managing the projects and people that own and run actually own and should be involved in running the port we have two votes rejected the washington project ems more than 50 percent of the voters voted to have the heights on the waterfront those are facts the grand jury report i'm hoping you and the port and others take the recommendations very seriously outside item one that's the fundamental recommendations there's no one here from the mayor's office but the mayor's office submitted a letter to have the port be a mix of the appointees and not a choice by the mayor's office the letter should all is fine i want to know how you agree and if the port commission has moved forward in a different direction

than the voters and i also - >> thank you yes. >> are there other members of the public who wish to testify. >> thank you chair breed and i'm larry bush a member of the grand jury i've soefrd on the committee i want to undermine a few points when we talk about a waterfront and maritime use it takes in so many departments for example, the issue of traps convenient along the waterfront if you see the comments from the transportation department they don't have a master plan for the waterfront so when we did our interviews we learned that the department heads don't get

together to look at the waterfront whether planning, dbi or environment or health, or transportation all sitting around a table together to talk about the combats the result is sometimes the right hand didn't know what the alone is doing so you build on this. >> the other point is the whole thrust off our report to increase the public assess and when monique mirror who has done an excellent job of the report who showed the number one issue was public comment on washington with 80 meetings it if succeed at creating a consensus because the voters overturned what the port was doing so the number of

meetings held and who attends is eir relevant it took 5 years with at&t a series of hearing before the board voted on it. >> thank you any other members of the public come forward please. it appears to me from observing this mayor brown promoted did miles corporation they went bankrupt and the project was not billed mayor newsom sporltd is it didn't happen and mayor ed lee supported the warriors and that didn't happen everyone is doing a joe going good job something's wrong and needs to be fixed it's something about

good afternoon the fight between capital and public trust goes back to 1869 french capital lifts set up a deal to take over the port for one hundred years or something like that it was in the fix until governor downey vetoed it the whole city of san francisco went nuts there's something that protects the port from the private money because many of the things have failed maybe the trick to rebalance the commission and put more people on the commission that understand the public trust and direct all our attention to getting projects that are not rejected by the public. >> thank you, sir any other members of the public who want to make pickup seeing none,

public testimony is closed. colleagues, we have been asked to respond to several finding specifically to the port and at this time i think it's important that we go through each finding. i won't read out each specific finding by focus on whether or not the six to be to agree or partially agree or disagree and there's also specific text we want to be entered read into the record important each finding the goal to summit those with the current resolution we have amend the current resolution and submit it to the full board for consideration. so that's the process here today and i'm going to start with you think this was a very good

report i really presenter a lot of the feedback from members of the civil that grand jury as well as the hatred work. i vshthd one specifically high suggestion we partially disagree with the finding and i want to specify my thoughts on why we believe or i believe that to be the case so the board can't speak to the level or and a half of the influence at any time to the privy to all the interactions mar the mayor's office influence many activities at the port and throughout the city authenticity difficult to look at the minimum bureaucrat but the board buildings the port commission has followed the practices of every agency with regard to public hearing there are several commissions that are

appointed by the mayor public works rec and park commission fire commission and mta commission. on the recommendation specifically from the civil grand jury the this will not be implemented and the resident to as to why is because such an effort is well beyond the board's jurisdiction requiring the stated protective changes as well san francisco voter approval san francisco state representatives are the appropriate officials to undertake an effort and colleagues that's the first findings i was wondering any other suggestions to be is supervisor tang >> sure thank you chair breed i agree with our suggestions for finding do number one i think that the statement the port commission readilyly gave

permission it's a statement that i had an issue i believe the port like any other commission did it due diligence in obtaining public comment as to the terms of the port commission should be restructured to rehabilitate public interest when the mayor did come up with some of the nominees they actually are suggesting to the rules approval so i sit down on that so the public can speak for or against it so their mayoral appointees they go through a process for prrld. >> president chiu. >> thank you, chairman breed and colleagues on this issue we're and i'll mention to the

public we're required for various finding to agree or disagree it wholly or partiallyly i suggest that we patricia disagree in my mind i partially agtitates semi narcotics i agree with our suggestion we parkinson's disagree let me say a couple of thing i absolutely appreciate the frustration mr. taylor because of the decisions made by the port let me use the most significant example in recent years business owner around the washington eight project they know my prospective on the project the hope and desire when we were going through the process when we were going to be able to figure out how that project could meet the community needs as ended up obeying being

proposed as the lead champion on the board of supervisors i had a significant disagreement with the port that being said there's a process for how port commissioners are selected it goes through the board i am the one person here at least on this committee for example, choose to vote against a port commissioner property by itself mayor that's the process we have right now and that's the progress that process was envisioned in the burton act there's a way for us to at the board of supervisors to significantly weigh our objections to port commissioners and because of that process you know, i think we had a process that allows the prospective on this issue through, you know, we'll be monitoring this and in the future how diversity nominees into glow it's

important to have nominees that reflect experiences and community voices i'll continue to ask the administration and port staff to think about what those nominations look like i want to lay out the prospective and why i said the partial agree and partially disagree remark. >> i'll move on to item 4 my suggestion to parking lot disagree again specifically help to fund capital improvements and enhance the quality of life is not exclusive the local business opportunity mixed housing are good aspects of the development and the board encourages the

port to look at those they should be looking at case by case with the public involvement as it relates to the recommendation it's been implemented as noted in the reports respond the all port projects undergo a vesting process. so those are my comments and are there any other comments or questions, concerns? >> president chiu. >> i'll have a partial disagree and agree the disagree response is one i appreciate there are folks that are frustrated because of the port we have several billions of of capital infrastructure needs we need to deal with we are looking at making sure our piers don't fail

into the sea in some instances we've gotten the right result whether the work there are many members of the public who preserved the piers at the exploratorium to make sure the cruise ship terminal were good examples of how we worked on this that piers thirty and 32 i believe 6 attempts over the last decades to develop that spot with the controversy we may never find the money and that is a pier that could fail into the sea i agree with the citizen minded with the members of the public how the port and properties are really utilizing those spaces in ways it maximum the public trust that allow us to engage as many members of the

public with the beautiful of the waterfront i want to agree with the sentiment of the finding that being said that sort the be mixed respond is the appropriate response for that. >> thank you president chiu. >> is there any suggested amendments to what i read? for the appropriate response >> do you have a copy of what you read. >> yes. not here i'm sorry can you give us a minute please. >> i can agree with that. >> thank you.

okay moving right along. a lot of paper here. finding number 6. i agree. the board can't confirm those figures but agree eir respective of the degree such an act would benefit the port and city so for finding number 6 as it relates to the recommendation it will not be implemented the board is no the appropriate city body spearhead an effort, however, it encourages the port to advocate or exemptions from the passing that could benefit the board and city the board will support the port in its effort, however, it know >> i think that's good. >> thank you, thank you

president chiu. okay moving right along finding 8 parking lot san diego the city and port lost the city government lost money open the 31st america's cup but san francisco experienced a net benefit the board will defer to the civil grand jury the cities model for the event was speculative and don't even fundraising there was known risk that the fundraising fell horticulture of the goal the cities tax basis would have netted reviewing revenue so the objective was to make a profit by the objective was not realized so for the specific recommendation jimbo bob major is a substantive term but

similar to the thoukt america's cup as the ports response note the america's cup was extensively vested and approved by the port commission and the board of supervisors our respond to the recommendation is that it has been implemented supervisor tang >> thank you i would agree with our or concur with our recommendation to say we disagree with the finding recommendation i'm sorry finding number 8 i'd like add i want to point out what the port respond almost 90 percent of the money that was invested into the america's cup went into infrastructure improvements that would help the port infrastructure last for 3 decades that's something we should point out 2 wasn't a loss because of the event but a huge investment to ourlz

infrastructure. >> president chiu and i will add one of the things that finding a lacking is the fact america's cup brought in one half a billion dollars and thousands of jobs while i think all of us would have appreciated not spending any money the fact we're talking about a few million dollars that recommending resulted in half a a billion dollars i don't think that many city leaders would have turned down that interest do you understand the citizens frustration but not as part of the organ next year's to fund-raise and met that for better or worse that was our experience with the america's cup it's not come back to san francisco but we see an awesome love activity i'm happy to

concur in what our chairwoman has proposed. >> thank you. do we need to clarify we're going to be amending or you'll be able to take the language that i proposed and insert the recommendations of both president chiu and supervisor tang? >> supervisor breed that would be helpful to clarify with the resolution of the board repeat specifically the amendment. >> if i could repeat amendment. >> that you made as i can repeat amendment about that i made by not incorporating the comments of my colleagues and our goal to basically write a resolution that will be heard before the full board on tuesday we need to make sure the wording

is exact. >> i'm happy to provide you with my list as well. >> that might they let settle the problem. so partially disagree voter approval with yield greater awareness not necessary to assure the taxpayer interests are take place care of they're paid for by college tax they issue other bonds like mta revenue bonds they encounter taxpayers bond like the general obligation bonds are rightfully to come before the voter for approval that's the response to the recommendation will not be

implemented did i skip something here 11 okay there you go. the boarding board has placed restrictions on how they exercise i f d bonds a process that involves extensive public review voter approval is not required by law or necessary that make sure that the public interests is protected and this is generated by port property and don't increase the taxes other cities have the mta revenue bonds bond that emancipation proclamation can you remember general obligation bonds require approval for the reason it will not be implement implemented. okay any comments?

and supervisor could you go over recommendation 8 b? >> 8 b the response to the recommendation? has been implemented the departments response indicates it has and will continue implementing this recommendation which the board fully supports thank you. okay. those are my comments and suggestions for the board response are there any other comments? okay. at this time, we'll close the hearing on this matter. or do i need okay. so is there

a motion to take these recommendations as an amendment to the resolution? >> so moved. >> u. >> okay moved any objections no objections this passes as amended and is there a recommendation to send this to the full board for approval. >> so moved. >> without objection yes. >> excuse me. >> as the committee report. >> as a committee report thank you without objection. okay. i think i did everything appropriately so we can move forward and actually, i think we're going to take ethnics out of order call item number 2, 3,

4, 5 and 6 >> item six is the preceding just report other than the 2013-2014 civil grand jury report dierltd civil grand jury pretense. >> mr. ron will be presenting on ethnics. >> thank you, chairman breed and vice chair tilly chang and president chiu. this report deals with the topic that many people have strong opinions about. you know, whether people in city government are acting properly and how their conduct is regulated. there's an anecdotal evidence of good conduct and bad conduct there's a structure in place there's a lot of beliefs about

the utility of the structure as we looked at it we could see there's tangled lace behind that it include both state and local laws, there's a federal constitutional overlay that comes into play in the financial area, there's common lay background when it comes to conflict of interest so a lot of the report goes through the laws and kind of looks at at how they operate we got into basically 3 areas where we made finding and recommendations. one has to do with enforcement of the laws as it now stands while people look at the ethnics

commission it enforced the law the reality is the state enforces the last in many instances because the state political practices act really controls a lot of what the local lay says. we see more enforcement by the f p pc than the ethnics commission. so we recommended that we contract with the f bbc at the time there was a state law being considered that allowed the f bbc allowing them to correct with municipalities it fell apart and will be reintroduced next year. we also looked at transparency the ethnics commission is the

filing for the city and county for campaign finance and other reports they put those reports open the web some are in pretty good shape and some more complicated we made certain recommendations how the data gets posted most of those were commented on by the ethnics commission i city staff and really not up for your review there are certain changes in the lazy we know think may makes sense going forward particularly on reporting on traveling expenses and things of that nature. those will come to you in the future we also called for an anti whether funds had been properly forfeited to the city when taken in by campaigns

properly and we've called for sort of revisiting the public records status of e-mail and text messages used in public policy whether the public calendar requirements of the sunshine ordinance we called for the annual report that is specified in the city chart about the ethniccy of those laws to be prepared in writing and submitted inform the board of supervisors and the mayor and hope you'll port that concept the ethnics commission tips to previously prepare this report once again we called for revisiting some of the concepts that were in proposal j that

were feuded in part of the rewrite of the ethnics laws. those dealt with the concept of people seeking public benefits from the city and regulating how members that vote on the benefits then get employed are work for the people that sought the benefits. the third area we loopthd was restructuring some of the activities of the ethnics commission itself. we called for a reaffirmation that that the ethnics commission is the policy body and the ethnics commission agreed to call them to get an executive secretary for the meetings and hope you'll support that concept. once again i know this is an

area that people have opinions by the made a number of other recommendations and finding i look forward to your discussion of them thank you >> thank you. >> on behalf of the city we have mr. john synsoy that's going to present the executive of the depth ethnics commission okay. thank you and chairperson and supervisors i don't have a presentation but here to answer any questions you might have. >> okay. thank you. okay. at this time we're going to open this up to public testimony. are there any members of the public that want to testify >> can