would like to see ballot measure and components you want to see if you want to see them and what they would look like, we propose it is uptmal to come back at the next meeting for that language for the commission to take final action. i want to raise that as a possible and alternative in order to make sure we have the opportunity to flush out issues that are in the room this evening. i also would point out as we get into the memo under general discussion we provided under the 3 proposals a general staff alternative for the discussion this evening to get reaction from the commission as well as the public. those alternatives are listed to the right of the proposal we received. we had a modified proposal from the proponents after the second interest persons meeting may 18 so that proposal is slightly different from the initial proposal that you saw

last month. it was after thought and discussion and we provided a alternative on the right to provide them counter point to that. i want to make one additional note that was oversight on my part in haste to get the memo done so my apology for that. on page 3 under the gift restriction, we had thought at the staff and agreement with what the thrust of the proposal is in this regard that we would like to see additional language under the alternative that does speak to a prohibition on the contact laubiest directly or indirectly or through a 3rd party paying or reimbursing for travel of sit a officer. that was a key discussion and agree that is something important to capture here. it doesn't do that so that is my oversight but want to make that a place holder for agreement in

that area. under the lobbyist contsbution limit list a alturn urn to consider that takes a similar approach the proponent of the measure do in applying a contribution limit that apply tooz lobbyist. any and all committees controlled by the candidate they are giving to. the proposal is there would be a contribution limit of $50 and that a lobbyist could give no more than $50. we propose alternative for discussion that will take the same approach but it would retain the existing $500 limit on contributions that apply to lobious and others but the same calculation in the agora get applies so lobbyist are prohibited giving more than $500 in the aggregate to committees controlled by the officer holder or candidate and this

thereis restriction on what the candidate can receive. lastly, there is language on bundling which currently tries to use language that exists in one of our existing regulations to clarify what we mean as to the activities that are subject to a bundling prohibition and think it is worth having more discussion about the distinction does it mean to arrange or solicit and exempt from a bundling ban. feel free to chime in on the analysis for this as well. just with that as a introduction i want to flag what the issues were and how the memo was structured but to turn it over to the commission and to hear from the public about the discussions we had and where the proponents see the issues at this point.

>> propose we deal with the whole memo and before we get public discussion with the commissioners starting with 1 through the last page which is commissioner regulation. i will take comments. commissioner keane? >> thank you mr. chair. i think the staff has done a excellent job here in terms of writing the language relating to the tenor of everything we discussed last time in terms of having this type of measure on the ballot and the staffs language has clarifyed a number of things, made it much sharper and in

terms of all 3 areas that you can look at which is on page 3 and 4 and 5, on the right hand side the staff alternatives, and the language which essentially tracks and is the same with some distinctions from the proposal, those-the staff alternative language in my opinion is very good and superior and i think that-i agree with mrs. pelum it is better to go forward with more discussion, more input, a couple more meetings and take this up at our next meeting after we had that, but i would be prepared-i'm not going make a motion but i'm prepared to vote now on

the language of the measure just incorporating all of the staffs language. i think they have done a marvelous job writing but in the interest of more discussion, more public comment and sharpening it even to a grating extent and having it before us for the next time-the only fear i have is we need 4 votes for this and we are losing one of our members tonight so next time we're-i don't know how quickly there will be a replacement for commissioner andrews but hopefully -anybody have vacation plans the next couple meetings that may take you out- may i ask the colleagues

whether they will be available because since we need 4 votes? >> the 4th monday in june and 4th monday in july, any of you know at the presents time whether you are scheduled for a vacation? >> not scheduled. >> hopefully we will have a replacement in the event of that. >> that is reassureing. >> any other discussion or comments anyone wants to make? jrblsh >> what is the deadline to come up with a final recommendation? >> august 5. >> if i understood what you said going to the gift section, you would propose moving over into the staffs side

the language that is in the top paragraph on page 2 in the represent us proposal. >> a bit more explicitly. i would suggest we pull the concept related to gifts of travel so that in addition to the language we show under staff alternatives we add a explicit reference with different language than what is shown here. i think it would accomplish the same end. so, something like, no contact lobbyist may directly or indirectly or through a third party pay or reimburse for travel of a city officer. we mean travel include food, refreshment, hotel and transportation. >> if we assuming that the

commission is of the view that should go forward so we got something more concrete at the next meeting, could the city attorneys office draft a proposed ordinance for consideration at that meeting? >> chair renne, i don't think there will be a problem drafting the proposal since we have a lot of the language and it is in good shape. let me address two other issues in terms of getting prepared. the first is as the commission all knows, whenever any agency is proposing to impose or creating new finance restriction it is incombound to create a ledgeilative record . we are impacting contributions and campaign activities and it is the governments burden to demonstrate that restriction as

needed. we will want to give the staff more time and happy to assist in developing that record. the second topic i would want to get the commissions thoughts on is you may recall from the pop c discussion we had internal debate whether to allow further legislative changes in stead of going back to the voters for the amendments. when the voters approve a measure it can only be amended or changed by the voters. we haveen quite touched on the subject yet and don't know if the commission wants to install that here. >> i guess what i propose in that regard that whatever you submit for the june meeting, which i would propose it should be in the form of a actual ordinance, and you can include

the language and we can decide at that point after comment whether we want to delete it or keep it in. call for public comment on item 5. >> bob plantholds and attended both interesting persons meetings and perplexed and think the staff would help the public and you commissioners explain on pages 2 and 4 there is specific reference to contect lobious. lobbyist. the second interested person meetings i raised the question of those present and who expressed a

opinion wanted expenditure lobbyist also covered. there may have been one person who raised a question about that, but the sentiment was include expenditure lobbyist yet this only mentions contact lobbyist and think that is a oversight making us wonder how come. the volters can ask what, how come because we just did see which deals with expenditure lobbyist so leave that chore up to you to consider for the june meeting. >> thank you. >> [inaudible] friends with ethics. i will-before i get started i want to say thank you all and to commissioner andrews on a personal level. he has given in termoffs the public arena. i was the person of the jury that

recommended a commission secretary and he supported us every step of the way so thank you for that part, i appreciate it. i also want to talk about the contact lobbyist and expenditure lobbyist. we spent a lot of time last year, you all put a lot of effort into it as some on the outside making sure measure c went through which is all about expense lobbyist and not seeing here when there was supported both meetings to include contact lobbyist and expenditure lobbyist was a bit of a disappoint and hope it gets included. your staff has a statement above the boxes that says in general existing state law defines lobbyist to mean both contact and any person that qualifys as a expenditure lobbyist but they don't use generic term lobbyist they use contact lobbyist throughout the memo and say if you use contact lobbyist you should

also include expenditure lobbyist. thank you. >> is there a conscious decision why you used just contact lobbyist rather than the broader term which includes both the expenditure and contact lobbyist? >> yes, it was a choice to leave that out. there was consensus in the room that it is important to have expenditure lobbyist in because they have [inaudible] i think the distinction that at this point for discussion i wanted to raise, we don't currently have registered expenditure lobbyist. that may change so that probably isn't a persuasive point but a poichbt information. the other question about is there sadis tinction that is meaningful for purpose of these restrictions, if somebody is a person who receives compensation for the purpose of lobbying regular with the

city and directly communicating with city officials to influence a decision versing someone they may spend more than the thresh hold amount and qualify as a expenditure lobbyist, there is the nexus to the decision maker may be one step removed. i think there are argument said on both sides. a expenditure lobbyist could respond millions of dollars in a attempt to get others to communicate. the question is contribution limits and limiting that it is helpful to ask the question what is innexus we create and talk about restriction of the contributions. it is a conscious point to put that here and should have spelt it out in more detail but it was a conscious choice. >> the expenditure lobbyist may be a corporation that has to register as expenditure lobbyist and why should they not have to be under the

same restrictions as a contact lobbyist? >> if i can chime in. as i mentioned, we have a obligation to gep legislative record that justifies these restrictions and given there are no expenditure lobbyist it is difficult to develop a regard. how do we demonstrate having a undo influence through contributions on city officials? it is a impossible thing to prove from a evdincherary. >> we read about the corporations that pay for trips the public officials go arounds viz tding sister cities. the fact they are not registered as a expenditure lobbyist right now -i'm not-the fact they don't exist doesn't mean if there isn't a need to

put the same restrictions on them as there is on a contact lobbyist. >> right and i just observe the [inaudible] did a great job in compiling the current slate of contact lobbyist and all the contributions they made to officials. a lot of what is bundling activity on their part. since we don't have expenditure lobbyist we can't develop the same type of regulation for that category of people. >> in the need in developing a record would it be sufficient or useful to go back to the reasons a expenditure lobbyist provision was created in the first place and look to that even if people are not currently registered? look at circumstances that led to the creation of the law and see what those activities were? is that something that can be- >> since wree talking about gifts and contributions we would have to

look at gift squz contributions to the expenditure lobbyist but at the current time there doesn't seem to be one. >> i didn't mean to interrupt public comment. >> zack from represent us and appreciate the questions because was curious about the changes as well. want to make a general point in support the proposal and add a data point about travel gifts and think could be useful and subimate afterwards with e-mail lf want to echo others appreciation for commissioner andrews work, think you have done an amazing job and thank you so much. so, i guess my point of support on the proposal lobbyist shoulden be able to use gift squz donations specifically to influence city officials. we think our

group thinks lobbyist serve a important purpose but when they can use contributions and travel gilfts and bundled mun athere is risk of corruption. the data point i want to add about travel gifts and i need ed to bring my phone up because i can't remember anything myself. just to be clear, we and i am not making acquisition about the people where mention but just pointing out nrfshz r information we were able to find that has the risk of appearance of corruption. mayor ed lee wents on a 5 day trip in october of 2013 to china and south careera and cost 20, 500. richard petertion, a lobbyist for good year and vartoff investment which is a

large real estate investment firm, the largest in san francisco. the ear marked contributions were made through a non profit named san francisco shanghai sister city committee for the travel. it was a 5 day trip. vartaus investment is a client of good year, hayward and peterson associates. [inaudible] contributed over $500 to the trip. the exact amount is undisclose said. richard peterson contributesed $500 to the trip. the amount undisclosed and was able to acomany ed lee on the trip for 5 years. less than one month after the twip november 2013 vartaus investment picked up property said in san francisco for $100 million with intents of making improvements to furkter enhance the appeal to residents and

tenants. in 20 freen richard peterson assisted vartaus investment with permit and community related opportunities. the following year richard peterson bundled [inaudible] for ed lee 2015 campaign. thank you. >> [inaudible] for lacking a voice. thank you all for your attention to detail in this matter, we rely appreciate all the efforts of the staff. i feel very productive and think it is important we get this right so it means something if it goes to the ballot. i like to bring to your attention san francisco residents support this measure. prop c passed with flying color squz believe voters will show up to support the measure in november. to back that up a poll conducted pie the public policy

polling found 82 percent of san francisco voters support banning gift of travel to alected afilthss and 79 percentf voters support the banning of gifts of any kind to elected officials from lobbyist. a change outward position we posted shows over 360 signatures from san francisco residents in support of this ballot initiative. thank you. >> thank you. >> my name is david and also from represent us and like to thank you for taking the time to entertain or potential proposal for the ballot. another thing i like to bring up is currently peoples confidence in government especially in san francisco is at a all time low. as you may recall from the gentlemen at the beginning of the meeting, the ethics commission is still the most trusted for meaningful ethics reform.

if one of the chief rolls we are looking for is instill people with confidence of government. we are trying to make sure people know their system is being fixed and the loop holes in the law code that could give people the ability to provide undo influence on government actions is being taken care of and you guys are the vanguard of it. i also like to point out i feel it is critical both contact and expenditure lobbyist are included in this even if there isn't a local and emphasis on only local for expenditure lobbyist having influence over government here in san francisco, it is a problem that is being faced in similar matters throughout the nation and need to make sure people know that we are not just replacing a loop hole with another and make sure the foundation we biltd is solid so we don't need to provide more proposals in the future to

further close loop holes and praid a foundation to make sure the government works for us. >> [inaudible] represent us. i want to say this initiative still maintains the lobbyist legal rights and allows them to still contribute or give contributions just as a smaller level. we think maintaining lobbyist rights to contribute are very porbt and don't want to demonize or minimize their contbulation but think that this initiative should be supported and look forward to your support in getting this on the ballot in november. i want to echo what was said about having expepdture and contact lobbyist included , we don't have expenditure lobbyist is equivalent to say the house isn't on fire so why do we need insurance. we

should sure the law makes sense and thorough and doesn't put burden put help minimize the perception or risk to corruption in government. thank you. >> thank you. >> hi again commissioners, charley mar stellar for the record. i want to go through several items so i'll be very brief. election cycle is 2016, 17, 18 and 19. i should want to mention 17 is off the list as i remember we go from twnt 16 to 18 to 19. with the first policy area to be discussed as lobbyist because we reviewed current laws and see that this is the simplest area to do right now and then in the future we can do more complex items like campaign finance. you want to think

this be aglobbyist reform, not acome pain finance matter even though it ovlays a little bit it is focused only on lobbyist. i see the new executive directors report doesn't show the number of registered lobbyist, just income increases in the current fiscal year which is 3 times the estimate that mr. st. croix placed in the budget for the current fiscal year. might be useful to prepare a chart showing variation in the registered number of lobbyist over the years. say the past 10 years or so. i think a simple summary would be useful to see. i also think you need a simple summary and the public needs it for the origin and genesis oof the ordinance itself because it started in the 70's as i understood it through the board

of supervisors- preidates the ethics commission which wasn't in business until 95 and so it is a hybrid bill because in 2005 we revisited it as part of the comprehensive so call, ethics reform and some of these things all interlay, so as far as applying the super majorityies to a-mind these ordinances, that certainly we will need to know the origin and genesis of the original law because there is aspects of that law we will have to repeal and reenact so it would be covered by super majority reform later. there is legal issues that need to be ironed out regarding the application of what i call the stern proviso. i see a unifiication and think so do the advocates in the community

between simple contact lobbying and expenditure lobbying. we don't see major difference. i think the public views it as lobbying and think that is what we want to also get clear in our mind. thank you. >> hello, [inaudible] member of represent us. thank you for your time. it is a pleasure getting involved in the political process in san francisco work wg your executive director and staff. it is great at the interesting person meetings. we looked and reached out to some of the people opposed to prop c and had a opportunity to work with them at the interested persons meeting and talk to them and really tried to improve the process for reaching compromise and understanding what the issues others have and received positive comments from those people opposed to prop c we really turned thing around. we are

not opposed to lobbying and want to support lobbyist ask and do play a role in government and have information and the ability to do research, we just want to restrict their influence by not having the amount of donations and gifts they can make. we think they have riget to make some donations and other courts upheld some level of donation is okay. what is important is the roll of san francisco and the city and country isf is has a history of bringing up the fomost politicians in the country and what we would like to see san francisco lead by example by having strict codes where strong politicians can rise and work through the ranks and not be persuaded to spend all their time raising money get nothing

fluence working to bundles of mun oney they can focus on serving the citizen jz needs and knowing they are playing on a level playing field so if you do that you will make it possible for politician tooz rise through the ranks from san francisco to sacramento to washington dc and will carry the sense of fair play. the citizen jz voters support the efforts to clean up things. yoi look at the presidential campaign, read on the way over, mu caulis [inaudible] hillary clintons is investigated by the fbi. the notion of corruption in politics is the forfront of the news and in san franciscan's mind and support this and appreciate the support of the commission. thank you. >> thank you.

>> good evening commissioners and director pelum. wanted to bring to the commissions attention, one of the members from represent us outlined quickly mayor lee's trip to one of the sister cities or a couple sister cities and his trip to israel which had a aunt rauj of 29 people, members of various city departments a large number of non profits that included one of the developers from prodo development group. there is a very strong pattern of the same sort of sister city visits largely financed by non profit groups and it is something for the commission to remember. if it is just one

sister city that is one thing but most of the mayors visits have all been sister city funded primarily by non profits. thank you. >> thank you. >> hello. i am a san francisco resident and really love the city and i think fixing corruption is important to the people who live in it and [inaudible] people beyond it and wanted to say i'm excited to vote for it in november if it passes. >> good evening commissioners peter cohen with council of community housing organization. good to see several again. mrs. pelum, did the commissioners get the letter

submitted? it came late but after the packet and copies because i have some here if you need them. we submitted along with human service network very minor but important detailed comments suggestions on the draft for your consideration. before i get into those, a few things on process. support staff recommendation to take comments, let this digest, come back with revised draft in june, take your timeism you have until august as the staff report says. from our experience with prop c we think it is very important to get it right and take the time to go through all the details and make sure when and put forward your vote you ironed out whatever wrinkles are necessary so we support staffs recommendation to continue this. shoked point is

we had chance to talk to represent us folks. i have to say they are really professional peep squl it is a pleasure to work through this stuff. i'm not a lawyer or ethics professional but it is helpful to talk to folks who can break it down and explain in pragmatic terms what this is about and intent and target and compared to our previous experience it is very refreshing it allowed hsn and choochooto get to the specifics quickly so we appreciate that. which leads to our general support of this measure and intent to the extent we understand what is being drafted so makes sense and looks good, we encourage you to reach out to the broad non profit community. we are a couple coalitions in it and make sure there are not unin10ed traps but so far it looks straight forward. we

offer the specific details there that have to do with the type of activities non profits are engaged in. it may be clarifying existing exemptions of things already in law and make sure they are not swept away like events or conferences, when we invite someone to speak at an event we have, these are very simple day to day activities, not sending delications to china for 5 weeks so want to make sure those type of things are allowances for us in the world we operate in and happy to work with you and the legislation sponsors going forward and the staff. i'll take any questions if you have them. thanks. >> alex kaplan, the policy director for represent us. on behalf the organization i want to thank you for entertaining this and taking

the time to read and specifically thank the staff for their hard work on this. the interested persons meeting we had we had a good group of people to make sure the proposed measure addresses what we see. the interest and [inaudible] create reasonable exemptions that don't address the problem. i want to say we appreciate the city attorney and staffs attempt to create language and not [inaudible] will differ to the city attorneys choices. i think the core problem here is the perception of corruption and the south korea trip is a example to [inaudible] corruption to

bundle a lot of money and give large contributions. that isn't to say there are not instances of corruption occurring but we are not trying to accuse anybody, the focus is on the san francisco voters and perception of voters that is occurring here and across the country. also want to make clear, it is my understanding stream court juriss prudence on how this works in response to the findings the city attorneys office brought up, a jurisdiction need not suffer specific problems that they see occurring in other places in order to enact measures. i think that is important to address the concern of the expenditure lobbyist. i spress the concern director pelum brought up, we haven't soon a problem because it hasn't

existed. i suggest we insert the super majority similar to prop c to empower the commission to extend from contract lobbyist to all lobbyist. i think we can think create ivly making sure we don't have to go back to the voters. i want to point out on page 4 the language of bundling suggested by the staff. shall deliver or bundle or otherwise transmit. we spent time talk about what that means because we want a clear definition. we want the regulated parties to be clear what they can and can't do. we suggested no lobbyist transmit or arrange for a person to transmit on behalf of the lobbyist. that is trying to mirror fcc regulations at the federal level and think it is wurkt looking at the simpplicity and want to make clear that second clause, the range or any

person to transmit on behalf is about circumvention so the bundling words deliver and transmit and concern about the word arrange is it is hard to understand what is means. sorry about the time with my concern, my main kernel about the lower contribution limit. we suggested $50, that isn't a hard number but also not uncommon across the country for lower limits that are specific to parties doing business. public contractors so lobbyist to be sig competently low er a 10th or 5th. i dont think the $500 limit that mirrors what is currently in place for everyone in san francisco does anything to instill voter cfsds to say lobbyist also only contribute $500 but it more taylored to include the committees controlled so urge the commission to consider dropping that $500 down to something low enough that instills voter confidence. thank you.

>> good evening. [inaudible] i submitted written comments may 19 but have the following comments this evening regarding gifts, the proposing gift ban is not needed. the current limit of $25 is so low that it cant inpossibly have a crupg corrupting influence on a city officer. the proposed gift ban will prohibit gifts of travel from governmental agency, educational institution or charity for legislative or governmental purpose or related to state, national or international public policies. prohibiting such gifts mean all such travel is funded by the city using tax money used for other critical governmental functions. the lobbying law also prohibits lobbyist

from making a gift exceeding $25. the ethic law prohiblts a auftser to [inaudible] since the ethics law provision is narrow drawn, the commission should take the opportunity to reconcile the two provisions by deleting the lobbyist gift ban with language indicating a lobbyist is subject to gift restrictions in theectics law. regarding contribution limits the amendments bring up the lobbyist from contributing more than $50 regardless if they are registered to lobby. $50 is similar to the states former ban on contributions that was invalidated by the california supreme court in 1979. the contribution ban was a

substantial restriction on the lobest freedom of association and the state failed to demonstrate a important interest or employ means closely drawn to avoid bridgment of associated freedoms. in reaching the decision the court relied on the fact the ban applied to all candidates eerfben though a lobious may not lobby a particular candidate. regarding [inaudible] the ban on the bundling of contributions is not needed since bundleds contributions is subject to detail disclosure requirements. in addition there is fram court precedents a ban on bundling by lobbyist violates the first amendment and green party och connecticut a[inaudible] not only invalidated a ban on lobbyist ntd contribution it was also state law [inaudible] staif candidates. reaching this conclusion the court state

adlimit on the solicitation of permissible contributions prohibits the type of activity that lies at the first amendment-core. that is because it involves speech to solicit contribution on behalf of a candidate is to make a statement. you should support this candidate not only at the polls but with a financial contribution. speech utters during the campaign requires the application of the protection set forth in the first amendment. i urge you to not impose the ban of contribution by lobbyist. >> can i ask a question of you please? on your last points regarding reporting, could you clarify how in

your view reporting on for example, the shanghai and south korea- >> everyone knows who is contributing. under san francisco law out of town trips the elected officials can not take the out of town trips funded by persons other than government unless that information is provided on the report and assume that is how they obtain the recommendation. the disclosure is there. court held providing disclosure is one of the main reasons that you can actually provide the information people need to make decisions whether it is who to vote for or the decisions being made by

the legislative body so disclosure is very important and that-bundling, gifts are all disclosed on lobbying reports. >> so that is disclosure for the benefit of the public but how does that impact the decisions made by the elected official receiving the benefit of a bundled contribution? how does a disclosure get tothat question? >> the official clearly knows the information is being disclosed and i'm assuming most people make decisions in the best interest of the public. if there is a conflict they can't make a decision and the law provides for conflicts under political reform act in san francisco so if there is proper disclosure and no conflict they should be able to make the decision. thank you. >> thank you.

>> ray [inaudible] i like to remind the previous speaker about the fact that the city librarian lieu eshurarea received 5 thousand a year for gifts from outside group he was supposed to provide oversight to and then lied about it year after year after year on a statement of economic interest so if we rely on the fact somebody will report the fact they gave somebody a nice big fat gift of a trip or whatever it was i think we are pinning our hopes on something that isn't dependable. i think many of the previous speakers said what i believe is quh the voters vote, a lobbyist is a lobbyist and don't give a rip to whether they fall into a specific category or not. [inaudible] consequences says the bottom line as you formulate the change to the law, the lobbyist are looking at the changes you are making and

thinking how they will out maneuver you so basically if you leave out one type of lobious i guarantee that next year you may not any this year, you will next year because they are sitting there thinking we are not subject to the law so we'llchange from this lobbyist to that lobbyist and give our money this way instead of that way. that is what everybody is looking at. there are a lot of people that gain the system. they hann money to someone who is supposed to do something and that person fails to do it. the city librarian, thousands of dollars worth of gifts he received and lied about it under penalty of perjury, this is matter of public record and then when and go and say what happened to it $10 million over the last year the group friend of the library raised and expended, they can't give a answer. they can't tell you where a

penny of that money went. the board of supervisors on authorized to accept a gift from that person in the amont of $375 thousand which means 94 cents out of the dollar is going to fund raising. we have seen the public detriment that groups that proport to be supplying or providing gifts and benefits to a group are allowed to raise money and just spend the money on themselves. what i said to the library commission over and over is what we get for the friends is the friends. basically they raise money to support their own operation and if you ask the city librarian, the library commission, show me anything you received from this group that shows what the library got from them and will tell you there are no responsive documents. so, this needs to

be all lobbyist and the fact we need a record is a way of leaving it out and the bottom line is it needs to be done and it needs to cover all lobbyist because that is what the voters will think when they vote. >> thank you. >> my name is greg brian, the attorney and also with represent us. i would just going discuss a few issues i think are important. one is under the gifts section, they removed the ear marking thing in the recommended changes and think it is important people not able to give gift s to a thirdperty and go to the official in the end. that is a important provision i feel should be back in the proposed

legislation. the other thing i want to talk about is regard to the expenditure lobbyist. we have to establish a burden to show that it is needed. i think we should be able to incorporate what we saw with proposition c and what is going on in other jurisdictions if we don't have expenditure lobbyists that are not registered. if they are not registered there is a good possibility following the laws and guidelines and there may be ways to show that is the case. in which case, there would be a way of showing there is some meeting a burden on us to show that is a issue. the last thing i want to say is if we don't address the expenditure lobbyist what will happen is you will get contact lobbyist and other corporations working

ways to circumvent going the expenditure lobbyist route to get around the regulation. there is a $5 olimit is still a limit and not a flat out ban so it is like we can kis cuss like the $50 limit and $500 limit but the fact of the matter it isn't a ban so should meet constitutional definition. they have the requirements. that is all i want to say. i think the legislation is well written and appreciate everybodys time and commitment to this and want to thank you and thank everybody here for all their hard work on this. thank you. >> thank you. i'm going to jump to item number 8, which is a discussion and possibly action on items for future

meetings. the reason i skipped 6 and 7 is both call for the possibility of a closed hearing and we will assuming that the commission votes to go into a closed session we will deal with both 6 and 7 at that time and we will try and deal with the rest of the agenda in advance so people who don't have to sit and wait for us when we come out of closed session to take up these other items. is there any commissioner who has any suggestions of for items for future meetings? i will take public comment on that. hearing none, turn to 9, which is discussion of the executive drethers report.

>> thank you commissioners renne. item 9 is the material summary of the key items from the office over the last month. most notebly good news in terms of the electronic filing e filing conversion project. we received the green light from the information of technology to fund the project for the next two years including staffing. the mayor is expected to announce the june first budget i believe on the 31 and so we expect we'll have more detailed information about the final budget package and as we do we will share that information with you. my sense at this poipt is we are optimistic there will

be strong support for the commission to advance work in the coming years. i wish i had more details but as soon as the budget package is finalized we will get that to. you had 120 applications for deputy director positions. i look forward giving further updates on that soon as we move forward and want to make a note, i regret that to share the highlighter garret chatfields has take an promotional opportunity to move to departmentf opublic health so his last day was last friday and will post that position and trying to fill that as soon as we can. he was a good person and great person to work with. just wanted to note that. >> are we posting both positions? the one that isn't funded that is

authorized but not funded? >> we are prepared to get out the gate as soon as possible on anything for any position. it is a priority to get those then door as soon as we can. >> kooyou have a target gate for hiring the deputy director? >> we are at the end of may, i would love to have someone here at the early part of the fiscal year. i will leave the other information-just a quick note under policy and legislation. the state legislative committee follow up to support sb 1107 is the bill that have the effect going to the voters to enable public financing systems to be created at the local jurisditional level, the committee on state legislation approved it unanimously and

will communicate that to the state lechblg slairt. we will continue the discussion of policy plan for the coming year at the next meeting. simply didn't have the band widt to do the work necessary to bring it fully to this meeting and think the next meeting we will have a realistic sense of the time for that consideration so thank you for your indullgence. happy to answer questions. >> questions? >> yes, mr. pelemsprz regarding to e filing conversion project, since that is funded bithe city, will the commission budget be reduced? >> no the funding is separate and apart from operational budget decisions so that is terrific news >> will then the project be able to get started right away in the beginning of the fiscal year cephal

>> yes we have the nrfgz technology officer who will start that and as soon as we bring on the staff person to assist with that that will be the person involved with the project development and anticipate we will start that as soon as we can. >> great news. >> yeah, thank you. >> public discussion? >> ray san francisco open government. i like to acknowledge the chairs rearrangement of the agenda. i looked and said we will have two closed session squz if the public wants to have the executive directors report and comment they will be denied unless they want to sit and wait at the pleasures of the ethics commission induterminant return from the closed sessions. i would like to point out that one part where we are talking about garret chatfield leaving. if i

understand correctly, the reason we were 69 or 70 complaints behind in investigations is because mr. chatfield and other investigator are only part time positions so we are down to one part time position and i didn't hear a answer when that position will be filled or relating to the one that is open for god knows how long. part the reason your budget didn't go up is because you had a position and didn't fell it and the city will look for low haj ing fruit. you have a position that should be filled and isn't and will take the money away assuming if you don't fill the position you don't need it. i worked with the state government in hawaii and that is how it works you use it when you have the money or you lose it. that is why i thought it was ludicrous you

didn't ask for increase whether everyone else was going ball tooz had wall, everyone in the city everyone was hiring and city employees has risen enormously over the last 6 or 7 years and the ethics commission was sitting with unfilled positions and money to fill them and didn't. we had that discussion but and if the mayor should approve your 30 or 40 percent increase i suggest you dont repeat that bad behavior which is having the position and funding for it and fail toog fill it. my opinion is mr. st. croix left those positions vacant for the intent it would slow investigations. mr. st. croix was well established history of using all sorts of administrative tricks to get hearings heard in odd ways or

not heard at all. i will reaffirm the one that ticked me off is the fact i was a interested party in the ethics commission which was announced the day before i left for vacation and heard the day before i returned. notifying me that hearing would be held. i also like when i say the last word and the bell rings and you ring it and others come up and you let them go on and on and on. >> any other public comment? hearing none, we'll turn to item 6. discussion and possible action regarding mark farrell versing for district 2

supervisor 2010 versus city and county of san francisco >> do you want to take item 10 prior to going into discussion of closed session? >> approve the minutes? i'm happy to do it but my feeling is that not a item but we'll take 10 and do i hear any motion to approve the minutes as written? >> so moved. >> second. >> moved and seconded. any discussion among the commissioners? any public discussion? >> ray san francisco open government. i like everybody who has the opportunity to review these minutes and see there are two 150 word summaries i provided in the body of the minutes. i fought long and hard to insure the law

which states if a person submits a summary of 150 word or less of public comment it will appear in the minute. as these two do. the reason i fought so long and hard is i was tired having my public comments misrepresented, abridged senseards and otherwise changed bay the cities library commission and basically they would take things and i would write a comment and go to the meeting and they talk about the minutes and i would say this is not what i said. this is exactly the opposite of what i said and what they would do is if they found a comma out of place they change it. if the member the public came up and said my comments are not representative of what they said they ignore that and continue to do that. i put the 150 words in not because some species people do and say he wants a transcript what is

said in the minutes, no but i like it representative because it is constitutionally protected political free speech. the fact a public record is printed by the government and mis represents what a member of the public says is looked at as no big deal. my first amendment and free speech right jz rights under the brown act means something. i don't come here to jap my jaw, i have something that feels needs to be said and it is amauzing how many times i have to fight to say thing jz not be interrupted and fight to have what i actually said represented in a reasonable fashion in the official record. i fought hard for this because the thing where mentioned several times earlier is the library

commissions $80 million shifted through the hands. the public knows nothing about it. $80 million and what did the library get? ask mr. her era and mrs. blackman and the library commission. show us something the library got from the friends. what mr. her era got is he got $75 thousand a year as a [inaudible] fund. money he can pass out as goodies to the staff at the library. no wonder he doesn't get disagreement on that. then he perjures himself and lies that he didn't get anything. >> thank you. seeing no other public comment, call the question, all in favor of approving the minutes for the meeting of april 25? >> aye.

>> opposition? approved unanimously. turning now to item number 9, which is-i mean item number 6, which is a discussion and possible action regarding the mark farrell complaint which was attached to the agenda. i will first raise the question of any commissioner believe this should be in closed session? >> move we go into closed session. >> any second? >> second. >> any public comment? >> ray san francisco open government. i raised objections about this item. it is related to the money that supervisor farrell has been asked to repay. i see the punch by filing his court case against you so

basically you are keeping it hidden from whatever you are doing, keeping it hidden from the public didn't do any good. i like to be frank about something. i was sort of on the sly [inaudible] because i made a remark that something was being pulled or secret deal is done, but i hate to break it to you, that is what the citizens of the city think. when you go into closeed session they do believe there is something going back-on back there and asking the old days where it is like we are honorable people serving here for the god of the citizens of san francisco, that is gone. people don't believe that because most the people appointed to the commissions and boards get appointed because they want aopponented to another board or commission. the

old idea anyone serving their own time is automatically supposed to be assumed as being this above question -cesars wife. above reproach. those days are gone. the more in private session don't be surprised people say i question it. i'm only saying out loud when i question you going into closed session, other people are thinking it, they just don't get up and say it and the reason they don't say it is they know it is a popularity contist. i may be before you with a case at some point and want you to rule in your favor so have to be careful not to say something that puts your nose out of joint. i learned it doesn't make a difference so mine as well be honest about it and say it. closed session is the perception of the public is you are back

there cooking the books mptd i center 24 orders of determination and every one is a violation oof the sunshine ordinance found by the body leaguely counsituteed to hear the matters and decide them and they were members of board, commissions or city agencies decide they would ignore the responsibilities under the law, interfere with my speaking, they were going to misrepresent what i said when i spoke in the official record and they would with hold public records from me which i needed to effectively per sue my first amendment rights. bottom line is, just be aware when you go into closed session, people are watching. >> thank you. >> good evening commissioners. charley again mar stellar for the record. i want to say i'm glad we have at least

seen a little something from mr. farrell but it isn't in person. i would invite him to make a appearance before the body at any time but now that you are in litigation maybe that isn't something his council would advise. i would like a legal opinion and wonder if in closed session you could raise the following question, should you be stood up in the future and say the party did not respond to you with a counter suit or whatever this is technically called, does the commission have the power to fine someone in contempt? and realize there is not a penalty to that, but it seems to me that had we never heard from mr. farrell we would have just been left hanging and i dont thichck think it was the intent when we wrote the heart in 93 and i didn't personal do

that, that was done by mr. shelly and bush, that they intended for you to be stood up or ignoreed and have no re-dress. i think that is a good legal question for you to ask council to research for some future case where this might come up because frankly, up until we finally heard or saw some signal from mr. farrell, we didn't know what he was thinking or what he would have said because he never came to this podium to say a word. he went through proxy and i think that by in itself is in a sense somewhat contempious but he had his rights with council to act that way, but he is an official of the

city and county of san francisco and his standard of behavior and conduct should bow be far higher than the average citizen because he took a sworn oath and that oath i think fundamentally he has violated by his behavior in this manner. that is all i will say. >> call the vote on the motion to go in closed session on the item number 6. all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? carried unanimously and i will turn to item 7 and discussion and possible action regarding complaint received or initiated by the

ethics commission concerning san francisco campaign and government conduct code section 3.230 prohibition on knowing directly or indirectly soliciting political contributions from other city officers or employees. motion to take that in closed session? public comment? hearing no public comment i'll call the question, all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? carried unanimously, the commission will go into closed session on items number 6 and 7. my estimate would be that we should have completed that within the next 30 to 60 minutes and we will go back in open

session after it is completed.

>> the commission unanimously voted to accept a stipulation on behalf of respondent george gascone. respondent

christine soto debari and michael swart where in they stipulated that they violated section 3.230 which prohibits any city officer for sulitinging political contributions #23r5u78 any other city employee directly or indirectly unless the solicitation is a communication targeted to the significant segment of the public which may include city officers. they stipulated at a fundraising event there were solicitations made of city employees to mr. gascones

campaign, where the bulk if not all of the participants were employees of his office or other city employees. mr. gascone has accepted responsibility and has agreed to pay a fine of $4 thousand for the alleged violation or stipulated violations and mrs. dubari, agreed to pay a fine of $14,000. i mean, 1, 400 and mr. swart agreed to pay the

fine of 1, 400. i would say i think it is important for the public to understand that all 3 of these individuals admitting they have violated the section said they were unaware of the prohibition about city employees solicit other city employee and in the case of mr. gascone, he certainly had attended ethics training which contained training concerning the specific prohibition which all 3 of them said that they were really

not aware existed partly because they had been solicited by other city employees in the past. hopefully this disposition of these will be a message to all city employees concerning the ban on city employees soliciting other city employees. there were also listed a number of individuals from the office who were part of the host for this fundraiser on november 13 and those individuals, no fines are being assess against them, but they will receive warning letters reminding them

of the ban so that it will not occur in the future. any- >> mr. chair. during the closed session i put on the record at the request of the city attorney that over the years i have had professional contacts with chief and district attorney george gasconon various matters dealing with the cities crimial justice system and it was the sense the commission in regard to those contacts that i have had with him on those matters that those did not arise to any

kind of level of requiring me to recuse myself and the city attorney also agreed that those pasted contacts i had with district attorney george gascon procedurely professional on matters deal wg the cities criminal justice system and did not require me to recuse myself. >> any public comment on the matters that were covered in closed session? hearing none, do i hear a motion to adjourn? >> so moved. >> before we adjourn, i think commissioner addrews wants to make a statement. >> thank you chair. i should have made it before closeed session because now my audience is gone. i did want to take the opportunity to say

what a honor it has been serving on the commission over these past 3 years and want to thank the commission while i was on a steep learning curve at the same time quit interested in good government and it plays out so much in our personal and professional lives and continues to be clear to me with my service here. i am empressed with the work we have done thus far. with the passing of prop c and with chair renne and myself servings as a commission of two and commission support and hiring executive director pelumand continue to be impressed with her. throughout that process i had a opportunity to spend some time with your staff, your

now staff and i recognize the level of dedication and commitment and passion they have for the work and their high level of skill and it looks like a great partnership you will have with them and encourage you to create professional opportunities for them as often as you can. to commissioner chiu, sorry i didn't have a opportunity to work with you. i know in the few comments and the few amounts of work we have done together that i know that the commission will be well served by your seat, so thank you for your service in advance. i did want to say that i took last month to assess the work at my organization and recognize that there were increasing demands and those increasing demands were not going to go away any time soon and know the

commission deserves someone who has the time and energy it needs to commit to this very crucial work and i knee i wasn't going to be able to do that in the way i feel good about and frankly for what the commission deserves so it is with heavy heart i do stand down and i look forward to sitting in the odd ynss audience on the other side and continue to know about the work on the commission and want to thank everybody for their collegeial friendship along the way and wish you all best wishes. >> thank you. likewise we wish you good luck and best wishes in the expanded endeavor. i will be interested to hear how it goes. >> thank you. >> i will now entertain a motion to adjourn. >> so moved. >> second. >> public discussion? no

comment? alright, the meeting is adjourned. [meeting adjourned]

>> are we ready good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon my name is supervisor cowen the chair and this is the regular meeting of land use committee to my right is commissioner weiner the vice chair and our clerk clear and thank to charles kremack and others for broadcasting this meeting electronic devices. completed speaker cards and documents to be included should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will appear on the june 7, 2016, board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> thank you very much call hematemesis one ac. >> amending at planning code for the rooftop screening. >> the planning department is the sponsor of this item we have a staff person from the planning

department to present. >> we're ready. >> good afternoon chair cohen and honorable supervisors tilly chang department staff this is the planning code for the controls to two spate areas of planning code the map controls and rooftop park screening with the clean up of applicability of the controls expanded regarding this roof deck the amendment increases the flexibility of the controls as written it is the large project authorization in the south of market mixed use and over 200 linear feet to create pedestrian friendly zones for expanding the 3 adjacent

districts the fulton nct some and nct and regional commercial district what adapted did controls apply for the district for the mid block alley are - the boards wants to expend them to all eastern neighborhoods south of market mixed use and south of market c-3, however, the 50 percent was not stent for the central district and more xhvn to the city this ordinance amended the planning codes for the mid block alley are applicable in all the aforementioned additionally this may occur on middle-income alley and centralize will be amended so some projects with street or alley frontages are currently the case

in the following 3 go things shown in orange are the areas where the middle-income alley controls apply in blue the additional location for the allocations this graphic is the cemetery running north-south and fulsome nct jefferson east west this map the additional areas where the middle-income that the western nct returning east west and the general northbound finally this map shows other areas the middle-income involves controls with the urban and the mixed use in the southeast parts of city the second part of the amendment is lou gehrig's disease for flexibility to be clear the flexibility is not carolyn's permitted and requires a venue review with the section 309 as written the planning code 0 policies for this is not only adequate for the equipment or

allow for better urban design and curling have an enclosure - this proves consistent with the buildings overall design and projects any choose to provide a screen without a set back r setback, however, it is reduced by 25 or 50 feet it height can - screened and the height of many mechanic features 50 feet or more providing for flexibility allowing third street the height of 20 feet up to one hundred rather than 75 percent and the flexibility is not californian permitted and requires the planning commission for the project and large project authorization that concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions. >> public comment thank you for your presentation. >> open up for public comment at this time just as a reminder everyone has

two manipulates a 30-second chime indicating soft chime you have thirty sections remaining public comment is up seeing none, public comment is closed a motion on that item. >> supervisor wiener do you have a motion thank you. the motion to forward workers' compensation and without objection that motion carries. >> mr. clerk i'd like to call items two and three together. >> the resolution for the intention the board to order the vacation of portion of jessie street with the ocean wide in 3 of the ordinances to establish the denounced neighborhoods with the street vacationed of alley for a total of $36 million. >> all right. thank you very much someone from the mayor's

office to present on this item. >> mr. buckly. >> good afternoon supervisors i'm jeff from the mayors staff to talk about the 51 street project as long as ocean wide give you a brief update or overview of the project and in addition that give you an opportunity to hear about an interesting aspect of the project which is the urban rum we'll have the project sponsor come up for that 3 to 5 minutes go through the concept and the need and i think you have a array of city staff to take any questions you may have on the amend e item, however, large or going forward i wanted to start off by talking about the project

so 41 street is a mixed use project at the northeast corner of first street and mission for one million square feet of total office space 200 and 64 units, one hundred and 69 room hotel and ground floor retail and pub opted open space to two towers this space received its approval from the planning commission on may 5th who's before you the street vacation of own alley and a portion of jessie street and also in addition to that some of the details of the downtown preservation fund i'll be happy to with you on so the main reason for the legislation before you the vacation of jessie which is necessary in order to build the

administrator tower to the height contemplated in the district plan that was adopted in 2012 the plan is a comprehensive vision for shaping and growth in the southern side of downtown the transit center focuses on regional growth towards downtown san francisco and in a sustainable manner for the sculpting thought you tower and the extra and improvements to the streets and the open space as the parks downtown in order to make that happen it includes the clarification of parcels in the area to increase height limits and including a landmark tower from the transit center from one thousand feet and several other nearby sites with 6 to 8 hundred and 50 feet the plan leverages the intent to

generate revenue for the transportation facilities including the support for the new transit center and downtowns improvements of the sidewalks and other infrastructure to create a public realm so some of the think interesting aspects of this project just so you're aware of that includes some of the one time fees that are generated from the project again this is not the issue about you but important to understand the project in general estimated to generate one and $17 million fees those fees are die construction dot net for an issuance of november 2016 this is about one $.9 million for downtown parks and 2. $9 million for school and childcare millions and

sustainability fee and talk about did affordable housing consultant in addition to the downtown lease but the transit center is 11 want 9 with the transportation street is 3747 so the issue before you is the street and authorization to create the new downtown preservation fund so the i wanted to first talk about with you the purchase for jessie alley so this is the purchase price is $22 million, about 22.6 to be exact providing the closings doesn't occur beyond or before the effective date which will be $33 million plus and in addition to that in

partial consideration the city's agreement to sell the property the buyer will produce the 20 percent inclusionary fees that maybe applicable under the san francisco planning code section to 33 percent affordable housing fee the affordable housing payment as it is known and the city will waiver the portion the downtown program as well for this the fee buyer will pay for the project under the planning code but we've essentially down is create this fund and fees and kept them one a mile radius to the principle project and dictated those for purposes of acquisition and in that one mile area that fund will be in use for no less than 10 years and

acquire administrative code by the mayor's office of community development that is a brief discussion i think the purpose for us being here i want to invite a representative of the project sponsor to come up for about 3 to 5 minutes to discuss the urban room development and how it relates to the street vacation for the context. >> thank you, mr. buckley welcome. >> good afternoon, supervisors with reuben, junius & rose representing the project sponsor for the ocean wide center we're going to keep our focus specifically on the items the street vacation component and the ordinances that allows the direction of some of the affordable housing development

impact fees for the community in the big picture the project has approve patterson's within the past month including the planning commission approval on may 5th when the entitlements were approved it includes the 5 thousand square feet of area that is fronting jesz i didn't street and the additional we're here for the recommendation on the vacation component and as i said on the use of required and voluntary affordable housing impact fee payments so quickly i want to mention on the street vacation the fact we're asking to vacate or with the existing streets and mean we'll have access public assess around the project prompt and in reality you think that is the case with respect to jessie street

terminates at one street and in conjunction with the street vacation creating a number of easements that allows the project assess for a pedestrian cross and throughout the site so one of the key reasons this is this the driving the open room a pubically assessable open space that is on first street and the dedicated parts of jessie street within the urn area the second component before you is the creation of downtown neighborhoods preservation fund that allows the project job linkage fee and the 20 percent of affordable housing fee and an additional 13 percent affordable housing to be directed and used within a mile radius of the site more affordable housing purposes so i the now i'm going to turn

it over to to my colleague b that will talk about the visible where the streets radio located our entire team is here and available to answer any questions you may have. >> hello. >> hello, i'm carmen yee for the ocean wide project can we switch so we're talking about the benefit quite a low the project is part of transbay redevelopment we called the transit redevelopment plan the district plan and two towers two hundred and 65 units actually unit one hundred and 69 hotel and one office space that the whole project is about mixed use project so the project at the corner of

mission street on the north and west corner and the basics design concept we tried to bring create a friendly place for the city so to achieve that together with surrounding environment with the transbay center the south tower and alley we tried to implement our project and to keep the passages through jessie street and the alley and create a connection from the mission to jessie to the hotel so inside of the passage is transit development plan we add more and also, we exhaustive jessie center of the middle-income passenger way so the towers are

over the heart of the urban space we call the urban room this is the designation for the neighborhood for the visitors and the users for this site so everyone has a friendly open to the public open space and have the fully assess passage to connect to it. >> so here's an animation we wanted to show you so take into account of time to load. >> so the basically concept is a traditionally central core which leads and on the ground floor to the floor is open and jessie street turned 90 degrees by doing that we have a fully

opened pedestrian friendly your honor, room space for the city for the neighborhood and for the project itself so the project that we mentioned the jessie streets turned 90 streets all of jessie will keep open for emergency vehicle and long trucks so this is the design idea for this your own room one hundred and 16 by 200 plus with a high 6 feet 8 feet the urban room will have the functioning side to besides the setting back and you can do performance and gathering and art exhibition and night things and this you urban room is open for the public and again jessie street turns 90

feet, however, keeping the inteshgz through the urban design and through the security cars to carefully maintain the city for this urban use so this is a diagram that shows the vacation this is basically partial of the jessie street and partial of the ed dom alley as it is by doing this we will achieve 3 goals one we create a landmark tower with benefits for the city, second we achieve the much enriched to the pedestrian middle passage for the neighborhood and third we achieve the 26 thousand open space which for the opens for the city for the neighbors and

for the folks. >> that's it. >> okay. thank you. >> mr. buckly something in closing. >> we are here and have city staff to answer any questions. >> i don't have any supervisor wiener didn't have any i'd like to go straight to public comment and call of ms. christie wong (calling names). >> hi supervisors christie wong and policy director for spur thank you for the opportunity i want to urge you to allow ocean wide center project to happen it is a key component as a build

out of the corridor this plan is seeks to focus regional growth in the right place and invest in transportation and will prohibition, of course, the downtown so we firmly believe that this location is the right place for growth due to proximity with the regional transit as the center of regional employment people that work in downtown san francisco are the most frequent users of travel and it is important that the john updyke has placed like this and permitted opportunity in downtown 90 san francisco it is targeting the dense development and this ordinance is necessary for the development to happen also just want to applaud all of the contributions this development will make on a revenue side both the one time and voluntary and on an ongoing

basis and just don't take those opportunities - don't underestimate i have you to keep this and now ms. grace to speak. >> thank you, ms. grace. >> thank you thank you for your time i'm one of the residents at the one acre located here and i wanted to propose one of the concerns the neighborhood as well as people that take public transportation my understanding we currently have two streets that are actually allow the trucks deliveries here and here to make a round on to the first

street and on to mission street for the jessie street in the future to go this way to have the street going this way what that impact would be the truck delivery will have to make a round into the mist and to the streven son street for the first street and the impact is the neighbor on the division street is congested on that street as well as for market street we know that the subway train and muni trains are underneath and i asked for the supervisors to consider what will be the impact if by the divert the traffic to market street as well as i see that today, we have 5 lanes on the first street as well as mission street taking one lane out of that will be is a savior

nightmare i have an article talking about what is the traffic today roe vs. wade the bay bridge which we know is acquit congested so i'd like to ask the supervisors to consider that location thank you very much. >> thank you, ms. sheryl davis. >> good afternoon. thank you for this opportunity to speak just reilly wanted to speak from a community perspective and show the appreciation being in the western edition and being in the opinion of some folks ignored and working with the large african-american population that is awesome to have someone take an interest in san francisco as a city not just in yards regarding to where they're doing

their development the displacement that is happening citywide and is great to see folks coming up and trooib trying to work with us with the community members and people have a place to learn and grow and at this point looking at the development so i was grateful that they came and sought us out to support this city but they can support this community and i just wanted to recognize that a lot of times things go unnoticed and everything going on nationally and locally folks to reach out when they didn't have to their commitment and dedication much like you supervisor cowen great your doesn't the to the dedication and again, i recognize them and want to thank them and recognition they've reached out to folks they didn't have to and shown an interest and makes it so is thank you.

>> thank you, ms. davis. >> next speaker, please. >> michael. >> good afternoon, supervisors i am want to take the opportunity to speak in support of the downtown neighbor preservation fund and the ocean wide center development i'm michael the deputy director of the african-american museum with the regularly us hotel from the ocean wide site and want to welcome the possibility of the cultural challenge with the ocean wide project we've seen the engagement power community benefit and hope that ocean wide will attribute to the sustaining of the businesses for arts and athlete in the neighborhood ocean has shown they're reaching out and turning over the amount and two folks share the goals of

the tour with director linda harrison and myself we've waved their enthusiasm for the ocean project and motivated to continue to serving the community across the city with the be sure and the world and expand that reach with the sdprikts in san francisco and the neighborhood you see a growing number of new residents and families that want to welcome to the neighborhood and surrounding areas with the museum into the design open space plan at ocean wide called the urban room missouri has visited the office and well accepted we look forward to continue in our conversation with them about activating the space for the art performance and humanities program this an unprecedented opportunity we urge you to support this

legislation thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker >> good afternoon, supervisors my name is michelle i'm director the programs with the united playaz and to support this project this is a huge disconnect what happens on mission street and after 6 we were existed they reached you did to our clubhouse and working together we're excited about any improvements that had happen in our community united states of america it is a neighborhood we need everything to make the streets more liveable for the people we serve so we're just excited about the potential for new open space and finding ways that we can continue to bring that community to the folks and happy with how much they are interested in hearing that community voice and learn from

our he experience and just reilly incorporating the needs for the community and projects not only office workers during the day but people that live there and eddy and chang they're excited for the community and struck a chord that means the sthaung same thing to us we're looking forward to them being our neighbor thank you. >> thank you very much >> next speaker. >> good afternoon. i'm nora the associate correct and crossroads and we hope you'll consider our experience when we do the project it is a organization for homeless youth in san francisco for 16 years we've moved people off the streets ocean wide reached out to us earlier this year to let us know

they're interested crossroads is not a high proliferate not a lot of flexibility and many organizations that help with the pr because of their size are because of their public profile we're not amongst those organizations those who engage with us want to make a difference in the community and a couple weeks later the folks met with us and folks that want to meet with us they expect us to come to them and it's superficial this is not the case with eddy and chang they asked thoughtful questions and wanted to learn about our clients and homelessness in san francisco after meeting we've challenged pollutant e-mails and they've made generous donations in 2017 we'll move to jegs i didn't and third street about two blocks away from this

development and it is essential to have strong engagement with the community and serve our clients we're still in the early stages of relationship our experience are extremely positive and excited to have them as neighborhoods. >> item? at this point public comment is closed. at this time, i'd like to give the milk to deputy city attorney that has an announcement for the committee today. >> john from the city attorney's office to the call of the chair item 3 on page 11 and there just minor amendments to point out how how the new fund is created and has a basement anytime amount is

$40 million and depending on the final build out and the design we don't know the exact numbers so those amendments point out there will be no less than $40 million. >> great a think simple amendment thank you. >> a motion to accept the amendment by the city attorney john. >> okay theology. >> thank you the motion accepted that is an unanimous acceptance. >> madam clerk so i you understand that i'd like to take a motion to accept not only the amendments but 0 move forward this item with a positive recommendation to the full board. >> item 3 is referred to without recommend to the ordinance for july 19th i

believe. >> yes. that's correct that works. >> july 19th. >> so without objection that motion carries thank you all right. madam clerk, is there any additional business to come before this body? >> yes on item number 2 recommendation out of formal. >> i'd like to make a motion to move forward workers' compensation without objection additional business to come before this body? >> there's no further business. >> thank you this meeting is adjourned

[gavel] >> good morning and welcome to the government audit and oversight committee of the san francisco board of supervisors, i am the share of the committee, aaron peskin, and joined by supervisor yee, and sitting in for member london breed is comptis, and i want to thank the folks for sfgtv for the broadcast, clerk. >> please be sure that all devices are