there is an airplane that goes up there that doesn't have this waiver that were able to actually enforce some type of estrogen on them? >> were seeking some information from the faa now. we haven't we don't have everything we need to understand really the practical scope. in terms of your question earlier before mr. martin spoke about the potential penalty, the violations of the ordinance would be punishable as misdemeanors. with an increasing penalty depend on how many days you violate the ordinance. the executive director of the court would also have the authority to impose administrative penalties on people who violate the ordinance. >> thank you >> supervisor combos >> thank you. i guess it's by the way a little interesting that former supervisor chris

daly is here about talk about america's cup. let me say that i'm not inclined to go out of my way to do something for fear that somehow the event authority is going to go after the city because it failed to meet its obligations. given, to be frank, the number of promises that were made about america's cup and how many of those promises were never really delivered, i would welcome any challenge that the city somehow failed to meet its obligations. so, i would say i'm prepared to act. i am convinced something is necessary, i'm convinced that we are in strong legal footing. i have enough questions at this point that i don't know i'm prepared to move forward

without [inaudible] >> supervisor agreed >> i want to get some clarity in terms of the faa. it's my understanding that their obligation is to manage what happens within airspace to provide the accountability around public safety and so on and so forth. i'm trying to understand why we are taking on this responsibility when there's a mechanism to manage what happens within the airspace, whether for public safety reasons he says or what have you. >> john giving a deputy city attorney. i don't know if this question really for me or for the department >> i want to my biggest concern has to do with the legalities of it. because of my concern is that well first of all i don't think it's worth it for the city to pass an ordinance that potentially we could get challenged legally by

the faa. i am just trying to understand what i think supervisor kim helped a little bit with asking the questions about what happens in terms of how do we get access to the folks who apply for these permits. what is there i guess enforcement mechanism but how do we have that relationship? ncl passing this ordinance necessarily gives us a seat at the table based on the fact they can do what they want under their federal guidelines and we are a local agency, and just because we pass an ordinance doesn't mean they have to abide by that order. just trying to understand the legalities of all of this and why we would even move forward if it jeopardizes putting the city at risk?

>> deputy city attorney john giving her again visit the chair. i guess the short answer to the question is that i think the amendment that supervisor chiu is proposing attempts to address those concerns. >> attempts or does? >> does. it addresses the concern that the city that this ordinance could face a legal challenge based on preemption because it conflicts with faa regulation. >> in terms of i don't know fretfully answers the question for you. in terms of the assessment of legal risk that it's a tow operator were to file a lawsuit what arguments the tow operator, or the city, would make, that is something

that i would rather address confidentially. >> okay. thank you. >> president you >> thank you colleagues this is been an interesting discussion. let me try to parse out a couple of issues that i think are here. first of all, under the america's cup post agreement we did have some allegations vis-à-vis are making good-faith efforts to minimize so-called ambush advertising but let's put that aside. i understand callers may differ about whether we need to address that. i do think that the point of this regulation is to address public policy concern about ambush advertising. the fact of the matter then he supervisor supervisor myself, others we do have an issue when we have evidence about whether we want to have aerial flying with advertising that we have no ability to regulate. i think that is something we should consider. this legislation is only in effect until the end of september. we're really talking

about just that over the next couple of weeks through the end of the america's cup season of being able to regulate that. let me also make it clear the amendment that i've offered, which as you can imagine was crafted by the city attorney, is being proposed to minimize any if there is legal risk and that to minimize legal risk. if there's a concern that somehow we might be moving into uncharted territory vis-à-vis federal preemption issues were trying to do with this amendment is to make sure that we deal with those issues as best we can. my hope and my suggestion, colleagues, is that we adopt this amendment if we can at least vote on it on the first read today knowing that we have a week between now and next week and i hope that mr. and others can brief each of you on these issues he might be able to understand what it is we have. and be able to make a decision by next week, but these issues are a little bit

complicated. i do think federal aviation authority does was referred to as occupies a field but to answer supervisor pleads, that doesn't mean state or local regulation can't regulate areas the federal government has not. so the federal government, federal law, makes areas in certain parts of public policy but where it does not speak we can speak. that is the legal doctrine here that is attempting to be balanced by the city attorney's office. again, colleagues, i do hope we can adopt this amendment, though to sit for one more week and if these issues, again, continue to persist next week on beasley folks can vote as they see fit next week. when trying to do is hopefully allows to be in conformance with our host city agreements. >> thank you pres. chiu. supervisor, was >> i appreciate what pres. chiu is doing and i know you're in a difficult position is. i have to say i don't feel comfortable

voting even if it's a first reading vote, voting for something where i feel like i like to understand what the preemption line really is. what is it that the federal government is able to do and what were not allowed to do? what are the ramifications of re-overstep that line and do something that actually is within the purview of the federal government? like you said it's a complicated thing. i just don't know i would rather know what is legal before i vote instead of voting and hope that what we did is okay. >> supervisor agreed >> thank you. i also echo the comments of supervisor campos. i just have an issue with it over all and i'm not certain about what this means in terms of airspace and where we fit into that puzzle. i just think that we are trying to meet an

obligation for an entity that has not met an obligation for us. i think it's wrong to do it at the expense of a possible lawsuit. so, i've not been convinced that anything that changes would otherwise mean something different. so, i can't move forward and support this item is today even to deal with that clarity on the matter. >> supervisor winner >> i think obviously always have disappointment around what we thought the america's cup might be what it's turning out to be. i think that's pretty broad-based feeling in the city but with that said, i don't think that the reason for us to just throw up our hands and say we agreed that we would pursue this and you know what, without their pursuit anymore because were mad at the america's cup. we agreed certain obligations. this is not some sort of

agreeing to buy back some money. this is basic obligation of the agreements. it's also not an unreasonable obligation. in fact, i don't speak for all my colleagues, but i suspect there are number of people sitting in this chamber who may be supporting supervisor kim's ultimate legislation that goes further in terms of potentially turning this into permanent restrictions. so, would this does it will restricted as pres. chiu said, for only a month. just to be very clear if we don't vote on this today then it's going to go into after the recess and doesn't take effect until 30 days after the mayor signs it and then it's after everything he becomes moot at that point. in terms of the legalities, including ideally we would have more information at this point. i know there's been a lot of back-and-forth with the faa. i do feel comfortable in terms of

the information that we have received that we are on solid ground. again, this is a very brief period of time this will be in effect so i am comfortable supporting this today. >> supervisor can >> by the way, i do support a citywide ban on these aerial advertisements. mainly because we've heard so much for a residence about how standard banner towing aircraft flies very low in a neighborhood particularly, the one around the giant stadium. often you will have for banner planes towing several hours before giants games going in circles, and it causes a lot of destruction and noise pollution in this area and of course distraction. i think there's a lot of legal questions which is why on monday i want to make sure we do legislation that we get it right. were certainly taken on legal liability and risk that we don't fully

understand. i mean be ready to support this next week when i'm not ready to support this today. >> thank you if there's no other questions we have a motion for the moment from pres. chiu. mdm. clerk and we have a roll call on the amendment >> yes. the notion was moved by supervisor he already should have roll call >> >>[roll call] >> this is a note on the moment. >> >>[roll call]

there are 10 eyes and one no >> thank you. mdm. clerk, my understanding is this what we continued for a week >> no mr. chair. i believe this item will be voting today on and it passes it will go straight % >> can we have a roll call on the ordinance as amended? judgeship on item 39 as amended >> >>[roll call] >> there are five eyes and six nose ship the item does not pass. thank you. never a dull

moment at the board. item 40 >> item 40 is a motion approving the inclusionary affordable housing program ordinance >> will call >> on item 40 >>[roll call] >> there are 11 eyes should motion is approved item 41 >> item for one is ordinance admitting the administrative code to advisory committee

into established powers and duties >> supervisor compass >> i'll be very brief i want to thank the members of the rules committee for forwarding this item unanimously with the recommendation. i also want to thank my cosponsors supervisor winner, opelousas, kim ma yi and chiu. this legislation is supported by mayor lee and how i think the mere for his work on this. it establishes the airport facilities naming advisory committee which will hold a series of public meetings to gather information and public input on the naming of terminals and other facilities at the san francisco international airport. one of the things it puts us on record as the designating that one terminal at the airport will be named after former supervisor harvey milk. there'll be five committee members appointed by the mayor for appointed by the board of supervisors, and the goal here is to really not only

honor harvey milk but images of the brings a different committees throughout the city together by recognizing that other members of those communities may be recognized. so thank you very much a ask for your support >> rollcall vote on the set of >> on item 41 >> >>[roll call] >> there are 11 eyes >> the ordinances passed on first reading. item producers of item 42 motion confirming rules committee nomination of them pointing ending april 30, 2017 to the police commissioner >> can we take this on same call without objection this motion is approved. why don't we move to our community

reports. mdm. clerk can you call when we call ashley when we call first community item 51 >> item 51 was considered by the rules committee and regular meeting on thursday, july 18 and was forwarded to the board as a committee reports. item 51 is an ordinance authorizing settlement of a lawsuit filed by rosemary bosque against the city for approximately $50,000. this lawsuit was filed on the 14th in san francisco superior court >> i understand we may need to recuse several of our colleagues. that a motion to recuse mdm. clerk we need to do separate motions? >> which do separate motions mr. pres. >> first motion for recusal supervisor he could have a motion to that effect? motion by supervisor compass second by supervisor mark. supervisor e.g. when to step out for a moment set off the floor. you be back in a moment.

colleagues, could we have a roll call vote on a motion to recuse >> actually, i'm sorry we can get permission to without objection. rollcall now we need a motion to recuse supervisor kim. motion by supervisor we are second by supervisor avalos. supervisor kim is ruby recuse. ella stegall caught is ordinance should have on item 51 chev >> >>[roll call] >> there are nine eyes. >> this ordinance is passed on first reading. item 52 >> i understand we're a couple additional reduces for this

item. could a motion to excuse are immediately delete item 52 >> item 52 ordinance authorizing settlement of the lawsuit filed by jesse j berg was shot conley against the city for $75,000 filed on october excuse me april 8, 2011 in us district court northern district of california. >> colleagues can enter first motion to excuse the present supervisor agreed without objection she should be excused and al qaeda motion to excuse supervisor:? motion by supervisor e second by supervisor compass without objection supervisor: is recuse. now was take a roll call vote >> item 52 >> >>[roll call] >> there are nine eyes

>> the ordinances passed on the street. item 53 >> item 53 and ordinance authorizing settlement of a lawsuit filed by local search association against the city for $85,000. this lawsuit was filed on june 7, 2011 us district court for the northern district of california. >> rollcall vote >> item 53 >>[roll call] >> >> there are 11 eyes >> ordinance passed on the first read. >> item 54 ordinance authorizing settlement by colette adams irving for three or $50,000. the lawsuit was filed march 15, 2011 in san

francisco superior court judge of this ordinance is passed on the first read. >> next item item settlement of lawsuit filed by maria camacho against the city for $50,000. the lawsuit was filed on march 7, 2012 in center cisco superior court >> this ordinance is passed on the first read >> item 56 settlement of a lawsuit filed by maria d'agostino against the city for $135,000. this lawsuit was filed on june 15, 2012 in san francisco superior court >> this ordinance is passed on for street. >> item 57 ordinance authorizing settlement of the lawsuit filed by way vivian klee against the city for $30,000. this lawsuit was filed on november 3, 2011 instead residual superior court >> this ordinance is passed on the first read. etc. >> item 58 resolution approving the proposed settlement of claim filed by travelers insurance company and connie karen against the city for

$43,000. this claim was filed on november 15, 2011 >> this resolution is adopted. next item >> item 59 resolution approving settlement of the unmitigated claim in favor of 300 spiel though the venture against the city and on litigated claim in favor of the city against 300 spiel realty venture >> this resolution is adopted. next item >> item 60 resolution approving settlement of the unmitigated initiative enforcement action filed by san francisco bay regional water quality control board against symphysis go imposing about the $51,000. >> this resolution is adopted >> item 61 is a resolution approving settlement of an unmitigated unmitigated claim filed by donald wickham against the city for $125,000 filed october 22, 2011. august 9, 2012 and march 6, 2013. >> this resolution is adopted. item 61 is not in front of the spirit will considered at next week's board meeting. mdm. clerk item 62 >> now moving to item 62

>> item 63 through 66 was considered by the land-use economic of element committee at a regular meeting on monday, july 22 and forwarded to the board and committee reports. item 63 is an ordinance amending the environment code by repealing the yellow pages distribution pilot program >> this ordinance is passed on first read. item 64 >> item 64 ordinance amending the planning code regarding the mission of coke beverage special use district and commercial transit just to control. >> colleagues same house and call this ordinance is passed on for street. regarding past items 55 and 56. the school to local for introductions >> supervisor avalos your first introduced the items >> think. mdm. clerk. will start with a few items of introduction to one i'm calling for a hearing on potential strike at bart. as we all know part is when the primary modes

for carrying commuters around the bay area in san francisco. 40% of our bart ridership uses for downtown stations in our downtown stations of san francisco and montgomery civic center and powell. also balboa park station that in my district adjacent to centralize or ease district carnets huge ridership as well. it has the largest ridership in downtown san francisco. the bay area council has estimated that the cost of each day, the cost of a strike is about $73 million in back to the bay area. which i think is a huge cost to our local economy. the continuation of the strike will really this portion only impact san francisco but certainly a major impact on the bay area. i think it makes sense that we actually look at how the impact of the strike would affect us. and how

we can help make sure labor negotiations are moving forward. i know we have a break moving forward but just in case we get back from the break in september and are still strike going on, i would like to call for a hearing. also hearing needs to look at and address some of the practices that have been used by part especially hiring tomahawk who actually has had a history potentially of being a unionbusting negotiator as using tactics that are actually not towards settlement, but towards exasperation exacerbation of people in the goshen protocol perspective critical that hearing after the break. another item we have for introduction is calling for august 17 two because cayuga park day cayuga park has undergone due to voter approved bonds transformation in its

levels and overall part under i'm very excited to be coming back from my vacation in southern california just for the day to actually celebrate the opening of the park which will happen on august 17. the park also has a great exhibit of a local folk artist who is a gardener there at the part. a lot of his work has been preserved in a new park that's going to be made. the park will also be accessible for seniors and for youth and for children. it will be a wonderful opening i'm looking to forward to that event and have a resolution calling for august 17 to be cayuga park day. also, my big item for introduction is items have been working on with colleagues and community groups for a number of months, perhaps over a year. it is our due process for all ordinance good as you know i said the immigration customs enforcement agency initiated secure committee deportation program

known as starting in 2008 enforces unfair program on our city in 2010. despite strong objections from our local board and are sure at that time. under anyone is booked into the sheriff's custody will have their finger prints sent over to ices database for deportation purposes. after prints are sent eyes ask local government to hold anyone if things might be able to be deported biondo on their time they're eligible for release at local expense. that means that ice is asking us to keep people beyond the time there eligible for release. ashley at our own expense. i had to repeat that. these are purposes for deportation. this is a dragnet so broad that even citizens have been swept up along the victims when this is a crime. because it targets people before they've actually have their day in court is in stairs

witnesses and survivors of domestic violence who are often arrested right along with their abusers. particularly vulnerable are those that have subject to unconstitutional or erroneous arrests in recent study has shown that in four major cities invited racial profiling by law enforcement. that study was conducted by the department of urban planning and policy the university of illinois in chicago. it's called insecure communities: latino perceptions of and when the finding shows survey results indicate the increased involvement of police and immigration enforcement has significantly heightened the fears of many latinos have of the police contributing to their social isolation and exacerbating their mistrust of law enforcement authority. there are many findings that will that. even legal residents have a concern about reporting crime that they feel people who they feel might be

immigrants could get actually caught up in the ice deportation system. i will go on. as of 2011 and 2012 the sheriff department has turnover about 1200 people in those you. that's actually about 100 people per month there been turned over to the immigration system because of icy decanters. we know that because of all the proceedings of ice there've been 74 duplications things 784 san franciscans with their mothers fathers daughters sons neighbors residents, colleagues, and maybe even your fellow students have been deported because of ice policies. as our federal representative debate pathways for the 11 million undocumented immigrants in this country, ice continues to deport aspiring us

citizens by the droves. it is incumbent upon us here in san francisco to hold immigrant rights and uphold basic principles of due process, due process from arbitrary denial of liberty and equality under the law. that will give us much safer. the fate of too many lives, too many families, too many children are at stake. the fact is public safety for all san franciscans is compromised when public trust in our justice system is undermined. i local law enforcement agencies rely on the cooperation of victims and witnesses of crime but has created within the immigrant community a stronger communicator with local law-enforcement agencies. as university of the americas. 36% of our residents are foreign-born. district 11, which i represent, are 50% immigrants. today i'm proud to introduce the due process for all ordinance. it would prohibit