Clear that the division has the power to exercise its discretion to do that. There are a number of other issues that we would consider procedural in nature that would be part of the scope of this review process, including whether the division should use warning letters, more frequently than it currently does brady will remember jesse minardi, submitted Public Comment requesting that the division do explicitly that. At the bottom of page four we have set out the policy, or rather the process that we intend to pursue here. Staff have already begun to evaluate what other jurisdictions are doing in terms of a streamlined process. We are also initiating internal conversations, consulting with members of a compliance staff who have ideas about how their own programs are, or are not functioning well and which of the provisions of the programs that they oversee might be suitable for streamline resolutions. Weve envisioned that we would have a first round of interested persons meetings, which is much more open ended. In which we would solicit from participants what they believe the scope of this revision process to include. We have some ideas of what the scope might be, from the regulated community and others. What aspects they think are ripe for reevaluation. Having done that, and having completed the analysis, the internal analysis and consolation with other jurisdictions we would then intend to draft a proposed revision. We would bring that draft to subsequent interested persons meetings, and at that second stage, the second stage what we would solicit would be specific responses to the proposal that we put in front of them. We would merit those contributions from persons, and make any additional amendments to our proposal, and then bring that draft before the commission for possible action. At that time, we would solicit your feedback, having the benefit of all of these prior layers of process. We would iterate that process and come back to you with something that you can act on again. Thank you. I have a few questions, and would also invite my fellow commissioners to ask questions as well. This is maybe a stupid question, is the penalty policy a part of the enforcement rights it is not. It is not a stupid question. Im struggling to remember whether the current enforcement regulations explicitly referred to the six penalty policy, or incorporated by reference . I dont believe the current regulations do. The policy exists independently, outside of the regulations. I am sure there was a reason for that, at the time the policy was adopted. As you go through this process, i would be interested to hear if it is something that you would like to continue to have them be separate, or if they should be incorporated into the race. I dont know if the attorney has a view on this, i would like to get your input as well. I think penalties have to be adopted by ordinance. You are assessing a fine. Is that why it is in the c. F. R. O. Ordinance . I dont know, im not to ask our new assigned Deputy Attorney to tell us about our foundational Constitutional Authority to jump past the board of supervisors on that. Anyway, it is something to look into. Well, i will note for the benefit of the public, that the question comes from a former deputy City Attorney. You may have a clear view of this. I wonder whether proposing penalties that are below the maximum, that the ordinance provides, would not be an unconstitutional exercise of executive power. That would probably go to the ordinance itself what authority the board delegated. Anyway, that would be an interesting subject for you all to pull apart and let us know. I appreciate the caution. I would just note i like the idea of benchmarking with other jurisdictions and if there are any jurisdictions that have program features, or frameworks that are helpful, if you share that with us that would help educate us. Data is always helpful to know, as we expand the number of violations it would be helpful to know how many, you know, the Addressable Market for those types of violations, that is why we want to incorporate that into the six penalty policy. And then, noting in your memo that you have identified areas inadvertent that conflict with the charters, as you go through this process to harmonize the policy, or charter mandates, i think thats an important piece of work, as well. And then, my last question, or comment and then i will open this to my fellow commissioners. Im not suggesting one way or the other that we do this. On page four, as part of the process, there are interested persons meeting and designed to solicit input at the outset, take that input, and then draft a revised policy and then host additional meetings. Would it make sense to house that initial draft to be presented here to us to give us a sense of what the public is thinking about, and the feedback that that you have received to date . You mean, yeah, the draft envisioned a number three there, before we bring it back to interested persons so that you just see the very original thought process . I am happy to bring that to you. I think this thought process i think our thought process was that by bringing to you a draft that had received the full benefit of interested persons input we could we could streamlined the amount of engagement that that might require. If you would like to see every iteration, i am certainly happy to put it in front of you. I will ask my fellow commissioners if you would like to see on an interim basis, or a more developed product . I never thought about it. [inaudible] at this point we are envisioning the first meetings would happen in the third week of november. Between the election and thanksgiving. We know many persons are heavily invested in the election that will take place at the beginning of november. [please stand by] [please stand by] i dont have an immediate question. We will look into that, but as to your question, im chair woman regarding the referencing to the fixed policy, there is no specific regulations to the six penalty policy. My colleague was unable to find the policy on the website so we can work on that, if necessary of the that was sort of my providing context if that is helpful. I do want to clarify. I see by looking at the regulations that you attached that i understand what you are saying that the coordinates establishing the maximum penalty is not being changed. So unless the policy wherever we put it at the regulatory level, as long as we dont exceed the fine, then you are right, you should be within the scope of the ordinances delegated authority to the commission. Dont spend a lot of time on that. The regulations are under file complaint. They are listed as pdf just above complaint process. They are there for those that might want to look at it. Maybe making it easier to find would be a good move. We will also relocate where the pdf of the six penalty is homed. I myself have struggled to find it. You have to search for it. Certainly when we adopt a new one, we will be glad to feature it quite heavily on the enforcement tab. If i could ask since you have several interested persons meeting, at least one of them be held outside of the office so that we can maximize the communitys interest and participation. Sure. Thank you for the suggestion. Thank you, commissioner lee. Any other questions for jeff on item 5 . Okay. Call for Public Comment. Public comment on agenda item 5. Agenda item 6. Discussion of monthly staff policy report. Thank you. I am pat ford senior policy analyst. I will quickly highlight the major items in this months policy report. First one is that i have a subsequent update about the Public Financing ordinance, which is good news. The board of supervisor unanimously approved it on the First Reading on tuesday. As you know ordinances have to have two readings at the board. It is currently on the agenda as item one this tuesday. I hope it is the same house and same call, no amendments. I will keep you in did loop. I will try to send an email next week. That is great new. Once it is approved at the second reading, it goes to the mayor for signature . Correct. What is the lag time between approval at the board, being sent to the mayor and she signs the timeframe before it becomes effective. The mayor has 10 days. I think it is 10 days. Typically it has taken 10 days with our ordinances. I think the last ordinance i asked for expedited signing and it moved up. It is at least a week for them to look at it. Do we need to incorporate or will the board of supervisors clerk describe the summary instead of the giant ordinance in front of the mayor to sign this . I think the whole legislative file comes along with each ordinance. I think the mayors staff would have whatever the board has and it has a digest that was prepared probably by a deputy City Attorney who was familiar with it, and it has all of the letters of support, it has the bla analysis, two separate analysis, one was short and one was a fulllength policy analysis which i would encourage you to look at. I can send a link. I had a policy analyst do a full policy write up. It is interesting to see the two takes. We worked together on it. Working through the concepts, but he has a different approach. Interesting to see, but back to your question of timeline. If and when the mayor does sign the ordinance after it is approved by the board, it would be 30days until it is operative. However, we baked in a january 1, 2020 operative date. I misspoke. It is 30days before it becomes effective. It becomes operwheretive januar. I am working on exactly what it means. What it means for us we can start to prepare. At that point we can begin to amend the materials and start to work on the internal processes knowing that law will be in flyers next years election. Other than that i can tell you there are now six cosponsors for the ordinance. That is good. I picked up two at committee and three more before it came to the board. If we need eight boards on the board, we have six cosponsors. That is pretty good. The board of supervisors unanimous about Public Financing and nra. We are in good company, i guess. I hope we will be able to update you next week it was approved on the second reading. I will keep you in the loop every step of the way. Mr. Ford, do we have the resources in the budget to be able to support the changes to be required by the ordinance . I wouldnt imagine there is a lot. It is an additional body of work to be done. Yes, when we were looking at this back at the analysis stage, the main thing we looked at in terms of affordability was whether or not the Election Campaign fund could sustain the extra payments. We tried to spec out the increase to candidates and to Public Financing. We concluded there is probably enough based on current participation levels if this generates so much interest with the candidates and changes fundraising and campaign patterns it could start to strain the current fund. That was the same conclusion the bla came to as well. I think on that front it looks like, yes, there is enough money based on the annual appropriation of about 2. 8 million to pay for these increases in matching. On the administrative side, kind of a similar answer, assuming the current volume of applications for public funds remains somewhat the same we will be able to meet that need. If there is a massive increase in applications that could change that answer a little bit, but i doubt that will be the case. I think we will probably see roughly the same number of candidates admitting the same number of documents. The one difference could be this ordinance tries to incentivize candidates to receive a larger number of smaller contributions. It matches only up to 150. We could see a higher volume of applications. If we get matching requests, there could be more contributions on each one and more work for auditors. It wouldnt be so much more work we couldnt meet it, so i think we are prepared to implement this as is. Thank you. Next item is the e filing of the form 700 project. At this point, continuing to work through all of the implications to make sure the systems are on track to make sure they are feasible to spec them out to be sure we can do this. Then from the training perspective to work with departments to assess their needs and figure out what is the best way to roll this out. As that goes on in other departments or divisions in our office, i am continuing to work on the Employee Relations aspect. I am still working with the department of Human Resources to figure out how to engage with bargaining units on this. At that point i have drafted a tentative timeline that combines both this project and next years code review which will also have an Employee Relations meet and confer component to it. I am trying to envision those processes working together. There is a lot of crossover. The form 700 project only pertains to how the form is filed, it is likely bargaining units will want to talk who filed the form. That topic is what is addressed through the code review when all of the departments are to review the list of filers, update and make adjustments. That is where that happens. That has a whole separate meet and confer process. We are trying to think since the projects are close in time, how do we coordinate the efforts of the two of them so we have a unified and cogent approach. That makes sense. It works out on the right timetable to have both of those be in effect on january 1, 2021. It is still tentative. We are working through how to get that really going, get the notice out to the bargaining units, and then Start Talking with them and figure out how they feel about this project. No real concrete developments to update you on right now other than still trying to get towards that point where we are able to make contact with the bargaining units. I have a question about the efilings, is there a hard deadline . We set january of 2021 as the date by which we want to finish this. Where i am going with this, if we combine and it makes sense to combine efiling of 700 which will raise the question of who is required to file. When you link the two together, if there is a question or more concern raised by the road review about who files, does that necessarily completely stall the efiling implementation date, which is only a change in the format of the filing and not a substantive change at all. The same people instead of filing paper have to do it electronically. My concern would be by linking the two, does that potentially change the timeline forgetting the efiling done . Yes, thank you for asking that. It is definitely not my intention to link them in any way. I kind of referred to this as a unified approach. What i mean it is that we are thinking about both of them at the same time and plans for both of them. It is my plan to keep them separate because of that concern. If they are linked neither can move forward until both are resolved. I remember from two years ago the meet and confer for the code review was tough. It has a lot of moving parts, a massive ordinance changing a long article of the code that involves specific job titles and disclosure categories, and i think it is definitely good to keep it separate so that we can talk about the two different concerns in those two separate processes. One can move ahead if the other is not done yet. What i am trying to work through and dhr is helping us. How do we communicate that to the bargaining units to show them they will be able to have those concerns addressed about who is filing . Rather than saying this is only efiling. We cant talk about who files. It is to have a way to field the concerns but in a separate forum that may be concurrent or shortly after the e filing meetings. Not trying to shut them down but giving them a place to discuss that will not hold the other project back. There is a lot of operational work that will go after the ordinance or regulations for efiling. The biannual code review goes to the board and mayor and becomes law. For efiling the regulations are halfway through the project. We have a ton of would, to do. Time is much more of the essence. There are resources and timelines established with an end goal of 2021 for everyone who is now doing paper filing to convert to efiling. I think to jeopardize that would not be great, to say the least. Part of this timeline exercise is to envision a different way to do the b code review next year is not until i think may or june of the biennial code review years that the process would start, which is much too late to work concurrently or anywhere near the efiling meet and confer which we hope starts in the next couple of months. We are trying to see if we can move that process up a little bit. We will be working with the City Attorneys office and the clerk of the board, they are the leaders on that project. That is kind of where the coming together happens. Trying to make sure those two processes work together. They still will remain separately, hopefully. Thank you. The last thing is on the last page. This is a ruling by the Third District court of appeal pertaining to Public Financing. It does not affect this citys Public Financing program because San Francisco is the charter city, it has a little bit different rules than general cities with regard to Public Financing, specifically the law at issue in this case does not apply in the same way to us to other cities. The Public Financing program can go on. We confirmed with the City Attorneys office. This Court Decision i am putting here not because it pertains to our program but an action this commission took in 2016 to support a particular piece of state legislation. This is a followup to let you know what happened to that legislation that the commission supported three years ago. With that disclaimer, i will go back to talk what this is. In 1988, a state ballot measure was passed, prop 73, that created a rule to say candidates and Public Officials cannot use public money for election costs. That would mean in the strict reading of the rule that you cannot use Public Financing funds to run for public offers. That did not apply to charter cities. Public financing could not exist in those jurisdictions. In 2016 the legislature tried to create an exception to the rule saying this doesnt apply to Public Financing. If you have a program that is made available to all candidates, it is okay to use public funds for election costs as long as you do it in that way. What happened on the 26th of august was that the Third District court of appeals upheld the trial Court Decision that struck that down. They found that is invalid that is the legislature cannot create an exception because it is against at the purpose of the p ra. Prop 73 changed the purpose to prohibit Public Financing, and that the legislature could not go against that intent. It is a boiled down version of the case. Essentially restores the cities and counties back to where they were before 2016 that created the exception. It doesnt affect us. The commission did weigh in support of that bill. In 2016 it sent a letter urging support and it didnt pass, but now it is invalid. Back to the pro16 state of affairs in other cities in california. I was looking at that and tried to quickly look at the case. I havent pulled it up. The homes is straightforward the voters enacted something and the court found the legislature didnt have the authority to undo what the voters do. You have to go back to the voters. It is interesting in the letter from common cause, they an said the intent of the bill was to refer something to the ballot. Somebody advised them to go back to the voters and that is not what came out of legislative process. That law said they were expanding the ban to state and local races whereas now they clearly are supposed to comply at the federal level. Do you know if you can look into it. Did that part of 1107 survive and does that apply to charter cities or do we have our own which says no foreign money in our elections. Then there was a piece about the convicted politicians and what happens to their campaign funds. It doesnt seem like it could be part of the Public Financing part of the bill that was not challenged in the first instance. I am curious what happened to that piece. As far as i know only the Public Financing was at issue in this case. I will make sure that is the case. De would very a rule saying no Foreign Corporations or individuals can contribute . I just dont know. Thanks. I will be glad to answer any questions that you have. I had a question about the dark money initiative, the ballot measure this november. If it is approved by the voters, what is the cost estimate for implementing it . Where will that money come from since it is not in our budget . Where will the money come from . I will direct that question to the executive director. I cant speak to budget items. The cost estimate at this point i dont think we have a hard and fastestty mat. When working with the Controllers Office to provide them with information when they were giving the rules Committee Fiscal Impact information. Their threshold is so high. The number we provided them was below the threshold for fiscal impact. They said no fiscal impact. We have to implement this. I think at this point it is hard to say if we dont have a hard and fast cost estimate nout. In terms of timing if it is approved in november, when would it become effective . January 1st, 2020 . I think it is usually after. I have to look. Thank you. It would be good to know what the cost would be. I dont know if we have any idea where to find the funds. If there is not an allocation in the measure, i believe we would absorb it and we would have budget requests we would be working on then of this year to subpoena split. That is something we would of course consider. Any other questions . Call for Public Comment on item 6 . There being none we will move to item 7. Discussion of executive directors report. Highlights of the staff activities since the last monthly meeting. Thank you. The memo is fairly brief this week. I think it doesnt fully reflect the items going on at the staff level. One of the thing is at an the request of the Mayors Office i was able to do an overview of the tools and Resources Available to implement the accountability ordinance. I have attached a copy of the powerpoint. It was an opportunity to profiled direct links at the monthly meeting the mayor held earlier this month to highlight the communications to reach out to their staff tommingment the requirements. I thought it was helpful and positive comments from the mayor Encouraging Department heads to reach out with questions as for requirements or other generalth continues issues. From were a number of Informal Communications after that, as a result of that meeting i think a number of departments are reaching out to us for refresher sessions about ethics laws and the new laws taking effect. We welcome those and i want to say yes to everybody. We will follow up to provide information. That is one of the out growths during the month of august in the fiscal year and the Performance Review process. It is what we have in front of us. We are making sure where there are areas overlapping interest doing outreach we are prioritizing that work so that we can have all hands on deck, if you will, to make those priorities happen. You will hear more about that in the coming months. It is a very useful process having looked back and refining so we can be focused to achieve our goals this year as possible. I want to add coming at the same time i was happy to b to be ablo announce to the staff new staff changes that will take effective tomorrow. They were not able to be completing for writing in the report i will put them in the report next month. I want to highlight the changes that reflect . Changes on the budget received this year and a couplingpel highlights. One announcement johnnie hosey has ok septed a job as compliance officer. He is functioning in an active capacity over a new. He will step into a new role to ten to provide guidance and programmatic support to those who connect when it comes to comply with the laws. Johnny started back in 2012. He has had ittervations in his work. I am delighted he will use his knowledge and experience in this new role. The dashboards presentations have been with us. He is now appointed as the Information Systems engineer. This was a created in the budget this year to held us build our dashboards and Campaign Finance level to the next level so we can provide tools for the public to work with the public in a way that is meaningful. He will continue on as the division working with Steven Massey and the team. He will do focused outreach to help Community Groups and others look for opportunities to partner. More Research Opportunities and opportunities to use the data. We will have that next month. We were excited he is filling that role. Let me interrupt. I would love to hear what outreach you would be able to do to the community. Last month there was a reporter had came from the world journal. It is a chinese newspaper. He was interesting in learning about the tools the commission has the more we can educate them about what is available on our website would be terrific. I was going to discuss agenda item 8. I would love for someone to do a presentation to show us the Campaign Finance dash boards. I think it would be great to see the level of money poured into the city and where it is coming from. Visualization is very impactful. In looking at the schedule of disclosures we have a first degree election report next week. We think we will have more data to show you and reflect on what you are meeting. We will schedule that. What are we saying and learning . We look forward to askeddeling that. We have an u update for a new position title. The increasing work though our policy has taken on over the last year. It used to be on the organizable chart the Media Communications and legislative affairs was assigned to me. That is the daytoday function or senior policy analyst is response it for in the last year. We wash to reflect reality. We have updated the title to senior policy and legislative affairs council, both to reflect the policy and legislative again take, not just the managingisheg issues. But talking about form 700 filings. It is reflecting the glowing work he has done and the Legal Research that involves. We are happy to continue to make sure our work chart and titles and our work reflect what is done and the nature of the work we have to be doing. I would add as i mentioned to the staff earlier today, over the past 18 months amy lee who started with the commission in 2010 as auditor. Over the last 18 months is serving as acting supervisor for audit program. Since february as Principal Program manager for audits. Amy would like to be an 1822 auditor. She will work with our team with our audit program. Going forward as we figure out the period of leadership in the division. Rob will be the lead auditor and what that is is a position that will be helping to keep the projects on track and on time. He will work closely with me to support the audit team in this way going forward. They are all continuing to be auditors. He will step in a role with more daytoday administrative oversight to make sure we get the audit work done. I appreciate him stepping into that role. He has experience working with a couple of political law firms in the bay area, experience prior to coming to the ethics commission. He has experience also helping other organizations with their management and their supervision of staff. We are looking forward to keeping our programs on track and appreciate the enthusiasm and willingness of staffers to step in these roles. There is a lot to be done we look forward to reporting more and more to you about nothing but progress. I will stop and answer any questions you might have for me. I want to say congratulations to johnny and tyler for your new title. I really like the approach of titles reflecting reality, pat, you have done much more than policy. This is a great recognition. Thank you, amy for the leadership on the audits. Congratulations to rob in stepping up to take over in an acting capacity. All great news. I dont have any other questions. No Public Comment. We will go on to agenda item number 8. Discussion and possible action on items for future meetings. Does anyone have anything to add to the agenda . Public comment . There being none, agenda item 9. Additional opportunity for publiPublic Comment. There is no Public Comment. Move to adjourn. So moved. We are adjourned. Growing up in San Francisco has been way safer than growing up other places we we have that bubble, and its still that bubble that its okay to be whatever you want to. You can let your free flag fry he fly here. As an adult with autism, im here to challenge peoples idea of what autism is. My journey is not everyones journey because every autistic child is different, but theres hope. My background has heavy roots in the bay area. I was born in san diego and adopted out to San Francisco when i was about 17 years old. I bounced around a little bit here in high school, but ive always been here in the bay. We are an inclusive preschool, which means that we cater to emp. We dont turn anyone away. We take every child regardless of race, creed, religious or ability. The most common thing i hear in my adult life is oh, you dont seem like you have autism. You seem so normal. Yeah. Thats 26 years of really, really, really hard work and i think thises that i still do. I was one of the first open adoptions for an lgbt couple. They split up when i was about four. One of them is partnered, and one of them is not, and then my biological mother, who is also a lesbian. Very queer family. Growing up in the 90s with a queer family was odd, i had the bubble to protect me, and here, i felt safe. I was bullied relatively infrequently. But i never really felt isolated or alone. I have known for virtually my entire life i was not suspended, but kindly asked to not ever bring it up again in first grade, my desire to have a sex change. The school that i went to really had no idea how to handle one. One of my parents is a little bit gender nonconforming, so they know what its about, but my parents wanted my life to be safe. When i have all the neurological issues to manage, that was just one more to add to it. I was a weird kid. I had my core group of, like, very tight, like, three friends. When we look at autism, we characterize it by, like, lack of eye contact, what i do now is when im looking away from the camera, its for my own comfort. Faces are confusing. Its a lack of mirror neurons in your brain working properly to allow you to experience empathy, to realize where somebody is coming from, or to realize that body language means that. At its core, autism is a social disorder, its a neurological disorder that people are born with, and its a big, big spectrum. It wasnt until i was a teenager that i heard autism in relation to myself, and i rejected it. I was very loud, i took up a lot of space, and it was because mostly taking up space let everybody else know where i existed in the world. I didnt like to talk to people really, and then, when i did, i overshared. I was very difficult to be around. But the friends that i have are very close. I click with our atypical kiddos than other people do. In experience, i remember when i was five years old and not wanting people to touch me because it hurt. I remember throwing chairs because i could not regulate my own emotions, and it did not mean that i was a bad kid, it meant that i couldnt cope. I grew up in a family of behavioral psychologists, and i got development cal developmental psychology from all sides. I recognize that my experience is just a very small picture of that, and not everybodys in a position to have a family thats as supportive, but theres also a community thats incredible helpful and wonderful and open and there for you in your moments of need. It was like two or three years of conversations before i was like you know what . Im just going to do this, and i went out and got my prescription for hormones and started transitioning medically, even though i had already been living as a male. I have a twoyearold. The person who im now married to is my husband for about two years, and then started gaining weight and wasnt sure, so i we went and talked with the doctor at my clinic, and he said well, testosterone is basically birth control, so theres no way you can be pregnant. I found out i was pregnant at 6. 5 months. My whole mission is to kind of normalize adults like me. I think ive finally found my calling in early intervention, which is here, kind of what we do. I think the access to irrelevant care for parents is intentionally confusing. When i did the procespective search for autism for my own child, it was confusing. We have a place where children can be children, but its very confusing. I always out myself as an adult with autism. I think its helpful when you know where can your child go. How im choosing to help is to give children that would normally not be allowed to have children in the same respect, kids that have three times as much work to do as their peers or kids who do odd things, like, beach therapy. How do speech therapy. How do you explain that to the rest of their class . I want that to be a normal experience. I was working on a certificate and kind of getting think Early Childhood credits brefore i started working here, and we did a section on transgender inclusion, inclusion, which is a big issue here in San Francisco because we attract lots of queer families, and the teacher approached me and said i dont really feel comfortable or qualified to talk about this from, like, a cisgendered straight persons perspective, would you mind talking a little bit with your own experience, and im like absolutely. So im now one of the guest speakers in that particular class at city college. I love growing up here. I love what San Francisco represents. The idea of leaving has never occurred to me. But its a place that i need to fight for to bring it back to what it used to be, to allow all of those little kids that come from really unsafe environments to move somewhere safe. What ive done with my life is work to make all of those situations better, to bring a little bit of light to all those kind of issues that were still having, hoping to expand into a little bit more of a Resource Center, and this Resource Center would be more those new parents who have gotten that diagnosis, and we want to be this one centralized place that allows parents to breathe for a second. I would love to empower from the bottom up, from the kid level, and from the top down, from the teacher level. So many things that i would love to do that are all about changing peoples minds about certain chunts, like the Transgender Community or the autistic community. I would like my daughter to know theres no wrong way to go through life. Everybody experiences pain and grief and sadness, and that all of those things are temporary. Im nicole and lindsey, i like the fresh air. When we sign up, its always so gratifying. We want to be here. So im very excite ied to be here today. Your volunteerism is appreciated most definitely. Last year we were able to do 6,000 hours volunteering. Without that we cant survive. Volunteering is really important because we cant do this. Its important to understand and a concept of learning how to take care of this park. We have almost a 160 acres in the district 10 area. Its fun to come out here. We have a park. Its better to take some of the stuff off the fences so people can look at the park. The street, every time, our friends. I think everybody should give back. We are very fortunate. We are successful with the company and its time to give back. Its a great place for us. The weather is nice. No rain. Beautiful San Francisco. Its a great way to be able to have fun and give back and walk away with a great feeling. For more opportunities we have volunteering every single day of the week. Get in touch with the parks and Recreation Center so come