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 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 offsale 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. Im 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. Theyre 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 dont 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. Im louie conno with conno consulting. Ronnie leader with Cloud Kitchens. Chairman anything you want to say . You dont have to say anything. And it doesnt 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. Ill ask folks who want to speak to line up over on your right in the room. Im 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 youve prepared written statements, youre encouraged to leave a copy with the Committee Clerk for inclusion in the official file. No plaus o applause or booing allowed. With that, well take our first speaker. Come on up. Good morning, supervisors, my name is brian shehe, im a member of the San Francisco independent business alliance. Im very concerned about this application for an offsale 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. Whats 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 theyre over 21. Cloud kitchens are working 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. Theyre 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 18yearold picks up the delivery and makes a delivery to a local campus, thats illegal. That driver cannot be under 21. Its 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. Good morning. Im cary egan, and im a member of the San Francisco business alliance. Im going to dove tail off of what brian just said. Im certainly youve read the latest press on this part of our city. It is becoming a ghost town. And thats with its current problems alone. Not every business is thriving, but im 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 longterm, is my point. Im 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 im receiving texts that people who want to speak on item one are not able to get in. So. Well, i think we want to i think were 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 well come back in chairman okay, were reconvening, back to Public Comment. Im here in support of our Small Business partners and our members who deliver to them, to oppose the grant of the type 21 offsale Liquor License to Cloud Kitchens. Sorry, im 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. 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 doesnt favor it. The part that doesnt favor it is if youre the contributing to out of control alcoholics, and dont know how to control the alcoholics in the containers and the littering. So the owner of the liquor store stopped selling the 99cent bottles of liquor, and the area where his liquor store is location, there is no trash and disposal of the small 99cent bottles of alcohol. The other 50 of me is legally incorporated on 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, thats a personal problem. Okay . So i move to have this proposal for the owner of the store granted because 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 public use and necessity. Ill 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 californias gig economy, and to 2018 Supreme Courts dynemax case. Chairman great. Thank you. Colleagues i want to note we have been joined by thats about as good as please dont interrupt. Chairman i will try to speak directly into the microphone. We have been joined by supervisor mar. Im going to make a few remarks, and i think supervisor mar has a few as well. Colleagues, today were 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 employeeemployer relationship without the benefits granted to employees under the law. Across digital labor platforms from delivery workers to domestic work, they are drawn to gig work because of the promise of freedom to set their own schedules. But quickly come to find theyre 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 eighthour 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 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 nonreimburseable 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 bygone days of the prenew deal lockner era. The workplace was built 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 overtime pay. The consequences of redistribution of wealth that serves the corporate line, but at great cost to the hardworking 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 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 todays hearing. Teamsters, jobs with justice, the San Francisco labor council, the National Domestic workers alliance, and gig workers rising, and i want to also thank our cosponsors, 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. Well 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 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 nonregular 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 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 socalled 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. Lets be clear organized labor built our middle class. Organized labor fought for hardwon 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 im looking forward to hearing the data and information, as we know a 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 citywide 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 privatesector employers within the jursdicted boundaries. That would unconclude San Francisco minimum wage, San Francisco paid sick leave, Health Care Security ordinance, familyfriendly 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 PublicUtilities Commission for Transportation Network companies. That would apply to Transportation Services, but not necessarily delivery services, which sa large part of the gigtype 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