>> clerk: please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices. speaker cards should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon will appear on the february 27th board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> mr. clerk, can you please call items 1 and 2. >> hearing on the current status of the city's leased owned portfolio within the civic center and update on the portfolio five year plan. item 2, potential three year enewly and amendment of a lease of approximately 27,826 square feet of space at 1390 market street with purchase 1390 market as landlord for use by the department of public health. >> thank you. i think we have a presentation from john updike from the department of real estate? >> thank you, vice chair fewer. supervisor stefani. before i get into the presentation, i want to the last time we gave a real estate portfolio update to this committee it was charmed by carmen chu which tells me we need to do this more frequently. but it's a pleasure to be here today. director of real estate, john updike. background on the data that formed the presentation. the ownership data comes from our facility system of record. that's a joint project between real estate and capital planning. and it's a database that resides on our website and their website and is a realtime snapshot of what the city owns and is available to the public at any time. the leasing data comes from an app that manages the lease hold portfolio. we want to thank the controller's office for their help in aggregating some of this data to help us visualize the status of our portfolio. so first, i wanted to take a 30,000-foot view of what the city owns and leases. so our portfolio city-wide contains approximately 44 million square feet of buildings and land, that's not including rec park holdings. that is within the city limits, so it does not extra territorial land which is significant outside the city and county of san francisco. of that, we lease from private properties only 4%. of our portfolio. this has been an issue that is concern of the board of supervisors as we brought leases forward as to what is the constitution of our portfolio. this really tells the big story. we're at 4%. we had a discussion with many of our peer organizations across the country. we found an average range when you look at aggregate portfolio, there is a lot of land in the portfolios nationwide, they range from 1-4%. new york city, austin, texas, right at 4%. so we feel we're in line with the peer cities in terms of how much is leased and how much is owned. to try to address that concern that the board has raised, are we at the right mix? we believe we are. now we'll dive deeper. how do we break down the 1.8 million square feet? 55% of it is leased for office uses. 45% is leased for other types of use. that could everything from supportive housing, ground leases and building leases, clinic uses, other special public uses. so less than half of the office use leases lie in the civic center, so we're drilling down from the overall portfolio to the office portfolio. and now we're going to take a deep dive into the civic center where the heart and bulk of our offi office leasing takes place. how do we define civic centre? this is a map we felt best depicted our assets in the civic center that revolve around city hall as the point of government. and those units that need proximity to city hall need to be within this radius. beyond this radius doesn't feel or act like it's in civic center. that's a sense of how we defined it. so now let's take a look at a snapshot today and how we're moving this portfolio in the future. how do we move that needle from 19% leased today, to an even lower percentage, which is our goal. first thing i want to mention, we took a look at peer city organizations, those who could slice the data to this level. most could not produce this kind of data in this presentation. most just don't have the information, but for those that do, two really good examples as a method of comparison, the city of san diego. their downtown core office holdings are 64% owned and 36% leased. again we're at 19 today. the state of california sacramento area, office portfolio, which is huge, at 16 million square feet is actually split 50-50 owned and leased. again, i think we look very favorable to those two organizations. claudia, my assistant director who played a great role in putting this presentation together, take calls monthly from other organizations across the country asking us how we do what we do. that's an indicator we're the best practice here in a number of factors as to how we manage the real estate portfolio. so how do we move that number from 19% down to 15% by 2022? we're going to tackle it by touching six different departments and their lease holds throughout the civic center, who have lease expirations that lie between summer 2020 and 2021 and affect lease space. as we move closer to those dates of termination, we'll give you more details as to the locations. the specifics of each. one of them will be before you today. the next item, which is why we asked to have the presentation before that. because it ties in nicely with how this is all part of a grander strategy to reduce our lease hold footprint. the dph environmental health item. one of the ways we can also move that needle down in our lease hold is to consolidate around service functions. so, i think the most famous of those at this point for all of you, would be the new permitting center as 49 south van ness. something we've been calling project chess over the last several years. as you can see by the photos, it's under construction i'm pleased to say with the final product shown on the right of the screen to be delivered in mid 2020. so we aggregate around permitting. that provides certain economy scale efficiencies in our portfolio and allows us to increase density in buildings and get out of leases. beyond that, we're looking at hub based planning for both fiscal uses at 1155 market, being the hub for that in the future. as we restack our various buildings and portfolio when the new building comes online, that's the permitting center and then a hub around family services at 1650 mission, from which the planning department will vacate and we will back phil that with uses complementary to the human services uses there and across the street. create twoing hubs, we'll have greater efficiencies, not only our own internal operations but how we serve the public as well. what lies ahead? so, responding to various audits and report was the budget and legislative analyst, and others, you will see the real estate action plan framed a little more in detail in the capital plan going forward, we're working hand-in-hand with heather and brian at capital planning committee as we dovetail the real estate plan with the capital investment plan. you will see soon transfers of assets from the successor to the redevelopment agency, ocii, so those will be individual board items that will be teed up in the spring and summer coming ahead. you've already seen the hall of justice administrative exit plan brought before you conceptually with one approved lease at 350 rhode island, you'll see in the next 60 days, two additional actual leases, approved, but now you have the leases for brannen and bryant shown on the slide. that will enable us to move our add minute functions out of the hall. that's temporary. to come back to a site that is a new hall of justice. and then of course, you're going to see our involvement of meeting the real estate needs for housing and homelessness, whether that be to support housing ground leases, continue to see acquisitions for housing as we saw for the mcdonald's in the hait and other interim uses as necessary. that's a bit of a snapshot of what real estate sees in its work plan in the year ahead. i am happy to answer any questions you might have have the presentation before we move on. >> supervisor fewer: seeing no question, i believe, thank you very much for the report. i believe we have a report from the budget and legislative analyst on item number 2. >> would you like me to present on item 2 before moving to the report? >> yes, that would be great. unless you have questions on the presentation. >> supervisor fewer: i do have a few. so let me ask. excuse me if you addressed these before in a previous presentation. but is it our policy to normally try to buy land increase our real estate portfolio? >> i'm sorry? >> supervisor fewer: is it part of our real estate plan to try to increase our real estate portfolio? are we looking to buy? >> we are doing our best to not increase the overall size of the portfolio. i will say that as every organization faces when you execute a move, i've likened it to compressed jello. when you move them from point a to point b, that responds on the move. we often see some movement because of antiquated space, but that's been offset recently with the new ways that frankly our staff wants to work in an open plan, less offices, more collaborative space. that does allow us to increase our density and decrease our space. so hopefully, on the whole, that keeps it static and our effort has been to migrate from leased space into owned space. which fiscally is the better play for us long term. >> supervisor fewer: the only reason i ask, some leases come before us for space and those rental agreements are very, very expensive. so i know that while we transition out of old spaces into new spaces such as the hall of justice, that we're constantly looking for space to house during transitional times. so this is where i'm seeing the really expensive leases. that moving the district attorney's office out of the hall and justice and then that lease is expensive. i just think that the cost of leasing or renting property is going to really increase. it's not going to decrease. and that it seems as though we have a shortage of space actually when we do these types of transitions. i understand we're using our current real estate stock in a very different way, in a more dense way actually to consolidate some of the buildings that were one or two stories before, such as the one on otis, i believe it was an old building, antiquated, not very high. i think. so i can see from the plans for 2020 we're going taller and denser, but i ask the question because we're facing a lot of leases that are really expensive because we don't have extra space to accommodate while we're building. and we know that sometimes it necessitates an urgent move, so we're into the leases that are quite frankly, very, very expensive, because we don't have another space for them. this is the reason i ask, are we looking to increase the real estate portfolio? >> really over the last five years, we've increased the occupancy rate of the own city-owned portfolio, where it's over 99%. there was a time, a decade ago, where we had a lot of vacant space. that's also not a good best practice. we don't want space lying there fallo, but we've been trying to create some small areas throughout the city, whether it's civic center or around the public safety hub where we have at least small areas where we can bring folks in to do tenant improvements in the buildings, what we call swing space. but we don't want a lot of that. it's balancing between having ownership right to space we may use in the future and then having it underperform. it's better to be able to spring into a lease if we can. this market has made it difficult, you're certainly correct, it's very expensive. >> supervisor fewer: i know this is about civic center office leases, so i look forward to a conversation, a broader one such as i just spoke to, and they're cramped for space with all the renovations and remodeling and the new buses they need. actually, i think -- my question to them was, why didn't we acquire property for this if we knew we were going to need these larger spaces to accommodate the new electric buses that will need a new facility in which to repair them and operate on them. but the real estate now is so astronomical, i felt like we were a little behind the game. i felt like we should have planned this ten years ago, we would be in a better market. i understand this is office space, i look forward to the conversation about the total real estate planning of san francisco, but as real estate becomes more and more expensive and the city grows and the population is over a million people, i think it is imperative we start planning in the future for these type of things that will come up just from the regular operating expenses, quite frankly, running a very robustty with services. & the mta, they're looking at space now and can't even afford to buy a place and we have electric buses this need the space to be repaired. can you present item 2? i forgot we called 1 and 2 together and then if we could have the report on item 2. >> happy to do so. thanks. so item 2 is the renewal of a lease of 27, 826 at fox plaza. this is on the 2nd, 4, 8 and 9th floors. the department of public health operates a variety of . the existing lease expires at the end of november this year, with option for renewal for five years. however, given the permit related functions, the anticipated expense of this particular lease in decades to come, we collectively determined a path forward to locate this section of dph in the new permitting building that i just showed you at 49 south van ness when the building is completed. that will be completed in 2020. we had to negotiate a bridge lease that provides the city as much flexibility as possible. so before you today is a lease renewal for a term of three years, with option to terminate any time after the end of november 2019, with 270 days prior notice. we also have two five-year renewal options. that is in the event we find ourselves requiring use of this space come 2020 when we relocate this unit to 49 south van ness. again, maintaining as many options as we can. since we have a competitive pricing in the marketplace, that may be a useful tool in 2020. or not. that will be up to the board's discretion. the rental rate is inclusive of storage space. it's supported by an appraisal review. the rate increases by 3% each year, starting september 1, 2019 for the first increase. the increasing rent was anticipated. it's reflected in the report and will be part of dph upcoming budget submission. i want to thank charlie dunn for his excellent work. we had to develop a lease with this optionality, multiple different directions without paying a premium in rent and that's been validated by the appraisers. we've gotten a pretty good deal here, we can leave, we can stay. landlords don't usually like that. so my thanks to him. i'm joined by stephanie curbing if have program questions. >> supervisor fewer: seeing no comments from my colleague, thank you mr. updike, i believe there is a report on this item. >> good morning, supervisor fewer and supervisor stefani. this lease is an existing lease. it had a five-year option to review but the division made a decision to enter into a new 3-year lease with additional options because the department of environmental services is intended to move into the new city-owned building on south van ness. the cost rent under the new lease is about $64, almost $65 per square foot. this is determined to be market rate by the appraisal in review in conformance to the administrative code. the first year costs are $1.8 million. if the department stays in the fox plaza lease for the entire three years, it will be $5.6 million over the three-year term. our understanding there is a plan to terminate the lease with notice so that this division can move into the new building and we recommend approval. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this item? seeing none, seeing no public comment, is there a motion on this item? >> i believe there is public comment on 1 and 2. >> supervisor fewer: yes, 1 and 2. public comment is now closed. >> i'd like to make a motion to forward this to the full board. >> that's for item 2. >> and then file the hearing. >> >> supervisor fewer: right, file the hearing. >> clerk: item 1 will be filed and 2 recommended to the full board for hearing. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. now i'd like to call item 5 out of order. mr. clerk? >> clerk: ease lieutenant-governors authorizing the sublease of approximately 1668 square feet at 1563 mission street with health right 360, a california nonprofit corporation for a five year initial term to commence march 1, 2018, through february 28, 2023. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. i believe we have claudia goreham from the department of real estate and department of public health to present on the item. >> good morning, before you is a resolution regarding a sublease by the department of public health for office and exam room space from health right 360 in their new building you may have seen located at 1563 mission. the program to be relocated there is the central city older adult program. it's a small specialty behavioral health clinic that serves adults over 60 with moderate to severe mental health issues who live in the tenderloin and south of market areas. the proposed sublease is for approximately 1668 square feet for five years expiring in 2023, with one option for three years at the then 95% fair market rent. that will be subject to board approval. the city does have a first right of purchase should healthright decide to sell the property during the term. under the lease, the city will be paying 7700 per hospital but total of 93,000 a year. and base rent will escalate at 3% per year, the norm. in addition the city will be responsible for its pro rataa share of operating expenses and utilities that cannot exceed 4.2% and are estimated to be $2215 per month. and finally there will be tenant improvements that the land will be putting in, up to $38,000 reimbursable by the city. if you have questions about the programming, lisa is here and i can answer questions about the lease. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. are there any members of the public who wish to speak on the item? seeing none, comment is closed. colleagues, a motion on the item? >> supervisor stefani: i'd like to make a motion to forward this to the full board with recommendations. >> supervisor fewer: we can take that without objection? passed without objection. back to item number 3. mr. clerk? >> clerk: resolution authorizing the community corrections partnership executive committee to develop funding recommendations for local innovation subaccount funds for pretrial services and/or transitional re-entry housing for justice involved people between ages 18 and 35. >> thank you very much. i am happy to be sponsoring this resolution today. the community corrections partnership was created in 2009 by state legislation designed to coordinate implementation of evidence-based practices to reduce recidivism in prisons. in 2011, the executive committee of the community corrections partnership was established with the goal of further reducing the state prison population and expanding evidence based practices toward that end. the executive committee is under the leadership of the chief probation officer and includes the chief of police, the sheriff, the attorney, presiding judge of the superior court and public health representative. this resolution directs the exec five committee to develop spending recommendations for the funds deposited into the local innovation subaccount to be approved by the board of supervisors. the funds will be directed specifically for pretrial services and or transitional re-entry housing for justice-involved people between the ages of 18-35. with that, i would like to introduce steve from adult probation who can answer any questions. >> good morning. i'm steve adame. thank you for considering the agenda item. the executive committee of the community corrections partnership met on october 12 to discuss the subaccount funds of $168,000. during the meeting they reached consensus to use the funds for pretrial services and/or housing services for justice involved people. the committee will meet again to determine if the funds should be used for one approved strategy or split between the two. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. are there any members of the public who wish to speak on the item? seeing none, public comment is closed. motion on the item? >> supervisor stefani: yes, i'd like to make a motion to forward this to the full board with recommendations. >> supervisor fewer: we can pass that without objection. mr. clerk? >> just to restate, item 3 was recommended with chair cohen being excused today. item number 4, resolution authorizing the general manager of the san francisco public utilities commission to execute a second amendment to a site license agreement with tri-star investors llc as licensyor for the installation of the additional microwave communications antenna and telecommunications with increase of $6,000 in annual friend from 19 to 25,000 effective june 1, 2017. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. i believe that tony bardo from the public utilities commission is here to speak on the item. >> good morning, supervisors. the action before you is to approve the terms and conditions and authorize the general manager of the puc to execute a second treatment a site license agreement between tri-star investors and the city and county of san francisco acting through the public utilities commission, reflecting new terms of the puc use of the telecommunications tower in modesto. this second amendment provides for the placement of one six-foot wide dish antenna on the existing facility. and corresponding $6600 increase in the annual license fee, bringing the total fee to $25,000. so why the new dish? this site was part of the communication network upgrade that took place in 2015 and 16. this network provides wireless communication capability for the entire puc water system and stretches from the facilities in san francisco, down the peninsula, across the bay and across the valley all the way to moccasin peak. after months of testing of this network, staff noticed interference patterns between the modesto site and the valve house resulting in data loss. to resolve the interference, the puc installed additional equipment to provide an alternative path of signal data reception. because this is a discretionary action, a mitigated negative declaration was prepared for the upgrade project and signed by the city's environmental review officer in 2013. and this additional dish was contemplated and considered in that original mnd, so in further environmental review was considered necessary. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. any questions? none. are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, is there a motion. >> supervisor stefani: yes, i'd like to forward this motion to the full -- this item to the full board with recommendations. >> supervisor fewer: this item is recommended to the full board with a positive recommendation. minus chair. cohen. thank you. mr. clerk? >> clerk: behavioral health services to enter into a contract agreement number 1794155 for the substance abuse prevention for the fiscal years 2017 through 2020. with the california department of health care services in the amount of $26.5 million for a three year term from july 1, 2017 through june 30, 2020. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. i believe the department of public health is here to present on the item. >> good morning. director of behavioral health services with department of public health. i'm here to present resolution for the contract between behavioral health services and san francisco department of health. it covers 2017 through 2020 and the amount is just over $26.5 million for three years. the director's memo to the board, this contract allows the county to receive federal block grant funds from samsa. this contract has been part of a larger contract that included other funding and federal funding, but the state decided to split and separate the contract, the block grant contract from the remainder of the substance use disorder contract that is overseen by cms. these are the same regulations and funding amounts just approved by the board as part of the larger contract last may, resolution number 159-17. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. seeing no questions. are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is now closed. is there a motion? >> yes, i'd like to move this item forward with positive recommendation to the full board. >> supervisor fewer: we can take that without objection that we moved this item to the board with a positive recommendation minus the vote of supervisor cohen. thank you. mr. clerk? >> item number 7. hearing to consider the release of reserve found the office of the district attorney placed on budget and finance committee reserve in the amount of $266,645 for staffing in the independent investigation bureau. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. i believe we have andy wong? oh, we have representative from the office of the district attorney to present on this item. >> good morning. christine. i have with me eugene and andy who is the managing attorney should you have questions. we're in agreement with the budget and legislative analyst report recommending the release of the salary of funds so we may hire the final attorney. we would welcome your support. we're eager to have a full staff. they've been very busy working on the backlog of officer-involved shooting cases and are eager to get started on conviction review. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. i believe we have a report from the budget and legislative analyst. >> yes. the request is for the release of $266,000 put on reserve by the budget and finance committee during the 17-18 budget review. excuse me. 17-18. the request was for an additional attorney to do conviction review which the investigations bureau had not yet begun. this would now be release $84,000 to fund an attorney for the remainder of this fiscal year, we're recommended $84,000 b- you retaining the remainder of financial reserve. >> supervisor fewer: any members of the public who wish to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. a motion for the item? >> yes, i'd like to make a motion. accepting the budget and legislative analyst recommendation. and then forward this the full board with positive recommendation. >> clerk: this is a release of reserve. >> that's right, thank you. >> supervisor fewer: -- >> clerk: the order to release the amount of $83,000. >> that's correct. we can take that without objection. mr. clerk, please read item number 8. >> resolution approving modification number 4 to contract number 8838 air train operations and maintenance with bombardier transportation holdings, exercising the last one-year option to commence on march 1, 2018 for a total term of march 1, 2009 through february 28, 2019 and increasing the contract amount by $14,854,228 for a new total contract amount not to exceed $130,299,196. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. i believe kathy widener is here to present. >> good morning. with the san francisco international airport. the item seeks approval for the fourth modification to existing contract between the airport and bombardier to exercise the second and final one-year option to extend the contract through february 28, 2019. this will enable bombardier to continue to provide operational and maintenance services as well as increase the contract not to exceed $14,854,228. as you may know the air train system provides service to sfo and serves all terminals, garages, the bart station, as well as the rental car center. the air train serves approximately 27,000 passengers a day and has average availability service level of 99.7%. the original contract and all subsequent modifications to the airport agreement with bombardier have been reviewed and approved by the board of supervisors. and i would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. seeing no questions from my colleague, i think we have a report from the budget and legislative analyst on this? >> yes. this is the final option to extend the contract with bombardier for the air train system. the budget is on page 10 of the report for $14.8 million. we did consider it reasonable based on actual spending and prior budgets for this contract. there is money funds budgeted in the airport budget to cover the cost and we recommend approval. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. any moviembers of the public wi to speak? public comment is closed. is there a motion? >> i'd like to make a motion to forward this item to the full board. >> supervisor fewer: we take that without objection. the item is forwarded to full board with positive recommendation minus the vote of chair cohen. mr. clerk, call item number 9. >> ordinance amending campaign government regarding campaign finance and conflict of interest. >> supervisor fewer: thank you, this was continued from the february 1 meeting. i want to recognize kyle and patrick from the ethics commission who will not give a presentation today, but are here to answer questions. i believe we were going to be joined by supervisor peskin. >> i was not aware. i can call him and inform him we are starting. >> supervisor fewer: thank you mr. clerk. supervisor% can -- supervisor peskin is on his way. our apologieapologies. >> supervisor fewer: we're joined by supervisor tang and also supervisor peskin. >> we are open meeting. we were... we were awaiting your arrival. >> supervisor fewer: we have called the item and i believe that you are proposing some amendments and discussion around the amendments. and i want to recognize also supervisor peskin and supervisor tang and do we have here kyle? and patrick. great. i didn't know if you were going to do a presentation. you were going to answer questions? >> correct. >> through the chair, if i may, i would like to hear from the ethics commission staff because i think it's good for us to understand the changes that they have recommended to the legislation. to the commission. first and then we'll go into the amendments. >> so we're not recommending any changes for you here today. >> supervisor tang: i understand that you put together a report for the commission? >> that's correct. >> supervisor tang: would you like to go over those with us? >> pass over to mr. ford to do that. >> no problem. so after the hearing at this committee two weeks ago today, we met also with staff and with supervisor peskin and we tried to put together amendments to the ordinance for the commission to consider at their meeting tomorrow that would address some of the important concerns that you all had raised in the last meeting. so i'll go through them in order by code section. the first is to the contributor card. we heard the concern that having the contributor card be a mandatory requirement for all contributions of $100 or more, i think supervisor peskin, you had raised the concern that would discourage small dollar contributions and so we thought that making this voluntary, but still allowing the committees that received the card to benefit from a rebuttable presumption, the contributor does not violate the code sections that still address the same concerns. the version of the ordinance that the commission will look at tomorrow makes that contributor card voluntary. so that's the first change. secondly, this ordinance includes a new disclosure for bundling and one of the concerns that we heard was, one of the disclosures is whether or not the bundler had attempted to influence the candidate or officer who those contributions were directed to. whether or not that person had attempted to influence that person. and that was a very vague item, that would be difficult for people to clarify that. so we actually struck that disclosure from this version of the ordinance. now the bundling disclosure would say who the bundler is, which contributions were bundled and who the contributions came from. it's much more typical type of disclose you are that is purely financial in nature. so the next one is section 1.127, which would have been a disclosure regarding parties -- rather a prohibition regarding parties with the financial interest in the land use matter, would have prohibited them from making contributions to certain officials and candidates. this provision was deleted from the ordinance. and this originally had come from an idea that supervisor peskin had sent to the commission, the commission is still very much interested in pursuing this concept. they're interested throughout. this is a center piece of the ordinance. but when we came back to them and we replay some of the -- relayed some of the concerns that you expressed, i think supervisor tang and stefani, they were receptive to the concerns. they would like to pursue this in a separate piece of legislation. so this should be considered out of this ordinance, but not off the table. this is something that perhaps we could work together on in the future to put together something that fully addresses the concern and carries out the proper intent here. but this has gone from the ordinance the commission will look at tomorrow. the next item is section 3.207. these are a collection of conflict of interest provisions. we relayed the concerns that we had heard about anything of value term, this was too broad. we brought this to our vice chair and another commissioner, commissioner rennie, and they opted not to change anything about this, this term. because they thought that since the rule was -- that only if anything of value would reasonably be expected to influence an official's actions, would this rule be operative. and they thought the reasonably be expected to influence language was sufficiently limited. so something of value would fall under the term, that such a thing of value could not be expected to influence an firm's actions. however, they did exact us to look at regulations down the road to clearly specify the items shall not be considered anything of value for purposes of this code section. on the repeated recusals, item, we revised this to actually mirror the language that is used in los angeles. that language has a much clearer process for how officials will notify the ethics commission of when they recuse. and we also revised this to no longer apply to members of the board of supervisors. in discussions, we realized that perhaps this would be triggered by too many things. it's too sensitive. when you look at it in terms of the kind of subject matter that the board looks at, it's very broad in nature and members of boards and commissions that are more narrow in terms of their purview, they look at particular areas subject matter, that it's more appropriate in that context. because if someone is recusing many times within that particular purview, that is more likely to indicate something as significant conflict of interest, whereas with the board, it may not be the same. so this provision has been narrowed so it does not apply to the board of supervisors. and then lastly, we amended the ordinance to change the payment disclosures in one very significant way. that is that party in the prior version, what you saw two weeks ago, a person could be interested party if they actively supported or opposed a government decision. however, they did not have to have a financial interest in the government decision. but the version that will go before the commission tomorrow is different in that someone must have a financial interest. in the government decision. in order to be considered an interested party. so in other words, if somebody comes before you and gives public comment on an item you're considering, they will not be considered interested party unless they have a financial interest in that decision. the affect that has, if you ask the person to make a payment and they do so as your behest, they will not be required and you will not be required to file a disclo disclosu disclosure. so, that should be fairly -- should not be too ambiguous, should be able figure that out. that is the thrust of the main changes that are in the new version. there are others. we worked with supervisor peskin's staff to make other smaller changes that are more drafted related, don't really change the substance, so i won't go through those, but glad to answer any questions you may have about the items. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much, i really appreciate staff listening to what we had to say in committee and in our one on one meetings as well. and relaying that to the commission. i was very happy to see a lot of the recommendations that you made to the commission. today, i did have a few others, just to really consider a package of amendments to better clarify how it is that people, candidates, commissioners, actually comply with the law, as well as allow for a better enforceability of the whole proposal. so because they were numerous, i have passed out a summary sheet to the committee members. i apologize that the page numbers and line numbers are off, but you have reference to the section numbers. please stand by. >> contributions that one of the officers need to be disclosed. right now, the legislation requires that all different officers are needed. it is better that we hold a person accountable versus a whole group. in section 121. we would like to delete the section on additional disclosure requirements among the contributions and this is just mirroring the staff recommendation to the conditions. section 1.127. the section which you have recommended to delete to the commission. i make the recommendation. i do feel there is such a broad range of matters that we deal with here at the board, whether small, or big such as $5 million project. i assume that our goal was to capture those big projects. i recommend that we have one version. and another version that deletes it. and move forward with both for the ethics commission. as long as we can fine-tune what this section means. the next section, i would like to more clearly define the terms about where the violation occurred. for example, for private financial -- where it said credit financial, and then where it says representative. to make it clear, what is being done with the violation and who it pertains to. section 7a3. we would like to add the adding qualifier. to influence the officers actions or judgment with respect to a particular legislative or administrative action. just to again understand that people who are speaking with influence, what is this about, they are trying to do to an official. again clarifying the terms there. and then you will see a whole bunch of amendments that i would like to make to section 3.6. 3.6.0 to 3.6.30. we wanted to delete actively oppose. the reason being as i mentioned last time around, i am very concerned that by mentioning that if you come out to testify during public comments for example, you could actually be in violation of something if you don't follow the rules. i want to make sure we are not -- free speech. everything else will remain. we didn't want actively support or oppose. that is found in different pages here. that in a nutshell is the comments to the amendments. to clarify for people who have to follow the rules so they really understand where they are held, you can do a better job of enforcing, there is more clear what the legislation is supposed to do. those are my amendments. i will answer the questions you may have. >> acting chair, i want to concur with the supervisor and thanks the ethics commission staff for facilitating the dialogue. i think it is needed as we go through the inner process and i want to thank the federal ethics commissioners that i met with over the last weeks. this was last before the committee and i appreciate the fact that they are listening to our ideas and remain open to as i said the last hearing having us discharge our duties, and again i want to reiterate my desire that we be given the space to do our job and that they not put this on the june ballot and if we don't do our job, they reserve to put it on the november ballot. i think that as far as the legislation that was forwarded to us, had an effective date of january 1st of 2019 long after the race. having said that, there was a comment from the public and i am actually going to offer an amendment later. to remove that date of january 1st of 2019. and have at least those provisions that we are able to vote on and pass become effective immediately upon passage long before this would become operative work to go to the june ballot. as a threshold matter, i would like to ask the deputy city attorney and ethics commission staff about the nature of this process because

Related Keywords

California , United States , San Diego , Modesto , Fox Plaza , San Francisco , Texas , New York , Steve Adame , Charlie Dunn , Los Angeles , Kathy Widener , John Updike , Tony Bardo ,