. >> item 5 ordinance amending city ordinances. president chiu: can we take a roll call vote? >> there are nine ayes and one no. president chiu: item 6. >> resolution authorizing the sale of city property at the northern corner of fulton street and gough street to the boys and girls club of san francisco. president chiu: supervisor olague, you have some amendments? supervisor olague: i would like to thank those who made this possible but also those that make sure it was the best deal it could be. i would like to thank my fellow co-sponsors, members of the committee, the boys and girls club, and the mayor's office of housing, for making sure that we have the best deal for this neighborhood, for my constituents, and for the entire city. these amendments to a number of things including they make clear the history behind the octavia boulevard access parcel, the redevelopment agency purchase of parcels in 2001 and in 2002 as well as the use of the remaining parcels and use of the revenue. make certain that 100% of the purchase price as well as any participation in additional residen

city policy. a vision for glen park for the first time and an ordinance adopting the planning code amendments. this would be introducing the glen park neighborhood commercial transit district into the city's planning code. and also approving the ordinance adopting this outing at the met -- map amendments which would mean mapping on the glen park ntc district. this is our plan. that ends my presentation. supervisor wiener: thank you and thank you for all the incredible work on this plan over the years. as we get to the hearing and is a brief presentation, it does not reflect the amount of work that went into bringing us to this point so thank you for all the work. i am very supportive of this plan and i will say that the strong support in the community, i have a letter here which will -- we will provide the director, it is very short period the glen park association of's board of directors has followed and participated in the plan process. the community plan has received substantial input from members of the glen park community and the planning commission unanimously approved it in the november

ordinance amending the city and county of san francisco zoning map sheets zn11 and ht11 to: 1) createew zoning district, and amend height and bulk districts within the glen park area plan, as proposed in the glen park community plan; and 2) making environmental findings and findings of consistency with the general plan and the priority policies of planning code section 101.1. item no. 6. francisco general plan by adding the glen park area plan; and making findings, including environmental findings and findings of consistency with the general plan and the priority policies of planning code section 101.1. supervisor wiener: this neighborhood began a lengthy process, that i have to say i have been involved in a number of labor brought that this and this is the most thorough and inclusive neighborhood process i have seen. there was a high level of anticipation in terms of public meetings, breakouts, brainstorming, not just people listening to what is going on, but people putting their ideas in, back in 2003. there was a lot of clamoring over the years about when it would move forward. wel

i think once we incorporate this language into the amended ordinance, and we will certainly work with the city attorney to make sure that the language does meet our needs, then i think we're fine with our nonprofits and the unintended consequences that the writing of this could have caused. so i think we're in pretty good shape with this amended language, and i would like to thank you for that. supervisor chu: ok, in terms that the contracts you generally see, they would generally be residential facilities that we contract with someone come into the master lease for single individuals or may be individuals where medical services are provided on site a janitorial is included as part of it. it might include a service for the my own the facility themselves and are providing a residential use on that site for youth, for example, were the city my contract for that service where there is a janitorial component to it. but according to this legislative change, this amendment, you think that it is adequate to make sure that, as intended by the author, that is not included, correct? >> yes, we believe w

with amendments, this ordinance will provide up getting to ensure the city benefits from public are continuing today and into the future. concludes my presentation. supervisor wiener: can you give us some idea of how large are those projects? >> if you think about the standard san francisco lot is 25 feet by 100 feet. that would be to thousand 500 square feet. and -- supervisor wiener: it would be like filling one building. one block building, that is 10 stories high as about 25,000 square feet? roughly? >> roughly. supervisor wiener: that is held for for me to know. >> a would-be and if you add another zero. 10 more, 10 of those 2500 square-foot lots or a 10 story lot on a standard lot. >> will have opportunity for folks to explain what their understanding is. nitthat is what we currently state as the size of a project in the area that would be relevant for this. ok? any of the questions? there are a number of folks from the arts commission i would like to recognize. is mr. johnson here? >> he was here earlier. >> we have to other individuals -- two other individuals. the deputy and directors

city attorneys. and the intent of this ordinance, i'm sorry, of this charter amendment is not to fully halt and kill legislation being conproposed. if we proposed a charter amendment that would give someone the ultimate authority to kill legislation, we would have just done that. we took a more moderated is that -- step, and this language adddresses --- i don't want to expand to much. -- expound too much. i don't think the small business commission we adequateighed -- adequately weighed alternatives, so i will sue to a halt. it was not our intention to create a mechanism like that. this is about public process, not about killing legislation. >> will this mean that if they don't comply in terms of just bringing it to the small business commission, in this charter, there will be no problems? i am wondering what will make it so that they can't just -- >> as with any board rule or law that governs process for the board of supervisors, what happens if they don't do it? i would refer that question to the city attorney. that is a broad question. it would be the law. president o'brien: does that mean it is

city attorneys. and the intent of this ordinance, i'm sorry, of this charter amendment is not to fully halt and kill legislation being conproposed. if we proposed a charter amendment that would give someone the ultimate authority to kill legislation, we would have just done that. we took a more moderated is that -- step, and this

city is paramount. >> ok for people to feel passionate. also responsibility to modernize this so people can express first amendment rights law enforced as appropriate. >> new city ordinanceping cab drivers well rested. new rules passed for taxicab drivers no blogger allowed to drive more than 12 hours a day. companies also required to install technology allowing the city to check out what they have been behind the wheel also approving a permanent $1 fuel surcharge when a new fare starts flagpole amount is now $3.25. chicago scaling back on food inspections. food sellers with good records will get to do their own inspections on a trial basis. city council okayed this fort minimarts corner stores and restaurants passing inspections previous year and no food safety issues for three years 32 inspectors more time to focus on places with a greater risk of food borne illness. remember today a lot of chicago arts and education. >> she made it more civil more artistic more compassionate more courageous more heroic. and more sensitive to the lives of the vulnerable and to their needs. >> chicago aldermen paying tribute to former first lady maggie daley. major accomplishment watchi

. >> item number 11, ordinance amending the san francisco administrative code sections 21c.2 threw 21c.6 and adding section 21c.7 to specify the city contracts for services that are subject to the city's prevailing rate of wage requirement, consolidate consistent standards for determining and enforcing prevailing rate of wage requirements in all covered contracts, providing all employment transaction times for workers under successor contracts to all covered contracts, and provide that all work on cover contracts be performed by employees and not independent contractors. supervisor chu: thank you. we have been joined by supervisor wiener, the sponsor of this legislation, a key sponsor. so i would like to offer the supervisor in the opening comments. supervisor wiener: thank you, and happy new year, everyone. so this item was in before the committee in in december. briefly, as a reminder, these are amendments to the prevailing wage ordinance. the few things brought in the types of contracts that are covered. it does a fair amount of cleanup and consolidation for consistency with in the ordinance. it creates a six-month transition pe

amendment that aims to increase public participation and input into the legislative process here in city hall and aims to do so around one very specific type of legislation, that is very important ordinances that impact the business community, the private sector and the city, and would result in a net job loss that would result in people losing their jobs. this charter amendment would ensure that legislation that moved through the process here in city hall has ample opportunity for input for stakeholders to come to the table to discuss the positives and negatives, and hopefully come together with a successful piece of legislation that would minimize job loss. this charter amendment explicitly does not restrict the board's ability to make policy choices. it does not restrict the board's ability to pass any type of piece of legislation. that simply calls for a hearing. it calls for a process of public input and stakeholder feedback. we had the original draft, and there have been a number of pieces of feedback we have received about the original draft from all corners. in response to that feedback, we have provided a new draft. i want to first of all thank everyone who got in touch with the

ordinance amending the san francisco administrative code sections 21c.2 though 21c.6, and adding section 21c.7 to: 1) specify the city contracts for services that are subject to the city's prevailing rate of wage requirement ("covered contracts"); 2) consolidate consistent standards for determining and enforcing prevailing rate of wage requirements in all covered contracts; 3) provide an employment transition period for workers under successor contracts to all covered contracts; and 4) provide that all work on covered contracts be performed by employees and not independent contractors; and amending the san francisco police code section 3300c.1 to make conforming changes. supervisor chu: thank you. we have been joined by supervisor wiener, the sponsor of this legislation. would you like to say some opening comments? supervisor wiener: thank you. this is legislation to improve and upgrade our prevailing wage ordinance. we have a problem with the ordinance in san francisco to ensure that in a number of different areas, when the city contracts for services, that our contractors are paying a prevailing wage to their emplo

supportive of the amendment, it would provide a date certain for possibility of using it for affordable housing or sell. supervisor mar: i know that the surplus property ordinance is a broader city-wide issue, and i think a number of the housing advocates are going to be speaking in a moment. what are your responses that by not utilizing properties like that have already been identified for raising funds for affordable housing, how would it to replace those funds in the future? >> is one of the reasons why we would like to have a date certain. it did not necessarily pan out in terms of the marketability in terms of the steep slope of the site. we will try to look at other surplus properties if they could be sold in lieu of this particular site to be able to raise the particular proceeds to would be looking for. supervisor wiener: i also want to point out that the idea of surplus property is a property that is not being used for anything else. and when you have properties such as this one, it has another used to benefit in neighborhood. one can raise the issue if it remains as surplus property, but the purpose of my amendment is to make sure that we are disciplined and taking a l

. >> ordinance amending the san francisco administrative san16 .900 to 16.905 and 21.02 to update provisions regarding the san francisco health service systems contracting authority and the city's employee benefit cafeteria plan. supervisor chu: thank you. this is actually an item that the health service system asked me to carry for them. it is is simple item, and it is non-controversial, i believe. generally, the voters come in 2004, approved proposition c, which remove the health service system from the city's department of human resources and made the organization a separate department. however, the administrative code was not completely cleaned up to that effect. what is proposed ordinance would do with the we would end and administrative code to designate that the health service system as the city's department is responsible for administering the city's benefit cafeteria plan and for contracting for services related to those benefits. right now, is still reside under the human resources department. it is a formality and clean up language. the ordinance also confirms that the courts, as well as the sfcta are also participating employers to the city's plan. i believe these a

city, in dealing with trauma and mental health issues in the neighborhood. we have an amendment. we have already adopted that. can we support the ordinanceamended, without objection? >> i believe that this comes out of the committee report. supervisor mar: moving this forward for tuesday's board meeting, tomorrow, january 31. >> i would move that we move it forward -- supervisor wiener: i would move that we move it forward with a positive recommendation. supervisor mar: thank you for coming out, everyone. [applause] supervisor mar: please read ordinance no. 2. >> [reads ordinance] >> that afternoon. i am with the planning department and then happy to provide background material on this. currently, the department of public works administers the project for expanding sidewalk with. -- width. each change to the sidewalk required by the board of supervisors, including widening, this was established in an ordinance 1061. that was approved on may 11, 1910, and no changes have been made since that date. the action today is having the board authorized the change as to how sidewalk is approved. it would authorize the department of public works to

city. i am delighted about that. i am extremely happy to see that you have taken the idea of using this as a charter amendment and not as a procedural ordinance. i think that is the right way to do it. possibly evidenced by a recent proposal that supervisor wiener put forward to undo legislation approved by the voters. people said, we don't want you to have that power. this is something that will avoid that down the road. the overwhelming support, the kindness and the objective behind it. if i could, this is a possible action item? with that, if there aren't any further questions from the commissioners, i would like to open it up for public comment. >> i had one question to the president. with the amendments being made, it would be, in terms of the small business commission's ability to offer alternative proposals or legislation at the same time, will that be part of that? or is that part of the procedural elements that would be developed in the ordinance? >> that would be part of the procedural elements. if we want to take a process out, to the extent that this is a piece of legislation sponsored by the mayor, i can assure you that what he i

city. i am delighted about that. i am extremely happy to see that you have taken the idea of using this as a charter amendment and not as a procedural ordinance. i think that is the right way to do it. possibly evidenced by a recent proposal that supervisor wiener put forward to undo legislation approved by the voters. people said, we don't want you to have that power. this is something that will avoid that down the road. the overwhelming support, the kindness and the objective behind it. if i could, this is a possible action item?