Skip to code content (skip section selection)
Compare to:
San Francisco Overview
San Francisco Charter
San Francisco Administrative Code
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
THE SAN FRANCISCO CODES
PREFACE TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
CHAPTER 1: GENERAL PROVISIONS
CHAPTER 2: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CHAPTER 2A: EXECUTIVE BRANCH
CHAPTER 2B: ASSESSMENT APPEALS BOARDS (TAX APPEAL BOARDS)
CHAPTER 3: BUDGET PROCEDURES
CHAPTER 4: CITY BUILDINGS, EQUIPMENT, AND VEHICLES
CHAPTER 5: COMMITTEES
CHAPTER 6: PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
CHAPTER 7: DISASTER COUNCIL
CHAPTER 8: DOCUMENTS, RECORDS AND PUBLICATIONS
CHAPTER 9A: FARMERS' MARKET
CHAPTER 9B: FLEA MARKET
CHAPTER 10: FINANCE, TAXATION, AND OTHER FISCAL MATTERS
CHAPTER 10B: SPECIAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES
CHAPTER 10C: REIMBURSEMENT FOR TOWING AND STORAGE OF VEHICLES
CHAPTER 10E: PLANNING MONITORING
CHAPTER 10F: 1660 MISSION STREET SURCHARGE
CHAPTER 10G: BOARD OF APPEALS SURCHARGE FOR PERMITS AND FEES
CHAPTER 10H: RECOVERY OF COSTS OF EMERGENCY RESPONSE
CHAPTER 11: FRANCHISES
CHAPTER 12: HOUSING AUTHORITY
CHAPTER 12A: HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
CHAPTER 12B: NONDISCRIMINATION IN CONTRACTS
CHAPTER 12C: NONDISCRIMINATION IN PROPERTY CONTRACTS
CHAPTER 12D: MINORITY/WOMEN/LOCAL BUSINESS UTILIZATION
CHAPTER 12E: CITY EMPLOYEE'S SEXUAL PRIVACY ORDINANCE
CHAPTER 12F: IMPLEMENTING THE MACBRIDE PRINCIPLES - NORTHERN IRELAND
CHAPTER 12G: PROHIBITION ON USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS FOR POLITICAL ACTIVITY BY RECIPIENTS OF CITY CONTRACTS, GRANTS, AND LOANS
CHAPTER 12H: IMMIGRATION STATUS
CHAPTER 12I: CIVIL IMMIGRATION DETAINERS
CHAPTER 12J: CITY BUSINESS WITH BURMA PROHIBITED
CHAPTER 12K: SALARY HISTORY*
CHAPTER 12L: PUBLIC ACCESS TO RECORDS AND MEETINGS OF NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS
CHAPTER 12M: PROTECTION OF PRIVATE INFORMATION*
CHAPTER 12N: LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, TRANSGENDER, QUEER, AND QUESTIONING YOUTH: YOUTH SERVICES SENSITIVITY TRAINING
CHAPTER 12O: EARNED INCOME CREDIT INFORMATION
CHAPTER 12P: MINIMUM COMPENSATION
CHAPTER 12Q: HEALTH CARE ACCOUNTABILITY
CHAPTER 12R: MINIMUM WAGE
CHAPTER 12S: WORKING FAMILIES CREDIT PROGRAM
CHAPTER 12T: CITY CONTRACTOR/SUBCONTRACTOR CONSIDERATION OF CRIMINAL HISTORY IN HIRING AND EMPLOYMENT DECISIONS
CHAPTER 12U: SWEATFREE CONTRACTING
CHAPTER 12V: PERSONAL SERVICES MINIMUM CONTRACTUAL RATE ORDINANCE
CHAPTER 12W: SICK LEAVE*
CHAPTER 12X: PROHIBITING CITY TRAVEL AND CONTRACTING IN STATES THAT ALLOW DISCRIMINATION*
CHAPTER 12Y: SAN FRANCISCO SLAVERY DISCLOSURE ORDINANCE*
CHAPTER 12Z: SAN FRANCISCO FAMILY FRIENDLY WORKPLACE ORDINANCE
CHAPTER 13: JAILS AND PRISONERS
CHAPTER 14: SAN FRANCISCO HEALTH CARE SECURITY ORDINANCE
CHAPTER 14A: DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM
CHAPTER 14B: LOCAL BUSINESS ENTERPRISE UTILIZATION AND NON-DISCRIMINATION IN CONTRACTING ORDINANCE
CHAPTER 14C: [EXPIRED]
CHAPTER 15: MENTAL HEALTH SERVICE
CHAPTER 16: OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES GENERALLY
CHAPTER 17: PUBLIC OFF-STREET PARKING FACILITIES
CHAPTER 18: PAYROLL PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 19. COMMUNITY SAFETY CAMERA ORDINANCE
CHAPTER 19A: PUBLIC HEALTH
CHAPTER 19B: ACQUISITION OF SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY
CHAPTER 20: SOCIAL SERVICES
CHAPTER 21: ACQUISITION OF COMMODITIES AND SERVICES
CHAPTER 21A: HEALTH-RELATED COMMODITIES AND SERVICES
CHAPTER 21B: COMMODITIES AND SERVICES RELATING TO PROJECTS ADDRESSING HOMELESSNESS
CHAPTER 21C: MISCELLANEOUS PREVAILING WAGE REQUIREMENTS
CHAPTER 21D: [RESERVED]
CHAPTER 21E: [RESERVED]
CHAPTER 21F: [RESERVED]
CHAPTER 21G: [RESERVED]
CHAPTER 22: RADIO COMMUNICATION FACILITIES
CHAPTER 22A: INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY
CHAPTER 22B: TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES
CHAPTER 22C: PUBLIC INTERNET ACCESS
CHAPTER 22D: OPEN DATA POLICY
CHAPTER 22E: CITY-OWNED FIBER-OPTIC FACILITIES
CHAPTER 22G: OFFICE OF EMERGING TECHNOLOGY
CHAPTER 23: REAL PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS
CHAPTER 23A: SURPLUS PUBLIC LANDS ORDINANCE
CHAPTER 24: REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CHAPTER 24A: ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE LOCAL RENT SUPPLEMENT PROGRAM IN THE OFFICE OF MAYOR
CHAPTER 24B: RELOCATION APPEALS BOARD
CHAPTER 25: STREET LIGHTING
CHAPTER 26. DEEMED APPROVED OFF-STREET ALCOHOL USE NUISANCE REGULATIONS
CHAPTER 27: HEALTHY NAIL SALON RECOGNITION PROGRAM
CHAPTER 28: ADMINISTRATIVE DEBARMENT PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 29: FINDINGS OF FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY AND FEASIBILITY
CHAPTER 29A: [APPROVAL OF POWER PLANT; PLANNING CODE SEC.
CHAPTER 29B: CHILD CARE FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR CITY AND CITY-FUNDED PROJECTS
CHAPTER 30: CENTRALIZATION OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 31: CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PROCEDURES AND FEES
CHAPTER 32: RESIDENTIAL REHABILITATION LOAN PROGRAM
CHAPTER 33: COMMISSION ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN
CHAPTER 33A: LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN (CEDAW)*
CHAPTER 34: NOTIFICATION TO ASSESSOR CONCERNING ZONING RECLASSIFICATIONS OF PROPERTY, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND VARIANCES
CHAPTER 35: RESIDENTIAL, HOTEL, AND PDR COMPATIBILITY AND PROTECTION
CHAPTER 36: COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENTS AREA PLANS AND PROGRAMS
CHAPTER 37: RESIDENTIAL RENT STABILIZATION AND ARBITRATION ORDINANCE
CHAPTER 37A: RENT STABILIZATION AND ARBITRATION FEE
CHAPTER 38: COMMERCIAL LANDLORDS; ACCESS IMPROVEMENT OBLIGATIONS AND NOTICE TO SMALL BUSINESS TENANTS REGARDING DISABILITY ACCESS
CHAPTER 39: [RIGHT TO RETURN TO REVITALIZED PUBLIC HOUSING]
CHAPTER 40: HOUSING CODE ENFORCEMENT LOAN PROGRAM
CHAPTER 41: RESIDENTIAL HOTEL UNIT CONVERSION AND DEMOLITION
CHAPTER 41A: RESIDENTIAL UNIT CONVERSION AND DEMOLITION
CHAPTER 41B: COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY TO PURCHASE ACT
CHAPTER 41C: TIME-SHARE CONVERSION ORDINANCE
CHAPTER 41D: RESIDENTIAL HOTEL VISITOR POLICIES
CHAPTER 41E. RESIDENTIAL HOTEL MAIL RECEPTACLE ORDINANCE
CHAPTER 41F: TOURIST HOTEL CONVERSION*
CHAPTER 42: INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
CHAPTER 43: MUNICIPAL FINANCE LAW
CHAPTER 44: ADULT DAY HEALTH CARE PLANNING COUNCIL
CHAPTER 45: JURY FEES
CHAPTER 47: PREFERENCE IN CITY AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAMS
CHAPTER 48: RENTAL SUBSIDY PROGRAM FOR LOW-INCOME FAMILIES
CHAPTER 49: SECURITY DEPOSITS FOR RESIDENTIAL RENTAL PROPERTY
CHAPTER 49A: RESIDENTIAL TENANT COMMUNICATIONS
CHAPTER 49B: RESIDENTIAL RENTAL UNITS: LOCK REPLACEMENTS BY LANDLORD WHEN TENANTS VACATE
CHAPTER 50: NONPROFIT PERFORMING ARTS LOAN PROGRAM
CHAPTER 51: VOLUNTARY ARTS CONTRIBUTIONS PROGRAM
CHAPTER 52: SAN FRANCISCO CARBON MITIGATION PROGRAM
CHAPTER 53: URBAN AGRICULTURE
CHAPTER 53A: URBAN AGRICULTURE INCENTIVE ZONES ACT PROCEDURES
CHAPTER 54: SOUTHEAST COMMUNITY FACILITY COMMISSION
CHAPTER 56: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
CHAPTER 57: FILM COMMISSION
CHAPTER 58: RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN CIVIL MATTERS
CHAPTER 59: HEALTHY FOOD RETAILER ORDINANCE
CHAPTER 60: ASSISTED HOUSING PRESERVATION ORDINANCE
CHAPTER 61: WATERFRONT LAND USE
CHAPTER 62: DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS
CHAPTER 63: WATER EFFICIENT IRRIGATION ORDINANCE*
CHAPTER 64: CITY EMPLOYEE AND CITY CONTRACTOR SAFETY AND HEALTH
CHAPTER 65: RENT REDUCTION AND RELOCATION PLAN FOR TENANTS INCONVENIENCED BY SEISMIC WORK PERFORMED PURSUANT TO CHAPTERS 14 AND 15 OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BUILDING CODE
CHAPTER 65A: COMPENSATION, OR SUBSTITUTE HOUSING SERVICE, FOR TENANTS AFFECTED BY TEMPORARY SEVERANCE OF SPECIFIED HOUSING SERVICES DURING MANDATORY SEISMIC WORK REQUIRED BY BUILDING CODE CHAPTER 34B
CHAPTER 66: SEISMIC SAFETY RETROFIT PROGRAM
CHAPTER 67: THE SAN FRANCISCO SUNSHINE ORDINANCE OF 1999
CHAPTER 67A: CELL PHONES, PAGERS AND SIMILAR SOUND-PRODUCING ELECTRICAL DEVICES
CHAPTER 68: CULTURAL EQUITY ENDOWMENT FUND
CHAPTER 69: SAN FRANCISCO HEALTH AUTHORITY
CHAPTER 70: IN-HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES PUBLIC AUTHORITY
CHAPTER 71: MILLS ACT CONTRACT PROCEDURES
CHAPTER 72: RELOCATION ASSISTANCE FOR LEAD HAZARD REMEDIATION
CHAPTER 74: RENT ESCROW ACCOUNT PROGRAM
CHAPTER 77: BUILDING INSPECTION COMMISSION APPEALS
CHAPTER 78: DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING INSPECTION PERMIT TRACKING SYSTEM
CHAPTER 79: PREAPPROVAL NOTICE FOR CERTAIN CITY PROJECTS
CHAPTER 79A: ADDITIONAL PREAPPROVAL NOTICE FOR CERTAIN CITY PROJECTS
CHAPTER 80: ANTI-BLIGHT ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 80A: ORDERS TO VACATE DUE TO HAZARDOUS HOUSING CONDITIONS
CHAPTER 82: LOCAL HIRING POLICY FOR CONSTRUCTION
CHAPTER 83: FIRST SOURCE HIRING PROGRAM
CHAPTER 84: SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL RENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR PERSONS DISQUALIFIED FROM FEDERAL RENT SUBSIDY PROGRAMS BY THE FEDERAL QUALITY HOUSING AND WORK RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1998 (QHWRA)
CHAPTER 86: CHILDREN AND FAMILIES FIRST COMMISSION
CHAPTER 87: FAIR HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION ORDINANCE
CHAPTER 88: PERFORMANCE AND REVIEW ORDINANCE OF 1999
CHAPTER 89: DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES
CHAPTER 90: ENTERTAINMENT COMMISSION
CHAPTER 90A: PROMOTING AND SUSTAINING MUSIC AND CULTURE
CHAPTER 91: LANGUAGE ACCESS
CHAPTER 92: REAL ESTATE LOAN COUNSELING AND EDUCATION
CHAPTER 93: PREGNANCY INFORMATION DISCLOSURE AND PROTECTION ORDINANCE
CHAPTER 94: THE SAN FRANCISCO PLAZA PROGRAM
CHAPTER 94A: THE SAN FRANCISCO PLACES FOR PEOPLE PROGRAM
CHAPTER 95: IDENTIFICATION CARDS
CHAPTER 96: COORDINATION BETWEEN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE DEPARTMENT OF POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY
CHAPTER 96A: LAW ENFORCEMENT REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
CHAPTER 96B: POLICY MAKING MARIJUANA OFFENSES THE LOWEST LAW ENFORCEMENT PRIORITY
CHAPTER 96C: POLICE INTERROGATION OF YOUTH - JEFF ADACHI YOUTH RIGHTS ORDINANCE
CHAPTER 97: HEALTHCARE IMPACT REPORTS
CHAPTER 98: THE BETTER STREETS POLICY
CHAPTER 99: PUBLIC POWER IN NEW CITY DEVELOPMENTS
CHAPTER 100: PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE IMPOSITION OF ADMINISTRATIVE FINES
CHAPTER 101: RESTRICTING THE PURCHASE, SALE, OR DISTRIBUTION OF SUGAR-SWEETENED BEVERAGES BY OR FOR THE CITY
CHAPTER 102: OUR CHILDREN, OUR FAMILIES COUNCIL
CHAPTER 103: NON-COOPERATION WITH IDENTITY-BASED REGISTRY ORDINANCE
CHAPTER 104: COLLECTION OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER IDENTITY DATA
CHAPTER 105: CIGARETTE LITTER ABATEMENT FEE ORDINANCE
CHAPTER 106: CITY NAVIGATION CENTERS
CHAPTER 107: CULTURAL DISTRICTS
CHAPTER 107A: AFRICAN AMERICAN ARTS AND CULTURAL DISTRICT
CHAPTER 107B: CASTRO LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, TRANSGENDER, AND QUEER (LGBTQ) CULTURAL DISTRICT
CHAPTER 109: PRIORITIZING 100% AFFORDABLE HOUSING
CHAPTER 115: AUTOMATED POINT OF SALE STATION REGISTRATION AND INSPECTION ORDINANCE
CHAPTER 116: COMPATIBILITY AND PROTECTION FOR RESIDENTIAL USES AND PLACES OF ENTERTAINMENT
CHAPTER 117: COOPERATIVE LIVING OPPORTUNITIES FOR MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAM
CHAPTER 119: SAFE PARKING PROGRAMS
CHAPTER 120: ADMINISTRATION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUNDS
CHAPTER 121: CLOSURE OF JUVENILE HALL
APPENDIX: Table of Initiative Ordinances and Policy Declarations
References to Ordinances
San Francisco Business and Tax Regulations Code
BUSINESS AND TAX REGULATIONS CODE
THE SAN FRANCISCO CODES
PREFACE TO THE BUSINESS AND TAX REGULATIONS CODE
ARTICLE 1: PERMIT PROCEDURES
ARTICLE 2: LICENSE FEES
ARTICLE 3: [REPEALED]
ARTICLE 4: [RESERVED]
ARTICLE 5: ELECTRICAL MUSICAL DEVICES
ARTICLE 6: COMMON ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
ARTICLE 7: TAX ON TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY OF HOTEL ROOMS
ARTICLE 8: SUGARY DRINKS DISTRIBUTOR TAX ORDINANCE
ARTICLE 9: TAX ON OCCUPANCY OF PARKING SPACE IN PARKING STATIONS
ARTICLE 10: UTILITY USERS TAX
ARTICLE 10B: ACCESS LINE TAX
ARTICLE 11: STADIUM OPERATOR ADMISSION TAX
ARTICLE 12: BUSINESS REGISTRATION
ARTICLE 12-A: PAYROLL EXPENSE TAX ORDINANCE
ARTICLE 12-A-1: GROSS RECEIPTS TAX ORDINANCE
ARTICLE 12-B: BUSINESS TAX REFUND
ARTICLE 12B-1: NEIGHBORHOOD BEAUTIFICATION AND GRAFFITI CLEAN-UP FUND TAX OPTION
ARTICLE 12-C: REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX
ARTICLE 12-D: UNIFORM LOCAL SALES AND USE TAX
ARTICLE 13: CONNECTIONS TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TERMINAL ALARM PANEL
ARTICLE 14: TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
ARTICLE 15: BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS PROCEDURE CODE
ARTICLE 15A: PUBLIC REALM LANDSCAPING, IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS ("GREEN BENEFIT DISTRICTS")
ARTICLE 16: LIVING WAGE FOR EDUCATORS PARCEL TAX
ARTICLE 17: BUSINESS TAX PENALTY AMNESTY PROGRAM
ARTICLE 20: FINANCIAL INFORMATION PRIVACY ORDINANCE
ARTICLE 21: EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION COMMERCIAL RENTS TAX ORDINANCE
ARTICLE 22: PARKING STATIONS; REVENUE CONTROL EQUIPMENT
ARTICLE 23: VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEE EXPENDITURE PLAN
ARTICLE 28: HOMELESSNESS GROSS RECEIPTS TAX ORDINANCE
ARTICLE 32: TRAFFIC CONGESTION MITIGATION TAX
References to Ordinances
San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code
San Francisco Environment Code
ENVIRONMENT CODE
THE SAN FRANCISCO CODES
PREFACE TO THE ENVIRONMENT CODE
CHAPTER 1: PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE POLICY STATEMENT
CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE PURCHASING ORDINANCE
CHAPTER 3: INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
CHAPTER 4: HEALTHY AIR AND CLEAN TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM
CHAPTER 5: RESOURCE CONSERVATION ORDINANCE
CHAPTER 7: GREEN BUILDING REQUIREMENTS FOR CITY BUILDINGS
CHAPTER 8: TROPICAL HARDWOOD AND VIRGIN REDWOOD BAN
CHAPTER 9: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS TARGETS AND DEPARTMENTAL ACTION PLANS
CHAPTER 10: TRANSPORTATION OF AGGREGATE MATERIALS
CHAPTER 11: CELL PHONE DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS
CHAPTER 12: URBAN FORESTRY COUNCIL
CHAPTER 13: ARSENIC-TREATED WOOD
CHAPTER 14: CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS RECOVERY ORDINANCE*
CHAPTER 15: GREEN BUSINESS PROGRAM
CHAPTER 16: FOOD SERVICE AND PACKAGING WASTE REDUCTION ORDINANCE
CHAPTER 17: PLASTIC BAG REDUCTION ORDINANCE
CHAPTER 18: SOLAR ENERGY INCENTIVE PROGRAM
CHAPTER 19: MANDATORY RECYCLING AND COMPOSTING
CHAPTER 20: EXISTING BUILDINGS ENERGY PERFORMANCE
CHAPTER 21: CLEAN ENERGY FULL DISCLOSURE ORDINANCE
CHAPTER 22: SAFE DRUG DISPOSAL
CHAPTER 23: DRINK TAP ORDINANCE
CHAPTER 24: BOTTLED DRINKING WATER
CHAPTER 25: CLEAN CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC WORKS
CHAPTER 26: BETTER ROOF REQUIREMENTS
CHAPTER 27: ANTIBIOTIC USE IN FOOD ANIMALS
CHAPTER 28: FLAME RETARDANT CHEMICALS IN UPHOLSTERED FURNITURE AND JUVENILE PRODUCTS
CHAPTER 29: ELECTRIC VEHICLE READINESS IMPLEMENTATION*
CHAPTER 30: RENEWABLE ENERGY FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS
CHAPTER 31: ELECTRIC VEHICLE AND CHARGING IN COMMERCIAL PARKING LOTS AND GARAGES*
References to Ordinances
San Francisco Fire Code
San Francisco Health Code
HEALTH CODE
THE SAN FRANCISCO CODES
PREFACE TO THE HEALTH CODE
ARTICLE 1: ANIMALS
ARTICLE 1A: ANIMAL SACRIFICE
ARTICLE 1B: PERFORMANCE OF WILD OR EXOTIC ANIMALS FOR PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENT OR AMUSEMENT
ARTICLE 1C: SALE OF ANIMALS
ARTICLE 1D: ANIMAL FUR PRODUCTS
ARTICLE 2: COMMUNICABLE DISEASES
ARTICLE 3: HOSPITALS
ARTICLE 4: DECEASED PERSONS
ARTICLE 5: PUBLIC HEALTH - GENERAL
ARTICLE 6: GARBAGE AND REFUSE
ARTICLE 7: LAUNDRIES
ARTICLE 8: FOOD AND FOOD PRODUCTS
ARTICLE 8A: CANNABIS CONSUMPTION PERMITS
ARTICLE 9: DAIRY AND MILK CODE
ARTICLE 10: MEAT AND MEAT PRODUCTS
ARTICLE 11: NUISANCES
ARTICLE 11A: BED BUG INFESTATION PREVENTION, TREATMENT, DISCLOSURE, AND REPORTING
ARTICLE 12: SANITATION - GENERAL
ARTICLE 12A: BACKFLOW PREVENTION
ARTICLE 12B: SOIL BORING AND WELL REGULATIONS
ARTICLE 12C: ALTERNATE WATER SOURCES FOR NON-POTABLE APPLICATIONS
ARTICLE 14: AMBULANCES AND ROUTINE MEDICAL TRANSPORT VEHICLES
ARTICLE 15: PUBLIC SWIMMING POOLS
ARTICLE 16: REGULATING THE USE OF 'ECONOMIC POISONS'
ARTICLE 17: DISPOSAL OF UNCLAIMED PERSONAL PROPERTY AT SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL HOSPITAL
ARTICLE 18: PROVIDING FOR ISSUANCE OF CITATIONS TO VIOLATORS
ARTICLE 19: SMOKING POLLUTION CONTROL
ARTICLE 19A: REGULATING SMOKING IN EATING ESTABLISHMENTS [SUSPENDED]
ARTICLE 19B: REGULATING SMOKING IN SHARED OFFICE WORKPLACE [SUSPENDED]
ARTICLE 19C: REGULATING SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES AND IN HEALTH, EDUCATIONAL AND CHILD CARE FACILITIES [SUSPENDED]
ARTICLE 19D: PROHIBITING CIGARETTE VENDING MACHINES
ARTICLE 19E: PROHIBITING SMOKING IN PLACES OF EMPLOYMENT AND CERTAIN SPORTS ARENAS [SUSPENDED]
ARTICLE 19F: PROHIBITING SMOKING IN ENCLOSED AREAS, CERTAIN UNENCLOSED AREAS, AND SPORTS STADIUMS
ARTICLE 19G: ENFORCEMENT OF SMOKING PROHIBITIONS
ARTICLE 19H: PERMITS FOR THE SALE OF TOBACCO
ARTICLE 19I: PROHIBITING SMOKING IN CITY PARK AND RECREATIONAL AREAS AND FARMERS' MARKETS
ARTICLE 19J: PROHIBITING PHARMACIES FROM SELLING TOBACCO PRODUCTS
ARTICLE 19K: PROHIBITING SALES OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS ON PROPERTY OWNED BY OR UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
ARTICLE 19L: PROHIBITING SMOKING AT CERTAIN OUTDOOR EVENTS
ARTICLE 19M: DISCLOSURE TO PROSPECTIVE RESIDENTIAL TENANTS OF WHETHER A UNIT IS SMOKE FREE OR SMOKING OPTIONAL, AND INFORMING EXISTING RESIDENTIAL TENANTS WHERE SMOKING IS OPTIONAL
ARTICLE 19N: ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES - RESTRICTIONS ON SALE AND USE
ARTICLE 19O: [SMOKELESS TOBACCO - USE PROHIBITED AT ATHLETIC VENUES]
ARTICLE 19P: PROHIBITING THE SALE OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS TO PERSONS AGED 18, 19, OR 20
ARTICLE 19Q: PROHIBITING THE SALE OF FLAVORED TOBACCO PRODUCTS
ARTICLE 19R: PROHIBITING THE SALE OF ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES LACKING FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION PREMARKET APPROVAL
ARTICLE 19S: PROHIBITING THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS IN SAN FRANCISCO
ARTICLE 20: ALKYL NITRITES
ARTICLE 21: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
ARTICLE 21A: RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
ARTICLE 22: HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
ARTICLE 22A: ANALYZING SOILS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE
ARTICLE 22B: CONSTRUCTION DUST CONTROL REQUIREMENTS
ARTICLE 23: VIDEO DISPLAY TERMINAL WORKER SAFETY
ARTICLE 24: CHLOROFLUOROCARBON RECOVERY AND RECYCLING
ARTICLE 25: MEDICAL WASTE GENERATOR REGISTRATION, PERMITTING, INSPECTIONS AND FEES
ARTICLE 26: COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL LEAD POISONING INVESTIGATION, MANAGEMENT AND ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
ARTICLE 27: HEALTH SERVICE SYSTEM AGREEMENT
ARTICLE 28: MEDICAL CANNABIS USER AND PRIMARY CAREGIVER IDENTIFICATION CARDS
ARTICLE 29: LICENSING AND REGULATION OF MASSAGE PRACTITIONERS AND MASSAGE BUSINESSES
ARTICLE 30: REGULATION OF DIESEL BACKUP GENERATORS
ARTICLE 31: HUNTERS POINT SHIPYARD
ARTICLE 32: DISEASE PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
ARTICLE 33: MEDICAL CANNABIS ACT
ARTICLE 34: HEALTHY PRODUCTS, HEALTHY CHILDREN ORDINANCE
ARTICLE 35: BIOLOGICAL AGENT DETECTORS
ARTICLE 36: CHILD COUGH AND COLD MEDICINE WARNING ORDINANCE
ARTICLE 37: TRANS FAT FREE RESTAURANT PROGRAM ORDINANCE
ARTICLE 38: ENHANCED VENTILATION REQUIRED FOR URBAN INFILL SENSITIVE USE DEVELOPMENTS
ARTICLE 39: COMMERCIAL DOG WALKING
ARTICLE 40: SAFE BODY ART
ARTICLE 41: MENTAL HEALTH
ARTICLE 42: SUGAR-SWEETENED BEVERAGES
ARTICLE 43: SURPLUS MEDICATION REPOSITORY AND DISTRIBUTION
ARTICLE 45: CITY-OPERATED ADULT RESIDENTIAL FACILITY
References to Ordinances
San Francisco Municipal Elections Code
San Francisco Park Code
San Francisco Planning Code
San Francisco Zoning Maps
San Francisco Police Code
POLICE CODE
THE SAN FRANCISCO CODES
PREFACE TO THE POLICE CODE
ARTICLE 1: PUBLIC NUISANCES
ARTICLE 1.1: REGULATING THE USE OF VEHICLES FOR HUMAN HABITATION
ARTICLE 1.2 DISCRIMINATION IN HOUSING AGAINST FAMILIES WITH MINOR CHILDREN
ARTICLE 1.3: TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON RENTAL INCREASES RENT ROLLBACK BASED UPON APRIL 15, 1979, RENTAL RATES AND REFUNDING ANY RENT INCREASES
ARTICLE 1.5: DISPLAY OF LIFE AND PROPERTY CONSERVATION DECALS
ARTICLE 2: DISORDERLY CONDUCT
ARTICLE 3: GAMES OF CHANCE
ARTICLE 4: PARADES
ARTICLE 4.5: FUNERAL PROCESSION ESCORTS
ARTICLE 5: OFFENSIVE POWDERS
ARTICLE 6: FRAUD AND DECEIT
ARTICLE 7: ANIMALS AND BIRDS
ARTICLE 7.1: HORSE-DRAWN VEHICLES
ARTICLE 8: MINORS
ARTICLE 9: MISCELLANEOUS CONDUCT REGULATIONS
ARTICLE 9.5: PROHIBITING OF PROFESSIONAL STRIKEBREAKERS
ARTICLE 9.6: REGULATIONS FOR SOLICITATION FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES
ARTICLE 10: REGULATIONS FOR ADVERTISING
ARTICLE 10.1: REGULATING EXPOSURE OF PHOTOGRAPHS, CARTOONS OR DRAWINGS ON NEWSRACKS
ARTICLE 10.2: REGULATION OF COMPUTER RENTAL BUSINESSES
ARTICLE 11: REGULATIONS FOR AMUSEMENTS
ARTICLE 11.1: COMMERCIAL DISPLAY OF DEAD HUMAN BODIES
ARTICLE 11.2: REGULATIONS FOR ADULT THEATERS AND ADULT BOOKSTORES PERMIT AND LICENSE PROVISIONS
ARTICLE 12: REGULATIONS FOR AUTOMOBILES
ARTICLE 13: MISCELLANEOUS REGULATIONS FOR PROFESSIONS AND TRADES
ARTICLE 13.1: JUNK DEALERS - PERMIT AND REGULATION
ARTICLE 13.2 BICYCLE MESSENGER BUSINESSES
ARTICLE 13.3: CAR RENTAL BUSINESSES
ARTICLE 13.4: REDUCING RENTAL-CAR BURGLARIES
ARTICLE 14: LICENSES FOR ADVERTISING
ARTICLE 15: LICENSES FOR AMUSEMENTS
ARTICLE 15.1: ENTERTAINMENT REGULATIONS PERMIT AND LICENSE PROVISIONS
ARTICLE 15.2: ENTERTAINMENT REGULATIONS FOR EXTENDED-HOURS PREMISES
ARTICLE 15.3: PROHIBITING NUDE PERFORMERS, WAITERS AND WAITRESSES
ARTICLE 15.4: ENCOUNTER STUDIOS
ARTICLE 15.5: NUDE MODELS IN PUBLIC PHOTOGRAPHY STUDIOS
ARTICLE 15.6: ESCORT SERVICES
ARTICLE 15.7: EVENT PROMOTERS
ARTICLE 16: REGULATION OF CANNABIS
ARTICLE 17: MISCELLANEOUS LICENSE REGULATIONS
ARTICLE 17.1: REGULATIONS FOR FORTUNETELLING; PERMIT AND LICENSE PROVISIONS
ARTICLE 18: SAN FRANCISCO POLICE PISTOL RANGE
ARTICLE 19: DISPOSAL OF UNCLAIMED PROPERTY
ARTICLE 20: REPRODUCING AND FURNISHING REPORTS
ARTICLE 22: CITATIONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE HEALTH CODE AND POLICE CODE
ARTICLE 23: REGULATIONS FOR PORT AREA*
ARTICLE 24: REGULATING STREET ARTISTS*
ARTICLE 25: REGULATIONS FOR PRIVATE PROTECTION AND SECURITY SERVICES*
ARTICLE 26: REGULATIONS FOR PUBLIC BATH HOUSES
ARTICLE 27: REGULATIONS FOR MORTGAGE MODIFICATION CONSULTANTS
ARTICLE 28: REGULATIONS FOR PAWNBROKERS PERMIT AND LICENSE PROVISIONS
ARTICLE 29: REGULATION OF NOISE
ARTICLE 30: PERMITS FOR TOW CAR DRIVERS
ARTICLE 30.1: PERMITS FOR TOW CAR FIRMS
ARTICLE 31: REGULATIONS FOR TEMPORARY HELIPORTS AND PERMIT PROVISIONS
ARTICLE 32: REGULATIONS FOR CONDUCTING BINGO GAMES
ARTICLE 32A: REGULATIONS FOR CONDUCTING POKER GAMES
ARTICLE 33: PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RACE, COLOR, ANCESTRY, NATIONAL ORIGIN, PLACE OF BIRTH, SEX, AGE, RELIGION, CREED, DISABILITY, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, WEIGHT, OR HEIGHT
ARTICLE 33A: PROHIBITION OF EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIPS AND ACTIVITIES AND REGULATIONS OF EMPLOYER DRUG TESTING OF EMPLOYEES
ARTICLE 33B: PROHIBITION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION BY CLUBS OR ORGANIZATIONS WHICH ARE NOT DISTINCTLY PRIVATE
ARTICLE 33C: DISPLACED WORKER PROTECTION
ARTICLE 33D: GROCERY WORKER RETENTION
ARTICLE 33E: HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY WORKER RETENTION
ARTICLE 33F: HOURS AND RETENTION PROTECTIONS FOR FORMULA RETAIL EMPLOYEES
ARTICLE 33G: PREDICTABLE SCHEDULING AND FAIR TREATMENT FOR FORMULA RETAIL EMPLOYEES
ARTICLE 33H: PAID PARENTAL LEAVE
ARTICLE 33I: LACTATION IN THE WORKPLACE
ARTICLE 33J: PARITY IN PAY
ARTICLE 34: REGULATIONS FOR PHOTOGRAPHERS - PERMIT AND LICENSE PROVISIONS
ARTICLE 35: FIREARM STRICT LIABILITY ACT
ARTICLE 36: PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OF A FIREARM WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF AN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE OR DRUG, OR POSSESSION OF A FIREARM WHILE UPON PUBLIC PREMISES SELLING OR SERVING ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES
ARTICLE 36A: [SALE, MANUFACTURE, AND DISTRIBUTION OF FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION; POSSESSION OF HANDGUNS]
ARTICLE 36B: STORAGE OF FIREARMS IN MOTOR VEHICLES
ARTICLE 36C: PROHIBITION OF FIREARMS AT PUBLIC GATHERINGS
ARTICLE 37: POLICE EMERGENCY ALARM ORDINANCE
ARTICLE 38: PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF AIDS AND ASSOCIATED CONDITIONS
ARTICLE 39: PEDICABS
ARTICLE 40: DRUG FREE WORKPLACE ORDINANCE
ARTICLE 41: PROHIBITING THE SALE OR POSSESSION OF REPLICA HYPODERMIC NEEDLES OR SYRINGES
ARTICLE 42: SALE AND DISPLAY OF AEROSOL PAINT CONTAINERS AND MARKER PENS
ARTICLE 42A: COLOR TIRES
ARTICLE 42B: MERCURY THERMOMETERS
ARTICLE 42D: SALE AND DISPLAY OF PRODUCTS CONTAINING HYDROFLUORIC ACID
ARTICLE 43: ACCESS TO REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE FACILITIES
ARTICLE 44: CLOSED CAPTIONS ACTIVATION REQUIREMENT ORDINANCE
ARTICLE 45: FIREARMS AND WEAPONS VIOLENCE PREVENTION ORDINANCE
ARTICLE 46: PROHIBITING SELF-SERVICE MERCHANDISING OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS EXCEPT IN PLACES TO WHICH MINORS HAVE NO ACCESS
ARTICLE 47: PERSONAL WATERCRAFT
ARTICLE 48: LASER POINTERS
ARTICLE 49: PROCEDURES FOR CONSIDERING ARRESTS AND CONVICTIONS AND RELATED INFORMATION IN EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING DECISIONS
ARTICLE 50: CRIMINAL HISTORY IN ADMISSION TO POST-SECONDARY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS
ARTICLE 51: STORMWATER FLOOD RISK DISCLOSURE
ARTICLE 52: OCCUPANT'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE A COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES PROVIDER
ARTICLE 55: ACCEPTANCE OF CASH BY BRICK-AND-MORTAR BUSINESSES
References to Ordinances
San Francisco Port Code
San Francisco Public Works Code
PUBLIC WORKS CODE
THE SAN FRANCISCO CODES
PREFACE TO THE PUBLIC WORKS CODE
ARTICLE 1: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
ARTICLE 2: PUBLIC CONTRACT PROCEDURE
ARTICLE 2.1: PERMIT FEES AND OCCUPANCY ASSESSMENTS
ARTICLE 2.3: HUNTERS POINT SHIPYARD
ARTICLE 2.4: EXCAVATION IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
ARTICLE 3: REGULATIONS IN REGARD TO WORKING CONDITIONS
ARTICLE 4: SEWERS
ARTICLE 4.1: INDUSTRIAL WASTE
ARTICLE 4.2. SEWER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT
ARTICLE 4.3: SEWERS
ARTICLE 5: STREET FLOWER MARKETS
ARTICLE 5.1: ANTI-LITTER RECEPTACLES
ARTICLE 5.2: TABLES AND CHAIRS IN PUBLIC SIDEWALK OR ROADWAY AREAS
ARTICLE 5.3: DISPLAY OF FRUITS AND VEGETABLES OR NONFOOD MERCHANDISE ON PUBLIC SIDEWALKS
ARTICLE 5.4: REGULATION OF NEWSRACKS
ARTICLE 5.5: DISTRIBUTION OF FREE SAMPLE MERCHANDISE ON PUBLIC PROPERTY
ARTICLE 5.6: POSTING OF SIGNS ON CITY-OWNED LAMP POSTS OR UTILITY POLES
ARTICLE 5.7: HANDBILL DISTRIBUTION ON PRIVATE PREMISES; DISPLAY OF BANNERS
ARTICLE 5.8: PERMIT REGULATIONS FOR MOBILE FOOD FACILITIES CONCERNING PRODUCTS FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION
ARTICLE 6: STREET IMPROVEMENT PROCEDURE
ARTICLE 6.1: IMPROVEMENT PROCEDURE CODE
ARTICLE 7: MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS
ARTICLE 9: UNACCEPTED STREETS
ARTICLE 11: SPUR TRACKS
ARTICLE 13: ENGINEERING INSPECTION
ARTICLE 14: UNDERGROUND PIPES, WIRES AND CONDUITS
ARTICLE 15: MISCELLANEOUS
ARTICLE 16: URBAN FORESTRY ORDINANCE
ARTICLE 16.1: TREE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
ARTICLE 17: CONTROL OF DUMPS DISPOSING OF MATERIALS FROM CONSTRUCTION OR DEMOLITION
ARTICLE 18: UTILITY FACILITIES
ARTICLE 19: PUBLIC TELEPHONE BOOTHS ON PUBLIC SIDEWALKS
ARTICLE 20: PROHIBITED BICYCLE ACTIONS AND TRANSACTIONS
ARTICLE 21: RESTRICTION OF USE OF POTABLE WATER FOR SOIL COMPACTION AND DUST CONTROL ACTIVITIES
ARTICLE 22: RECLAIMED WATER USE
ARTICLE 23: GRAFFITI REMOVAL AND ABATEMENT
ARTICLE 24: SHOPPING CARTS
ARTICLE 25: PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICE FACILITIES
ARTICLE 26*: ILLEGAL DUMPING
ARTICLE 27: SURFACE-MOUNTED FACILITIES
References to Ordinances
San Francisco Subdivision Code
San Francisco Transportation Code
San Francisco Building Inspection Commission (BIC) Codes
Comprehensive Ordinance List
CHAPTER 12D:
MINORITY/WOMEN/LOCAL BUSINESS UTILIZATION
 
Provisions Effective for Contracts Solicited Prior to November 1, 1998
Short Title.
General Findings.
Additional Findings.
Further Additional Findings Supporting Six-Month Extension of MBE/WBE/LBE Ordinance – III.
Further Additional Findings Supporting Three-Month Extension of MBE/WBE/LBE Ordinance – III.
Additional Findings Supporting a Three-Month Extension of MBE/WBE/LBE Ordinance.
Additional Findings Supporting a Two-Month Extension of MBE/WBE/LBE Ordinance – III.
Additional Findings Supporting a Two-Month Extension of MBE/WBE/LBE Ordinance.
Declaration of Policy.
Scope.
Definitions.
Powers and Duties of the Commission and the Director.
Powers and Duties of the Controller.
Powers and Duties of the Mayor, Departments or Contract Awarding Authorities.
Additional Findings Supporting Race- and Gender-Conscious Bid Preferences and Subcontractor Participation Goals – Public Works/Construction; Subcontracting Program.
Additional Findings Supporting Race- and Gender-Conscious Bid Preferences – Purchasing Contracts.
Additional Findings Supporting the Race- and Gender-Conscious Bid Preferences – Consultants and Professional Services.
Good-Faith Efforts Required for Other Contracts.
Exceptions and Waivers.
Monitoring and Compliance.
Reporting and Review; Extension.
Clerk of Board to Transmit Copies of this Chapter; Informing City Employees.
Implementing Regulations.
Severability.
Effective Date.
 
Editor's Note:
   The provisions of Sections 12D.1 through 12D.19 expired on October 31, 1998, but are still in effect for contracts for which a bid or proposal was solicited prior to November 1, 1998. The provisions of Sections 12D.A.1 through 12D.A.21 govern all contracts for which a bid or proposal was solicited on or after November 1, 1998.
 
Provisions Effective for Contracts Solicited on or After November 1, 1998
Short Title.
General Findings.
Declaration of Policy.
Scope.
Definitions.
Powers and Duties of the Commission and the Director.
Powers and Duties of the Controller.
Powers and Duties of the Mayor.
Powers and Duties of Contract Awarding Authorities.
Public Works Contracts.
Purchasing Contracts.
Architect/Engineering Contracts.
Consultants and Professional Services Contracts.
Best Efforts Required for Other Contracts.
Exceptions and Waivers.
Monitoring and Compliance.
Subcontractor Participation Goals; Subcontracting Program.
Reporting and Review.
Severability.
General Welfare Program.
Operative Date.
 
Editor's Note:
   See also the provisions of Chapter 14A. The provisions of Chapter 14A are limited in duration. 
PROVISIONS EFFECTIVE FOR CONTRACTS SOLICITED PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 1, 1998
SEC. 12D.1.  SHORT TITLE.
   This ordinance shall be entitled the "Minority/Women/Local Business Utilization Ordinance" and may be cited as the "MBE/WBE/LBE Ordinance – III."
(Added by Ord. 175-89, App. 5/30/89; amended by Ord. 155-92, 5/29/92)
SEC. 12D.2.  GENERAL FINDINGS.
   The Board of Supervisors having adopted Ordinance No. 139-84 on April 2, 1984 to address identified discriminatory practices inherent in the City's procurement process which resulted in the virtual exclusion of minority and woman owned businesses as contractors on City prime contracts and to offset economic disadvantages faced by local businesses that are not shared by nonlocal businesses;
   And Ordinance No. 139-84 being remedial in nature will expire June 30, 1989 and thus required the Human Rights Commission to study minority and woman owned business participation in City contracting prior to the expiration of that Ordinance;
   And the Human Rights Commission, pursuant to Section 12D.15 of Ordinance No. 139-84 having in June and July of 1988 heard the testimony of 42 witnesses, reviewed the transcript and written submittals of 127 minority, women, local and other business representatives, studied the testimonial and statistical evidence presented by the public, City departments, and the Commission's staff to ascertain whether the objectives of Ordinance No. 139-84 had been met and having submitted its October 23, 1988 report to this Board entitled "Investigation into Minority and Women Business Participation in City Contracting, Comprehensive Edition: Findings, Recommendations and Support Documentation";
   And the United States Supreme Court on January 23, 1989 having decided City of Richmond v. Croson which addresses the constitutionally acceptable quantum of evidence that enables a municipality to adopt a race-conscious remedial ordinance in public contracting;
   And the Budget Analyst at the request of this Board having studied the participation of minority and woman owned businesses in City contracts at the prime contractor level during fiscal year 1987-1988 and compared this business participation to minority and women businesses' share of their relevant respective industries or professions and having submitted his report dated March 8, 1989 and his revised report dated March 17, 1989 to this Board;
   And BPA Economics, Inc. at the request of the City Attorney and the Director of the Human Rights Commission having evaluated statistical evidence provided by City departments and the Budget Analyst, conducted a statistical analysis of these data and having submitted its report entitled "Statistical Support for San Francisco's MBE/WBE/LBE Ordinance," dated May 1, 1989 and his revised report dated May 15, 1989, to this Board;
   And this Board, having conducted 10 additional public hearings, taken additional testimony and written submittals, and reviewed the 1983 and 1988 reports of the Human Rights Commission, the 1989 reports of the Budget Analyst, and the 1989 report of BPA Economics, Inc. (all of which shall be incorporated herein by reference) and relying upon this Board's knowledge about the City's compliance with Ordinance No. 139-84, such knowledge having been acquired during the past five years,
   This Board hereby makes the following findings:
      1.   Local businesses that seek to enter into contracts with the City and County of San Francisco continue to labor under a competitive disadvantage with businesses from other areas because of the higher administrative costs of doing business in the City (e.g., higher taxes, higher rents, higher wages and benefits for labor, higher insurance rates, etc.). In 1991, this Board concluded that MBEs and WBEs are currently receiving a very small share of City contracts through joint ventures with majority-owned firms, while a number of well-established LBEs have taken advantage of the five-percent LBE bid preference by joint venturing with each other. The Board concludes that the five-percent MBE/WBE bid preference has not proved sufficiently effective in remedying the exclusion of MBEs and WBEs from City contracts through the vehicle of joint ventures. Accordingly, the Board is granting a seven and one-half percent bid preference to joint ventures with MBE or WBE participation between 40 percent and 50.9 percent to provide more incentives for majority firms to joint venture with MBEs and WBEs to provide services to the City.
      2.   The public interest is served by continuing to encourage business to locate and remain in San Francisco through the provision of a minimal "good-faith" preference to local businesses in the award of City contracts.
      3.   Policies and programs that enhance the opportunities and entrepreneurial skills of minority owned, woman owned, and local businesses will best serve the public interest because the growth and development of such businesses will have a significant positive impact on the economic health of the City and will serve to reduce racial tension in our community.
      4.   The testimony of businesses that seek to enter into contracts with the City or are doing business with the City, as presented to this Board and as detailed in the Human Rights Commission's 1988 report, offer clear and persuasive reasons for the Board of Supervisors to take the actions proposed by this Ordinance to remedy: (1) City contracting practices and community conditions that cause the exclusion or reduce the opportunities of minority and woman owned businesses to be awarded City contracts to such an extent that the amount of City contract dollars awarded to them can only be explained by discrimination; and (2) competitive disadvantages local business continue to face in providing goods and services to the City.
      5.   Outreach and advertising efforts by City departments have served to draw more minority and woman business enterprises into the City's procurement process. The City needs to intensify its outreach and advertising efforts as well as its education/training programs to reach a broader segment of the MBE/WBE community. However, past experience has taught that outreach and advertising efforts alone are not enough to remedy the exclusion of minority and women owned businesses as prime contractors with the City.
      6.   Ordinance No. 139-84 has provided City departments with uniform standards and criteria in the award of contracts. However, these standards have not been applied consistently City-wide. This inconsistent application of the Ordinance continues to give preference to majority businesses in the prime award process to the detriment of minority and woman business enterprises.
      7.   The bid preference mechanism has the advantage of affording minority, woman and local business enterprises a competitive "plus" when bidding or proposing on City contracts. The bid preference mechanism does not exclude any potential contractor. It encourages competition and thereby ensures that the City is contracting with responsible, efficient contractors. Consequently, the bid preference mechanism has assisted minority, woman and local business enterprises to obtain City contracts. The bid preference is allowed to joint ventures where MBEs and WBEs participate at a managerial and entrepreneurial level with nonminority and nonwoman entrepreneurs. Affording the bid preference to joint ventures has encouraged nonMBE/WBEs to enter into joint venture agreements with MBE/WBEs and compete for City contracts. Several joint ventures of minority/woman and majority/male owned firms have won large construction and professional services contracts with the assistance of the bid preference. The evidence in the record before this Board supports the conclusion that the bid preference invites participation by formerly excluded businesses and hence promotes more competition, resulting in more competitive bids submitted to the City.
      8.   In Ordinance No. 175-89 this Board concluded that set-asides of contracts, where competition for selected contracts is limited to MBE/WBEs or joint ventures with MBE/WBEs, had been authorized by the Director of the Human Rights Commission only on rare occasions over the past five years (1984-1985). Before the adoption of Ordinance No. 175-89, the Director had regarded the contract set-aside mechanism as a measure to be used in last-resort type cases where a department could demonstrate, despite its good-faith efforts and the application of the bid preference, that it had failed substantially to eliminate the exclusion of MBEs and WBEs from City contracting. In 1989, at the time Ordinance No. 175-89 was adopted, this Board concluded that despite the claim by several departments that the contract set-aside mechanism was essential to ensure participation by MBE/WBEs, the City had made steady progress City-wide toward the MBE/WBE goals while only making sparing use of the contract set-aside mechanism. However, in 1991, this Board found that the use of good-faith efforts and the application of the bid preference did not appear in all cases to be a sufficient remedy for opening the closed environment in which City departments operate or correcting the identified discriminatory practices of the City against MBEs and WBEs. The Board reaffirms its 1991 finding that setting aside contracts limited to competition among MBE/WBEs or joint ventures with MBE/WBEs is a necessary remedy in those limited cases where a department can demonstrate, despite its good-faith efforts and the application of the bid preference, that it has failed substantially to eliminate the exclusion of MBEs and WBEs from City contracting.
      9.   Without the Ordinance, many small MBE /WBEs would be unable to compete for and win awards of prime City contracts.
      10.   Some City departments continue to operate under the "old boy network" when awarding contracts. The City's "old boy network" constitutes a closed business system created and implemented by the City for all contracts, including those subject to the competitive bid process. Discrimination against and insensitivity to MBEs and WBEs continue to persist in the City's procurement process. The closed environment in which City businesses operate has excluded MBEs and WBEs and has placed them under a competitive disadvantage when competing for City prime contracts.
      11.   The statistical evidence before this Board relating to the award of contracts subject to this Ordinance for fiscal year 1987-1988 reflects that in almost all areas of contracting MBEs (each ethnic group identified as a minority) and WBEs continue to be awarded contract dollars that are disproportionately lower than the available numbers of MBEs and WBEs in San Francisco. These data are gathered and summarized in Appendix X, which contains utilization indices described as Tables 1 through 7, and 10 through 11, and is attached to this Ordinance and incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. These utilization indices measure the disparity between MBEs (as a group and each ethnic group identified as a minority) or WBE participation in City prime contracts and their share of their relevant industry or profession. That disparity is measured in terms of a statistical significance. When measure of the statistical significance is minus two (-2) or less, the Board concludes that the disparity cannot be attributed to chance. Based upon the weight of the testimony and other evidence before this Board and the Commission in 1983, 1984, 1988 and 1989, the Board finds that the statistical disparities can only be attributed to discriminatory procurement practices of the City against MBEs and WBEs.
   Based on the testimony and other evidence before this Board and the Commission in 1983, 1984, 1988 and 1989, the Board finds that the aforementioned statistical disparities are also attributed to discrimination in the private sector against MBEs and WBEs that is manifested in and perpetuated and exacerbated by the City's procurement practices.
      12.   Consistent with Ordinance No. 139-84, on December 19, 1988 the Board of Supervisors adopted legislation which requires the City's Risk Manager to develop uniform insurance requirements for City contracts. On May 2, 1989 the Risk Manager established these uniform standards which are set forth in a document entitled "Contract Insurance Manual." This manual is intended to be a guide for contract administrators to standardize bond and insurance requirements in City contracts.
      13.   Consistent with Ordinance No. 139-84, the Board of Supervisors has also considered whether to: (1) create a special revolving fund to assist newly established MBEs and WBEs to meet bonding and other fee-related requirements; and (2) relax or waive bonding requirements on certain contracts to facilitate MBE/WBE participation. In view of the City's budgetary constraints and the opposition voiced by segments of the local business community, this Board finds that creation of a special revolving fund, or relaxation or waiver of bonding requirements is not feasible at this time.
(Added by Ord. 175-89, App. 5/30/89; amended by Ord. 155-92, 5/29/92)
SEC. 12D.2-1.  ADDITIONAL FINDINGS.
   Upon the expiration of Ordinance No. 139-84 this Board having adopted Ordinance No. 175-89 on May 30, 1989 to address the same types of practices and to offset the same types of economic disadvantages identified in Section 12D.2;
   And Ordinance No. 175-89 as amended being remedial in nature will expire June 30, 1992 and thus required the Human Rights Commission to study minority and woman owned business participation in City contracting prior to the expiration of Ordinance 175-89;
   And the Human Rights Commission, pursuant to Section 12D.15 of Ordinance No. 175-89 having in January and February of 1992 heard the testimony of 68 witnesses, reviewed the transcripts and written submittals of 54 minority, women, local and other business representatives, studied the testimonial and statistical evidence presented by the public, City departments, and the Commission's staff to ascertain whether the objectives of Ordinance No. 175-89 as amended had been met and having submitted to this Board its February 28, 1992, "Sunset Report" and its March 2, 1992 "Progress Report FY 1990-91";
   And this Board, having conducted additional public hearings, taken additional testimony and written submittals, and reviewed the Human Rights Commission's February 28, 1992 "Sunset Report" and its March 2, 1992 "Progress Report FY 1990-91" (all of which shall be incorporated by reference);
   And this Board incorporating by reference the findings set forth in Section 12D.2 above;
   And relying upon this Board's knowledge acquired during the past eight years about the City's compliance with the MBE/WBE/LBE Ordinances and all amendments thereto. This Board hereby finds that the purposes of the MBE/WBE/LBE Ordinances and the amendments thereto have not been fulfilled and that it is necessary to extend Ordinance No. 175-89 as amended for an additional five-year period.
(Added by Ord. 155-92, App. 5/29/92)
SEC. 12D.2-2.  FURTHER ADDITIONAL FINDINGS SUPPORTING SIX-MONTH EXTENSION OF MBE/WBE/LBE ORDINANCE
   Upon the expiration of Ordinance No. 175-89 this Board having adopted Ordinance No. 155-92 to address the practices and to offset the economic disadvantages identified in Sections 12D.2, 12D.9(A), 12D.10(A), 12D.11(A) and 12D.11(A);
   And Ordinance No. 155-92 being remedial in nature will expire June 30, 1997 and thus required the Human Rights Commission to study minority and woman owned business participation in City contracting prior to the expiration of Ordinance No. 155-92;
   And the Human Rights Commission pursuant to Section 12D.15(E) of Ordinance No. 155-92, through its MBE/WBE/LBE Community Advisory Committee and at its regular and special meetings, having received public testimony concerning the City's compliance with Ordinance No. 155-92;
   And the Human Rights Commission on January 13, 1997 having hired Mason Tillman Associates to conduct a disparity study which will be concluded on or before August 31, 1997;
   And the Human Rights Commission, pursuant to Section 12D.15(E) of Ordinance No. 155-92 having conducted public hearings on January 29, 1997, February 19, 1997 and February 27, 1997;
   And the Human Rights Commission having received from Mason Tillman Associates a statistical analysis of the MBE/WBE/LBE Progress Reports for fiscal years 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95 suggesting continuing patterns of underutilization of certified MBE and WBE contractors;
   And the Human Rights Commission having submitted to this Board its March 3, 1997 "Resolution Certifying HRC Findings to the Board of Supervisors Supporting the Extension of the MBE/WBE/LBE Ordinance" as well as supporting data and analyses;
   And the Human Rights Commission having resolved to transmit to this Board by August 31, 1997, the completed disparity study which will assist this board in determining whether the purposes identified in Section 12D.3 have been achieved;
   And this board incorporating by reference the findings set forth in Sections 12D.2 and 12D.2-1 above;
   And this Board, having reviewed the MBE/WBE/LBE Progress Reports for fiscal years 1992-93, 1993-94, and 1994-95 and other supporting data (all of which shall be incorporated by reference) and having conducted public hearings on April 24, 1997 on the MBE/WBE program and policies and on May 8, 1997 at which the Board received additional testimony and written submittals from the public (which shall be incorporated by reference), finds that there is a good faith basis for concluding that the purposes identified in Section 12D.3 have not yet been achieved;
   This Board hereby finds that there is a good faith basis to extend Ordinance 155-92, as amended, for a six-month period during which time this Board, with the assistance of the Human Rights Commission and the City Attorney, will continue with the process of fact finding to ascertain whether a strong basis in evidence exists for concluding that the purposes identified in Section 12D.3 have not been achieved.
(Added by Ord. 210-97, App. 5/30/97)
SEC. 12D.2-3.  FURTHER ADDITIONAL FINDINGS SUPPORTING THREE-MONTH EXTENSION OF MBE/WBE/LBE ORDINANCE
   On November 5, 1996, Californians voted to adopt the California Civil Rights Initiative (Proposition 209) as an amendment to their Constitution. Proposition 209 provides that the State and its subdivisions shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, education or contracting.
   On December 23, 1996, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, granted a preliminary injunction to prevent the implementation of Proposition 209. However, on April 8, 1997, the Ninth Circuit in Coalition v. Wilson reversed the district court's ruling and upheld as constitutional Proposition 209. Then on August 21, 1997, the Ninth Circuit denied the petition for rehearing the decision in Coalition v. Wilson. Finally, on November 3, 1997, the United States Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari and let stand the Ninth Circuit's decision to uphold Proposition 209 as constitutional.
   As a result of the Ninth Circuit's ruling, Mason Tillman Associates will have to consider the impact, if any, of Proposition 209 on its disparity study commissioned by the Human Rights Commission on January 13, 1997.
   And although this Board expected to receive the disparity study on or before August 31, 1997, which was on an expedited schedule, the San Francisco International Airport's data requires additional verification in order to complete the disparity study. This circumstance has caused the compilation of the study's date to take longer than originally anticipated;
   And where the Mayor's Office and other City departments should have an opportunity to provide comment as to any proposed legislative changes to the ordinance before the legislation is introduced at the Board;
   And this Board incorporating by reference the findings set forth in Sections 12D.2, 12D.2-1 and 12D.2-2 above;
   This Board hereby finds that there is a good-faith basis to extend Ordinance 155-92, as amended by Ordinance 210-97, for a three-month period during which time this Board, with the assistance of the Human Rights Commission and the City Attorney, will (1) complete the compilation of the data sufficient to ascertain whether a strong basis in evidence exists for concluding that the purposes identified in Section 12D.3 have not been achieved and (2) receive comment on proposed legislative changes, if any, to the ordinance in light of the findings and recommendations set forth in the disparity study.
(Added by Ord. 457-97, App. 12/15/97)
SEC. 12D.2-4.  ADDITIONAL FINDINGS SUPPORTING A THREE-MONTH EXTENSION OF MBE/WBE/LBE ORDINANCE.
   On November 3, 1997, the United States Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari in Coalition for Economic Equity et al. v. Pete Wilson et al. As a result of the Supreme Court's decision not to grant review, Mason Tillman Associates and the City continue to consider the impact, if any, of Proposition 209 on the Disparity Study commissioned by the Human Rights Commission on January 13, 1997;
   And although a draft disparity study has been presented to the Human Rights Commission, several new questions regarding the data and how it should be analyzed have been raised by the Human Rights Commission and members of the public. In light of the concerns raised, Mason Tillman Associates and the Human Rights Commission have determined that additional data gathering and analysis is necessary in order to accurately determine whether a strong basis in evidence exists for concluding that the purposes identified in Section 12D.3 have not been achieved and what remedy, if any, is necessary to ensure that there is no discrimination in public contracting in the City and County of San Francisco.
   And this Board incorporating by reference the findings set forth in Section 12D.2, 12D.2-1, 12D.2-2 and 12D.2-3 above;
   This Board hereby finds that there is a good faith basis to extend Ordinance 155-92, as amended by Ordinance 210-97 and 457-97, for a three-month period during which time this Board, with the assistance of the Human Rights Commission and the City Attorney, will (1) complete the compilation of the data sufficient to ascertain whether a strong basis in evidence exists for concluding that the purposes identified in Section 12D.3 have not been achieved and (2) receive comment on proposed legislative changes, if any, to the ordinance in light of the findings set forth in the final disparity study.
(Added by Ord. 82-98, App. 3/6/98)
SEC. 12D.2-5.  ADDITIONAL FINDINGS SUPPORTING A TWO-MONTH EXTENSION OF MBE/WBE/LBE ORDINANCE
   On November 3, 1997, the United States Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari in Coalition for Economic Equity et al. v. Pete Wilson et al. As a result of the Supreme Court's decision not to grant review, Mason Tillman Associates and the City considered the impact, if any, of Proposition 209 on the Disparity Study commissioned by the Human Rights Commission on January 13, 1997;
   And although a draft disparity study was presented to the Human Rights Commission, several new questions regarding the data and how it should be analyzed were raised by the Human Rights Commission and members of the public. In light of the concerns raised, additional necessary data gathering and analysis were conducted. Additional time is needed in order to accurately determine whether a strong basis in evidence exists for concluding that the purposes identified in Section 12D.3 have not been achieved and what remedy, if any, is necessary to ensure that there is no discrimination in public contracting in the City and County of San Francisco.
   And this Board incorporation by reference the findings set forth in Section 12D.2, 12D.2-1, 12D.2-2, 12D.2-3 and 12D.2-4 above;
   This Board hereby finds that there is a good faith basis to extend Ordinance 155-92, as amended by Ordinance 210-97, 457-97, 82-98, for a two-month period during which time this Board, with the assistance of the Human Rights Commission and the City Attorney, will (1) complete the compilation and analysis of the data sufficient to ascertain whether a strong basis in evidence exists for concluding that the purposes identified in Section 12D.3 have not been achieved and (2) receive comment on proposed legislative changes, if any, to the Ordinance in light of the findings set forth in the final Disparity Study.
(Added by Ord. 186-98, App. 6/5/98)
SEC. 12D.2-6.  ADDITIONAL FINDINGS SUPPORTING A TWO-MONTH EXTENSION OF MBE/WBE/LBE ORDINANCE.
   In light of the United States Supreme Court's denial of the petition for writ of certiorari in Coalition for Economic Equity et al. v. Pete Wilson et al. several new questions with respect to the data collected for the City's disparity study and how it should be analyzed were raised. Because of those concerns, the Human Rights Commission in March of this year embarked upon additional data gathering and analysis in order to accurately determine whether a strong basis in evidence exists for concluding that the purposes identified in Section 12D.3 have not been achieved and what remedy, if any, is necessary to ensure that there is no discrimination in public contracting in the City and County of San Francisco.
   Although the Human Rights Commission has succeeded in gathering such additional data, the data gathering process is not yet complete. Consequently, the analysis of the data is not complete. Additional time is needed in order to accurately determine whether a strong basis in evidence exists for concluding that the purposes identified in Section 12D.3 have not been achieved and what remedy, if any, is necessary to ensure that there is no discrimination in the procurement process of the City and County of San Francisco.
   This Board incorporates by reference findings set forth in Sections 12D.2, 12D.2-2, 12D.2-3, 12D.2-4 and 12D.2-5 above;
   This Board hereby finds that there is a good faith basis to extend Ordinance 155-92, as amended by Ordinances 210-97, 457-97, 82-98 and 186-98 for a two-month period during which time this Board, with the assistance of the Human Rights Commission and the City Attorney, will (1) complete the compilation and analysis of the data to ascertain whether a strong basis in evidence exists for concluding that the purposes identified in Section 12D.3 have not been achieved and (2) receive comment on proposed legislative changes, if any, to the ordinance in light of the findings set forth in the final disparity study.
(Added by Ord. 256-98, App. 7/31/98)
SEC. 12D.3.  DECLARATION OF POLICY.
   It is the policy of the City and County of San Francisco to ensure full and equitable opportunities for Minority Business Enterprises, Woman Business Enterprises, and local businesses to participate as prime contractors in the provision of goods and services to the City. This program is intended to correct identified discriminatory practices inherent in the City's procurement process and in the award of prime contracts to MBE/WBEs and to develop their status and capability as prime contractors of the City. Another goal of this Ordinance is to offset some of the economic disadvantages local businesses continue to face that are not shared by nonlocal businesses.
   The City will continue to rely on the relationship between the percentages of minority (each ethnic group identified as a minority) and woman owned businesses in the relevant sector of the San Francisco business community and their respective shares of City contract dollars as a measure of the effectiveness of this Ordinance in remedying the effects of the aforementioned discrimination.
   The City is continuing to use a preference for local business in the award of City contracts in order to encourage business to locate and remain in San Francisco and thereby enhance employment opportunities for persons living in San Francisco. The cost of locating and doing business in San Francisco continues to be as much as 15 percent and greater than the cost of doing business in the surrounding communities; affording a five-percent bid preference for local businesses bidding on City contracts reduces the disadvantages under which City-located businesses labor when competing for City contracts, affording them a five-percent bid preference makes good sense. In effect the bid preference assists these businesses in contributing to the economic health of the City. The five-percent bid preference does not unduly hamper non-local businesses in the contracting process, and parallels the preferences awarded in many other local jurisdictions.
(Added by Ord. 175-89, App. 5/30/89)
SEC. 12D.4.  SCOPE.
   The race- and gender-conscious bid preferences of this Ordinance shall be afforded only to economically disadvantaged minority and woman owned businesses in all specifically enumerated categories of City contracts for the procurement of goods and services subject to exemptions hereinafter specifically enumerated. The local business bid preference shall be afforded to all local businesses in the award of all City contracts for the procurement of goods and services subject to exceptions hereinafter specifically enumerated in Section 12D.13.
(Added by Ord. 175-89, App. 5/30/89)
SEC. 12D.5.  DEFINITIONS.
   "Annual participation goals" shall mean the targeted levels of City-wide MBE/WBE participation in City prime contracts that reflect the relevant share of MBEs or WBEs in a given industry or profession referred to as "percent availability" in the utilization indices contained in Appendix X to this Ordinance.
   "Award of a contract" occurs when a contract is certified by the Controller of the City and County of San Francisco.
   "Back contracting" shall mean any agreement or other arrangement between a prime contractor and its subcontractor where the prime contractor performs or secures the performance of the subcontract in such a fashion and/or under such terms and conditions that the prime contractor enjoys the financial benefits of the subcontract. Said agreement or other arrangement includes, but is not limited to, situations where either a contractor or subcontractor agrees that any term, condition or obligation imposed upon the subcontractor by the subcontract shall be performed by or be the responsibility of the prime contractor.
   "Bid" shall mean and include a quotation, proposal, solicitation or offer by a bidder or contractor to perform or provide labor, materials, equipment, supplies or services to the City and County of San Francisco for a price.
   "Bidder" shall mean any business that submits a quotation, bid or proposal to provide labor, materials, equipment, supplies or services to the City and County of San Francisco.
   "City" shall mean the City and County of San Francisco.
   "Commercially useful function" for purposes of determining whether a business is a Minority Business Enterprise, Woman Business Enterprise or Local Business Enterprise shall mean that the business is directly responsible for providing the materials, equipment, supplies or services to the City as required by the solicitation or request for quotes, bids or proposals. MBEs, WBEs or LBEs who engage in the business of providing brokerage, referral or temporary employment services shall not be deemed to perform a "commercially useful function" unless the brokerage, referral or temporary employment services are those required and sought by the department.
   "Commission" shall mean the Human Rights Commission of the City and County of San Francisco.
   "Concession" shall include any grant of land or other property by or on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco to a person for the purpose or use specified in said grant. A "concession" shall not include an agreement to perform construction-related services.
   "Contract" shall mean and include any agreement between the City and a person to provide or procure labor, materials, equipment, supplies or services to, for or on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco. A "contract" shall include an agreement between the City and a person or nonprofit entity to perform construction-related services or fund the performance of such services. Except as otherwise specifically defined in this section, a "contract" does not include: (1) awards made by the City with Federal/State grant or City general fund monies to a nonprofit entity where the City offers assistance, guidance, or supervision on a project or program and the recipient of the grant award uses the grant monies to provide services to the community; (2) sales transactions where the City sells its personal or real property; (3) a loan transaction where the City is acting as a debtor or a creditor; (4) lease, franchise, or concession agreements; (5) agreements to use City real property; or (6) gifts of materials, equipment, supplies or services to the City.
   "Contract awarding authority" shall mean the City officer, department, commission, employee or board authorized to enter into contracts on behalf of the City. In the case of an agreement with a person or nonprofit entity to perform or fund the performance of construction-related services, the term "contract awarding authority" shall mean the person or nonprofit entity receiving funds from the City to perform or fund the performance of such services.
   "Contractor" shall mean any person(s), firm, partnership, corporation, or combination thereof, who submits a bid to perform, performs any part of, agrees with a person to provide services relating to and/or enters into a contract with department heads and officers or contract awarding authorities empowered by law to enter into contracts on the part of the City for public works or improvements to be performed, or for goods or services or supplies to be purchased at the expense of the City or to be paid out of monies deposited in the treasury or out of trust monies under the control of or collected by the City.
   "Controlled" for the purposes of determining whether a business is a Minority Business Enterprise, or Woman Business Enterprise, shall mean the minority(ies), the woman or combination of minorities and women, as the context requires, shall (1) possess legal authority and power to manage business assets, good will and daily operations of the business; and (2) actively and continuously exercise such authority and power in determining the policies and directing the operations of the business.
   "Director" shall mean the Director of the Human Rights Commission of San Francisco.
   "Economically disadvantaged business" shall mean a business whose average gross annual receipts in the three fiscal years immediately preceding its application for certification as a MBE, WBE or LBE do not exceed the following limits: (1) Public works/construction; (2) Goods/materials/equipment and general services suppliers; (3) Professional services
   "Equipment and supplies contract" shall mean term purchase agreements, contract orders, purchase orders and any other agreement for the purchase of transportation equipment, office supplies, data processing and office equipment, hospital and medical equipment and supplies, food, building supplies, fire/safety equipment and supplies, clothing, miscellaneous and electrical equipment and supplies. The term "equipment and supplies contract" shall not include contracts for fuels, lubricants and illuminants.
   "Franchise" shall mean and include the right or privilege conferred by grant from the City and County of San Francisco, or any contracting agency thereof, and vested in and authorizing a person to conduct such business or engage in such activity as is specified in the grant. A "franchise" shall not include an agreement to perform construction-related services.
   "General services contract" shall mean term purchase agreements, contract orders, purchase orders and any other agreement for the procurement of janitorial, security, equipment and computer maintenance, miscellaneous, printing and graphics services.
   "Good-faith efforts" when required of a contract awarding authority or department shall mean the actions undertaken by a department to obtain MBE or WBE participation in a contract as prime contractors, and shall include the following efforts: (1) encouraging MBE/WBEs to attend pre-bid meetings, scheduled by a department or the Commission, to inform potential contractors of contracting opportunities; (2) advertising in general circulation media, trade association publications and minority/woman business focus media; (3) notifying MBE/WBEs who are available to perform the work contemplated in a contract, soliciting their interest in the contract; (4) dividing the contract work into economically feasible units to facilitate MBE/WBE participation in the contract; (5) pursuing solicitations of interest by contacting MBE/WBEs to determine whether these businesses are interested in participating on the contract; (6) providing MBE/WBEs with adequate information about the plan, specifications and requirements of the contract; (7) where applicable, negotiating with MBE/WBEs in good faith and demonstrating that MBE/WBEs were not rejected as unqualified without sound reasons based on a thorough investigation of their capabilities; and (8) using the services of available community and contractors' groups, local, State or Federal minority and woman business assistance offices that provide assistance in the recruitment of MBE/WBEs for public sector contracts.
   "Good-faith efforts" when required of a prime public works/construction contractor or professional services provider shall mean the steps undertaken to comply with the goals and requirements imposed by the City for participation by minority and women business enterprises as subcontractors, and shall include the following:
      (1)   Attending any presolicitation or prebid meetings scheduled by the City to inform all bidders of the minority and women business enterprise program requirements for the project for which the contract will be awarded;
      (2)   Identifying and selecting specific items of the project for which the contract will be awarded to be performed by minority or women business enterprises to provide an opportunity for participation by those enterprises;
      (3)   Advertising, not less than 10 calendar days before the date the bids are opened, in one or more daily or weekly newspapers, trade association publications, minority or trade-oriented publications, trade journals, or other media, specified by the City for minority or women business enterprises that are interested in participating in the project. This paragraph applies only if the City gave public notice of the project not less than 15 calendar days prior to the date the bids are opened;
      (4)   Providing written notice of his or her interest in bidding on the contract to the number of minority or women business enterprises required to be notified by the project specifications not less than 10 calendar days prior to the opening of bids. The City shall make available to the bidder not less than 15 calendar days prior to the date the bids are opened a list or a source of lists of enterprises which are certified by the Director as minority or women business enterprises;
      (5)   Following up initial solicitations of interest by contacting the enterprises to determine with certainty whether the enterprises were interested in performing specific items of the project;
      (6)   Providing interested minority and women business enterprises with information about the plans, specifications, and requirements for the selected subcontracting or material supply work;
      (7)   Requesting assistance from minority and women community organizations; minority and women contractor or professional groups; local, State or Federal minority and women business assistance offices; or other organizations that provide assistance in the recruitment and placement of minority or women business enterprises, if any are available;
      (8)   Negotiating in good faith with the minority or women business enterprises, and not unjustifiably rejecting as unsatisfactory bids or proposals prepared by any minority or women business enterprises, as determined by the City;
      (9)   Where applicable, advising and making efforts to assist interested minority and women business enterprises in obtaining bonds, lines of credit, or insurance required by the City or contractor;
      (10)   Making efforts to obtain minority and women business enterprise participation that the City could reasonably expect would produce a level of participation sufficient to meet the City's goals and requirements.
   "Human Rights Commission (HRC)" shall mean the Human Rights Commission of San Francisco, consisting of Commissioners appointed by the Mayor; hereinafter, it shall be referred to as the "Commission."
   "Joint venture" shall mean and may be referred to as an "Association" of two or more businesses acting as a contractor and performing or providing services on a contract, in which each joint venture or association partner combines property, capital, efforts, skill, and/or knowledge.
   "Lease" shall mean and include an agreement by which the City and County of San Francisco or any contracting agency thereof, grants to a person the temporary possession and use of property for reward, and the latter agrees to return the same to the former at a future time. A "lease" shall not include an agreement to perform construction-related services.
   "Local business" or "Local business enterprise (LBE)" shall mean an economically disadvantaged business which is an independent and continuing business for profit, performs a commercially useful function and is a firm:
      (1)   With fixed offices or distribution points located within the geographical boundaries of the City and County of San Francisco;
      (2)   Listed in the Permits and License Tax Paid File with a San Francisco business street address; and
      (3)   Which possesses a current Business Tax Registration Certificate at the time of the application for certification as a local business. Post Office box numbers or residential addresses shall not suffice to establish status as a "local business." To qualify as a "local business" or "LBE" a business must establish that it has been located and doing business in San Francisco for at least six months preceding its application for certification as a local business.
   "Lower-tier subcontracting" shall mean any agreement or other arrangement between a subcontractor and a person as defined herein where it is agreed that said person shall perform any term, condition or obligation imposed by the subcontract upon the subcontractor.
   "Minority," "minorities," or "minority person" shall mean members of one of the following ethnic groups: Asians (defined as Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Pacific Islanders, Samoans, Filipinos, Asian Indians, and Southeast Asians), Blacks, and Latinos (defined as Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Cubans, Central or South Americans).
   "Minority Business Enterprise (MBE)" shall mean an economically disadvantaged local business which is an independent and continuing business for profit, performs a commercially useful function, and is owned and controlled by one or more minority persons residing in the United States or its territories.
   "Miscellaneous professional services" shall mean all professional services except legal, architect/engineer, computer systems, management consulting and medical services.
   "Office" or "offices" shall mean a fixed and established place where work is carried on of a clerical, administrative, professional or production nature directly pertinent to the business being certified. A temporary location or movable property or one that was established to oversee a project such as a construction project office does not qualify as an "office" under the Ordinance.
   "Owned," for purposes of determining whether a business is a minority business enterprise or woman business enterprise, shall mean that the minorities or women as the context requires, shall possess an ownership interest of at least 51 percent of the business, and shall:
      (1)   Possess incidents of ownership, such as an interest in profit and loss, equal to at least the required ownership interest percentage; and
      (2)   Contribute capital, equipment and expertise to the business equal to at least the required ownership percentage.
   Ownership of an individual seeking MBE or WBE certification shall be measured as though the applicant's ownership is not subject to the community property interest of a spouse, if both spouses certify that (a) only the woman or minority spouse participates in the management of the business and (b) the nonparticipating spouse relinquishes control over his/her community property interest in the subject business; or both spouses have bona fide management and control of the business.
   "Participation commitment" shall mean the targeted level of MBE/WBE subcontractor participation that each prime public works/construction contractor or professional service provider has designated in its bid.
   "Participation goals" shall mean the targeted levels of City-wide MBE/WBE participation in City prime contracts that reflect the relevant share of MBEs or WBEs in a given industry or profession referred to as "percent availability" in the utilization indices contained in Appendix X to this Ordinance.
   "Percent availability": see "Participation goals."
   "Person" includes one or more individuals, partnerships, associations, organizations, trade or professional associations, corporations, cooperatives, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, receivers, or any group of persons, including any official, agent or employee of the City and County of San Francisco.
   "Professional services contract" shall mean agreements for the procurement of legal, architect/engineer, computer systems, management consulting, medical services and miscellaneous professional services.
   "Public works/construction contract" shall mean agreements for the construction, reconstruction or repair of public buildings, streets, utilities or other public works or improvements.
   "Set aside" when referring to a contract or project shall mean a procurement or contract award process where competition for a contract or project is limited to MBEs, WBEs and/or joint ventures with MBE/WBEs.
   "Subcontractor" shall mean any business providing goods or services to a contractor for profit, if such goods or services are procured or used in fulfillment of the contractor's obligations arising from a contract with the City and County of San Francisco.
   "Subcontractor participation goals" shall mean the targeted level of MBE/WBE subcontractor participation designated by the Director for prime public works/construction and professional services contracts.
   "Woman Business Enterprise (WBE)" shall mean an economically disadvantaged local business which is an independent and continuing business for profit, performs a commercially useful function and is owned and controlled by one or more women residing in the United States or its territories.
   "Woman/Minority Man Business Enterprise (W/MBE)" shall mean an economically disadvantaged local business which meets the definition of an MBE or WBE, except that the aggregate ownership interest of the woman and the minority man equals or exceeds 51 percent of the business. An W/MBE shall qualify and be deemed by a department an MBE or WBE, but not both, for purposes of this Ordinance. Any reference in this Ordinance to MBE or WBE includes a W/MBE.
(Added by Ord. 175-89, App. 5/30/89; amended by Ord. 190-91, App. 5/31/91; Ord. 283-91, App. 6/12/91; Ord. 76-92, App. 3/13/92; Ord. 155-92, App. 5/29/92; Ord. 284-92, App. 9/16/92)
SEC. 12D.6.  POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION AND THE DIRECTOR.
   (A)   In addition to the duties and powers given to the Human Rights Commission elsewhere, the Commission shall:
      1.   Collect and analyze relevant data which will assist the Board of Supervisors in determining whether race- or gender-conscious remedies are appropriate and necessary for contracts not subject to or ethnic groups not afforded the race- and gender-conscious bid preferences of this ordinance. The Commission shall periodically report the results of this study to this Board;
      2.   Levy sanctions as specified in Section 12D.8(B)(7);
      3.   When necessary, subpoena persons and records, books and documents for a proceeding of the Commission or an investigation by the Director conducted to further the purposes of this ordinance;
      4.   Amend existing rules and regulations establishing standards and procedures for effectively carrying out this ordinance. The rules and regulations shall provide for administrative procedures which will allow a business to prove and the Commission to recommend to this Board that the ordinance's remedial measures should not be applied to an industry or profession because MBE/WBE participation in City prime contracts has reached parity with their numbers in the relevant business community and MBE/WBEs no longer suffer from a discrimination-induced competitive disadvantage in the applicable industry or profession. The regulations shall also provide a mechanism for contractors to seek a determination by the Director that a MBE or WBE may not be granted a race- or gender-conscious bid preference where it is demonstrated that the MBE or WBE's bid price is not attributable to the effects of past discrimination.
   (B)   In addition to the duties and powers given to the Director elsewhere, the Director shall have the following duties and powers:
      1.   Through appropriately promulgated procedures, certify businesses as bona fide MBEs/WBEs/LBEs. These procedures shall provide that any business seeking certification as a local business shall meet the definition of a LBE and possess or establish all of the following: (1) business cards for the San Francisco office; (2) business stationery for the San Francisco office; (3) written agreement for occupancy of the San Francisco office; (4) that the business is listed in an appropriate business buyers guide such as a telephone yellow pages listing San Francisco based businesses; (5) that business is transacted in the San Francisco office; (6) a conspicuously displayed business sign at the San Francisco business premises except where the business operates out of a residence; and (7) the office is appropriately equipped for the type of business for which certification as a LBE is sought.
         Except where the Director cannot certify a business because the business has not been established in San Francisco for the requisite six months, whenever the Director denies an application for or revokes the certification of a business as a MBE, WBE, LBE because the business is not a bona fide MBE, WBE, LBE, the Director shall inform the aggrieved business in writing when the business will be eligible to reapply for certification. The Director shall require a business to wait at least six months but not more than two years after the denial or revocation before reapplying to the Director for certification as a MBE, WBE or LBE. Except as provided in Section 12D.14(C), the Director's denial or revocation of certification of a business as a MBE, WBE, LBE shall not be appealable to the Commission;
      2.   Annually, and more often if he deems necessary, analyze the most recently available data on "percent availability" of MBEs and WBEs in the various industries and professions identified in the utilization indices set forth in Appendix X to this ordinance and the Human Relations Commission's 1992 Sunset Report. Applying statistically sound methods of analysis, the Director shall identify areas of contracting where the City or its departments are failing to meet the participation goals to such an extent that an inference of discrimination can be made. In addition, the Director shall identify areas of contracting where the City is meeting and/or exceeding participation goals to such an extent that the MBE or WBE bid preferences can no longer be justified. The results of this study shall be included in the Commission's annual report required by Section 12D.15(C).
         Not later than March 1st of each fiscal year, the Director shall transmit to the Board of Supervisors proposed amendments to this ordinance and the utilization indices necessitated by the data he has collected and analyzed;
      3.   By July 1st of each fiscal year subject to this ordinance, inform the Controller of the data each department is required to provide the Controller on each contract award. This data shall form the basis of the Commission's report to the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors and the public on the participation of MBEs and WBEs on City prime contracts subject to the ordinance;
      4.   Provide information and other assistance to MBEs and WBEs to increase their ability to compete effectively for the award of City contracts;
      5.   Assist the City to increase participation by MBEs and WBEs in City contracts;
      6.   Continue to develop and strengthen education and training programs for MBEs and WBEs and City contract awarding personnel;
      7.   Where after determining that a department, despite its good-faith efforts and application of the bid preference(s), has failed substantially to eliminate the exclusion of MBEs and/or WBEs from City contracting, the Director, after consulting with the department responsible for the project(s), may request the Contract Review Committee established in Section 12D.8.(A)(3) to review and approve the proposed project(s) for a set aside;
      8.   Work with the Controller and representatives of City departments to implement a City-wide prompt-payment policy requiring that MBEs, WBEs and LBEs be paid by the City within 60 days of the date on which the City receives an invoice from an MBE, WBE or LBE for work performed for the City.
   (C)   The requirements of this ordinance are separate from those imposed by the United States or the State of California as a condition of financial assistance or otherwise; however, the Director may authorize the substitution of such State or federal Minority Business Enterprise and Women Business Enterprise requirements for the requirements of this ordinance whenever such State or federal requirements are substantially the same as those of this ordinance.
   (D)   The Director, with the approval of the Commission, may enter into cooperative agreements with agencies, public and private, concerned with increasing the utilization of MBEs and WBEs in government contracting, subject to the approval of the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco.
(Added by Ord. 175-89, App. 5/30/89; amended by Ord. 190-91, App. 5/31/91; Ord. 155-92, App. 5/29/92; Ord. 278-96, App. 7/3/96)
SEC. 12D.7.  POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE CONTROLLER.
   (A)   In addition to the duties given to the Controller elsewhere, the Controller shall work cooperatively with the Director to assemble and maintain the data the Director advises are necessary to form the basis of the Commission's report to the Mayor, Board of Supervisors and the public on the participation of MBEs and WBEs in City prime contracts.
   (B)   The Controller shall not certify the award of any contract subject to this ordinance until the department requesting certification of the award of the contract has provided the Controller with the information the Director advises is necessary under this ordinance.
   (C)   It is the City's policy that MBEs, WBEs and LBEs should be paid by the City within 30 days of the date on which the City receives an invoice from an MBE, WBE or LBE for work performed for the City. The Controller shall work with the Director and representatives of City departments to implement this City-wide prompt-payment policy.
(Added by Ord. 175-89, App. 5/30/89; amended by Ord. 155-92, 5/29/92; Ord. 398-95, App. 12/22/95; Ord. 278-96, App. 7/3/96)
SEC. 12D.8.  POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE MAYOR, DEPARTMENTS OR CONTRACT AWARDING AUTHORITIES.
   (A)   In addition to the duties given to the Mayor elsewhere, the Mayor shall:
      1.   By July 1st of each fiscal year subject to this ordinance, issue notices to all City departments informing them of their duties under this ordinance. The notice shall contain the following information: (1) the City-wide MBE/WBE participation goals that departments are expected to use good-faith efforts to attain during the fiscal year and that a department's failure to use good-faith efforts to attain the MBE/WBE participation goals shall be reported to the Board of Supervisors in the Commission's annual report; and (2) the data each department is required to provide the Controller on each contract award;
      2.   Coordinate and enforce cooperation and compliance by all departments with this ordinance;
      3.   Establish a three-member Contract Review Committee who shall have the authority to review contracts proposed by the Director or a department to be set aside, where competition for these contracts is limited to MBEs, WBEs and/or joint ventures with MBE/WBEs. The three-member Contract Review Committee shall be composed of the HRC Director, an individual appointed by the Board of Supervisors and an individual appointed by the Mayor. The Board and the Mayor shall appoint individuals who are knowledgeable about contracting practices of the City and of the industry or profession affected by the set-aside of the contract;
      4.   Establish a three-member Subcontracting Goals Committee which shall have the authority to review decisions by the Director denying a contractor's request, pursuant to Section 12D.9(D)-(4) or 12D.11(A)-(6), to waive or reduce subcontractor participation goals. The three-member Subcontracting Goals Committee shall be composed of an individual appointed by the Commission, an individual appointed by the Board of Supervisors and an individual appointed by the Mayor. The Commission, the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor shall appoint individuals who are knowledgeable about the City's contracting and subcontracting practices and the relevant construction or professional service industry. The Commission, the Board of Supervisors, or the Mayor may not appoint to the Subcontracting Goals Committee the Director or any employee of the Human Rights Commission.
   (B)   Contract awarding authorities or in the case of a professional services contract, the department making the contract award recommendation, shall:
      1.   Use good-faith efforts to solicit and obtain quotes, bids or proposals from MBEs and WBEs on all solicitations, or document their unavailability;
      2.   Unless otherwise indicated in this ordinance and except where prohibited by State or Federal law or regulation, extend a preference in all bids and contracts and in the composition of rating scales as follows: (1) a five-percent preference to (i) a local business or (ii) a joint venture with local MBE or local WBE participation which equals or exceeds 35 percent but is under 40 percent; or (iii) where a joint venture is composed of only local businesses with no local MBE or WBE participation or where the local MBE or local WBE participation is less than 35 percent; (2) a seven and one-half percent (7.5%) preference to (i) a joint venture with local MBE or WBE participation which equals or exceeds 40 percent but is less than 51 percent; (3) a 10-percent preference to (i) a local MBE or local WBE or (ii) a joint venture with local MBE or local WBE participation which equals or exceeds 51 percent.
         A joint venture shall receive the aforementioned appropriate bid preference when the MBE or WBE is an active partner in the joint venture and performs work, manages the job and takes financial risks in proportion to the required level of participation stated in the bid documents and is responsible for a clearly defined portion of the work to be performed, and shares in the ownership, control, management responsibilities, risks, and profits of the joint venture. The portion of the MBE or WBE joint venturer's work shall be set forth in detail separately from the work to be performed by the nonMBE or nonWBE joint venture partner. The MBE or WBE joint venturer's portion of the contract must be assigned a commercially reasonable dollar value;
      3.   Arrange contracting by size and type of work to be performed so as most effectively to enhance the opportunity for participation by MBEs and WBEs to the maximum extent feasible. As soon as practical before soliciting quotes, bids or proposals, all contract awarding authorities or in the case of a professional services contract, the department making the contract award recommendation, shall submit all large proposals to the Director for review. The purpose of the Director's review is to determine whether the proposed project can be divided into smaller projects so as to enhance the opportunity for participation by MBEs and WBEs in the project. For purposes of this subsection, the term "large project" shall mean the following: (1) any public works/construction project estimated to cost more than $5,000,000; (2) any professional services contract estimated to cost more than $50,000. If the Director determines, after consulting with the contract awarding authority or department responsible for the project, that the project can be divided into smaller projects, the contract awarding authority or department shall comply with the Director's determination and issue the solicitation for quotes, bids or proposals in accordance with the Director's determination;
      4.   Adjust bid bonding and insurance requirements as recommended by the City Risk Manager in his May 2, 1989 "Contract Insurance Manual";
      5.   Utilize a revolving fund as may be established by the City to assist MBEs and WBEs to meet bonding, insurance and other fee-related requirements;
      6.   Submit to a central office all current bids, requests for proposals, and solicitations with sufficient lead time to provide adequate notice and opportunity to MBEs and WBEs to participate;
      7.   Impose such sanctions or take such other actions as are designed to ensure compliance with the provisions of this ordinance, which shall include, but are not limited to:
         (a)   Refusal to grant the award of a contract;
         (b)   Order the suspension of a contract;
         (c)   Order the withholding of funds;
         (d)   Order the revision of a contract based upon a material breach of contract provisions pertaining to MBE or WBE participation;
         (e)   Disqualification of a bidder, contractor, subcontractor, or other business from eligibility for providing goods or services to the City for a period not to exceed five years, with a right to review and reconsideration by the Commission after two years upon a showing of corrective action indicating violations are not likely to recur;
      8.   Not award any contract to a person or business which is disqualified from doing business with the City under the provisions of this ordinance, nor shall any contract be awarded to any person or business which is disqualified from doing business with any governmental agency based on failure to comply with Minority or Women Business Enterprise or contract compliance requirements which are substantially the same as those of this ordinance;
      9.   Designate a staff person to be responsible for responding to the Director and Commission and to the requirements of this ordinance;
      10.   Maintain accurate records for each contract awarded, its dollar value, the nature of the goods or services to be provided, the name of the contractor awarded the contract, the efforts made by a construction, architect/engineer contractor to solicit bids from and award subcontracts to MBEs and WBEs;
      11.   Where feasible, provide technical assistance to MBEs and WBEs to increase their ability to compete effectively for the award of City contracts;
      12.   Work with the Director and the Controller to implement a City-wide prompt-payment policy requiring that MBEs, WBEs and LBEs be paid by the City within 30 days of the date on which the City receives an invoice from an MBE, WBE or LBE for work performed for the City;
      13.   Provide the Director with written notice of all contract modifications which result in an increase or decrease of the contract's dollar amount of more than 10 percent. Such notice shall be provided within 30 days of each such contract modification.
   (C)   Subject to the prior approval of the Director, contract awarding authorities or departments may invite, encourage or request businesses to joint venture on any contract to promote MBE or WBE participation.
   (D)   For the purpose of determining Minority and Women Business Enterprise participation:
      Contracts awarded to joint ventures in which one or more MBEs or WBEs are combined with one or more businesses which are not Minority or Women Business Enterprises shall be deemed to be awarded to Minority or Women Business Enterprises only to the extent of the Minority or Women Business Enterprises' participation in the joint venture.
   (E)   All contracts subject to this ordinance shall include the following requirements, in addition to such other requirements as may be set forth elsewhere:
      1.   Bidders and contractors on all contracts shall be required to sign before a notary an affidavit prepared by the City Attorney, declaring under penalty of perjury their intention fully to comply with the provisions of the ordinance;
      2.   Contracts shall incorporate this ordinance by reference and shall provide that the wilful failure of any bidder or contractor to comply with any of its requirements shall be deemed a material breach of contract;
      3.   Contracts shall provide that in the event that the Director finds that any bidder, subcontractor or contractor wilfully fails to comply with any of the provisions of this ordinance, rules and regulations implementing the ordinance or contract provisions pertaining to MBE or WBE participation the bidder, subcontractor or contractor shall be liable for liquidated damages for each contract in an amount equal to the bidder's or contractor's net profit on the contract, or 10 percent of the total amount of the contract or $1,000, whichever is greatest, said amount to be determined by the Director pursuant to Section 12D.14(C). All contracts shall also contain a provision in which the bidder, subcontractor or contractor acknowledges and agrees that the liquidated damages assessed shall be payable to the City upon demand and may be set off against any monies due to the bidder, subcontractor or contractor from any contract with the City;
      4.   Contracts shall require bidders, contractors and subcontractors to maintain records necessary for monitoring their compliance with this ordinance;
      5.   Contracts shall require that during the term of the contract, the prime contractor shall fulfill the MBE and WBE participation commitments submitted with their bid;
      6.   Contracts shall require prime contractors to include a contract provision in any subcontract with an MBE or WBE which provides MBE and WBE subcontractors with a remedy for a prime contractor's noncompliance with his or her commitment to utilize MBE and WBE subcontractors. This contractual provision shall include an agreement by the prime contractor to compensate any MBE or WBE subcontractor if the prime contractor does not fulfill its commitment to utilize the MBE or WBE subcontractor. This contractual provision shall also state that it is enforceable in a court of competent jurisdiction;
      7.   Whenever contract supplements, amendments or change orders are made which cumulatively increase the total dollar value of a construction contract by more than 10 percent, the contractor shall comply with those MBE and WBE provisions of this ordinance which applied to the original contract with respect to the supplement, amendment, or change order;
      8.   Contracts in which subcontracting is utilized shall prohibit back contracting to the prime contractor or lower-tier subcontracting for any purpose inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance, rules and regulations adopted pursuant to this ordinance, or contract provisions pertaining to MBE and WBE utilization.
      9.   Contracts in which subcontracting is utilized shall require the prime contractor/consultant to pay its MBE or WBE subcontractor/subconsultants within three working days after receiving payment from the City unless the prime contractor/consultant notifies the Director in writing within 10 working days prior to payment that there is a bona fide dispute between the prime contractor/consultant and the MBE or WBE subcontractor/subconsultant. The Director may, upon making a determination that a bona fide dispute exists between the prime contractor/consultant and subcontractor, waive this contract requirement. In making the determination as to whether or not a bona fide dispute exists, the Director will not consider the merits of the dispute.
   (F)   All contracts or other agreements between the City and County of San Francisco and persons or entities, public or private, where such persons or entities receive money from or through the City for the purpose of contracting with businesses to perform public improvements, shall require such persons or entities to comply with the provisions of this ordinance in awarding and administering such contracts, except where prohibited by State or Federal law or regulation.
   (G)   Where a department can demonstrate, despite its good-faith efforts and application of the bid preference(s), that it has failed substantially to eliminate the exclusion of MBEs or WBEs from City contracting, the department, after consulting with the Director, may request the Contract Review Committee established in Section 12D.8(A)(3) to review and approve the proposed project(s) selected by the department for a set-aside.
   (H)   City department heads and commissioners shall attend a one-hour mandatory training session on an annual basis. The training session shall be organized and conducted by the Director and shall inform City department heads and commissioners of the requirements of this ordinance.
(Added by Ord. 175-89, App. 5/30/89; amended by Ord. 190-91, App. 5/31/91; Ord. 76-92, App. 3/13/92; Ord. 155-92, App. 5/29/92; Ord. 284-92, App. 9/16/92; Ord. 399-95, App. 12/22/95; Ord. 278-96, App. 7/3/96)
SEC. 12D.9.  ADDITIONAL FINDINGS SUPPORTING RACE- AND GENDER-CONSCIOUS BID PREFERENCES AND SUBCONTRACTOR PARTICIPATION GOALSWORKS/CONSTRUCTION; SUBCONTRACTING PROGRAM.
   (A)   In addition to the general findings set forth in Sections 12D.2, 12D.2-1, 12D.2-2, 12D.2-3, 12D.2-4, 12D.2-5 and 12D.2-6 and based upon the record before this Board, the Board hereby makes these additional findings in support of the race- and gender-conscious bid preference provisions and subcontractor participation goals for public works/construction contracts:
      1.   In Ordinance No. 139-84 this Board identified discriminatory procurement practices against MBEs and WBEs in the award of prime public works/construction contracts.
      2.   The evidence before this Board relating to the award of prime public works/construction contracts for fiscal year 1987-1988 reflects that MBEs (each ethnic group identified as a minority) and WBEs continue to be awarded contract dollars in amounts that are disproportionately lower than the available number of MBE and WBE prime public works/construction contractors willing and able to perform City construction work. The evidence before this Board relating to the participation of MBE/WBE prime and subcontractors on City construction contracts for fiscal year 1989-1990 reflects that MBEs (each ethnic group identified as a minority) and WBEs continue to be awarded contract dollars in amounts that are disproportionately lower than the available number of MBE and WBE prime and subcontractors willing and able to perform construction work. The statistical results are the same for MBEs for fiscal year 1990-91. These results cannot be attributed to chance. In light of the testimony before this Board and the Commission in 1983, 1984, 1988, 1989 and 1992, and the Redevelopment Agency in 1991, this Board finds that these results can be attributed in part to discriminatory procurement practices and in part to discrimination in the local construction industry against MBEs and WBEs that is manifested in and perpetuated and exacerbated by the City's procurement practices.
      3.   The evidence before this Board supports the conclusion that MBEs and WBEs continue to be disadvantaged by discriminatory practices when competing for City prime construction contracts. The weight of the testimony and other evidence before this Board supports the conclusion that nonminority construction contractors competing for or doing business with the City and/or in the public sector limit the participation of MBE and WBE subcontractors on construction contracts by engaging in discriminatory business practices.
      4.   Race-neutral measures employed by the City in the past for those construction contracts subject to the "lowest, reliable, responsible bidder" standard did not prevent the discriminatory practices from occurring. Since February 1989 the City has pursued race-neutral measures to facilitate MBE/WBE subcontractor participation in construction contracts. From about February 1st to June 30, 1989 the City adopted a race-neutral disadvantaged business program for its construction contracts. Since July 1, 1989 the City has urged prime construction contractors to voluntarily extend subcontracting opportunities to MBE/WBE subcontractors on City construction contracts. These race- and gender-neutral measures employed by the City have not been successful in increasing MBE/WBE subcontractor participation in City construction contracts.
      5.   The Board is granting a competitive advantage, the bid preference, to prime MBEs and WBEs to offset the identified competitive disadvantage caused by the City's discriminatory procurement practices.
      6.   The evidence before this Board relating to the award of prime public works/construction contracts for fiscal year 1990-1991 reflects that WBEs have improved their participation in City construction contracts. However, based on the testimony and other evidence before this Board, the Board concludes that remedial action continues to be necessary for WBEs competing for construction contracts to overcome past discrimination in the award of construction prime and sub-contracts. The Director shall closely monitor the participation of WBEs in construction contracts and report the results of such monitoring to the Board pursuant to Section 12D.6(B)2.
   (B)   For all public works/construction contracts, the contract awarding authority shall furnish the Director with an informational copy of all bid conditions and requests for proposals, along with a statement identifying all funds provided by any other governmental agency which will be used in payment of the contract.
   (C)   Architect and engineer services provided to the City in connection with a public works/construction contract are governed by Section 12D.11.
   (D)   MBE/WBE Subcontracting Program. For all public works/construction contracts in which the contract awarding authority reasonably anticipates will include subcontractor participation, the contract awarding authority, prior to the solicitation of bids, shall provide the Director with a proposed job scope, and may submit written recommendations to the Director regarding MBE and WBE subcontractor participation goals to be set for the contract. The Director shall set the participation goals pursuant to Section 12D.9.(D)-(1).
   (D)-(1)   Upon receipt of a proposed job scope and/or a written recommendation from a contracting awarding authority pursuant to Section 12D.9.(D), the Director shall set the MBE and WBE participation goals for each construction contract based upon the following factors:
      1.   The extent of subcontracting opportunities presented by the contract;
      2.   The availability of MBE/WBE subcontractors capable of providing goods and services on the construction contract.
   The Director shall set the MBE and WBE participation goals within 10 working days of the date the Director receives from a contract awarding authority a proposed job scope and/or written recommendation. If the Director fails to act within 10 days, and if the contract awarding authority submitted to the Director recommended goals pursuant to Section 12D.9.(D), the recommended goals shall be deemed approved by the Director, provided that the recommended goals are based upon the factors identified in Subsections (D)-(1) 1 and 2 above.
   (D)-(2)   Bid conditions shall require bidders on prime construction contracts to do the following:
      1.   Demonstrate in their bid that they have used good-faith efforts to utilize MBE and WBE subcontractors;
      2.   Identify the particular MBEs and WBEs subcontractors to be utilized in performing the contract, specifying for each the dollar value of the participation, the type of work to be performed and such information as may reasonably be required to determine the responsiveness of the bid.
   Except as provided in Section 12D.9.(D)-(5), bids not meeting the requirements of Section 12D.9.(D)-(2) shall be declared non-responsive.
   (D)-(3)   A contract awarding authority may request that the Director waive or reduce the MBE and WBE subcontractor participation goals on construction contracts by submitting the reasons therefor in writing to the Director prior to the solicitation of bids.
   (D)-(4)   A bidder or contractor may request that the Director waive or reduce the amount of MBE or WBE subcontractor participation goals on a construction contract by submitting the reasons therefor in writing to the contract awarding authority with its bid.
   (D)-(5)   The Director may grant the request for waiver or reduction made pursuant to Sections 12D.9(D)-(3) and (D)-(4) upon a determination that:
      1.   The reasonable and necessary requirements of the construction contract render subcontracting or the participation of businesses other than bidder unfeasible;
      2.   Qualified MBEs and/or WBEs capable of providing the goods or services required by the contract are unavailable, despite the prime contractor's or the department's good-faith efforts to locate MBEs and WBEs to meet the participation goals; or
      3.   The available MBEs and WBEs have given price quotes which are unreasonably high in that they exceed competitive levels beyond amounts which can be attributed to cover costs inflated by the present effects of discrimination.
   (D)-(6)   Whenever the Director denies a contractor's request to waive or reduce the participation goals, the contractor may appeal that denial to the Subcontracting Goals Committee established pursuant to Section 12D.8(A)4. The Subcontracting Goals Committee's decision on the request shall be final. In reviewing the Director's denial of a contractor's request to waive or reduce participation goals, the Subcontracting Goals Committee shall consider the extent of subcontracting opportunities presented by the contract and the availability of MBE/WBE subcontractors capable of providing goods and services on the construction contract.
      The Subcontracting Goals Committee may overrule the Director and grant the request for waiver or reduction only upon finding that:
      1.   The reasonable and necessary requirements of the construction contract render subcontracting or the participation of businesses other than bidder unfeasible;
      2.   Qualified MBEs and/or WBEs capable of providing the goods or services required by the contract are unavailable, despite the prime contractor's or the department's good-faith efforts to locate MBEs and WBEs to meet the participation goals; or
      3.   The available MBEs and WBEs have given price quotes which are unreasonably high in that they exceed competitive levels beyond amounts which can be attributed to cover costs inflated by the present effects of discrimination.
   (D)-(7)   Prior to entering into any prime construction contract, the contract awarding authority shall require bidders on the contracts to contact all MBEs and WBEs before the MBE/WBEs are listed as subcontractors in the bid.
   (D)-(8)   During the term of the contract, any failure to comply with the level of MBE and WBE subcontractor participation specified in the contract shall be deemed a material breach of contract.
(Added by Ord. 175-89, App. 5/30/89; amended by Ord. 76-92, App. 3/13/92; Ord. 155-92, App. 5/29/92; Ord. 210-97, App. 5/30/97; Ord. 457-97, App. 12/15/97; Ord. 82-98, App. 3/6/98; Ord. 186-98, App. 6/5/98; Ord. 256-98, App. 7/31/98)
SEC. 12D.10.  ADDITIONAL FINDINGS SUPPORTING RACE- AND GENDER-CONSCIOUS BID PREFERENCESCONTRACTS.
   (A)   In addition to the general findings set forth in Sections 12D.2, 12D.2-1, 12D.2-2, 12D.2-3, 12D.2-4, 12D.2-5 and 12D.2-6 and based upon the record before this Board, the Board hereby makes these additional findings in support of the race- and gender-conscious bid preferences for purchasing contracts:
      1.   In Ordinance No. 139-84 this Board identified discriminatory procurement practices in the award of purchasing contracts.
      2.   The evidence before this Board relating to the award of contracts for fiscal year 1987-1988 reflects that MBEs (each ethnic group listed as a minority) and WBEs continue to be awarded contract dollars in certain categories of purchasing contracts in dollar amounts that are disproportionately lower than the available number of MBEs and WBEs in the private sector. These results cannot be attributed to chance. In light of the testimony before this Board and the Commission in 1983, 1984, 1988 and 1989, this Board finds that these results can only be attributed to discriminatory procurement practices.
      3.   The evidence before this Board supports the conclusion that MBEs and WBEs continue to be disadvantaged by discriminatory practices when competing for the aforementioned purchasing contracts.
      4.   Race-neutral measures employed by the City in the past for those purchasing contracts subject to the "lowest, reliable, responsible bidder" standard did not prevent the discriminatory practices from occurring.
      5.   The Board is granting a competitive advantage, the bid preference, to MBEs and WBEs to offset the identified competitive disadvantage caused by the City's discriminatory procurement practices.
      6.   The evidence before this Board relating to the award of purchasing contracts for fiscal years 1989-1990 and 1990-1991 reflects that certain minority groups have improved their participation in City purchasing contracts. However, based on the testimony and other evidence before this Board, the Board concludes that remedial action continues to be necessary to enable these groups to overcome past discrimination in the award of purchasing contracts. The Director shall closely monitor the participation of these groups in purchasing contracts and report the results of such monitoring to the Board pursuant to Section 12D.6(B)(2).
   (B)   Equipment and supplies contracts or general services contracts as defined herein awarded by the purchaser shall be subject to the race- and gender-conscious bid preferences of this ordinance.
   (C)   In addition to the duties given the purchaser elsewhere, the purchaser shall maintain, with the assistance of the Director, a current list of Minority and Woman Business Enterprises certified by the Commission to provide each of those commodities or services subject to this ordinance which the purchaser indicates are required by the City. The purchaser shall notify the Director prior to solicitation of bids or quotations whenever no such certified businesses are available for a contract subject to the race- and gender-conscious bid preferences of this ordinance, unless the Director waives such notification based on the known unavailability of such qualified businesses to perform a particular contract. The Director shall attempt to identify qualified businesses, and if successful, shall notify the purchaser of their availability; the purchaser shall provide such MBEs and WBEs every practical opportunity to submit bids or quotations.
   (D)   The purchaser shall also maintain a central office where all bids, requests for proposals and solicitations will be listed and kept current.
(Added by Ord. 175-89, App. 5/30/89; amended by Ord. 155-92, 5/29/92; Ord. 210-97, App. 5/30/97; Ord. 457-97, App. 12/15/97; Ord. 82-98, App. 3/6/98; Ord. 186-98, App. 6/5/98; Ord. 256-98, App. 7/31/98)
SEC. 12D.11.  ADDITIONAL FINDINGS SUPPORTING THE RACE- AND GENDER-CONSCIOUS BID PREFERENCESAND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES.
   (A)   In addition to the general findings set forth in Sections 12D.2, 12D.2-1, 12D.2-2, 12D.2-3, 12D.2-4, 12D.2-5 and 12D.2-6 and based upon the record before this Board, the Board hereby makes additional findings in support of the race- and gender-conscious bid preferences for the following specifically enumerated professional services contracts:
      Legal, architect and engineer, computer systems, management consulting, medical services.
      1.   In Ordinance No. 139-84 this Board identified discriminatory procurement practices against MBEs and WBEs in the award of prime professional services contracts.
      2.   The evidence before this Board relating to the award of prime legal services contracts for fiscal year 1987-1988 reflects that Black law firms continue to be awarded contract dollars in amounts that are disproportionately lower than the available numbers of Black law firms willing and able to perform legal services for the City. These results cannot be attributed to chance. This Board finds that these results can only be attributed to discriminatory procurement practices.
      The statistical evidence before this Board reflects that there are few Asian, Black, Latino and woman owned law firms certified by the Director to provide legal services to the City. An April 1988 San Francisco Bar Association study concludes that there is significant disparity between equally qualified white and minority lawyers in terms of income, current employment positions, hiring, promotion and retention in San Francisco. The study also concludes that a high percentage of white and minority lawyers believe that racial discrimination plays a role in the employment practices of San Francisco legal employers. The report of the Judicial Council Advisory Committee on Gender Bias in the Courts on Civil Litigation and Courtroom Demeanor concludes, among other points, that opportunities for advancement and promotion in the legal profession appear less available to women than to men. In view of these studies, the Board finds that minority lawyers are excluded from employment opportunities due to discriminatory employment practices in San Francisco and that women lawyers are excluded from employment opportunities due to discriminatory practices in California. These employment practices prevent minority and women lawyers from gaining the necessary experience that would enable minority and women lawyers to compete for City legal services contracts. The City in its award of legal services contracts will become a passive participant in those practices.
      The City is granting Asian, Black, Latino and woman owned law firms a bid preference pursuant to Section 12D.8.(B)2 to encourage majority law firms to joint venture with these minority and woman owned law firms when competing for the award of City contracts for legal services. Department shall also grant a seven and one-half percent (7.5%) bid/rating preference to any majority owned law firm based in San Francisco that enters into an affirmative action program with the Director and agrees to take affirmative action to perform the following: (1) increase the recruitment, hiring, retention and advancement to partnership of minority lawyers within the firm; (2) have minority lawyers within the firm capable of providing the required services included among those who represent the City; (3) maintain and expand existing joint ventures or other formal associations with minority owned law firms, and retain and otherwise enter into joint ventures or other formal associations with minority owned law firms with which the firm does not currently have such a relationship, on legal matters of the law firm clientele calling for such a relationship; (4) request all law firms which serve as associate counsel, co-counsel or local counsel to the firm to adopt in principle these goals; (5) refer conflict of interest situations to minority owned law firms; and (6) take such additional steps as are practicable to foster and enhance relations between the majority firm and minority owned law firms, including but not limited to providing educational and training opportunities in furtherance of the objectives of this Ordinance as it relates to the legal profession. The affirmative action program developed pursuant to this subsection shall be effective for a period of 12 months after the date of agreement in writing by the law firm and the Director or the term of the legal services contract, whichever term is greater.
      3.   The evidence before this Board relating to the award of prime architect and engineering contracts for fiscal year 1987-1988 reflects that Black and woman owned architectural/engineering firms continue to be awarded contract dollars in amounts that are disproportionately lower than the available numbers of Black and woman owned architectural/engineering firms willing and able to perform these services for the City. The evidence before this Board relating to the award of prime architect and engineering contracts for fiscal year 1989-1990 reflects that Asian owned architectural/engineering firms have been awarded contract dollars in amounts that are disproportionately lower than the available numbers of Asian owned architectural/engineering firms willing and able to perform these services for the City. Given that Asian owned architectural/engineering firms enjoy a relatively large share of this market, these statistically significant results cannot be attributed to chance. This Board finds that these results can only be attributed to discriminatory procurement practices.
      The evidence before this Board relating to the award of prime architect and engineering contracts for fiscal year 1989-90 reflects that Latino owned architectural/engineering firms have not been awarded any contract dollars notwithstanding the available numbers of Latino owned architectural/engineering firms willing and able to perform these services for the City. Based on the statistical and other evidence before this Board, the Board concludes that the lack of participation by Latino owned architectural and engineering firms on prime architectural/engineering contracts cannot be attributed to chance. This Board finds that these results can only be attributed to discriminatory procurement practices.
      4.   The evidence before this Board relating to the award of prime computer systems services contracts for fiscal year 1987-1988 reflects that Asian, Black and woman owned computer systems firms continue to be awarded contract dollars in amounts that are disproportionately lower than the available numbers of Asian, Black and woman owned computer systems firms willing and able to perform these services for the City. These results cannot be attributed to chance. This Board finds that these results can only be attributed to discriminatory procurement practices.
      5.   The evidence before this Board relating to the award of prime management consulting services contracts for fiscal year 1987-1988 reflects that Asian, Black and woman owned management consulting firms continue to be awarded contract dollars in amounts that are disproportionately lower than the available numbers of Asian, Black and woman owned management consulting firms willing and able to perform these services for the City. These results cannot be attributed to chance. This Board finds that these results can only be attributed to discriminatory procurement practices.
      6.   The evidence before this Board relating to the award of prime medical services contracts for fiscal year 1987-1988 reflects that Asian, Latino and woman owned medical services firms continue to be awarded contract dollars in amounts that are disproportionately lower than the available numbers of Asian, Latino and woman owned medical services firms willing and able to perform these services for the City. The evidence before this Board relating to the award of prime medical services contracts for fiscal year 1989-90 reflects that Black owned medical services firms are awarded contract dollars in amounts that are disproportionately lower than the available numbers of Black owned medical services firms willing and able to perform these services for the City. These results cannot be attributed to chance. This Board finds that these results can only be attributed to discriminatory procurement practices.
      7.   The evidence before this Board relating to the award of prime miscellaneous professional services contracts for fiscal year 1989-1990 reflects that Asian, Latino, Black and woman owned firms which provide miscellaneous professional services are awarded contract dollars in amounts that are disproportionately lower than the available numbers of Asian, Latino, Black and woman owned firms willing and able to perform these services for the City. These results cannot be attributed to chance. This Board finds that these results can only be attributed to discriminatory procurement practices.
      8.   The evidence before this Board supports the conclusion that aforementioned MBEs and WBEs are disadvantaged by discriminatory practices when competing for City prime professional services contracts.
      9.   The Board is granting a competitive advantage, the bid preference, to the MBEs and WBEs identified as having been subject to the identified competitive disadvantage caused by the City's discriminatory procurement practices in the award of the aforementioned professional services contracts.
      10.   The evidence before this Board relating to the award of professional services contracts for fiscal year 1990-1991 reflects that certain minority groups have improved their participation in certain City professional services contracts. However, based on the testimony and other evidence before this Board, the Board concludes that remedial action continues to be necessary to enable these groups to overcome past discrimination in the award of professional services contracts. The Director shall closely monitor the participation of these groups in professional services contracts and report the results of such monitoring to the Board pursuant to Section 12D.6(B)2.
   (A)-(1)   In addition to the general findings set forth in Section 12D.2 and the findings set forth in 12D.2-2, 12D.2-3, 12D.2-4, 12D.2-5 and 12D.2-6 and 12D.11(A)3, and based upon the record before this Board, the Board hereby makes these additional findings in support of establishing subcontractor participation goals for architectural/engineering contracts:
      a.   The evidence before this Board relating to the award of architectural and engineering prime contracts and subcontracts for fiscal years 1989-1991 shows that Black, Asian, Latino and woman owned architectural and engineering firms continue to be awarded contract dollars in amounts that are disproportionately lower than the available numbers of Black, Asian, Latino and woman owned architectural and engineering firms willing and able to perform these services for the City. These statistically significant disparities exist despite the fact that Black, Asian, Latino and woman owned firms are entitled to a bid preference on prime architectural and engineering contracts. In light of the testimony before this Board and the Commission in 1983, 1984, 1988, 1989, 1991 and 1992, the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency in 1991, and the San Francisco Unified School District in 1991 and 1992, this Board finds that these results can be attributed in part to discriminatory contracting practices and in part to discrimination in the local architectural and engineering industries against MBE and WBE architects and engineers. This discrimination is manifested in, and perpetuated and exacerbated by, the City's contracting practices.
      b.   The evidence before this Board supports the conclusion that MBEs and WBEs continue to be disadvantaged by discriminatory practices when competing for City architectural and engineering contracts, and when competing to provide subcontractor services on City architectural and engineering contracts. The weight of the testimony and other evidence before this Board supports the conclusion that nonminority architects and engineers competing for or doing business with the City and/or in the private sector limit the participation of MBE and WBE subcontractors on architectural and engineering contracts by engaging in discriminatory business practices.
      c.   Race-neutral measures employed by the City in the past did not prevent the discriminatory practices from occurring. Since February 1989 the City has pursued race-neutral measures to facilitate MBE/WBE subcontractor participation in architectural and engineering contracts. From about February 1st to June 30, 1989 the City adopted a race-neutral disadvantaged business program for its architectural and engineering contracts. Since July 1, 1989 the City has urged prime architects and engineers to voluntarily extend subcontracting opportunities to MBE/WBE subcontractors on City architectural and engineering contracts. These race- and gender-neutral measures employed by the City have not been successful in increasing MBE/WBE participation in City architectural and engineering contracts.
   (A)-(2)   MBE/WBE Subcontracting Program. For all architectural and engineering contracts which the contract awarding authority reasonably anticipates will include subcontractor participation involving architectural/engineering and related services, the contract awarding authority, prior to requesting proposals, shall provide the Director with a proposed job scope, and may submit written recommendations to the Director regarding MBE and WBE subcontractor participation goals to be set for the contract. The Director shall set the participation goals pursuant to Section 12D.11(A)-(3).
   (A)-(3)   Upon receipt of a proposed job scope and/or a written recommendation from a contract awarding authority pursuant to Section 12D.11(A)-(2), the Director, shall set the MBE and WBE participation goals for each architectural and engineering contract based on the following factors:
      1.   The extent of subcontracting opportunities presented by the contract for architectural/engineering and related services;
      2.   The availability of MBE/WBE subcontractors capable of providing such services on the contract.
   The Director shall set the MBE and WBE participation goals within 10 working days of the date the Director receives from a contract awarding authority a proposed job scope and/or written recommendation. If the Director fails to act within 10 days, and if the contract awarding authority submitted to the Director recommended goals pursuant to 12D.11(A)-(2), the recommended goals shall be deemed approved by the Director, provided that the recommended goals are based upon the factors identified in this subsection.
   (A)-(4)   Requests for proposals shall require bidders on architectural and engineering contracts to do the following:
      1.   Demonstrate in their proposal that they have used good-faith efforts to utilize MBE and WBE subcontractors;
      2.   Identify the particular MBE and WBE subcontractors (which may include lower-tier MBE and WBE subcontractors) to be utilized in performing the contract, specifying for each the dollar value of participation, the type of work to be performed and such information as may reasonably be required to determine the responsiveness of the proposal.
      Except as provided in Section 12D.11(A)-(7), proposals not meeting the requirements of Section 12D.11(A)-(4) shall be declared nonresponsive.
   (A)-(5)   A contract awarding authority may request that the Director waive or reduce the MBE and WBE subcontractor participation goals on architectural and engineering contracts by submitting the reasons therefor in writing to the Director prior to requesting proposals.
   (A)-(6)   A bidder may request that the Director waive or reduce the MBE and WBE subcontractor participation goals on an architectural or engineering contract by submitting the reasons therefor in writing to the contract awarding authority with its bid.
   (A)-(7)   The Director may grant the request for waiver or reduction made pursuant to Sections 12D.11(A)-(5) and (A)-(6) upon a determination that:
      1.   The reasonable and necessary requirements of the architectural or engineering contract render subcontracting or the participation of businesses other than the bidder unfeasible;
      2.   Qualified MBEs and/or WBEs capable of providing the services required by the contract are unavailable, despite the bidder's or the department's good-faith efforts to locate MBEs and WBEs to meet the participation goals; or
      3.   The available MBEs and WBEs have given price quotes which are unreasonably high in that they exceed competitive levels beyond amounts which can be attributed to cover costs inflated by the present effects of discrimination.
   (A)-(8)   Whenever the Director denies a bidder's request to waive or reduce the participation goals, the bidder may appeal that denial to the Subcontracting Goals Committee established pursuant to Section 12D.8(A)4. The Subcontracting Goals Committee's decision on the request shall be final. In reviewing the Director's denial of a bidder's request to waive or reduce participation goals, the Subcontracting Goals Committee shall consider the extent of subcontracting opportunities presented by the contract and the availability of MBE/WBE subcontractors capable of providing services on the contract.
      The Subcontracting Goals Committee may overrule the Director and grant the request for waiver or reduction only upon finding that:
      1.   The reasonable and necessary requirements of the contract render subcontracting or the participation of businesses other than bidder unfeasible;
      2.   Qualified MBEs and/or WBEs capable of providing the services required by the contract are unavailable, despite the bidder's or the department's good-faith efforts to locate MBEs and WBEs to meet the participation goals; or
      3.   The available MBEs and WBEs have given price quotes which are unreasonably high in that they exceed competitive levels beyond amounts which can be attributed to cover costs inflated by the present effects of discrimination.
   (A)-(9)   The contract awarding authority shall require bidders on architectural and engineering contracts to contact all MBEs and WBEs listed as subcontractors in proposals before listing such MBEs and WBEs.
   (A)-(10) During the term of the contract, any failure to comply with the level of MBE and WBE subcontractor participation specified in the contract shall be deemed a material breach of contract.
   (A)-(11) In implementing this subcontracting program, the Director may encourage contract awarding authorities and prime contractors to take into consideration when recruiting subcontractors the degree of underutilization of MBEs and WBEs within the specific industries or subindustries called for by the contract.
   (B)   For all professional services contracts as defined herein, the contract awarding authority or the department making the contract award recommendation shall furnish the Director with an informational copy of all bid conditions and requests for proposals, if any, along with a statement identifying all funds provided by any other governmental agency which will be used in payment of the contract. Prior to solicitation of bids or proposals, the Director may make recommendations to the contract awarding authority with respect to provisions pertaining to MBE and WBE participation.
   (C)   Professional services contracts, the estimated cost of which exceeds $10,000, shall be awarded and administered in accordance with the following standards and procedures:
      1.   The contract awarding authority or the department making the contract award recommendation shall use good-faith efforts to solicit bids or proposals from MBEs and WBEs certified to provide the specified services. MBEs and WBEs shall be provided every practical opportunity to submit bids or proposals;
      2.   City departments shall include amongst consultant selection panelists individuals who are women and minorities;
      3.   All consultant selection panels and awarding officers shall apply the bid/rating preferences to each stage of the selection process, e.g., qualifications, proposals and interviews. Each evaluator shall score each consultant on a point system based on a predetermined evaluation criteria and predetermined point value. The selection criteria shall be based solely on objective factors that are related to the ability of the contractor to perform the proposed project. The bid/rating preference shall be applied to the score attained by the MBE, WBE, and/or LBE as set forth in this ordinance. If the highest score is attained by a MBE or WBE, the department shall enter into good-faith negotiations with that consultant. Subject to the prior approval of the Director and upon a showing that those negotiations were undertaken in good faith with the aforementioned MBE or WBE consultant, a department may award the contract to another competing consultant.
      4.   The Director is empowered to take actions as are designed to ensure compliance with the provisions of this Section, which shall include, but are not limited to:
         (a)   Order the suspension of the selection process;
         (b)   Intervene in the selection process to correct contracting practices which hinder equal business opportunities for MBEs and WBEs.
(Added by Ord. 175-89, App. 5/30/89; amended by Ord. 190-91, App. 5/31/91; Ord. 344-91, App. 9/19/91; Ord. 155-92, App. 5/29/92; Ord. 284-92, App. 9/16/92; Ord. 210-97, App. 5/30/97; Ord. 457-97, App. 12/15/97; Ord. 82-98, App. 3/6/98; Ord. 186-98, App. 6/5/98; Ord. 256-98, App. 7/31/98)
SEC. 12D.12.  GOOD-FAITH EFFORTS REQUIRED FOR OTHER CONTRACTS.
   (A)   All City and County departments, commissions, boards, officers and employees, in the deposit of City funds and performance of their other official duties, and in the award of leases, franchises, concessions, and contracts not subject to the race- and gender-conscious bid preferences of this ordinance shall make every good-faith effort to use the services of Minority Business Enterprises and Women Business Enterprises. Such services shall include, but are not limited to, the financial services of banks, savings and loan companies and other commercial financial institutions, arrangement of travel and accommodations when traveling on official City business and such other services needed by City departments. Commissions and boards shall submit to the Director on an annual basis a written report on the efforts made pursuant to this Subsection.
   (B)   The City Treasurer, the Controller, the Health Service System and the Retirement Board shall report annually to the Director, with copies to the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors, their utilization of MBEs and WBEs.
(Added by Ord. 175-89, App. 5/30/89; Ord. 278-96, App. 7/3/96)
SEC. 12D.13.  EXCEPTIONS AND WAIVERS.
   (A)   The Director shall waive the race- and gender-conscious bid preferences and good-faith efforts requirements of this ordinance under the following circumstances:
      1.   Whenever the Director finds, with the advice of the contract awarding authority, that needed goods or services are available only from a sole source and the prospective contractor is not currently disqualified from doing business with the City, or from doing business with any governmental agency based on a failure to comply with Minority or Women Business Enterprise or contract compliance requirements;
      2.   If the contract awarding authority certifies in writing to the Director that: (1) pursuant to Administrative Code Section 6.30 the contract is necessary to respond to an emergency which endangers the public health or safety and (2) there is no time to apply the bid preference(s) and no MBEs or WBEs capable of performing the emergency work are immediately available; provided that such certification shall be made prior to the Controller's contract certification.
   (B)   The Director shall waive the five-percent LBE bid preference for contracts in excess of $5,000,000 whenever a contract awarding authority establishes that: (1) sufficient qualified Local Business Enterprises capable of providing the needed goods and services required by the contract are unavailable and (2) sufficient qualified businesses located outside of San Francisco capable of providing the needed goods and services required by the contract are available; or (3) the application of the five-percent LBE preference will result in significant additional costs to the City if the waiver of the bid preference is not granted.
   (C)   Pursuant to Administrative Code Section 6.29-2, the bid preference provisions of this ordinance are not applicable to any contract for the construction, reconstruction or repair of public buildings, streets, utilities or other public work or improvement estimated to cost in excess of $10,000,000.
   (D)   Pursuant to Administrative Code Section 21.11-2, the bid preference provisions of this ordinance are not applicable to any contract for the purchase of materials, supplies or equipment estimated to cost in excess of $10,000,000.
(Added by Ord. 175-89, App. 5/30/89; amended by Ord. 190-91, App. 5/31/91)
SEC. 12D.14.  MONITORING AND COMPLIANCE.
   (A)   The Director shall monitor the City's progress toward achievement of the goals stated in Section 12D.3 (declaration of policy). The Director shall issue an exit report for any contract which includes MBE/WBE prime contractor participation as a joint venture partner. The purpose of the exit report is to ensure that MBE/WBEs are actually performing services on joint ventures.
   (B)   Noncompliance By Contractors. In cases where the Director has cause to believe that a contractor acting in good faith has failed to comply with any of the requirements of this ordinance, rules and regulations adopted pursuant to this ordinance, or contract provisions pertaining to MBE or WBE participation, the Director shall notify the contract awarding authority and shall attempt to resolve the noncompliance through conciliation. If the noncompliance cannot be resolved, the Director shall submit to the Commission and the contractor a written Finding of Noncompliance. The Human Rights Commission shall give the contractor an opportunity to appeal the Finding, and if the Commission concurs with the finding of the Director, it shall take such action as will effectuate the purposes of this ordinance.
   (C)   Wilful or Bad Faith Noncompliance by Contractors. In cases where the Director has cause to believe that any bidder or contractor has wilfully failed to comply with any of the provisions of this ordinance, rules and regulations adopted pursuant to this ordinance, or contract provisions pertaining to MBE or WBE participation, the Director shall be empowered to conduct an investigation and after affording the contractor notice and an opportunity to be heard, may impose sanctions for each violation of this subsection. Such sanctions shall include but are not limited to:
      (a)   Declare the bidder or contractor non-responsive and ineligible to receive the award of the contract;
      (b)   Declare the bidder or contractor an irresponsible bidder and disqualify the bidder or contractor from eligibility for providing goods or services to the City and County for a period of five years, with a right of review and reconsideration by the Commission after two years upon a showing of corrective action indicating violations are not likely to reoccur;
      (c)   If the bidder or contractor is a MBE, WBE and/or LBE, revoke that business' certification as a MBE, WBE and/or LBE;
      (d)   Determine that the bidder or contractor has wilfully failed to comply with the provisions of this ordinance and pursuant to the provision in the contract contemplated by Section 12D.8(E)3 of the ordinance, calculate the liquidated damages for which the bidder or contractor shall be liable.
      Thereafter the Director shall send a written notice to the Controller, the Mayor and to all contract awarding authorities or City department officials overseeing any contract with the bidder or contractor that a determination of a bad-faith compliance has been made and that all payments due the bidder or contractor shall be withheld as agreed to by the bidder or contractor and the City pursuant to Section 12D.8(E)3.
      In addition, the Director shall transmit to the Bureau of Delinquent Revenues a report of the determination of liability and ask the Bureau of Delinquent Revenues to coordinate efforts with the Controller and other applicable City departments to ensure that the liquidated damages are paid to the City.
      The bidder or contractor may appeal the Director's decision to the Human Rights Commission, which may sustain, reverse or modify the Director's findings and sanctions imposed or take such other action as will effectuate the purposes of this ordinance.
      An appeal by a contractor under this subsection shall not stay the Director's findings.
   (D)   The Director may require such reports, information and documentation from contractors, bidders, contract awarding authorities and the head of any department, division, or office of the City as are reasonably necessary to determine compliance with the requirements of this ordinance.
   (E)   Noncompliance by City Departments. Whenever the Director finds after investigation that a contract awarding authority has wilfully failed to comply with the provisions of this ordinance, a written Finding of Noncompliance specifying the nature of the noncompliance shall be transmitted to the contract awarding authority, the Commission, the Mayor and Board of Supervisors; and
      The Director shall attempt to resolve any noncompliance through conference and conciliation. Should such attempt fail to resolve the noncompliance, the Director shall transmit a copy of the Finding of Noncompliance along with a finding that conciliation was attempted and failed to the Commission which shall notify the contract awarding agency to take appropriate action to secure compliance.
      The Finding of Noncompliance shall be communicated to the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors.
   (F)   If the Director has reason to believe that any person has knowingly made, filed, or caused to be filed with the City any materially false or misleading statement or report made in connection with this ordinance, the Director shall report that information to the City Attorney or the District Attorney for appropriate action. The Director shall be empowered to conduct an investigation and for each violation of this subsection, 12D.14(F), to impose sanctions as set forth in Section 12D.14(C).
(Added by Ord. 175-89, App. 5/30/89; amended by Ord. 278-96, App. 7/3/96)
SEC. 12D.15.  REPORTING AND REVIEW; EXTENSION.
   (A)   Reporting by Departments. By December 31st of each fiscal year all contract awarding authorities and departments shall report annually to the Mayor on their progress in the preceding fiscal year toward achievement of the MBE and WBE participation goals.
   (B)   Reporting by the Director.
      1.   The Director shall report quarterly to the Commission and the Board of Supervisors whether the goals stated in Section 12D.3 have been met in whole or in part.
      2.   The Director shall report to the Commission all waivers acted upon pursuant to Section 12D.13. Such report shall be made at the first Commission meeting following the granting of the waiver.
   (C)   Reporting by the Commission. By March 1st of each fiscal year subject to this ordinance, the Commission shall submit an annual report to the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors on the progress of the City toward the goals stated in Section 12D.3 of this ordinance, together with an identification of problems and specific recommendations for: (1) discontinuing the race- or gender-conscious bid preferences in those cases where the bid preferences have remedied the identified discrimination against MBEs and WBEs; and (2) improving the City's performance in remedying the identified discrimination against MBEs and WBEs.
   (D)   The Board of Supervisors shall act upon the Commission's recommendations by the third Board meeting of May in each fiscal year subject to this ordinance.
   (E)   Review by the Commission. This ordinance shall expire June 30, 1997 unless the Commission, after conducting public hearings, finds that the purposes identified in Section 12D.3 have not yet been achieved, in which case it shall certify said finding to the Board of Supervisors no later than 120 days prior to the expiration date. Thereafter the Board of Supervisors may extend the ordinance for additional three-year periods.
   (F)   Review by the Contract Review Committee. The Contract Review Committee established pursuant to Section 12D.8(A)3 shall have the following powers and duties:
      1.   To review contracts referred to it by the Director or a department for determining whether the contract should be set aside, where competition for the contract is limited to MBEs, WBEs and/or joint ventures with MBE/WBEs;
      2.   Before approving a set aside of a contract, the Contract Review Committee shall first determine that: (1) the department seeking or affected by the set-aside has complied with all of the requirements of Section 12D.8(B); and (2) there are at least three business enterprises which are certified or eligible for certification as a MBE or WBE which can compete for the contract set aside.
      3.   After making the findings required by Section 12D.15(F)2, the Contract Review Committee may approve that a contract be set aside. However, the Contract Review Committee shall first consider the feasibility of approving a set-aside where competition is limited to joint ventures with MBE and/or WBE participation which equals or exceeds 35 percent. The Contract Review Committee shall issue its findings and approval in writing to the department affected by the set-aside.
   (G)   Extension. Pursuant to Section 12D.15(E) of Ordinance 155-92, as amended by Ordinances 210-97, 457-97, 82-98 and 186-98 and based upon the Further Additional Findings Supporting Six-Month Extension of MBE/WBE/LBE Ordinanceset forth in Section 12D.2-2, the Further Additional Findings Supporting a Three-Month Extension of MBE/WBE/LBE Ordinanceas set forth in Section 12D.2-3, Further Additional Findings Supporting a Three-Month Extension of MBE/WBE/LBE Ordinanceas set forth in Section 12D.2-4, Further Additional Findings Supporting a Two-Month Extension of MBE/WBE/LBE Ordinanceas set forth in Section 12D.2-5, and Additional Findings Supporting a Two-Month Extension of the MBE/WBE/LBE Ordinance as set forth in Section 12D.2-6, the Board hereby extends Ordinance 155-92, as amended, to October 31, 1998.
(Added by Ord. 175-89, App. 5/30/89; amended by Ord. 190-91, App. 5/31/91; Ord. 155-92, App. 5/29/92; Ord. 278-96, App. 7/3/96; Ord. 210-97, App. 5/30/97; Ord. 457-97, App. 12/15/97; Ord. 82-98, App. 3/6/98; Ord. 186-98, App. 6/5/98; Ord. 256-98, App. 7/31/98)
SEC. 12D.16.  CLERK OF BOARD TO TRANSMIT COPIES OF THIS CHAPTER; INFORMING CITY EMPLOYEES.
   The Clerk of the Board of Supervisors shall send copies of this Chapter, as amended, to every department, agency, commission and contract awarding authority in the City and County of San Francisco. Each appointing officer of the City shall inform all employees under his or her jurisdiction of the provisions of this ordinance and of the duty of all of his or her employees to comply with the provisions of this ordinance. Each appointing officer shall also inform employees that if the employee fails to comply with the requirements of this ordinance the employee shall be subject to appropriate disciplinary action.
   The Clerk of the Board of Supervisors shall also inform every department, agency, commission and contract awarding authority that whenever in accordance with the provisions of the Charter or of the Administrative Code a proposed ordinance, resolution, contract, lease, franchise, license, or other agreement or transaction is submitted to this Board for its adoption or approval, it shall be the policy of this Board to adopt legislation or approve those agreements or transactions where the department first has demonstrated in writing to this Board that the department has engaged in good-faith efforts to include the participation of MBEs and WBEs in the department's procurement and contract award practices.
(Added by Ord. 190-91, App. 5/31/91)
SEC. 12D.17.  IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS.
   Not later than 30 days after the enactment of this ordinance, the Commission shall adopt amendments to the rules, regulations and procedures it adopted and publicly promulgated pursuant to Ordinance 175-89. The Commission shall afford the public and City departments the opportunity to provide input to and comment on the amendments to the regulations prior to their formal adoption.
(Added by Ord. 175-89, App. 5/30/89; amended by Ord. 190-91, App. 5/31/91)
SEC. 12D.18.  SEVERABILITY.
   The provisions of this ordinance are declared to be separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance, or the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances.
(Added by Ord. 175-89, App. 5/30/89; amended by Ord. 190-91, App. 5/31/91)
SEC. 12D.19.  EFFECTIVE DATE.
   This ordinance shall take effect on July 1, 1992, and shall govern all contracts for which a bid has not been solicited by the effective date.
(Added by Ord. 175-89, App. 5/30/89; amended by Ord. 190-91, App. 5/31/91; Ord. 76-92, App. 3/13/92; Ord. 155-92, App. 5/29/92)
PROVISIONS EFFECTIVE FOR CONTRACTS SOLICITED ON OR AFTER NOVEMBER 1, 1998
 
SEC. 12D.A.1.  SHORT TITLE.
   This ordinance shall be entitled the "Minority/Women/Local Business Utilization Ordinance" and may be cited as the "MBE/WBE/LBE Ordinance-V."
(Added by Ord. 296-98, App. 10/5/98; Ord. 134-03, File No. 030347, App. 6/1/2003)
SEC. 12D.A.2.  GENERAL FINDINGS.
   This Board initially passed Ordinance No. 139-84 on April 2, 1984 to combat the City and County of San Francisco's own active and passive participation in discrimination against minority- and women-owned businesses, both in its own contracting for goods and services and in the private market for such goods and services. At the time of passage, women- and minority-owned businesses were virtually excluded as contractors on prime City contracts. The ordinance also sought to offset economic disadvantages faced by local businesses that are not shared by nonlocal businesses, and to increase employment in the City and County of San Francisco by encouraging the participation of local business enterprises in City contracting.
   Since that time, this Board and the City's Human Rights Commission have actively and extensively documented and studied discrimination against and disadvantages faced by these groups to gauge the effectiveness of the prior Minority, Women and Local Business Enterprise Ordinances (the "M/W/LBE Ordinances") and to assess the need for further and continuing action.
   The earlier studies are documented in the legislative history of the previous amendments and re-enactments of the ordinance, including Ordinance Nos. 175-89, 155-92, 210-97, 457-97, 82-98, 296-98, 210-99 and 283-99. The 1989 Ordinance was challenged in federal court and upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. See Associated General Contractors of California v. Coalition for Economic Equity, 950 F.2d 1401 (9th Cir. 1991).
   The findings underlying the 1984 and 1989 ordinances have been reviewed and analyzed in the preparation of the current ordinance and are hereby incorporated by reference into the legislative history of this ordinance. These materials, prepared up to and including May 1989, include disparity studies, transcripts of live testimony by dozens of witnesses, case studies of discrimination, and voluminous other materials. An index and a separate synopsis of this material are on file with the Clerk of this Board in File No. 98-0612.
   Since 1989, the City has devoted substantial additional resources to the task of understanding and documenting discrimination against women and minorities in awarding City contracts and in the private market for such contracts. Given the prior findings of discrimination and the need for this ordinance, this Board examined whether the identified discrimination had been eradicated.
   Between 1989 and 1998, together this Board and the Human Rights Commission held 14 hearings on the subject of women- and minority-owned business enterprises, heard live testimony from 254 witnesses, reviewed videotaped oral histories by numerous witnesses, reviewed many volumes of social science materials, three disparity studies undertaken by the City and County of San Francisco and numerous other relevant statistical disparity studies undertaken by the City agencies and various other groups and governments from around the Bay Area. The Board also reviewed case studies and other statistical information gathered by the Human Rights Commission. These materials are all incorporated by reference into the legislative history of this ordinance and are in file with the Clerk of this Board in File No. 98-0612.
   In its hearings on the MBE/WBE/LBE ordinance between 1989 and 1998, this Board gave close consideration to the need for adding Native Americans and Arab Americans to the list of minority groups covered by the ordinance. As part of this process, the Board and the Human Rights Commission heard or reviewed testimony from 47 individuals concerning discrimination against Arab Americans and Native Americans. In addition, a Mason Tillman Associates study covering City contracting in the years 1992 through 1995 found statistically significant evidence of discrimination against Native Americans and Arab Americans in several categories of contracting. That study also closely reviewed testimonial evidence of discrimination against these groups.
   In 1997 and 1998, this Board and the Human Rights Commission held eight public hearings at which testimony was given by 170 individuals concerning discrimination against Minority and Women Business Enterprises, the transcripts of which, the written submittals accompanying same, and other evidence that was before the Board are in file with the Clerk of this Board in Board File No. 98-0612.
   On January 4, 1999 and June 30, 1999, the Human Rights Commission issued reports regarding discrimination in City contracting against Iranian Americans. Those reports recounted testimony from HRC hearings regarding discrimination against Iranian American contractors.
   In addition, the Board considered and reviewed oral histories from many persons involved in the bidding and compliance process taken in the summer of 1998. Many of the oral histories have been preserved on video tape. These oral histories recount personal incidents of discrimination as well as compliance difficulties. The oral histories were taken in this manner because many of the individuals were fearful of retaliation and further discrimination if they testified at a public forum. In fact, this fear caused some of the oral histories to be given in a manner in which the identities of those testifying were not identified. An index and a separate synopsis of the oral histories are on file with the Clerk of this Board in File Nos. 98-0612, 99-0266 and 99-1326.
   The findings and evidence underlying the 1998 ordinance and the subsequent amendments to that ordinance have been reviewed and analyzed in the preparation of the current ordinance and are hereby incorporated by reference into the legislative history of this ordinance.
   In 2002 and 2003, this Board and the Human Rights Commission held additional public hearings to determine the extent to which the remedies provided by this Ordinance continue to be necessary. At these hearings, 134 individuals and organizations testified about the discrimination minorities and women continue to face in City contracting and in obtaining contracts in the Bay Area that are not subject to affirmative action programs. Additionally, in 2002 and 2003, the Human Rights Commission and this Board received written statements of individuals describing the discrimination minorities and women continue to experience in City contracting and in other contracting in the Bay Area. In December 2001, the Human Rights Commission issued a report entitled "Violence in Our City: Research and Recommendations to Empower Our Community" regarding increasing violence and discrimination against African Americans in San Francisco.
   In September 2002, the Human Rights Com-mission issued a report entitled "Blacklash, Violence, Human Rights Violations & Discrimination in San Francisco in the Wake of September 11, 2001." The report found that the bombing of the World Trade Center and Pentagon on September 11, 2001 have led to a significant increase in San Francisco in discrimination and violence against those who are perceived to have Middle Eastern ancestry.
   In April 2003, the Human Rights Commission conducted a disparity analysis of the utilization of minority-owned businesses and women-owned businesses in prime contracting and subcontracting. Even with the remedial programs set forth in this Ordinance in place, the study shows statistically significant underutilization of minorities and women in most City contracting programs.
   But as the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals recently recognized in upholding the City and County of Denver's remedial contracting program in Concrete Works of Colorado, Inc. v. City and County of Denver (10th Cir. 2003) 321 F.3d 950, a public entity cannot reliably ascertain whether a remedial race- and gender-conscious affirmative action contracting program that has been in place should be continued based on a disparity analysis of the utilization of minority- and women-owned businesses in the public entity's contracting programs. That the remedial program in place has given some minorities and women contracting opportunities in certain limited industries provides little evidence of whether minorities and women would be given those opportunities in the absence of the remedial program. Instead, the Tenth Circuit concluded that disparities in private markets in the region provide a strong indicator of the extent to which minorities and women would be used in public entity's contracting programs absent the remedial affirmative action program.
   Accordingly, the Human Rights Commission retained the National Economic Research Associates (NERA)—the same firm whose studies about discrimination in the Denver metropolitan area the Tenth Circuit found to be so persuasiveconduct studies to assess the level of discrimination against minority- and women-owned businesses in the Bay Area private sector. NERA examined business formation and earnings rates, and NERA found significant disparities in the formation and earnings rates of minorities and women as compared to majority men. These disparities are especially pronounced for African Americans and Latino Americans. NERA also examined the market for credit and capital and found strong evidence of discrimination against minorities, as well as evidence of recent discrimination against women. Consistent with the Tenth Circuit's ruling, NERA concluded that the evidence of discrimination it found in Bay Area private markets is a valid substitute for evidence of actual discrimination in City contracting programs.
   In April 2003, the Human Rights Commission also retained Godbe Research to conduct a telephone survey of minority- and women-owned businesses certified with the HRC. Twenty-one percent of the 266 firms surveyed reported that since 1998 they have been declined Bay Area subcontracting work that was not subject to affirmative action requirements by prime contractors who typically do award them work on contracts that are subject to the remedial subcontracting requirements of this Ordinance. And each of those firms that experienced such discrimination reported that it had been rejected as a subcontractor by a prime contractor who gave it work on City contracts on average 13 times in the last five years.
   Additionally, the Board has reviewed studies undertaken by various public entities in the Bay Area, and testimony, articles and studies prepared by academicians. All of these materials are incorporated by reference into the legislative history of this Ordinance. The collection and analysis of relevant information is ongoing.
   As a result of these hearings and review of these materials and the materials archived by the Human Rights Commission and the relevant statistical and social science data, oral histories, articles and studies, the Board makes the following findings:
      1.   In April 2003, NERA conducted studies to assess the level of discrimination against minority- and women-owned businesses in the Bay Area private sector. NERA examined business formation rates, earnings rates, and disparities in the market for credit and capital.
   NERA reported significant disparities in the formation rates of minority- and women-owned business as compared to businesses owned by Caucasian men. In particular, African Americans, Asian Americans, Latino Americans, and women have statistically significantly lower business formation rates in the Bay Area than do comparable Caucasian men in the construction, architectural and engineering, professional services, general services and goods and services industries. These disparities are especially large in the construction industry, where, for example, business formation rates for African-Americans are approximately 12 percentage points lower than for comparable Caucasian men. Further, NERA found that the disparities for African Americans and Latino Americans are especially pronounced and have increased in the recent six years over the prior fourteen years.
   NERA further reported significant disparities in the earnings of self-employed minorities and women compared to the earnings of self-employed Caucasian men. The disparity in earnings between self-employed African Americans and self-employed Caucasians, for example, has increased dramatically from 1991-2002 over the prior 13 years, and is much greater than the disparity between African American wage and salary workers and Caucasian wage and salary workers over the same time period.
   NERA also reported discrimination against minorities and women in the credit markets in all industries, which NERA concluded partially explains the large disparities found in minority- and women-owned business formation rates. NERA reported that even when controlling for firm size, credit history and other valid credit worthiness factors, the loan applications of minority-owned firms were substantially more likely to be denied than the loan applications of Caucasian firms. For example, the loan rejection rates for African American and Latino American firms are roughly twice that of Caucasian firms. NERA also found that minority firms are more likely not to apply for loans because of the low loan approval rate for such firms, and that when minority businesses did receive loans, they had to pay higher interest rates, regardless of their credit worthiness or geography. NERA further reported that credit market conditions are a far bigger concern for minority-owned firms than for Caucasian-owned firms, and that a greater share of minority-owned firms than Caucasian-owned firms believe that credit availability is the most important issue likely to confront the firm in the next 12 months. NERA also reported that discrimination in the market for credit has increased for minority groups during the 1990s, and re-appeared for women in the late 1990s.
   Based on NERA's studies, the testimony and all of the other evidence before the Board, the Board finds that minority- and women-owned businesses continue to face systemic race and gender discrimination in public and private markets in the Bay Area.
      2.   In April 2003, the City conducted a comprehensive disparity study to gauge discrimination against women- and minority-owned businesses in the City's contracting from 1998 to early 2003. Under a fair and equitable system of awarding contracts, the proportion of contract dollars awarded to minority- and women-owned business enterprises would be equal to the proportion of willing and able minority- and women-owned enterprises in the relevant market area. If, based on statistical testing, there is a very low probability of attributing to chance the existence of a disparity between these proportions, the Supreme Court has stated that an inference of discrimination can be made.
      3.   The Human Rights Commission's 2003-study thoroughly and conclusively documented the fact thatwith the City's remedial contracting programs in placeand women-owned business enterprises continue to receive a smaller share of certain types of contracts for the purchases of goods and services by the City than would be expected based on the number of able and available women- and minority-owned businesses. This poor utilization cannot be attributed to chance. This Board finds, based on these statistical studies, testimony and on all the other evidence of persistent discrimination presented to the Board, that the disproportionately small share of City contracting and subcontracting that goes to women- and minority-owned businesses in certain industries is due to discrimination by the City and discrimination in the private market.
      4.   The Human Rights Commission's April 2003 study also documents that in the last five years, in certain limited industries, some minority groups and women have received City contract dollars close to or above the level that would be expected based on their availability. Based on the studies and reports issued by NERA and Godbe Associates, the testimonial evidence, the history of discrimination against minority and women contractors in City contracting programs and the other materials before the Board, the Board finds that these favorable minority utilization rates are attributable to the fact that the City has remedial contracting programs in place, and that the discrimination the City previously identified in its prime contracting and subcontracting programs has not yet been eradicated. In particular, the Board finds that if the City were to discontinue, at this time, the race- and gender-conscious bid discount program or the subcontracting program authorized by this Ordinance, minority and women utilization rates in City contracting would plummet. Under those circumstances, the Board finds that minority and women utilization rates would likely return to the same judicially-recognized low levels to which they fell in 1989 after the City discontinued its prior race- or gender-conscious remedial contracting programs. In fact, many minorities and women report that they are frequently refused subcontracting opportunities on contracts that are not subject to a race- or gender-conscious affirmative action program by the same prime contractors that do hire them on contracts that are subject to a race- and gender-conscious affirmative action program. And, many minority- and women-owned businesses that have benefited from the City's remedial program and have since graduated from the program, report that prime contractors who gave them subcontracts on contracts subject to the City's subcontracting requirements before they graduated, refuse to give them subcontracts now that they are no longer certified under the M/WBE program.
      5.   The Human Rights Commission Study reviewed contracts entered into by the City and County of San Francisco in a variety of areas and categories from 1998 through early 2003 and determined the following:
         A.   For prime construction contracts, even with the race- and gender-conscious bid/ratings discount program in place, African Americans, Arab Americans, Asian Americans and women still received fewer construction prime-contracting dollars than would be expected given their availability. The disparity was statistically significant for African Americans, Asian Americans and Arab Americans. Although African Americans represent 4.49 percent of the available construction firms, they received only 1.01 percent of the construction contract dollars. Although Arab Americans represent 0.14 percent of the available construction firms, they received no construction contract dollars at all. Although Asian Americans represent 13.74 percent of the available construction firms, they received only 4.98 percent of the construction contract dollars. Although women represent 8.84 percent of the available construction firms, they received only 8.23 percent of the construction contract dollars. Although Caucasian men represent 67.74 percent of available construction firms, they received 70.79 percent of the construction contract dollars. Although Latino American firms received more construction contracts than expected based on their availability, the Board finds, based on the studies, statistics, testimony and other evidence before it of discrimination against Latino Americans in City contracting and contracting in other Bay Area markets, that in the absence of the bid/ratings discount program that the City has had in place, Latino Americans would receive well below the level of prime City construction contracts that one would expect based on their availability.
         B.   For architecture and engineering prime contracts between 1998 and early 2003, even with the race- and gender-conscious bid/ratings discount pro-gram in place, African Americans, Arab Americans, Asian Americans, Iranian Americans, Latino Americans, and women received fewer contracts than would be expected given their availability. Notwithstanding the bid/ratings discount program, more than 87 percent of the contracts in this area went to Caucasian male-owned businesses, even though those firms represent less than 63 percent of the available architecture and engineering firms. The disparities against Arab Americans, Asian Americans, Iranian Americans, Latino Americans, and women, and the particularly pronounced disparity in favor or Caucasian men, were statistically significant.
         C.   For professional services prime contracts in the years 1998 through early 2003, even with the race-conscious bid/ratings discount program in place, Arab Americans, Iranian Americans and Latino Americans received fewer contracts than expected based on their availability, and the disparities were statistically significant for those groups. Arab Americans, who represent .11 percent of the available professional service firms, received only .08 percent of the professional services contract dollars. Iranian Americans, who represent .11 percent of the available professional services firms, received 0.00 percent of the professional services dollars. Latino Americans, who represent .79 percent of the professional services firms, received .22 percent of the professional service dollars. And, although African Americans, Asian Americans and women received more than the number of professional service contracts one would expect based on their availability, the Board finds, based on the studies, statistics, testimony and other evidence before it of discrimination against African Americans, Asian Americans and women in City contracting and contracting in other Bay Area markets, that in the absence of the bid/ratings discount program that the City has had in place, African Americans, Asian Americans and women would receive well below the level of prime City professional service contracts that one would expect based on their availability.
         D.   For purchases of goods and services prime contracts for 1998 through early 2003, even with the race- and gender-conscious bid/ratings discount in place, Asian Americans, Iranian Americans and women received fewer contract dollars than expected. Although Asian Americans represent 4.15 percent of the available goods and services firms, those firms received only 1.84 percent of the goods and services contract dollars. Similarly, although Iranian Americans represent .22 percent of the available goods and services firms, those firms received only .17 percent of the goods and services contract dollars. Although women represent 6.22 percent of the available goods and services firms, women received only 4.60 of the goods and services contract dollars. Although African Americans, Arab Americans and Latino Americans received slightly more than the number of good and services contracts one would expect based on their availability, the Board finds, based on the studies, statistics, testimony and other evidence before it of discrimination against African Americans, Arab Americans and Latino Americans in City contracting and contracting in other Bay Area markets, that in the absence of the bid/ratings discount program that the City has had in place, African American, Arab American and Latino American firms would receive well below the level of prime City goods and services contracts that one would expect based on their availability.
         E.   For general services prime contracts for 1998 through early 2003, even with the race- and gender-conscious bid/ratings discount in place, African Americans, Arab Americans, Asian Americans and Iranian Americans received fewer contract dollars than expected based on their availability. Although African Americans represent 1.28 percent of the available general services firms, those firms received only .64 percent of the general services contract dollars. Similarly, although Arab Americans represent .04 percent of the available general services firms, those firms received only .01 percent of the general services contract dollars. Although Asian Americans represent 2.60 percent of the available general service firms, they received only 1.11 percent of the general services contract dollars. Although Iranian Americans represent .09 percent of the general services firms, they received 0.00 percent of the general services contract dollars. The disparities against African Americans and Iranian Americans are statistically significant. Although Latino Americans and women received somewhat more than the number of general services contracts one would expect based on their availability, the Board finds, based on the studies, statistics, testimony and other evidence before it of discrimination against Latino Americans and women in City contracting and contracting in other Bay Area markets, that in the absence of the bid/ratings discount program that the City has had in place, Latino Americans and women would receive well below the level of prime City general services contracts that one would expect based on their availability.
         F.   For telecommunications prime contracts entered into between 1998 and early 2003, even with the race- and gender-conscious bid/ratings discounts in place, African Americans, Asian Americans, Iranian Americans and women received fewer contract dollars than expected based on their availability. Although African Americans represent 2.26 percent of the telecommunications firms, they received only .19 percent of the telecommunications contract dollars. Although Asian Americans represent 13.53 percent of the telecommunications firms they received only 2.93 percent of the telecommunications contract dollars. Although Iranian Americans represent .75 percent of the telecommunications firms, they received .01 percent of the telecommunications contract dollars. Although women represent 14.29 percent of the telecommunications firms, they received only 12.86 percent of the telecommunication contract dollars. Even with the bid/ratings discount program in place, although Caucasian men represent 70.68 percent of the available telecommunications firms, they received 77.56 percent of the telecommunication contract dollars. The disparities against African Americans, Asian Americans and Iranian Americans are statistically significant. Although Latino Americans received more than the number of telecommunication contracts one would expect based on their availability, the Board finds, based on the studies, statistics, testimony and other evidence before it of discrimination against Latino Americans in City contracting and contracting in other Bay Area markets, that in the absence of the bid/ratings discount program that the City has had in place, Latino Americans would receive well below the level of prime City telecommunication contracts that one would expect based on their availability.
         G.   For City construction subcontracts entered into between 1998 and early 2003, even with the race-conscious subcontracting program in place, Arab Americans and Asian Americans still received fewer construction subcontracts than expected based on their availability. Although Arab Americans represent .14 percent of the available construction firms, they received only .05 percent of the construction subcontract dollars. Although Asian Americans represent 13.74 percent of the construction firms, they received only 12.99 percent of the construction subcontract dollars. Although African Americans, Latino Americans and women received more than the number of construction subcontracts one would expect based on their availability, the Board finds, based on the studies, statistics, testimony and other evidence before it of discrimination against African Americans, Latino Americans and women in City contracting and contracting in other Bay Area markets, that in the absence of the subcontracting program that the City has had in place, African Americans, Latino Americans and women would receive well below the level of City construction subcontracts that one would expect based on their availability.
         H.   For City architectural and engineering subcontracts entered into between 1998 and early 2003, even with the race- and gender-conscious subcontracting program in place, African Americans, Arab Americans, Latino Americans and women received fewer architectural and engineering subcontracts than expected based on their availability. Although African Americans represent 4.67 percent of the available architectural and engineering firms, they received only 4.48 percent of the architectural and engineering subcontract dollars. Although Arab Americans represent .98 percent of the architectural and engineering firms, they received only .40 percent of the architectural and engineering subcontract dollars. Although Latino Americans represent 4.18 of the available architectural and engineering firms, they received only 2.51 percent of the architectural and engineering subcontract dollars. Although women represent 12.53 percent of the available architectural and engineering firms, they received only 9.29 percent of the architectural and engineering subcontract dollars. Although Asian Americans and Iranian Americans received slightly more than the number of architectural and engineering subcontracts one would expect based on their availability, the Board finds, based on the studies, statistics, testimony and other evidence before it of discrimination against Asian Americans and Iranian Americans in City contracting and contracting in other Bay Area markets, that in the absence of the subcontracting program that the City has had in place, Asian Americans and Iranian Americans would receive well below the level of City architectural and engineering subcontracts that one would expect based on their availability.
         I.   For City professional services subcontracts entered into between 1998 and early 2003, even with the race-conscious and gender-conscious subcontracting program in place, Arab Americans Iranian Americans and Latino Americans received fewer professional services subcontracts than expected based on their availability. Arab Americans and Iranian Americans received no professional services subcontracts at all. Although Latino Americans represent .79 percent of the professional services firms, they received only .46 percent of the professional services subcontract dollars. Although African Americans, Asian Americans and women received more than the number of professional service subcontracts one would expect based on their availability, the Board finds, based on the studies, statistics, testimony and other evidence before it of discrimination against African Americans, Asian Americans and women in City contracting and contracting in other Bay Area markets, that in the absence of the subcontracting program that the City has had in place, African Americans, Asian Americans and women would receive well below the level of City professional services subcontracts that one would expect based on their availability.
         J.   For City telecommunications subcontracts entered into between 1998 and early 2003, even with the race- and gender-conscious subcontracting program in place, African Americans, Asian Americans, Iranian Americans and women received fewer telecommunications subcontracts than expected based on their availability. Iranian Americans received no telecommunications subcontracts at all. Although Asian Americans represent 13.82 percent of the available telecommunications firms, they received only .83 percent of the telecommunications subcontract dollars. Although women represent 13.82 percent of the telecommunications firms, they received only 8.84 percent of the telecommunications subcontract dollars. Although African Americans represent 2.44 percent of the telecommunications firms, they received only 2.22 percent of the telecommunications subcontract dollars. The disparity is statistically significant for Asian Americans. And, even with the subcontracting program in place, although Caucasian men represent less than 70 percent of the telecommunications firms, they received more than 86 percent of the telecommunications subcontracts. Although Latino Americans received somewhat more than the number of telecommunication subcontracts one would expect based on their availability, the Board finds, based on the studies, statistics, testimony and other evidence before it of discrimination against Latino Americans in City contracting and contracting in other Bay Area markets, that in the absence of the bid/ratings discount program that the City has had in place, Latino Americans would receive well below the level of City telecommunications subcontracts that one would expect based on their availability.
      6.   In 2002 and 2003, the Human Rights Commission and this Board heard testimony from 134 individuals at public hearings about discrimination against minority- and women-owned businesses and received written statements documenting such discrimination. Additionally, in 2003, Godbe Research conducted a telephone survey of HRC-certified MBEs and WBEs.
   Based on this evidence, and the findings and evidence supporting the 1984, 1989 and 1998 Ordinances, and amendments to those ordinances, the Board finds that minorities and women continuously face racial prejudice in both the public and private sector markets in San Francisco. The prejudice against minorities takes the form of stereotyping, prejudging, discomfort in working with minorities, an absence of opportunities to prove one's skill and ability, exclusion, networking difficulties, and racial slurs. Women also face prejudging and stereotyping. Women are often made to feel that they are not qualified to be running a company and that they are innately incapable of certain tasks. Women also sometimes face questions as to whether they are really running their firms. Women- and minority-owned firms also face overt hostility from majority-male firms, reporting harassment, intimidation, and undue pressure during the course of doing business with majority-male firms. Women- and minority-owned businesses also are often subjected to increased and higher standards of review of their work than Caucasian, male-owned firms. Minorities and women also reported difficulties and discrimination in obtaining financing and credit for their firms, difficulty obtaining bonding and insurance, and other forms of business institutional discrimination.
   Minorities and women also report of discrimination in the award of City prime contracts. Minorities and women report that project managers in many City Departments continue to operate under an "old boy network in awarding City prime contracts. The practice creates a barrier to the entry of women-and minority-owned businesses and puts those firms at a competitive disadvantage in their efforts to secure City prime contracts.
   Minority- and women-owned businesses also reported being discriminated against by prime contractors, by, for example, being given inadequate lead time to bid on projects, being paid late after a bid award, being listed on a bid without permission, and having the scope of their work reduced or canceled after the bid award. Minority- and women-owned businesses report that the only reason they are able to get work from many prime City contractors is because the City requires prime contractors to provide minorities and women with opportunities to compete for City subcontracts. In particular, many minorities and women report that they are frequently refused subcontracting opportunities on contracts that are not subject to a race- or gender-conscious affirmative action program by the same prime contractors that do hire them on contracts that are subject to a race- and gender-conscious affirmative action program. And, many minority- and women-owned businesses that succeeded because of the City's remedial program, and graduated from the program, report that prime contractors who gave them subcontracts on contracts subject to the City's subcontracting requirements before they graduated, refuse to give them subcontracts now. Finally, minorities and women report of hostility in the industry toward the M/WBE program.
      7.   In February 1998, the Human Rights Commission issued a report that documents hostility and active resistance to the W/MBE program by various City departments and agencies. The HRC report also found the following discriminatory practices at work in City contracting: (1) listing minority- and women-owned enterprises as subcontractors but never using the listed minority- and women-owned subcontracting firms, (2) the use of additional nonminority, male subcontractors never listed on the relevant HRC forms, and (3) the creation of fraudulent joint ventures involving minority- or women-owned and majority, men-owned firms. In particular, the HRC's investigation found that in at least four out of 86 contracts involving joint ventures, the minority- or women-owned firms listed in the joint venture did not perform any work on the project. A report issued by the HRC in May 2003 reveals that these discriminatory practices continue, and that the HRC has encountered the following additional discriminatory practices in City contracting: (1) attempts by City personnel to improperly influence contract selection panels to ensure that MBEs/WBEs do not obtain City prime contracts; (2) attempts by City personnel to blame MBEs/WBEs unjustifiably for project delays; (3) the imposition of unnecessary minimum requirements on City contracts that act as a barrier to MBEs/WBEs; (4) the failure by City departments to submit draft requests for proposals to HRC with sufficient time to permit the HRC to ensure that adequate MBE/WBE subcontracting goals have been set; (5) attempts by City departments to circumvent the requirements of this ordinance by extending or modifying existing contracts rather than putting new contract out to bid; (6) the failure by City departments to comply with the prompt payment provisions of this ordinance which ensure that MBEs/WBEs do not suffer unnecessary financial hardships; and (7) resistance by City prime contractors to provide the City with required subcontractor payment information, making it difficult for the City to ensure that MBE/WBE subcontractors receive prompt payment for their work on City contracts.
      8.   Based on the studies, reports, testimony and other evidence before it, the Board finds that the race- and gender-conscious remedial programs authorized by this Ordinance continue to be necessary to remedy discrimination against minority- and women-owned businesses in City prime contracting and subcontracting. The Board finds that the City and County of San Francisco is actively discriminating against women and minority groups in its contracting, and is passively participating in discrimination in the private sector. This Board finds that the evidence before it establishes that the City's current contracting practices are in violation of federal law and that, as a result, this ordinance continues to be required by federal law to bring the City into compliance with federal civil rights laws in its contracting practices.