University working with the Campaign Finance board to complete that. But it seemed to given the sort of similar circumstances between the two cities seemed to be well reasoned. Is that the same argument for why the threshold for the dollar amount in the contract was raised from 50 to 100 . We were able to break that down in our analysis based on the reports we had seen and it appeared to us that the 50,000 threshold was capturing potentially wasnt capturing a lot of the money, i dont have the specific numbers in front of me, but raising it to the 100,000 threshold reduces the number of affected parties by 100, 120 i think it was. But captured 80 of the money. So we thought it was a substantial amount of the money still captured but not having less sophisticated or the parties that shouldnt be captured. That was based on your own analysis. Correct. And page 12 line 22, why is the term of the period of prohibitions expanded from six to 12 months, is there data that supports that change . Again, so this is linking similar laws in other jurisdictions, again, new york city, this information is admittedly very hard to capture and research. I think we received in Public Comments as you will note in supporting materials and supporting materials associated with the ordinance. We found a number of antidotal examples by interested members and interest of the public that were able to cite hard numbers, i dont think we have those for you today but we have antidotes and im sure members of the public will speak to that as well. Some of this as i read it, as someone who has run four times, is this real life concerns, i mean, i have i think out of the five Ethics Commissioners, only one of them has run for office and knows what its what the words on a piece of paper mean in terms of real life behavior and to that end, im jumping to 1. 126 on page 14, has the clerk of the board been assaulted by the requirement that she notify ethics of every contract approved by the board of supervisors. As you will note that is in current law. It has not changed. Its merely a number change. And does the clerk send that to you every contract . Are you guys yes, we get i want to say we get 4500, is that a year . I believe we get about 4500 of these notifications a year give or take. But whether thats the entire that should be reported to us, that is something we do not know at this time. Section 3. 203 page 24. Hold on a minute. This is the definition of solicitation. Does inviting a person to a fundraising event include mass email invites . Sorry, could you give me the page again. Page 24, line 4. Fundraising shall be, invites to fundraising event, what about on social media . I dont have a specific answer at this time. I think thats something we would need a determination from our commission as to the scope of that. We have issued a recent opinion advice that addresses some of the issues i think. So these are real life concerns. When i read to, i think a strict reading would indicate that the answer is yes. Which in real life is problematic. I dont know if the commission thought about those things. I will give up the microphone. I do have a number of proposed amendments which i have not even had an opportunity to share with the many people who have come to the Ethics Commission and interested persons and nonprofits that i can distribute to my colleagues and speak about later in the meeting, but the big one is the one that i talked about earlier, and that is my desire to have form 700 type disclosers for ies and super packs, i think that would be a huge step forward. That is a much i dont want to chill little donors, but the people have a right to know the motivations of these super big donors is and where all those tentacles go and i think that would be a profound Ethics Reform and would like it to be a part of the package. Supervisor cohen thank you. Next i would like to call on supervisor tang. Supervisor tang thank you, thank you for having me today. I had spent probably an hour with Ethics Commission staff yesterday, an hour with our City Attorneys trying to get through the legislation, trying to understand it and i think i have a better understanding of kind of the goals that the Ethics Commission is trying to go for but along the lines of supervisor peskin asked in terms of questions, im not going to rehash a lot of what i spoke to you about but i think our broader comments and based on what i heard earlier about what was said in terms of trying to come up with some regulations to help those non incumbent candidates who dont get a lot of money and cant pay for compliance. I would push back a little bit on that and say legislation like this, although well intentioned forces us to spend a lot more time and money on our attorneys. Im grateful to have a great one, hes probably watching, to comply with the regulations, but the people who are going to follow the rules will follow the rules, right . So i think some of my broader stroke comments around the piece of legislation, when i was reading through it, there were references to behaviors such as sought to influence or sought a favor from someone. That were very vague. I dont know how they would determine how someone did something wrong. I would like to where there are references to vague terms such as that, for us to get a better definition, whether we peg it to a financial stake in something or state existing local law, again, so its very clear, the last thing i want to see in legislation such as this is that we dont know how to comply with this. Its so broad and vague, that if were going to have to ask our City Attorneys if we have a conflict or so forth that we dont know how to follow the regulations. The other portion that i had an issue with, im speaking more broad stroke but will speak in details in the coming weeks. In terms of the land use section, supervisor peskin raised that as well. My concern is theres a reference to the fact that the Agency Responsible for the initial review of any land use matter, that may appear before the board of appeals supervisors, shall inform any person with a financial interest in the land use matter and duty to notify the Ethics Commission regarding a land use matter. Basically when i read the section in addition to the entire land use portion, it is completely broad, i think the Million Dollar threshold isnt even enough. I think were trying to get at the big, big projects where i think in your own words, you might see pay to play politics, right . I think the Million Dollar threshold is far too low and putting burden people staffing our public and planning information counters for example, theyll have to start giving out the notifications and it wasnt clear to me what the particular person applying for permit or even submission of a request, again, i think thats very broad, too. Would have to report to the Ethics Commission. Thats unclear to me. So if were going to have a section on land use, i would like it all to be spelled out so its tight to what were trying to get at here which i think are the bigger projects, the people involved in those. And then obviously not creating a huge burden for planning staff, were constantly saying hurry up and here they are trying to figure out how to comply with ethics legislation. Some of the other issues i had there is a reference to someone who might be a donor but who might appear before Public Comment and might say theyre in support or against something and end up later donating to a nonprofit. I dont want that person to feel they shouldnt come and speak during Public Comment because of a potential appearance of making a donation on behalf of an official. I want to seriously address that. I dont think anything that someone coming to testify here should be included in the regulations. And then the recusele issue, as i mentioned to you yesterday as well, i think its strange to include the whole section because i think its important for us to recuse ourselves when theres a conflict, the board of supervisors, the Planning Commission, we should encourage that, we shouldnt encourage people with an actual conflict, potential conflict or appearance of one. When you say were going to take note and maybe investigating if you have three or more recusing or 1 of the total agenda items that year, it makes people uncomfortable to have to recuse themselves from items. I have many more details but i would say in broad strokes, i think were all here not to try to derail this legislation. I know the Ethics Commission is interested in getting this moved forward whether through the board or ballot. All i ask is that the commission had about a year to spend on the legislation and we have a couple of weeks, i would like for us to at least maybe continue the item for two weeks so we can hash out the amendments we want to propose to make this something that i think is enforceable on your part and allow us to understand how we can all comply with the regulations. Supervisor cohen thank you. Supervisor stephanie. Thank you. Can you hear me . I have a question for land use matter lines 13 and 14. Land use matter shall not include discretionary hearings, there are three kinds of discretionary reviews, you have neighbor on neighbor, Planning Commission on important policy matters and third, mandatory review required for residential demolitions and dwelling unit mergers that has the potential to take housing off the market. Those are two things that are very concerning to a lot of the neighbors in my district. Im wondering why were lumping all that together and not looking at review for something that has to come before the commission. So, is the question why are we exempting or broader than that, why are we exempting the discretion views and mandatory views are not involved. My question stems from the fact that if its mandatory it absolutely has to go before the Planning Commission, correct . In something as important as a residenti residential demolition that we know has a lot of controversy around demolishing homes in any neighborhood or unit mergers, a lot of controversy around that, where you would see maybe pay to play politics with developers. Im wondering why, i think its something that we have to look at that might come up later, why you would lump discretionary review without mandatory discretionary review. If youre trying to get at somebody donating, why not pars out mandatory dediscretion review. We based this out of conversations with the department of planning and building inspection. So it was our understanding that this definition sort of encompasses the best possible set of what should be reviewed without sort of mixing in individual resident on resident sort of disputes. That is my understanding, that its based on our not wanting to necessarily be reviewing each and every neighbor dispute, understanding theres a lot of those and those arent necessarily what we intended to review. Right and thats the first form of discretionary review but the second and third are mandatory. I mean, i understand theres a lot of drs and weve talked about dr reform a lot. Everyone likes to dr Construction Projects in the neighborhood. We see it over and over but when you talk about mandatory and it has to go before the Planning Commission and theres potential for pay to play with developers and unit mergers, which is very controversial, taking housing off the market and demos of homes for historical reasons and stuff like that, i think it could come up and something we need to take a broader look at. Thank you. Supervisor cohen all right. Supervisor peskin. Do you want to get the last word in . Just a few things. Just one, this is important for me relative to my initial ask about wanting to do this here discharging our duty as legislatures to legislate and requesting sufficient time and maintain the leverage for a possible November Ballot. If we fail to do that, which i think we will manage to discharge our duty and well and with Public Comment, but the one thing i want to be clear about, while you may be under the impression that this was transmitted from your commission to this body, this thing did not get a file number until january. The board went dark in early december, the mayor died, it did not i did not know that this legislation sometimes the department head, im not picking on you, says by the way this thing arrived at the board. I mean, theres all these different commissions, i was aware there were ongoing deliberations but not until a couple weeks ago, oh, it arrived at the board of supervisors. It didnt get a file number until early last month. I just wanted to put that on the record. I was going back through the conversation we had about you said the Million Dollar threshold is in there. Its not how i read it. If financial interest modifies the definition of land use matter, the way it reads it says financial interest shall mean an ownership interest of at least 10 or a Million Dollars. So the way thats written, if i have a financial ownership interest of more than 10 but i do a 5,000 project, it covers me. Thats not what you want to do. I mean, i hope thats not what you want to do. I think its just bad drafting. But i dont think you want toi implicate the 5,000 projec. You want to implicate the Million Dollar project but there is no dollar threshold and i see the deputy City Attorney saying to this non lawyer that i just read it correctly. These are the things we want to fix in deliberative process. The thing around recusing, i want to associate myself with the wores of social tang. Its a good thing. I mean, we want supervisors to i mean, my form 700s, pull them up online, youll know Southwest Airlines is asking for a lease and i have more than 2,000 in Southwest Airlines, i shouldnt vote on the lease. You want me to recuse myself. This last year i recused myself twice and by the way at the board, its very rare. I recused twice on the advice of the City Attorney because there was a conditional use appeal, i cant remember, within 1000 feet of my house. The City Attorney says im presumed as a matter of law to have a conflict whether it diminishes the value of my property or increases the value of my property or doesnt affect it at all, i have to recuse myself. I say colleagues, Julius Castle is within 1,000 feet of my house, i have to recuse myself. Isnt that what we want. If i had three land use appeals that came to the board im subject to the higher level of reporting. I want to be part of the regulated community where it makes sense. That looks like a solution in search of a problem frankly. If i could provide a brief comment in perhaps. I think you are right, we want folks to recuse in conflict but when there are repeated and significant conflicts continuing to be able to raise the question in some way with individuals, board and commission members, perhaps more so the members of this body, is that such a significant and ongoing conflict that prevents them from doing the job that the public expects them to do. Just injecting a review process in that arena is something that i think our commission is of the view would be a benefit to good Decision Making and allow the public to have transparency of conflicts and i looked recently at some of the information from los angeles, a similar model based on their charter mandate where their Ethics Commission can require divestment for continuing conflict and of the 267 Board Members over the course of the year, i think the board reviewed six of the ongoing conflicts and its not an investigation, its more of a public process to have discussions about conflicts. Its building on what we have and enhancing it to provide accountability. I havent thought about it in the board context, through the chair, mr. Gibbner, theres a handful, if not for im required as a matter of charter to vote on them. Maybe in Commission Land i dont nothing is occurring to me as to any set of commissioners where this seems to be a known problem. But i hear you. The last thing i want to say, around the behested stuff as the author of what came effective january 1st, it seems odd to me that were not letting that legislation that has been in effect for 31 days to work before were changing the rules on it again. Generally, you know, there are people who come to me every day and they want to do more stringent regulation on Short Term Rentals and i say folks, youre looking at the supervisor who has been at the forefront of regulating Short Term Rentals but we just had a lawsuit with a airbnb and see how it works for a while before changing the rules again. And so i kind of have a thing here, our new payment legislation that for commissioners etc cetera just went into effect. I dont know why were anyway just a general comment. What i would like to do rather than madam chair, i know the hearing is going on for quite a while and you have other items, is what i would like to do is make my amendments available to staff and public so people, mr. Bush and friends of ethics and everybody can look at them. I would like to introduce them but not adopt them today. I have handed them to my colleagues and they will be a part of the file and available on the internet shortly and request that we continue this to the next committee we have and ill reach out to commissioners and ask them to tell them what i have said to staff, i hope we can discharge our duty deliberatively and smartly and have the commission maintain the leverage for the November Ballot. And frankly nobody is losing anything, were too late for the mayors race any way. If this went out of committee and went to the full board in two weeks, by the time it was passed and signed and became effective, the mayors race would be a month away. I think the commission should maintain leverage. Next speaker, supervisor fewer. I have a question around i have many questions about this quite frankly and i think my colleagues brought up many concerns that i think need to be addressed. I wanted to know how it relates to campaigns like school Board Members and city colleague trust members, that is a separate entity and i dont think we have jurisdiction over a lot of some of the campaign things, too. Theyre not within our perview in most instances. I think that wording should be there because it leads to confusion. And just one other thing, i actually was reminded that this ordinance wouldnt be effective, even the one before us wouldnt be effective until january of 2019 anyway. So just based on that, i would hope that the commission would understand that november is the right ballot should it be necessary and should we not pass a strong Ethics Reform package. Supervisor cohen thank you colleagues. Were going to at this point go to Public Comment at this time. I have several cards in my hand. I have four here. If you dont hear your name, please get in line. First up calvin welch and then kathryn lowry, laurie linker. This either says ian bush or lan butt. If anyone else wants to speak on the items, please get in line. San francisco information clearing house, i want to thank the committee for a diligent job and after spending five months before the Ethics Commission, this feels like i have exited the land of oz and entered the real world. A very curious and odd point of view that i am happy to see does not motivate your questions and concerns. In order to deal with what i believe is a myth, the Ethics Commissioners have adopted in extraordinary sessions and i urge you to go back and taking a look at the hearings that were held in which whole sections of this thing was changed and we were constantly told about l. A. I have no idea, the passage used six times. I recommend you look at the proceedings and recommend you proceed with your amendments to this massively misconstrued piece of legislation. I support the remarks of each one of you in terms of raising questions, fundamental questions about what is the problem that were solving for that does not create even bigger problems. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Im here to express my concern regarding the portion of the legislation that has to do with the hest. We appreciate that the ban was removed from the legislation and we support the legislation that supervisor peskin put in place that took effect in january 2018. However, the proposed legislation dramatically expands the lot of Public Officials to support the nonprofits in our community. For example larkin street holds a number of major donor receptions and many are from San Francisco and attending because they are civic minded and engaged members of the community. Theres been several occasions where the board of supervisors or mayor have been asked to speak and encourage people to give to larkin street. According the legislation they would have to record all information. This definition is so broad that it could conceivably include any donor that has signed a petition or offered Public Comment at a hearing. It would be hard to get the information from up to 50 donors and send a message to the donors they should not have exercised civil rights by participating in the activities. Im concerned about the breath of the new definition and encourage the board to maintain the current definition. Supervisor cohen thank you. Next speaker please. Good afternoon. Im laurie linker i work at the tenderloin Development Corporation as director of fundraising and im building on what kathy said about the behest part. We all know fundraising is hard, dont have to tell you that. This legislation with vague definitions is going to make it harder particularly for the smaller donor. Thing that is also happening combined with the federal tax legislation that impacts smaller donors and emphasizes the Charitable Giving, theres talk of Charitable Giving being reduced 20 billion a year out of 40 billion. That could be a disaster. Its important if we raise less money, we could do less services and its important to have the support of the politicians because were all in this together. And speaking as laurie linker private citizen, i thought all the propositions and things were great. Fast forward 26 years later not so happy with it. I feel this is a nuanced legislation that will have impacts that were not intended. Thank you. Supervisor cohen thank you. Next speaker, i think this says larry bush, friends of ethics. My apologies mr. Bush. Members of the committee im here for friends of ethics and was a member of the civil grand jury that made recommendations in 2013 14 that was the basis for much of this and involved with the report that harvey rose did in 2012 which also became elements of this. Im a commissioner myself on the civil on the citizens general Obligation Bond oversight. This legislation would affect me as a commissioner. Much of this has been before the board in one form or another for the last six years. Harvey rose report came in 2012 was heard at the board, the 2012 civil grand jury report was heard at the board. The 2014 civil grand jury report was heard at the board, some of the issues raised for example the hest payments appear not to be fact based. We went through and researched the record the city has. And of 25 million, it was made in behest payments almost none went to any nonprofit providing Human Services, it went to other nonprofits, like the super bowl, it went to relighting city hall for the 100th anniversary. That was a Million Dollars. This is not Human Services. I think i would urge you all to take a look at this in terms of a November Ballot measure, that means it will have no effect as supervisor peskin said until january 1st. We urge additional changes to strengthen this rather than weaken it. If i may to a point of information to mr. Bush, what i said is the legislation that was forwarded from the Ethics Commission has an Effective Date of january 1st of 2019. Thats whats before us. Supervisor cohen im sorry this is Public Comment. No back and forth. Next speaker. I want to read something to you from august 17, 2016, from the San Francisco public press. One of our gems of local reporting and critical thinking. Here we go, the massive sums into local elections can drive sitting politicians to push up against the limits of what is allowable under Campaign Finance laws. One meeting attended by ed lee and Union Representatives and other donors raised eyebrows amongst ethics experts and led the Public Attorney Office to see if any laws were broken. The meeting included a whos who, including representatives that bundled or collected personal contributions, tens of thousands of dollars for lee and others. I want to thank the Ethics Commission for your incredible work, thank you very much. And this was in 2016 talking about the 2015 election. Remind me what year it is . Oh, yeah, 2018. Youve had a long time. I want to echo what larry said, you had a long time to push forward with the initiatives and you have raised good points. As a grassroots candidate myself, i dont do fundraising events, i do idea raising events but being able to invite people via social media, is a good thing. Some, sure, put in the amendments peskin is putting forward, sure. But get this going as soon as possible. It takes about a year to fully implement and we want this on the books as soon as possible. How many people in the public would like to see it move forward as soon as possible that are here today. Lets do this. Supervisor cohen next speaker please. Hello supervisors from the Human Services network. I want to start by saying we support most of the Good Government provisions but there are significant concerns with about four or five specific provisions that affect Charitable Giving, the ability of nonprofit representatives to serve on commissions and boards and civic engagement. There are some ethic advocates that portray this as clear cut but we all know democracy is messier than that. And this legislation of ethics with the First Amendment rights. I want to focus today given the limited time on the behested contribution session with a quick illustration, if you as a public official come to speak at a Nonprofit Fundraising event to urge support, first we have to count heads, it only falls under public speech exception, if there are 50 people. If anyone at the room testified at a hearing, came to the rally and signed a petition to try to influence the board of supervisors and gives 1,000. You and the donor must both file reports to the Ethics Commission. If you dont file the report or the donor doesnt file the report, there is a fine. Thats a gotcha. Its a chilling and terrifying proposition. Are we going to take attendance at rallies or require petitions to be submitted electronically. It terrifies me. We hope today is the start of a thoughtful conversation supervisor cohen thank you. Next speaker. I want to thank the supervisors for their thoughtful questions regarding the legislation. On behalf of our members including the San Francisco east Bay Community foundation i would like to express strong concerns about the proposed legislation as it is currently written, specifically behested payment. And we dont want it to be unintended consequences. We support policies that target corruption and build public trust in government we believe not amended would have significant consequences, in particular chilling Public Private partnerships. It allows the city to have resources for San Francisco most at need. It would discourage partnerships and deprive them of Critical Resources like housing, education and social services. We encourage you to continue the item, consider with proposed amendments and ensure that the legislation doesnt have unintended consequences that would hurt people in San Francisco. Supervisor cohen thank you. Next speaker please. Good morning kay smith assistant Vice President at the San Francisco foundation. Weaver been in the bay area for over 70 years and our donors are firmly committed to serving the people of San Francisco and region. We support policies that target corruption and build public trust in government, we also have strong concerns about the legislation as it is currently drafted, it would impair civic engagement, hinder Public Private partnerships and charitable contributions to nonprofits. As part of the mission to advance the social good in San Francisco, our efforts compliment government for fueling solutions to problems such as homelessness, affordable housing, Community Health and work force opportunities. Having worked for the city on benefits, im acutely aware of how strong partnerships and robust dialogue are necessary to ensuring that resources are levered strategically. This broad definition of Interested Party raises concerns that any party who is civically engaged, even a private citizen, regardless if they have a financial issue in the matter. While we support democratic interest, the language is overbroad and would paint any innocent interactions. As you know, the foundation administers with hope sf. Its the nations first large scale Public Housing transportation. Supervisor cohen next speaker please. Good morning. I come to you today as a former member of the Human Services commission and a former director of a nonprofit. I think what makes the city great is the ability for so many Diverse People to participate, we need to encourage participation and not discourage it, this legislation would make it really difficult for people like me to sit on boards and commissions for fear of what it would do to our fundraising base and how we would fund raise in the future. I would echo what others have said and encourage you all to continue to think thoughtfully about this, look at the amendments and we will have to make some changes to this. So i appreciate your time and we are all in favor of Good Government but lets make it make sense. Thank you. Supervisor cohen next speaker please. On behalf of the San Francisco alcohol justice, all charitable nonprofits that provide direct services and or advocacy. Im here today to not only speak on behalf of those organizations that im associated with, but and that i sit on boards of and work for, but also as a demonstration of my own involvement and now as a volunteer public official. With the proposed ordinance in front of you, its not just about the nonprofit charitable entities that will be affected but really the people who work within and for them. As a volunteer public official and paid employee, of and for nonprofits that serve the city, my participation is similar to many residents that require and enjoy civic duty and engagement, who bring knowledge and expertise from the experiences to commissions and other bodies that lend to the efficient and proper running of the government. Without appropriate language will have a sweeping effect across hundreds of nonprofits, their Board Members and staff and civic participation across the city. And that is a chilling affect. And we have the added benefit of some nonprofits that provide much needed services that are not available here in San Francisco whom are also not based here. Lets not hurt the efforts that the necessary changes in the law would resolve. Were all in support of continuing the conversation and coming up with an ordinance with transparency and good governs for everyone in the near future. Supervisor cohen next speaker please. Good morning members of the board. Peter cohen, i think ill be probably echoing what you have heard from other nonprofit organizations, but i want to take a minute to first thank you all for the excellent questions. This kind of Due Diligence and thoughtful discussion is what we were hoping to happen at the board of supervisors and in terms of the timing, i realize theres a lot of impatience with getting more Ethics Reform. But two comments, one is the legislation itself i think pointed out by supervisor peskin, wouldnt take affect until 2019. Taking a month or two months versus two days or weeks is not going to change the impact of the legislation but allow us to get it right and have the conversation. Since we spent a loft t of timet the Ethics Commission when it was voted out in november i think it was, we didnt hear the vote of were going to put it on the ballot in june or november for that matter, the vote was lets send this legislation as we have drafted it to the board of supervisors for them to go through their deliberation process and thats where you are now and i dont think its reasonable at all for you to feel rushed by the Ethics Commission. None of the basic principles of this legislation are things we disagree with. Its very reasonable but there is a question of overreach and too much vagueness that creates a set of traps for both donors and behesters and recipients, particularly in the nonprofit world. And the most troubling amendment is the definition that expands the definition of an Interested Party. As you heard already, having that tied to finances makes sense, but anyone who engages in civic process should not be considered in this legislation. Good morning supervisors, eddie hawn, our roots are in bayview but we have been working across the United States in various cities. I think the Public Comment by the San FranciscoFoundation Shows why this legislation potentially has devastating effects on the Nonprofit Sector and supervisor peskin and tang had very good comments about why the language is overbroad and vague in portions to chill not only Public Comment but the donor base, nonprofits and Community Leadership as well. Serving on the Environment Commission but not obviously speaking for the Environment Commission, i can speak to the broad subject matter of the commission and how its similar in some ways to immigrant and human rights, these are causes that need Coalition Building to begin with. The idea that were seeking to chill this fear in an era with the federal climate so unfriendly to begin with is a self inflicted wound we should take seriously. Happy to see the amendments and hoping the conversation can move forward in the spirit of transparency and fairness. Supervisor cohen thank you. Next speaker please. Hi im van decker. Im struck here sitting today and watching this conversation seeing that there are no citizens who are not affiliated with a nonprofit who have come to say theyre against the legislation. Its only the nonprofits coming to say that they do not want to be regulated. Im not surprised. In San Francisco one hand washes the other. And thats whats going on here. I would like to see a system where by we can ensure there is a clear separation between public and private. Public is under the control of the government and elected official or somebody working within the government should not be working hand and hand with these private institutions. The private institutions exist and should exist on their own, they should not be standing up under your support. Thank you. Supervisor cohen any other members of the public who would like to speak sorry, you presented or youre Public Comment. Okay. Ill get to you in a second. Right now Public Comment. I want to make sure every member has an opportunity to speak. Anyone want to speak on the item . Were going to close Public Comment at this time. Thank you. I wanted to make a clarification for supervisor fewer, the Community College district i just wanted to make that clear for the record. Supervisor cohen i think that this work that the commission has done is very clearly thoughtful and he have spent a considerable amount of time, given the incredible detail of the work and expedited nature in which this has come to us, i think we need another two weeks to really dive into the details of the very important legislation that were asked to deliberate on. This will ask to fully endorse findings and understand who will be affected and if there are unintended consequences we can avoid. Supervisor stephanie, do you have remarks or anything . Okay. Supervisor peskin. I just wanted to reiterate my sincerity in getting something passed and in a reasonable amount of time over the next few weeks, publicly with the amendments that i have circulated that i will make a part of the file, but i just want to say for the record, im absolutely committed to making sure that this board passes something that makes sense and we all know what is in it and we talk to the regulated community and members of the public. Supervisor cohen so at this time were going to close this item. Weve heard the hearing. And we will come back in two weeks. I think the date is whats the date in two weeks . February 15th well rehear the item again. This is Public Information for those following the item. Id like to continue this item. May i have a motion . Continue it to february 15th. Is there a motion . Yes. I make a motion to continue this item. Supervisor cohen appreciate that. Well do that without objection. Thank you. Madam clerk, call item number 7. Item 7 resolution for Park Department to accept up to 500,000 grant from the trust for public land for project management Design Services and Committee Engagement for the Sergeant John macaulay renovation project for the project term until july 1st, 2018. Supervisor cohen welcome. Good morning. Good afternoon. Im with the recreation and Park Department and im here to present on the resolution authorizing the Park Department to accept a grant up to 500,000 for the trust for public land, Design Services and Community Engagement for the Sergeant John macaulay childrens play area renovation project. The trust for public land has been a committed partner of the department and city with the shared goal of providing access to high quality and safe outdoor spaces. Specifical specifically instrumental to reopen the civic city playgrounds on february 14th. The renovation is part of the partnership leveraging funding and project management provided by the trust for public plan to help support lets play San Francisco initiate. Lets play sf is an initiative for 13 playgrounds most in need identified and prioritized by a citizen task force. Its located in district six. The goal of the project is to renovate and upgrade the existing playground, so the infrastructure and site features meet the current public needs and applicable codes and regulations. The trust for public land has generously offered a grant up to 500,000 for this project. In august 2017, the recreation and Park Commission approved this grant and then in november 2017, the Commission Approved the concept plan. Now the trust for public land and rec park are working on a more Detailed Design and construction documents. I can show you a few slides to show you some visuals. This is the concept plan for the ground. This shows its part of the lets play initiative. This helps to provide sense of where the playground is, as you can see its boarded by three streets. This shows the scope. Were renovating the playground in the existing area and improving accessibility and upgrading site amenities, including landscaping, seating and circulation. The project is funded by the clean and safe Neighborhood Parks bond and this generous grant from the trust for public land. As i mentioned in my presentation, the project is currently in the design phase. The project schedule anticipates putting the project out to bid in august 2018. That concludes my presentation. Im happy to answer any questions. Supervisor cohen thank you for your presentation. Supervisor kim is a sponsor of this, i see bobby lopez. I wanted if you want to speak on the item . Thank you chair cohen. Ill be brief. This is a grant from the trust republic land. I just want to say i think Everybody Knows how important public spaces like the tenderloin, we were able to work with partners for bow decker park and our hope is that this park becomes an oasis as well. I want to thank trust for public land for the community meetings, the most packed meetings in the tenderloin are for the park and theres a lot of participation on the design piece and so i want to thank them and st. Francis foundation for helping us have an open space. Thank there is really a need to have improvement here, as was mentioned, the civic center playground, were looking at the wellness trail which is a way it connect all the parks and open spaces contracts with hearing to. For construction work, procurement and services relating to identified shelter crisis sites that will provide Emergency Shelter or housing to persons experiencing homelessness. Thank you very much. Weve got a presentation from the mayors office. Sponsors of the mayor, ronen, sheehy and cohe