colleagues we've or february 25, 2014, meeting. can i get approval? those minutes are approved. madam clerk, any communication? >> there are no communications. city clerk: mr. president, supervisor mar is not in the chambers. >> can we get a motion to

excuse supervisor mar. without opposition. that is the case. next item. all matters on the consent agenda, they would like to be pulled. roll call. city clerk: ferrel, kim, tang, wiener, supervisor yee, supervisor avalos, supervisor avalos. there are 10 ayes. >> the item is passed.

item 8. item 21: [reversing the exemption determination - san francisco municipal transportation agency's commuter shuttle policy and pilot program] motion reversing the determination by the planning department that the san francisco municipal transportation agency's commuter shuttle policy and pilot program is exempt from item 8. item 21: [reversing the exemption determination - san francisco municipal transportation agency's commuter shuttle policy and pilot program] motion reversing the determination by the planning department that the san francisco municipal transportation agency's commuter shuttle policy and pilot program is exempt from environmental review. will 8123492 >> roll call please? >> item 8, supervisor chiu cohn, tang, wiener, yee, avalos, breed? campos, there are 9 ayes. 1 no. >> the ordinance is passed. item 9. city clerk: item 9: 140238: [adopting a fixed two-year budget - airport, port, public utilities commission, library, child support services, and employees' retirement system] sponsors: mayor; farrell resolution adopting a fixed two-year budgetary cycle for the airport, the port, the public utilities commission, the library department, the

department of child support services, and the employees' retirement system, defining terms, city clerk: item 21: [reversing the exemption determination - san francisco municipal transportation agency's commuter shuttle policy and pilot program] motion reversing the determination by the planning department that the san francisco municipal transportation agency's commuter shuttle policy and pilot program is exempt from environmental review. 91234 >> roll call vote. [roll call vote taken] chiu, cohn, farrell, kim, tang, wiener, yee, avalos, aye, supervisor breed, aye, supervisor campos, aye. there are 10 ayes. >> this resolution is adopted. them in item. city clerk: item 10: 140150: [administrative code - expansion of first source hiring program] sponsors: avalos; breed, campos, chiu, kim, mar, wiener and yee ordinance amending the administrative code to add first source hiring requirements for developers applying for permits for commercial or residential projects to disclose to the city anticipated entry and apprentice level positions for development projects, anticipated local hires, and anticipated wages; and agree to hiring and retention goals for clerk: item 21: [reversing the exemption determination - san francisco municipal transportation agency's commuter shuttle policy and pilot program] motion reversing the determination by the planning department that the san francisco municipal transportation agency's commuter shuttle policy and pilot program is exempt from environmental review. 101234 >> supervisor avalos? >> thank you. on august 22, 1996, president clinton signed the work opportunity act and

calling for work responsibility and short on work opportunity a call for end on welfare and assistance for families needing temporary assistance which will require families to be moved off as welfare recipient and looking for work. in city and states scrambled to look for work opportunities and create them where they weren't. in san francisco there was a multiyear process to create opportunities here locally. what we established at that time was around 1998 was the first source hiring program which required developers. people seeking permits for commercial and residential development to work with our workforce development programs as a first source of contact for

people looking for work on these projects. this has been in place for 16 years. but now i'm looking forward to reforms to that to actually make it easier for the seat to anticipate what we can expect in terms of workforce opportunities much early in the process of development. this legislation will require that developers share with department the office of economic work enforceability program their work for local hiring as well as what they expect to have for wages, for jobs once they are created online or during construction and give the city a chance to know what our pipeline is going to be 2 years earlier than we typically expect for these projects. this legislation is supported by a number of community organizations, labor organizations, the building trades supporting it, many many organizations involved with the san francisco rising

are supportive as well. we pass from committees and hope to have your support today, colleagues to make sure that we can have a robust anticipatory program to get san franciscans to work in our construction trade and jobs that are permitted through the city process. >> colleagues, any further discussion? can we take a roll call vote on item 10. city clerk: supervisor chiu, aye, supervisor cohn, aye, supervisor ferrel, aye, supz

-- [calling roll] there are 10 ayes. >> this ordinance passes. supervisor campos. >> thank you. we have worked with them to get this passed we want to make sure they get acknowledged in the process. >> thank you supervisor. next item. city clerk: item 11. item 1: 140190: appropriation - library preservation fund - public library teen center project - $3,243,752 - fy2013-2014] sponsors: chiu; kim and mar ordinance appropriating $3,243,752 of library preservation fund balance to the public library for the teen center city clerk: item 11. item 11: 140188: [appropriation - 2008 clean and safe neighborhood park projects - $1,089,249.67 - fy2013-2014] sponsor: mayor ordinance appropriating $1,089,249.67 of surplus proceeds from the sale of general obligation bonds for completion of capital improvement projects included in the 2008 clean and safe neighborhood park projects to the port city clerk: item 11. item 21: [reversing the exemption determination - san francisco municipal transportation agency's commuter shuttle policy and pilot program] motion reversing the determination by the planning department that the san francisco municipal transportation agency's commuter shuttle policy and pilot program is exempt from environmental review. 111234 >> colleagues, same house same call. this ordinance is passed on the first reading. next item. city clerk: item 12. item 12: 140191: [accept and expend grant - electric vehicle fleet demonstration project - $384,000] sponsor: mayor resolution retroactively authorizing the fleet management division of the general services agency to accept and expend a grant in the amount of

$384,000 from alameda county for electric vehicles and chargers, for the period of july 30, 2013, through december 31, 2015.city clerk: item 12. item 12: 140191: [accept and expend grant - electric vehicle fleet demonstration project - $384,000] sponsor: mayor resolution retroactively authorizing the fleet management division of the general services agency to accept and expend a grant in the amount of $384,000 from alameda county for electric vehicles and chargers, for the period of july 30, 2013, through december 31, city clerk: item 12. item 12: 140191: [accept and expend grant - electric vehicle fleet demonstration project - $384,000] sponsor: mayor resolution retroactively authorizing the fleet management division of the general services agency to accept and expend a grant in the amount of $384,000 from alameda county for electric vehicles and chargers, for the period of july 30, 2013, through december 31, 2015. >> # 1234 same house same call. this resolution is passed. item 13. city clerk: item 13: 140224: [designation - treasure island mobility management agency] resolution designating the san francisco county transportation authority as the treasure island mobility management agency for certain purposes pursuant to the treasure island transportation management act. treasure island development authorityy1234 colleagues, same house same call? this resolution is adopted. item 14. city clerk: item 14: 140035: [administrative code - consumer price index increase - temporary tenant household dislocation compensation] sponsor: chiu ordinance amending administrative code, chapter 37, "residential rent stabilization and arbitration ordinance," to implement california civil code, section 1947.99aaa111aa, by requiring the rent board to annually adjust the daily compensation rate for tenant household temporary dislocation of less than 20 days, according to the consumer price index cpii.12341234 >> same house same call. this ordinance is passed on the

first reading. item 15. city clerk: item 15: 140096: [administrative code - tenant relocation assistance payment] sponsors: campos; kim, avalos and mar ordinance amending the administrative code to mitigate adverse impacts of tenant evictions to provide that when residential units are withdrawn from the rental market under the ellis act, each relocated tenant is entitled to the greater of the existing rent relocation payment, or the difference between the tenant's current rent and the prevailing rent for a comparable apartment in san francisco over a two year period; and allowing a landlord, through a hearing process, to obtain a revised relocation payment obligation based on an undue financial hardship adjustment or recalculated rent comparable apartment in san francisco over a 2-year period; and allowing a landlord, through a hearing process, to obtain a revised relocation payment obligation based on an undue financial hardship adjustment or recalculated rent differential amount .1234 >> supervisor campos? >> thank you very much mr. president. i want to thank my colleagues who are sponsoring this legislation supervisor kim and avalos and supervisor more. we know we are living an affordability crisis in san francisco. it's what makes san francisco so amazing. this is a crisis that all of us have witnessed on a daily basis given what's been happening throughout the city. this phenomenon is relatively new and has made a tremendous impact on my office hearing the stories from people. the ordinance that we are voting on today will require

landlords usage of able to evict for the market rate during that period. this ordinancen insures that relocation payment adequately represent and allows tennants to have an opportunity to have a fighting chance to stay in san francisco. the rental and purchase prices for san francisco homes have increased dramatically since 2005 and we last have the ordinance requiring relocation assistance payments to tennants at that time. currently landlords are required to pay relocation assistance in the amounts of $5265 per tenant and they

must pay $2500 to displaced elderly. anyone who knows the market rate in san francisco has the highest rate in the country know it's not sufficient to allow to stay if evicted. the city residential rate was $3400 a month. which means the 5200 you $5200 you get on the relocation doesn't get you too far. the people that we have seen leaving the city are oftentimes native city of city of san franciscans or third and 4th generations. these are the people that have made the city that it is. there are people like blanca raise -- reyes who is a caretaker and her

daughter who attends university and someone living in the castro in his apartment for the last 17 years. there are people like daniel when -- whit kerr who is having trouble to stay where he list. everyone is being impacted by this. it's not just long-term residents. as we have the new in flux of workers, these tech workers are being it impacted. i believe this is not a silver bullet. it reflects what we are as a community. as we are aware for the last few months

we have had tenant conventions which couple -- culminated to a citywide convention. this is what what was formed to helped them stay in san francisco. i know there are a number of issues raised and i wanted to note that we have purposely amended this legislation to represent hardship, when you are talking about small time landlords that there has to be a mechanism for them if the relocation cost becomes too burdensome that they can make the case to the rent board which has the option to wave the new requirement and go back to the old formula. i believe that all of us can think of individual cases where maybe hardship would occur and i think that the current law as amended provides an opportunity for

people who truly will have a hard time complying with the law to make their case. i think it's probably the best approach to deal with these cases because it's really difficult to know without really knowing the individual circumstances of each case whether a waiver is appropriate. so, with that in mind, i ask you today for your supposed and i look forward to a substantive discussion at the board. thank you. >> supervisor breed? >>supervisor london breed: thank you, i want to thank supervisor campos for bringing this legislation forward. i wholeheartedly agree that we need to increase the payment landlords make to tennants who are evicted by the ellis act. that will help them stay on their feet and help them stay in san francisco which we

know is not easy. in the vast majority of cases, the evicting landlords can easily afford higher payments. by exercising the ellis act they reap significant rewards. i say typically because as with anything else there are exceptions. over the last week i have heard from many eld leer and african american people in my district and throughout our city what this legislation could mean to them. i think what's important to remember what african american families have dealt with a number of years. with the community with no reservation and no reasonable conventions. they left a thriving working community crippled. the families that managed to hang on to their

properties were the lucky ones. many of the people who comprised san francisco's once strong working class african american families bought their homes as investment to use their home as retirement at a time when there weren't 401 k plans and other benefits that fortunately we have the ability to enjoy as members of board of supervisors. most don't have plans 401 k plans. for these people to stay in san francisco as seniors, they will need a large reserve. but as written i'm concerned this legislation threatens their ability to stay. there are middle class african americans who own property and live in the city. we pay a lot of lip service to that and when the time comes to legislation that could negatively impact this community we move on in the interest to listening to interest groups who push the

halls of city hall to discourage other policy makers from making those decisions. many whom are on section 8. the residential they receive is not enough to allow them to maintain the property. when they do sell the property, the value will be depressed and in many cases sometimes owners have borrowed against the property for years to keep themselves afloat. so they have a limited amount of equity on the property whose value is suppressed. and since the owners charge more rent and what tennants have been paying in rent and what market rate would be enormous, the relocation payment required under this law will consume a huge portion of the sales price of the property and even larger portion of the owners actually equity if not all of

it and jeopardize these elderly working class people's retierments and savings. i think these folks deserve to stay and live in san francisco and seniors or reap a dollar amount from their properties if they choose to use this for retirement. they are aren't speculators and wealthy landlords. this is all they have. they are home owners elderly and it is their income and retirement. in the city of redevelopment they have already taken away african american homes and now it seems for the few who are able to hang on to build a modest nest egg, the city is coming back to take that away too. are we comfortable in pushing out one group to improve

things for another. have we learned anything from our history. i appreciate the hardship amendment that supervisor campos offered in committee but it still requires a homeowner to go through an extensive appeals process. we are talking about retirees going through health issues and they can't navigate and they can't afford to hire an attorney which the process often requires. i know this bassecause it's happening in my neighborhood and they talk to me about notices they have received and things they have to deal with demand some cases no assistance to help them navigate the system in the city where we add layer on top of layer on top of layer of bureaucratic requirement and we wonder why we are losing a thriving african american population. i feel

passionately that we need to provide some protection, some certainty for this very narrow group. vulnerable home owners. i'm offering a very specific amendment that says if the home owner is 55 years of age or older, has owned a building for more than 20 years or longer, does not own any other building anti-the -- and the building is 4 units or smaller, then the owner would pay the tenant relocation amount. note i'm not suggesting we do anything currently in the law in these cases. just merely that we exempt the most vulnerable from the new stricter laws that would have a negative impact on them. the owner who meets these very specific circumstances would still be responsible for paying anywhere potentially between $4500 and up to $15,000 to each of their tennants. the african american community in this city can still believe

that their government has some compassion for them. to give you a season of how targeted this is. let's look at the ellis act eviction date of last year. according to the rent board 186 department were issued notices from march 2013 to february 2014. they toned -- owned the building for 18 months before using the ellis act. my amendment requires that there is 20 years of ownership and in many cases these families have owned these homes for 50-60 years. how many speculators are going to hold on to a property for more than 20 years. that is not likely. they don't. the people who have owned buildings this long are older individuals and families who have been a part of san francisco for decades who

have fought to stay here and we should help stay in their retirement years. of 186 notices, there should be handful of these. i fully support this legislation and i believe we need to protect those involved. colleagues, i ask for your support and similar sthee -- sympathy for what i believe to accomplish as someone who feels responsibility for constituents in san francisco and not the lobbyist but the actual people who don't have time, resources to come to city hall themselves and lobby and advocate for the things we are supposed to be doing here in city hall. i ask for your support. thank you. >> thank you supervisor

breed. supervisor breed has made a motion. second? >> supervisor cohn, supervisor yee. >>supervisor norman yee: thank you. i want to thank supervisor campos for bringing this legislation to our attention. as we know there is a crisis in san francisco. i also want to thank supervisor breed for her passion around these issues in terms of those that may actually get hurt from legislation. as we all know with any situation with any group of people, there are usually bad apples and there are also good apples. so, part of and i really appreciate the hardship adjustment piece that is built into language. what i would like to do is add some language to the harsher

adjustment piece because what supervisor breed may have pointed out in terms of some cases, there are other instances where people have situations that are not included. so by adding this sentence into this legislation it would hopefully take into consideration other people that we have not thought about yet that might have hardship pieces. it could be that for instance a family that's in living in 2-unit housing for a while and it was rented to one 1 person and all of a sudden the parents who live here would love to have their kids take care of them and they want to be able to allow for their child to move into

unit. those are different situations. by allowing for some language that is more general and flexible then we can take it case by case by a consideration. so the language i want to put in there is in gh after it says hardship request. i would like to add "as such a hearing shall consider all relevant factors including the number of units in the building and any evidence submitted regarding the landlord's age, ownership of any other buildings,

income expenses, other assets, debts, health and health share cost" that's the sentence i would like to include into legislation. i guess this is an amendment i'm asking for. >> just for clarity my understanding is what you propose in the amendment is identical to what supervisor breed has provided for her amendment. is that just for hers? >> i'm not real specific. the hardship adjustment request is made that people would have to consider these factors when they make the determination whether it's a hardship or not. >> again, i will just state for colleagues and you can discuss this. i believe supervisor yee is lending his support to a portion of

supervisor breed's language page 4 starting at line 14-18. with that, why don't we go to supervisor campos? >>supervisor david campos: thank you, mr. president. what i understand that supervisor yee is saying that he would take my existing legislation and add the language that was that portion of the language that he noted from supervisor breed's lakes. i don't -- legislation. i don't know the right procedure for that but if it's a motion, i would second that motion and i would support that approach. i this i the suggestion that supervisor yee has strikes the balance between the very legitimate concerns that supervisor breed has articulated and provides a little bit more clarity in

terms of how the hardship exemption would clarify. i would be supportive. >> one way to handle this is for us to divide the question and vote for the portion of supervisor breed and then supervisor yee. or vote up or down. i will ask the attorney to make a suggestion on this. >> what i understand the situation. supervisor breed has amended a document with two types of amendment. supervisor breed announced that the meeting she was seeking to amend to add the exception for senior small property owners and

supervisor yee seeks to amend to add factored oris -- factors to the hardship already existing in breed's legislation. they are separate amendments but both in the document. >> madam clerk? how would you like to proceed? city clerk: mr. president when a measure under debate that includes points connected, you can take the items, those sections of supervisor breed amendments which are not controversial and take those as a whole and come back to the section that includes supervisor yee and campos second. >> what? [ laughter ] city clerk: the section of supervisor breed's amendment whar