Committee, then there is opportunity in the full board but if there is Public Comment in the committee there is not any at the full board. Thank you. Commissioner hur . So am i right that there were two documents and a 14page document and a summary document and that is correct, commissioner hur and there were two documents and were ier of those documents distributed to any of the members of the committee. Prior to the meeting . I do not believe so and not to my recollection. The first time that the Committee Member saw it was the same meeting that the public saw it . It was quite for them to get ready and if i remember they were ready just before the meeting. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. True, so, is that the only reason why they were to be distributed during the meeting it was just taking so long to get them . There was obviously a very significant project that was a subject of a great deal of negotiation. And our hope was that we were going to get, you know, complete agreement that we were going to be making, you know, getting the developer to agree to the changes that would get, you know, a level of full agreement. That did not happen, but it was going right up until the last minute. In a scenario, where there would be time . How would it play itself out in terms of distributing that . The changes and the technical changes to the committee . I am sorry could you repeat that question . If you had time to make those changes, produce the document and then there was still time to get it to the committee, how does that happen . Is there. What if there were an opportunity to do that, would that have happened and is that the typical protocol. If i believe correctly, as a example for the shipyard project which was approved by the board of supervisors, around the time that i started working for president chiu, there were, i dont know, about dozens but over ten changes to the agreement proposed at the full board and some of them were, and accepted at the full board and no further Public Comment was given. And some of them were rejected by the board. But there was no, in a similar sense to this instance there was no presumption that there was additional Public Comment based on changes to an underlying agreement and all of the over all arching principals and concepts of the agreement remained. I think that there are constantly changes to Something Like this Development Agreement up to the time that it goes to the board and so, i am not positive that it occurred in this case but there could have been changes made in the previous week and going in the file that is available to the public and the Committee Members up before the hearing. So it is a process. I hope that that answers the question. Thank you. Thank you. Further questions . Or discussion commissioners . Is there a motion that we wish to present . Do you want to hear the Public Comment first or would you like a motion . I would like a motion first and then we can have Public Comment. So, there could either be a motion that the respondent has committed a willful or a nonwillful violation of the ordination which will require three commissioner to make a finding of probable cause and you could alternative do a motion to find that the four supervisors did not violate the sunshine ordinance as to these allegations. I move that we find that the four commissioners did not violate the sunshine ordinance as alleged. Do i hear a second . I will second. Thank you. Any discussion on the motion . Commissioner renne . I think that you accidentally said commissioners . Supervisors. Sorry. Supervisors. Sorry. Let me ask, one question, if this had been an amendment which went beyond what the notice was, under the statute there would have been required to give a 72hour notice on a special meeting yeah. And that would have to be an additional hearing, and if there were substantive changes. And a new notice of the hearing and at that new hearing, it would be in Public Comment. As you point out in your report, the claim violation under section b, does not apply because this was a special meeting. As opposed to a general. Yeah, there are, and there are more requirements for procedure during the regular meeting. But the special meeting does require that the agenda be submitted in 72 hours in advance to the public. Yeah. So that the real key question here is whether or not the language of the notice of the special meeting and the subject matters that it talked about park merced if that was broad enough to put a reasonable person on notice, that subject matter which included the language that was in these amendments, was going to be the subject matter of the hearing. I take it that was a basis of the City Attorneys. Right. And the City Attorney is frequently called upon in cases like this to determine, is this substantive enough to require a second noticing or not . Which is one of the reasons why there are City Attorneys at all of these meetings to provide such advice. And another discussion or question. Commissioner hur . No, i mean i think that it was within the noticed language, i also thifrpg that the Document Distribution issue is a bit of a red herring, if documents are not provided to the policy body even a 576 b applied. And i dont think that those documents had to be distributed ahead of time in light of the fact that they were not shown to the policy body or provided to them. It does steam that 67. 6 is applicable here. And as commissioner renne has pointed out, i think that the main question then is did the amendments fit within the agenda item and i think that they did. Public comment . Ray hartz, i find it agregus when people have to go before the Sunshine Task force or this Ethics Commission and are not given any option other than sometimes wait for years before they get a hearing, and yet you seem to be hell bent on getting this concluded because you want to give the city more time. The city does not respond, they dont show up for hearings, i have had 22 cases before the Sunshine Task force, 19 of which i have won. And in most of those cases i had to go back multiple times because the city did not send anybody and i would also like to correct a few things, mr. True said. And number one, these were 14 pages of subnative changes and he was very careful, although he failed to do so, to try to avoid using the word subnative and they spent and they said before the actual meeting the same afternoon of the Committee Meeting at the full Board Meeting they said that we spent the entire weekend, hours and hours and hours working on this, and i find it hard to believe and hard to swallow that you could spend that much time working on something and not have it be subnative and the second thing is that when you are the person on the receiving end of the stick and in other words, all of the people in park merced i think that your perspective of what is subnative would be different than what the city wants to consider when they are hell bent to pass legislation that they want done because it is worth billions of dollars. I would like everyone to notice that i am reading from a summary prepared in advance of this hearing and the findings of this commission are so predictable that it makes me feel clarvoyant and the only thing that i am clear on is whether it is covering the back sides or kissing them and again, what difference does it make, the end rault is the Ethics Commission finding in favor of the city and against the values and interest of the citizens of san francisco. In this case the board of supervisors managed to discriminate against and violate the rights of so many protected classes that it is impossible to enumerate them, the elderly, single parents, people of color, veterans and disabled and the list goes on and i have told this to the board of supervisors directly, and this commission today s from what i can tell, going to put its perimeter on those actions. They wanted to pass this and they didnt want the bad subpolicety of having all of these disenfranchised people showing up and making Public Comment and you cant tell me when you hand out a document that the summary of the points and it takes the complainant another year to get the actual 14page document that you handed them out at the time of the hearing and that is nothing but pure unadulterated. And patrick shot and another mal able point of. Is the frequency with which this committee and in its complaints and never discusses any of the rationale in the ordinance of determination from the Sunshine Task force referring to the matter to you you never ever, ever, discuss their rationale of why the referrals even end up here and so physical therapies. That you dont take into consideration in the findings and you never discuss them and you never let them effect your esteemed judgment. I would like to add that this is being broadcast on Public Television and if we could keep our language to such that does not have to be bleeped i would appreciate it and so would the audience. Absolutely, right we should continue refer to it as amulta cult er and stop the public raid of the library and dont give money to the friends of the library, and i am a little bit shagrined or shocked that you fail to understand what really is at stake here. First of all, the words subnative and the words substantial are not synonyms. And what we are really talking about is something substantial. And the Crucial Point is whether at the time the public had its only opportunity to make Public Comment, that they knew the substance of what they were commenting on. If you find that there are things that come before the final action, that the public should ahave an opportunity to comment on, then that is substantial change in the public should have been given an opportunity to comment again, that is the law. And the reason that it is the law is because the body itself needs to be informed of the testimony, judgment, perspective of the citizens that this applies to. This is why we have Public Comment provisions. It is not for the benefit of the commenter. It is for the benefit of the deliberative body that needs that perspective and that input. And that just plain evidence. And to make its determination. Now, when they made changes, claimed that they were not subnative, and therefore, they could be passed without the public, having its chance to determine for itself, whether that was meaningful or not, you have basically disenfranchised those citizens. And so it is not the interpretation of what is a document, or what is substantial, even. The issue is whether, it is something that the public could ask and should ask, had the opportunity to comment about. And when you say, that they dont, you are taking a very strong step, i should tell you that this is not the only incidence of this. This happens all of the time. I dont, or cant or dont have time to go to the indenses now, where they basically make, changes, on their feet, the opportunity for Public Comment was months ago. And it goes through. Thank you. Peter warfield. Im not a party to this, and im disappointed that pastor gavin has not had a chance to state her case here. But i think that it is a very dangerous matter to leave to somebody else, a definition of what is and what is not substantial and therefore, what does the public have a right to notice on and what does it not . I would like to know why doesnt this body discuss the substance of those 14 pages and then, on the basis of your own judgment, determine whether those were in the category of requiring, notice and Public Comment appropriately. And the Sunshine Task force evidently did do that. And its finding of fact and conclusions of law on page 2 of its august, 23rd, determination said that the task force concluded that the introduction of 14 pages of proposed amendments without providing copies or adequate review time to members of the public should have prompted supervisor eric mar as chair of the committee to try to continue the meeting. And there is also reference of a twopage summary. And how insubstantial are changes that occupy 14 pages and require twopage summary. And according to the pastor gavins testimony it says on the second page of that same letter, she said that the public and sen sit tenants were given only a twopage summary of supervisor chiu proposed amendments to the Development Agreement and denied the opportunity to read the actual text of t4pagepages of amendments. Why dont you ask what happened to someone who was there. And there is someone here who has given testimony, who was there. I was not. And further, in another order of determination, of november 1, 2011, the task force again found, and i will read from the decision and order of determination. Found that president , david chiu, and supervisor weiner and violated sunshine Ordinance Section 67. 7 b for not providing the public with copies of the development to the agreement and which were provided to the policy body. And if you are not willing to discuss the contents and then how can you be prepared to say that the contents were not substantive. And i also would like to say that the supervisor testimony initially said that the public was able to comment, the public, i think that he corrected himself. It should be clear that the public is not allowed to comment at a board of supervisors meeting when it has been held at a Committee Meeting. Thank you. With all due respect for the City Attorneys office, the single deputy City Attorney sitting in front of the podium, is not necessarily the best person to determine what is substantive and what isnt, is this agreement. And if the change took 14 pages, how long was the entire agreement. I really think that the roll of the investigator in this matter, should have been to put himself in the position of the lawyer, who is going to decide whether it was substan ard or not. The task force had two lawyers, and i believe at the time that this case was heard. And neither of them were business lawyers. And so the whole issue, what is the subnative change to a long, long, Development Agreement, is not something that could be handled off the cuff. Push and i think without that, in this separate investigation. What the law says and what the agreement provided for. And what the changes to that are two different issues. Any further comment, on this matter . If not, commissioners. And any further questions or comments from you . Well, i have got to say that i am. Disturbed with the idea that the amendments could be introduced without the public having an opportunity to see them and digest them, and whether 13 or 14 pages of or should be deemed as nonsubnative and it is a practice which i think that we ought to discourage and so that i am not prepared to find that they willfully violated the sunshine ordinance, but i am not prepared to say that their conduct was consistent with what i think is the way in which the board of supervisors and its committees ought to operate. What does that mean, that you think that the proposed amendments did subnative change the agenda item but that it was not intentional . Well, i guess that the problem is that i tend to agree with some of the comments that have been made as to how you can determine 13 pages are nonsubnative, because i think that one of the things that the public is concerned about is that you have developers who are wired into the political process and who have Everything Else and on the day of the hearing that they are to that the committee is supposed to deal with it, an agreement, and suddenly, changes come in. And they say, well, they are not, they are not subnative and therefore, there is not any reason why the public should have had 72 hours to deal with them. And that troubles me. Okay. I dont know why it was that the supervisor chiu offered that morning why they could not have been proposed 72 hours earlier. And it is just that process that i am disturbed by and that i find i dont think we should give a message to the board of supervisors, that they can should have side stepped the Public Notice requirement. By simply saying to come up with amendments and whether they are nonsubnative. I am not sure that the question is whether the amendments were subnative, i think that the question is whether the amendments changed the noticed agenda item and to me those are two different things. You can have things that are subnative that are proposed but dont change the broad notice requirement. And that is why i think we should make a finding of no violation of the ordinance. I will agree with commissioner hur. But to commissioner rennes point, that is where, that is sort of where i was headed. If indeed, it took a weekend or working all weekend to generate a list of changes, mr. True you used a technical, you said technical changes is that the word that you used . Please. Do you mind to come . That at some point in the weekend that somebody will say, well, these are significant enough that we will want to get them to the committee as soon as possible and that is why i want to hear that you said that it is a process and it is kind of evermoving and it is dynamic. And im just not sure if there is a trigger any time in that dynamic process where someone does say, you know what . We need to like, halt the process, and make sure that we deal with these significant changes or these subnative or technical changes, in a way that does not hold up the entire process and so i wanted to hear more about that and that was leading to my first question is which was when you do have time, what typically happens . Does it get to the committee, you said that they are just posted. Is there a specific action that is taken that gets the information to the committee . I know that they are posted on the website for the public. For the development through the share, to the commissioner andrews, i am from supervisor david chius office, it depends on the type of legislative item and the Development Agreements are approved generally and not always by the resolution of the board, and so the resolution, is you know, usually fewer than ten pages and described in broad terms what the terms of the Development Agreement are. And i have not looked back at this resolution specifically, but, it will describe, you know, the terms between the parties, and a little bit about the rent control for example, and on replacement units which was a big issue in this case. And so, if essentially whatever Development Agreement is in the file, behind that resolution is what the board is acting on and that can change, and even again, the day of the full board vote for example. As i mentioned for the shipyard. And i said earlier that it did not matter what the changes were and i think that i need to be able to be clear about that. And i have been to the two supervisor to work for the city for ten years now and if i had a nickel to ask the City Attorney if changes to an ordinance usually were subnative i would have a lot of nickels. The most common easiest example is whether it is subnative or not, lets say a fine amount, you have an ordinance that establish a program and if you violate the program and the fine is 100 a day, lets say. If that noticed amount goes up by one cent, and then that is a subnative change that will require an additional 72 hours for the public to understand that instead of 100, for violating whatever the new law is passed it is going to be 100. 01. And if that fine in Committee Goes down 80, and someone thought that there could be a fine, but now it happens to be going down because of some supervisor thought it was too high or whatever, that did not require increased Public Notice. And i was just looking back and it has been more than two years, i believe, since this land use Committee Meeting happened. And i was looking back at the 14 pages of changes and again, and the title and this is exactly what they are, and we already believe that the rent control protections for replacement units at the park essentially the project was identification of the land use, and ever resident, at park merced was under the Development Agreement entitled to a new unit at the same rent control for life. And what we leave that the best protections were already stronger than those approved at the trinity project which is being built right now at 8th and market. But we thought that we needed to go further and so we worked with the attorney to see what we can do and looking at state law, and basically you know said that this is what we thought needed to happen for president chiu to be supportive and there is already a presumption and understanding on behave of the public and this is disputed of course but it was noticed and the Development Agreement said that those replacement units everyone was entitled to the unit at rent control replacement unit and so what we did is to tighten that screw down a little bit more and the bulk of the 14 pages is stronger provisions around liquid ated damages and the court would find that what we are doing was not, or was beyond what state law allowed. And so, we think that they were important and we saw them as an important policy move, but, in no way, did they change the underlying fundamentals, you know, of the Development Agreement and the bargain that we believe that the Development Agreement struck from a policy standpoint. And so, to commissioner rennes point, i believe, that it is very important and we believe that it is important that the public have a full opportunity to debate and discuss, and issues of this import and these issues before the board for some months, and in fact it has been continued from earlier in the year when it was at the full board on a sequa appeal and so there is a lot of public discussion around the issues. And i myself talked about it in front of public groups for months, afterwards. But, we strongly believe that the Development Agreement, and the disscreption of it in the resolution