tv LIVE Full Board of Supervisors SFGTV July 26, 2016 8:00pm-9:01pm PDT
against item 26 and let's put item 26 on the ballot and let's move ahead into the dawn of the 21st century. >>thank you supervisor kim. supervisor campos. >>i want to think supervisor e for trying to find a compromise and given that i think that was impossible here i think we should make a choice between 25 and 26 i think we should go with 26 it's incredibly balance. when you think about it, the most significant issue facing the city right now is the issue of affordability,
housing affordability, and i think having more discussion on this issue would be a good thing for all of us so i'm happy to support item 26. >>thank you supervisor campos. supervisor wiener. >>thank you mme. pres. i can't support this in the condition that is and if this were simply creating a commission in the mold of the planning commission or police commission over the mayor's office of housing or community development so an affordable housing commission essentially where the mayor appointed commissioners and the board president up pointed three with the same approach to hiring the director and if that were being proposed here i would certainly support that.
i have thought about the idea of an affordable housing commission and it is taking on a greater role and more money is flowing through affordable housing so our committee does make sense to me but that is not what this is. this is not our traditional split appointment where we would acknowledge that this is an agency and an executive branch where the mayor gets a majority of the commission appointments and the mayor plays a role in hiring a department head and the mayor is politically accountable to the voters for the performance of the executive branch. instead, this is taking two very significant departments, and taking these two departments that are part of the executive branch and removing them effectively from the executive branch by putting them under one
commission where the mayor makes the minority of the commission appointments and according to this measure if i'm reading it correctly the mayor plays zero role in actually selecting the director and so, under this circumstance though i am under the agreement of the concept ofwhat this proposes this particular way that this is proposed i just can't support that. >>supervisor. >>i would just like to say that we are spending quite a bit of resources on these housings we
know this is an issue that the public cares deeply about when in fact, if you look at the poles it's the top two or three that san francisco's are thinking about and certainly what they would like increased dialogue, discussion, and feedback on. but, as our a feasibility study moves forward on proposition c moves forward and we talk about the size of projects and neighborhoods but also based on the type of needs that we want to fulfill in the citya commission is going to be invaluable in helping to guide the support of the mayor's office in terms of direction that we as a city want to take for affordable housing. in particular, i believe this comes up in almost every single project that are office
negotiates and the type of affordable housing that we build and it what income levels. i do not want to say that there is not a rhyme or reason for each project, but we do do it on a project by project basis. we have to say i think senior housing is needed in this neighborhood and i think we should do this at 55% ami and we do the best that we can tell fill the needs that we are hearing from the community but i think the commission will provide a larger risible document that we can follow and, give us a better compass in helping to guide all of our budgets together and not go on a development by development basis which is actually truly what we're doing today. there are so many needs that we need to fill.
affordable homeownership that we need to fill and of course the continuing need for a working class community and those that are homeless and formally homelessand this commission is going to provide better laws and focus solely on this issue over the course the years and i think that would be invaluable. finally i should say having worked on many agreements by the mayor's office of development before this agreement comes before the board of supervisors in many ways the community process comes to us before this and we have to modify these projects because the community wasn't able to provide input early on into the process and i think a commission will help us to get good development mint deals
going forward that our community can benefit from. and finally, what a bounce commission looks like. yes, there will be free3 from the mayor's office and three from the community development office. i have to say the controller's office has played a particular role around the issue of affordable housing. they are currently leading the feasibility study around the maximum that we can require market rate developers via proposition c they also led our communities study when we want to see how market rate development affected the displacement of service organizations in the city. the office has been a valuable
impact on these developments before they hit our office. the controller of courses put forward by the mayor's office and i think ultimately this would be heavily guided by what the mayor would like to see in terms of the director and the mayor's office of housing. finally, i would just say that putting this commission forward is not a criticism of this department. i've a great relationship with the mayor's office of housing. i think they are truly committed to affordability. that being said, i think we can do a better job around a guiding document of what we are building and we can do a comprehensive plan of what that looks like and how much senior housing and how much family
housing and what income brackets this is something that will only enhance the work of affordability here in the city that we are doing today and certainly provide more transparency and accountability and trust with the public. >>thank you. before i moved to supervisor avalos i really appreciate your comments supervisor kim and i just want to ask two questions of you and supervisor peskin. have you done any analysis of how much time a commission would, for example, a number of projects that deal with housing. i know your office worked on and negotiated the additional time that would take a commission before it would potentially get to the board. do you have any idea what you think we are talking about? i know it is hard to really say probably because it is a project by project basis but we do know this is going to add an additional amount of time to new production of affordable
housing and i just wanted to know, you know, just ballpark what either you or supervisor peskin think that might be. >>i would just say i don't think that a commission has to add any additional time to a housing project that would be coming before the board and i would also say that additional projects that might be reviewed before the commission would be with the commissioners. the additional time of course would
be in the time of the meeting. but, i don't think it would increase the amount of time that it would get to that board of supervisors and, if anything, i think there would be some efficiency because we frequently do a lot of amendments on the backend of the development deal when the public can finally provide input because that is often the first opportunity that we can do that when it comes before the board. i actually think that would have a lot more efficiencies if we could have more public input on the front and of a development deal than on the backend. now, i have not done a study on the number projects impacted by this. i think that it varies from year-to-year. there some years where we have had-- and trish ryland and this year i would say we have not had as big of a number come for the board that are been impacted. >>supervisor peskin. >>mme. pres. i would add to that that it's really a function of into [inaudible],
because i can't tell from the legislation how all of this fits into one, because as you know, there are so many different layers to housing in a city and specifically, affordable housing. it is very complicated for people to understand where to apply for this and where do you go for this and why do i qualify for this amount and not for this amount and it is very confusing. so, i guess i'm trying to understand how those layers all fit together because i just do not see it. >>mme. pres., i don't mean to be combative but i think you just answered some of those questions. with your specific question relating to the successor agency and redevelopment that we call ocii,
after redevelopment was a sunset it and this legislation in no ways impacts ocii. >>i guess what i'm saying is there is still some overlap in what they are bringing together. >>mme. pres. there is now a transition of transferring some projects and the mayor's office of housing have developed that those that will be in the reit program will will have a place to go to talk about the bread and butter of their day-to-day lives. >>so, they won't have to go to
the housing authority anymore? or, they could go to both? >>so for example the right place for them to go under the new management the right place for them to go for those day-to-day bread-and-butter questions that would go to this new commission and should it be something to vote on the voters would vote for. >>thank you supervisor peskin. supervisor avalos. >> being part of this commission i have watched san francisco move forward in housing development and i haven't seen that in my district and i think there
needs to be a way to bring some transparency into the decisions that are being made by the mayor's office a housing and economic workforce development and i've also worked closely with my community in san francisco and i have seen their role in community development work as they have been able to get more people engaged in changing the district 11 needs and we have changed the process over the many years i have been on the board now to add a little bit of money every year to be able to develop ideas for projects and this year we developed the workforce center in august 20 and that has been built out over the years that we are finally opening up and we will be able to do worker rights work and with the
immigrant community especially the chinese, filipino and chinese community we also have housing projects going forward and that effort was not led by an oh but it was led by community development and there was an effort to take out community develop as an effort by the city and bring forth the economic community and workforce development and they were actually narrowing the scale of what development was going to be in san francisco and it was really about commercial development. we need all three. we need housing, residential and community and housing development i think we need all three of these entities under one commission and that makes a lot of sense and if we are looking at models the community development to be spread around the city i think district 11 has a really good model of having a commission that can
have a way to approach how we could move the needle on making sure that the neighborhoods get their fair share of support and services of development in san francisco and i know supervisor tang has done a lot of work on community development as well and i think these are very similar that could be done on the hospices of a commission with some strategic planning. i am also concerned how the mayor's office of housing is often making political decisions on how to stretch dollars across the city and we will see it that these endings are moving back and forth between different cities in different projects and you know there is not enough to move around there. and as you can see there would be some real transparency on how these would be spent and how these projects can be built out over years in time to make them happen.
earlier this year i asked the controller's office to start working on building towards a commission over at the mayor's office of housing and i was going to slow approach and i was looking at doing hearings and trying to get information but it wasn't really tentative because i didn't have a lot of time left on the board to really do this. they presented their charter amendment and it wasn't ready for prime time. i really appreciate how we use the legislation process to move these projects that i really feel are worthy of supporting today so i thank you for your support and i think the public from hearing the board talk about what this commission could be about and i really like these to be uniform across
the city. some are split between the board and the mayor and some are with the mayor and their split across all of these commissions and this commission is very different in terms of having a controller make the appointment so that we have even numbers from the mayor and the board of supervisors has a controller but i actually think that approach makes sense given that within the process the answer from the mayor's office was no and when an answer is no we don't get any input on what to do i think it makes sense that we determine and reshape it the way that we think that it should be and how we develop
this commission and that we should do it in a way that we think is going to work for our district and for the districts in the city so again, thank you for putting this forward and i'm very happy to support this and i have no other questions. >>thank you supervisor avalos. supervisor wiener. >>let's be very very clear that most appointments are made either all by the mayor or primarily by the mayor and there are two exceptions this would be the commission and the ethics commission where we intentionally split up these appointments because these are unique departments that should not be part of that executive branch the executive branch is a branch and we don't want people to have control over those there is no one that has
the majority and that means that no one is politically accountable for the performance in those departments.and that governmance and there is no accountability if know what one has a role of managing these departments and i think it's on precedented here andcorrect me if i am wrong but perhaps for the first time we are doing an appointment power for a very powerful commission to a non-elected official to control. i am a huge fan of my controller. he has done a great job. he is very efficient he is a friend he is a neighbor. but he was not
elected to make these decisions and perhaps this vote would be cast by someone who is not elected by anyone and to me, that is a huge problem. this is a bad precedence and i am going to predict that if elections happen and things changed with the current majority of this board that we are going to see a move towards more and more commissions having this kind of splintered structure where the mayor no longer effectively manages his executive departments and i will not support that. this is a very bad road that we are potentially going down if the voters approve this charter amendment. >>thank you supervisor weiner. supervisor campos has not had a chance to speak. >>i think i have spoken.
>>supervisor peskin. >> mme. pres. i had that discussion last week so i don't want to belabor it but i do want to recognize incredibly hard work of my staff as supervisor avalos had stated ms. ankula has really worked very difficult and i think that i really up ppreciate all of her work and i like to publicly acknowledge my appreciation for her work >>i would simply say that i think that we should call the question. >>actually supervisor campos, that is not a bad idea.all
right, i will say that this is a hard one. there are so many reasons why i want to see this commission happen. but, i was looking forward to some of the proposed amendments from supervisory yee that i thought would definitely make it better policy but since i am not 100% comfortable with the proposed direction, without any amendments to make it better legislation, i am going to oppose both item 25 and 26. and, seeing no names on the roster i'm going to ask mme. city clerk please call the roster. >>[roll call vote] >>there are 3 ayes and 8 no's,
and avalos and campos in the dissent. >>mme. sec. please read the next item. >>item 27 is an farrellordinance approving health service system plans and contribution rates for calendar year 2017, and amending the administrative code to remove those rates from the code. >>mme. sec., please call the roll. >>[roll call vote] >> there are 10 ayes.
>>this item passes unanimously on the first reading. >>[gavel] >>item 28. >>item 28 is an application and acceptance and expenditure grant for thedelegation of san francisco municipal transportation agency as co-applicant for grant - assumption of liability - affordable housing and sustainable communities program - 480 eddy street project]sponsor: mayorresolution authorizing the san francisco municipal transportation agency (sfmta), on behalf of the city and county of san francisco, to execute a grant application, grant agreement, and related documents under the state of california's affordable housing and sustainable communities program (ahsc program) as a joint applicant with the tenderloin neighborhood development corporation for the
project at 480 eddy street; authorizing the city to assume any joint and several liability for completion of the project required by the terms of any grant awarded under the ahsc program; and adopting findings under the california environmental quality act (ceqa), the ceqa guidelines, and administrative code, chapter 31. mme. pres. would you like me to read item 29? >> yes. >>item 29 is a resolutionbehalf of the city and county of san francisco, to execute a grant application, grant agreement, and related documents under the state of california's affordable housing and sustainable communities program (ahsc program) as a joint applicant with mercy housing, inc., for the project at 455 fell street; authorizing the city to assume any joint and several liability for completion of the project required by the terms of any grant awarded under the ahsc program; and adopting findings under the california environmental quality act (ceqa), the ceqa guidelines, and administrative code, chapter 31. >>collies, can we take this item same house same call? withoutobjection the resolution is adopted unanimously.mme. clerk please read item 30. >>item 30 is afrancisco
utilities commission parcel no. 29 in millbrae, ca - $460,673]resolution authorizing the amendment of orchard supply company, llc's lease of property from the city and county of san francisco, to reduce the size of the leased premises to accommodate the san francisco public utilities commission (sfpuc) regional groundwater storage and recovery project, project no. cuw30103, in consideration of city's payment of $460,673; adopting environmental findings under the california environmental quality act (ceqa), ceqa guidelines, and administrative code, chapter 31; adopting findings of consistency with the general plan, and eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1; and authorizing the director of property and/or the sfpuc general manager to execute documents, make certain modifications, and take certain actions in furtherance of this resolution. >>same house same call? the resolution is adopted animously. >>[gavel] >>mdm. sec. please that read the items 31 and 32 together. >>resolution approving an agreement with newcomb anderson mccormick for professional services related to energy and climate programs, for a five year term to commence following board approval through june 1, 2021, at a total cost not to exceed $44,000,000.
item 33is a resolution approving construction of a recycled water pump station building, and two groundwater well station buildings in golden gate park under charter, section 4.113, as part of the san francisco westside recycled water and san francisco groundwater supply projects. >>colleagues, can we please take these items same house same call?these items are approved unanimously. mme. city clerk please read items 34 and 35 together please. >>item 34 is a resolution retroactively approving the award of professional services agreement, airport contract no.
50085, to fsp ppm management, llc, to manage and staff the curbside management program in an amount not-to-exceed $19,522,294 for a period of four years beginning july 1, 2016, through june 30, 2020, with one one-year renewal option, pursuant to charter, section 9.118(b). >>item 35 35 is adevelopment, inc. - information booth program - $10,795,274]resolution retroactively approving modification no. 6, executed on july 1, 2016, to professional services agreement, airport contract no. 9075 to operate the airport's information booth program between polaris research and development, inc., and the city and county of san francisco, acting by and through its airport commission, in an amount not to exceed $10,795,274 for the term of june 30, 2011, through december 31, 2016, pursuant to charter, section 9.118(b). >>same house and call? the resolutions are adopted unanimously please read items 36 and 37. >>development, inc. - information booth program - $10,795,274]resolution retroactively approving modification no. 6, executed on july 1, 2016, to professional services agreement, airport contract no. 9075 to operate the airport's information booth program between polaris research and development, inc., and the city and county of san francisco, acting by and through its airport commission, in an amount not to exceed $10,795,274 for the term of june 30, 2011, through december 31, 2016, pursuant to charter, section 9.118(b). >>item 36 same house same call? the resolution is adopted unanimously. >>[gavel] >>item 37 >>hitem 37 is a resolutionded
dispatch/automatic vehicle location system integration, and five years of warranty and preventative maintenance services, in an amount not to exceed $29,264,755 and for an initial term that includes an installation period plus five years commencing august 1, 2016, or later, with the option to extend for up to two five-year terms for a total term not to exceed 16 years. >>same house same call? the resolution is approved unanimously >>[gavel] please read item 38. >>item 38 is an ordinance
farrellordinance amending the administrative code to create a fourth preference for people who live or work in san francisco, in addition to existing preferences in allocating city affordable housing units, and to create an additional category of eligible displaced tenants that includes tenants displaced by fire; affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act; and making findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1. 06/28/2016. >> we know we have had a displacement particularly in the mission but others as well. i have seen and superviisor campos has seen and probably all of us have seen the devastation that this has caused it is a dramatic event in anyone's life to lose your home but if you are of lower income it can destroy your life and it can take six months or longer for that to be fixed and we need to help these people. five years ago i offered the good samaritan ordinance to make it easier for landlords to displaced tenants while they
are waiting for the improvements to be fixed.. i ask for your support on this very important legislation. >>supervisor campos. >>thank you i would like to be added as a cosponsor. >>thank you colleagues can we take this item same house, same call,? with out of section we have passed this ordinance unanimously. >>mme. city clerk please read item 39. >>avalosordinance amending the
planning code to 1) define wireless telecommunications services (wts) facilities; 2) create distinct wts facility land use controls and, among other things, require a conditional use authorization (cu) for macro wts facilities in most article 2, 7, and 8 districts; 3) regulate micro wts facilities in all districts; 4) require that a wts facility's cu shall expire after ten years; 5) regulate wts facilities in certain mission bay districts and p districts; 6) exempt certain telecommunications equipment accessory uses from height limitations; 7) allow screening elements for wts facilities to exceed height limits, consistent with existing height limit exemptions for antennas; 8) define and regulate temporary wts facilities; 9) allow the historic preservation commission to delegate determinations on applications for administrative certificates of appropriateness and minor permits to alter to planning department staff; and affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act, and making findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1. >>supervisor avalos. >> the proposed changes that were directed by the planning department staff based on lessons learned with the existing facilities in san francisco as well as the future trends of these wireless facilities and the goals of the wireless guidelines with the karen supplanting code provisions of the wires caring
facilities of the intrusive location and design of the proposed changes were provided by the planning department staff to nearly every neighborhoodgroup in san francisco that is registered with representatives of very many wireless carriers. they require a conditional youth authorization exempting screen elements such as pipes or elevated penthouses that are used to screen antennas from height limits which is consistent with the current exemption for unscreened antennas or towers. however, these were designed for historic preservation or
shattered review as proposed by the planning commission. so, in fact, these are regulations set in motion for the future and how we can have the least intrusive wireless facilities in san francisco and there is many years of work in putting this together. colleagues, i urge your support thank you. >>thank you colleagues, can we take this same house same call? the ordinance passes without objection unanimously. mme. city clerk, please read item 40. >>amending the public works code to place additional limits on the duration of street space occupancy permits, and to limit the number of such permits including permit extensions that can be issued at the same address during a three-year period in residential, urban mixed-use, and neighborhood commercial districts, and precluding the issuance of such permits at the same address for two years after that three-year period; and affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act. >>supervisor farrell. >>thank you mme. pres. i will cut but i have to say in the interest of time but this happens in every neighborhood and i just want to thank all of
the departments and thank my office for taking on this legislation. >>thank you colleagues, can we take this same house same call? the ordinance passes without objection unanimously. >>[gavel] >>mdm. city clerk please read item 41. >>item 41 is a resolution granting revocable permission to the municipal transportation agency to occupy portions of the public right-of-way to install and maintain three new
operator convenience facilities at the terminus of various muni bus routes; affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act; and making a finding of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1. >>can we take this item same house same call? the motion passes unanimously .mme. city clerk please read item 42. >>item 42 is an ordinance amending the san francisco fire code to require building owners and homeowners' associations to provide fire safety information to residents in buildings with three or more dwelling units, and annual fire safety information and training to residents in buildings with 16 or more units; making findings as to local conditions pursuant to the california health and safety code; and directing the clerk of the board of supervisors to transmit the ordinance to appropriate state officials. >>supervisor tang. >>thank you mme. pres. i want to thank everyone who has supported this ordinance and today i would like to just have one amendment before you which is on page 6. when it was
passed out to you it is the amendment basically that would recommend that the residents test their smoke alarms and carbon monoxide detectors on a monthly basis at reportproblems or repairs to their landlord. >>this ordinance as amended can we take that same house same call without objection? without objection the ordinance as amendment did passes unanimously on its first reading. mme. city clerk please read item that 43 and 44 together please. >>resolution determining that the transfer of a type 48 on-sale general public premises license from 86-2nd street to 65 post street (district 3) to
m&m group assets, inc. dba dada bar and lounge, will serve the public convenience or necessity of the city and county of san francisco in accordance with california business and professions code, section 23958.4, and recommending that the california department of alcoholic beverage control impose conditions on the issuance of the license. and for item 44 it is a resolution to determinethat the issuance of a type 21 off-sale general license to najib saliba and hanan saliba dba franklin market located at 2836 franklin street (district 2), will serve the public convenience or necessity of the city and county of san francisco, in accordance with california business and professions code, section 23958.4, and recommending that the california department of alcoholic beverage control impose conditions on the issuance of the license. >>colleagues, can we take these items same house same call? without objection, the resolutions are adopted unanimously >>[gavel] >>mme. clerk please call item 45. >>item 45 is amotion confirming the mayoral reappointment of darryl honda to the board of appeals, for a term ending july 1, 2020. >>same house same call. without objectionmotion
confirming the mayoral appointment of frank fung to the board of appeals, for a term ending july 1, 2020. >>same house same call, without objection the motion passes unanimously. >>[gavel] >> item 47 two >>item 47 ismotion confirming the mayoral reappointment of richard hillis to the planning commission, term ending june 30, 2020. >>same house same call. without objection, this
motion is passed unanimously. >>[gavel] >>mme. city clerk please read item 48.motion approving the president of the board of supervisors london breed's nomination of richard swig for appointment to the board of appeals, for a term ending july 1, 2020.>>same house same call the motion passes unanimously. >> mme. city clerk, please read item 58. >>item 58 is awienerordinance amending the fire code and the
housing code to require building owners provide tenants with an annual written notice of smoke alarm requirements and require building owners file a statement of compliance with annual fire alarm testing and inspection requirements every two years; amending the fire code and building code to require building owners to upgrade existing fire alarm systems by july 1, 2021, or upon completion of $50,000 or more of construction work, whichever occurs earlier; amending the building code to require owners of apartment houses damaged by fire to submit an action plan to the city within 30 days of the fire and requiring owners of buildings in group r occupancies with six or more units to install fire blocks in open accessible attics when performing $50,000 or more of construction work; affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act; making findings under the california health and safety code; and directing the clerk of the board of supervisors to forward this ordinance to the california building standards commission upon final passage as required by state law. >>supervisor campos. >>this is an effort to reduce fires by increasing the fire safety requirements for these existing buildings we required that the owners have common area firewalls tested and alarm systems tested every year and that these be updated so that these systems can actually hear them so that these can actually pass what we call the pillow test because instudies we saw that people actually did not hear the alarm going off and also to prevent the spread of fires we are asking that in these buildings there would be the placement of what are called fire blocks for fire
safety installation that prevents fires from going from one building to another and it also requires that the space tenants are provided with an action plan within 72 hours or within 30 days of a fire because it is very critical because what happens in many of these fires is that the tenants do not even know what's going on and they need this information to be provided to them so we need this information provided in multiple languages. so, we ask you for your support. thank you very much. >>did you have any amendments supervisor campos? >>i think we need to amend a few lines i make a motion to amend those along with this? >> without objection as amended
we can pass this unanimously and with item 59 we take this without objection as amended on the reading. >>[gavel] >>can we read item 60-68.excluding item number 61. >>item 60ordinance authorizing settlement of the lawsuit filed by muaadh alawadhi and suad mahyoub against the city and county of san francisco for
$156,250; the lawsuit was filed on january 7, 2015, and it involves medical negligence. item 62 is a lawsuit that involves a restitution andcivil penalties under the zuckerberg san francisco general hospital and trauma centerfor emergency medical care provided to blue cross's insureds prior to july 1, 2015, and for the payment of additional amounts for such emergency medical care provided between july 1, 2015, and june 30, 2019; the lawsuit was filed on may 24, 2011, in san francisco superior court, item 63 it is an ordinance authorizing settlement of the lawsuit filed by state farm general insurance company against the city and county of san francisco for $90,000; the lawsuit was filed on february 13, 2014, in san francisco superior court, case no. cgc-14-537478; entitled state farm general insurance company v. city and county of san francisco; the lawsuit involves alleged property damage arising from flooding. ordinance authorizing settlement of the lawsuit filed by paul walker against the city and county of san francisco for $80,000; the lawsuit was filed
on november 10, 2015, in united states district court, northern district, case no. cv-15-5129-jcs; entitled paul walker v. city and county of san francisco; the lawsuit involves alleged americans with disabilities act violations. >> item 65 isordinance authorizing settlement of the lawsuit filed by mery perez against the city and county of san francisco for $87,500; the lawsuit was filed on february 9, 2015, in san francisco superior court, case no. cgc-15-544024; entitled mery perez v. city and county of san francisco; the lawsuit involves a medical malpractice claim; other material terms of the settlement are that co-defendant dr. derrick lung is to pay $87,500. item 66 is an ordinance ordinance authorizing settlement of the lawsuit filed by the people of the state of california against the city and county of san francisco for $250,000; the lawsuit will be filed in alameda county superior court; and be entitled people of the state of california v.san francisco public utilities commission and the city and county of san francisco;the lawsuit involves alleged violations of california pollution prevention and hazardous materials laws at public utilities commission facilities near sunol in alameda. item 67 isordinance authorizing settlement of the lawsuit filed by the people of the state of california against the city and county of san francisco for $250,000; the lawsuit will be filed in alameda county superior court; and be entitled people of the state of california v.san francisco public utilities commission and the city and county of san francisco;the lawsuit involves alleged violations of california pollution prevention and hazardous materials laws at public utilities commission facilities near sunol in alameda. item 68 iscounty of san francisco for $30,000; the lawsuit was filed on february 3, 2015, in san francisco superior court, case no. cgc 15-543936; entitled sadeq naji v. city and county of san francisco; san francisco public
library; the lawsuit involves an employment dispute. >>collies can we take these items same house same call?item 60 through 68 were past without objection unanimously. >>[gavel] mme. city clerk please read item 61. >>item 61 is aordinance authorizing settlement of the lawsuit filed by ricardo palikiko-garcia, stanley harris, and keith dwayne richardson against the city and county of san francisco for $90,000; the lawsuit was filed on march 16, 2016, in united states district court for the northern district of california, case no. c16-1305 jcs; entitled ricardo palikiko-garcia, et al. v. city and county of san francisco, et al.; the lawsuit involves allegations of excessive force, cruel and unusual punishment, and egregious government conduct. >>mme. city clerk can we please have a roll call vote. >>[roll call vote] >>there are nine ayes.
>> this ordinance passes on the first reading and the clerk if you could please call the item 69? >>item 69 is a resolution authorizing the acceptance and expenditure of a state transportation development act, article 3, pedestrian and bicycle project grant, in the amount of $995,524 including $497,762 for public works and $497,762 for the san francisco municipal transportation agency, for a three-year period of july 1, 2016, through june 30, 2019. >>can we please have a roll call vote. >>[roll call vote] >> there are 10 ayes. >>the resolution is adopted unanimously. mme. city clerk, please call items 70.
>>item 70 is a resolution declaring the intention of the board of supervisors to modify the management district plan and engineer's report for the property-based business improvement district (community benefit district) known as the "central market community benefit district" to remove the district-wide cap on annual assessment revenues; ordering and setting a time and place for a public hearing thereon; approving the form of the notice of public hearing and assessment ballot proceeding and assessment ballot; and directing the clerk of the board of supervisors to give notice of the public hearing and balloting as required by law. >>colleagues, can we take this item same house same call? without objection, this resolution is adopted unanimously. >>[gavel] >> item 71. >>item 71 ismarordinance amending the administrative code to revise the residential unit conversion ordinance to require hosting platforms to verify that a residential unit is on the city registry prior to accepting a fee for booking a short-term rental transaction, and to provide an affidavit of compliance to the city and retain certain records; authorize the office of short term rentals to issue an administrative subpoena to obtain records; provide for civil, administrative, and criminal penalties against hosting platforms for violations of their obligations under the residential unit conversion ordinance; and
affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act. >>supervisor campos. >> yes pres. breed i am wondering if we can excuse supervisor farrell and supervisor campos. >>before you are the amendments of the resolution that i have amended with supervisor peskin. the intent with the ordinance is straightforward to require that hosting platforms to do business with law-abiding host to assure that they are not aiding and abetting illegal activity. after consultations with the city attorney about the air b and b legal arguments
that we know what they filed in the mitigation we agree that we can simultaneously address these items before you. these are designed to eliminate some of these ambiguities that the air b and b have latched on in their lawsuit. the amendments clarify that the city is regulating the business activity of platforms not website content which the air b and b has alleged. it is been made clear that they would not conduct a business activity where they would collect or book a fee for short-term units not registered with the city. let me just make a couple of points clear because for some reason questions came up when
supervisor peskin received this in committee it does not matter when they received the fee for booking services. for instance, whether they received the fee at the time of or after the booking it doesn't matter nor does it matter if they collect the fee directly from the host or the user words indirectly from the third-party. in any instance the hosting platform will be in violation once the registered unit is rented in its booking services. if the hosting platform has advertisements in these platforms and does not charge a fee and we have the example on craigslist then we could not verify this registration the fact is we need to make our current short-term rental wall enforceable. our current law is simply not working. without
an enforceable law, we cannot truly regulate short-term rentals to ensure that housing for residents of san francisco isn't being taken off the market from housing to engage in short-term rentals. the city's budget and legislative analyst found that air b and b alone took up to 2000 and entire units completely off the unit making those housing units unavailable to long-term residents of the city. our hope is that the hosting platform and the air b and b will drop their lawsuit and work with the county of san francisco to ensure that this industry supports, rather than harms, san francisco.it is only fair that air b and b and others help us to enforce the law when they themselves actually help to write the law. colleagues, i have circulated
the amendment or the amendments to the legislation and i ask again for your support. >>thank you. supervisor wiener. >>thank you. in terms of the amendments, in committee i believe it was yesterday i guess i had asked the question to make sure that this legislation was going to apply to all hosting platforms and i know there was a question about that and i have always been of the view that this was notbout air b and b or one company and this was about all hosting platforms and we need to make sure that our regulations are broad and not tailored to go after onecompany. i think air b and b has about half of the listings in san francisco so it's on our benefit that we
have this broad for hosting platform so i just want to make sure the supplies broadly to hosting platforms. >>deputy city atty. rob kappla the ordinance has originally had applied any hosting platforms to provide these are booking services and collect a fee for these services it is meant solely upon those who perform and engage in the business activity and perform a business contactor of providing that service for us.>>so, for example all home away or air b and b or whatever they call them they will conneyo