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: FOOD PURCHASES AT HOSPITALS OPERATED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND JAILS OPERATED BY THE SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT
CHAPTER 21E: GOODS OR SERVICES CONTRACTS FOR INCARCERATED PERSONS
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 22H: DESIGNATION UNDER HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT (HIPAA)
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. 303(q) CRITERIA
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 37B: MIDTOWN PARK APARTMENTS
CHAPTER 37C: EVICTION PROTECTIONS FOR COMMERCIAL TENANTS DURING COVID-19 PANDEMIC
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 107C: AMERICAN INDIAN CULTURAL DISTRICT
CHAPTER 109: PRIORITIZING 100% AFFORDABLE HOUSING
CHAPTER 111: HOUSING REPORTS FOR SENIORS AND PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
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
CHAPTER 122: CLOSURE OF COUNTY JAIL 4
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: [REPEALED]
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 29: VACANCY TAX ORDINANCE
ARTICLE 30: CANNABIS BUSINESS TAX
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 11B: HEALTHY BUILDINGS
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
ARTICLE 46: OVERDOSE PREVENTION PROGRAMS
ARTICLE 47: ADULT SEX VENUES
References to Ordinances
San Francisco Municipal Elections Code
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 36D: GUN VIOLENCE RESTRAINING ORDERS
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 53: REGULATION OF THIRD-PARTY FOOD DELIVERY SERVICES
ARTICLE 55: ACCEPTANCE OF CASH BY BRICK-AND-MORTAR BUSINESSES
ARTICLE 56: MOTOR VEHICLE STUNT DRIVING
References to Ordinances
San Francisco Port Code
San Francisco Park Code
San Francisco Planning Code
San Francisco Zoning Maps
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
Comprehensive Ordinance List
San Francisco Building Inspection Commission (BIC) Codes
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.
      9.   In addition, the Board has reviewed numerous studies by San Francisco-based agencies. These studies, although narrower in scope than San Francisco's study, support the findings undertaken to assess discrimination against women and minorities in City contracting:
   In 1991, the San Francisco Unified School District undertook a disparity study of its contracting in various categories. The study found "substantial evidence of statistically significant disparities between utilization and availability of minority and women contractors." For prime contracts over $15,000 in value, the study found statistically significant evidence of discrimination against African Americans, Latino Americans, and other minorities, in the number of contracts willing and able firms owned by these groups were able to obtain. For prime contracts under $15,000 in total value, the study found statistically significant evidence of discrimination against Asian Americans, Latino Americans, minorities in general, and women, in the number of contracts willing and able firms owned by members of these groups were able to obtain. For subcontracts, the study found statistically significant evidence of discrimination in the number of subcontracts that African American, Asian American, Latino American, and minority firms in general were able to obtain. In a review of contracts under its Earthquake program, the study found statistically significant evidence of discrimination against Asian Americans, minorities in general, and women in the number of contracts businesses owned by members of these groups were able to obtain. In construction-related professional services, the study found statistically significant evidence of discrimination against African Americans, Asian Americans, minorities in general and women. In printing and publishing contracts, the study found statistically significant discrimination against African Americans, Asian Americans, Latino Americans, minorities in general, and women. The study also reviewed testimonial evidence of discrimination that supported its findings of discrimination.
   In November 1992, the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency ("SFRA") issued a study of its use of minority- and women-owned business enterprises. The comprehensive study found that women-owned business enterprises received none of the publicly funded prime contract dollars and only 24 percent of the privately funded contract dollars SFRA would have expected given their availability. The study found from a survey of private construction contractors that minority- and women-owned businesses received none of the prime contracts and only 2.32 percent of the subcontract dollars. The study also surveyed 95 local minority- and women-owned construction firms, out of which 75 percent reported that prime contractors who use their firms on public contracts with W/MBE requirements never use their firms on private contracts.
   In May 1993, the Regional Transit Association of the San Francisco Bay Area issued a report entitled "The Utilization of Minority and Women-Owned Business Enterprises by Member Agencies of the Regional Transit Association." The study found significant underutilization of minority-and women-owned enterprises in those jurisdictions in the Bay Area without programs designed to increase minority and women participation. The study also found that for each transit agency, including San Francisco's Municipal Railway, "M/WBEs were used less than we would expect given their availability." The study also examined anecdotal evidence of discrimination from 502 minority- and women-owned enterprises 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," which addresses the increase in violence against African Americans that began in 2000, and discrimination against African Americans in San Francisco. This report supports the finding of the Board that an ordinance encouraging minority-owned enterprise participation in City contracting is necessary to remedy race-discrimination against African American-owned firms in San Francisco.
      10.   A number of broad disparity studies undertaken by State and other local governments and agencies also support the findings of discrimination in San Francisco's studies, including:
   In 1992, the Contra Costa County issued a comprehensive study of the use of women- and minority-owned businesses by that county. The study examined Contra Costa's own contracts, data about subcontractors collected from prime contractors, data on Contra Costa's payments to vendors, data on 7,993 minority- and women-owned vendors in the Bay Area identified from various directories, questionnaires on purchasing practices by Contra Costa officials and census data, testimony Contra Costa solicited in public hearings in Alameda and San Francisco, and Bay Area wide mail surveys of 540 women- and minority-owned businesses. The study found that minorities received a smaller share of Contra Costa County contracts than would be expected given their availability. The study also examined the private sector for construction in San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose and found that minority- and women-owned businesses received a smaller share of prime and subcontracts than would be expected given their availability. The study also found strong evidence of discrimination against women and minority firms in Contra Costa's professional services contracting and commodity purchases.
   In 1996, the City of Oakland and the Oakland Redevelopment Agency issued a study of the utilization of minorities and women in their contracting programs. The study revealed that even after having programs aimed at increasing contracting opportunities for minority- and women-owned businesses, those businesses still get fewer contracts than one would expect based on their availability. The study revealed that a culture of discrimination among prime contractors, lending institutions, and other businesses prevented minority- and women-owned businesses from competing for public contracting opportunities in Oakland. For instance, even though the majority of ready and willing construction contractors in Oakland were African American-owned, Caucasian male contractors received more than twice the contract dollars from 1991-1994 as African American contractors. And although nearly 68 percent of all ready and willing contractors were minority- and women-owned businesses, Caucasian-male owned firms received more than 55 percent of the contract dollars during this period. Even those minorities who achieved statistical parity in contract availability during the study period suffered from discrimination. Anecdotal evidence gathered for the study revealed that prime contractors often refuse to allow the minority- and women-owned businesses to perform subcontracting work after the contract has been awarded. Women contractors reported that they must ask male co-workers to present their ideas to prime contractors, since otherwise their ideas are ignored.
   In 1994, the City of Richmond, California commissioned a study to determine whether its race- and gender-conscious remedial contracting programs continued to be necessary. The study revealed great disparities between Caucasian male-owned firms, and minority- and women-owned businesses. For instance, although Caucasian men represented only 49 percent of the available contracting firms, 85 percent of all contract dollars went to those firms. The disparity was even greater in Richmond's professional services contracts, where Caucasian firms received 95 percent of the contract dollars even though such firms represent only 15 percent of the available firms. The study further revealed that although minority- and women-owned firms represented between 32 and 71 percent of the available firms depending on the particular industry (construction, professional services, engineering, and procurement), minority- and women-owned businesses never received more than 14.8 percent of the contract dollars in any industry. And testimonial evidence revealed that Richmond's MBE/WBE ordinance had done little to address the underlying causes of discrimination. Minorities and women were consistently faced with obstacles not placed before Caucasian male contractors, based solely on their race and gender. In fact, based on their experience, some MBEs and WBEs gave up trying to contract with Richmond in the future.
   In 1995 the California Senate Office of Research issued a report entitled "The Status of Affirmative Action in California." The report explained, in part, that "[c]ities and counties have affirmative action programs as a matter of public policy, as a requirement for contracting with the State, or because they receive federal money that requires attention to nondiscrimination hiring." The report concluded that despite past affirmative action efforts, "salaries remain disparate among racial and ethnic groups and between men and women."
   In April 1996, the California Senate Office of Research issued a report entitled "Exploring the Glass Ceiling and Salary Disparities in California State Government." The report examined the salary levels of 164,000 state civil service employees and compared compensation according to gender, race and ethnicity. The study found that women of equal educational attainment earn only $.74 for every dollar earned by their male counterparts.
      11.   Based on the testimony, studies and reports contained in Board File Nos. 98-0612, 99-0266 and 99-1326, and the evidence before the Board in support of this Ordinance, the Board finds that Arab and Iranian Americans continue to suffer discrimination in the City's procurement process. In fact, discrimination against Arab Americans and Iranian Americans has increased dramatically. Based on testimony presented at public hearings before the Human Rights Commission and this Board between 2001 and 2003, and the Human Rights Commission Report issued in September 2002, the Board finds that since September 11, 2001, there has been a sharp increase in threats, harassment, violence, and discrimination against individuals perceived as having Middle Eastern origins in both the private sector in San Francisco as well as in the City's procurement processes. As a direct result of this systemic discrimination, Arab American and Iranian American-owned businesses have been prevented from obtaining City prime contracting and subcontracting.
      12.   In 1989, based on the significant evidence before it, this Board found that Native Americans who sought prime and subcontracting opportunities have received fewer such contracts than expected based on their availability, and that such underutilization was attributable to discrimination both in the private sector and in the City's procurement practices. Based on the historical record of discrimination against Native Americans, and the testimonial evidence given at public hearings, the Board found that there was compelling evidence of discrimination to support the addition of Native Americans to the MBE program and to justify remedial measures on their behalf. The HRC's 2003 disparity study reveals that there are no longer any San Francisco-based businesses in any industry that are owned by Native Americans and available to perform City prime contracts or subcontracts. Based on the significant evidence before it, the Board finds that the pervasive discrimination and hostility against Native Americans in the Bay Area and in the City's procurement processes has resulted in the recent disappearance of available San Francisco-based Native American-owned contractors. The Board further finds that this discrimination against Native Americans will prevent Native Americans from re-establishing businesses in San Francisco without the bid/ratings discount program and subcontracting program set forth in this Ordinance. For that reason, the Board finds it necessary to continue to extend its remedial contracting program to businesses owned by Native Americans.
      13.   The Board has also reviewed and considered several volumes of collected social science materials concerning discrimination against women and minorities in the Bay Area and in public contracting in California. These social science materials strongly support, and are consistent with, the findings in the statistical and testimonial evidence that discrimination exists against women and minorities in the City's contracting and in the private market for similar contracts.
      14.   The Board has considered a substantial body of evidence in enacting the ordinance. The findings set forth herein represent certain salient portions derived from the evidence and hearings. These findings, however, are intended to be representative and non-exhaustive of the evidence and reasons supporting the enactment herein. The Board will consider relevant evidence that continues to be collected.
      15.   In enacting this ordinance, the Board considered and relied on (a) the fact that a substantial percentage of City agencies receive federal funds, a vast portion of which is expended in City contracts, (b) the federal requirements for eradication of discrimination, including the evidence supporting those requirements, and (c) all applicable constitutional standards including those that apply to federally funded projects.
      16.   This Board finds that the testimony of minority and women business owners who seek to enter into contracts with the City or are doing business with the City, as presented to this Board and the Human Rights Commission, offer clear and persuasive evidence of discrimination to such an extent that the disparity of contract dollars awarded to minority- and women-owned enterprises can only be explained by discrimination. The statistical evidence, oral and written histories, and social science evidence reviewed by this Board also support this finding. Accordingly, this Board adopts this ordinance to remedy the specifically identified City contracting practices and conditions in the Community and industries that cause the exclusion or reduction of contracting opportunities for minority- and women-owned businesses in City prime and subcontracting programs.
      17.   Based on a comparative review of the use of minority- and women-owned businesses in the public and private sectors in the City, oral and written histories and additional evidence, this Board finds that there is a substantial reduction in the use of minority- and women-owned firms in private sector contracting in the absence of MBE/WBE requirements such as those found in this ordinance. In the private sector, substantial evidence demonstrates that minority- and women-owned businesses are seldom or never used by prime contractors for projects that do not have MBE/WBE goal requirements. Therefore, this Board finds that if this ordinance were not enacted and the MBE/WBE goal requirements eliminated, the discrimination against and nonutilization of minority- and women-owned businesses now existing in the private sector would occur immediately in the awarding of City contracts.
      18.   This Board further finds that local businesses that seek prime contracting and subcontracting opportunities in City contracting 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.).
      19.   This Board finds that public interest is served by encouraging economically disadvantaged businesses to locate and to remain in San Francisco through the provision of bid discounts to such San Francisco businesses in the award of City contracts and by requiring prime contractors to use good faith efforts to use such businesses as subcontractors when there are subcontracting opportunities available on City contracts.
      20.   Additionally, this Board finds that policies and programs that enhance the opportunities and entrepreneurial skills of 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 San Francisco by, among other things, the creation of local jobs and increased tax revenue.
      21.   The Board finds that affording a five percent bid discount for economically disadvantaged local businesses bidding on City contracts reduces the disadvantages under which these businesses compete.
      22.   The bid discount mechanism in this ordinance is used to assure equality in the treatment of opportunities to any bidder for City contracts. This Board further finds that the failure to use such a bid discount would result in discrimination against or preferential treatment to certain individuals and/or groups.
(Added by Ord. 296-98, App. 10/5/98; amended by Ord. 210-99, File No. 990266, App. 7/30/99; Ord. 283-99, File No. 991326, App. 11/5/99; Ord. 134-03, File No. 030347, App. 6/1/2003)