Transcripts For SFGTV BOS Full Board Of Supervisors 71916 20

people and then the transaction to rent is done separately and would that be captured under we would have to look at the factual scenario.this >> i believe they have several sites to provide this service but if the arrangement is not being made under the particular site for collecting or booking a service thenit would not be collecting a fee for booking services that type of transaction. several companies have different types of services provided and when they offer the actual calendar or reservations and accept the fee for those services that business activity would be covered. we are regulating not companies but business activities and conduct. we are regulating the fee and payment for services. >>with this have to be specific to that transaction or is there an annual transaction fee that's what i am getting at? >>it doesn't have to be specific to that payment if it covers booking and services that you provide too. >>supervisor campos. >> just want to be very careful with this discussion because i don't want this to be in any way use for binding what the city's arguments areand i just want this to be fact specific our intent is to cover not just one platform but several platforms that engage in this business activity and the fact that they are not doing that and they are simply publishing that were not doing something else outside of the scope we certainly want to hear those specific facts and we've been very careful to make sure that we can discuss this that we don't bind ourselves because we also know that from each one of these companies this is a source of changing and that some of these companies may be doing things today and maybe doing some things in the near future that may be different. but, that is what the intent is it is that. >>thank you supervisor campos. just a quick question, do you think based on your proposed amendment, that we should have a closed session discussion about this or, are we good to go with things as is? >>i feel pretty comfortable moving forward pres. breed. obviously, it is up to the board. obviously, if they feel there is a need for a closed session discussion. i think the way that i see these discussions that they are to clarify intent and be precise and concise in light of what the platforms have said so, i do not think that is necessary but i certainly not opposed to it if anyone feels the need to do that. i failed to make a motion so i will make a motion along the lines of what we have amended. >>okay, supervisor campos has made a motion colleagues, can we take this motion as amended without objection? without objection this motion has passed unanimously. >>can we please call the roll on these amendments? >>[roll call vote] >>there are 9 ayes. >>this ordinance as amended has passed unanimously on the first reading. >>[gavel] >>item 72 >>item 72 isa resolution authorizing the sublease between the city and county of san francisco, as tenant and sublandlord, and at the crossroads, as subtenant, of 4,124 rentable square feet in the building located at 167 jessie street, for an initial term of five years at a base rent of $1 per year, to commence upon approval by the board of supervisors and mayor, in their respective sole and absolute discretion. >>supervisor kim. >>thank you i was very excited to bring this resolution forward. this organization the crossroads would have had there mission severely impacted if they could not have this in place in neighborhoods where they provide this services. i want to thank the mayors office of community developmentsi called for the displacement of the nonprofitdisplacement task force as leases were starting to expire over the next three or four years in the nonprofit sector this board created that nonprofit displacement task force to come up with a set of recommendations on how we can better support the nonprofit organizations with the rental increases we have seen and also with technical assistance. one recommendation that came forth was to reserve profits for when these leases end. organization ,at the crossroads is actually doing this and colleagues i ask for your support on this item. >>roll call vote mme. clerk. >>[roll call vote] >>there are 10 ayes. >>the resolution is adopted unanimously. >>[gavel] >>item 73. >>item 73 is a resolution approving the disposition of land located on the southern one-third of the block bounded by howard, spear, folsom, and main streets, assessor's parcel block no. 3740, lot no. 027, by the office of community investment and infrastructure, as successor agency to the san francisco redevelopment agency, to block one property holder, l.p, a delaware limited partnership and an affiliate of tishman speyer, for the purpose of developing affordable for-sale housing for low and moderate income households; and making findings under california health and safety code, section 33433. >>colleagues, can we take this item same house same call? without objection, the resolution is adopted unanimously. >>[gavel] >>item 74. >>item 74 is a motionordering submitted to the voters an ordinance amending the planning code to require conditional use authorization for conversion of production, distribution, and repair use, institutional community use, and arts activities use and replacement space; and affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act, at an election to be held november 8, 2016. >>supervisor kim. >>after all, as you heard earlier today we are losing our auto mechanics, our automobile repairmen and women and bakers and artists. not only do we want to live in a city where these arts and artists are performing these are well paying jobs where they are paying $20-$30 per hour that you do not need a college educationtwo achieve. how much housing, for where, and for who and how much hotel and office and how much community facilities and arts. the zoning allows us to map the city that we and we are encouraging a diversity of jobs for our city not everything for example can be office. while these are great jobs, we also need to make sure that we own areas that bakers, artists, and individuals can prepare and distribute they .we land use and zoning expresses what we value and the types of jobs that we can be in and they are at risk and we have heard countless stories and a recent report by the northern california grantmakers association have determined that four out of five nonprofits are concerned with the real estate cost of their long-term financial sustainability according to a study by the city of san francisco. this report identifies that using zoning for nonprofit space or turning public property into nonprofit space can help tremendously in making sure we preserve these spaces. now, the genesis of these legislations actually came about 1 1/2 years ago when we came about the rapid threatening of these artists associations in san francisco. we had just learned that the south market studios which was home to 40+ artists would be evicted in the fall. we also learned that potential loss of [inaudible] and we knew [inaudible] we know it is not just the arts, manufacturing is also at risk. during this time there were parallel conversations and the mission of many of our stakeholders about the loss of the distribution of providing these minimum-wage jobs for our residents. what we are seeing in the loss of the city is alarming and it is happening very quickly and our stakeholders want to put forth the strongest protection for pdr and arts. that is the legislation passed by the voters. now, this is just the baseline we expect to follow with trailing legislation and work on the focusing of many issues brought up in particular by katie 10 and supervisor are cohen along with organizations like sf -. i want to thank and recognize supervisor cohen and supervisor - and limited it to that area this advocated for and i also want to recognize supervisor campos for his assistance on this legislation and i want to thank them for helping to make this legislation more concise and clear. we also took the request to exempt projects that were in the pipeline and we did agree that these changes that would be put in place would affect their economic viability down the road to incorporate these changes. these are some of the amendments i will be putting forward today. the one amendment that i could not agree to which i stated on the rules committee is the complete grandfathering of all of the projects on the pipeline. there is far too much square footage being put forward today. that is why i'm going to be making an amendment to this that the replacement requirement should actually be 40% on projects in the pipeline for projects of greater than 50,000 ft.2 the replacement requirement is determined currently on a case-by-case basis and has been as high as 50% replacement for example 66 street. our current legislation would require 15% and we feel that this is in terms of ower income and middle-class housing in the projects. and, if you provide affordable space for 55 years for no less than 50% of commercial we will reduce this requirement by 50% of this affo square feet in a loss of pdr space and that is why we felt it was too valuable to grandfather in.. there are a series of these that i have distributed in the record. if you would like a copy i have additional copies. the amendment start on page 6, line 3. number one, we are deleting c3g from the replacement requirement because there is no cg3 in the existing neighborhoods. and the projects that are zoned -- by which an application was provided for the proposed conversion.we also put in a would be if you agreed to provide affordable replacement space for not less than 55 years that your obligation be reduced to 15%. the next amendment is replacement requirements for pdr and arts use. while institutional community is replacement will only be for community use. this is on page 5, line 17 and the amendment is there so that we don't have these uses pitted against one another. the next amendment is a clarification to require legal, pdr, arts or institutional community use, and permitted use. and the next amendment is on the sound threshold would comply with the committee use or the arts use on page 7, lines 1 through 10 and the next amendments would be that the committee be required to reduce the higher replacement. requirement we did accept an amendment at the rules committee that 100% affordable housing would be exempt from these requirements and while there was protest from the community that did not except amendments from supervisors peskin and tang because these still make their best efforts to replace these arts and community space. this is actually the final amendment, we do an exemption for a project that is in the process of a legal office conversion that is under review by the planning department. colleagues, these are the amendments that i am bringing before you today i actually do have one more on a separate page but after some thought and consideration we had actually taken again, the feedback of the rules committee that we allowed this ballot measureto be amended by the board of supervisors in the future. we recognize that planning and land use by the ballot box can be a dangerous place for that to sit so we do want to allow this board of supervisors to amend this legislation as they see fit. original language said that a board by the majority could amend this legislation as long as it promoted or better achieve the underlying goals of the arts use and community use it but after thinking this through with my lawyer had i believe that this is something that the board would struggle as to whether or not this is or isn't so the amendment that i would offer today is that on page 10, that i the supervisors by ordinance at least two thirds of their members may amend this--when there is a broad amendment from this board where we want to exempt these requirements, i think that we can get a broad majority of the board to support these types of amendments.colleagues, i apologize for the length of the amendments that i propose today but these are the moments i bring before you. >>supervisor kim thank you. i have many questions. i will direct this to the deputy city attorney. supervisor kim says adoption of the ordinance would require a two thirds vote. is that correct? >>the measure requires six votes to be placed on the ballot. supervisor kim's proposed amendment- and typically when a voter adopts an amendment, typically only the voters can amend this and the board cannot so supervisor kim is offering up an amendment today that the board would be able to amend this with a two thirds vote to that. >>i believe we should be addressing this legislatively and not for a ballot measure. all of these issues that we are discussing can be solved legislatively through interim controls and ordinance.we have introduced interim controls that mirrored this ballot measure their only slight changes to this and i introduced this last week. i always had some serious concerns from the beginning that very little community consultation or public process has gone into the development of this measure which you are proposing some significant changes. i took nearly a decade of committee meetings in order to establish the eastern neighborhoods plan and there was a citizens advisory committee that oversees this particular plan and as you know, as the maker of the legislation the larger committee, he cac asked us to take a step back from this legislation at this time. this is incredibly complicated and it not this and dues that are really left are better left to deal with via legislation and not of the ballot box. i would continue to urge and implore us that we at least try to work through many of the legitimate issues legislatively if we are unsuccessful then i think that we should deftly move forward with a ballot measure. but as of today, no one has even tried to these issues through the legislative process and there are couple things that i want to go through with this process and supervisor kim you are going through this correct? >> is use me supervisor cohen and supervisor kim,if you will speak through the president i would appreciate that. >> i will just continue with my talking measures and she can respond accordingly. replacement requirements for these projects are a sticky subject in my opinion that this change it would be the same as it was in committee and i think that it would bethe same as it was in the committee and i think that the replacement requirements for project in the pipeline is not supported by any analysis and quite frankly, we don't even know if it is feasible. to apply this requirement that is close to these approval to that would seem arbitrary and i think described to the committee as mean-spirited. mme. pres., i wo have a question that i would like to direct through it you just supervisor kim. >>are the replacements interchangeable and can affordable housing processes replace community uses? >>supervisor kim. >>thank you supervisor breed my apologies for responding to quickly. while pdr and arch you shall be interchangeable we did not allow institutional community use and pdr are choose to be interchangeable this is just to ensure that we don't value one or the other and that we would protect them both. >>okay, mdm. chair may i continue? >>yes. >>the reason that asked the question is because you may recall in committee that the mayor's office of housing stated that they often have uses that are required under state law in place in the ground floor of the projects that qualify as institutional community uses and so this would be a conflict. >>may i respond mme. pres.? >>supervisor kim >>thank you. >>we have a complete exception per your request and supervisor tang for 100% affordable projects. i did put in an amendment that encourages these projects to replace as is, but again, we do not intend on conflicting with any project that the mayor has with these projects >>thank you because we have heard loud and clear from folks. the historic preservation exemption i think it makes sense to include it. i think that we want property owners of historic buildings to maintain them and improve them and in exchange, we allow them to have higher rent paying uses. i think making this change still allows us to put forward a strong pdr policy without compromising historic preservation. and, supervisor kim-excuse me mdm. pres. can i ask supervisor kim a question? >>all you have to say is through the pres. >>okay i'm sorry. it is getting late. and through the president supervisor kim did you include the feedback with this legislation? >>we decided not to include that feedback because this ballot measure does not require a strengthening can be any type of amendment now. the changes are just meant to change the threshold for how we change this legislation. i think we can change the vetting of this land marking through a fully legislative process. >>great, mdm. chair i am going to relinquish the mic at this time. thank you. >>thank you supervisor cohen. supervisor supervisor supervisortang. >>thank you very much i'm going to start out with some positive comments on this i would like two say that they are are a lot of things that we have suggested in the rules committee which is made this a little bit more digestible for us we care very much about art uses and pdr usesand it seems strange coming from someone from district 4 but i worked on this at the time for citywide production and i think that really for me, the concern still lingers for this particular ballot measure because i believe there hasn't been that complete analysis done whether it's regarding why we shove replacement at 14% or 15%all those that are in the pdr committee that should be reached out to but today, i believe that i still cannot support this measure because i think that are only saving grace at this moment is that there is a provision that allows us to have an ordinance at a later time. so, with that said, none of this takes away from us with the desire to preserve the community on arts in san francisco. >>thank you supervisor tang. supervisor kim it is my understanding as well as the city attorney that this is something that could go through the ballot so i am trying to understand why you're choosing to go this route at the board level? >>i did actually respond to that in my opening comments. because of the alarming displacement of pdr in our city our stakeholders felt that they needed the strongest protection in the zoning and arts commission and because of the feedback we will allow the board of supervisors to amend this measure after the ballot passes we will just allow a threshold to make changes to make sure there is broad support as soon as it is passed by voters but, i just have to say this is not the only ballot measure moving forward that can be done with the ballot measure moving forward. so, if you are going to criticize this measure- i was just going to say if you're going to say this about this measure there's a number of measures that are not going to be done that way and to go back to your question pres. breed, due to the alarming displacement of pdr we just want to see the strongest protections for these uses in our city particularly in these two vulnerable cities. and we need to be careful that with this measure that we want to respect our fellow supervisors many of whom like supervisor cohen and supervisor tang a really expanding pdr in their districts to allow them to continue with those processes and these have been amended with the stakeholders that i represent and that supervisor david campos represents and that's why we are narrowing this legislation to those two neighborhoods only. >>thank you supervisor kim. supervisor campos. >>thank you mme. pres. i would like to be added as a cosponsor of this measure i think that what she said really goes to the heart of it and i think that for my constituents it is the need to provide the highest level of protection especially making sure that once the protections are in place that these are easily amended and i think that happens when the supervisory can deal with them and i know the hours getting late so i'm happy to support this and supervisor kim and her office and all of the work that has gone into thi and thank you . >>supervisor peskin. >>i make a motion to approve supervisor kim's amendments. >>supervisor kim has made many amendments and supervisor peskin has made a motion to approve these amendments. >>it is unclear to me why this has to go this way but this is the board's prerogative absolutely i am concerned that the organization that represents manufacturers in san francisco has asked us not to put this in their it is extremely detailed and today there are exceptions on the merits two portions of this legislation and also the process for this and apparently the eastern neighborhood cac was not consulted. so supervisor kim may have a different perception from her outreachesfrom where she is been informed today it just seems to me that we should not be sending this to the ballot. this should be handled by the board. i just want to express appreciation for supervisor kim for her accountability i do appreciate that that is good practice and i do offer a proposal to remove the limitation for these amendments and i would be willing to support the amend ability and i would support these that [inaudible] but i would not support this. >>thank you for that feedback. i am not going to say this is a measure that has unanimous support. we are going about protecting pdr and arts. by the way, let me take full exception of these criticisms that are been made the genesis of this legislation is actually came from the artist organizations in the beginning of 2015. we work directly from the arts commission staff we work directly at the same time that we started putting this together that we started to duck tail exactly when the organization started to be concerned about the low income and middle income housing and low and middle income jobs. so we put this together to protect the distribution of repair and community arts. we worked very closely with the south market and the mission and we work very closely with supervisor campos bringing this legislation forward and this is one way of us moving forward for us to protect these uses. we think this is the strongest way to protect these uses. not everyone agrees with this but i have to say that not everyone thinks that we need to protect pdr and arts. people want to protect more housing or more uses as well in this case we want to specifically protect pdr and arts and this is why we are putting a replacement on that is different and we are also asking projects in the pipeline to do a little bit more as well not as much as we expect from future projects but a little bit more than we were expecting today and we have that through proposition c. >>thank you supervisor kim. and, i are we going to divide the amendments? supervisor wiener. >> that would be my suggestion that wevote on these separately. >>versus the lengthy list of amendments? >>yes. >>we will divide those amendments there was a motion to approve the more recent amendment page 9 line 8 through 10 and it was seconded by supervisor peskin. colleagues can we take that without objection? without objection that passes unanimously. >>[gavel] >>and up on the alternative list of amendment that were detailed by supervisor kim mme. clerk can you please call the roll? >>[roll call vote] >>mme. pres., just a quick question to you supervisor farrell has left the table do you want to excuse himfrom vote? >>yes can we make a motion to excuse supervisor farrell? >>that is econded by supervisor avalos with that supervisor farrell is excused. with that mme. sec. can you please call the roll? >>[roll call vote] >> there are 5 ayes and 7 no's. with supervisors kang weiner breed and calvin in the dissent. >>mme. clerk, can you please explain the rule? >> when the number of members is reduced, it is no longer required to be six votes in this case it is now 25. >>a parliamentarian vote? >>that is correct. >>supervisor kim did you want to make a motion? >>i make a motion to continue this item a motion to continue this item to august 2, 2016. >>colleagues, supervisor kim has made a motion to continue this item on august 2, 2016 that is seconded by supervisor campos supervisors can we take this without objections same house same house same house same house samecall?colleagues can we take this as amended without objection? and without objection this is amended till august 2, 2016 as a courtesy of the hole. >> mme. city clerk can you please call the next item. >>new business? supervisor peskin. >>i would like to adjourn today's meeting with memory of pat--and she was [inaudible] and i will truncate this a bit and i will truncate this a bit because i know that it is late everyone would like to go home but her daughter is here and she bears a resemblance to her mother and i just would like to honors her in the late 70s she hosted a show in the 70s on politics she was a journalist for a local newspaper for five years and she traveled the world they do on in her years her final unfinished project was on aging pat worked in the san francisco chamber of commerce and she ran her own public relations firm and worked tirelessly and professionally to protect small businesses and neighborhoods in san francisco. throughout her career she received many awards and accolades from state senators, governors, the business community and city civic leaders including mayor leo around and the pat christiansen achievement award in san francisco and i would also like to give supervisor yee an opportunity. like to speak about her life and work very closely with pat and the undertaking she took in the small business network. i know that pat would have loved this board meeting and i'm sorry that you had to sit here since 3 o'clock but i will like to adjourn today's meeting in the memory of saul bloom who many of you know from arc ecology as well as the late great and nate thurmond as well as the warriors and as well as a request on the arts museum and a resolution on the screen actors guild employees and the rest i will submit. >>thank you supervisor peskin. supervisory yee. >> thank you i will submit one item and i will all try to shorten what i say as much as possible since i probably speak the least year. i am going to introduce a resolution that has the intent to allocate funds to support communities including the maintenance of street trees and supporting families with infants and toddlers.i know that you must be wondering why i am doing street trees again we just had a whole lengthy discussion on ballot measures and i started this process before there was any conclusion as to what we wanted to do and i wanted to make sure that we had this legislation for the city to take over our trees and one of the things that i was waiting for was a source of funding and i would say that at this point, one might think that is not necessary but at the same time, we have a ballot measure that has to pass in order to actually say that is going to be funded. if that doesn't pass then the protection is that this resolution will basically get to the same thing as the ballot measure in terms of funding and the takeover of trees in san francisco and this all started with this wanting to tie some of this into supervisor kim's resolution and that was introduced a few weeks ago on city college and i held off until this time tab that piece in here i will be talking about this a little bit more so that people understand what this is. one of the things that has been in debate for the last 10 years is why hasn't anyone thought of the younger ones from 0 to 3.so, this will be an attempt to actually get a program going in san francisco and try to duplicate some of the efforts that we have in the preschool for all in this is what i will be calling the preschool for infants and this is the early education for infants program. so, i won't get into it too much but i would love to have an opportunity in the future to articulate when i am trying to do with this asking to have some funding and in this case, i am asking for funding that is about 10 or $11 million that would help pay for the trees and about 10 million for infant programs. so this i submit. >>thank you supervisor yee. supervisor avalos. supervisor campos. >>thank you mme. pres. today i am asking that a resolution be adopted for sprinklers in the halls and we will ask that we potentially pilot a sprinkler law in san francisco we also asked that we incentivize property owners to comply with this law and to that end, to make this a reality i'm asking that the fire department and department of building inspection form a working group to examine sprinklers in combination with the workforce group and the puc and others.. along the lines of what we have tried to do we would like to make sure that all options are explored in terms of fire prevention in san francisco the rest i submit. >>thank you supervisor campos. supervisor cohen. >>thank you. today i would like to close this in the memorandum of capt. williams. capt. williams was an army veteran who received a korean service medal with a bronze a star. he began working as a longshoreman on the san francisco waterfront in 19 was an army veteran who received a korean service medal with a bronze a star. he began working as a longshoreman on the san francisco waterfront in 1959 and in 1966 he developed the drill team josh spread pride all over the united states and marching with these are chavez in 1966 and marching with martin luther king in 1968. he also became a master barbecue pit maker and chef and known for his fried turkey's that are known all over san francisco he is survived by his wife and family and friends. >>mme. pres. that concludes new business. >>thank you. can you please add my name to the end memorandum as well. >>mme. clerk can you please read public comment. >>at this time, the public has ordering submitted to the voters an ordinance amending the planning code to require conditional use authorization for conversion of production, distribution, and repair use, institutional community use, and arts activities use and replacement space; and affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act, at an election to be held november 8, 2016. >>thank you. first speaker please. >>tom gilbert y one minute,a new record that cuts everything down i should've left long ago it seems like the corporate rate should have the republican party just like we have here in san francisco and these trickle-down the candidates we fear and then we can vote not part of the trickle down. i was going to mention our insurance are $5 million insurance policy. it turns out to be $3 million after a lawyer and any hospital takes any- claims and with five seconds left= that is terrible bye-bye. >> [timer dings] >>thank you, next speaker please. >>thank you for your time. i just want as a city that we all come with caveats and qualifications and that we all come with standard clauses that should protect the donor from incurring civil or criminal liability so we have been funding these things and accepting this money while still allowing google to evade state law you been enabling this [timer dings] >>i will just repeat it next week thank you. >>selackley chandler, i am here to acknowledge that with the newspaper i am creating the memoirs of a mother and the mother's child it will be an outlet to the mothers that have lost their children from homicide and to express themselves and their feelings. i have learned along the way in my journeythat many of the mothers [timer dings] especially the african mothers have been abandoned and forgotten i am looking forward to everyone looking forward to the new edition coming out and the memoirs of a mother and her murdered children and this is the foundation lonnie jim line number on day is foundation that i have started. >>[timer dings] >>thank you next speaker please. >>good evening mme. pres. and board members my name is adam thompson today practitioners are delivering over 50,000 public petition signatures to the mayor and the board of supervisors have been collecting over the past 60 days sending a clear message that san francisco residents do not support the san francisco chinese consulate interfering with our communities and extending the persecution of the following.for in san francisco we feel this is meaningful because it shows that san franciscan's kr and we care about the values of our great nation and we care about the minority of our group and that this is being discriminate against in china. >>[timer dings] >>thank you speaker please >>thank you for the supervisors we present an opportunity to share the details of this event and the assault on the street as well as the[inaudible] and number two that are officials we request that you acknowledge the seriousness of this event and number three we request that you offer your moral support of our community members andthese organization and number four and the last is that we request the board of supervisors to conduct the necessary investigation to find out how chinese counsel it is in association with all of these incidents that are happening in san francisco. >>[timer dings] >>thank you certain speaker please. >>mme. pres. and supervisors even with one minute i just want to say this that we have a few hundred people taking time off of work and coming to the san francisco supervisor meeting it was two minutes now it is a minute that they get to talk to you and a lot of them have not even had lunch yet but the reason we been staying here so long for this moment is we want to say that this is not an isolated issue. we have experienced this in the past 19 years. we are verbally abuse physically insulted our windows or broken storehouses are broken and this is not a pr issue this is an american issue as well. they have been able to infiltrate and influence division in our community and we want to show moral support-- >>thank you sir. next speaker please. >>good eveningsupervisors i'm a san francisco resident my name is jenny i am a member of the-- marching band. san franciscans show their overwhelming support and in a matter of six or seven weeks we [inaudible] and parents bring their adult children to sign for generations to generations so san franciscans are knowledge being the impact that the--is bringing to the community for diversity and a risk factor for human rights. we urge the supervisors to take action as well. >>thank you. next speaker please. >>good evening my name is cecilia leo and i am a member of the marking band as well i would just like to play two recordings a san franciscans who supported us. the first recording is from mr. lee donelson and the second is for mr. josh rock. >> [playing recording] >>[timer dings] >>[playing recording] >> [timer dings] >>thank you. >>thank you. next speaker please. >>good evening everyone my name is michelle please allow me to play the voice recording of mr. william michael bien a san franciscan. this is quite reflective of the people we've been talking to. >>[playing recording] >> [timer dings] >>[playing recording] >>[timer dings] >>thank you. next speaker please. >>mme. pres. and board of supervisors my name is peter lou. today i'm going to focus on san francisco-- petitioners to read the letter to you this should go out to the immediate public and copies to the board of supervisors as well and were going to talk about talking stopping the persecution with the chinese consulate in san francisco >>[timer dings] >>on april 17, 2017, -- marching band members were excluded from- the festival in [inaudible] the application was approved and they appeared in the proper place in uniforms with instruments ray to join the parade-- >>[timer dings] >>thank you next speaker please. >>thank you. >> [indecipherable] >>[timer dings] >>for the past 70 years the chinese council it has pressure with the elective officials to fight against our been thank you. >>thank you very much. next speaker please. >>to continue the letter, council and officials have put direct pressure on the organization to exclude [inaudible] from events. the marginalization, exclusion against a minority community heavily persecuted is in china oes against everything that san francisco stands for which is tolerance and inclusivity. this is an example of the persecution that is taking place in china since 1999 and this is an example of the exact behavior still taking place in china. thank you. >>timer dings] >> thank you next speaker please. >>good evening, my name is-- >>sir, i am pausing your time because this order was heard earlier by the board of supervisors. >>at 3 o'clock i was in the hall with the crowd. >>sir, continue your remarks. >>so, i am asking for a reprieve. the property is my residence it is my sole source of revenue.. it is a rental property and i haven't been paying for the mortgage [timer dings]sfdb did grant me a reprieve, the tenants has since been evicted they did contribute to mydefault on paying my mortgage they have yet to renowned on applying a lean-- >>timer dings] >>sir, can you please wait to the side. i'm sorry that you wait so long but we did hear this item earlier and we will see what we can do. next item please. >> the reason i am coming here as i'm concerned with the assessment of a lean that's been placed on my property.i believe that that we got a minor building violation in april, [timer dings] we filed a building permit in may and we complied with the requirement and the case was abated on 1 august and we still keep getting the bill from the building department for the monitoring the a total of $720 and so, i think that is not reasonable-- >>[timer dings] >> sir can you please step to the side and give us a moment to address thisplease.next speaker please. >> on april 19, 2016 i was standing in formation getting ready to participate in the chinese festival parade. suddenly a man shows up at the microphone and says that we are not allowed to participate in the parade because we are part of the [inaudible] >>[timer dings] >>thank you next speaker please. >>we have been getting a lot of sympathy and support which shows the outrageousness of the situation we have more people support the cause. >>[timer dings] >thank you. next speaker please. >>my name is- today i would like to talk about the discrimination that we experience at the parade. 30 minutes before the parade we were told we could not participate because we were registered as a marching band and not one of our strong majors attempt to communicate with them we were oppressed in china because of our religion and if we held up that banner in china we would be oppressed because of our religion. i never thought this would happen in america. secondly, in the petition it never stated that you had to list whether or not you were % >>[timer dings] >>thank you next speaker please. >>hello my name is jack shawn, i want to read where my brother left off. are marching b and is one of the best community marching bands in our area. we just came back from the international festivals in 2007 and 2011 on like other marching bands of must rate five years to return to the parade we had profession and diversity. this is injustice and a clear act of discrimination. you also know that there is the chinese consulates response to this and we hope that you will ear our cause and help us to fight for our cause. >>[timer dings] >>thank you next speaker please. >>this is not just about a chinese festival parade this is about government interference. [indecipherable] chinese community influence over here and that is one reason they persecute us. government interference is a very big thing this is america. we don't want to fear of controlling people. >>[timer dings] >>thank you are there any other members of the public that would like to provide public comment at this time? seeing none, public comment is closed. >>[gavel] >>and, colleagues, i need a one minute break. >>[gavel] >>[recess] >>[gavel] >>okay, welcome back colleagues. i would like to make a motion to resend the vote for item number 53 and 54. we had some confusion with some folks from the public who came here to speak on those items andwere prevented from entering into the chambers, and i think it is important not only to rescind this vote but toextend this item for next week so colleagues can i please have this motion to rescind this item to next week so, without that vote is taken without objection and also without objection can we continue this item at 3 pm is a special item, and without objection that is adopted unanimously. mme. city clerk can you please read items 77 please. >>item 77 is aresolution urging ordering submitted to the voters an ordinance amending the planning code to require conditional use authorization for conversion of production, distribution, and repair use, institutional community use, and arts activities use and replacement space; and affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act, at an election to be held november 8, 2016. >>supervisor peskin. >>my urge is that the board will work with the cpuc and adopt a resolution to adopt conviction history regulations in furtherance of a level regulatory playing field and in compliance with san francisco's 2014 fair chance ordinance. >>thank you supervisor peskin has this been approved by their legislature. >>it is my understanding that they have no objections. >>so, i just need some clarity >>this would be consistent with the ordinance in 2015 for prior conviction histories to those directly relating to the job in question of those having specificregulatory bearing on the job in question and further, it must be a conviction that is less than seven years old. >>okay, i know everybody is tired and i will just make a few comments. i do appreciate supervisor peskin's role in this to work with a number of organizations to try and come up with the right balance in order to address this issue unfortunately, i don't think that i'm going to be supporting this resolution today. we have worked really long and really hard to fight policies that disproportionately impact people of color, people of low income communities i'm actually really excited about supervisor kim and cohen leadership of this in san francisco and i know that you are making the recommendation we follow that policy but in this particular case, i don't understand why the policy needs to be done in the first place when in fact, there is a policy that exists with the city that supports not going- what is perceived as going backwards. let me try to articulate this when i haven't had food i think since 11:30 am. don't look at me like that supervisor cohen.i have ran in to people who done time they grew up in san francisco and they've done time and they have a past but because they have banned the box in the city some of those folks are working jobs they never thought they'd have access to so my biggest concern about passing legislation like this after everything we've worked for to move these kind of things forward i'm just not comfortable necessarily with it and i don't see any reason to do it in the first place. so, with that colleagues i am just not comfortable i haven't had a chance toconnect with some of the organizations that i know agree with me on this and in time for this particular meeting and i appreciate your feedback and what it is to make adjustments and supervisor peskin, if you have any other remarks based on my comments i would appreciate hearing them. >>so if i may through the chair to pres. breed. i think the fundamental opinion of this resolution is really about giving input of this legislation body to the state utilities community which is soliciting comments for people and governments throughout the state of california is about leveling the playing field for the taxicab industry which is actually regulated here through the city and county of san francisco now through the mta and trying to create a fair playing field. i think our taxicab industry has been greatly disadvantaged by a that playing field and i think our intent is to level the playing field. i think that we as lawmakers, have an obligation to society to be aware of things that happen inthe paper as well as the situation with the uber pool situation where someone tried to sexually assault their client the other day. and we need to make sure that the same written standards that our own taxicab members are held to as our own tmc drivers are held to and i think this ordinance reflects that. >>and, through the chair supervisor peskin. that is exactly i think my point. why are we focusing on trying to change us for taxicab drivers rather than-- and the other point that i forgot to let point out is just having people that i know and personal friends,again, who just got out of jail making a living and their driving uber as opposed to committing crimes and getting caught up in that again. too often in the city i feel like every time there is a potential opportunity to help support people who need it, then, here comes a city with their new regulations and their new codes and instead of trying to make it better for the taxi industry, so that is not as problematic so that folks that i know can actually have a four-day medallion or drive taxicabs, we are basically saying that we are going to make these particular folks held to the same standards and i support those folks because i am concerned with the unintended consequences of those folks. that is just where i am mad at this point but i do appreciatethe point but i just don't want to unfairly approve a policy that will put people that i know in a situation where it could eliminate an opportunity for them to make money in this industry. >>there are many inequalities in the tmc industry and thetaxicab industry and i would be happy to work with you to help level the playing field in this industry. i look forward to working with you on that. i totally respect your opinion with this matter and i would also say, this is not related to pres. breed's comment but it is interesting to me that opposition from this like spurthat are not really interested in the fair chance ordinance they are interested in protecting the sovereignty and the preemption that the tmc companies have been able to how should i say it, buy, in sacramento. i think this is a way it to stick up for 6000 stakeholders in who have had this opportunity taken from them and level that playing field. >>and, through the chair, i see it as exactly the opposite because let's say it someone that has to pay child support but this is the only way that they can make a living after being released from jail and wanting to change their life or someone who's paying college for their daughter andable to afford to buy plane tickets for their kids to go back and forth to go to school in new orleans. just the examples of people that i personally know who are using this as a way to take care of their family. i just see it from a different perspective. i mean, i could care less about the fact that when you look at the industry and the people who are making the money that they are making from this, it is- they should be putting more money in the pockets of the people that are out there doing the driving. but just again, i know that some of these organizations are no longer opposed to what you are putting forth and it is not because of some of the organizations that are involved it's more about being happy for members of my community that have this as the option and i'm not certain that this is going in the right direction and i think that we should just focus on the taxi industry and make the appropriate changes and repairs and that. and with that, thank you supervisor peskin for understanding and thank you colleagues for hearing my arguments this late in the evening. >>supervisor peskin, would you like to respond? >>if i may through the chair to pres. breed i was profoundly hopeful that we could join with the los angeles city and the city council with the support of my proposal here and given that two-- three of our colleagues have left maybe it even though this has been before us three times that the right thing to do would be to continue it to our last meeting before the summer recess where we have a full count of the board? >>so, we have a motion to continue into the august 2 meeting seconded by supervisor kim.supervisor peskin anything else? >>supervisor wiener. >>i just want to say that i know how hard you worked on the supervisor peskin i'm open to supporting this i think we need everyone else here. >>i won't kill your resolution tonight supervisor peskin at with that colleagues can we take a motion to continue this item to the meeting of august 2, 2016 without objection? without objection motion to continue passes. >>[gavel] >>mme. clerk, on items 78 and 79 can you please call the roll? >>item 78is a resolution declaring july 2016 as a recreation and parks month in the city and county of san francisco and item 79 is a resolution recognizing july 28 as world hepatitis day in the city and county of city of san francisco. >>no, we are calling the roll. >> i was confused as well. >>[roll call vote] >> there are 8 ayes. the resolutions are adopted unanimously. >> mme. clerk can you please read the memory m's. >> [ reading memoriums] this brings to us to the end of our agenda are there any other items today at. >>this concludes our business >>we are adjourned thank you. >>[gavel] >> >> the office of controllers whistle blower program is how city employees and recipient sound the alarm an fraud address wait in city government charitable complaints results in investigation that improves the efficiency of city government that. >> you can below the what if anything, by assess though the club program website arrest call 4147 or 311 and stating you wishing to file and complaint point controller's office the charitable program also accepts complaints by e-mail or 0 folk you can file a complaint or provide contact information seen by whistle blower investigates some examples of issues to be recorded to the whistle blower program face of misuse of city government money equipment supplies or materials exposure activities by city clez deficiencies the quality and delivery of city government services waste and inefficient government practices when you submit a complaint to the charitable online complaint form you'll receive a unique tracking number that inturgz to detector or determine in investigators need additional information by law the city employee that provide information to the whistle blower program are protected and an employer may not retaliate against an employee that is a whistle blower any employee that retaliates against another that employee is subjected up to including submittal employees that retaliate will personal be liable please visit the sf ethics.org and information on reporting retaliation that when fraud is loudly to continue it jeopardizes the level of service that city government can provide in you hear or see any dishelicopter behavior boy an employee please report it to say whistle blower program more information and the whistle blower protections please seek www. good morning everyone. go morning. amanda-regional initiative for the gen. service administration pursue the claim region and of your master of ceremonies today. i do the short straw and jake to the longshot. congratulations, jay. welcome to the united nations gaza. on to gsa regional headquarters and the physical home of super public. today, we celebrate the official launch of super public. the nation's first collaborative workspace to host city state and federal policymakers under one roof. the innovation lab is running in collaboration with san francisco mayor's office of civic innovation by the city intimate foundation and the gen. services administration will solve common problems that affect all levels of government. uc berkeley's center for design research at stanford university and mit media lab have also partnered with super public. super public will provide space. program convened summit, roundtables, and training programs to build capacity so that all partners in the lab can maximize time and impact. by working in an open innovation environment, super public intends to create extorted exportable models and solutions facing governments throughout the nation. the city of san francisco and city intimate into gsa and other superpower concept, was an immediate, yes. each level of government is really reinventing the wheel around a common problems. the silo nature of government has stymied the public sector from adopting innovative tech, and business models, and the sharing of best practices. so our hope that super public will break down some of the silos and allow us to share common solutions across government at the city state and federal level. not only will gsa provide a physical space which we had quite a bit of, but we will also provide some expertise in certain areas. gsa is a leader in procurement and also digital services in our digital consultancy etf's house just down the hall. minute you walk by their offices. just today. we've seen a significant amount of success at the federal level addressing the german challenges and changing the way government bills and buys technology. etf and parent organization the technology to information service can bring these past successes past and failures to the conversation. so, without further ado, we are very excited to commemorate the launch of super public and were honored to have with us another special guest. from you hear from the harsh reality recognizer speakers from today's event. gsa administrator denise turner ross, mayor of the city of san francisco and family. san francisco district 2 supervisor mark farrell. executive director of the city intimate foundation cameron sadik, and the city administrator naomi i can name is not on your last name? kelly. thank you. in addition to our speakers today i like to recognizer panelists discussing women and government and technology early 21st-century government. gsa initiated denise ross we joined by codirector of the transportation sustainably resource center at uc berkeley. atf deputy executive director hillary hartley and city oakland chief resiliency officer karen jane. now my pleasure to introduce the speaker per today's event. i bus and head of gsa this denise turner ross. ms. ross is the 21st senate confirm administrative and general furnaces ministration brother 18 years of public service she's old there is a leadership positions in washington dc and greensboro north carolina the focus on driving economic impact in ms. state of change. it is a gentleman, denise ross. >>[applause] >> thank you very much into. thank you all for being here at gsa in this beautiful old building. i think when we had the chance to actually renovate the space we were very fortunate and what a great day to see how far it's come. i'm not sure that when we were renovating the space just a few years ago that we had this opportunity and vision in mind but indeed, here we are today and it's just wonderful. mayor lee thank you for having us in your subject is a beautiful subject is been here all week and it's been a wonderful time. thank you for your partnership always. i think using the mayor has been called on frequented by the administration and it's because we like to go to leaders sought. it's not been by accident you've seen us here working with the mayor quite often. as administrative gsa, i have the pleasure of working with people are very committed to a really having a joint effort when they come to any community could gsa manages over three 75,000,000 ft.2 of space. we manage over $50 with spending occurs through the federal government and has been a straighter and you pointed out, i do have a deep deep background in city administration as well as in other capacities that i care a lot about how we are partnering with community could because when i know him and were working together both at city state and federal level, as well as with the private sector and public sector, the we are at our best and that's when we achieve our best. so when i came in as administrator i prioritize how do we use our physical footprint on knowledge, our access all resources to partner with these partners. as well as to partner with the federal agencies of course. an idea is for us to be able to bring the best foot forward in any place were entered weaver wants to never call her economic initiative which is really about how do we take a footprint and look for opportunities with communities. i think this is a great example of that. you are aware is into pointed out of our 18 f and pts and the work they been doing in digital services and current technology in bringing together that effort to our efforts and the federal government and it's been really exciting. so when asked about what is super public meeting for gsa why are we partnering in what respect to get out of this? i spoke to see us be able to continue to partner with other communities did for me this is just the start. to start an example and a strong example of what it means for how we can really leverage the space we are managing. this space the resources, the people be accessed. that's what is happening here. that is what were all part of today. so this is just a really exciting time for us throughout gsa not just the technology space but for all this that are here because were burning at the same time and will take these learning and share with other communities as well. so, mayor thank you again for coming here. thank you and your team for having the vision as well as city innovates. i've just been excited getting to know the work that you're doing and vision you have not just your locally but international. what a wonderful thing. so thank you for coming here and thank you for choosing this partnership and thank you for having the vision. >>[applause] >> thank you, denise. our next speaker has incredibly strong track record of driving collaborative partnerships in the first mayor in the nation to create an innovation office and city governments. please, welcome mayor ed lee. >>[applause] >> thank you into for that introduction. gsa of instead of ross, thank you for being here. this is one my favorite buildings outside of city hall. it shouldn't surprise you that we share the same architect and it's one of the few buildings like my office that still has curbed the wars. so there's a lot of history that we share but being here in gsa again, connotes a lot of good memories. certainly, it harkens back to city administrator these two director of purchasing a less political position in the city there i had fun. i truly had fun when i was director purchasing, spending the public's money about $1 billion a year buying things but trying to do it smartly and trying to incur local jobs, small businesses, get them involved in the economy of our city. and, even as mayor, we are still making sure were trying to do the right thing as all of our governments are. this idea of super public is exciting because in a few years, you're going to see an absolute necessity for this to happen. while it seems volunteer and innovative to do it now were actually creating the conditions the private sector, for the public sector, or academia, for those in government want to innovate, were trying to equate those conditions now so it has a lot more opportunity to be successful. as a city of innovation, i want to say that were already working not just as a city but is the region, i'm already deep conversations with mayor schaaf and mayor ricardo with our supervisors, in san mateo county about regional issues and making sure were paying attention, more than just what the part on has for the immediate future. more about our challenges and how we can really work outside of our sideload cities and counties and into arena where we can really and truly invite the private sector to work with us. the academia sector and our innovative arms. it's no surprise that gsa is a partner because it's fast becoming the most innovative arm of the federal government i've ever seen hit their really pushing it well ahead and they're challenging us to be a great partner and we want to be. because we have a lot of things that could withhold benefits to our public if we didn't start working cooperatively. we just are thinking outside of those silos that and you mentioned that we all know is a very fact that prevents us from doing better. and i say that we started this over a year and a half ago as well thinking that to be smarter city, not just an transportation but everything else that we do but transportation is a great example to start out with because if were not thinking more :-), not thinking more collaboratively and innovatively, beyond the cities and into a regional if not a state and federal approach, were going to fail. whether it's bikes, whether it's public transportation, whether it's getting less cars have thinking about automated vehicles and how to make them safer, how to use them how to use automation and delivery of goods and products, were going to fill it we don't innovate now and have that spirit. that's why i'm excited about joining our gsa partners and our city administrator, our members of our board of supervisors, and our innovation arm of the city working with the other innovation arms of federal government and state government. this is more than exciting. as i suggest to you super public is going to have to be a necessity because as you look around, not just united states, that's starting to happen in new york and los angeles and allow places, you look at what international cities are already doing. you don't have to look-has, by the way, happy the steel date those of you who have french foundations. paris story got a super public that we are studying and looking at as a model. toronto, under the great international city. other international cities have already figured out that indo global competition that we are engaged in, and we must recognize that, that is those regions that recognize how collaboration and innovation is going to help their cities become that much more successful in a global competition. when not opting out of anything were opting in to a global setting and making sure we are ready to do that even better. so, i am excited as you can probably tell because i didn't, i visited the offices this year and the space that were talking about and i know into says we have not got the furniture yet. but, i will tell you, you got the calendar ready. furniture comes after the talent arrives. i think that talent is here the dedication the commitment is here and i will tell you, i have never stopped trying to figure out how to decrease red tape. how to really convince our public who has to pay a lot of our taxes to say, your money is going into a smarter collaboration that we can be more transparent and telling them how we are cutting red tape. how small businesses can have a federal partner, a star partner, a local partner that says you're going to have a lot less red tape to be more successful. i have never stopped and effort in making sure that our city is talking with all our federal partners to it smarter and we better get how i say procurement officer as our city administrator is, to suggest that we can buy things and still have it at a less expensive price but get payments to our local small business faster so that we can really have a foundation for good employment in the long run. how we can tackle transportation, tackle homelessness, tackle poverty in ways which we never talked about before. yes we've got good ideas in san francisco but the navigation centers, like a cherry, like car sharing. how can we make this a regional thing and academia, with its berkeley mit, stanford were all part of this effort, going to contribute to that because they know that we've got the document we got to talk the man could we do to make sure our models are examples of things we can really share with people, and we've got to prove that we can do it better than the last generated so, excited about this. i'm excited about super public, and i know just in the few years is quick to be an absolute necessity for the global competition and we are helping our country by doing this. we are hoping much of the federal people be better quit estate people be better on local people be better, but as a community of people interested in being smarter about what were doing we hopefully will the public was a breathing that much deeper committed to using your dollars smarter to making sure we do things in language data can really drive and help us. this is what i think super public is and i want to just say, ken, thank you to organizations like the innovate fund and our innovation civic innovation leaders, i did sector comedies like at&t stepping up with berkeley folks and others to really say we can do this even better. but we've got to think regionally now. we can just think is that independent circuit either to make sure talking with sam ricardo and their interest in san jose. -mayor schaaf people in oakland and san mateo because our challenges are no longer just within our region with its housing, dissertation, with there's even a simple idea of procuring. we've got to do it smarter and better in this consistently foundation. it's exciting to be in a room full of innovators to do this. thank you very much. >>[applause] >> thank you mayor lea. our next speaker is the event supervisor mark farrell. his work to communities which the digital divide. please, welcome supervisor farrell >> >>[applause] >> thanks everyone could post about is a tall our gsa partners, the winners always like this in san francisco. you come out for entire week. so please come out more often. i'm truly excited to be here today. from my perspective, super public is the future. it is what we need to be doing across all every single city in the united states. when we think about san francisco as much as we have a booming economy we have issues as cities have all the time. whether it is mayor lea mentioned, the housing crisis, we have transportation issues, but they're not singled out for steve and cities across the united states are facing these issues. with the homelessness were bridging the digital divide these are issues we need to work in san francisco that matter to our residents. doing it alone in the government is something that is not going to be part of the future could need to partner with a private sector. need to partner with academia specialist visit here in san francisco today the innovation capital of the world and thank you to all our private sector partners will contribute to make this happen today. partnering with you partnering with academic, this is the future. we need to do it together because i will tell you, we cannot do it alone and several also city hall. we certainly cannot do it set up chambers of the board of supervisors we need to do it together as partners. binders and with the federal government or state government together we can do it. we also need our private sector. we need academia to be able to do it together. so i'm incredibly excited to be part of this. take you to all the people who contributed to it. congratulations to all the founding members. i know this is a long time in the making. the most excited about, is not just today but the future. this about our children and making sure as we think about problems as my son jack sits over there, honest will, this generation when we tackle problems not just san francisco problems the regional problems and were not tackling them the city government were tapping together with private sector with academia and that the wording of the best solution yet so congratulations to everyone and thank you i just can't wait for the future here together. thank you. >>[applause] >> thank you, market our next speaker is naomi kelly with the city administrator of the city of san francisco. i am agree with sympathetic partner in the gen. services administration did we know how hard your job is. we get to do it for the federal government to the other one a come over and talk shop were always here for you. ladies and gentlemen, naomi kelly. >>[applause] >> good morning. i was thinking about all the numbers of how much office space you manage and how much procurement you have and its enormous. i was very proud of our numbers we manage the city of san francisco about 4,000,000 ft.2 of office space and $1 billion in procurement and we manage 25 year-tenure 25 million capital plan. and compared to those numbers that's small. compared to the gsa. but, it's really great to be here today because of the chair partnership that will have with each other in sharing best practices, learning new innovative procurement policies, it policies. it will be very helpful in that it's helping us share relevant data, figuring out what the data we have with the city but good data the government has put together super public is that we can share with each other so we can be much more innovative. there's things were doing here in san francisco just in the city administrator in our local gsa office, looking at how we manage our fleet. how we are using telematics or black box which will behold so helpful to us to figure out when a card word vehicle needs to go into maintenance versus guessing,. rb rightsizing the fleet we see there's a lot of analyte underutilized vehicles but we can reduce the number berkeley. his rc fleet sitting in idling speed we can reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by a relevant amount of data were getting from that. i also upgrade during the next week and am in the process creating a digital service team. we are actively recruiting for digital service officer. this is all about the public experience. how can we in government better serve our residents, art tourists, visitors is a neat services from the government, a website how can we approve our website so they can get the information they need from a resin with the residential parking permit, whether it's a productivity, but it's a marriage certificate there's much we can do to provide services online so folks do not have to come down to city hall or wait in line to get services they need. so, were very excited about our digital service team working with a private industry, working with customer service looking at a processes how to better streamline them as we don't want to automate a broken process and of course working with our it department to make sure that our systems are running smoothly and to make sure all our data is secure because we do-we do want to make sure that everything we do is secure and that were not violating any private information that gets out there. i'm so looking forward to this partnership and thank you very much. >>[applause] >> thank you naomi. now, last but not least, the executive director of the city innovate foundation and very much the leader for super public, we are very lucky to have cameron and of leading the charge for us that it's been fabulous working with him so far. you are a welcome breath of knowledge on all the things foundational things we need to make this a reality. i hope gsa has been a good partner to good is and gentlemen, kim and city >>[applause] >> i think a lot of you have been on this journey for the last two years and it's been tough but i want to keep it short because of that people that sing to me for the last 5 min. that the mayor needs to live soon. what i do undo is actually think mayor ed lea. the sender gsa administrator district supervisor mark we met a few times but farrell and naomi kelly city of mr. and people behind the scenes like andrew the month, the republic of under atf, krista and jacob mayor's office of senate innovation to grace upon is at uc berkeley susan and also been great from day one. gifford in the city innovate foundation team.) james to make sure we talked about regional issues she's achieved resiliency officer in oakland she is working the on the past 18 months over this and not least the private sector. don't forget them because they do help pay our bills can i do i think microsoft socialize and evangelize the passage be described. the of our friends from deloitte who are good partners and now at&t and one of the things that i think a lot of people talk about the project that we've been looking at one of the other areas than looking at with san francisco, open and others not to forget their smart cities but were looking at inclusive cities. we should try this with communities so we part up with civic makers in a couple of model you're looking at a cut program rolling this out engaging the community and doing it the right way. again thank you all for coming out here. yes, we hope that that show will change and his major was pointed out, there will be a lot of international cities that come in and us cities to learn about the bit about what we're doing here. thank you. >>[applause] >> okay. so, now we get to get to the good work of actually running super public which were more excited about any event. gsa loves doing things but i'm going to invite all our guests right now and we will cut this with him. i think this is as are behind me the very large service. in the very careful handing these out. >>[laughing] have to bring the semi-carry on tonight. can be tough to get through the airport. >>[laughing] >> three, two, one cut it. >>[applause] >> >> all right. good morning, everyone well to the special rules committee i'm commissioner tang the chair and to my left for supervisor cowen is supervisor farrell and supervisor eric mar will have a motion to excuse him our clerk derrick and thank you leo and mark mr. clerk, any announcements? >> ichld during the proceedings. and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. august 2nd board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> thank you a motion to excuse supervisor mar. >> so moved. >> we'll take that without objection. and item one. >> item 5 a submitted voter so for the planning code to require the conditional use authorization for the distribution and repair for the institutional and acts use and replacement space. >> thank you and so at this time we held a special rules committee meeting really just to be able to entertain the amendments that were made at the last rules committee meeting i'd like to invite april to come forward if you want to say anything otherwise this is a procedural hearing we have today. >> i'll make my remarks brief thank you commissioner tang and to supervisor farrell for sitting in for supervisor cowen very much appreciate the special meeting we can consider the amendments i think the legislation that we have before us has been considerably improved was of the rules committee praerngs and is participation of the public and thank you very much. >> thank you okay seeing no questions or comments open up for public comment so if anyone wants to come forward to speak okay. and now a motion to the full board as a does she property for july 26th. >> so moved and send out without recommendation and okay without recommendation and without objection mr. clerk, is there any additional business to come before this body? >> no more items madam chair. >> all right. this the meeting is adjournedof the ethi commission occurring on july 25, 2016 will begin shortly. >> welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the regular july 25, 2016 meeting of the san francisco ethics commission. i will call the roll. commissioner keane, commissioner hayon, commissioner chiu. >> here. >> we are still awaiting an appointment for a replacement for commissioner andrews, so all present commissioners are accounted for. turning to item 2, public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda. >> good afternoon, commissioner, charlie mark stellar, for the record, i just wanted to alert the commission to a very important post on the kqed news website that i got over the weekend pertaining to linar corporation, and the developments that are occurring both -- at both locations in the city. there's a significant and new items that are being reported in regards to the three indictments that have come down, so i did want to alert you to that and if you don't have it, i can forward it to you. or to your executive director who will forward it to you, okay, i wanted to alert you to that important item. >> i'm bob plant hold, i just wanted to offer comment about what may be change tos the pending whisleblower ordinance that supervisor breed has introduced and because of their [inaudible] may not be heard in committee for some time. our group, friends of ethics is suggesting that there ought to be added a requirement that there be mandatory training for all city employees. right now, department heads, certain levels of managers, commissioners have to get training in ethics and sunshine, the kurntd draft of the whisleblower seems to require that same type of training for the same type of employees. we're suggesting it's not enough and because you folks would help develop, monitor, proofread any training on the whisleblower legislation if it is passesed, i wanted to give you an awareness of there's potential changes. we're asking for this mandatory training because a lot of city employees do not know about whisleblower ordinance, about protection, about their rights. and because these training could be done online, we don't think it would necessarily be burdensome. i want to give you a real-life example of why and how people may benefit from such training, on the very last night that i was on the ethics commission, after i left early for family reasons, a janitorial maintenance person stopped me in the hall of city hall and told me some things expecting me to follow through to file a complaint but that person wouldn't come forward, that person was afraid of job retribution. the claims the assertions made were disturbing, unnerving and yet that person did not feel empowered or safe in even asking anybody in that person's union, in that person's office for help or understanding how do i complain about this and it was significant financial misdeeds alleged so, this could be a real situation for anybody in all levels of city government. you're not going to be involved in enacting the legislation but you may be involved in implementing k it, that's why i wanted to let you know of the possible change, to be more inclusive and more responsive to all in the city staff. >> thank you. >> any other public comment? >> hello, michael pe troll lis, iem here to address several matters, there's much talk these days about creating a public advocate here in san francisco. i believe that we do need a public advocate in part because of the failures of the ethics commission and whi say the failures of the ethics commission, i was here a few months ago to discuss a complaint i filed on february 24th, five of ago, i brought it to your attention in october, willie brown attend a meeting at the mayor's office that i obtained the sign-in sheet through a public records request, willie brown did not list his organization on this sign-in sheet regarding the meeting he had in october about banking matters with the mayor. here it is five months later, i have not been contacted by any investigate torx i have come and discussed this complaint with you guys here, nothing has happened. why should i or any member of the public file complaints when after five months, nothing is happening about the investigations? nothing. the other matter i wish to discuss with you is something that's coming before you in july, it should have been on your agenda tonight and that is my complaint against steve kawa, the vice-mayor, it is found he is in direct violation of city records and retaining city records. he's been destroying his records. they put it in writing, the mayor's office put it in writing that steve kawa every two weeks was destroying his agenda, so the complaint finally came from the sunshine ordinance task force to you, it was supposed to be on your agenda for july 25th, yet the may yr's chief of staff sent you a let e i also got a copy of it saying mr. kawa would be allegedly traveling today and not only that, they needed more time to consult with the city attorney regarding this matter. they've had months of consultations with the city attorney, who is also in this building yet they requested an extension. unfortunately, leeann palem on behalf of mr. renne sent me a letter staining the request of a continuance was granted and there is nothing in this letter fra leeann palem, the drektd toer on behalf of 2 commissioners is indeed steve kawa is out of town. did you question why the mayor still needs a whole other month to consult with the city attorney about this matter? did you verify in any way that steve kawa is indeed out of town? well, maybe if we had a public advocate, we'd get some answers. it is not okay that you have delayed the steve kawa matter until next month. we need urgency from the ethics commission. thank you. >> thank you. alright, i'll turn to item number 3, discussion and possible action on draft minutes for the commission's june 27, 2016 regular meeting. any commissioners have any comments? if not, i have some very minor ones. on page 4, there is a reference to a number of witnesses from represent us, and that should be caps for represent us, initial caps for the organizatione, and that's on both page 4 and 5. other than that, i have no comment. any public comments on these minutes? hearing none, i will consider a motion. >> move approval. >> second. >> alright, all in favor? >> aye. >> minutes are approved unanimously. turning to item number 4, continued discussion and possible action on proposal regarding a possible november 2016 ballot measure to restrict lobbyist gifts, campaign contributions and bundled contributions. and i would just let the executive director palem update us where we are, although i think the memo and is the document that is are attached are very detailed and helpful. >> great, thank you, chair renne, i want to draw your attention and the public's attention to the amended documents, supplemental document that is we provides on july 15th when we first posted the memo railroading agenda item 4 with initial draft language as you requested in june, we provide both a june approach and a july alternative as you had indicated an interest in. we provided that on july 15th publicly because we wanted to circulate it as broadly as possible to receive as much public comment to enable a full discussion this evening. we received some public comment, we did some further revisions based on that and further examination of the language and so we had a memo that we circulated on july 22, i believe, let me just confirm. that has the revised language attached to it, so for purposes of the language that is the most current, they are labeled supplemental attachment 4, item 4, excuse me, supplemental memo attachment 2 and item 4, supplemental memo attachment 3, we will get these straight. conveniently referred to as the june -- revised june approach and the revised july alternative. we'll get the hang of it before the *ef wantoning is over so, we have the lang wang here t memo that was distributed with it explains how the two veers are similar change that is were made to both and they also indicate where the two veers are different, so i'm happy to walk through that if that's useful to you or to the public or to take public comment or discussion that you have. >> unless other commissioners feel -- i think the material you supplied us with is very helpful and explanatory and i would be prepared to not require you to go through it step by step. >> i agree with that, mr. chair. >> likewise. >> i guess i'll ask, do any of the commissioners have any -- first, before, as i understand it, what we want -- what's on the table today is to come up with a final determination as to the proposed ballot measure that we agree to by the end of this meeting because of the impinging, we have to -- tonight either fish or cut bait. >> that's correct. >> so, with that in mind, i guess i'll let the commissioners, any commissioner want to start commenting to either of the options that june or july as to -- which they may be inclined to favor or any suggestions to changes to the present drafts of those options? >> mr. chair, to get the discussion going, i would just move approval of the revised july proposal. >> which proposal? >> the amended -- >> the revised july alternative which would be item 4, supplemental memo attachment 3. >> i couldn't have said it better myself. >> do i hear a second? >> second. >> alright. i will first ask for -- before i ask for public comment, i have some comments about that draft and questions and possible changes, but i am in support of the july attachment, but if we could turn to that attachment. a question i had first on page -- >> pardon me, mr. chair, could you position the microphone so it's closer to your mouth and in a better position, thank you, it is hard to hear you, thank you. >> i guess the first question and it is on page 4 where there is a question about controlled -- line 6 -- it says controlled meeting should have the same meeting as set forth in section 101.04, this code shall not include any state committees t question is what about committees that are set up to support the candidate but are not controlled by it? they are not covered by this? and is it the city attorney's view that there are case laws that say they can't be covered? >> yeah, and i believe director palem had a footnote, i can't remember if it was the first memo or supplemental memo that addressed a extreme court case in 2007 which involved san francisco's attempt to place a limit on independent expenditure committee or committees independent of candidates control, and that was the plaintiff's move for a preliminary junction which the court grontbacker granted and we settled a case for a not sis cant amount of money, so based on that local case involving our own ordinances as well as case law in the ninth circuit and across the country, i think it would not be particularly legally defensible to include any limits on contributions to -- >> what's the rational of saying a lobbyist can't contribute directly to a candidate but he or she can contribute to a committee that's "independent" but whose only purpose is to get that candidate elected? >> and i'm in one of those uncomfortable positions which i'm trying to defend supreme court decisions, but let me try my best. yeah, so going back buck vvalejo, the big supreme court case dealing with contributions versus expenditures and what are the constitutional bounds in placing the limits in what you can do in terms of this recording, different kinds of political mitt taoe, there was a distinction drawn between making contribution directly to a candidate or to a group of people, an expenditure committee that is operating independent of the candidate, and this is something that has evolved over time and you've probably seen numerous news articles about super paintings which are independent expenditure mitt taoe, that there are ways to get around this sort of distinction, but for better or for worse, it is a distinction that exists in the case law that there is very little you can do frankly to regulate independent committee that is are not controlled by a candidate. >> okay, alder, then on page 5, i know that either friends ethics or represent us that brought -- that we should add on our definition of lobbyist, lobbyist firm, is there any reason why that can't be done? >> we did look at that question after receiving the public comment and one of the changes that we made to clarify that they can be caught up in the restrictions to some extent was to put in language that clarifies the aggregation of gifts and the aggregation of contribution, existing language that we have currently in our city regulations with regard to contributions provide circumstances in which somebody who directs or controls a contribution by another would have those contributions aggregated with their own, so using that, we took parallel approach to include language in this revised version that would have similar result for gifts so, we thought that gets most directly tat question of the lobbyist firm may have gifts that -- or contributions for that matter that are controlled by the lobbyist, they would all be aggregated under this approach. >> >> then turning to page 8, this section starting on line 16, all campaign contributions of $100 or more -- it goes on. how is that even relevant if we said they can't contribute and they can't deliver? >> under this approach, you may recall from the june meeting that this july revised alternative intends to create a ban that is narrowly tailored to the individuals of the office that is a lobbyist is registered to lobby, so assuming that the approach -- if that approach were enacted, there could be offices where a lobbyist is not lobbying and so therefore they would still have a disclosure requirement for any contributions that would not be banned under this approach. >> i wonder if -- i mean, because i read it and i thought, why is this here, and it seems to me that maybe to avoid ambiguity say unless otherwise banned, all contributions -- some language to that effect saying this is applying only to that exception where they're making contributions to a candidate for whom they have not registered and lobbied. >> so, very good question, and i guess my -- or comment, and i guess in terms of drafting the measure, since it is a ballot measure and since it can be in some instances difficult to amend a ballot measure at a later date even though we obviously have something that addresses that issue, we did try to go through and in terms of drafting this keep our edits fairly light, we didn't want to edit unnecessarily to or if we didn't need to, while i certainly understand where you're combining from, i think it's best to not edit more than we need to and certainly there could be instances where a lobbyist would need to disclose a contribution if they're not banned from doing it given the tailored approach of this alternative. >> [inaudible]. >> yeah, and certainly, thank you, leeann, we're going to have manual, forms, faq's, regulations and certainly the staff will take [inaudible] presumably from members of the public that will allow tlem to clarify any questions or ambiguity along this front. >> because when i read it, i thought, why is this here when what we're doing is banning lobbyists from making contributions, you're saying but there are some exceptions or they may not have registered for a candidate who they're lobbying, and if you're comfortable that it doesn't create sufficient ambiguity that somebody could challenge us later in saying we really didn't intend to ban them, alright. then on page 11 under section 2.115, limits and prohibition, the gift prohibition. is there any reason not to say no lobbyist or lobbying firm shall make a gift? >> i think it's similar to what city attorney shawn was saying, we don't currently have lobbyist firms registered. we might have to create a definition for that and we thoigt that the most direct way to get at that was to use the aggregation rules that we saw similarly applied to contributions. again, i think it's a point well taken and it's something we would want to make sure we're clear about that those are examples where lobbying activities may be caught under this to the extent has the lobbyist is directing and controlling them. >> and then in line 23, the -- it says no contact lobbyist. wasn't that intended to be lobbyist including both expenditure lobbyist? >> this particular prohibition is particular for contact lobbyist because it's an actual contact with a city officer. so, this is attempt frk this particular prohibition is attempt tog get to a contact lobbyist who misrepresents who they are, since expenditure lobbyists don't necessarily contact city officers, you know, they're making money to urge others to contact lobbyist, it's doesn't seem appropriate. >> i'm not sure what you're saying. >> i'm on line 23. >> my apologies, yes, thank you. >> and it should be out, right? >> yes, my apologies, i thought you were talking about the next page. >> okay. >> then turning to page 12, line 8, there was suggestion made in some of the communications, either from friends of ethics or represent us about that we should have a prohibition on city officers soliciting contributions from a lobbyist. now, as i understand possibly in supervisor peskin's legislation on behest, that provision is something na's being considered that would prohibit a city official from soliciting a charitable gift to an educational or whatever other institution it might be or governmental institution, but is there any reason why where we say that no officer of the city and county may accept or solicit any gift, is there any reason why we don't include -- including soliciting contributions to 501 c-3 organizations, whether they're educational, governmental or other purposes? >> i think it's a question of the place that we started from of having this focused on the type of personal benefit that an official might have, either tlau campaign contribution from a lobbyist or a gift from a lobbyist. certainly to the extent that a lobbying firm is providing some benefit to some non-profit that an elected official cares about, that's a question that probably should be looked at but i'm not sure that it's only as to lobbyists, so i think on balance with approach this measure intends to take, it was narrower than getting at those issues admittedly, but i think those are issues that should be looked at in a broader context with others who might also be asking for those kinds of donations, being solicited for those kinds of donations. >> and as i understand it, it may be part of what supervisor peskin's legislation is looking at on behest, so i will drop that comment. on page 13, one of the suggestions about -- was how they can circumstance -- circumvent it and we seek to solve it with a 30 day window, people circumventing changing their designation. is there any reason why we couldn't -- with we're talking about bundling, is there any reason why we couldn't make a complete prohibition on bundling because in many ways tha,'s the most egregious action that goes on is that collecting money by a lobbyist and then delivering it on behalf of a number of people and if we -- if we just had said you can't bundle if you're a lobbyist, would we be in trouble? >> yes, so certainly as you recall from the last meeting, i believe you were the commissioner who proposed taking the targeted approach that's represented in the july revised alternative, certainly if we think that approach is ta tailored approach is appropriate for direct campaign, it would be appropriate for bundled contributions as well, from a constitutional perspective websinger are impacting people's about to make campaign contributions to certain officials and as much as you can make that targeted at the anticorruption concerns this entire scheme is getting at, the more defensible it is. >> i understand that on individual contributions that it's targeted, but if we didn't -- if we said on bundling because bundling is much of a potential for corruption than the $500 contribution, and some of the testimony we've seen that some of these lobbyists bundle hundreds of thousands of dollars and deliver. if we say there's -- we don't want them to contribute directly to a candidate but we're going to allow them to bundle it to any candidate other than those for which they've registered, it seems to me we may be missing a chance, we may lose -- somebody may attack it and some court may say, you should have tattered your bundling, but i would be disposed to try and stop the bundling. >> so, the rational for preventing in this proposal, direct contributions to the lobbyist to a direct [inaudible] that they're supposed to o lobby, we think that contribution will allow them to curry favor with the official, make the official more receptive to whatever the lobbyist is proposing or advocating for or maybe opposing in some instances. i think and correct me if i'm wrong, i believe that the commission's view on bundling is largely the same, it's not different in-kind, it's different in scope, that instead of simply talking about a single up to $500 individual contribution from a lobbyist, we should also be concerned about the corruptive influence of not my $500 check if i were a lobbyist but a fairly decent stack of $500 checks. clients, other people, interested parties and how that can also have a potentially corrupt of influence of the recipient of those bundle contributions, so we're getting at the same problem, it's the same problem but just different in scope. it seems that if we believe for the smaller contribution it ice appropriate to taster and say that the ban should only apply to those officials, the robyn is register today lobby, we would wanted to maintain that parallel, we think that bundle contributions like an individual contribution paves the way for the lobbyist to have a more successful pitch to an elected official. >> alright, just a thought that i thought i would throw out. >> can i follow up on that? >> yes, go ahead. >> listening to chair renne, it makes a very important i think in regard to what we're attempting to do and just isolating, bundling on it by itself and saying this is something that is by its very nature subject to a great amount of abuse and the whole aspect of political contributions not being limited too much as to be unconstitutional in regard to restrictions on freedom of speech that you've identified in buck lee harvester valeyo where you're preventing somebody from making a statement, i favor this person and you're preventing them from making that statement by making that statement but giving money to that person and you can't do that, you simply can't have a blanket kind of preventing of someone to do that, but we wouldn't be preventing them from making that statement or giving contributions to a person and therefore making that statement if we say, fine, you can do that but you can't bundle. this is a mechanism that we've identified as something that is too much subject to corruption, big pay to play characters come in with a ton of envelopes from big shots and they bundle and they get special favors, so i think if we could and i'm not so sure we couldn't, in fact, as i listened to chair renne, i became more convinced that we could, if we could take bundling itself and have a prohibition relating to bundling, i think we might be able to do it and i think it might be something that we would want to do. so, is that too ambitious? >> i wanted to weigh in here as well. i understand the desire to prohibit bundling out-right but what i'm wondering, what does the data show us from the bundling that has gone on in the past, who has it gone to and how much contact has been following the payment because in the absence of content, i don't know if lobbyist would bundle a large amount of money and contribute to the mayor's campaign and not follow up, how would they further their agenda or their client's agenda in the absence of contact? >> i did work with the staff to create the foundation for this proposal and we certainly did find some instances in which there was some bundling and then some contacts in a seemingly relevant time period. perhaps there wasn't always a close one to one connection between a bundle contribution or set of bundle contributions and a contact but certainly there seems to be in some instances some connections there but going back to commissioner keane's point, you know, and i know the commission's well aware of this, that the purpose of campaign finance laws as per the supreme court is legitimate if they're seeking to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption, and what i'm hearing from commissioner keane is bundling is something that we want to prevent or avoid or impact but for an entirely different it seems like interest. and i would simply urge the commission to keep focused on the anticorruption interest that all these proposals we're working on our fundamentally geared towards combating. >> well, what i said was not a concern about bundling different from anything other than corruption or the appearance of corruption, so i don't understand when you say that my addressing the aspect of bundling somehow i'm addressing it in a whole new way different than everything that we've been tattering so far, i think what chair renne brought up and what i followed with is something that is right in line with the whole topic of where we're going and that is addressing issues of corruption and appearance of corruption in campaign financing, so what did you have in mind when you just said that i'm addressing something different? >> and, you knower, i apologize if you misunderstood but if we're talking about a tailored approach here, weir talking about prohibited contributions or other fundraising activity from a lobbyist to an official, when that lobbyist is attempt tog contact that official. that is the tailored approach that the commission arise at last month's meeting, that seems appropriate. again, if we think these contributions make the recipient of the contributions more receptive to a lobbyist, then the lobbyist otherwise would be, that the lobbyist has a leg up because they have made a contribution directly or have parented raent -- presented a bundle of couldn't bourses. >> i think you have limited what we've been talking about all along, if the lobbyist is bundling for the purpose of contacting the official, na's not any kind of limitation we've been talking about, we've been talking about if the lobbyist is bundling to unduly influence the official, whether there's contact or not, contact is -- i don't think is relevant at all. >> ix i'm a little bit unclear how -- with respect to most lobbyists, how would you be influencing the official without contacting them, isn't that how you would be influences them? >> well, if the official knew whether you contacted him or her or not, you would be able to bundle together a lot of money and it would have come his way, that would certainly influence him, whether that official ever had any kind of contact with you whatsoever. the money was bundled and the money then got into your campaign committee's funds and the official knows, this is joe big shot who did this for me and joe big shot wants me to approve his paving over golden gate park so he can make some money there. so, i think i'll vote for that. isn't that -- wouldn't that be corruption in terms of a quick pro quo contribution. >> but in the absence of contact, how would the elected official know that the lobbyist wabt wanted to pave over golden gate park? >> well, i think that you can get a message to someone in lots of ways without actually having a one on one contact with that person. clearly that's the more direct way, but if i'm a politician and i hear that someone has been responsible for an enormous amount of money to be placed at my disposal or through -- and has done it through bundling, even though i never met that pensioner i never will meet that person, i may tend to feel favorable towards that person with regard to later influence that's going to be put upon me for something that has to be done. i don't think contacting is really the -- somehow the main test of this. are we -- am i talking parallel to something here? i'm getting the impression that from your looks that i'm more incoherent than i usually am? >> no, i wouldn't say that at all. i guess the question is that logic would apply to those who are also not lobbyists, so how are those messages sent and for what purposes and how far would you take a bundling ban? i mean, it does raise that question i think as well, but it's -- i think the assumption that this discussion has been built on is that these are folks who are either spending a lot of money to directly -- to communicate a message to elected officials to achieve a certain outcome even expenditure or from compensation through clients and when you remove the communication piece from that interaction, i think it begs a question about whether there's a broader approach that needed to be looked at and whether the -- it just seems to commissioner chiu's point, how do you know unless there's some sort of communication about an interest and that seems to be one of the critical links in this puzzle? >> okay, i'm not going to beat on it. >> let me ask you, your alternative was setting a 90 day limit. why the 90 days? is there some magic? >> no, there's no magic to 90 days, i think in response to the concern that represent us had raised about whether there might be an intentional gaming to have system by people registering and then reregistering just solely so they can contribute or bundle, it's in essence trying to create a cooling off period after there's been that interaction and an attempt to establish a relationship through a communication where money would then follow that simply because of the a de-registration. >> what's the impinging and when somebody has to file for an office candidate, how far in advance from an election? >> it could vary tremendously, for a november election would be early august, i think probably a lot more credible candidates probably take out their papers early spring, something along that sort, especially if they're seeking public finance for which they need simple additional paper work and evidence of public support, i think something like that. so, probably not quite a year out from the election but not too far from that would be my guess. >> i'm just wonder ifing the date, if you moved it tout 180 days, half a year, the likelihood that somebody would try to game the system by discontinuing his or her contact with a city official with the anticipation that they're going the raise money more them and maybe you could put it at both ends and would be prohibited from lobbying 90 days or 100 days or that official after, i don't know. >> i think we had some discussion about the preregistration concept so, the concern that people will give a lot of contributions and then register only thaf activity is done, i think that is fundamentally a part of a process where you are trying to tailor a contribution ban to communication that is are intended to influence a person and under that approach, i think it's madder to try to establish a preregistration ban of some sort because in fairness to anybody who's attempting to do that process, if they have not communicated to someone, what would -- why would we *f we say that -- >> if somebody saying after i'm going to lobby the mayor but then 90 days before they de-register, i'm no longer going to lobby and then raises a lot of money for the mayor and the next day says i'm going to lobby the mayor, we haven't done much, have we, at that point. so, couldn't you -- you could put a restriction at the other end, couldn't you? >> certainly if i could respond to your previous question about why not go to 6 months so i guess 180 day, my general impression although i certainly would defer to the director on this, certainly within the last 6 months of a campaign is where you would think most to have fundraising would happen, six months out relative to a november election puts you in early may, mid spring which is fairly early on i would think in most candidate's cycles, certainly more it it comes in at the very end, if you want to extend 90 to 180, i can certainly understand that approach. >> and turning again on page 13 to the aggregation, that is in there because of the fact that we're targeting the lobbyist in terms of who they've registered to lobby, in other words, one of the ago retailing of contributions is they can't make a contribution. >> again, there may be certain circumstances where they can't make a contribution but because there's no entity like a lobbying firm that's prohibited in making a contribution, if the lobbyist is prohibited from making a contribution because they're registered to lobby that agency, that individual, then if they direct and control the contribution of their firm, that would also be prohibited. >> alright. i think those are the only comments. do any commissioners have comments? call for public comment on the motion that we adopt the july proposal as drafted. >> i'm bob plant hold, i'm a member of friends of ethics and yes, we support moving ahead with the revised july and i'll let you fill in the other 28 words afterwards. i wanted to speak specifically to the questions raised by commissioners keane and chiu from my own experience, so first off, with regard to section 2a -- 2.115 a-2 which shows up on page 5 about the restriction on soliciting, i want to give you an example aof why it's worthwhile, why it might be beneficial. i happen to be in a car driving with somebody to an agency meeting outside san francisco, this person is paid by a major company in a major industry in san francisco. people would look at that person as a lobbyist, maybe official, maybe not. i was in the car, this person got a call from the mayor's office asking that person to raise a lot of money for a hirable sports event, fo*rnl gently no one heard me, but my ears were starting to writing because he was also been appoint today a commission, so is it possible to raise none for the supervisor or assemblymember or do you have to produce money in order to be considered for an appointment, so i'm suggesting there assist a benefit to keeping that provision in. with respect to bundling and commissioner chiu questioned of what does the record show? it's pretty damn hard to find out if things are really bundled. i've gone to lots of fundraising dinners, you pay for the dinner and a portion goes to the a committee. i've seen people walk up and hand checks to somebodyfinger not to the candidate, there was one elected official who had a cousin who was on the central committee of a major political party, so people knew, go to the cousin and give the cousin the khe, so there's no formal record of whoever handed in a bunch of checks to that cousin. the campaign just records the individual khex, who gave it, would was their employer dollar amount, you don't know that joe big shot was the one who brought these but the cousin knows, so the record is hard to find, hard to verify, incomplete, that's why there's a benefit to keeping in a prohe bysing about bundling just because that does happen all too often, if you really sit on the sidelines and watch these events. >> thank you. >> hello, my name's charlotte hill, i'm the communications director for represent us and the direct door of represent california which is our california state branch, i'm also resident of san francisco since 2011 and an advocate for mroit cal reform in america more broadly and i'm so pleased and grateful to see this initiative being considered for the november ballot here in san francisco and specifically the july alternative of the initiative which represent us fully supports. san francisco as you know has struggled in recent years with public corruption cases and i believe we have the opportunity with this initiative to put those abuses in our past and become leaders in the fiekt against political corruption, so i want to thank you for seriously considering the lobbyist ban we've put forward, we greatly appreciate the thoughtfulness with what you've approached this initiative and look forward to working with you in the future to make our city's elected officials more responsive to the people of san francisco. thank you. >> thank you. >> hi, i'm morgan ache young with represent us and i wanted to thank you all for your hard work and echo charlotte's thanks on the thought put into this mesh yaou, we appreciate it and we're excited this is being considered for november and just to be respectful of your time, we have a lot of people here supporting and i want everyone to stand up and you can see everyone would's in support, friends of ethics and represent us, so people nr the community. thank you, guys. [applause]. >> hell lean graikbacker graik owe, i want to nang the commissioners and the executive director for paying great attention to this and bringing forward a solution, [inaudible] it imposes a clear and more administrative rule and is more likely to with stampeder legal challenge than the june approach, california law indicates that ablaout *f laout laws in lobbying [inaudible] have been upheld, the july alternative by modeling state law accounts for this distinction t june approach while not a ban proposes to treat lobbyists differently, a likely free speech violation given current case law so, we support the july alternative, thank you. >> thank you. >> good eve anyones commissioners, debbie lur man from the san francisco human services network, i am speaking to a memo that i submitted very last minute dated today regarding the proposed ballot measure, and i have a couple of point tos make, first of all, this is a good government measure and we do agree with its intent. the concerns we've raised have only pertained to a couple of situations which would have a detrimental impact on non-profits but no risk of undue influence, first of all, there is in the language of the ordinance an exception for gifts of food or refreshment and we want to say thank you for include hating in the ordinance, we hope you will accept the staff's draft language on that point and we appreciate it. secondly, we had asked that there be a restoration of an exemption that is in current law around non-profit conferences so that we can share information with public officials. it is my understanding today, i had a phone call from director palem clarify hating the state definition of gifts which is what is included in this measure does include still that particular narrow exemption for informational conferences in sim pose ya, so my memo, i believe that concern has been addressed and so i just want to say that for the record as well, and those are our two most significant problems with the measure, so that is great news. i do want to make one technical point that i believe should be addressed in this measure and that relates to inflation. the charter of san francisco which list it is duties and responsibilities of this commission requires an annual adjustment of any kinds of limitation or disclosure thresholds imposed by city law or using the annual increase or decrease in cpi, i believe that since this is a ballot measure, it supersedes the charter which is older and therefore there would need to be language in here specifying that those duties and responsibilities are also part of this ordinance, and that's the problem with ballot measures, things get set in stone. if you have a $25 food or refreshment limit in a few short years in san francisco's economy, that will only have a dollar value of $20 so, there should be a cpi adjustment made to that and i hope the city attorney can clarify whether the cheater does in fact apply here or whether something would need to be placed into the ordinance to ensure that the duties and responsibility and authority to make cpi adjustment tos the fear

Related Keywords

Stanford , California , United States , New York , Germany , Paris , France General , France , North Carolina , Oakland , City College , Washington , Turkey , Stanford University , Delaware , China , Toronto , Ontario , Canada , San Francisco , Gaza , Israel General , Israel , Sacramento , San Mateo County , Los Angeles , America , French , Chinese , German , American , Pat Christiansen , Tishman Speyer , Adam Thompson , Karen Jane , Martin Luther King , Denise Turner Ross , Tom Gilbert , William Michael , Denise Ross , Peter Lou , Lee Donelson , Jack Shawn , Steve Kawa , Charlotte Hill , Hillary Hartley , Kang Weiner , Lang Wang , Lonnie Jim , Cecilia Leo , Cameron Sadik , Naomi Kelly , Berkeley Susan , Sam Ricardo , Willie Brown , David Campos , Eric Mar ,