point number two was the technical support and point number three was reasonable. >> so keeping the reasonable even forover 100 . >> correct. >> and just to be clear why do i care about the reasonable? it's small businesses aren't necessarilyimpacted by thefines to begin with . this is why i care . we just heard from controller ian that our downtown is in a sort of catastrophic place. and all of these larger businesses and the larger business environment we have so many small businesses that service these larger businesses. they are the ones that are the
janitor teams that go in and clean up the sandwich shops that serve the workers and so i just think that it's probably helpful to the business community overall to just have a reasonable thereand that's their suggestion . so i guess if the board disagrees that ihave to take thisup . it's a suggestion . >> is there a second? >> i'll second. >> i'll second. >> can by commissioner ortiz-cartagena. i'll read the role.[roll call vote]
>>. [roll call vote] >> motion passes. >> i really appreciate your patience. i know that was lengthy but we felt for whatever reason in the sequence here that we had to have an extended conversation so iappreciate yourpatience . >> thank you to you . >> thank you for the robust conversation . >> good evening. next item please. >> item 6, resolution making findings to allow teleconference meetings under californiagovernment code 54953 . this is a discussion and action
item. >> i imagine we're all in the mood to have a lengthy discussion about this this time . i make a motion to approve. >> is there a second? >> can we go to public comment ? >> you're right, we do. >> are there public commenters on the line? >> there is no one online. >> seeing on public comment is close. i need a motionto approve . looking for asecond . >> i'll second. >> i'll read the role, commissionerdickerson . [roll call vote] >> motion passes.item 7,
racial equity committee update, this is a discussion item. the committee will discuss evaluating questions on the racial equity toolwhich will provide a lens to use for future policy analysis . >> who's presenting? please proceed. >> i didn't plan to put it up, can youput it up ? >> give me one minute. >> basically, this will send with the agenda. this rubric we created and reallywe had this conversation before commission before . when we were first trying to field some criteria for how we as the commission are evaluating legislation and commission business based on
our racial equity mandate. so we honed what we heard on the commission about whether some kind of greater questions we can ask ourselves internally or even asked back to the presenter. when something is brought before us. we honed that conversation a bit on our racial equity committee. and carry came up with this concise kind of four bullets of what are our line of questions to make sure that we are analyzing legislation with equity in mind and really posing those questions to the presenters as well as our
selves because we are analyzing so i think this item is just to show it to thefull commission . see what you all think. i think that these are really good. i think we had this structural tool beforehand because i've seen so many laws that come before us that had unforeseen byproducts that we could have teased out if the city really did have this type of structural mandate but legislation beforehand so hopefully this will be a really good policy for usmoving forward. what do you guys think ? do we want to read through them? you see them? >> i can see them find.
>> reading now. >> i feel likethese are good questions . just to ask in general. like, these questions were brought up i think even during our lastconversation . or just the conversation we just finished and i think it helps even frame equity for small businesses. because we also think about businesses of scale and like all of these differentthings to . i feel like these are nice framing questions that give you room to go further as well.
>> if i could add one thing the committee talked about was that when we have somebody come present to us i will share these questions prior to them coming and letting them know that these are questions that we are going to ask and letting them prepare for that and it will also include legislative reviews . to the extent possible i will try to figure out all of these and we can ask the sponsors of legislation as well. >> so here's something i'm thinking about.these are all great questions so that's my first initialfeedback . building on this really important work and thoughtful questions, i'm wondering is there a heuristic that we can employ that you know, is there
one question that really embodies the values that are expressed here that we could actually bake into our conversations with policymakers when it's an action item? and i guess out of the gate, the first questionthe very first question seems like a big candidate for this . what i'm imagining and tell me how this resonates with you guys but so for instance the conversation we had. thank you for that presentation francis. it's really great to hear everything you said. before we go to commissioner questions, just want to remind commissioners that one of our core values is wondering who will benefit from or be burned
by this proposal geographically,ethnically or linguistically . some sort of reminder that's actually bake into the meeting itself.obviously i'm not going to, it doesn't seem practical for us to read through all of these questions and try to answer them within the context of everyitem that's presented to us . but maybe there's an even more efficient way to sort of remind the commission much inthe way that we do the land and knowledge meant . is there an efficient way to remind the commission of the values that are embodied in this tool before we go into our round ofquestions ? i don't have an answer right now. i guess it wouldjust be a question i would pose to the committee to think about . and get some thought to and
maybe it's not a great idea, i don't know but it's just ... >> we don't need to ask every presenter each question. i think it's the tool for ourselves most importantly. i would say like maybe the one for me that sums it all up and really what we've also commissioner huie said case in point in our lastconversation . and then policies we've seen before where we had to petition the board to create new legislation to course correct what they didn't plan for in the first iteration. i think would be how do you plan to include like the supported or mitigation or the technical support pieces for the cultural communication
pieces or whatever. in your, in the process of introduction. like, because i think what we see as the biggest indicator of racial inequity and my fellow commissioners on the committee have said in the past is when we don't make that in at the beginning. that's kind of maybe the one that comes out for me. >> i agree and i want to make another observation. i'm particularly drawn to this question about is the proposal punitive or enforcement base when are the other alternatives for proactive compliance. that was something we talked about as well. i want to make the observation that punitive proposals are inherently regressive and
inherently are disproportionately burdensome on businesses that are already struggling with other challenges whether it be race or language or ethnicity or gender. you know, so maybe something around that. i don't think at the end of a long meeting we're going to come up with ... on tossing ideas out there for the committee to take back and think about but i like the idea of reminding people that we don't,we're not obligated to punish our way into a better future . and that when we do try to punish our way to a better future itinvariably hurts the smallest people the most . not the smallest physically. youknow what i'm trying to say
. i don't know what the right word is. i like reminding folks that there's other alternatives for proactivecompliance . something for the committee to take back but as a pole this is wonderful, this is phenomenal. i'm wondering how to really fold that tool into our day-to-day work as a commission. or biweekly. >> i think our policy as we develop our racial equity committee's policy kind of plan or what we want to work on and what we want the commission to work on i think it's also reflective of these questions. we're like streamlined fees, streamlined codes.
automatically people out insteadof making them gothrough a burden of proof or whatever . that's redundant .i think we do speak for this in our actions so i do think that president laguana we have this built in with one of our proactive goals are. and if you're worried about overwhelming the presenter with all these questions maybe then we don'tneed to ... maybe we talk about that.maybe we don't need to frontload it to them . maybe we just use this internally or you know, make sure that everybody has our racial equity resolution as the foundation. and maybe putting this at the end ofour resolution .
>> let's think about that one. let's put a pin in it for tonight. go back and think and talk about that one. i think it's excellent work. those are all the right questions. they're all the right question . maybe there's questions that we try to help new commissioners understand what their role is on the commission and periodically have reminders ourselves of these questions and then maybe there's a simpler question or value that we express to presenters so as to not give them so much that ... my fear would not be that i would overwhelm them, my fear is they would ignore it but if we cancondense this one value , maybe it's my....maybe that
might resonate more as well say, they only said one thing tome and this is it .i better you know, really think about that. and even if it doesn't make an impact on that particular piece of legislation, maybe it impacts how they thinkabout this kind of legislation in the future and that's part of what we'retrying to change to . >> i meet with all the offices before they come and present . i can just point themto this and say this is something that's on the commission's mind .we don't have to, i don't have to read each one explicitly but just flag that it's something that is on your priorities. >> great. is that okay to move on? >> yes, we have no public comments so we can move on.
>> seeing on public comment is close . next item please. checking in with you miriam, okay to move on weston item please . >> item 8, approval of draft meetingminutes . this is an action item. >> i'm so not going to analyze those minutes. i moved they are accepted . >> seconded. >> seconded by commissioner dickerson. >> commissioner ortiz.[roll call vote] motion passes. item 9, general public comment.
>> president: any members of the public that would like to comment on something not on today's agenda. >> we have no colors in the queue. >> president: publiccomment is close, next item . >> item 10, directors report anddiscussion item >> president: oh dear, katie . >> i'll keep this brief then. sojust as a reminder , we will probably resume in person meetings march 7 in room 400 of city hall so just a heads up about that, a little less than a month away. we are working on a follow-up surveywith small businesses . i know commissioner huie might discuss this in her report.we are about to launch a new website on the fs.gov platform
to make it a lot easier for small businesses to access services that understand how offices smallbusiness , what services we provide in conjunction with oe wds services so that will launchon friday, february 18 so we will set a link you can check that out soon . also launching this friday is the cities rent relief program which was previously announced so we think roughly 50 businesses will benefit from this which is really exciting and program detailsincluding eligibility will be available online by friday february 18 . and just a quick reminder to everyone that as of january there were some new rules that took effect regarding payments. previously you had to report payments but one of the major changes from this new law is that as a supplies to anyone
who files aform 700 which includes all of you . it's that there's a prohibition now on payments as well as a broader applicability about that so just wanted to make sureyou're all aware of it . if you have any questions please let me know where we can also connect you with the deputy city attorney about that but this is important just given the personal liability that we may all have if we violate this law and lastly , we did issue letters to 74 venues in san francisco . they received grants a little under seven thousand dollars to remain in san francisco with that i will conclude myreport . >> see one that was great and also verybrief . is there any public commenters? >> no commenters in the queue. >> seeing nine, next item please. >> commissionercomments and
questions and new business, this is adiscussion item . >> any commissioner comments ? commissioner huie. >> just to talk briefly about the survey, just wanted to let you know that we are kind of embarking on clocks right now with doctor chowdhury who conducted our and partnered with our commission to conduct the first survey. this is a follow-up and we have a meeting set up with jenny da silva from start small, think big. she's interested in getting input at this stage as well and helped us with the first one and this time i think some of our partners are excited enough to be doing some follow-up data. i would love to kind of wrap you back into this at some point so if we could agenda isis on a future meeting and i can get you up to speed withthe
timeline so you are more clear as to when that might be . but yes, thank you very muchfor your efforts last time . and that's all i wantedto share for tonight . >> president: i be delighted to jump in and helpoff-line on this i thought that last survey turned out phenomenal . and the chance to take another swing at it and from lessons learned and maybe just i'd like tocollectively recap . i think it could really make a big difference there. commissioners, i want to say thiswas an excellent meeting. we reallycovered an awfullot in here . we had a pretty good discussion about policing . we covered accessible entrances . we i think made somereally helpful suggestions on an important piece of legislation
. this was a long meeting compared to some of the meetings we had in the past it was i think an important one and i just want to thank you and acknowledged all ofyou or the work you put into this . >> i wanted to sayhappy valentine's day . >> appropriately you can't see all of me on zoom. >> president: all your various partners i think a double dose of thanks for putting, allowing us all to spend our time on this. so you know, hot tip. strategy here. we have anagreement my wife and i we do not go out to eat on valentine's day . we just get right raked over the coals. we arescheduling it and you can't get reservations anyway . we always do it one day or two
later by mutual agreement and that works out well. good money saver and we still have the big romantic night ou but it's like half off . always keep saving money. okay. no other comments. any public comments? >> nobody in the queue. >> seeing nine, a comment is closed. >> item 12, adjournment. this is an action item. please show the office of small business line. >> and they just close the screen. okay. we will end with a reminder that the small business commission is the official public forum to voice your opinions and concerns about policies that affect the economic vitality of small businesses in san francisco and
the office of small business is thebest place to get answers about doing business in san francisco during the local emergencies . if you need assistance continue to reach out to the office of small business .>> is there a motion to adjourn? >> so moved. >> moved by commissioner ortiz-cartagena. second ? seconded by commissioner dickerson. commissioner dickerson. >> yes.>> commissioner huie. president laguana. commissioner ortiz-cartagena >> yes . >> vice president zouzounis. >> yes. >> motion passes, meaning is called to adjourn at 9:15. >> president: great meeting everybody.
demolished in 2000. built by herbert flyshaker, pumps from the pacific ocean that were filtered and heated filled the pool. aside from the recreational activities, many schools held swim meets there. the delia flyshaker memorial building was on the west side of the pool. it had locker rooms with a sun room and mini hospital. in 1995, a storm damaged one of the pipes that flowed to the ocean. maintenance was not met, and the pool had to close. in 1999, the pool was filled with sand and gravel. in 2000, the space became a
>> this is one place you can always count on to give you what you had before and remind you of what your san francisco history used to be. >> we hear that all the time, people bring their kids here and their grandparents brought them here and down the line. >> even though people move away, whenever they come back to the city, they make it here. and they tell us that. >> you're going to get something made fresh, made by hand and made with quality products and something that's very, very good. ♪♪ >> the legacy bars and restaurants was something that was begun by san francisco simply to recognize and draw
attention to the establishments. it really provides for san francisco's unique character. ♪♪ >> and that morphed into a request that we work with the city to develop a legacy business registration. >> i'm michael cirocco and the owner of an area bakery. ♪♪ the bakery started in 191. my grandfather came over from italy and opened it up then. it is a small operation. it's not big. so everything is kind of quality that way. so i see every piece and cut every piece that comes in and out of that oven. >> i'm leslie cirocco-mitchell, a fourth generation baker here with my family.
♪♪ so we get up pretty early in the morning. i usually start baking around 5:00. and then you just start doing rounds of dough. loaves. >> my mom and sister basically handle the front and then i have my nephew james helps and then my two daughters and my wife come in and we actually do the baking. after that, my mom and my sister stay and sell the product, retail it. ♪♪ you know, i don't really think about it. but then when i -- sometimes when i go places and i look and see places put up, oh this is our 50th anniversary and everything and we've been over 100 and that is when it kind of hits me. you know, that geez, we've been here a long time. [applause] ♪♪ >> a lot of people might ask
why our legacy business is important. we all have our own stories to tell about our ancestry. our lineage and i'll use one example of tommy's joint. tommy's joint is a place that my husband went to as a child and he's a fourth generation san franciscan. it's a place we can still go to today with our children or grandchildren and share the stories of what was san francisco like back in the 1950s. >> i'm the general manager at tommy's joint. people mostly recognize tommy's joint for its murals on the outside of the building. very bright blue. you drive down and see what it is. they know the building. tommy's is a san francisco
hoffa, which is a german-style presenting food. we have five different carved meats and we carve it by hand at the station. you prefer it to be carved whether you like your brisket fatty or want it lean. you want your pastrami to be very lean. you can say i want that piece of corn beef and want it cut, you know, very thick and i want it with some sauerkraut. tell the guys how you want to prepare it and they will do it right in front of you. san francisco's a place that's changing restaurants, except for tommy's joint. tommy's joint has been the same since it opened and that is important. san francisco in general that we don't lose a grip of what san francisco's came from. tommy's is a place that you'll always recognize whenever you lock in the door. you'll see the same staff, the same bartender and have the
same meal and that is great. that's important. ♪♪ >> the service that san francisco heritage offers to the legacy businesses is to help them with that application process, to make sure that they really recognize about them what it is that makes them so special here in san francisco. ♪♪ so we'll help them with that application process if, in fact, the board of supervisors does recognize them as a legacy business, then that does entitle them to certain financial benefits from the city of san francisco. but i say really, more importantly, it really brings them public recognition that this is a business in san
francisco that has history and that is unique to san francisco. >> it started in june of 1953. ♪♪ and we make everything from scratch. everything. we started a you -- we started a off with 12 flavors and mango fruits from the philippines and then started trying them one by one and the family had a whole new clientele. the business really boomed after that. >> i think that the flavors we make reflect the diversity of san francisco. we were really surprised about the legacy project but we were thrilled to be a part of it.
businesses come and go in the city. pretty tough for businesss to stay here because it is so expensive and there's so much competition. so for us who have been here all these years and still be popular and to be recognized by the city has been really a huge honor. >> we got a phone call from a woman who was 91 and she wanted to know if the mitchells still owned it and she was so happy that we were still involved, still the owners. she was our customer in 1953. and she still comes in. but she was just making sure that we were still around and it just makes us feel, you know, very proud that we're carrying on our father's legacy. and that we mean so much to so many people.
♪♪ >> it provides a perspective. and i think if you only looked at it in the here and now, you're missing the context. for me, legacy businesses, legacy bars and restaurants are really about setting the context for how we come to be where we are today. >> i just think it's part of san francisco. people like to see familiar stuff. at least i know i do. >> in the 1950s, you could see a picture of tommy's joint and looks exactly the same. we haven't change add thing. >> i remember one lady saying, you know, i've been eating this ice cream since before i was born. and i thought, wow! we have, too. ♪♪