76 dash 14 is a valid impacted ordinance the board could not review to enact the ordinance by state law i thought i would get that on the record because it will be used i'm available for questions. >> i don't think potentially. >> you sent a copy. >> i hoped to be armed but it got approved late. >> those appeals will not go away. >> hopefully, a constitutional process given. >> any public comment on that item? seeing none, ms. yee i have okay step forward. >> i'm i do not say the street i wanted to reiterate that see my neighbor is right we have a big problem with graffiti everyday we clean up so i don't know how me over see this we're getting fined if we don't clean up so the fact it is an at&t box is for sure it gets attention to the graffiti artists it's crazy they don't go there only but to the neighbors i think that we all like progress but why not put the box underground or use the old box because nobody uses landlines anymore they use cell phones so this is just i don't know. i he definitely it's at&t's an eye sore 40 for the neighborhood we don't like the attraction so it's

it was common 10 years ago before this ordinance went into effect. the z dot systema allows opening into the air of the unit. a colleague of department of public health who lives in this building started to put in filters inside and outside of the unit. cohen has been bringing this. this is after two 2 months of installing them on the inside of the unit and this is two months 2 months on the outside of the unit. as you see a lot of the particles have actually fallen off since that time. we have been taking notes for about a year now. but this does not capture the fine pashls that -- particles that i mentioned and not get ting to the air pollution that get into the system. this is the notice articles. i just noted my notes on tv here. anyhow, i don't think i say anything disparaging in my notes. this last refers to san francisco chronicle article that really talk about the negative effects of the air pollution and talks about the two proposed ordinances and the article on the right was more recently about a proposed development that i'm not sure if it

example under an existing ordinance where anyone sought that waiver. itd could be something that we clarified through the legislative process. i don't think i have a good answer to how i would define that. >> some of the questions i did ask and i wanted to get your answer and i wanted the public to hear this too. the second one, in terms of another type of waiver, it says actually that's not a waiver. it's something else. related to cost prohibition, due to my time on the success or agencies commission we talked about the businesses being involved in construction particularly in projects in the southeast where there have been historically have been those businesses have been disadvantaged in that area. so, this sort of ties to me question about what is cost prohibited. in section 67 it stated that department heads could institute clean construction comparative bidding where you state in an advertisement forbids that bids will be compared based on how much they will apply the clean construction mandate. so you can actually score them based on who is goi

within 60 days of the effective date of the ordinance the ordinance became effective on june 27th that 60s dazed expired yesterday without the department issuing the regulations. i'll be the first person to concede it the department has put considerable effort into drafting the regulations with multiple draft and down their utmost to get comments and met with at&t and others. but it's frustrating that the ordinance has been in effective only skwi days and the department is in violation of that. the position that the department has taken is that at&t's permit even though their not evidence whatsoever that the right-of-way should be denied on purely grounds. and i'd like to make a few comments for the record to remind the board how long that permit has been an issue at&t has been seeking this permit for more than 3 and a half years we applied in march of 2011 on march 13 of 2014 at&t was grant a permit by the department. an appeal filed on april 2nd the hearing for may 14. over at&t's observation that hearing was rescheduled to june 4th. that was while the old ordinance was in effective

permit is not final during the appeals i know the new ordinance will apply. the preschool process was different and the previous case had not gone through the process we ska ask the appeal compels you to uphold it. i've got a question >> yeah. >> go ahead. >> so mr. mitchell stated he has a permit for tables and chairs. when you issued that permit how far out other than the sidewalk is he allowed to go >> that's noted in hits tabled and chair permits it can be according to the sidewalk i'd to look at the permit by the department was aware of the permit when it was approved. >> there's not a lot of space between where those tables and chairs are versus see i don't know how correct the make up box is for instance to the at&t box. >> you know the minimum pedestrian thorough way is 48 inches in federal law i know with the tables and chairs we try to keep 6 feet and i believe based on photo it looks like there's likely to be more than the federal minimum i can't tell if it's 6 feet based on the photos. >> it looks close but someone sitting in a chair. >> we requir

that objection this ordinance is passed on the 1st reading. madam clerk when we go to local >> the 1st member to introduce new business supervisor obelisk >> supervisor avalos [inaudible] supervisor compost >> thank you very much. colleagues, i have a number of items that i'm into saying today. beginning with what is landmark legislation to deal with a very important issue of gender pay inequity. despite passage of the equal pay act of 1963, which happened more than 50 years ago, which actually requires that men and women the same workplace be given equal pay for equal work the gender gap in paper says. since [inaudible] 2011 shows that the average woman still earns $.70 on the dollar for every dollar that is earned by a man. the pay gap is even greater for african-american women and latinas. african-american women earned $.64 on the dollar and latinas 56. women comprise more than 50 percent of the labor force in the united states and the consequences of this wage discrimination are not just impact on women but it actually impacts the entire f

of the ordinance should be subject to the new ordinance. i will once again explain we were flu on target to meet the 60 day deadline we give them a chance to talk about this and we gave them an opportunity to weigh in as we were still crafting the order and had a more formal process that culminated in a public hamburger after the public hearing the inspires office that supported the legislation the supervisor who required the 60 day 7, 8, 9 limit requested

>> i just wanted to comment on the new guidelines ordinance we submitted to the hearing officer today, we included all the other comments during the comments during the dpw process and we should be issuing the new guidelines shortly that's it thank you. >> can you explain shortly. >> maybe within the next week or couple of days next few days. >> the last time that the department was here they said shortly as well. >> it is really short. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioners the matter is submitt submitted. >> i did the first two. the okay. let's stay and be somewhat consistent. recognizing that the we are bound by the ordinance at the time of the hearing and our decision making therefore i will support the granting of the probation officer and to deny the permit on the basis that the process as denied defined in the ordinance has not been fulfill accomplished and is that your motion >> yes. >> mr. pacheco. >> we have a motion from commisssioner finkle to over rule dpw and deny this permit. can you repeat your basis again >> number one compliance. >> on the basis it didn't comply with a

implement that and also, discuss and you can have the clear direction from us or whether it be in the ordinance or not, that to any, firms or recently award a contract that were excluded because of the delta there between the ten and 20 million that you seek to work with them to participate in the additional rfp and the intent of this body and the full board and all other contracts that we want this to go forward and the current folks that are awarded in the process you ran and also you give this opportunity and suppose that i would suggest that, and have that motion to go forward and we can work together with the purchaser office. >> so moved. >> we have a motion by supervisor avalos and we can take that without objection. >> we are going to take one item out of order. could you call item 13? >>ordinance modifying the requirements of administrative code, section 6.68(h), to authorize the director of public works to issue requests for proposals to pre-qualified construction managers/general contractors (cm/gc) and their teams of pre-qualified core trade subcontractors to design-build the mechan

>>president david chiu: those ordinances finally passed. next item. city clerk: item 4. item 4: avalos4.140918[appropriation - legal services for unaccompanied children and families -mayor's office of housing - $2,127,600 - fys 2014-2015 and 2015-2016]sponsors: campos; avalos and yeeordinance appropriating $2,127,600 from the general fund reserve to the mayor's office of housing, $1,063,800 in fy2014-2015 and $1,063,800 in fy2015-2016, for legal services for unaccompanied children and families on the san francisco immigration court's expedited removal docket. sf 41234 >>president david chiu: supervisors campos? >>supervisor david campos: can we come back to this item. >> >>president david chiu: let's go to item 5. city clerk: item 5: 5.140754[sublease and property management agreement - john stewart company -treasure and yerba buena islands market rate rental housing - $632,806 yearly base rent]resolution approving a sublease and property management agreement for treasure and yerba buena islands market rate rental housing between the treasure island development authority

there is an amendment of a recent ordinance that mistakenly allowed this at hotels. this would undo that change that was unintentional. in 2013. you remember supervisor avalos brought an ordinance before you that entitled demolition and conversion. this was intended to ensure the planning code was articulating and regretting the policies in the general plan and the utmost care given to demos and conversions. as part of that ordinance there was a change made where that would add, where residential unit in the residential hotel was removed from the definition of residential unit. a residential hotel in and of itself wasn't specified that a unit was considered to be a residential use. this change was made at the time because it was in tended to ensure that it would not have to go through the administrative process as well as the planning code process outlined in 317. that would be fine because the administrative processes would be stronger and more protective. it seemed there would be no harm in making this change. however the unintended consequences this change removed

this ordinance is passed item 5. item 5 to wave is competitive solicitation to enter into an agreement with letting to see not to exceed $1.9 million. same house, same call? this ordinance is passed on the first reading >> item 6. >> to set the property tax rate in the past through rate for 2014-2015. >> same house, same call? this ordinance is passed on the first reading >> to authorize is police department to accept 10 fibrillator's valued and the 15 thousand for the use of tenderloin police station. >> same house, same call? this ordinance is adapted next. >> item 8 to retakeoff extend the employment opportunities for research and products and education products for summer opportunity for march first through february 28, 2015. >> next. >> the modification to a professional services agreement to provide operation and maintenance for the air train system between the bomb deer to replace the equipment for a cognizantcy fund for a that 4 year contract from february 2015 not to exceed one hundred million dollars. >> sa

we did include that in the ordinance. that is now part of the proposal. no. of 6, you asked they require a registration number from the registry to ensure all rental posting. i believe that is similar. no. 7, you ask that we grant authority if we are chosen as an enforcement agency. we are still working with supervisor chiu to give us a mechanism like authority and so far that has not been incorporated in the proposal. >> no 8 you ask they limit hosted rentals similar to restrictions on non-hosted rentals. there is a lot of discussion about that but not yesterday added into the ordinance. you saw the -- sought to limit single family homes. i believe that is in there. no. 10, you asked they require the property owners consent prior to getting on the tenancy. we require notification when they get on the registry. 11, you saw sought to prohibit sro's from short-term rentals. that has been incorporated. no. 12, if the planning department were to the chosen as enforcement agency you asked for increased funds in the department. that will be discussed in future hear

this being an urgency ordinance this ordinance is finally passed. >> and with that, roll call. >> supervisor campos. >> thank you, very much mr. clerk i want to note that this coming monday at 10:00 a.m. there will be a federal trial here in federal district court concerning my relocation assistance ordinance whichhis board of supervisors passed with a super majority judge clarlz charles buyer will hear the case on golden gate avenue as you recall by a super majority of this board we enacted the ordinance in april of this year, the ordinance provides that when landlords make use of ellis act to withdraw the residential units from the market they may compensate the tenants between the tenants current rent and two years worth of are we talking about at a comparable rent in san francisco it yaets creates two administrative stiff appeal processes to protect the small businesses one at appeal for the ellis act to challenge the differential calculation and another process to allow the landlords to port commission petition for payments where they show payments of financial hardship the landlords ca

unconstitutional or to refuse to regulate a statute ordinance. this statement of law is half correct. so it's true and i'm going to put this exhibit on the overhead that the california institution imposes authority administrative agencies under the california insinuation can't refuse to enforce the statute on the basis it violates state law not open the base it violates the united states institution and on the basis it violate the california institution but no other limits on our 0 decisions to the department suggests otherwise it's mistaken. i will point out nothing in the municipal code limits i in that matter and nothing in state law limits our authority in that manner. to the extent that the department is suggesting that when you make our decisions you should simply ignore state law or you can't refuse or, you know, make decisions on the basis that a state status says that an issue is illegal it's been litigated in the california court of appeals we have a case which can be found at 112 cal.app. and the case issue in the case the appellant ar

of the ordinance should be subject to the new ordinance. i will once again explain we were flu on target to meet the 60 day deadline we give them a chance to talk about this and we gave them an opportunity to weigh in as we were still crafting the order and had a more formal process that culminated in a public hamburger after the public hearing the inspires office that supported the legislation the supervisor who required the 60 day 7, 8, 9 limit requested because of the holiday season we allow people until after labor day we were the ones that enclosed it we agreed other than that we were to have a time limit in place >> ms. short. how many are denied or appealed permits are in the pipeline >> this is the for denied permits those cases before you tonight. i believe we have i count it a how often of appealed permits that are still? pipeline there are a couple of cases on september 17th and then maybe 3 cases in october something like that 5 or half a dozen >> perhaps the department and at&t would like to discuss those and find some sort of

finding 17 where the recommendation is where the official calendars prepared under the sunshine ordinance and convert them and post them o'ly ago with the recommendation that is just too big a task for us to do with every department and that for us to do it and the city attorney and the ethics commission to insure that, however, it is a good idea that those all of the departments do collect their official calendar and convert them to electronic form and put them online. with regards to the recommendation 17 a i would change that elite leave advertise the fact we have the resources we don't have the resources other priorities are president all right. but i would say we recommend to all departments that they did noiths recommendations to all departments they should collect their official calendar preparing under the sunshine ordinance and convert them to electronic and post them themselves. i think it's a good idea this material be out there to the public and be there out in electronic form and the departments should do it, it's only our recommendation but it's a good suggestion by the gran

i want to make sure to address, is the very structure of this procurement in the 18-year-old lbe ordinance, placed our team at a significant competitive disadvantage in three respects, the contract over $10 million, the process does not award lbe firms like us bonus points. we received no bonus points and as a result, we were not an attractive partner to two of the larger firms that issued contracts. and we approached them, and because we are not large enough to because we are large enough to compete as a prime contractor, we are not attractive to them as a partner, that we may pose a threat to them. so, it is hard to see how we can get a fair shake as an lbe. and there is one more thing that i would really like to make sure that i point out, but did not make sense to me is part and parcel of the over all rfp and appendix g, in the technology market place, it allowed for a special class of lbe to earn, two percent bonus points, while we were allowed zero. and i don't understand, why the process would include a preference bonus for larger lbes and when smaller lbes like corner stone don't g