to amend the building code but cannot guarantee one of its members will choose to do so. >> for clarity, that was the response for recommendation three. >> 3b. >> the recommendation that was requires a response was 3. >> which one? >> for rising sea levels. >> okay. >> madam chair, i believe it should just be recommendation. >> i need to take a five minute recess because i think i have some mix ups in my paperwork. >> you have the same thing that i have. >> okay. so we're not going to take a five minute recess and supervisor tang is going to finish the recommendations of the board of supervisors.

>> all right, so through the chair for the recommendation 3, which basically touches upon city building code and the port's building code, a recommendation that it should be amended to include provisions that address impacts. the board of supervisors is stating that this will require further analysis because city departments are actively working with one another right now with city and regional agencies to evaluate and develop consistent guidance and policies to address sea level rise. that's for recommendation 3. moving on to recommendation 11 d, this is where the recommendation at the city should request an insurance premium estimate from fema and compare that against future flooding. the board of supervisors' response would like to suggest that we say the

recommendation will not be implemented because fema's naksal flood insurance program does not offer it to private municipalities, only to private owners. and then for recommendation 12b the state said the city should create a local working group for stakeholders. the board of supervisors, i'd like to suggest that we say the recommendation will be implemented in the future because the proposed work program for developing a comprehensive adaptation plan will provide a robust outreach to community members an stakeholders. >> thank you president tang. so i'd make a motion to move those items as recommended by the board of supervisors in response to the grand jury.

without objection those items are entered into the record and moved forward. are there any other comments regarding this item? okay. so with that, is there a motion to table this item? >> so moved. >> okay. without objection this item is tabled. >> madam clerk, can you call the next item? >> item number 4, the hearing to receive updates from various city departments on response [inaudible] civil grand jury report entitled ethics in the city titled promise, practice or pretense. >> okay. mr. kim -- did he leave? is there anyone who's going to present on behalf of the

mayor's office? i have mr. kim as the presenting person for this item. item 4 for ethics in the city. mr. saint croix, are you going to present for this item?

>> good morning. i just have some brief updates on the five items we were asked to follow up on. as to recommendation 2, the commission endorsed the recommendation. as to recommendation 11 there is a pending california supreme court case that will affect such policies. the commission is waiting for the resolution of this case to inform any potential action. as to recommendation 16, the commission is planning a policy discussion about the ethics of the possible need of additional disclosure requirements for donations for government travel and government travel recording. it will then send knee proposed changes to the board of supervisors. as to recommendation 18, the commission is not a respon dant. and finally as to recommendation 21, the commission [inaudible] investigator and will work appropriately with the mayor and board on the next budget.

>> good morning. i was on the grand jury and wrote the report that's sub of this hearing. in terms of mr. saint croix's statement, the point is that the commission is not seeking to have a separate secretary for the commission. i think they felt it would be important to have that sort of professional staff, whether on a full-time basis or part-time basis, and in discussions with the board of supervisors about this on the report we fell that the board of supervisors were more likely to take this

forward than the ethics commission staff and we'd hope that you would look at it as part of the next budget hearing and sort of leave it back in your court for further action. there are also a number of items in the resolution that the board of supervisors adopted last september after this committee acting that called for further action by the board of supervisors right around this time so i'm not sure how you're putting that information forward. thank you. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public who'd like to provide public comment at this time? seeing none, public comment is closed. okay, so there are lists of recommendations from the board and specifically for items 2, 11, 16, 18 and 21.

i will start with item 2 and read it into the record. the board of supervisors should request an independent audit by the city attorney to determine whether prohibited contributions were forfeited to the city as required by law and this recommendation will not be implemented. the board of supervisors supports this recommendation, but implementing it will require an individual supervisor to propose an audit, which should be conducted by the controllers city auditor division, with assistance from the city attorney. well, any supervisor can undertake such an effort. collectively the board cannot preemptively guarantee one of its members will choose to do so. for item number 11 the ensure preservation of e-mails and

text messages consistent with preservation of other public records, the policy along with policies of preservation on public record should be made for public comment. once completed it should be made available on city attorney and ethic commission web pages that list each department's policies and how to obtain documents. the recommendation will not be implemented. by nature, such policy changes would be beyond the jurisdiction of the board of supervisors. the board looks forward to up coming work on this issue by the sunshine ordinance task force, the ethics commission and the city attorney. item number 16, the ethics commission should require full disclosure of contributions of payments for official travel of city officials including the actual amount contributed in the names of official

donors. official business should be disclosed including the meets, participants, topics and other

-- i need to get back to that one. item 18, the board of supervisors should provide a rule subjecting themselves to a rule regarding the sunshine ordinance. the recommendation will not be implemented as evident by the report supervisors already willingly disclosed their

calendars. and item number 21, the board of supervisors should provide the commissioners an executive secretary separate from the existing commissions employees base who will among other duties prepare the commission's agendas, maintain minutes, list of complaintses and interested persons, meetings and assist a commission member to be the parliamentarian. and this -- the recommendation will not be implemented. the board of supervisors agrees that additional staff member could improve the effectiveness of the ethics commission. the board will consider this recommendation as part of the ethic's commission next budget. unforeignly the constraints and pros by the civil grand jury response process do not allow the board to officially say this recommendation will be considered at a later date, though it will.

and -- yes, that's it. okay. supervisor tang, are there any comments or questions? >> no. i would agree with your recommendations. >> okay. and i think i missed one. i apologize. my charts are such this they're very difficult to read and understand and enter into the record. a lot of detailed information here and i think that i missed one in terms of a comment. >> recommendation 24. >> i don't have recommendation 24 as a board of supervisors response.

okay,so from my notes the only recommendations we have are number 2, 11, 16, 18 and 21. i think it's appropriate for us to move forward with recommending the responses that i've proposed unless there's any questions. supervisor tang. >> no questions there. i agree with your recommendations again and i think that although our responses are such that they will not be implemented, i

think that our board, our city attorney's office or ethics commission, we are waiting for some additional decisions made outside of our jurisdiction that may guide us in the future. based on these particular recommendations that is our recommendation. >> okay. and just for clarity, from our budget and legislative analyst, in terms of our responses, is there anything that's missing or anything that needs clarification? >> madam chair, president tang, my only comment is recommendation number 24, we can work with both of your offices to prepare motions for both of these items as you've indicated today. >> recommendation 24 had a requirement of a board of supervisors response. i think that's where the confusion was for me because

that was not where the board was required to submit a response for. >> recommendation 24 is not included in the agenda description for this item. it indicates the board will responds by december 26 of this yore. they will try to respond by that timeframe. >> we are not scheduled to have another government audit and oversight committee meeting this year. >> so one possible option is to consider including a response to recommendation number 24 at next week's full board meeting. >> okay. >> that's one option, but we can see what else we can do. >> so we are required to respond to that particular number. >> it indicates so on the

resolution, but there seems to be a slight discrepancy to the agenda description. >> maybe this a question for the city attorney, would it be okay if we issued some sort of memo or statement attached to this recommendation that we'll be traveling to the board of supervisors indicating what our response would be for item 24 had it been included in the long title? >> one of your offices include something on the legislative file to indicate what your recommendation would be, but we may be limited in discussions here. getting something to file i think that would get you to where you wan to go with this recommendation. yeah, i think it could be something that we'd address to the full board. we'd have to revisit the agenda description notice. frnths >> we're required to do it

before december 26. >> that's what the resolution itself requires. >> and if we don't, will we be in trouble? >> certainly we always want the city and all its officials to comply with the law as much as possible so we'll do what we can. >> okay, sounds good. so for now we will recommend -- we will take these recommendations without objection. without objection the recommendations are recommended into the record. and so at this point we can not table this item. we'll need to continue it to the call of the chair. >> you could table this item if you want, no? >> madam chair, the hearing is prepared in committee as a motion, it turns into a

motion and you'll recommend it out to the board. venlg >> okay. >> so through the chair i'd like to make a motion through the chair that for item 4 we forward out to the full board of supervisors for recommendations for number 2, 11, 16, 18, 21 that has been agendaed. >> without objection, those are recommend. at this time i'd like to rescind the vehicle vote for item number 3. without objection the vote for item 3 is rejektd. jected tank. >> item p 3 to instead of tabling this item we are going to forward it to the full board of supervisors. our recommendation responses for number 1a, 1b, 2a, 3, 11d

and 12b. >> okay. without objection those items are recommended. madam clerk, can you call item 5. >> a hearing on the stattous of san francisco getting to zero effort [inaudible] and hif advocates. >> okay, supervisor wiener has asked that we continue this item so i will need to open this item up for public comment. are there any other members of public who'd like to provide public comment on item number 5? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor tang, do we have a

motion to continue item 5 to the calm call of the chair? >> so move. >> without objection it is moved to the call of chair. any further items today? >> there is no further business. >> seeing none, we are adjourned.

>> hello, i am with the san francisco parks department serious we are featuring some wonderful locations in your and very own backyard. this is your chance to find your heart in san francisco with

someone special. we are here at the lovely and historic palace of fine arts, located in the bustling marina district. originally built for the 1950's exposition, the palace is situated along san francisco's waterfront. it is ada accessible and is reached by the 28, 30, and 91 bus lines. with its rotunda, columns, uncut the reflecting waters against the eucalyptus trees, it is one of the most romantic settings for special dates, and memorable proposals. it is also a perfect spot where you can relax with that special someone while listening to the water and fountain in the

lagoon. beautiful to view from many locations, and inside is an ideal place to walk around with your loved ones. the palace is the most popular wedding location in the city park system. reservations for weddings and other events are available at strecpark.org. shakespeares' guard and refers -- has plants referred to in shakespeare's plays and poems. located near the museum and the california academy of sciences, shakespeares garden was designed in 1928 by the california spring blossom association. flowers and plants played an important part in shakespeares literary masterpieces. here is an enchanting and

tranquil garden tucked away along a path behind a charming gate. this garden is the spot to woo your date. appreciate the beauty of its unique setting. the cherry tree, the brick walkways, the enchanting stones, the rustic sundial. chaired the bards'w ro -- share the bard's words. the garden is a gem to share with someone special. pack a picnic, find a bench, enjoy the sunshine and let the whimsical words of william shakespeare float you and your loved one away. this is one of the most popular wedding locations and is available for reservations.

shakespeares garden is 8ada accessible. this park is located at the bottom of a hill. it is a secret garden with an infinite and captivating appeal. carefully tucked away, one block from the bottom of lombard street, it makes the top of our list for the most intimate picnic settings. avoid all tourist cars and parking hassles by hopping on the cable car. or the 30, 45, 41, or 91 bus. this garden was designed by a the landscape architect thomas church in 19 to -- 1957. grow old with me, the best is yet to be is inscribed at this gem of a park.

a lush oasis anchored by gazebosanchoreddekcs, -- gazebos, anchored by decks. this is the place to tell your family the love you share. reservations are available for this hidden gem. i am jamie hopper. until next time, don't forget to get out and play. for more information about reserving one of these romantic locations, or any other location, call 831-5500. this number is best for special events, weddings, picnics, and the county fair building. for any athletic fields and neighborhood parks, 831-5510. you can also write us. 501 san francisco, calif. 94117.

or just walk in and say hello. and of course you can find more information and reach us at sfrecpark.org. >> good morning and welcome to the transbay joint powers authority board of directors meeting for thursday december 11. i would like to acknowledge the staff at sfgovtv that made it through the rain and everyone else in attendance and john stockhouse and jessie larsen that make the meeti