Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  July 2, 2019 9:00am-10:01am PDT

9:00 am
footage - you know, rebuild a demolition to that square footage and basic configuration, you have five years of having it sit follow. we all know that's one of the problems that we have all encountered, with that, is neighbors come in and tell us "i don't want to live next to an empty hole". they have temporary shoring up that is supposed to last a year or two and now you're going to tell me it's been there for five years and i'm worried about my foundation, and i don't want to live next to a hole anyway. i can completely understand that. we always sympathize, or often, not always, often, sympathize find that the five year moratorium is putting the burden in the wrong place. one thing i would look for in any further developments
9:01 am
that we have is an aggressive pursuit of meaningful and strong remedies that will not overburden neighborhoods and communities but will get ads, especially, the proverbial bad actors that are doing things wrong. next, systematically. we all look at trying to codify anything into 50%, 70%, or 25% of a façade, what constitutes demolition? we all have problems with it, in part, it encourages people to do their filing so they come in just under. it's all fine. that is really a pretty terrible way to do things. we get something
9:02 am
submitted to planning and it meets all of their criteria. if they have, you know, 50% is their standard and it comes in at 49. low and behold us and as we go and open walls and see what is going on, boy, isn't this surprising? despite all the things we thought about how dangerous and prone to problems the blind walls are, and foundations, suddenly we are amazed to find that we have problems which are unanticipated. i think if i spoke to most of our experienced staff who have been in the field a lot, i don't think they would be so surprised to find a lot of dry rot, deterioration, other
9:03 am
conditions. i think, you know, the pre-inspection process for threshold projects, especially with vertical additions. it is really something that we should not be afraid of. it will add to upfront expense, but it will add to overall more accurate filings, and i would actually suspect instead of having to go back 4-five times having permitting and delays, and arbitrations, we may actually see the process move through faster. really exploring what pre-inspection does for us, is something i would really love to see incorporated into this. similarly, one of the things that always comes up that i haven't seen addressed here, you know, are again legitimate
9:04 am
concerns of neighbors. we always hear about, you know, the shoring isn't working, it wasn't meant for this, it has been there too long, it is failing. really being certain that we are incorporating those concerns with great transparency so that any neighbor knows exactly what the shoring plan is has a full list of everybody whether it's a dbi employee to call whether you feel there is a problem, or who is the architect, who is the structural engineer, who is a contractor so that there will be absolutely no question about how neighbors living next to these projects can feel that they are being respected and that there properties are not in danger. much of what is written about aggressive enforcement for unprofessional behavior with any
9:05 am
licensed professional, is something that really is very needed in my opinion. perhaps we have to be a little bit heavy-handed with possible penalties or prescribed penalties, because clearly the bad actors in the field have forced us to do this. how we reconcile that with honest mistakes, learnings, in process things is something we really need to work out. this really, in many ways, started out the acting two really bad actors. being sure that everything that
9:06 am
we have here doesn't unduly burden the 99% of people who are trying to build houses, expand houses, most important they improve their houses when they have a legitimate need for it. stop the bad actors from consistently misrepresenting things, and -, you know, developing a track record. i don't think it is a secret that, you know, many of us can identify some of the bad actors. while we are not going to them today, you know, i really think that we need strong protocols for reporting to licensing authorities. strong protocols for reporting to the city attorney. and the heightened review of anything submitted by somebody who has a history of violations, where the ordinance comes - calls out some of these
9:07 am
things. i think it is something that we really do need. these are many of my concerns, you know - to accomplish all of these things, and to have tenant protections. to really make the considerations with how we densify the city, to really get significant contributions, additional housing. these are all things that i think we are working towards. i think there is not a person here that is not going to commit their time to working with the supervisor, and is aid to see how we can move forward on this. i share the feeling that this is a very -
9:08 am
very, very broad piece of work. it probably should be broken up into pieces addressing first; demolitions, and you know, penalties on bad actors might be one place to first target and be sure we have that under control since that seems to be the focus of where our concerns originated. all of the other things about, you know, integrity of merged units, sizes, other considerations are very valid, but they may be too much for us to tackle right now. narrowing in the focus will serve us all well and allow us to accomplish something. i look forward to being part of that process. as a final thought - we
9:09 am
all know that the city has to engage in major seismic upgrades. so, having incentives built into this as well. we all say there is a need for more space, you know, when you think about when you do a seismic upgrade you are very often taking a 7 foot, no habitation space, and you can make it an eight-foot legal habitation space. when you are talking about maybe not expanding the envelope, but making more living space and accomplishing a good that we all know is necessary like seismic upgrade. building that into, if you do your seismic upgrade we can work to get you extra living space out of it, as well. there should be ways that we have carrots as well as sticks. being creative,
9:10 am
and trying to find those, is a challenge that i think we should be up to. so, again, i applaud the efforts and i do think it needs focus. again, i think patrick. >> welcome to another episode of stay safe i saw us prepare our crawl space on this episode we'll saw the sheer wall you'll see the finished product
9:11 am
hi, i'm patrick and welcome to another episode of stay safe? the second part we're retrofitting the triple wall as you can see we've installed one of the sheer ply wall on the first episode we provided blocking to secure the ply we'd and bolted and provided the connection with the floor i'm joined by thor madison. >> thor structural engineers and thor knows more about sheer walls than anybody i've met in
9:12 am
my life. >> it provides the stable ability that would rock before and after during around earthquake the nails along the edge of the plywood will reduce the chance of the building falling down. >> what else should we consider in getting ready. >> one thing about plywood a natural material that absorbs moisture and the panels can swell depending on the moisture if they swell they'll bulk out it is important probation officer leave a gap between the panels so before we install the next panel we'll drive in a couple of nails used to as temporary spares. >> what are the nails. >> 16 penny singers a good
9:13 am
saying that and we don't need to be concerned with the exact nail size only the gap the next panel will be held with the existing panel we'll pull those down. >> we have peter from the construction why not go outside and cut our second panel so, now we've got the plywood let's go ahead and get it put up see if we can get it in place.
9:14 am
>> by looking at that a perfect fit why not get peter in here to nail it down. >> so peter did a great job with the nailing but important to know this work requires a permit in the department of building inspection whether you're doing the work or a left hand contractor make sure you have the proper permit and additional to the nailing anything you want to talk about thinking about the plywood. >> the more plywood to install the better and make sure that the nails along each edge of each panel so you can't forget and hedge and had it perform the
9:15 am
same thing. >> another example of little money you can substantially rusz reduce the >> in november of 2016, california voters passed proposition 64. the adult use of marijuana act. san franciscans overwhelmingly approved it by nearly 75%. and the law went into effect in january of 2018. [♪] >> under california's new law, adults age 21 and over can legally possess up to 1 ounce of cannabis and grow up to six plants at home. adults in california can legally give up to 1 ounce to other adults. >> in the state of california, we passed a law that said adult
9:16 am
consumption is legal. if you are an adult and in possession of certain amounts, you will no longer be tried. you will not be arrested or prosecuted for that. that is changing the landscape dramatically. [♪] >> to legalization of cannabis could bring tremendous economic and social benefits to cities like san francisco. >> this industry is projected to reach $22 billion by the year 2020. and that is just a few years away. >> it can be a huge legal industry in california. i think very shortly, the actual growing of marijuana may become the biggest cash crop in the state and so you want that to be a legal tax paying cash crop, all the way down the line to a sales tax on the retail level. >> the california medical industry is a 3 billion-dollar
9:17 am
industry last year. anticipating that multiplier as 20, 30, 50 times in the consumer marketplace once adult use is really in place, you could go ahead and apply that multiplier to revenue. it will be huge. >> when that underground economy becomes part of the regular tax paying employment economy of the bay area, it not only has a direct impact, that money has a ripple impact through the economy as well. >> it is not just about retail. it is not just about the sensor. is about manufacturing pick a lot of innovative manufacturing is happening here in san francisco in addition to other parts of the state as well as the cultivation. we should be encouraging that. >> there is a vast array of jobs that are going to be available in the newly regulated cannabis industry. you can start at the top tier which a scientist working in testing labs.
9:18 am
scientists working at extraction companies. and you work towards agricultural jobs. you have ones that will require less education and you look towards cannabis retail and see traditional retail jobs and you see general management jobs. those things that are similar to working at a bar restaurant or working at a retail store. >> we are offering, essentially, high paid manufacturing jobs. typical starting wage of 18-$20 an hour, almost no barrier to entry, you do not need an education. >> that means that people who do not have college educations, working-class people, will have an opportunity to have a job at cultivating cannabis plants. there's a whole wide array of job opportunities from the seedling to the sale of the cannabis. [♪] >> last year, they said 26 million people came to san francisco. >> the tourism industry continues to be very robust here and the city and county of san
9:19 am
francisco is about a billion-dollar industry. >> if we use a conservative cannabis user adoption rate to 15% that means 4 million tourists want that means 4 million tourists want to purchase cannabis. and we need to be ready for th them. >> in 2015, as adult use legalization efforts gained momentum in california, the supervisors created the san francisco cannabis state legalization task force. this task force offered to research and advice to the supervisors, the mayor and other city departments. >> we knew that adult use legalization was coming to the ballot and stat that would bring with it a number of decisions that the city would have to make about zoning and regulation and so forth. and i decided at that time, at a know it was a great, that rather than have a fire drill after the ballot measure passes, as suspected it would, we should plan an event.
9:20 am
so i authored a task force to spend a year studying it and we made it a broad-based task force. >> we prepared ourselves by developing a health impact assessment and partnered that with key stakeholder discussions with washington, oregon, colorado, to really learn lessons from their experience rolling out both adult and medicinal cannabis. >> within days of the passing of the proposition, ed lee called on agencies to act decisively. >> he issued an executive order asking the department of public health, along with planning and other city departments to think through an internal working group around what we needed to do to consider writing this law. >> we collectively, i would say that was representatives from g.s.a., as well as the mayor's office, met with a lot of departments to talk through what prop 64 and the implementation of prop 64 it meant to them.
9:21 am
>> the mayor proposed an office of cannabis, a one-stop shop for permits allowing operators to grow and sell cannabis. >> he wanted a smart structure. he wanted a regulatory structure that ensured that kids didn't have access and community's were safe and that consumers were safe. and he wanted to ensure, more importantly, it was a regulatory structure that encouraged diversity and inclusivity. >> this is an office that will be solely charged with a duty of wanting not only the policies that we create, implementing and enforcing them, but also executing the licenses that are needed. we're talking about 20 different licenses that will put us into compliance with what is happening on the state level. >> this is a highly, highly regulated industry now, at this point. we have anywhere from 7-10 departments that will be working
9:22 am
with these industry participants as they go through the permitting process. that is a lot of work at a loss of coordination. we are creating a permitting process that is smart and is digital. it is much easier for the user and for community input, and is less mired in bureaucracy. >> for the first time ever in san francisco history, standalone licenses are available for all aspects of the nonretail side of the cannabis industry. now, a cultivator can go in to the department of building inspection and to the department of health and say, with this first registered and temporary license, and then what will eventually be a permanent license, this is the project, this is what i am going to do. >> very rarely in city government do we interact with industries that are asking to be regulated. these guys want to be regulated. they want to be compliant. they want to work with the city.
9:23 am
that is rare. >> san francisco has created a temporary licensing process so that the pre-existing operators here in san francisco can apply for a temporary state licensed. >> we have taken teams of up to 12 inspectors to inspect the facility twice a day. we have been doing that with the department of building inspection and the department of public health. and the fire department. >> it is really important for the industry to know that we are treating them like industry. like manufacturing. like coworkers pick so that is the way we are approaching this from a health and safety and a consumer protection network. this is just the way practice happens with restaurants or manufacturing facilities. >> because there are so many pieces of industry that people haven't even thought about. there are different permits for each piece. you have to set up a permitting system for growing, for
9:24 am
manufacturing, for testing. for delivery. for retail. you have to make sure that there is an appropriate health code. certainly the regulation of alcohol in terms of restaurants and retail it's probably a model for how this industry will be regulated as well, both on sale and consumption. >> it is completely uncharted territory. there is a blessing and a curse with that. it is exciting because we are on a new frontier, but it is very nerve-racking because there's a lot at stake. and quite frankly, being san francisco, being the state of california, people are looking to us. >> we hope that cannabis does become more of an accepted part of society in the same way that alcohol is, the same way coffee is. >> it is a very innovative fear, particularly around manufacturing. san francisco could be an epicenter. >> san francisco can be a leader here.
9:25 am
a global leader in the cannabis movement and set a bar just to other communities and cities and states and this nation how it is done. [♪]
9:26 am
9:27 am
9:28 am
9:29 am
9:30 am
[gavel] >> the meeting will come to order. welcome to the june 28, 2019 special meeting of the public safety and neighborhood services
9:31 am
committee. i'm chair of the committee. to my right is vice chair stephanie and to my left is supervisor walton. our clerk is john. i would like to thank those at s.f. gov. tv for staffing this meeting. >> please be sure you have silenced your cell phone and any other electronics devices. and any documents should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon will appear on the july 9th, 2019 meeting. we have overflow seating downstairs for those folks who need to have a seat. >> chairman: just to repeat, there is overflow seating downstairs. we have to get to one item of business before we get to the hearing on gig workers and the gig economy. so if folks do want to spend some time down there, that would probably make things a little
9:32 am
easier for our deputy sheriff and for our clerk. okay. mr. clerk, please call our first item. >> i will. agenda item number one is a hearing to consider the premise to premise type 21 off-sale general beer and liquor licence to llc, doing businesses at cloud kitchens, will serve the public with the necessity of the city and county. >> chairman: great. we have our a.l. u. >> i'm with the san francisco police department. you have before you a p.c. m. report for cloud kitchen. they have applied for a type 21 licence, if approved, it would allow them to sell beer and wine and distilled liquor. there are zero letters of contest and zero letters of support.
9:33 am
they're in consensus tract 180. the southern station has no opposition to the license. the petitioner shall actively monitor the area under their control in an effort to prevent the literinloitering of any persons on the property. it should be noted these conditions were agreed to and signed on the 21st of this month. >> chairman: great. i don't see any questions from my colleagues. thank you. >> thank you. >> chairman: is the applicant or representative here? come on up. >> hi. good morning. >> chairman: good morning. please identify yourself. >> sure. i'm louie conno with conno consulting. >> ronnie leader with cloud kitchens. >> chairman: anything you want to say? you don't have to say anything.
9:34 am
and it doesn't look like my colleagues is questions or comments. >> if you have any questions, but it is pretty cut and dry. clairemont greatclairemont>> che a seat. are there any members of the public that would like to testify on this? i see we have a couple, and we have karrie egan, flo sanuki, and dan galvin. i'll ask folks who want to speak to line up over on your right in the room. i'm going to say some things about public comment. for example, speakers will have two minutes. we ask that you state -- we ask that you state your first and last name clearly and speak directly into the microphone. if you've prepared written statements, you're encouraged to leave a copy with the committee clerk for inclusion in the official file. no plaus o applause or booing allowed.
9:35 am
with that, we'll take our first speaker. come on up. >> good morning, supervisors, my name is brian shehe, i'm a member of the san francisco independent business alliance. i'm very concerned about this application for an off-sale type 21 license. our business owns some of these licenses in the area. this is a very unusual use of a type 21 license. if this license was approved, it would allow cloud kitchens to deliver beer, wine, and all forms of spirits to every corner of san francisco, to every address in san francisco. what's problematic about that is -- there are a couple of reasons. the first is a public safety issue. if anybody goes into a type 21 store right now, they can be carded and i.d.'d to prove they're over 21. cloud kitchens are working
9:36 am
with the gig economy. and they partner with caviar. they would pick up the food and the alcohol, and then head on their way and make their delivery. these gig drivers, unfortunately, are not trained on how to validate i.d.s. they're not trained on how to determine if somebody is going to be overserved in alcohol. and caviar drivers are allowed to drive at the age of 18. so if an 18-year-old picks up the delivery and makes a delivery to a local campus, that's illegal. that driver cannot be under 21. it's also going to hurt the small mo mom and pop operations because cloud kitchens are not required to partner directly with current license holders. thank you, supervisors. >> chairman: thank you. next is speaker. >> hello.
9:37 am
good morning. i'm cary egan, and i'm a member of the san francisco business alliance. i'm going to dove tail off of what brian just said. i'm certainly you've read the latest press on this part of our city. it is becoming a ghost town. and that's with its current problems alone. not every business is thriving, but i'm just wondering what message are we sending our current and future small businesses? a perfect example, coit liquors alone has had to fires. what are we really doing to ourselves in the long-term, is my point. i'm very much opposed to this. >> chairman: thank you. >> thank you. >> chairman: i believe there may be some speakers on item one outside who are trying to get in. can we -- i'm receiving texts that people who want to speak on item one are
9:38 am
not able to get in. so...well, i think we want to -- i think we're going to recess this for two minutes while we make sure people who want to speak on this item are able to get in. so we'll come back in >> chairman: okay, we're reconvening, back to public comment. >> i'm here in support of our small business partners and our members who deliver to them, to oppose the grant of the type 21 off-sale liquor
9:39 am
license to cloud kitchens. sorry, i'm out of breath. this is the same argument we made two weeks ago, your committee against amazon prime for the same type of abc license, to prevent them to make unrestricted liquor deliveries throughout the city. in affect, taking the business away from our brick and mortar stores, which make up the fabric of our neighborhoods. thankful on that occasion, the committee unanimously voted to deny that application. this license would permit cloud kitchens to deliver alcohol to every corner in san francisco from 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. every day. they are backed by $150 million in venture capital funding, and supports uber clinic as a major owner and driver of this business. please deny this application.
9:40 am
thank you. >> chairman: thank you. are there any other members of the public who would like to speak on this item? come on up. >> we had this problem before, this type of controversy, pertaining to a liquor license. and i demonstrated that i got 50% of me favors it, and the other 50% doesn't favor it. the part that doesn't favor it is if you're the contributing to out of control alcoholics, and don't know how to control the alcoholics in the containers and the littering. so the owner of the liquor store stopped selling the 99-cent bottles of liquor, and the area where his liquor store is location, there is no trash and disposal of the small 99-cent bottles of alcohol. the other 50% of me is legally incorporated on
9:41 am
the ground he has a constitutional right, with due process and equal protection under the law, where he has the right to sell alcohol like anybody else in the united states of america. the 14th amendment says right here that any person in the state deprived of any -- any person cannot deprive any person of liberty or property without due process of law or deny any person within jurisdiction of equal protection under the law. so that means that this owner of the store has the right to sell alcohol. if he is not in violation of no criminal law pertaining to the penal code, he has a constitutional right to sell it. if there is a conflict of interest with his competitors, that's a personal problem. okay? so i move to have this proposal for the owner of the store granted because
9:42 am
he is trying to increase his potential business and take care of his business and his employees. >> chairman: thank you. are there any other members of the public who would like to speak on this item before i close public comment? public comment is now closed. [gavel] >> chairman: the matter is before us, colleagues. i understand that supervisor haney is not in support of this application. he has conveyed to me his concerns about protecting small businesses and promoting active storefronts in the district, which he feels would be undermined by granting the liquor license success are making the finding of a necessity. i share those concerns, as well as the concerns that were raised by the teamsters. and unless there are concerns about that, we could direct our clerk to prepare a resolution finding that grandering of granf this license does not meet
9:43 am
public use and necessity. i'll take a motion for that. >> so moved. >> chairman: moved by supervisor walton with positive recommendation. >> i second it and i share those concerns. >> chairman: great. all right. then we will move that forward to the full board with positive recommendation. [gavel] >> chairman: all right, mr. clerk, call the next item. >> agenda item number two is a hearing on the current state of worker rights in california's gig economy, and to 2018 supreme court's dynemax case. >> chairman: great. thank you. colleagues -- i want to note we have been joined by -- that's about as good as -- >> please don't interrupt.
9:44 am
>> chairman: i will try to speak directly into the microphone. we have been joined by supervisor mar. i'm going to make a few remarks, and i think supervisor mar has a few as well. colleagues, today we're going to learn more about a topic of great and growing importance: gig worker rights in the tech economy. corporations relying on gig workers, including uber, lyft, rely on a model that dismantles more than a century of work rights. gig workers are held to may of the requirements and demands of ath employee-employer relationship without the benefits granted to employees under the law. across digital labor platforms from delivery workers to domestic work,
9:45 am
they are drawn to gig work because of the promise of freedom to set their own schedules. but quickly come to find they're working more and earning less and without any social safety net in place to protect them. a 2018 policy institute found that uber drivers average $9.21 an hour. placing these drivers in the 10th percentile. it falls below the mandatory minimum wage in 13 of 20 major urban markets. without employee status, gig workers working in excess of eight-hour shifts are not entitled to overtime pay. and it leaves workers without unemployment insurance to support them when they lose their income, and without workers compensation to
9:46 am
protect them when they get hurt on the job, without health care, without social security to aid them in retirement, without any of the fundamental rights that have been in place to protect workers for more than 50 years. it is estimated that california loses $7 billion every year in tax revenue due to the misclassification of workers. as gig employers shift the cost of doing business on to the worker in the form of non-reimburseable expenses, like gas and mileage, workers are left barely breaking even, with many confused by opec pay and tip policies that make it difficult to calculate actual earnings. the gig economy is often described as the future of work. in many ways, it is a return to our past and the by-gone days of the prenew deal lockner era. the workplace was built
9:47 am
on -- effectively silencing workers and deregulating the economy in the name of the free market. today the gig business model threatens the gains made in the decades that followed. from the social security act of 1935 that brought us unemployment insurance, retirement and disabilities, to the fair labor standards act that created minimum wage and over-time pay. the consequences of redistribution of wealth that serves the corporate line, but at great cost to the hard-working individuals who provide the services and produce that wealth. but after years of legal challenges and lackluster attempts to regulate the gig economy, gig worker classifications is now the content of legislation in the california state assembly. if passed, ab5 will create
9:48 am
a clear and uniform standard for worker classification in the state of california, colfyincolcodifying the 2018 ca, and finally holding these companies accountable to state and local labor laws. there is the first hearing of ab5on july 10th, san francisco should not sit on the sidelines. san francisco is home to more than 100 gig companies. the prospect of ab5 passage possess significant reservations for the thousands of visitors and those companies employed. i want to thank our labor partners who worked with my office and supervisor mar to organize today's hearing. teamsters, jobs with justice, the san francisco labor council, the
9:49 am
national domestic workers alliance, and gig workers rising, and i want to also thank our co-sponsors, supervisor mar and supervisor peskin, walton, haney, and brown for their support. i want to thank aaron mundy in my office who has dug in deep to learn about these issues and get me up to speat, and kyle, and beth, our star intern, who has, for decades, practiced in the area of labor law, and who we are happy spending a little bit of time in our office. we'll hear presentations from the office of labor standards and enforcement. ken jacobs with the u.c. berkeley centre for education. and miles lockner appearing in his individual capacity, and gig workers rising. and then, of course, from lots and lots of folks who have come out to speak during public comment. we want to thank you for coming to share your stories. first, supervisor mar, i think you have some
9:50 am
comments as well. >> thank you so much, supervisor mandelman for calling for this hearing. i wanted to offer some brief introductory remarks. this public conversation is both timely and extremely important, given the explosive and disruptive growth of businesses, many headquartered here in san francisco, relying on non-regular employees, relancers, contractors, temp workers. it allows them to dramatically lower their labor costs by 30% or more since they are not responsible, as supervisor mandelman has pointed out for gig workers' health benefits, social security, unemployment, or injured workers compensation, lunch or rest breaks, overtime, disability, or paid sic sick, holiday, or vacation leave. a 2016 study found that more than one in three
9:51 am
workers, 53 million americans, are now gig workers. other estimates predict within 10 years, nearly a majority of the 145 million employed workers, 65 to 70 million workers will be so-called independent workers. fundamental the, this is about unequal protection for workers in the emerging industries, and unequal pay and treatment for a growing workforce. the growth of gig workers has been fueled by new technologies and innovation. technology and innovation should act in service to society, but instead we see our economy, our streets, our working class, and our regulations, wholly disrupted by the gig economy, off to the benefit of a few and harm to many. let's be clear: organized labor built our middle class. organized labor fought for
9:52 am
hard-won rights for working people. rights are now under threat, denying tens of millions of people the basic rights and protections of employment. as new companies and industries enjoy new levels of wealth and success, we must ensure that the workers responsible nor tha for that success are treated fairly, transparently, and equally. >> chairman: thank you. supervisor walton. >> i see a big part of my job to be protecting the rights of workers and fighting for equity. people who work so many hours a week should have retirement benefits, pensions, health care, and a guaranteed minimum pay. and i will always fight for this. and i'm looking forward to hearing the data and information, as we know a
9:53 am
lot of our gig workers are struggling because they lack certain protections, and that has to change. >> chairman: thank you, supervisor. so with that, i think we will start with pat mulligan from the office of labor standards and enforcement. >> thank you, supervisors, for the opportunity to present today. so the office of labor standards enforcement enforces local labor laws adopted by san francisco voters and the san francisco board of supervisors. many of the laws apply city-wide to private employers, and other laws apply to city contractors, leaseholders, and others doing business directly with the city and county of san francisco. so some san francisco labor laws that impact good workers, these laws would apply to many private-sector employers within the jursdicted
9:54 am
boundaries. that would unconclude san francisco minimum wage, san francisco paid sick leave, health care security ordinance, family-friendly workplace, lacktation in the workplace, consider of salary history, and the fair chance ordinance. it is important to note for the fair chance ordinance, it would be potentially preempted by the california public utilities commission for transportation network companies. that would apply to transportation services, but not necessarily delivery services, which sa large part of the gig-type economy. and to make it clear that the office of labor standards enforcement holds these workers are employees and eligible to these rights and protections under the law. so office of labor standards enforcement process, this would be for private employment laws, and it would vary slightly for san francisco contract laws, where we're more
9:55 am
pro-active. there is a higher burden and different array of laws that might apply. complaints come to our office many different ways: by phone, e-mail, walk-in, snail mail, or any other type of delivery method. they may u come in by affected workers, co-workers, worker advocates, labor organizations, occasionally completeing businessescompetingbusinesses. and intake is an initial assessment to make sure there is a violation of the law. it is not uncommon to receive complaints from outside san francisco. most of the laws i reviewed wouldn't apply outside of the jurisdiction boundaries. after that, it would be
9:56 am
investigation and audit. our office would issue an investigative notice to employers, obtain and review payroll records and payment records, site visits, and an interview of workers, ultimately culminating for the determination of penalties and restitution. employers would be afforded an appeal hearing if they did want to appeal the determination of our office. most of our cases overwhelming go directly to settlement. finally collections and distribution of restitution for workers. some enforcement challenges that are inherent to the gig economy: first, employers may assert that their workers are independent contractors. and this is a common misclassifications of workers. our office and the state department of labor standards enforcement are familiar with it and have dealt with it on an ongoing basis.
9:57 am
next, which further complicates it, employers may creatively identify themselves as simply a marketplace platform, so confusing the relationship between an employer and an employee. for instance, offering that they may not be in the transportation services or product delivery services, they're simply providing a platform that individuals may use discriminately. so almost offering that they are not employers in this model. also, refusal to provide required data on payments and benefits. this is critical information for our audit process. and lastly, potential litigation. moving forward, office of labor standards enforcement will continue to investigate gig economy companies for violations of san francisco labor laws. office of labor standards enforcement investigations rely on state law to define an employee, including looking to the labor code, wage orders,
9:58 am
and court decisions. and with that, legislative actions by the state would impact us. thank you. >> chairman: any questions or comments? supervisor mar? >> director mulligan, i did have a question kind of on your last point, around how o.s.c.'s investigations rely on state law to define "ememployee." the current state law is the abc law? >> right. >> and the recent ruling says back pay can be owed to misclassified workers going back four years prior to the date of the
9:59 am
dynmex case. what would it take for the city of san francisco to issue judgment to get misclassified gig workers the money they are owed. >> it is a great question, supervisor. i appreciate it. that would speak to some of our specific investigations that are ongoing. i wouldn't want to disclose any of the efforts of our office or the city attorney's office towards that. there is some concern around some of the state precedent, which is why the legislative clarification at the state level would be helpful for our efforts. >> thank you. and just a followup question: what policy questions would need to be answered for you to calculate if gig workers were making san francisco minimum wage? >> we would need to see also the payment records from employers, which in some cases is difficult to obtain. we would have to try to figure it out on an hourly basis. it becomes further
10:00 am
complicated when employees might be working in multiple kind of like gig-type roles. they may not be working for a singular employer in those types of situations. but there are some challenges in just obtaining that data. >> uh-huh. and do you -- it seems like we're really moving in that direction with the 85 oab5 on the state level. do you have any information on how the companies could get the data needed to establish these regulations? >> you know, ultimately, it would end up in litigation. that would be my take. especially given some of the arguments that we're anticipating and have heard around whether, first, misclassification of worker issue. and, secondly, i think what complicates this