>> good afternoon welcome. welcome to the board of supervisors meeting of january 27 2015. mr. clerk can you please call the roll. >> supervisor avalos. supervisor breed. >> here. supervisor campos. >> present. >> supervisor christensen. >> present. >> supervisor cohen. >> present. >> supervisor farrell. >> present. >> supervisor kim. supervisor mar. >> here. >> supervisor tang. >> present. >> supervisor wiener.

>> present. >> supervisor yee. >> present. >> madam president you have a quorum. >> okay. is there a motion to excuse supervisor kim. motion by supervisor wiener second by supervisor yee without objection supervisor kim is excused. ladies and gentlemen can you join me in the pledge of allegiance. >> >> i pledge allegiance to the flag to the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.. >> mr. clerk are there any changes to the agenda? >> i have no changes. >> okay colleagues are there any changes to the meeting minutes of january 7 and january 8? is there a motion to approve those

minutes? motioned by supervisor campos. seconded by supervisor farrell. without objection those meeting minutes are approved. [gavel] >> following public comment madam president. >> is there any public comment for -- no we would only -- okay got you. thank you. so those meeting minutes will be approved after public comment. okay mr. clerk can you please call the consent agenda. >> items 1-9 are considered rout. if a member want to remove one from the consent agenda. >> seeing none can you call the roll. >> on the consent agenda. supervisor breed. >> i. >> supervisor campos. >> aye. >> supervisor christensen. >> aye. >> supervisor cohen. >> aye. >> supervisor farrell. >> aye. >> supervisor kim. supervisor

mar. >> aye. >> supervisor tang. >> aye. >> supervisor wiener. >> aye. >> supervisor yee. >> aye. >> supervisor avalos. >> aye. >> there are 10 aye's. >> okay. those items on pass on the first reading finally passed and adopted unanimously. mr. clerk next item please. >> item 10 is respond to the civil grand jury for contained in the 13-14 civil grand jury report titled ethics, promise or pretense. >> all right. supervisor avalos. >> thank you madam president and colleagues. i want to thank you for allowing this item to be continued for two weeks. there were a lot of -- there's a lot of language in this i wanted to look at and on face value i wasn't able to make a determination even looking at

before the weekend of the last vote so i want to make sure i have ample time. my staff was working on this and i found there were a number of items in the resolution they think it would behoove us to make more action on and take more -- at least consideration of legislation that could come before us from the ethics commission and the roles that other departments could play, the controller's office as well in recommending audits so i have a number of amendments i would like to propose, and i will read the amendments as they come before me here, so on page four lines four-12 recommendation number two i will like to see that we amend this to say that the board requests the controller to conduct an audit to determine prohibited contributions have been properly

forfeited to the city. actually it would make more sense that the board asks for that rather than any individual supervisor so i wanted broaden the request of such an audit by making that cover the entire board. page four line 13-21 recommendation number 11. amend this to say that we urge the sunshine task force ethics commission and the city attorney to grade preservation policies for emails and text messages and those rules should be informed by the future ruling of the california supreme court whether public officials use personal devices and subject to disclosure. since that ruling is not necessarily performed yet we want to make sure that whatever policy we have coming forward will align with the california supreme court. the original response that the policy changes are beyond the jurisdiction of the board, but that's not

exactly correct. the board is free to make amendments to chapter eight of the ad min code which covers record retention policies so i wanted to see that we played a role to request that these entities -- the sunshine task force and the commission and the city attorney provide us with some preservation policy recommendations for our consideration. page four lines 22, page five line four recommendation number 16. amend this to say that we support requiring additional transparency regarding gifts of travel without creating excessively burdensome reporting requirements. the original response said they're beyond the jurisdiction of the board but that's not exactly correct either. the board is free to initiate campaigns to the code and the campaign but need to be approved by the ethics commission. the next amendment is page five lines five-13 recommendation number 18. amend this to say that the board will

consider an ordinance -- will consider not do but consider an ordinance to add the board of supervisors to the list of offices covered by the public consent calendar requirements of the sunshine ordinance and require the calendars to include the topic of meetings and attendees at the meetings, so that is a consideration and we can have -- if we do have legislation coming forward perhaps it would take the entirety of the recommendations or part of them but i think it's worthy of our consideration here in the board of supervisors. the board already complies with sunshine requests for calendar so it seems like there is no objection to codifying this into practice, codify this practice into law. i understand that tracking attendees in our meetings would require additional work from our offices. the reason for the recommendation because without knowing who supervisors are meeting with it's impossible to

track with registered lobbyists are meeting with supervisors. i am open to alternative ways to track them. this amendment only says that we will consider an ordinance and i am happy to work with colleagues on a manageable solution for this. the last i think it's the last recommendation i have is page five lines 14-23 recommendation number 21. amend this to say that the board will not implement the recommendation that the ethics commission has provided be given -- that the board will not implement the recommendation that the ethics commission -- of the ethics commission -- there is an amendment about the ethics commission provide -- allow for staffing for a secretary and while it's important to add to the ethics commission what they have been increasing is

staffing increases is investigators so i think it's appropriate that we follow those recommendations of the hick thick commission they actually have the staffing necessary to did the work that they do in researching file accident -- filings and campaign financing is proceeding like it should so those are the recommendations so the last one just to be clear we will not be approving a recommendation for staffing for commission secretary rather looking at additional staffing for investigation and odd tors. >> okay. supervisor avalos are you making a motion to move those those amendments? >> i am. >> second by supervisor campos. i would like to recognize supervisor tang. >> thank you colleagues. so having sat on the jao committee with supervisor breed i wanted to respond to some of the amendments proposed. i know we had a two week continuance but

we saw these amendments today so i wish we had a better opportunity to work on this -- >> we can continue again. >> while i don't fundamentally disagree with you supervisor avalos on some of the changes that you would like to see made i do want to respect our committee process and why we came to some of the conclusions that we did for our responses so i'm not going to go into every single change that has been made and why we made the decisions that we did in jao but for example for recommendation number 21 we responded the way we did because we want to during our regular budget process give our whole entire board of supervisors along with our city departments the ability to make decisions in the context of our budget process. again that is just one example of how we responded the way that we did. the

second point is there are difference responses to make for the civil grand jury report and we can include a summary and explanation for what we did. second the implementation is not recommended but within a set time frame provided. third we can say that the recommendation requires further analysis and fourth we could say that the recommendation will not be implemented because it's not warranted or reasonable and provide an explanation so i know that some of the amendments made do not follow that structure so i would really encourage that if the amendments go through and lastly i would say again based on the responses that we provided in jao and nothing just like you mentioned supervisor avalos nothing prevents an individual supervisor from going through the regular process proposing legislation or other measures to carry out some of the goals so with thats again i want to respect the work that our committee done in response

to these amendments. >> thank you supervisor tang. supervisor cohen. >> supervisor cohen you have no comment? >> [inaudible] >> okay. thank you. supervisor avalos. >> yes. i actually am fine if we want to continue and if people need more time to look at these. i understand there are many recommendations that are in the resolution and having more time is okay with me. i felt that the way that the resolution was drafted even though it did follow the guidelines of gao and how they weigh in on the grand jury report it's not one i could support and i agreed with and not a question of whether i didn't agree with the work of the committee and the gao. it

was about the language in front of me i wanted to make sure was something i could agree with and actually coincide with what i intend to do or could intend to do in the future so it wasn't about not respecting the committee process but what is before us today and colleagues i hope you support the continuance if it's asked for today or support the amendments. >> so you're not withdrawing the motion to move it forward today? >> i would like to move the amendments today. that's what the current motion is before us. >> okay. thank you. okay. you have before you amendments to item number 10. mr. clerk can you please call the roll -- -- excuse me supervisor wiener. >> thank you. i want to

respect the work of the committee but in addition someone once introduced legislation about ethics or disclosure or anything else. any member of the body can do that and goes through the normal legislative process with significant public scrutiny and feedback and so on and so forth. the idea of sort of frankly on the fly inserting effectively -- not it would affect the change in the law but expressing the intent of the board as part of the amendments doesn't make sense to me. if someone is interested in changing the campaign rules or lobbyist rules or ethics rules we do that on a regular basis and we have legislation and hold public hearings and adopt it or not and that's the way to do it so i don't think these are necessary. some of the ideas i was looking

at them and could be good ideas but they should go through the normal legislative process instead of being inserted on the fly. >> thank you. supervisor campos. >> thank you madam president. i suggest there is a process to make legislative amendments and that's right. there is a legislative process for that but that's not what is at issue here. what is at issue here is what response the board of supervisors is going to provide to a civil grand jury that has identified specific issues and concerns around the area of ethics, and i think that the reason why i support these changes is because i don't believe that the response should be that everything is fine which i think is essentially what the existing response comes down to. i think that we need to respond by acknowledging that in fact there are things that need to be worked on. i don't think that

we need to work on those things today. there is as people noted a legislative process but i think it's really important for the board of supervisors to be on record that the concerns that have been raised by the civil grand jury are concerns that are legitimate, that we recognize them as such, and that we are committed to doing something about that and i think that statement is a statement that is very needed. >> thank you. supervisor christensen. >> i don't think any of us are debating the intent of this. i think what we're debating is is the board's response to that intent. for myself i was handed this document five minutes before i walked into this room and to ask for an assessment as to whether this is the best response and the best way to address these issues is something i don't feel that i am in a position to discuss. i certainly appreciate supervisor avalos' intention. i think

they're consistent the rest of us. i just agree a little time to make sure this is the best way to go for it. for myself i understand we're trying to balance transparency and need to report and be responsive with practical and financial considerations and i would like more of a look of those implications and making sure we're actually solving the problem. >> thank you. mr. clerk can you please call the roll. >> on the amendment supervisor breed. >> no. >> supervisor campos. >> aye. >> supervisor christensen. >> no. >> supervisor cohen. >> [inaudible] >> supervisor farrell. >> no. >> supervisor mar. >> aye. >> supervisor tang. >> no. >> supervisor wiener. >> no. >> supervisor yee. >> aye. >> supervisor avalos. >> aye. >> there are four aye's and six no's. >> this item to amend failed.

mr. clerk can you please -- okay. can you please call the roll on the underlying item. >> on item 10? >> hold on. supervisor campos. >> thank you very much. i just want to note they will be voting against this item because i do think that the response, and i appreciate the work of the committee but i think it makes it look like the board is really not responding appropriately to the very serious concerns that have been raised by the civil grand jury so i will be casting a no vote for that reason. thank you. >> thank you. okay mr. clerk can you please call the roll on item 10. >> supervisor breed. >> aye. >> supervisor campos. >> no. >> supervisor christensen. >> no. >> supervisor cohen. >> [inaudible] >> supervisor farrell. >> aye. >> supervisor mar. >> no. >> supervisor tang. >> aye. >> supervisor wiener. >> [inaudible]

>> supervisor yee. >> aye. >> supervisor avalos. >> no. >> there are six aye's and four no's. >> okay this item is approved. mr. clerk can you please call item 11. >> item 11 is ordinance to modify the public works code for personal wireless service facility site permits and amend the fees for such permits. >> roll call. supervisor avalos. >> thank you madam president. since 2007 the city has required a permit to install a wireless facility on the utility or street pole in the public right-of-way. i sponsored legislation to move these to article 25 of the public works code and set certain esthetic guidelines as well as requirements on tier level based on size. shortly after the legislation passed a number of wireless carriers use the city -- sued the city and challenged our authority to require such

permits as well as claims based on new federal law passed in 2012 that limited local government or authority to regulate modifications of wireless facilities that are permanent. at trial the city prevailed to regulate them in the public right-of-way and also the court ruled in favor of the wireless carriers also. i am introducing these amendments to try and preserve the esthetickings review and public noticing requirements of article 25. this amendment would simplify the current permitting process and ensure that the modification provisions comply with federal law. it does so by one, repealing the tier system. in light of federal law and mod modifications there is no reason for the city to fast track permitting for small facilities that could be enlarged easily and we would see that before.

the carriers would come before us with a small facility and meet to review and wouldn't have to have further notification and when implementing it they would bring in a larging facility in the public right-of-way. now all permit applications require public notice and subject to protests. this simplifies the process for everyone. two, change the modification provisions to be consistent with federal law as construed by the federal communications commission. the amendments would require the city to grant modifications permits when they met federal requirements. three, requiring applicants to disclose in their applications whether they intend to modify the proposed wireless facilities. this disclosure is part of the public notice so local residents could understand the potential of the size of the proposed wireless facilities could be increased. in the past we did -- like i said before we

saw that the carriers would propose a smaller if the and we want to avoid that and. >> >> well aware of what is going on the poles in the right-of-way. it makes changes to the permitting and requirements related to the technology used to address other aspects with the city. it makes clear that the permitting requirement applies to the mta and they entered into an agreement with telecommunications carriers with using the poles and wireless facilities and we're increasing the fees for cost recovery. i want to thank the dpw for helping with this, the city attorney's office and omar from the planning commission and colleagues i hope to have your support for this ordinance. thank you. >> thank you. supervisor wiener. >> thank you madam president.

so first i want to thank supervisor avalos and others for working on this legislation. i know a good part of it is a response to the court ruling to make sure that our ordinance is in compliance with what the law is, and i will also say that this is one of the challenges here and i think one of the frustrations of the public and the city departments have had is as i understand it because pg&e has insisted that these rather large meters be used in connection with some of these devices that ends up making them much bigger and more unsightly and it's sort of outside of the carriers control unfortunately but pg&e made that decision which i understand doesn't have to be the case because other utilities in other areas in southern california have made a different determination as not

requiring bulky and blighted kinds of boxes. in any event just a question in terms of -- maybe i don't know if this is for the planning department or to the author. in terms of out reach to the wireless carriers about the upgrading of all of the facilities to tier three so as i understand there will no longer be tier one and two and everything will be tier three. was there outreach to the wireless carriers about that? they have indicated to me there wasn't and i am curious about that. >> the provision in the ordinance was we had to go with the court decision and [inaudible] in recognize to the court decision so the outreach was limited at best. the outreach was a notification by the public works department to the different carriers but the ordinance that went forward was to react to federal law that we

have limited control over. >> i understand for most of the ordinance i know that to be the case, but for the provision upgrades all of the facilities to tier three which is the higher level of scrutiny. was that mandated by the court? >> in many respects getting rid of the tiers. we were in tier ones and basically said if you came with a small facility well designed, not obtrusive small boxes and no other requirements. we only had one built out of the existing ones so in many respects the tiers in some respects is muting because most were tier three or started out as tier two and became three over time but without public input as a result of modifications.