environmental review of environmental impact. i want to put it out there that the process was not followed, and regardless of it being a simple permit, they still had to do that process under the planning department. they >> i would like to call up dbi. the other speaker had to go. >> i am sorry that our deputy director had to go to another meeting and therefore is not here, but i understand there was some question about whether or not you do need a permit to remove the fixture, and you certainly do. >> it had been asserted by the representatives of the property that this notice of violation is

something we should discuss off the record, behind closed doors and essentially we have a community discussion, but as it relates to the law itself, was there a notice, and was it correct to issue the note of violation? >> i understand the process was filed as we normally do in a standard procedure. >> what about the class issue? about a window verses a glass? >> stained-glass windows are considered a future and not simply an ordinary window, and that is subject to a permit to remove it. >> stained-glass? so the glass itself is considered --

>> i would have to talk to mr. sweeney to know more about that, but as far as i know, that is considered a fixture. >> i was referring to the altar. >> he mentioned the glass being different, and that is why i want some clarification. >> you already closed public comment. i have no further speakers. i would be happy to provide closing comments. >> any questions or comments? >> no. >> any questions or comments? >> real quickly, i see that the spirit of the law was violated with regard to an agreement we had established with the megan furth academy based on a conversation i had with fred and

because of the number of meetings i had looking for their support of the expansion plans, by the expansion plans were predicated on a strong community component that there would been retention so there would be an ongoing interface between community and the church itself. those plans were never aborted. and we were never informed there was going to be any interruption of those plans whatsoever. i believe the letter of the law has been violated as well based on thorough testimony by the department of building inspection, where there have been prominent features of the building itself that have been removed and not removed in a correct fashion as it regards our building code and planning code, so i believe we have

arrived at a juncture where it is -- as uneasy as it is, no one is above the law, and with regards to of being able to call the question the best intentions of the academy, and the conversation i had in 2005 with mr. furth and administrators was just that. the hammer i was using was to increase the level of scholarship. we are glad to see kids from a disadvantaged communities are gaining access to these institutions. that was the whole point of their being expansion of the school, but that does not exclude them having to regard and respect law. the community in itself had a certain level of anticipation that if there was going to be any dismemberment of the church, that after all those years when

you had the community volunteering their time and establishing a relationship as they had for decades, that overnight they come in, they tried to remove the features that are there, and then they said they did not know they needed a permit because of his personal property. arguable whether that is, i think that is a fait complit. they had it, they could remove it anyway, or what was the point now of trying to remove it with a permit they could as easily obtained? i think it speaks for itself very good >> i understand the sentiments and the motion people feel about this, and i think there needs to be some investigation, but for the board

of supervisors to say unqualified support and to bring things back, i think we really need to get into -the first part of this, which says they would like to have an investigation. i am comfortable with having the city attorney look into this, but i am uncomfortable with some of the other language. i think it is very emotional, and it does not seem to me of those surveyed putnam we have to -- we have to do s our due diligence first area i would suggest we move this forward. i would suggest it could go to the full board, or if you would like to -- if you're not comfortable with that, we could certainly have a vote, a roll

call vote, but that is my feeling. i have read through this, and with what i have heard common -- what i have heard, there is significant understanding of this being a historical building. it is not on the register. that needs to be dealt with. there are things we need to monitor and have hours today attorney looked into. -- have our city attorney look into. >> which language? >> if i looked in the back at the resolve cause. it says the board of supervisors of the city and county of san francisco hereby declares its unqualified support for preserving the character of the neighborhood anchored by sacred heart church enand that the boad

of supervisors of sentences " urges the parties and responsible for -- of san francisco urges the parties and responsible for the stained- glass to have it put to the appropriate place in the church. you do not have a copy? thank you. they do not have a copy of the resolution. that would be another reason. >> it is a substitute resolution. can you tell me what line you are on? >> it is the second resolve clause. it starts on line four. maybe i have an old copy. >> hours are all passed out already. here.

>> that has been removed? >> yes. >> unless you can point that out to me, supervisor maxwell. >> starting at line 13. the board of supervisors strongly urges the party responsible for recent removal, sale, and transfer of historic features from sacred heart the church to take all necessary steps to ensure the restoration

of features to their rightful place in the church. i do not know there is anything that says the features are historic. the inside could be -- i think there needs to be -- something needs to happen so we can at least be able to say these are historic. something officials as says that, and since nothing has been declared officially historic, that has some concern. >> why not strike the word historic if that concerns you? >> i understand. i think of this point to start doing it this way is not the way i would suggest we do this. >> if that is the salient point

of the concerns. supervisor maxwell: there might be other points. i think it has been established that people feel it is historic, but there is nothing saying it is historic, so a lot of what we are doing is based on this being historic, and that seems to be a problem. >> the church is not his doric then? -- not historic then? supervisor maxwell: that is not what i said. there is nothing officially that has established that. it is not officially -- from my understanding from the planning department, they feel like it is, but since it did not go four or five years ago through the process of officially being made that, that is my concern.

>> it would easily be cured by taking of the word historic -- taking out the word his story. -- historic. it is still a violation. supervisor maxwell: i am not comfortable with that. my colleagues could outvote me. we could do a roll call vote. if you all are comfortable with that, that is what we could do. supervisor mar: given the testimony, i feel comfortable with language. it is a strong statement. i think we could wordsmith it, but i do not think we have the time. i so comfortable voting for this. supervisor chu: i have to agree

with supervisor mar. it was mentioned with the church in my district dealing with the similar legislation involving a law passed a number of years ago were you have a church that is well-deserved of landmark designation but has fallen into disrepair, has involved an owner who has moved forward with certain actions that have surprised the city if not potentially violated building inspection codes, so i would define if you wanted to remove the word historic, and perhaps we should do is, but i would like to ask if the parties could meet before we consider this with the full board. there is a lack of for a meeting of the mines, and it appears

both sides have done that. i do think in the interests of moving forward this question, if we want to remove the word historic, i would be prepared to move this forward. >> are you prepared to move forward with it as it is? i am not prepared, so i would like to make roll-call vote and vote no. we can leave it the way it is. >> if taking of that word would make it? >> no. -- is taking out the word would make it? >> no. as soon as she gets a copy, why don't we vote on this item? roll call vote.

[calling votes] supervisor maxwell: no. >> we have two ayes and one no. >> madam clerk, i would like to take a three-minute break, and we will be back for our next item.

>> will you please read the item? >> item #63 good information hearing on higher -- item #6. informational hearing on the san francisco local hiring policy for construction and related industries. >> it is informational only. i want to thank supervisor avalos for bringing this to us. supervisor avalos? >> thank you for coming out.

yes, this is an informational hearing common -- hearing, and mostly we wanted to have this during the 30-day wait. because we have complex legislation, and we want to your concerns from community and stakeholders better concerned about this legislation -- to your concerns from community and stakeholders that are concerned about this legislation. the actual hearing where we vote on it we are planning to happen november 22, the monday before the thanksgiving, so this is an opportunity to your concerns, and my office is planning to make amendments based on the comments that come to rest during this hearing. i want to thank you all for being here. sentences go's unemployment is

holdings -- san francisco's unemployment is holding steady. supervisor maxwell: i would like to ask you to please find a seat, and if you could not, please go to the chamber. i see some empty seats in the middle there. thank you very much. please find a seat. supervisor avalos: san francisco's unemployment is holding steady at 10%. we are in the worst economic crisis since the great depression, and there are some neighborhoods that we know the unemployment rate is much higher than 10%. in view. in a black community, it is much higher. fortunately in the next few years, we have a great

opportunity. the city is investing $30 billion in public works projects. we have a great opportunity to create new jobs. it is inevitable jobs will be created. tens of thousands of new jobs will be made available because the city is preparing our tax dollars into building a waste treatment plant, and use your system program company a new police command center south of market. there are major projects being planned in the next few years, especially the next five years, so while we know this work is getting done, how do we make sure our public investments get the mass the -- the maximum benefit. that is what i have introduced, and i have worked with

stakeholders over the past year to develop this. the past decade the city has run its local hiring program under the first source program. it has a requirement contractors demonstrate good faith efforts to meeting 50% local hire go. -- goal. the goal was to show good faith efforts. the requirement would be meeting a mandate we want to phase in over the years to come. that is a big change common and -- a big change, and know that we are not ready yet. one area i expect we would

engage in is to find out what is real. what are the ways the city is already meeting those goals? we have representatives from the mayor's office of economic workforce development and economic agencies. there have also been studies that have shown what the makeup of our workforce is, so they are there to give both an idea of how we might want to construct this legislation as we move forward. we know already there are so many franciscans out of work,

and we know there are communities that have not always have access to education or job opportunities. we notices one way to still be blue-collar carrier -- blue- collar. as a city, we need to do better. i have been working with policy makers to draft this ordinance for the construction industry that will save 50% local hiring requirement on the public works. the plan would make real the current goal of 50% local hire ring, and substituting the requirement with a mandate to meet gulf the rise in the next few years. developers and contractors can be awarded incentives, including points on future projects and penalties for

failing to meet the goal. the reasons for supporting local hiring are numerous. there are many public works projects that will be in the pipeline. it is important we make sure the dollars we invest in these projects can stay in san francisco and support local communities, so i want to call up representatives from -- we have not rest with the office of economic workforce development common region we have chris from the office of economic work force of -- we have chris from the office of work-force development. after these speakers, i want to talk about the makeup of the legislation. >> good afternoon, madam chair. i am with the office of economic and work-force development.

we want to get started. i would like to outline what the presentation is today and set the framework so we could begin this important legislation, and thank you for calling this informational hearing. i think it is timely and would give people an opportunity to hear what is happening over the next year. i first want to thank supervisor avalos for his leadership and really listening to all the stakeholders and giving us time to do till the -- due diligence. i think it has been valuable to help us get to this point. the first presentation will be done by our consulting team. we will also look at the city academy. we have a couple of specific projects and getting through the

actual pipeline, what has happened over the past five years, and lastly we will talk about some of our discussions with other city departments in having some broad recommendations for improvement. one of the first things commission was the bright line study, which primarily focused on the building trade and their membership in makeup. there are also 26 public work projects. the second thing we're going to perform his in depth analysis on construction trade. he was very much a part of that, and i want to thank the redevelopment agency for helping

us do this study. it is really a collaborative effort to put together this study. we are going to examine the academic impact, but its lens into how these programs impact redevelopment whir, and the stakeholder process will be conducted in partnership with private foundations, which really kept together the primary stakeholders, and those were community representatives.

the employers, contractors, and building space, and i think it was a unique form to give all of you in our room together and to provide the best ideas and discuss this topic. that is a brief overview of where we are our region we are at. -- a brief summary of where we are. >> have we had this kind of information before? >> we have not superior region we have not. this has presented a great opportunity. your we have not done a great look into this.

for the most part, everybody has been trying to achieve as much as they can. as a contractor was doing 30%, and we said you are not in compliance, we did not have anything to base it on three good -- to base it on. we have a very grave snapshot of what local availability of construction workers are right now -- a very good snapshot of what local availability for construction workers is. >> i want to thank you it is really great for a city. thank you so much. >> i think the mayor's office commissioned a study, but i think all of us have shown interest in to making sure we

are hiring locally. >> we have been working on it a long time. >> i would like to introduce dr. lester. >> good afternoon common and supervisors. i want to -- good afternoon, supervisors. the first thing we are going to do is get the powerpoint going. our charge was basically to analyze data from several sources to provide as clear an assessment of the work force and then to generate and then to provide a number of jobs over the next decade, so this afternoon i am trying to