it is not narrowed down to city build workers. we can address that at a later time. if it is a somewhat wider pool of workers that can count for bankable hours, it does offer greater incentive that is not monetary. >> it does. i am not an attorney. it is based on my reading that it is limited to city built workers. that would severely constrain the value of that incentive. the exclusion for special traits is another element of flexibility. -- for specialty trades is another element of flexibility. right now, that is narrowed to [unintelligible] there is significant flexibility about sponsoring apprentices. i alluded to that earlier. it is so open in the legislation that you can sponsor very few apprentices and avoid local hire requirement. that changes the entire tonner of the legislation. -- entire tenor of the legislation. if the bar for crating apprentices is extremely high, contractors do not take that option. that is a big unknown. the legislation as written is left up to os. to answer questions at a high level, we looked at these opportunities for flexibility, a

individuals access to that has also expanded, but the city has not kept up. when it comes to official notices, the city depends on a model where it is printed in the back of the newspaper. and it is not even clear where those notices should be coordinated or situated. so it becomes a hunt for many people to find them. this ordinance will simplify and streamline the process for publishing public notices, and it will streamline the public's ability to find these notices on the city's website. in 2009, prop k, which moved us through a budget process -- prop a, which moved us through a budget process -- the definitions of notifying never happened. have to do that. this defines published as posting on the city's website, posting on the a corporate department website, in the library, which is only done by ad hoc practiced now, and there is no uniform practice city- wide. notice it would not need to be published in the newspaper unless specifically required by city charters, however, i have an amendment that reinforces the position if it has to be published in the ne

not even yield the results we want. a small example, mechanical streets weeping. we have them go around the city and we have people move their cars in order for us to be able to clean their streets. for those people that do not move their car, not only will they get a ticket -- >> [inaudible] >> for the record, the department of public works receives no revenue from street cleaning tickets. that goes to my friends at the mta. >> [inaudible] >> but if you do not move your car, not only will you get a ticket, but i cannot clean the street. then when the control or somebody comes out to inspect how well we are keeping the city clean, that reflects badly on us. that information will be going out on data sf. one change that we made recently, at changing the street cleaning frequency from weekly to twice a month in about half of the areas in the city. now not only do you have to remember it is thursday, but you have to remember, is this the first or third thursday, maybe it is the second or fourth? it has gotten maybe a bit more complicated. it is not the first thing that people are going to think abo

i want to make sure we have a mechanism for the city ordinance to guide everybody. it does not matter what. they are going to be working on the construction. final, everybody for city build, which is one of the big -- with us, they are working together for the city and county. also, i just want to say thank you for supervisor avalos, the work you have been doing. i know we have been talking with you. [applause] and i want to say to the mayor office of work force development -- rhonda simmonon ans and chri have been doing a great job. we are going to support you. 20% of local hires. we are going to do it. [applause] chairperson avalos: thank you. next speaker, please. >> i live in san francisco. i live on 10th street. >> mr. fong is here. chairperson avalos: you have to use the same microphone. >> mr. fronong is a resident of district 10. >> [speaking chinese] >> i am here to support the local legislation to hire workers from our community. >> [speaking chinese] >> this is a very important legislation. both he and his wife are looking for work, and he wants to see that the legis

there are these incredible commitments to support this city throughout not just the world series, but the work that the giants do to make some advances go a better place. they care deeply about the city and their tradition. hats off to the ownership, the giants for committing to our city, and how about the city coming up and showing that reciprocity, the entire bay area supporting the san francisco giants. i hope the 49ers are paying attention. we got the public-private partnership ready to go, and the cleanup of the shipyard almost done. we have the environment to work that was complete, we have the financial framework. all we need is a team to say that we want to say -- stay in san francisco. if the forty-niners want to do that, we would be working on building permits and not wondering if they are going to leave after they negotiate another five-year commitment. we are very close to working through some of the lease terms to commit for the giants for at least five more years if they figure out whether or not they are going to leave the city. whether or not they will stay in our city

the city wants to protect the existing tenants. it is not the city's intent to leave the existing tenants vulnerable to the evictions or two displacement. second, we are intending in all of this work to put nobody in a materially worse position than they are today. what i mean by that is we want to give the tenants better units than they have today. we're committed to transparency and fairness in this process that we are designing. we are also committed to a knowledge in that there are policy tradeoffs in this project. not everything can remain the same to accommodate the pro -- of program. we are committed to adjudicating through existing rent board procedures, except for limited range of policy decisions, which i will clarify. we are also committed to finding and creating more it -- more affordable, incoming housing. i'm sure the commissioners are all aware that rent-controlled housing is not income-targeted housing. we do not control who occupies this housing. a rich person or a poor person can occupy a rent-control unit. they all equally

ideally, just a city agency or a private developer, and then after, the provision of childcare is not required in this legislation. this only requires to see what is feasible and what is needed. there was a working group that recommended that this be modified to require the city agencies to develop office projects that create a need for additional child care and decide not to provide the child care as part of the project to provide evidence that they fairly considered providing these services and why they cannot be provided. so those are the three recommendations that the planning committee made, and i am here to answer any questions. thank you. note supervisor dufty -- supervisor dufty: if we can bring up some other people? >> good evening, supervisors. i am a minister -- in administrator -- i am and administrator -- an administrator at dcyf. our sister departments, when they are in the process of developing a feasibility studies, we do have the resources and data to chop -- talk about child care with them. we think this is a step in the right direction. we need to look at the lack o

commissioner mirkarimi: and if san francisco did not receive the bid in itself, that means other cities potentially would be submitted a bid but submitting it most likely after the december 31 timeline. is that correct? >> i cannot speak to whether or not that timeline would be extended. we did hear about some authority representatives travelling to newport and other locations to see if there were other viable competitors to san francisco, but we do not have a lot of information about those bids and discussions. commissioner mirkarimi: thank you. commissioner chiu: colleagues, additional questions? ok. are there other members from city staff that wish to make any presentations with regards to this? any further discussion, colleagues? colleagues, before we vote, i want to really thank everyone who has taken part in this. whether we have sale or not, you know that to win a sailing race, every member of the crew has to work together -- the skipper and crew -- and i'm very grateful to all of you for the roles you have played. supervisor mirkarimi, supervisor alioto-pier, and others who have

city is incredibly wonderful. i worked with 26,000 people who are very dedicated. in my early years, i did not feel that good about this city. i spent a few years litigating against the city to try to make it right. now, 21 years later, there is sense. the city is much more reflective of our communities and we struggled to make sure that we do this more and more. it is a goal of this administration to open the doors, keep them open. i want to make sure that we will continue doing this. that is not only a tradition, this city is changing so much and we have to be on top of the game. we have to be engage with all of the voices in the city and make sure that they enjoy all of the benefits that the city has. this is not just by way of jobs but by opportunities. so many opportunities are derived from the great talent that we have in the leadership of the city. i take this opportunity to not only be serious but also an appreciation of what this means to everyone. to make sure that this is balanced and to make sure that it reflects all of our traditional values. then, just to make sure that this city

we did not find any other city that has done so. however, that does not mean it has not been done. based on our limited research, we could find no other city that has granted development rights for such an event. supervisor campos: earlier, we had a conversation about whether or not there are competing bids for this proposal. you indicated that you in fact had not seen anything in writing that confirmed that. my understanding is that the city attorney made the same representation. have you looked at the term sheet for some of the prior host cities -- valencia or any other host city? has that been provided for you by staff so that you have a basis upon which to compare the city bid to those? >> we did not. we did not look at any other term agreements of other host cities. supervisor campos: were those provided to you? do you know whether or not those were considered by the negotiating team? >> they were not provided to us. i do not know whether they were considered by the negotiating team. supervisor campos: in light of that, you have no way of comparing how what we are proposing to

very much dependent on what exactly the developer chooses to build and what exactly the city approves at that time. not withstanding the small shortfall, the city does gain revenue on a net present value basis. i grant you that there are cash flow issues, but the long term tax revenue gained really would not exist if they were not renovated. it generates a long-term tax revenue to make things possible for the city even when you deeply discount the future revenue to the city. it would support about 225 permanent jobs. they would not likely be in san francisco because they're so close to the end of their life. that concludes our report. those are the main conclusions. >> one of them attached to your employees here with regard to the jobs after the event itself, what about the overall investment in that part of the pork? -- port? would that even be a possibility that you can imagine or detect if this was even being entertained? >> if there was no america's cup, a private developer would have to take on these infrastructure costs. these projects will not pencil by themselves. that is really the stop-gap ad

we do not know the requirements that we have to publish. as the deputy city attorney indicated, at the bottom of these ads, we had been indicating, if you see this, let us know. we have not received any -- except for the one individual who said, please make the print larger. we have included this in all the publications, so -- supervisor campos: thank you. >> thank you as well. next, i would like to call the department of technology. >> good morning, the supervisors. i would like to direct your attention -- we have been working with your staff to put together a template of what it could look like and how the experience could be, as it relates to the general public's who accesses sfgov.org. as you see on the bottom, we have a carousel of images, city services that we have. we have public notices featured on the right. that is sort of the image that we use when we have something new, news timely. of course, these are the most requested, things that people are always looking for, accessing 311, paying your parking tickets, public notices we can highlight their a

it is a chat, a moment in time -- it is a check with the milestone is not a cheap, the city could consider whether or not that back so -- that backstop israel. -- whether or not that backstop is real. supervisor mirkarimi: mr. bentsen. >> members of the committee and other visitors, i'm here representing director more year and the remainder of the team that has been involved in these discussions. i just wanted to open, saying that we have appreciated working with or forcing economic development staff on this project over the past couple months. the city attorney staff that is going to assign to this have been phenomenal, and we have appreciated the opportunity to be briefing your staff and members of the board as well. i would like to dive into some of the details of the agreement. i want to start by again giving the general frame. some of this was covered in the presentation, but especially the port is called upon in this agreement to provide world-class facilities for the staging of the 34th america's cup. it is envisioned that there will need to be substantial improvements to port prope

we are being told we already looked at it on the city side and we do not see a problem. we believe is theirs. then we would talk to city operations and they would show us evidence that there is not a break or problem. personally, i would talk to them

city. people are becoming very sensitive to electronics amok. the man not come to our city. put them underground. chairperson maxwell: teddy veerhez, diana scott, leslie valiander. >> i strongly support this legislation as a first step in addressing the issue of wireless telephone equipment being installed over public rights of way in commercial and residential areas of the city. commenting on all of this wireless equipment on utility poles undermines this policy since wireless transmission cannot operate underground. the number, size, and wait along with upsized pg&e power cans are being added to polls that were not -- poles that were not built to hold them. several of the old wooden poles are not sufficient for them. at a specific address in our block, they could not get all of the equipment on their pole and decided unilaterally to run a cable across the street to install more equipment there. dpw has been contacted to investigate and demand to remove that equipment. this example shows a disregard for the existing committee process. finally, it seems the telecom community