Smallerriers Like Hawaiian Airlines at s. F. O. And has unsustainable increases for our carrier. In addition to that i want to point out some specific burdens that exist with respect to the h. W. O. Very rarely in any job marketplace can you find plans that are available to employees at no cost, let alone to entire families at no cost. The h. W. O. Mandate coverage is so far beyond what even the most generous employers offer their employees, including the city of San Francisco, with their own employees. Specifically Hawaiian Airlines and our workforce is highly unionized and we negotiate collective bargaining agreements which are voted upon and approved by employees that include generous wage and benefit packages. We do not believe that this legislation should supersede our collective bargaining agreements or interfere with our relationships with our labor partners. Thank you again for another opportunity to weigh in on such a monumental decision. I strongly urge you to oppose the ordinance. Clerk thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Caller go ahead. Go ahead and speak lisa. Go ahead, just speak. Caller hi, good morning. Im indiscernible my husband is sick and we tried to find out indiscernible he had surgery indiscernible . To go back to work. indiscernible he cannot go to the workplace without pain. The doctor says that he cannot go back to work unless his benefits indiscernible . Cannot afford the medical bills. Its affecting the whole family and myself. I do not know where i will get the money to pay the medical bills. indiscernible money from work is not enough to pay for my bills. indiscernible it is not enough to support the family. indiscernible im still struggling to pay medical bills. Especially now that there is covid19 and our hours are cut. Now there is covid19 outbreak indiscernible . Speakers time has elapsed. Clerk thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Caller hi, good morning, supervisors. My name is Laurie Thomas and im the executive director of the golden gate restaurant association, we represent restaurants and cafes in San Francisco and the surrounding bay area. Thank you for hearing this item today and for listening to all of our comments. Im calling in on behalf of our local restaurant and hospitality industry, that were very concerned that well be impacted by this legislation. And while we share the concerns regarding workers and health care, particularly during this pandemic year, i have very strong concerns that there will be unintended consequences that will affect our struggling restaurant and hospitality industry. We all know that due to covid19 that the airlines have already had to drastically reduce their Service Levels with the lack of both business and lose Leisure Travel being cut back. And we know that s. F. O. Is still only barely back to about i believe 20 of the prepandemic traffic through the t. H. S. Checkpoints. Less traffic is a direct correlation to less business for many of our shuttered airport restaurants and businesses, as well as our concern that this will affect the restaurants and businesses in San Francisco itself. We are very concerned that we need the airlines and the industry to be able to return to prepandemic Service Levels. And we feel that this legislation, while again well intended, will significantly impact their ability to do so. So the cost of this legislation im afraid goes much further than just to those employers directly impacted at s. F. O. You could argue whether or not they can afford that, but the concerns are is what this will do for greater community. So were very concerned that this legislation would have unintended consequences of causing continued reduced traffic both in the terminal of s. F. O. And also to our city of s. F. O. That contributes, unintentionally im sure to more lost businesses speakers time is elapsed. Clerk thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Caller hi, i am emily abraham. And the health of businesses and its employees and also believes that this ordinance will have a much larger impact on the wellbeing of our city than expected. S. F. O. Has come out as the previous speakers have mentioned with an updated estimate with the financial impacts. Based on the impact report, airline, operators and Service Providers employed 20,634 workers. And the cost of offering qualifying families the proposed legislation would result in an estimated additional annual cost as high as 163 million, depending on the health plan. The industries in s. F. O. Are essential to providing San Francisco with its tourism base which generates 819 million in taxes and fees in the city in 2019. The high added cost would lead to reductions, and the ability to bring in tourists. S. F. O. Provide tourists that go into the city and then will spend 26. 4 million each day for our local businesses. Beyond this concern of the impact on tourism, we urge you to give clarity around the definition section of this ordinance. The intent of this legislation is to for only the employees, and it seems to apply to any subtenant and contractor, etc. If this applies to restaurants, it would be devastating. We encourage you to look at the impacts outlined by the previous speakers. Clerk thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Caller good morning, supervisors. My name is Steven Cornell and i own a store in San Francisco for 39 years. Im also the legislative representative with Council District working. Tourism is as we heard, is the number one business in San Francisco. We have all of our neighborhood employees, and our customers, and i know this because i have been directly affected. All of our businesses are really hurting, especially those directly looking for visitors. This is not a time to add a financial burden. Our local businesses are affected. People come into my store are Airline Workers and hotel workers, bus drivers and convention workers, restaurant workers, they all directly are affected by tourism. They all live in our neighborhoods and they are our neighbors. We need a strong visitor strong visitor business to keep our neighborhood businesses going. Please, i really encourage you to have a full economic report that includes the whole citys economic base. Thank you very much for considering it. Clerk thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Caller good morning, my name is reesea parker and im the Vice President of labor and employment and litigation at the airlines for america. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to our concerns that this proposal is preempted by federal law. When they regulated the airlines, the Airline Deregulation act, the a. D. A. , it prohibited states by regulating them with any state law for crisis services. The Supreme Court held that the a. B. A. Not only targets airlines but even those who are direct or indirect. This ordinance affects the prices and the services. And the ordinance will increase the costs to passengers by 1. 83 per ticket. Thats an effect on the prices. And based this, we know that the b. L. A. Estimate is understated and the actual impact is much higher, as much as five times higher. Moreover, s. F. O. Is already an expensive airport in which to do business and this will reduce flights into s. F. O. Which has an impact on routes. And it will reduce the number of employees needed which impacts the services to passengers. And we are concerned that the operations will appear to be the deliberate intent of this proposal. Although this is a city ordinance, not every employer at the airport our understanding is that retail food and beverage, car rental employees are not subject to the requirements. Only carriers, flights support and aviation contractors and Service Providers. In other words, only those costs who hit the airlines bottom line. And we caution the board that the t proposals will have impac. We want you to evaluate from a litigation perspective. Thank you for taking the time to look at our concerns. Clerk thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Caller good morning, supervisors. My name is david lee and im an economist with airlines for america. Like others i read the october 23rd letter to the board with great interest and it validated our concerns that the b. L. A. s cost analysis was light. S. F. O. Now estimates that the 9. 50 fee will result in an additional annual cost of 163 million, and nearly a five fold increase from the original 43 million estimate. I have more information for the committee to consider. A few of the members reported that the financials for the September Quarter and as you know that our situation remains dire. The past quarter, the Passenger Carriers collectively lost 127 million every day for a total of 11. 7 billion. If you break this down in total, we lost an average of 182 per passenger. We are nowhere close to covering our costs and those who think that we can simply pass on the higher costs to our customers at this time. This proposal does not help with the recovery and the ongoing efforts to serve the community. Given our concerns i kindly ask that you do a more thorough economic benefit cost analysis of this proposal. The b. L. A. Analysis failed to account for benefits delivered by the proposal and failed to account for the unintended risks and burdens that will not only hurt the air service and the jobs, but hurt the bayareas hospitality sector, a crucial part of San Franciscos economy. Thank you for your time and consideration. Clerk thank you for your communities. Currently there is one caller in the queue and 15 listening. If you have not already done so, please press star, 3, to be added to the queue. Next caller, please. Caller hi, supervisors, good afternoon. I am shawn williams. I too am with airlines for america. We are the trade association of the major passenger and Cargo Airlines here in the united states. A few points that i wanted to make that have not yet been covered. One is i know that theres been some discussion about the cares act during this whole debate in the last few weeks and the Payroll Support Program that has benefited airline employees and Airline Workers throughout the country. There is a myth that has been perpetuated that this is some sort of a bailout for the airlines and, in fact, it is nothing of the sort. The Payroll Support Program and the cares act is a passthrough directly to employees so that the employees at airlines can stay on the payroll, maintain their health benefits, and continue to get paychecks and continue to be employed so when theres a return to service and a return to demand for airline service, that those employees are there and ready to go. Number two, i wanted to point out that, you know, it was stated earlier in this meeting that the healthy workers ordinance, you know, is being implemented or considered so that all of the workers at the airport have the benefits that are contemplated in it. I would point out that that goal may be what the goal is, but that it is not what the ordinance says or does. In fact, the healthy workers ordinance applies to airlines and Service Providers and the like, but not to restaurants and rental Car Companies and others. Its just targeted at one industry the Airline Industry. That undermines any argument that this is for Public Health purposes. You know, other employees and passengers have contact at restaurants and retailers, etc. , are excluded from the ordinance. It also makes it very clear that this ordinance is aimed squarely at the Airline Industry and not connected to a broader goal of ensuring healthy terminals or Public Health. Lastly, the ordinance does not contemplate other essential workers who work through the city, either at Grocery Stores or other places of employment that may have been deemed essential. Your time is elapsed. Clerk thank you for your comments, next speaker, please. Madam chair, that completes the queue. Chair fewer thank you very much, Public Comment is closed on item number 1. Supervisor walton or mandelman, do you have any comments with the Public Comment that we have heard . We do like to add anything to the conversation. Yes. I will try to be brief. But, you know, i want to thank certainly the workers who called in and i want to thank the representatives of the Airline Industry and the representatives of our local restaurant industry, chamber of commerce. We heard a lot about the dire state of the Airline IndustryNational Three and here in San Francisco and i think that theres no one on this board who is not sympathetic to the economic devastation that is being wrought across this country in every single in almost every single area. But i i do think that the next step that some of those folks took is not the right one. Which is that getting their operational costs under control requires continuing a state in which workers cannot Access Health care, are afraid that if they get sick they wont be able to see a doctor, are afraid if they take covid home to their families that their families will not have health care. Are afraid that if theyre hospitalized they will be carrying thousands, in some cases tens of thousands of dollars of debt forward with them. I dont think that it can be the case that the right answer to the woes, the National Woes of our Airline Industry, which really do require federal intervention to solve, should be that San Franciscos own airport needs to perpetuate a situation in which some of our lowestwaged workers, immigrants, people of color, do not have access or at least real access to affordable highquality health care. That would be wrong at any time and its particularly wrong now in the midst of a pandemic. I heard the comments about this is not the right time. This is actually the necessary time because these folks are as we all are are in fear for their health as never before. So thats, you know, i think that it is wrong thinking. It is also bad for San Francisco. We want our airport to be a safe place for the people who fly through s. F. O. , for the people coming home, for the tourists when they come back. We want them to be confident that the people who work at the airport are able to see doctors and to get checked out when they have a tickle in their throat or when they have a gnawing pain in their stomach or some other part of their body. That is necessary for us for the good operation of our airport as well as for being, you know, the city that we want to be. I do want to thank United Airlines for putting forward their amendment, their proposed amendment. Were looking at it, but on first pass it seems like that particular amendment would basically strip out most of the employee groups who we are hoping to cover through this legislation. You know, we heard various things about restaurants, whether the restaurants and retail concessions in the terminals are covered. I recognize that the gdra has concerned thaconcerns that they. And they are not covered by this legislation but they are already required to provide highquality health care to their employees. So, you know, i think to the notion that this is somehow targeting the Airline Industry this is not targeting the industry. It is not setting prices. It is simply saying that in our airports that there needs to be a base standard for access to health care for the that applies to all of the folks that are involved in servicing our own airport. So with that i hope that we can forward this to a full board with a positive recommendation. Thank you, colleagues, for your support. Chair fewer thank you very much. Supervisor walton . Supervisor walton thank you so much, chair fewer. I was just ready to second moving this forward with the positive recommendation to the full board. Chair fewer okay. Would you like to make the motion . Supervisor walton i will make the motion that we move this forward to the full board with a positive recommendation. Chair fewer madam clerk. Clerk yes, on the motion [roll call] you have three ayes. Chair fewer thank you very much. Can you read item number 2. Clerk yes, item 2, ordinance appropriating 126 million of series 2020d Public Health and safety general obligation board proceeds to the department of public work and department of public works in fiscal year 20202021 for facility upgrades in zuckerberg San Francisco general hospital, southeast and the other Community Health centers and neighborhood fire stations, 260 million of series 2020c Affordable Housing general obligation board proceeds in the Mayors Office of housing and Community Development for public, lowincome, preservation and middleincome and Senior Housing obligations, 102 million of series 2020f Affordable Housing prese