many already have incorporated this before the ordinance came into play. it was voluntarily providing water at their events and not having single use bottles. so we've incorporated that in our aspect. the second aspect that the ordinance calls on is our department has engaged on enforcement. we look at this issue more than compliance. that is where our promulgating around enforcement but it's really around compliance to make sure that all the events know what the responsibilities are and working with them in order to make sure that they are meeting the spirit of the legislation and really that's our big focus. we are not out to hit anyone over with a large stick, it's really about compliance and making sure that this ordinance is actually in place. the last item is the reporting to the board and mayor. the ordinance calls specifically for all of the permitting agencies to provide our office with any exceptions where they have made a determination that a particular event is unable to meet the obligations of the ordinance and they have indicated as to why we

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

this ordinance is passed on the first reading. [gavel] >> next. >> item 21, ordinance to amend the health code article 38 and the corresponding building code sections to require an enhanced ventilation system for sensitive use projects within the air pollutant exposure zone and to establish document review fees making environmental finding and findings under the california health and safety code. >> supervisor cohen. >> thank you very much. colleagues, thanks for hearing this item. today this ordinance is a result of months of work with the department of public health and the planning department to strengthen the ventilation requirements for new housing to ensure it is protective -- it's protecting public health. certain parts and areas in san francisco particularly in the southeastern neighborhoods suffered disproportionately from environmental impacts such as truck traffic, freeway traffic as well as industrial activities. this is also the area of the city that is experiencing a significant amount of growth and housing construct

so, this ordinance can't override the sunshine ordinance. whether information -- whether a particular piece of information that's provided by a contractor is a trade secret or is proprietary is really a factual determination. so, the hrc will be looking at whatever data they have if there is a sunshine request, working with my office to determine whether any -- whether that information is protected trade secret or protected proprietary information. and if it is, hrc won't disclose it. so, this amendment, i think, could be described as clarifying that hrc will not turn over information that's protected from disclosure, but the ordinance would not override the sunshine ordinance. >> thank you. and i have some questions about the legislation. from my perspective, it's clear that this is a board of supervisors that supports equal pay as supervisor kim ha stated. i just want to make sure that whatever we choose to do it's responsible, it's substantive and it doesn't just pay lip service to the problem. ~ has i know that several years back when se

i'm familiar with the sunshine ordinance task force and the sunshine ordinance and state laws and have attended a lot of their meetings. i have served on it before for many years and reviewed many of its past recordings more recently. i keep abreast of all the new wrong act and cpa organizations and there were some that came do you this year that weren't very significant, but it's very significant and i would appreciate your consideration for appointment. thank you. >> any questions? none. thank you very much. any public comments on this item? >> good afternoon, chair yee and supervisors tang and campos. i am currently hold seat no. 5, the league of women's voters appointee to the task force and i have served on the task force for over six years and i'm currently the chair. i am here today to strongly ask you to re-appoint bruce wolfe. bruce and i served together for several years on the task force. he is extremely knowledgeable about the ordinance. he brings institutional history back on the task force -- we have a fair number of new members. and importantly he brings particular exper

for the 5 hundred and 40 acreage e page ordinance they heard it taken up by the planning commission of the phases two and three planning commission voted to recommend approval with modifications all the commissions recommended versions were incorporated marry at the hearing no public comment on this item prior to my decision between the presenting supervisors the aide asked to correct amendments and a continuance for one week until october 27th supervisor wiener both requested it and with any luck it will be heard next week at the committee also as commissioner antonini mentioned the development agreement for the item and it was a development in the city and project sponsor to have a in lieu apartment for the project area the commission voted naming for approval the development agreement has a $13.58 million and the fee will be established $5.4 million process created by the development grant could create much u up to 69 affordable units instead of 11 supervisor kim also expressed the current in lieu fee maybe set too low and the committee voted to send it to the full board with a p

and that the nonprofits only be allowed to pursue private rights of action this was made to the ordinance and supervisor avalos said all hosting and non-hosted will be allowed to be part of the system and it failed and the next amendment failed supervisor campos promoted on amendment no rentals be allowed in building that the screen ellis act evictions this amendment was incorporated into the ordinance as you recall any substantive changes not made by the commission will be sent back for another is commission hamburger it was split for the part of the law to move forward through the protective process the board approved the ordinance you've considered and this will have a second reading next week the change of the substantive will be forwarded in 3 months the new board files will have private right of action for supervisor campos prohibition on ellis act this will think scheduled before you later this year finally at the board that was also an ordinance amending the definition of residential unit sponsored sponsored by supervisor avalos he it will sure that sro units will be protected fro

this ordinance will also streamline the

so, this ordinance can't override the sunshine ordinance. whether information -- whether a particular piece of informati t

right now in terms of what housing nonprofits can sue for what are the i know the residential hotel ordinance for example, has that right of action by housing the nonprofits what are some of other works. >> in the part the municipal code those are the two i know but john gibner, deputy city attorney may know more. >> around housing issues i know this housing ordinance is one are there others. >> we believe there are the two. >> so the residential hotel and this one. >> the exist code allows for the nonprofits to obtain monetary damages. >> yes. >> john gibner, deputy city attorney there's a pending ordinance as well that i think in the budget and finance committee tomorrow the bio legislation that is similarly lowering the housing nonprofits. >> but in terms of the universe of where the housing nonprofits can sue to what extent does it go beyond the residential hotel. >> it's just the residents hotel that is the chapter four 1 we existing 41 a also. >> okay. and okay and so right now this and typically under the current law when a housing nonprofit has a private right of action to enforce the

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 which this 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

. >> john gibner, deputy city attorney there's a pending ordinance as well that i think in the budget and finance committee tomorrow the bio legislation that is similarly lowering the housing nonprofits. >> but in terms of the universe of where the housing nonprofits can sue to what extent does it go beyond the residential hotel. >> it's just the residents hotel that is the chapter four 1 we existing 41 a also. >> okay. and okay and so right now this and typically under the current law when a housing nonprofit has a private right of action to enforce the administration active code whether in the residential hotel code there's a city administration active process first. >> actually in chapter four 1 it doesn't require the city producing process but in that chapter the relieve is limited to the city attorney's feeds. >> when is what we're talking about. >> supervisor kim is proposing what the same penalties as limited for the nonprofit to injunctive relief and attorney's fees. >> and so help to clarify for me in terms of the exist law you're saying it is already in there then why is thi

and see which ones that will require a continuance. >> i see a real difference in how this ordinance is being considered this is an i've experienced than working through the due process but i somehow will reconcile that with myself. >> i'm happy to talk with you afterwards i can in terms of the 13 amendments that the preponderance of the evidence and i understand conceding may make the amendment she's calibrated although you've not made the motion yet but makes up for me or mri in a to round through those now so the first is and we can talk about supervisor breed's amendment to come on that list the first is supervisor breed's amendment requiring the planning department to require a respondents with the department finds in violation after receiving a complaint they have to respond to the complainant that didn't require further hearing you can make that amendment today and number 2 councilmember taylor's to add the owner didn't require a continuance and supervisor farrell also proposed an amendment that would clarify that as an interested party hoa is defined as a neighborhood hoa as

anyone at all so that's where the southern i have in terms of the hotel conversion ordinance the sro's see those sro's as i understand are typically opposed their large properties typically those are significant property owners those are business people this applies to any building of 3 units or more in other words, a lot of smopdz that live at that tha in their building to subject the homeowners to hire an attorney and potentially pay the oddss foes and subjecting the sro's to that kind of liability and in terms of litigation and i you know, i before being elected to the board i spent 15 years as a litter our doing trillion work for almost a decade as the city attorney's office and prior practice so i spent a lot of time in court and dealing with the attorney's fees two things number one there are it is not uncommon at all for courts to award attorney fees bans small judgements and violations of the law that were not extraordinarily in nature and in addition a small attorney's fees award for a small business owners can be devastating in addition to hire our own attorney because someon

without objection this ordinance is passed on first reading. [gavel] >> next item a. item 22 is an ordinance to amend the health code to authorize the use of [speaker not understood] psychiatric hold permitted under the california welfare and institutions code. >> i do understand there might be a couple of amendments to this. is the represent from the san francisco d.a.'s office here? >> good afternoon, supervisors. katie miller from the san francisco d.a.'s office. i'm the chief of alternative programs. we actually don't have any amendments that we'd like to put forward. we do support the legislation at this time. the one concern that we had raised was that we have the resource he we need to staff these proceedings once they go forward. we want to be a part of them and we want to be able to staff them right so we started a discussion with our city partners and the mayor's office to that end. but we have no amendments at this time. thank you very much. >> thank you. i know there might be a technical amendment by the city attorney. >> deputy city attorney jon givner. i

so the difference is more than 4 decimals that steesdz the level by the noise ordinance for example, the roof when dph last went out there with their measurements the ambient noise was 56 decimals so it would have been permissible for the gentleman to have 58.6 and still be win the noise ordinance is instead .5 decimals above the level of communicational speech. >> so has the gentleman been in compliance since 2011 it's opening. >> i am not aware of a time when it was measured on the rooftop that mr. tail was in compliance with the application. >> is that a yes or no. >> there was no measured time it could be that mr. tail was compliant before measurement were taken those on the roof but we are not able to get the multiple on the roof until january of this year no safe access to the roof and dph was not aware it could access the roof until the lady said there was a ladder to access it. >> and since this case is before us. >> prior that's why we vote unanimously u amazing. >> why i can't say what you were thinking but the argument was that there was a violation of a light well, at thi

. >> item 4 is an ordinance admitting the zoning map for modification of career used in the commercial district. >> president chiu is the author. >> good afternoon supervisor wiener and supervisor cohen and supervisor kim from supervisor david chiu's office the ordinance before you today is part of a larger effort that began some years ago i want to appreciate tom's efforts it began as one large ordinance but broken down into more digestable ordinances and they came from the legislation that were approved including transferable development rights and it helps for the commercial uses we're happy to move some of the items through speaking broadly this is upgrading the section cloed code to implements of the streets plan and walkable straights and reducing traffic congestion that's a big topic today by encouraging walking and helps us to reuse historic buildings and encourage local businesses to thrive in san francisco i want to note that some of the provisions related to van ness they could side with the van ness rapid transit that makes it easy to used by clarifying the useful controls

so, that's the language that will be included tomorrow in the ordinance. what the city attorney mentioned is that it's unclear -- that the law is very complicated around what type of information the city can shield from the sunshine ordinance or from other laws that allow all the city information to be accessible to the public. this second point i what trying to make, and i'm not sure if this made sense, is the only other governmental entity that's doing this in the country is the state of new mexico and they've been doing it for sometime. and originally when we were putting this ordinance together we thought, well, the only way to identify if wage discrimination is taking place is if we have individual rights data on every single employee so we can make apple to apple comparisons and try to figure that out. well, in talking to the experts that put together the new mexico laws, they disagree and they feel like the easiest way to identify wage gaps is by collecting aggregate data, data in the aggregate on all employees and ewing categories that employer are

there are 11 ayes. >> the ordinance is passed on first reading. [gavel] >> item 11. >> item 11 an ordinance to amend the administrative and subdivision codes ~ regarding tenant buyout agreements. >> supervisor campos? >> thank you. thank you very much, mr. president. colleagues, i'm very honored today to be the chief sponsor of this legislation that was actually the brain child of someone that i know we will be remembering today and honoring today, and that is the late and great ted galokson. i believe this is the last piece of ted gal acson inspired legislation of the san francisco board of supervisors. ~ my office and i and i want to thank hillary rhonan in my office, had been working with ted gal acson for many months to develop this legislation ~. i know that it was something that was very important to him. i'm sure that he directly spoke to many of you about this legislation. and today i hope that you will join me in passing this legislation and allowing ted to make one of his last great marks on this city and had i endless quest to protect t

and the emergency conservation ordinances together with the water requirements that include the main difference between the state legislation and the local is the while the state legislation has quadriplegic with san francisco san francisco requires all inefficient structures to be retrofitted in new contradiction the city in large new commercial buildings asks for an additional 10 percent efficiency threshold over 20 percent over provide codes with initiative dine and all new commercial building that includes the water review to make sure they're operating under this code. >> so again a little bit more detail because we're asked to discuss water sub metered dollars a state requirement that requires indoor excuse me. sub metering of tenants in commercial buildings provided their say either a new building of entire new uses or an additional existing of 50 thousand square feet in that case meters will have to be installed for every tenant use so one hundred glances a day roughly 78 occupants in this space there are feasible back up systems that serve ero tenants spaces we run into a un