of the city but the ongoing, inefficient and expensive home strategy -- >> clerk: your time has elapsed. thank you. can we have the next caller, please. >> good afternoon supervisors. my name is john korso. i also am calling in to support the existing four-year extension of the sky star wheel in the park and subsequently opposing the proposed one-year extension being heard today. we ask the board drop this matter and allow the decision to approve the four-year extension and the rec and park commission to be upheld. as a matter of fact, we feel the members of the board are spending way too much time and energy on this talking about a farris wheel. we've got covid problems and we've got vaccination roll-out

problems. cools are closed. we've got tents all over the city and we're worried about a farris wheel. that's where we stand here at local 38. i stand for myself and others who couldn't make it on the call today. everybody have a great day. >> clerk: thank you. i'd just like to make a quick announcement while i have a chance. members of the public who wish to make a public comment on this item should call (415) 655-0001. meeting i.d. is 1875577823, press pound and then pound again. please continue to wait until you have been unmuted. we have approximately 16 members of the public waiting to speak at this time and i also want to remind members of the public that public comment on this item will be provided for today and will not be provided at the board of

supervisors meeting. thank you. can we have the next caller, please. >> hello. >> clerk: we can hear you. please proceed. >> hello, you hear me? >> clerk: yes. we do. please proceed. >> this is ramon with local 261. representing over 5,000 members. i encourage to the supervisors and the public to vote on four more years of this farris wheel. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. can we have the next caller,

please. caller, you have been unmuted. you can proceed if you can hear us. caller, you can proceed with your public comment at this time. it does not appear that he can hear us at this time. can we skip him for now and move on to the next caller. >> hi, this is pam hinthill. it's very strange that a farris wheel has somehow become the symbol of economic recovery. rec and park has called in all supporters from various

organizations. why can't rec and park accept a one year compromise that accommodates nature. it is indeed difficult to have to argue with rec and park to protect nature. golden gate park is not just real estate. will bumper cars be next as suggested by another caller. no one seems to notice that the dollars for the wheel, 95% go to the sky star corporation investors who are based in missouri. they will make millions. it does not help san francisco. i support having kids and adults out in nature, it helps to have nature nearby and accessible to all as golden gate park is please support the

one year compromise. i would prefer that the wheel leave now as scheduled, but understand that some san franciscans still want a chance to ride and that there are some free tickets for one year and so this seems like a good solution for all. >> clerk: your time has elapsed. thank you. can we have the next caller, please. >> hi. i've lived in san francisco for about 15 years and currently in the inner sunset. i'm calling in full support of the four-year extension of the wheel that's already been passed by the commission. i think the wheel is awesome. it really looks great. perfectly set between the two parks. great location for it. my daughter loves it. she loves seeing it every day. we haven't ridden it yet but we're excited to now that it's open again. i also represent

[inaudible] -- advocate for more housing and other development in the city. we supported extension of the wheel originally. i think it's going to be really important for our small business community. they have really struggled through this. it's going to take them time to get back on their feet. as soon as businesses open. so, you know, we think we need the full four year extension to help our community. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. can we have the next caller, please. >> hello, can you hear me? >> clerk: we can hear you. >> as a private resident of the community and i'm calling in

support of the actual extension of the four years for the farris wheel. and that's about it. >> clerk: thank you. can we have the next caller. caller, you may proceed with your public comment >> hello, yes. good morning. i didn't know my line had been unmuted until now. i'm a long-term resident of san francisco and the inner sunset and every time i see this wheel, my heart sinks. there's nothing environmental about it.

it's sad this can be considered [inaudible] -- your children to nature. groups such as the friends in the tea garden parentally support this along with other people that make money for this park. parks alliance does not represent the interest of san franciscans and only wealthy people and there has never been -- there was never one community meeting about this farris wheel before it was instituted. there was not one community meeting about 150 anniversary of golden gate park which we didn't even know this celebration was happening until it was canceled. i had to read about this in the paper. it's just wrong the way this is being done and shame on these members and the community being bribed by these tickets. we have to look at this every day and night and it's just part of the plan to destroy the interest of golden gate park at 9th and lincoln and it looks like a corporate entrance.

the guard has been privateized. we're losing our nature bit by bit and don't represent anybody that are aappointed by special interest and contain all these people and, again, do not listen to us. all this is completely wrong. we need a complete transformation of the system and we need [inaudible] -- >> clerk: your time has elapsed. thank you. can we have the next caller, please. >> hello. can you hear me? >> clerk: we can hear you. please proceed. >> okay. thank you, supervisors. good afternoon. my name is liola gans and i'm with the san francisco public housing tenant association phta. i am in full support of the four-year extension of the sky

star wheel and i'm opposed to the one-year. thank you. >> clerk: can we have the next caller, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is liz farrell and i'm the board chair for the san francisco parks alliance. i am a volunteer, i'm also a mom and avid user of golden gate park. it's hard to believe that we're still talking about this. the wheel is part of golden gate park 150th celebration that was intended to be an equitable open city event to celebrate the parks. we have several initiative its dedicated to this that we still hope will happen including shuttles running from libraries and equity zones to bring children and families to golden gate park. additionally, sky star wheel is committed to families by

offering free tickets per month. it's hard to believe that we are talking about the wheel when an amount of resources have been used on this. while the city faces much more challenging and pressing issues. as far as your questions about the parks alliance, i tell my own children, if you have an issue with someone, confront them in a respective way. and reach out to the parks alliance with your questions before pointing fingers unfairly at a nonprofit. whose sole mission is to transform our parks spaces. thank you for your time. >> clerk: thank you.

can we have the next caller, please. >> hello. my name is nancy. and, i'm the director of san francisco nature education as well as a field onothologist in golden great park where i study a colony of great blue herons that have nested there for 35 years. i want to thank supervisor peskin for bringing this to the committee. for all the people objecting to the time on this, i'd say this is democracy and the original contract for the wheel was only for one year. so this is a reasonable compromise to make the farris wheel owners whole with a one-year extension. it's also settled that the bright lights, the artificial lights affect negatively bird

migrations. and, we all know this. this is settled science. so i want to applaud the board of supervisors for this meeting and urge them just to go one-year extension like was originally planned and keep the park safe for wildlife and the people that enjoy it. also, when we talked about helping the local businesses that serve food, why is the sky wheel serving food? thank you very much and please extend this contract for one year. >> clerk: thank you. can we have the next caller please. >> greetings, supervisors. my name is maisha bell. i work for the ymca of san francisco. i am also a resident of district 5. i am commenting support of the four-year extension of the farris wheel. i feel like it provides an opportunity of hope and engagement for our youth. i don't think we should

discount the impact it could have on their long-term development. we also know that in normal times, young people are spending less time engaged in nature and the pandemic has really increased that reality. while the farris wheel itself is not going to fix that issue, it can be a catalyst to getting these young people into nature and engagement and really intentionally provide support and opportunities that can expand their knowledge and access in this area. so i sincerely ask you to really consider what this would mean on the future leaders of the city of san francisco and take advantage of our opportunity to really uplift them. thank you for your time. >> clerk: thank you. can we have the next caller, please. >> hello. my name is greg miller. i support the one-year that's

being continue plated. i think it's good compromise for lovers of golden gate park and for those who would like to experience the fun of the wheel. five years is ridiculous to think of it as a temporary installation. in my opinion, it's likely to lead the permanent situation on the wheel and the music concourse the way things work. the rec and park department used to be the protector of our parks. it's long ceased to be that and is now an enterprise that seeks to monetize our public lands and generate cash flow for whatever purposes. the board needs to step up to the plate here and exercise the rights of the charter not because of this specific issue, but certainly they need to ask why did rpd basically evade any type of board over review of this. and, what's so important about generating a cash flow for an

out-of-town private vendor here which stands to make millions of dollars if this runs for five years. and, finally, why was that money parked in the accounts of a nonprofit which has no basically overview from the board or from the rest of the city. the rec and park commission has ceased long go being an effective oversight viewer of the rec and park department and is now subject to total regulatory capture. please take a look at this department and what it's doing -- >> clerk: your time has elapsed. thank you. can we have the next caller, please. >> hi. can you hear me? >> clerk: we can hear you. please proceed. >> okay. i'm sure you're tired of hearing that today. so i'm a resident of san francisco and i just want to ask supervisor chan why she's spending so much time on this issue and not addressing the

horrible assault that happened to a senior in the safeway parking lot? as residents of san francisco, we shouldn't be afraid to leave our homes. i'm asking that we focus on the important issues. that's all. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. can we have the next caller, please. >> hello. my name is karen gonzalez. i'm the co-owner of the cochinica food truck in the golden gate park and i'm supporting the four-year extension. when sky star wheel was closed, we did see a drop in visitors and business. customers would ask us daily when it would be re-opening as they were excited for a chance to ride the wheel. in a short period of time it has opened back up, we have seen an immediate increase in business and we don't know what will happen in 2021, i do

belief that the sky wheel extension will contribute to bringing more visitors as additional. it will help neighbors businesses, their employees, the community, and the economy. thank you for your time. >> clerk: thank you. i'd just like to make another announcement or reminder, if you have not already done so. please press star 3 to be added to the queue. for those on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. we have approximately thirty-four listeners and eight people in line to speak at this time. can we have the next caller, please. >> good evening, supervisors. i hate to say this again, but can you hear me? >> clerk: we can hear you. please proceed. >> thank you. my name is joann desman.

our union represents over 2,000 workers who have been seriously impacted by covid-19 for the past year. i am hear to speak in opposition to pending legislation requiring a 2/3 vote on any temporary structures in golden gate park. this measure would be detrimental to the many events produced in our wonderful park. this would be a costly and time consuming burden to the production teams responsible for a great many events including hardly strictly bluegrass, opera in the park, and outside lands which happens to be one of the biggest events for our union members. in the past year our union has seen 95% unemployment. any additional hurdles will be devastating to our employment. both of which did significant work before they rendered their

decision. thank you for your consideration. >> clerk: thank you. can we have the next caller, please. caller, you have been unmuted. you can proceed with your comment. >> hi, i am an inner richman resident. i support the four-year extension. while i am very cognizant of the effect of the light on bird migration, i think we should also take a look at other lights like the top of the sales force tower that haven't passed [inaudible] and i'd love to have the board

focus on the two deaths we are experiencing each day from drug overdose. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. can we have the next caller, please. >> i'm calling to support the existing four-year extension of the sky tower wheel in golden gate park and opposing the one-year extension being heard today. this is rudy from united players. i'm a native of san francisco, born and raised. still live here and i know it's beneficial for the youth which we serve throughout the whole city and so thank you for letting me comment. >> clerk: thank you. can we have the next caller, please. >> hello. >> clerk: we can hear you. please proceed. >> good afternoon. my name is michelle canter and i'm a long time san francisco resident of bayview for 57

years. i have raised children and grandchildren and other children in the city and i can remember when i used to go to play land back in the '60s and ride the [inaudible] and go to 38 play land to get on the farris wheel and go to the recreation that was at playland. this, i am -- i am very interested and i agree with the four-year term to extend the farris wheel. i think it is a very profitable and educational project for other children who don't know about farris wheels. there's a great, a lot of things to learn about the farris wheel and how it operates. golden gate park is a beautiful park and i think this is a very nice attraction to the park celebrating the continuance of the celebration of golden gate park and i pray and hope that we continue helping each other and loving each other in god's

way. thank you. >> thank you, can we have the next caller, please. >> hi. my name is robert moon. i'm a 20 year district 1 resident and registered voter and i voted for supervisor chan and thank you very much for giving me a moment to share my opinion. i support the four-year extension of the sky star wheel. it's economically and community beneficial. we shouldn't need to revisit what's already been approved. i think it's a waste of time and it's actually encouraging visiting even further. so thank you very much. that's the end of my comment. >> clerk: thank you. can we have the next caller, please. >> hello, can you hear me?

>> clerk: we can hear you. please proceed. >> my name is anthony i'm from 621 union, local labor union. i just want to say i support that farris wheel. i think some people forget when they were kids how it felt to ride a farris wheel. once you grow up, you kind of forget the things that you really -- that made you really happy to see and to be able to ride. that farris wheel means a lot to a lot of kids and not only that, we should have a whole park out here for these kids so they can't be getting shot at, robbing, stealing, wondering why these kids doing what they're doing,. there's no support. i remember back in the day. we need to leave the farris wheel alone and revisit some of the other things that's going on in the city about where money is going. anyway. that's my little spiel for the day.

thank you. >> clerk: thank you. can we have the next caller, please. >> good afternoon. and thank you for this opportunity to comment. i'm a san francisco native and also a 261 member. as a native, i don't want to lose anymore of what i consider general local attractions like playland. once these are lost, they're gone and you can't take your kids to them like my father to me and i took my son. it's also a job creator and it's a revenue creator. i support a four-year license would be more appropriate and i do also believe the board of supervisors has more pressing issues to attend to such as pandemics and homelessness. this attraction is very popular among locals and i thank you for your time. >> clerk: thank you. can we have the next caller,

please. >> hello. my name is catrina fering and i'm calling to lend my voice to the overwhelming support you've heard today and to oppose this one-year proposal. there have been many points already raised today that i'd just like to echo. calling this in golden gate park an exaggeration. you can enjoy views of golden gate park and the city. and it's a great way to dra

>> clerk: your time has elapsed. thank you. can we have the next caller, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is sofie and i'm a mother in district 8 and i use the park every single day with

my daughter and i wanted to chime in and say what many others have said to thank parks alliance for their work to rebuild parks and playgrounds for families like mine that are relying on them in every neighborhood and truly the last year has underscored how essential these parks are. and, with regards to the farris wheel, i can't tell you how many parents talking about how much they appreciate this. it's been a rare source of whimsy and fun during a difficult time and i urge you to extend it for another four years. thank you so much for your time. >> clerk: thank you. just to let you know, the next caller is the last caller we have on the line. if you have not already done so, please dial star 3 to be added to the queue. thank you. can we have the next caller, please. >> can you hear me? >> clerk: we can hear you. please proceed. >> thank you.

my name is kirt grimes and i'm the program manager with the aprisf. i would like to echo the sentiments of my colleague jacquelyn flynn. supervisors, most importantly i'm addressing you as a san francisco native and a resident of district ten . i'm in favor of the four-year extension. i believe this extension will allow all of us to enjoy the park and its attractions, but most importantly, it will aid in our economic recovery and our recovery from this terrible pandemic. once again, i urge you to extend the stay for the sky wheel for four more years. i believe this extension will help all of us out in the long run in terms of our pandemic recovery and our economic recovery.

thank you. >> clerk: all right. we had four additional people line up to speak. can we have the next caller, please. >> hi. this is ori deman. i'm a resident of district 8. i am in favor of the four-year extension. but i'm really appalled by the comments made by supervisor peskin and supervisor chan. i'm a board member of park alliance and joined the park alliance so i can give voice to people who normally don't get heard. i joined the board because i think this is a part of my public service to not only join the board but continue the park alliance. so without any evidence, them trying to accuse a nonprofit that has an open policy that

you can go and see online there is a 990 forum for them saying they are corrupt. i hope they will talk to us. they can come and see how we work and they will know that the benefit we provide to the city. yes, it's a controversial project, i understand that and i can hear peoples' voices, but just think about the number of kids who will benefit from it. it's a wonderful opportunity for kids to see this magnificent park from the top. i hope you support this project. thank you. >> thank you, can i have the next caller, please. >> can you hear me? >> clerk: we can hear you. please proceed. >> my name is pinky kushner. i am in line with the four-year

extension. those and its country atmosphere as well as people who seek the natural refuge the park is well-known for. the park has lots of entertainment in its natural state. we don't need an amusement park to have fun at golden gate park. but one of the commentors had mentioned playland. maybe we should. maybe the city should have a playland in the city just not in golden gate park. it would be helpful if the supervisors would take up this discussion and think about where in the city a playland would be appropriate. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you. can we have the next caller, please. >> hello. are you able to hear me? >> clerk: yes. we can hear you. please proceed. >> yes. i was called to support the

12-month extension but not to support the 48-month extension. 48 months is really saying that it's going to [inaudible] -- like a permanently, and it's way too bright and tall to be there permanently. i do support the 12-month extension. but i do not support the 48-month extension. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. can we have the next caller please. >> hi, my name is stephanie and i'm also calling to lend my voice and support to the existing four-year extension of the sky star wheel in golden gate park. for all the reasons that have been previously expressed, but most importantly because two commissions have already looked at this and there are other important pressing matters for this board to address. and, i also worry that if the board inserts itself on this matter and sets that precedent that others have talked about

that every other temporary measure is subject to 2/3 board approval, thresholds, really great events like hardly strictly bluegrass, outside lands, that additional time consuming and unnecessary hurdle and i also just want to say to the gentleman who was very furious there were no community meetings about this. there were no community meetings about the flow streets either that are affecting everyone all across the city as well. so please respect the decision made by both the historic preservation commission and the rec and park commission and also for everyone who's trashing the rec and park commission, i've raised two boys in this city and they have done a phenomenal job of keeping youth sports active and youth engaged in sports which is also outside getting kids outside. so there's a lot to be outside in nature that doesn't involve

just strolling through a park which my boys do and they also bike through it. they also play sports and that's also important and thank you so much for your time. >> clerk: thank you. i believe this will be our last caller. shall we get the next caller, please. >> yes. my name is lance grimes. i'm from district 3. i've been with san franciscans for urban nature. i support the current resolution before the rules committee for a one-year extension and i'm -- it seems like 100 callers came in today with a cheat sheet in front of them that had all the same points. the one that really grates on my nerves a little bit is that this is such a great family event as far as i can tell you, you wait one hour in line for a three-hour ride. actually, i just read there's a new circus in town that will be

performing in north beach. why not hire a local company to provide entertainment for your children a one-hour circus show that cost $5 maybe and give them a lot more enjoyment and support a local business. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. that completes our caller queue. >> chairman: okay. public comment is closed. and, before we discuss this amongst the committee members, let me just -- well just the last speaker agree that we heard a lot of very similar testimony on both sides, but i just want to address some of the contentions. the first and most you

ubiquitous one. my cosponsor and colleague supervisor chan, the drafting of this motion which is a template motion because so many different things have come to the board of supervisors under 4.113 that all you have to do is take it off the internet and put a few words in many and take a few words out and i think i've got about 15 minutes into this deal other than listening to the invaluable public comment that we've received and the hundreds of e-mails that we have received and i have to say the vast preponderance of those e-mails are supportive of this resolution which me and my colleagues have received. i do also want to agree with one of the speakers mr. pillpell that he is right relative to a law which is that this is an elective body and this is within our right to

consider as a matter of fact. charter section 4.113 that the voters put into place presumably because of excesses by the then rec and park commission years ago is very clear that this is a specific right that is -- that goes to the board of supervisors only in the case of golden gate parks and union square. the rest of the parks, there is exclusive jurisdiction by the rec and park commission. indeed, sponsored by then supervisors diane feinstein, quinnton cop, john mulonari. it really treats golden gate park differently exclusively under the rec and park commission. and then, i want to say something that is important which is a deal is a deal and

deals change and certainly covid has changed many landscapes, but one thing is true which is that the wheel went up during covid knowing that covid was here and it was supposed to be a one year deal. this compromise and indeed it is a compromise acknowledges that the wheel only ran for 39 -- actually now more than thirty-nine days of the original one-year term that was going to go april to april. it actually adds time to it, but it's consistent with the original deal relative to the original money, relative to how it's still yet to be answered how the money flows for the 150th anniversary of the park, a party which has not happened. and, i am indeed concerned about mission inquiry. this was supposed to be a one

year commission. obviously, that first year was obviated by one year covid. obviously, supervisor chan and i considered one year is fair. so with those words, i will turn it over to my colleagues and hear their thoughts if any of you want to jump in or put your name up, the floor is whichever one of you want to talk. vice chair mandelman. >> supervisor mandelman: i have complicated. including the public advocate which i thought was an interesting comment by the director of the building trades and i continue to disagree that

the election of another elected official in a city that seems to be heavy on elected officials is the solution in government. that was just one of many ideas that have been thrown around. as a couple of points that i want to say and i don't think they're directly related to the resolution. but i want to say them. the first is to acknowledge that rec and park is a bright spot in san francisco. that if you look at san franciscan satisfaction with various government services, rec park is near the top. they get beaten by libraries. in a city that doesn't feel terribly well, i don't think most san franciscans have that feeling about rec park. and the other thing i would say is that although private flanth

pea is complicated. i didn't think we'd have to rely on it i do think that department has done an amazing job which i think for the most part has been si terrific thing. i want to thank the people some of whom called in today. so those two points have been made. i do think people who say that the board is somehow wrong to be looking at this or considering what should happen in golden gate park with a very large farris wheel that might last for four years or forever are not correct. i think that san franciscans have always cared a lot and fought fiercely about what should happen in golden gate park and what the right balance between passive recreation and

more active recreation should be in different parts of the park. and, although i certainly understand the desire of or the feeling of the department that the board didn't need to be included in this. i do think this charter provision even if it doesn't legally require the board of supervisors to weigh in on the installation of a four-year or more farris wheel, i think the notion that the board of supervisors of the san francisco elected should weigh in the balance of the complicated competing interests on implicated by the large structures of a nontemporary basis in golden gate park. i think that the charter

provisions suggest that we should be looking at this and we having to weigh those complicated and sometimes competing interests. so when people say well all these other commissions have looked at it, yes, that is true. i think that it is reasonable for supervisors to say that we have opinions ai cannot make up my mind today about whether this one year is the right length for this installation to be there whether it should be longer. i feel like there should be a win-win here where people stand down and engage with

supervisors and try to work something out. i think we should put this to the vote to a democracy out there. most people have an opinion about the farris wheel think it should stay. i don't think because we think about the concerns of the most impacted immediate neighbors or about the environmental effects on the owls and birds and creatures that are in golden gate park. i am going to vote along to vote forward with the full board tomorrow because i think, you know, this should be discussed by the full board and it's absolutely within the rights of this board to weigh in on this and that's my view for now. >> chairman: thank you, vice

chair mandelman. >> supervisor chan: thank you, chair bestkin. and i want to thank vice chair mandelman because about how the board should weigh in on this issue even the commission. i already said what i needed to say. after all the public comment that we have heard. i just want to have the opportunity to respond to some of that. again, i want to reiterate that i am in support of the one year extension kind of like what chair peskin has mentioned. a deal is a deal. it's in honor of that deal that

has already approved for the golden gate park 150th anniversary. the reason why i think that we do end up stepping in is because that terms has changed. it is now asking for a four-year extension. make that a total of a five-year stay. i think that when terms and conditions change, it really changes everything else. and so, simply with this resolution is to ask for this to be -- to honor the original proposal and the true proposal and for those who argue that this is really this extended stay is for the sake of economic recovery. i, for one as a district one supervisor, i think that i will have -- i should really be concerned, greatly concerned if that the west side economic

recovery, especially in golden gate park especially for small businesses dependent on a wheel, i think that i am not doing my job then. i will have a much bigger problem on my hasn't to make sure that we recover beyond. and last but not least to say that, you know, i work for recreation and parks department as a deputy direct to have.

when i learned about former director of the department of public works account through san francisco parks alliance. i think for all the fellow city workers that have worked really hard for all these great open space recreation programming that everyone is just so pleased with and serving our constituents so well, it was a shame to learn that was the case. and for the director, executive director of parks alliance come on. again, not knowing its own

organization history saying that parks alliance has been around for 20 years when in reality parks alliance was not formed until 2011. it was formerly known as parks and land trust and the neighborhood council. neighborhood parks council and to say that it has generated more than $100 million over time and to somehow say that it has transparency when there are anonymous donors throughout time. but most importantly, again, the whole situation with the former director of the department of public works.

to figure this out or one thing because this is very simple. a corrupt government and it does a disservice to all my constituents if we allow a pay to play culture to fester even if in the face of all these things that we have done, good work that we all have done is again, like i said, disheartening when someone that violates that public trust. so it's the reason why i know that it's important to restore the trust and get to the

bottom. >> chairman: thank you, supervisor chan. i also want to address one other condition. there were some speaker who is contended that acting pursuant to session 4.one hundred thirteen for what is a five year at a minimum. or proposed. and that notion is absurd. on its face for any number of reasons. as i said to greg perloff, the head of another planet last week, i would be more than

happy, although this would be more time consuming to put some clarifications around the voter approved initiative propk as to what institutes temporary and should not come before the board pursuant to a 4.113 and what constitutes something that triggers 4.113 and so that is a project that i think this board and perhaps this rules committee should undertake and i just wanted to put that out there. with that. supervisor chan, would you like to make a motion. >> supervisor chan: yes. so moved. i'm making the motion to move this resolution to the board with recommendation. >> chairman: as the commending report. >> supervisor chan: yes. thank you. mr. clerk, on that motion, a roll call please. >> clerk: yes, on the motion to refer the matter with

recommendation to the committee report. supervisor mandelman. [roll call] >> clerk: and that concludes. >> chairman: so that will appear tomorrow. that concludes our agenda and we are adjourned.

hayon. ethics commission regular meeting, and this meeting is being held by teleconference pursuant to the governor's executive order [inaudible] declaring the existence of a local emergency dated february 25, 2020. before we proceed further, i'd like to ask commission staff member ronald contreras who's acting as today's moderator to explain some information. >> thank you. the minutes of this meeting will reflect that due to the covid-19 health emergency and to protect the committee members and the public, the

meeting room at city hall is closed. however, the meeting will be held remotely. this meeting is being held pursuant to various local, state, and federal directives. committee members will participate in the meeting to the same extent if they were physically present. public comment will be available on each item on this agenda. each member of the public will be allowed three minutes to speak. comments or opportunities to speak during the public comment period are available via phone call by calling 415-655-0001. again, the phone number is 415-655-0001. access code is 187-850-2440.

again, access code is 187-850-2440, followed by the pound sign, then press pound again to join as an attendee. you will hear when you are connected to the meeting. your line will be automatically muted, and you will be in listening mode only. when your item comes up, press star, three to enter the queue. ensure that you are in a quiet location. before you speak, mute the sound of any equipment around you including television, radio, or computer, and it is especially important that you mute your computer if you are listening via web link to prevent feedback and echo when you speak. when the some more indicates your line -- when the system

indicates your line has been unmuted, that is your opportunity to speak. as soon as you begin speaking, you will have three minutes to provide your public comment, six minutes if you have an interpret. you will hear a bell go off when you have 30 seconds remaining. once your three minutes have expired, staff will thank you and mute you. you will hear, your line has been muted. attendees who wish to speak during other public comment periods may stay on the line and should listen to the other public comment opportunities and press star, three to enter the queue when their next item of interest comes come. public comment via e-mail will be submitted at the end of this meeting and will be included in the official file. written comments should be

send -- sent to ethics.commission@sfgov.org. once again, that's ethics.commission@sfgov.org. >> thank you. i would like to call roll. ronald, will you please conduct roll call. >> clerk: thank you. commissioners, please unmute your microphone to conduct roll call. [roll call] >> clerk: madam chair, with four members present and accounted for, you have a quorum. >> all right.

thank you very much. i want to call agenda item number two, public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda. members of the public who are on the line and wish to speak should now dial star, three if you have not already done so to be added to the public comment line. mr. moderator, please proceed with public comment. >> clerk: thank you, madam chair. the ethics commission is now receiving public comment on agenda item number two remotely in this meeting. each member of the public will have up to three minutes to provide public comment. if you joined the meeting late to comment on the proceeds, now is the time to get into the line to speak. if you have not already done so, please press star, three. it is important that you press star, three only once as pressing star, three again will move you back into the

listening mode. it is important you call from a quiet location. please address your comments to the committee as a whole and not to individual members of the madam chair, we are checking to see there are callers in the queue. madam chair, we have callers in the queue. please stand by. welcome, caller. your three minutes begins now. >> good morning, commissioner. my name is ellen lee zhou. that's e-l-l-e-n l-e-e z-h-o-u.

i'm a member of revive san francisco. i have been coming to many meeting of the ethics meeting back in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020. the last time i spoke to you before the covid-19 before you shut the entire city off was february 27, 2020. after i run for mayor san francisco in june 2019 and 2018, i have been coming to you to report about elections fraud. in 2019, 115 two voters, 136 years old, 100 to 109 years

old, 247 voters. 2020 is the election fraud that is created by cheat. you and i know it happened, but the election board did not do anything about it. last year, 2020, the wicked politicians authorized $5,000 a month for people to sleep on the street inside a tent. 2020, more than 625 people die, pass away on the streets of san francisco plus 48 people die from gunshots. now, 2021 is here. we have 20% empty units while people, hard working people have no affordable housing. san francisco has been run by

one party, democrats. they're also called socialists. they are evil party, they pay to play, they are baby killers, and they support illegal drugs and traffickers, and now they put the entire city of san francisco at risk. we have haters running a failed government and running unconstitutional policies on purpose that is killing the entire san francisco, and now, they abuse public power. the public schools in san francisco refuse to reopen. where is the public money in san francisco? and also, we have the mayor and 17 elected officials running a dictator's government, and i'm here today to speak to you, and i want to thank you for your time because many of you are volunteers. just like you, i'm volunteering

to represent san francisco. i have been in san francisco for the 35 years. i have never experienced such a dictator government failing, tyranny, dictators. i'm asking you, ethics commission -- >> clerk: your three minutes have expired. >> -- and i'm here to ask you if you are publicly serving, and you're not open at city hall, you are part of the problems that we are facing. many of the politicians, they all get paid to get racist as people are dying on the street. >> clerk: yes, caller. your three minutes has expired. thank you so much. please stand by.

we are checking to see if there are any callers -- additional callers in the queue. madam chair, there are no more callers in the queue. >> all right. thank you. hearing no further callers, general public comment under item 2 is now closed. thank you.

hearing no further callers, we will now call item -- consent calendar, agenda item 3. draft minutes for february 12, 2021 ethics commission regular meeting, and i want to acknowledge our fellow commissioner, commissioner bush, is now with us. hello there. hope you're feeling better. you're muted, but that's okay. we're going to go ahead and call agenda item number 3. if any members of the public intend to offer public comment for the consent calendar, they should call in and press star, three to be entered into the comment queue. does any commissioner wish to speak to the minutes of the february 12, 2021, meeting? commissioner bush? >> i don't have the minutes in front of me, but i think at the

end of the minutes, where it talks about commissioner proposals for future meetings, it mentioned that i raised the issue of implementing the recommendations of the controller but it doesn't say that i asked specifically that the recommendations be put into draft form and be returned back to the commission. am i correct in looking at that? >> yeah, i guess somebody can go back and look at the record. if you want to have that corrected, then we'll just put the minutes over to the next meeting and have that addressed. and in terms of the underlying subject matter, the actions on the controller, that will be our next agenda item, number 4, so we can talk about what we want to do on that -- >> and i'm looking forward to

that. but in the meantime, i do want it on the record that i ask specifically that the recommendations be turned into draft legislation and be returned to the commission, and that was not responded to in the minutes, and i don't think it's on the agenda that way, either, for this meeting. >> okay. yeah -- well, now, i'm happy if i can get a motion to continue the agenda item number 3 to the meeting of the commission in april, and then i'm assuming, director, you'll look back at the minutes and bring that back for our decision. >> okay. thank you. >> and then, we'll address the substance of addressing item

recommendations in number 4. i have a motion. could i have a second? >> second. >> okay. if you could now call the roll, mr. moderator. >> clerk: a motion has been seconded. i'll now call the roll. [roll call] >> clerk: with five votes in the affirmative and zero votes opposed -- >> hang on. stop. we forgot to ask for public comment on that vote. >> clerk: okay. >> going back, my apologies, little slow this morning. hold that thought, and mr. moderator, can you please make the announcement for public comment. >> clerk: thank you, madam chair. the commission is now receiving

public comment on item number 3 remotely during this meeting. members of the public will have three minutes to provide public comment. you will hear a bell go off when you have 30 seconds remaining. if you have joined the meeting late, please press star, three to enter the queue. it is important that you only press star, three once as doing so again will move you back out of the queue. it's important that you call from a quiet location. please address your comments to the commission as a whole and not to individual members. madam chair, we are checking to see if there are members in the queue. please stand by. all right. we do have a caller in the queue. please stand by.

>> and somebody isn't muted. i don't know who that is -- >> clerk: i'm going to mute you, commissioner bush. i think that's where the feedback is coming from. >> okay. >> clerk: all right. please stand by. welcome, caller. your three minutes begins now. caller, are you there? okay. it looks like this caller is actually the same individual from the last public comment as a moment ago. looks like they're in here twice. are you answering this line or responding to this line, caller?

okay. madam chair, we are checking to see if there are any other callers in the queue. please stand by. thank you, caller. your three minutes begins now. >> well, thank you. i have no idea what happened to the line. my name is ellen. i spoke just minutes ago. my name is ellen, e-l-l-e-n,

zhou, z-h-o-u. you bunch of people running a fake city hall. city hall should not be closed. it is healthy, safe enough for all the people who work at city hall, including your commissioners, to be open for the public to do business in san francisco. 2020, we have 30% of the business fail because of city hall. your department, ethics commission department, do not support our public the constitutional way. as you can see some of the items that you keep talking about to yourself, and i believe that i am the only one so far speak on behalf of the public today for the entire san francisco, so you're basically running a failed commission, ethics commission. according to what we see in united states, we have 50 states in america. 27 states that are republican run cities and states, they are

open, open for business. they're open to travel, there's no curfew, and they're opening public schools. but look around you in san francisco. what have you done to damage? your meetings are not productive, have been killing san francisco in the entire 2020. now, we are talking about 2021. please have a heart for san francisco. reopen san francisco public schools. 100% open san francisco business. 100% open san francisco. the government needs to function for people to lead open safe lives. advocate for yourself, your safety. advocate for your family, for all the people in san francisco. be open.

do not let the 18 lawless politicians, corrupted immoral politicians to continue to hold onto the city, hold the city hostage. we see it from other states. reopen san francisco. forget about your lawless members. you fail the public agenda as an ethics commissioner. may god bless your heart, bless your head. we do not need to close. reopen city hall, please. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, caller. we are checking to see if there are any other callers in the queue. please stand by.

madam chair, there's no further callers in the queue. you are muted, chair ambrose. >> so sorry. here we go. public comment on agenda item number 3 is closed. we had a motion on the floor from commissioner chiu, seconded by commissioner lee, to defer action on the minutes for the february 12, 2021 meeting to the next meeting, can you please call the roll. >> clerk: a motion has been made and seconded. i will now call the roll. [roll call]

>> clerk: with five votes in the affirmative and zero votes opposing, the vote is unanimous. >> thank you. i'm going to call draft item number 4, discussion and possible action on staff policy report, including policy prioritization plan. you should all have received materials in your packet, and i'm going to turn it over to pat ford to make a presentation. thank you. >> thank you, chair ambrose. good morning, commissioners. as per usual, i won't make a pull presentation. i know your preference is for me to not restate what's in the report, so i would just state that this month, i did attach the policy prioritization plan to the staff report. for anybody watching, this is the quarterly tool that the commission uses to plan the policy projects that it wants to focus on for the next

quarter, and in this particular installment of the plan, i'm recommending that the commission maintain the current conflict of interest view. this is to respond to what we're learning through the various corruption investigations on going, including federal investigations and those by both the controller and the city attorney's office, so thus far, the project has produced one ordinance, which is pending at the rules committee right now at the board of supervisors, and i do have an update on that, which is legislation should be introduced next week which brings the legislation into line with what the commission introduced last november. it's good progress on this, and hopefully the process for that ordinance will go smoothly, and it will be approved by the

board, and i'll continue to keep you updated on that. but in the interim, i recommend that you maintain this project as the sole policy project. the major project, i think it warrants that level of attention. as i discussed in the report, the next phase would be to look at gift rules. that's something that the office that they recommended that we review because of how much they were an issue in the various investigations, so that's what i'm proposing will be the next phase of the project, so i will stop there and glad to answer any questions that you have. >> i received a briefing on this matter, and i thought that it was well thought out, so i want to thank staff for the briefing, and i feel tremendously caught up with the

issues involved with this. >> thank you, commissioner bell. i actually -- i would like a little more information about this -- the next phase in gift rules, and in particular, i think the controller's office is going to be focusing on disclosure requirements and disclosure so-called loopholes, and i know that because that completely within the ethics commission wheel house that you're going to be working closely with them, but i'd like to know when we're going to start to see some specific substantive recommendations, you know, along the lines of what commissioner bush had called for, starting to

identify each specific agenda underlying problems. i think it would help us stay on track and ensure that -- in particular, i guess my concern is, you know, the legislative season of the board, if we don't get legislation introduced in the next two months, come may and june, their entire attention shifts to the budget, and then, they usually takeoff a couple weeks in august. i know they didn't last time because of the emergency, but i am expecting them to do this time, and then, we would be in september before legislation even started moving actively through committee. so i'm urging that we push hard through this month in particular so that whatever is going to need to go forward -- and i see, you know, you point out that supervisor haney has

this sort of same timeline in mind because he's going to move legislation that's been sitting dormant since november. but for us, if we're going to make specific recommendations on the gift rules, which i know is kind of a touchy situation sometimes, my question is are we going to see something substantive at the commission in april as far as specific recommendations about what and how the gift disclosures or reporting might be handled in the city? >> i'm more than happy to, if that's what the commission would like, but i would point out that would be a bit of a deviation from what our normal process has been. typically, what the commission has preferred is me to conduct interested persons meetings at the first phase of the policy

project. that process usually takes a couple of weeks to put together and then a week to host them, and at that point, we start to, you know, analyze what we've heard from people. if we -- in the past, when we haven't done that, that's later stalled the process. if we just start with staff recommendations, and we skip stakeholder engagement up front, then, the stakeholders come to the commission meeting and say they weren't consulted. >> i guess i'm not saying that we necessarily need to have action on it in april, but i guess having a conversation about what the menu of options that are being discussed -- you know, it's, like, we've seen

from the controller's report some fairly general items, like tighten the gift rules or enforce the auditing. sometimes you have a very limited engagement there, and i don't know if we can expect them to be the ones to suggest specifically, you know, this particular rule needs to be tightened. i'll be honest. my concern is we have some of the most stringent and specific rules. what i want to talk about is the problem of using third

party nonprofit organizations as a laundry for funds that they would not have been allowed to solicit directly, and i don't know if that's something that the controller's office or any of the supervisors are talking about. but if we don't -- if we don't, you know, engage in the specifics, in my experience, you know, that is not my idea, but i would like to know that we're going to talk specifically about what is it in the regulation of gifts that we have in mind that might complete our compliance. any way, i'm taking too much time. i see everybody else's hand is up, so i'm going to start -- commissioner chiu, you have

your hand up? >> i have a question on process, as well. so this is the -- matt haney's proposes legislation, when it's proposed, it's going to do the board, so you do, i think, a drafting of the legislation. whatever the board approves in that legislation is not required to come back to the commission for our approval, is that right, pat? >> that's correct. >> all right. so if their proposal does not go as far as what we would like, then we're kind of stuck on that front. so that leads me to my second question. i know there are several recall petitions that are circulating right now, and i believe that an election is not currently scheduled for this november, but if that changes, do we know when the deadline would be for an election to be held if there

are enough signatures collected? [inaudible] with the rules and regulation changes that we'll seek? >> i wonder if we might defer to deputy city attorney shen on those questions? >> yeah, commissioner chiu. a couple of responses to your question. the ethics commission can certainly weigh-in on the ordinance. if the ethics commission feels like there are things that should be covered that aren't, there are ways to have it come before parties, ask mr. ford to present those recommendations to the rules committee.

there are other ways that the ethics commission can continue to play this role in the process. obviously, the recall election for potentially this fall is an ever-involving matter. [inaudible] governor newsom, those signatures will be turned in on the 17. i think after that comes in, we'll have a little bit more clarity, but there's no question on whether or not we're going to have a stayed election this fall, but i can continue to keep you updated. >> but there is a possibility that the ethics commission, time permitting and public comment and engagement solicited to prepare a ballot initiative if that is the direction we were to go in? >> i think at this time we would have to look at it a little bit harder.

the first things that would need to fall in place would be the election would need to be called. the various structures around the state need to verify the various signatures and the number of signatures turned in, and then after that, we can see what will happen with the local election process, as well. >> and mr. shen, with the ballot measures, that deadline is, somewhat, july or august, if i'm not mistaken, in terms of getting something to the elections director to get on the ballot and to get the ballot simplification committee. there's not a lot of time there, even if there is an election in november. >> i think you're right, chair

ambrose. >> well, let's keep our fingers crossed that the board adopts the legislation as we recommended, and you don't have that problem to solve this year. and now, i'm going to turn to commissioner lee. you had your hand up previously. >> thank you, madam chair. i just want to put forward the meetings. i participated in several concerned citizens meeting, and i do agree with chair ambrose that the input that we've been

getting are pretty -- it's not as broad as i would like to see. so i would like to see if we can extend the public engagement efforts. i know that it's hard for people to commit to a specific time of date, so i wonder if you will open up to invite the broader stakeholder community, which includes much broader base than what we've been having; the participates, and allow them to submit in writing, e-mails, whatever it is, their opinions, their experiences, so we can have a broader understanding of what's going on out there, you know, the experience and ideas so that when we look at the gift

rules, we have a broader way of seeing how -- how it should impact the community. i think it's something that we really need to explore by really expanding our stakeholder community. >> commissioner bush, can you hear us? >> i was muted. now i'm here. >> all right. you -- it's your turn for comment. >> thank you. i'm glad to hear my fellow commissioners all seem to be pretty much on the same page. i'm in agreement with all the terms that have been raised so

far. commissioner lee's reaching out to larger groups, i would take a look at the fact that our interested persons meeting pretty much asked people to respond to specific elements of proposals from the staff, whether they agree or disagree with those proposals. and what i would like to see is an outreach and an earlier stage of the process, where we reach out before we have a staff proposal for input about what should go in to a review of gift rules or any of the other issues that we have before us. in particular, this is our opportunity to reach out for greater equality in city governments. so to chinese american organizations, to black organizations, to latina

organizations, to gay lesbian bisexual transgender groups as well as coalitions like the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods and ask them, what would you like to see in the issues because people have been looking at what the issues are, and we have very little input; in terms of what commissioner chiu raised about the timing, i think that it's

an important consideration, and i would ask us to consider whether or not putting something on the ballot requires that we put a finished piece of legislation or, instead, we can put on the ballot on the policy, for example, a policy to treat permit expeditors the same as we do lobbyists. and from there, we would go on from that directive from the voters to draft something. but at the outset, we're just asking the voters, would you ask us to add these policies? and so i would point that out. mr. ford mentioned that he would like to continue with the conflict of interest as the

only policy action for now, and my feeling is that pretty much that is saying that we're not going to reach out to groups other than ourselves to develop the policy recommendations. and yet, we know there are groups like the brennan --

>> that's not the same issue that i raised with executive director pelham, where she came back with a number of concerns about just simply putting in

the p.d.f.s because of complications from that, but simply a listing, what category they have to file in, what's their job title, and where can the public access what's been filed? because all of those are public documents that people don't know where to go to get them. that's something that i want to see us adopt as our policy as soon as possible. also, guidance that reminds people that form 700 should be updated when people's financial interests are changed. for example, say they buy or sell a property or that they change their marital status or they change their job. those are situations where people's financial interests are altered, and sometimes people don't think they need to

refile until the following april, when in fact they need to refile within 30 days of those changes, and we need to make it clear to the filers that that's the expectation that that take place. i think we also need to make sure that we provide reminders to the city officials of other disposal of information. for example, if the public doesn't know who's sitting on various boards that are also

board -- city departments or boards that are affecting city business. i'd like to proceed us -- take up, as an urgent matter, nonprofit -- not -- not the same as lobbyists and not as othered, but nonprofit dis -- not as others, but who they contacts, city officials, and for what purpose. and if they're [inaudible] who the city interests are that they're [inaudible], so that is an issue that i want to see on our policy prioritization thing because as we know from the controller's office, about $1 billion in city money flows from the city to nonprofits. many of those nonprofits are doing things that are invaluable to the city's work,

like building nonprofit -- building affordable housing, providing counseling and so forth. but some are lobbying the city to change its policies or lobbying the city to appoint people, and we don't have any information on that. it's something that can be done, and i think we need to do it very clearly.

it's been months since some of this happened. in one case, in mohamed nuru's case, it's been a year since all of that was fully documented in court documents. so why are we not moving forward as an ethics commission to say that we want these things enforced? i don't think it's enough to say that we should hold off until others have completed their investigations because they're going to continue to complete their investigations for their purposes and under their rules. our rules are you have to file, and you have to file accurately, and if you don't, we're going to come after you, but we've shown we have no interest in coming after

anybody until our work is done. well, i don't think we should be last in line if we're serving the public. so those reasons are some of what i believe we need to not look at the conflict of interest as the exclusive focus of policy prioritization, and i realize that we have limited resources, so i'm asking if we agree that we're going to do an outreach to obtain additional resources. thank you. >> commissioner chiu, i see your hand up. was that from before or did you have further comment? you ary muted. -- you're muted. >> apologies. i just had a question on page 3 of the memo, under section 2-b,

the waiver request. i don't know if it was my user error, but i did not see the attached memo for historic preservation commission [inaudible] i would also like to echo my support for commissioner bush's comments. i know we are understaff towards being the one and only policy person on the team right now, but hopefully, in [inaudible] feel free to defer to director pelham. we are making good progress on the hiring of the second policy person who can come in and hit the ground running and move the work forward, but i would echo

commissioner [inaudible] comments and encourage us to look at other entities like the brennan center. >> sure. to your first comment, commissioner chiu, that's an error that was withdrawn at the last moment by the policy requester, and i failed to go back into the policy report and delete that, so my apologies. that's something that will appear on a future agenda, most likely next month. >> okay. great. >> so sorry about that. and to the question about seeking the help of other organizations, i think you'll remember that, in phase one, we had extensive participation from the campaign legal center. they submitted a very lengthy memo. i worked with them in depth. they performed quite a bit of research for us, so i do want

to point that out, that we do do that already. they're going to be engaged on the next phase, i would assume, as well, so i don't think that's going to be an issue. and also, i do just want to clarify that the policy prioritization plan is not competencesive of everything that's going on in our office. these are projects we're working on where it changed to the statute or the regulations are required. it's in no way comprehensive of every priority or project that's going on in our office. it does not include office, enforcement, tech projects, compliance project. you'll have to look to the enforcement report for enforcement and look to the director's report for other program areas, so i just want to clarify that, that when i say the conflict of interest project hopefully will be our

sole policy focus, that means legislative focus, that that's the only legislation we're looking agent right now. obviously, there's many, many things that we have going on at any given time, so i just want to clarify that. >> thank you. >> unmute myself. i just want to follow up and make sure that we have some specific direction that we're providing you with so we don't leave you asking questions about what you want to move forward with. on your potential policy projects, you've got the permit consultant review listed as one that we won't be able to get to in this next quarter, which i understand, but i want to clarify, the board's moving legislation on permit expediter

to address some of the problems that came out of the corruption scandal, and i'm presuming that where you put down phase three to be determined or whatever -- whatever category you want to put it in, that you will keep us abreast of what the board's doing on that front, and for my purposes, having a review -- i mean, right now, permit consultants are supposed to file with us. having given the problems in that area, having our commission review compliance with existing policy with me is something we should keep high on our list. i want to go through the points that commissioner bush raised about the form 700. we can wait. if you could -- director pelham, if you could address

that under your director's report, important we can garner that information from the respective departments and put that in a place where a member of the public or the press would go would be an easy resource to find out, you know, who had a file and where we could get our hands on it. and then, with respect to the nonprofit disclosures, i do expect that that is going to be a very sticky wicket to sort out. you know, i was thinking as he was speaking, while on the one hand, we know the ability of nonprofits to basically wash recology's donations such that they could be given out to

d.p.w. and mohamed nuru and be used for lavish holiday parties is extremely [inaudible], however, requiring every department to file a report every time they call d.p.h. to say they need more vaccines, we're going into an area that is extremely robust in our city. we're very lucky to have so many nonprofits engaged with the city in providing public services. and i do think in that realm, you know, working with the community and with the board, which has got their fingers on the pulse of the nonprofit organizations who are the recipients of public funds is

going to be important, and at the same time, focusing on the city actors, they know when they are misusing nonprofits by providing the money to accomplish things that they're not allowed to do directly, and so any way, i think that might require a little bit more work than just one piece of legislation requiring a bunch of disclosure there. and then with respect to the enforcement actions that you raised, commissioner bush, i think we'll take that up with the next staff item on enforcement. and with that, i do want to stop and ask for public comment -- i'm sorry. somebody was going to speak? no, go ahead. moderator, if you could please call for public comment on this item, and then, we'll have final word from the staff or

anyone else. >> clerk: madam chair, we are checking to see if there are callers in the queue. for those already on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. if you are currently on eld ho, we are currently on the discussion of agenda item number 4, discussion and possible action on staff policy report, including policy prioritization plan. if you have not already done so, press star, three to enter the public comment queue. you will have three minutes to provide public comment, six months if you require an interpreter. you will hear a bell when you have 30 seconds remaining. we are checking. please stand by. we have a caller in the queue.

welcome, caller, your three minutes begins now. >> thank you. good morning, san francisco, and good morning, commissioners. again, my name is ellen lee zhou. that's e-l-l-e-n l-e-e z-h-o-u. i am the only person that spoke in items 1 and 2. in 2020, total number of people testing positive for covid-19, 34,219. total people passed away from covid, 491. per our public health law, order is only good for 60 days. but here we are, still in a lockdown, killing san francisco

small business, public schools, creating a lot of hate crimes against chinese, against asian people, and we need to restore a constitutional city hall for san francisco people. in 2019, 992 nonprofits recorded in san francisco, which you said money laundering. that's exactly what it is. homeless people are dieing on the street, and the communism politicians running a dictator city hall for the last 20 years because they use our public money to support killing our babies, support the drug dealers by giving them three needles, five million of them a year, and supporting human trafficking, defunding the police to welcome more

criminals to create crime for san francisco. a bunch of basic taters, like, mayor london breed, like all the 11 board of supervisors, and the five other elected officials, total 18 of them. you should look into how many of the public officials related to how many nonprofits operated, how they launder the money to nonprofits in san francisco. 2020, they are using covid-19 to abuse public power. as of today, march 12, 2021, our public schools are not open, still abusing our power policy to stop our business. i thank god, i thank jesus christ that we have 20 people involved in corrupt city government in jail.

i hope that you, our politicians will care more to restore city law, our health, and safety for the entire city of san francisco -- >> clerk: thank you, caller. your three minutes has expired. please stand by to see if we have any other callers in the queue. >> chair ambrose, i just wanted to let you know that i explained to executive director pelham, i have a board meeting today for my organization that i have to jump off of. >> yes, i understood that you'll be excused at 10:45. so when you're excused, just log out, and director pelham will make a note for the minutes. >> being on. thank you. >> -- okay.

thank you. hopefully we'll be able to get through this item on the agenda. >> clerk: madam clerk, there are no further callers in the queue. >> all right. thank you. are there any further comments by staff? commissioner chiu, you looked like you were going to speak? >> no, i was not. i'll put my hand down. >> all right. so mr. ford, i think that we're going to -- >> i'm trying to -- >> okay. you're trying to raise your hand. commissioner bush, we'll go to you, and then, we'll go to [inaudible], who raised their hand. >> in terms of the disclosures by nonprofits, i'm really not talking about nonprofits that

are providing services and seeking city funding for them per se, but i'm talking about nonprofits that exist to influence city policy and city laws. i was a founder of a statewide nonprofit directed by the attorney general dealing with aids back in the heat of the aids epidemic, and we were certainly seeking to change state law as to what constituted a disabling condition. and so that's the kind of thing where you would want to know what is the organization doing and who are they contacting? and we have a number of organizations that are worthy and well established but who exists primarily to contact city officials to seek changes in city law, and there's

nothing wrong with that, it's just that it should be transparent to the public. it's not that it should be asking transparency on everybody's nonprofits providing services to people in the city. that's number one. and number two, the point i wanted to make is the issues that i raised i want to make sure are clear in the minutes, and i'd like to see that there is action taken on them because i intend to circulate some of those issues with the comments that have come from other commissioners in order to make sure that we have a decent outreach. i think it's important that we reach out to underserved communities and communities that are not deeply indebted in city hall politics to give us their insighted on what's going

on. and i doubt seriously that we're getting much from the latina and latinx communities or the african american communities, and i don't think you can expect them to do it just by asking them to comment on proposals that we came up with. i think you need to ask them about proposals that they want to make as priorities. thank you. >> i guess i'm unmuted. you know, commissioner bush, i guess i totally support the idea of encouraging participation in as wide a net as we can throw. in my experience, though, if you're reaching out to people who are not ordinarily engaged in city government and in

particular city legislation, and that if you don't specifically, you know, put some, you know, boundaries or proposals in front of them, what you're going to get back is sort of a general frustration with government corruption, and why isn't my street being paved. you know what? i guess i'm saying to mr. ford i want to see a menu of options that are a little more specific. and i think what you're and commissioner lee are saying, i want to essentially do an outreach to people who don't normally participate in the ethics and just generally ask them what ideas they have in

mind, so i think we should be more clear. not that you couldn't reconcile those two things, but i don't want him sitting there, scratching his head, wondering what he's being told to do between now and the next meeting in april, so i'm going to try to summarize it. i definitely hear that, in response to your point, mr. ford, that we typically engage with stakeholders before we put specific legislative language forward. i think, if folks would agree, that we need to put some parameters around what we're asking folks to comment on. so if the next outreach is gift

rules, if we can list sort of a violations of the gift rules that occurred out of the scandals, that might -- so that when they're reaching out to us, what is your opinion of city government and how can we make it better because i don't think we'll get very focused very fast if that's the outreach, so i don't know if that makes any better to you -- any sense to you, mr. ford, or commissioners? i see commissioners' hands up again, and i just want to make sure, commissioner bell, because we're going to lose you to your prior engagement, about

your thoughts? >> yeah, i have a lot of thoughts. it seems to me it's a process of product, how we're trying to get input of what we want to do, and also looking at the capacity that we have to do that, as well as the product that we have in terms of what we're suggesting. and so it just seems to me that we should, in fact, have a process about everything that we want to do that the staff knows about so when the recommendations come to us, they've been through a process that we've talked about and agreed upon. and if that hasn't been created, then i think we all need to be about the business of doing that. but at this point, i don't know what's before us. but in terms of the conflict of credit, i think we certainly

want to do that, and the question is whatever the other things in addition to that that we want to do, understanding that we only have one staff person to do that. i suggest that if we are not satisfied with the process, that we implement one that's targeted input, and i would just say that i am satisfied with the conflict of interest. and if the people, my fellow commissioners, want to have more urgent priorities, i am certainly willing to -- those reasonings sound fine to me. it's just a question of how do we operationalize. >> okay. thank you. those comments summarize the

wide ranging conversation that we just had. appreciate it, and we'll follow up -- i mean, i do think that there has been a process that has -- the commission has followed in doing outreach and that i think we've all felt like we have not succeeded in engaging a wider stakeholder group, so we'll go back to focusing on that. >> i would like to figure how we do that. >> all right. i'm going to let you sign off then, and i see, commissioner lee, you have your hand up -- or commissioner chiu, either one. >> i think that commissioner bell and you did a great summary, widening the aperture, ensuring that we're all relying on the process and coming to

agreement on what the product is. i think that's very helpful construction. the only thing i'd add in regard to widening the aperture is walk before we run, and be very specific about what we do, how we engage them, and what we are trying to seek from them. i think there's a great opportunity there, and then, i

think my second question was, and we don't need to answer this now, but what language resources do we have put out there to address the latinx community as well as the asian community because not everyone there will speak english as their first language. >> thank you. commissioner lee, then, did you have a comment? >> san francisco has a really unique history in supporting community serving community industry. i just want to make it clear that when we talk about nonprofits, you know, the perception out there may be

very different than the majority of san franciscans have experienced in their neighborhoods, and i just want to make clear. and i do agree that we need to have a really focused plan. when i talk about outreaching to the stakeholders extending it, it needs to be focused because the majority of them, they don't know what we do, and this is a great opportunity. everybody knows what's happening in this city, and very few people know the role of ethics commission and the role that they have, advising the commission in breeding out corruption. so i think if we can have a really targeted plan in this budget engagement process to really reach out to key

stakeholders -- who's been, you know, engaged with us? yes, we have hundreds of nonprofits, community serving agencies, but they also have networks, coalition. whether they're health, aging community element whatever it is. so i think if we can take a tap tap -- stab at reaching out -- i think we can also get committed to taking this one step forward because this is really a crisis, and i think that we know that the p.p.p. that's coming down now is going to create a second wave of predators who are going to take

advantage of people in our population that are vulnerable. this is one step that i really think that we need to take by really expanding our engagement, starting out small, getting in contact with folks who represent the border nonprofit community. >> okay. i'm not sure, commissioner chiu, if you raised your hand again or -- all right. so i want to go back to pat

ford and director pelham to see if they have any comments or clarifying questions before we sum up and move on. and just so you know, i am going to take a five-minute break when we finish this item. so pat, if you are -- you're trying to figure out what we -- make sense of all this feedback, did you have any questions or comments before we move forward? >> no, i don't think so. i think it is fairly clear, actually, and i think it's pretty much in line with exactly how we've approached these policy projects all along. i think it's quality, not type. yeah, we can figure out how to invite a broader swath of folks to our i.p. process and any

input that you as commissioners have on those who people are would be incredibly helpful. you are people that are really plugged into the community, so i think having that information would be really helpful. if you have information on specific groups that would be worth targeting, reach out, and i'll be glad to get in touch with them. and as well, when we have a policy analyst, i'll have them identify more groups of who to reach out to. so it'll follow the same method as other policy projects have followed, which is first reach out to the public, research and analysis, make a presentation to you in terms of a report,

findings, and recommendations. and then, we'd like to meet with the stakeholders again. we usually like to have two touches. one at the beginning when we don't have recommendations, just topics, touches. and then, once again, when we have recommendations, to hear their input. what i think would also be helpful, i think from what i'm hearing, to have some sort of scoping memo at the beginning of the project where i list out questions that the project will seek to address. i think that's helpful because i'm sensing that you don't know what the questions are that we're seeking to answer, so i think i can list those out there without making a recommendation. i would not ever want to list a question that's not supported by policy. should we abolish the best

friends forever example, and that would be one of a list of areas that we are going to look into. so i think i could bring that list to you next month and that could give you an idea of what additional topics could be added to the list. >> and one further thing, because i know you do solicit input from a broad range of organizations is the -- whether they end up engaging or not, but when you are putting together your list, if you could share that with the commissioners, so that would trigger in your mind oh, i don't see such and such organization on there, i think that would be helpful so we know who your announcements are going out to.

>> sure. and i would just ask commissioners, do you think there are places where those places are listed? i would not like to bias the selection of groups with my own personal, you know, ideas on which groups are significant, and i would -- i think it would be helpful if we could identify lists that maybe other city departments keep or lists that -- nonprofits that support other nonprofits keep or places we could go that would actually have a list of nonprofits. that would probably get the process started other than me trying to build a list from scratch. that would probably be helpful. >> well, supervisors, from the rules committee that have been hearing -- and the government

audit that have been hearing the audit report, i would ask their legislative aides because they've been getting public comment from the work they've been doing on the subject, so they may well have identified some active participants that haven't been coming to the ethics commission, although frankly, i haven't been seeing a lot of public comment at the board hearings, also, maybe that would be helpful. >> if i could just point out, friends of ethics gave the ethics commission a disk and a printout of several hundred community groups that are actively involved in city governments, and i don't think that list has ever been put to use by the ethics commission. but if you go through your records, you'll find it's there. >> is that a document that

anybody's familiar with? if not, commissioner bush, maybe we can revive it through friends of ethics. all right. and director pelham, did you have any other comments? i do want you to take up the form 700 issue, and then, mr. pierce, when we come back and do the enforcement action, we'll talk about both the recent proposed settlement with recology and how one might proceed against those who break the ethics rules. with that, i'd like to take a five-minute break -- i'm sorry. commissioner chiu, did you just raise your hand again? no. i have -- let's just say we'll be back here at 11:05.

that's actually seven minutes, . >> discussion of enforcement division staff report. presentation from jeff pierce. if you intend to comment for this item dial now and enter star 3 to be entered to the queue. if you have questions for mr. pierce, please raise your hand and i will call on you. first we will hear from mr. pierce. >> thank you, chair ambrose. as you know last week the city attorney announced a settlement with ricology that providing

waste management and recycling for the city and county for the residents, for city departments and commercial entities. the settlement the city attorney reached was inflated collection rates that resulted from violations of the prohibition against bribery and gifts from restricted sources. as far as i can figure out the settlement is not a public document or not yet a public document that the city attorney did public a complaint it filed in superior court last week, state court. i provided a summary what the city attorney concluded in the matter with ricology.

in relation to the federal complaint the u.s. attorney filed previously in november against the -- how is the audio? not going well. are you able to hear me. >> yes. >> i will keep going. you will remember that in november the u.s. attorney filed a criminal complaint against paul juicy the government community relations manager for ricology charged with money laundering and bribery. you will see among the attorneys who represented the city in the matter was deputy city attorney

shen. i hope he is still with us. i would caution the commission that deputy city attorney shen is constrained. he is bound by the settlement negotiations and attorney-client privilege. but he agreed to speak both to the settlement and to broader issues that arise in relation to that settlement. among other questions i have asked the deputy city attorney to address what appears to be a legal conclusion in the complaint or in the settlement that payments can operate as gifts. it is possible to disguise a

gift as to payment, and the result as to payments can also operate as bribes. with that i will hand it over to deputy city attorney chen. >> good morning, commissioners. thank you for the lead in. for those who haven't seen it the memo does a good job of the settlement. i should have known that the settlement requires approval of the board of supervisors. it is not a done deal. in terms of the settlement that are set forth in the materials that jeff has put before you and what is available on the website. i should clarify and jeff, thank you for laying the groundwork. this is pending litigation, there are limitations how much i can speak to the matter. as well to legal conclusions

such as jeff just said. i can understand how the ethics commission may want to explore those issues and the other things we will discuss today. the litigation, this is an open meeting, there is only so much on that front. one thing i want to clarify for the benefit of the commission that this proposed settlement is separate and apart from the u.s. attorney. those are two different legal matters involving different parties. i want to be clear about that as well. i didn't really have a big presentation planned. jeff's memo did a great job summarizing the highlights. if you have any questions i will try to answer those. >> i did have a question about the process going forward. i know jeff mentioned that the

settlement itself is still not a public document, but if you can explain how settlements are subject to board approval and when the actual settlement agreement will be available for the public to review and what you think roughly the timing might be for that to move through the board. >> thank you for the question. i am not sure if i can answer a straight timeline. we want this to move quickly in the next couple months. it does take a while to process the settlement. this does require board approval. we hope to have your support through the process. >> so the settlement, if i recall, is a rate participator in the city -- ratepayer involves a change in rate

april 1st. is it expected ricology will honor that regardless if the final settlement is approved. april is down the corner. it couldn't happen in less than six weeks. >> i mean we are hoping to get the settlement through as quickly as possible. we want to give them time to consider the matter thoroughly. we hope it goes well. we hope it goes according to the proposed plan. >> vaguely recalling the government ordinance. settlement agreements at the board have to be available so many days before the hearing or something like that, right? >> yes. of course, once the settlement is presented there will be a public document. i expect that to happen shortly. >> good work on that.

congratulations to everyone concerned. it is both horrifying to see that lack of oversight led to that extensive overcharging of rates, which as we all know are very aggressive rates. everybody in the city is required to have a garbage can and pays the same rate regardless of income level. for those folks to have been cheated out of $100 million is really shocking and disturbing. i am glad that you all were able to get to them and get the recompense the city people deserve. following up on that, with you,

jeff, i know one of the things that commissioner bush raised with respect to enforcement actions is this whole question of when might ethics engage in enforcement actions on violations of code requirements that are part of the underlying criminal action that is being pursued. we talked about this before. having been in the situation myself where you have the layers of an f.b.i. investigation, district attorney criminal investigation, maybe civil action and personnel action, i have long since learned that the administrative action takes second place to a criminal

investigation just because in an investigation it is really important to allow the interviews and the subpoenas and the strategy of ellis sitting information from one indicted person against another indicted person. i have been comfortable with the fact for this year we haven't brought any enforcement actions arising out of those allegations. in my mind, there are not the one that commissioner bush mentioned because he hasn't pled guilty to or been convicted. there are a couple instances we have individuals charged and who have pled guilty to and have been or will be sentenced. in those situations i have

expressed my view that to the extent there are violations of form 700 that certainly whatever action that we might be able to take should also be taken at that point, but i don't think that it may beings sense from a resources point of view for us to try to put together the evidentiary basis to show the violations that neru is alleged to have engaged in while that work is being done much more intensively. that is my two cents. i will turn to see if anybody

has questions for jeff or andrew about the ri cology or even forcement matters? please go ahead. >> my questions relate to the department of public works in general. this touches a little bit on the director's report around the budget guidance received from supervisor matt haney. i think the budget committee can chair. what do you know has d.p.w. under taken with regard to tone at the top and engaging in further training or other efforts to make sure that this behavior does not recur?

there was a ballot measure in november to create a separate public works commission. has that been set up, staffed, does it provide oversight? is there any update you have on that front would be helpful. i think it is critical to hold people accountable after they are engaged in this ongoing corruption scandal. just as important what does the city do to start to rebuild trust with residents so that won't happen again? >> thank you, commissioner chu. >> to the first question i am not aware of what steps public works has taken over the course of the last year.

it is director that could speak to that or members of the compliance staff have been engaged with the department of public works around those questions. if deputy city attorney chen has insights, i would defer to him. as to the second question the ballot measure that might create a commission to oversee public works, i will defer to the deputy city attorney on that as well. >> thank you, commissioner chu. the public works commission, i will find it. i continue further information when the new public works commission will be set up. it wasn't set up immediately. there are certain dates in setting up the department and

the commission. i can try to send that to you. >> thank you very much. >> i want to speak to the question about what is being done at d.p.w. at the top? that is something that i have been thinking about. one of the things that we know is that the new city administrator has been appointed, giving her a few weeks to wrap up her old job as assessor and get her arms around the 40 departments she will be managing as city administrator. i was hoping in the next couple months we could invite her to speak to the commission about

what she is doing. i am sure she must have this on her agenda to address the tone at the top within d.p.w. right now the director of public works is, i believe, appointed by the city administrator. there is an acting director there now. i also think that we should reach out to the new city administrator and let her know that we are available, as i am sure the city attorney has already done, to work with her senior staff on ethics training and guidance to improve the culture of compliance at d.p.w. director, if you could make a note to raise that with me over the course of the next couple months to extend an invitation

to carmen chu to speak to the commission how we might work with her and support her in addressing what i am sure is going to be aggressive reworking of the culture at d.p.w. under her watch. to that point, commissioner bush had made a suggestion which is hands up. maybe i should recognize him and let him make his own suggestion about inviting another guest to speak with us. commissioner bush, if you can hear me, you have the floor. >> thank you, chair ambrose. i was asking for us to hear from david anderson. he has some points with interviews with the press about the need for citizens to become more informed and more attentive

to city government. i think it would be good to hear directly from him. for one thing, it takes us one step beyond just hearing from city officials to hear from people outside the city system about what they observe about how we are functioning and where we might look for improvements. i would like to put that on the agenda for the next meeting. >> to be clear, we can extend the invitation. i think scheduling with somebody who just left such a demanding job, i don't think we can count on him being available for that particular day in april. director, if you can reach out to him on behalf of the commission and ask him if he would be willing, with the understanding we are not asking him to come in and spill the beans on intricate workings of his criminal investigation team,

but what commissioner bush said based on his observation of san francisco and ethical compliance, what observations and recommendations might he have to share with us? then report back -- let me know. if he would be willing to do in april, that would be great. i don't want to presume that he is going to be at our disposal on our timeline. >> they re-opened disneyland. he may have gone off to disneyland. >> that is what i would have done after the year he has. although i am not going for a while until i see how it works out. >> two other questions to raise, if i can. >> please. >> the ricology development underscores the value to the

business of city approvevals which was $100 million. i would like to know what steps we can take to determine the value of agreements that are sought from the city to other entities besides ricology. there was quite a bit of discussion about facing up relay boxes at intersections around the city for business to take people to san jose and not use public transit. i know in the case of commercial approvevals from the planning department that there is a careful analysis of what the value would be of those

approvevals. that is a basis for accessing what might be done for a percentage of that for affordable housing. i think it would be very important for us to better understand how much our decisions at the city affect the economy and the business interests. i would like to see enforcement division asking those questions to get the answers to it. that is number one. number would what is your plans under your audit of the lobbyist of the city? >> through the chair, commissioner bush, the lobbying audit program is in the audit position that we are seeking to fill this spring. i hope to have more reporting on

that. that is on the project plan for doing a pilot audit by the end of the fiscal year. that is our hope. >> that is quite far-off. >> yes, it is. >> is it possible to ask the controller to do that work in the interim? >> as i mentioned, it was june 30th is our hope, fiscal year. my short answer we have the plan to do the audit. it is essential to have the lobbying audit done. it needs scoped out, identified with understanding of the program. that may beings sense to me to have the audit manager head up. that will be critical and essential part of that person's role. >> i understand that, director. your timetable about the end of

the fiscal year runs right into the question about whether or not we have learned anything from it. is it valuable to put it on the november ballot if there is one. it doesn't give much chance to the board of supervisors staff. the summer and then after that it is crowded and difficult. you are talking about an audit to be done by the end of june with no material effect until sometime in 2022. i don't think that is a good enough response since this is a law in place since 2015. i understand the response issues. there are outside resources available to do that audit even if it is to contract with the fdpc or someone else.

it is not something we can let go at this point or postpone that long. that is my personal view. maybe the commission will support it. >> i actually have just looking at the calendar, commissioner bush, i hear what you are saying. i think getting that position filled and attacking those lobbyist's audits is unmitt priority for too long. at this point where we are halfway through march, if you tried to get an outside contract with the fppc and then educate them on what the compliance requirements were and documents were, i don't think you will get it done any faster. similarly, i don't know this for a fact, if you went to the controller's office if we have ever used staff at the

controllers to perform a lobbyist audit. again, at this particular moment the controller's office is going to budget season. we will be lucky if we can get their time and attention to get our financial questions answered and our budget through, let alone having them take on a piece of our work. suppression alley i -- operationally it would be better if we were doing something with it. realistically to turn-out side, i don't think we will get it any faster than the end of june. if we are bringing in a new audit compliance manager, having that person be the person who goes through that learning curve to initiate and undertake the audit is an important part of

that professional development and expertise. i am not sure it would be to our benefit to have that be learned by somebody outside the organization if we are this close. if we find out we are not going to get that position filled or the budget gets cut that is a new conversation. i think we all agree that we are behind on looking at lobbyist compliance. that is my mother to use commissioner bell's operation the operation. we know the process. operationalizing it is too late to go outside if we are that close. >> i would like to underscore that we are not so limited in people who are well versed in this system.

we have people like the chief deputy city attorney involved in drafting most of the legislation. people like ann, chair of the fpc and chair of the fec that can be asked are you available for a contract, for an audit of a lobbyist? it is not all lobbying, you are only asked to audit one lobbyist. that is not a big deal unless you happen to be lobbying out of ricology. it seems to me that it is not something that is overwhelming. it does provide a benchmark for a start in this. >> i hear you, commissioner bush, but i think you are forgetting what it is to get a contract through the city

process. for very good reason, one cannot, as the executive director even if the commission acted on it, that the fpc or they get a contract with the city. for something like that if you are going to soars the contract you have to -- source the contract you have to get a determination there is nobody on staff which will perform that function. we just hired somebody who specifically intended to perform that function. >> with all due respect. if you make the contract through the controller's office and they subcontract, we skip the steps you are talking about. the controller has the authority to offer contracts without going through the city process.

i spoke with our controller. i know that is the case. >> i hear you but it is possible in some circumstance for some function the controller performs that they are pre-ordained soul sourcing authority. whether the controller would use that authority to hire somebody by name we identified for this purpose especially going to the issue we are hiring somebody on city staff for the intention of having them be the audit manager, i hear your frustration, commissioner bush. i know we wanted this done years ago. i don't know at this point in time trying to use those extra

ordinary measures that we would get a quicker result or it would be as easy as you think it might be. i would be surprised if ben rosenfeld would hire somebody to do what we hired somebody to do on city staff. what authorization would there be for that expenditure? i don't think it is as easy as all of that. we can hear from the other commissioners or the executive director. i see commissioner chu you have your hand up. >> i appreciate this is not easy to go outside the city, but also commissioner bush time is of the essence and this is pending for a long time. could we just determine what resources and possessing would

look like to go outside? i think as commissioner bush points out this is one lobbyist. we are not trying to boil the ocean here. if we could be efficient and focused in our efforts, it could result in some findings by june. that would put us ahead of where we are now and if we just have position hosting in april and interviews and the seat won't be filled before june. by the time someone comes in the audit is underway. you come up as new hire, getting your feet wet and understanding it all, it will be the end of the year before we see the results. finding out the timeline it

would be on to outsource in whatever shape or form would be the most efficient, effective and effective. >> i completely appreciate is sense of urgency. also, the sense of frustration that we all have about not having completed the lobbying audit by this time. it is on schedule not yet deliverable. i fully respect that concern. i want to assure you that i and our team are trying to be as responsive as possible. it is important to help set expectations in reaching out to

try to scope out and develop a contract to do this will divert focus away from the completion of our hiring process. we are not in the position of posting. we have posted these in december and making as i will indicate in my report making significant headway to get the seats filled. i hope that is not june before these seats are filled and the work is done. that said, the timeframe is not optimal. it is something i am concerned about. if the commission were to be asking for us to develop a contract, to spend time. i am thinking how that would work. that is resources we don't have. what we have is initial plan, potential seat filled in the next month to start the work. that is where the focus needs to be to make progress to the work. it is not optimal.

i would say to add to the commission chair, commissioner ambrose, it has been difficult to get information and communication increasingly with the controller's office. i do think that all things considered my role as executive of the department is doing the best feedback what is doable what we have and where we are with priorities. we need this seat filled and to get this work done rather than diverting resources on a project that may have a timeframe further than we want. i wanted to share that perspective from the group on the ground standpoint. thank you. >> let me just ask a clarifying question. will the commission be putting out in the next period of time a

listing of all of the registered lobbyists? how many, how much money are they paid, how many clients do they have? the basic drill you want be to know. contact lobbyists, senator lobbyists, clients, so we can see the lay of the land. what are you looking at? i have never seen the document like that. >> just a brief note. jumping to the executive director's report. that is in the ed report and posted on the website. i will direct you to that and take the discussion offline if that is useful. >> i would just thank you for

that perspective. i would ask that you keep us posted going forward on the progress and the timing of the hiring. fingers crossed. we can move with speed to get the seat filled and get embarked on the audit as expeditiously as possible. >> chair ambrose, you are muted. >> okay. the next item is the director's report. we will give her a chance to speak to that. i want to go back to mr. pierce and also to our deputy city attorney who has another meeting at noon. is there any further questions for mr. pierce about the enforcement report and/or for the city attorney?

i am going to take one round of questions. then we need to ask for public comment. go ahead, commissioner chu. >> mr. pierce, a question on page 4 of the report. city attorney investigative. there is a hold that is 25 months. the statute of limitations is october of next year. i wanted to know what is the plan since we got a little more than a year and a half, a little less, i can't do the math right now. a year and a half left. to put ourselves in that position of time to be able to conduct our own investigation is the plan to connect and make the city attorney moving forward given the average age of matters

march 21 of 21.1 months, that is less time than we had under the statute of limitations. >> thank you, commissioner crew. chu -- clue. we are in conversation about this matter. what i can tell you without revealing confidences is that the allegations that our office or the city attorney might investigate are effectively identical. the question is one of potentially needless duplication. my understanding from the most recent communications with the office is that the city attorney had in fact pivoted back to this particular matter and had raised it to a point of priority for that office. there are some complex personnel

issues that are at stake around the edges of this matter. so far it has been our view the city attorney is in a better position for the totality of those considerations. i appreciate the caution about the statute of limitations. >> i just want to make sure we are not running up against six weeks left and nothing to do because we haven't yet started. i think it is well and good that there is an overlap and that there -- that you want to avoid duplication. i wouldn't want to for go the opportunity and obligation we have to conduct our own investigation if there is an overlap in jurisdiction. my second question.

i keep coming back to this. chris jackson, 2013. summertime it will be eight years. they were unable to enforce the collections on the statute of limitations expired. i guess more broadly and this is my broken record here, what are we doing? how do we move this forward? chris jackson is on this list since i joined the commission five years ago almost. i think we take it back or move this forward. it seems like we are treading water here, the bureau is not making much progress. i realize the pandemic hasn't helped, even before we were four, five years into this.

>> i understand your frustration, commissioner chu. you are not at all loan. -- not alone. i would remind you that it is possible for commission staff to take a matter back. they have not been positioned to conduct themselves as collection agents. it would be an action to undertake and divert resources from the matters we ordinarily invest in. that having been said we communicate with the bureau regularly. one update to provide is look at the concern to the commission. the underlying liability there regarded potentially a misuse or a failure to act for the use of

public funds from an election from some years ago. the bureau did secure a settlement with ms. sweet in that matter. the settlement had provided for a payment plan. you may remember that the commission had expressed its approval to pursue the amount of damages to the city. in unaccounted for public funds around $20,000. ms. sweet defaulted on the terms of the settlement itself. one of the terms of default the penty would be $30,000. the tax attorney the bureau brought that settlement to the san francisco superior court and obtained judgment against ms.

sweet by virtue of a motion to enforce the settlement agreement. we are now coordinating with that office about what next steps to take in terms how to actualize the judgment that the city has obtained in that matter. >> great news, great progress. we hope to receive these public funds back. that would be great. i would like to request as we go forward i don't want to keep having the same conversation each month about chris jackson. what is the definition of insanity keeping the same thing and expect a different outcome? what are we doing differently to get to a different outcome is my

question. what we collectively through the city apparatus but also the ethics commission individually. what can we do? what is the other alternatives? working through the bureau of delinquent revenue is not yielding the results that we all would like to see. see what other options there might be to result in a lot of these matters. >> one of the problems we have now is whatever tools you might have had in your tool kit previously with the courts shut down and not able to file small claims action. the bureau of delinquent revenue has fewery sources than they had the in the years past where

those debts were unrecoverable. i would ask what is our policy for when we derm that it is not worth having staff time to get blood from a stone or how ever that goes. if that person is in hiding our unemployed and has no recoverable assets, it does become whatever unproductive to be paying people to keep filing against them. mr. pierce and while you are thinking about your answer, can you call for -- that won't work. go ahead, mr. pierce. we have to do public comment yet on this item. >> sure. well, i appreciate the feedback.

i can approach the bureau and have the ongoing conversation. you are right about the impact of the pandemic on the court system and the resources and options available to the bureau. i would add in addition to that we have generally agreed over the course of the last 12 months with the borough that in the space of certain opportunities to seek collection we basically as i think every other department did to adopt a softer posture during an economic period that introduced challenge and uncertainty for many parties. you will see a number of hearings that have been postponed a number of times in

the last 12 months. we can't count on their taking place in august or in certain cases in april. the standard what bubureau applies. continuing to invest resources out weighs benefit of what they mighty arrive from the successful action, that is something we defer to the bureau on. you may recall the commission doesn't pay the bureau per se. the bureau takes under the m.o.u. the bureau takes a cut whatever collections they succeed in obtaining. if your question is about whether the city is paying staff at the bureau. they have internal standards how

they weigh those options. if it would interest and benefit the commission i could inquire of them to see if that is something we could gain access to. >> i think you could hold on that until we know they have tools. now they are going to tell you everything is on hold. they can't be spending staff time because they can't file anything in small claims court. i want to move on and have our moderator call for public comment. mr. chen, i know you had another commitment for another meeting, i am sorry. commissioner bush as soon as public comment is done i will come back to you for your comment. go ahead, moderator.

>> we are checking. for those on hold continue to wait until the system indicates you are unmuted. if you have just joined we are on public discussion of agenda item 5 enforcements division taft report. please press star 3 to be added to the queue. you have three minutes, six minutes with an interpreter. you will hear a bell with 30 seconds remaining. please stand by.

>> we have no caller in the queue. >> public comment on agenda item 5 is closed. i want to recognize commissioner bush for his final comments before we proceed. commissioner bush. >> thank you, chair ambrose. i request whether or not we have authority to bar people from being appointed to city positions while we have pending enforcement actions against them on unpaid fines? in the past i have seen cases where someone was appointed by the mayor and was forced to resign from office under circumstances and reappointed by the board of supervisors.

unless we have some sort of steps that include disallowing people to be appointed to city appointments, i don't know there is anything that would interfere with that taking place even if someone owed a million dollars. is there something? [please stand by]

2 >> there's no possibility of the ethics commission being able to control the pointing power of those other entities. absent probably if you want to do it across the board, charter amendment, a minimum legislation a right to reject the applicants not being qualified if they had a fine outstanding. i don't think we can do that easily. what we could certainly do, though, what you just suggested. which is to alert various appointing officers about our outstanding fine lists. there are some folks on there

who are in high profile sort of positions whether inside of government or otherwise. commissioner bush, did you have any other questions or comments? commissioner lee, you have your hand up. >> commissioner bush: in the event someone is nominated and going through the rules committee process, there's no reason why we cannot inform the rules committee to put in the file that person has a judgment pending against them that's unmet at this time. >> chair ambrose: we can do that. if you're aware anyone in particular. that will be the thing knowing in advance by the time it gets on the agenda, the appointing person is already made the appointment.

>> commissioner bush: would a member of the redevelopment commission -- >> chair ambrose: right, previously. i definitely think they would appreciate knowing there was an outstanding fine. commissioner lee? >> vice chair lee: i like to suggest instead of us having to follow up who's applying for whatever, it may be good practice for us to reach out to the rules committee to say as part of your background checks of all the applicants, please include us when you're doing the basket checks. so we can check on our records if that person has any outstanding issues with that. that maybe a much easier way

than us having to keep track of who's being nominated each day. that's part of background checks. that's part of the organizations to reach out to. >> chair ambrose: commissioner chiu? is your hand up? >> commissioner chiu: no, i was giving thumbs up to commissioner lee's suggestion. >> chair ambrose: i did want dome back quickly. i want to follow-up and make sure that the points that commissioner bush raises, that we have a discussion or response to. commissioner bush you raised the issue about getting a handle on what is the value of entitlement or approvals that the city

grants. obviously as you referenced, there's so many different buckets of financial actions that the city takes. yes, with respect to real estate development, there's actually an ordinance that requires that the fiscal impacts, the financial impacts of a particular development project be part of the entitlement approval. i think, as a matter of routine business, if you ever watch the budget and finance committee hearing, the legislative and budget analyst does an analysis of every contract that goes to the board. which is every contract more than $1 million or more than ten years in duration. it's part of what the budget and legislative analyst office is doing is assessing the value of that agreement in relation to the benefit that the constituent

-- if city is receiving. every contract that does go to the board, obtaining a thumbs up from the budget and legislative analyst office is essential for being able to get a vote to get out of finance committee. that process of vetting that is happening. what you're getting at is looking at the role of the ethics commission and policing all of that activity, the behavior of contractors, relative to the decision makers and we haven't really talked about this, we will under director pellem's item justifying the budget given the enormous values that the city is engaged in. where ethical behavior is essential to ensuring the city

is getting the benefit of that it makes it easier to justify not only the budget request that we put in but considerable more effort to make sure that we're getting the value. i want to comment that that analysis is available on any given item. then probably ted egan our city economist, could give you off the top number on what is the overall value of the city's contracts and entitlement and various approvals in terms of macro number. with that, i want to close this item, number 5 and call. we are getting past the noon hour. i want to call agenda item number 6. discussion of executive director's report an update of

programmatic and operational highlights of ethnics commission staff activities. >> the information in the report this year, there's much interest in our hiring and staffing situation. first, you should know that we regrettably said good-bye to amy lee, she took a promotional opportunity within the city. we are sorry to see her leave. she's been a tremendous asset on our audit team and delight to work with. she was very instrumental doing lot of work in the public finance program over the last several years. sorry to see her go. know that the city benefited from her skills. very encouraging.

in terms of other staffing transitions, we have been very much focused on continuing to make progress on our five hiring positions that we posted in december kind of going into the minimum publication process. the interview process is under way. i'm hopeful that we will have information to share with you at next month's meeting in more detail. i think we were all very happy with the progress that we've been able to make. i look forward to sharing that with you next month. in terms of our outreach and engagement activity, the report goes through a variety of mechanisms we've been using to reach out to folks in remote environment. the commission has been

discussing a bit at the top. one of the most essential components about that is making sure that information is getting in the hands of department heads and all employees of the city about what might be incompatible activity. what are most core pieces of our work is our department statements of activities. you know these are documents that are established for every department. they identify activities that might be incompatible with each department. those are required to be distributed to all employees by april 1st. we provided as attachment number one to this report. we provided that information to department heads last week and also, was able to do a breech presentation this past week at the department head meeting a that the mayor holds to remind folks to getting the information

to city employees. it's important that all employees know about this. separately, there's some outreach at the city attorney. we engaged from a couple of years ago, a part of the agreement with the city and the municipal executive association, bargaining units represents the city managers. andrew and i were able to do a session online to walk through how the city framework ethics laws applies and public trust. also to touch on questions about the filing process. i did a session with the city digital services team that is housed within the city administrator's office. this something we've been in planning stage to do prior to the pandemic. that's been a helpful discussion as well. many of whom were new to city government. this was a nice opportunity to set the parameters and framework

into the city's ethics approach. after the form 700 filing season, this is been a very busy time for our office, as you all know, the statements that are fundamental disclosure tools to avoid conflicts of interest. they are due as usual no later than april 1st. last year you may remember the deadline shifted because of the pandemic. that has been moved back to its regular april 1st. beginning in january, our team has been putting information out, updating tools on the web page and also working with filers online training sessions to provide information in-depth about questions they might have on their form 700. we've been making those video

links available on our website. we had a very good feedback for people who has been able to access the videos. we had 80 filing officers participate in these sessions. which is far more than we've seen in the past number of years. it's very encouraging. i think these video sessions for filers is probably a thing that will be sticking around for a while. we were really excited to see the level of engagement. there's one last session for filers who file hard copy statements that we're working to get electronically filing by january 1 next year. we have a session on march 17th that's webex and we have information on our website so people can go and log on to that session. i wantedly to highlight some ofo highlight some of the questions earlier about the need to make sure the public has the ability to access information. even about these paper filers

prior to the time that we have electronic filing. there are a number of complexities that keeps it difficult. one of the things i wanted to highlight, we do have on our web page currently, a listing of all filing officers and department heads. it's a table, it's on a place -- i think we can do couple of things to address the goals commissioner bush you were raising and chair ambrose you were stating. making sure we have a place for people to go to know where they need to access the information and reach out to. it's a minimum step we can do of adding the information we currently have on our web page to direct links. one is to e-mail to the person we're responding to and i think the other thing is a link directly to the code location that lists all positions that are required to file under the law. that doesn't yet give names --

this is something we can do to helps give people a place to go to ask for the forms and in a step towards accomplishing the goals that you've been articulating. lastly, i wanted to highlight in terms of the budget that i think commissioner chiu mentioned. we did submit our budget at the end of february. we submitted also issued publicly commission statement on the budget. this month, the chair of the board of supervisors budget issued a letter to come prepared to issue board budget hearing at the committee level to talk about how they are limiting ways to corruption and how they're working to rebuild the city

post-covid. and how departments are working from the top. we'll be reaching out and providing background to the budget committee as it goes forward and discussing those questions with the departments. we will continue to update our web page about the budget so that any documents we have issued you are prepared to discuss and it will be available on our web page. i think all pause there. i'm sure you may have questions for me. i wanted to highlight those items. >> chair ambrose: i want to ask a quick question about the budget that you just explained. which is simply that you mentioned hearings that supervisor haney's calendaring, i'm assuming those hearings aren't until after the mayor presents her budget to the board, which would be may 1st, correct?

>> that's my understanding. this will be the normal board hearing process which does happen after the mayor has submitted her proposal to the full board. >> chair ambrose: that will include his request on tone at the top. he's the budget committee chair. he's asking them to speak. we won't hear what they are saying about that until may. for you, when do you hear back from the mayor's office in terms of what they're actually going to submit to the board? do you get a preview copy a week before? >> usually it's very much on the eve of. we will continue to be in conversation with the mayor's office to understand if there's any changes within the office. there are couple of things i think are notable at this point. the federal covid funding restoration funding is coming back to cities and states.

i think city is anticipating receiving significant amount of funds on that front. i think there has been some discussion about is the city better poise to address the budget in the coming year than we were a number of months ago. i think it's a moving target as those funds come to cities and states. we will certainly be in touch regularly with the mayor's office on budget analyst to continue to explore what if any impact that has on the target. also to continue to make the case for the kinds of resources that we need to address the kinds of issues that are very much top of our minds. how do we support departments in providing the best and the strongest resources possible to ensure we've got not just a strong tone at the top but strong ethnics and practice. >> chair ambrose: can you make a note to calendar a specific item

on the budget for discussion and possible action for the may meeting? so when we find out how we faired in the process, we're in position to respond with accolades and support? i wanted to go back. first of all, amy lee, that is great for her and terrible for us to lose somebody with that level of expertise in an area where we're already challenged. it's definitely a bitter sweet. we're on the bitter side of that. i want to hear -- i know that you were already advertising for an auditing position but that's

a much more senior position now that you're going to have to back-fill. it's none of the commission's business to get in your particular hiring and personnel. i'm hoping that in terms of requisitions and the hr department, you're going to be able to quickly back-fill as well as augment your auditing staff. i think you asked somebody else in that division earlier this year? >> we lost actually an investigator. he was one of our senior investigators. he accepted an offer they made to him to move permanently into doing work supporting the city's emergency response and food

insecurity. tremendous loss for us and another position we'll be looking to provide more information and updates on in terms of filling those positions. to your question about the support from d.h.r., we've had very strong support from our d.h.r. partners through the m.o.u. that we have with them. that has been very heartening. i think i may have conveyed, we are cross-division, division leads managers have been actively engaged really being part of this hiring process. it's critically important to make sure we can get through this as quickly and effectively as possible. >> chair ambrose: okay. i see some other hands up.

commissioner chiu? do you have comment or questions for the director? >> commissioner chiu: i wanted to comment on amy lee's departure. it's bitter sweet. she did some stellar and absolutely time critical work on public finance audits. i think it was in 2019. she of she did two or three back-to-back. i'm delighted for her professional growth in this promotional opportunity. hopefully we'll be able to find someone equally as good who can grow in the role and take us to the next level. i wanted to comment.

i hope that this new focus on tone at the top and the compliance efforts undertaken by the varying departments now being called out by supervisor haney. i'm pleased to see that. i hope that continues. i want to start a dialogue with supervisor haney or the budget analyst office. i think that we have proposed in our budget 28% increase where we're going to draw funds from the general fund to build the infrastructure to be able to deliver more training and more information to push all of that out. i really like to explore that mindset. it's not just ethics pushing out content and expertise but what are the obligations on the part of the different departments to

be proactive and take initiative and invest themselves not only the time of their people but their resources. so it would be -- it could be structural thing where the mayor and board of supervisors have, every department needs to have a training program. if you don't do it yourself, you need to have an m.o.u. with ethics in order for us to have a repeatable and documentable process that is updated and current with all the changing requirements of the laws and regulations. so we're not always trying to push the rock uphill on our own but there's also a pull.

i'm not sure who the right organizations are, but to create something that is sustainable for the city and to really make a difference and start to create infrastructure and processes and procedures, the biggest most important thing of all is culture. that tone at the top that can make sure that what has happened to us that we learned from it and it will not happen again in the future. thank you. >> chair ambrose: commissioner bush, i see your hand up? bush

can you hear me commissioner bush? you're not muted. very good. >> commissioner bush: director pellam, can you provide examples for us to use for outreach purposes of budgets and specific duties that we could obtain outside funding for? for example, what would it cost and how we'll use additional resources or analyzing all the lobbyist reports. which lobbyist are filling out all the blanks and which ones are not? something pretty simple but which is informative and give us

a picture where things are. how many permits expediters are making contributions to the people they go to on behalf of clients. how much money is coming from independent expenditure committees aimed at electing a specific official and as an independent expenditure committee, able to accept contributions of any amount and without regard the city restrictions. there's certainly a question as to whether or not that's legal. i'm asking whether or not you can identify some specific tasks and budgets required to do them. >> to respond to your question, if i understand it correctly

commissioner bush, if you asking can i identify a scope of work that involves answering a list of questions and what that would look like. i'm not sure i have enough information to provide that to you. i think i need to understand the scope what questions you trying to ask first. in theory, yes, i can provide you with a sense of what kinds of hours might be involved in certain tasks. i'm not sure that necessarily translates what you're looking for in terms what it will cost to do that. i might need more information about what you're looking to get answers to and if maybe some additional context. that will be helpful. >> commissioner bush: rule of

thumb, i'm looking for information that would help guide us as we look to whether there's enough issues there to justify moving forward on our own with legislation or other policy changes. for example, if you're looking at the permit consultants, how many of them are making gifts to people? how many of them are making contributions? how many of them are making contributions to third party groups? just your basic layout. same thing goes with independent expenditure committee that are aimed at a specific candidate for election or seat or commissioner lee, i believe it was earlier, ask questions about

recall money and the money that goes -- what are the guidelines on money for recalls? i think we are looking forward to a period here where recalls are going to become a new inspection in our city. >> chair ambrose: sorry. commissioner chiu, did you have your hand up? >> commissioner chiu: no. >> chair ambrose: commissioner bush, i hear you off the top of your head seemingly identify a number of subject matters that you think are interesting

questions and would want to know if we can answer them, if not are these things we can delegate to the brennan institute or another organization to do discreet research. one of the ones in terms of finding out who permit expediters are giving their money to on third party basis. i'm not sure that's something that would be easily discovered even by a professional. in any event, i actually think subject to your being available to do it that given your long history with these issues, if you wanted to identify some questions that you like to know the answers to and then you and i can talk with director pellum

whether or not these are things quick work within the scope of our existing and soon to be improved resources and something that some third party group might want to take on as a research project either at an academic student group or other institute. your ability to just see what information might be useful to connect the dots, i think is something we should take advantage of. think about that while the moderator calls for public comment on this item if you could please moderator, see if we have any public comment. >> clerk: we're checking to see if there's callers in the queue. for those on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicate you have been

unmuted. we are currently on the public discussion on the motion agenda item 6, discussion of executive director's report and update various programmatic and operational highlights of staff activities since the commission's previous meeting. if you have not done so, please press star 3 to be added to the public comment queue. you will have three minutes to provide your public comment, six minutes if you're on line with an interpreter. your bell will go off when you have 30 incomes remaining. please stand by.

there are no callers in the queue. >> chair ambrose: public comment on agenda item 6 is closed. i want to call agenda item 7. which is discussion and possible action on items for future meetings. any member of the public intend to offer public comment for this item, she should dial in now and enter star 3 to be added to the public comment queue. do any of my fellow commissioners wish to identify any matters for future meetings? i'm going to start off by saying we have identified that you will extend an invitation to david anderson, the former u.s. attorney for the non-reelect non district. in may will you calendar the budget to give us a report on the mayor and we can take some

response -- >> may i add one correction. we had may 1 designated as the date the mayor submits the budget. i stand corrected, it's june 1st. as developments warrant, we can present in may what we know at that point. >> chair ambrose: i see. that's so funny, i have it in mind that the mayor submits in may but it's not june 1st. you're doing it, i'm sure you know. [laughter] you don't have to calendar as separate item. if you can give an update and for the beginning of june, just so we have it on calendar as an action item so if we need to send a message to the board that says either, hopefully, please approve this in full and or please add back all the things that got deducted. i want to make sure we have time to act. >> thank you.

>> chair ambrose: anything else from the other commissioners? i will have you please call for public comment on this item. >> clerk: we are checking to see if there are callers in the queue. for those on hold, please don't wait until the system indicate you have been unmuted. we are currently on public discussion agenda item 7, discussion on possible action on items for future meetings. if you have not done so, please press star 3 to be added to the public comment queue. you'll have three minutes to provide your public comment, six minutes if you're on line with an interpreter. you will hear a -- bell go off when you have 30 seconds

remaining. written comments should be sent to ethnics.commission@sfgovtv.org. please stand by. we have no callers in the queue. >> chair ambrose: thank you public comment on agenda item 7 is closed. i will call agenda item 8. additional opportunity for public comment on matters appear or not appearing on the agenda pursuant to ethics commission bylaws article 7 section 2. you'll have three minutes to provide your public comment, six minutes if you're on the line with an interpreter.

please go ahead and -- i might have just read your speech there. let's just jump right ahead if there are any callers in the queue. >> clerk: okay. please stand by. we are currently on the public discussion on agenda item number 8. please stand by. we have no callers in the queue.

>> chair ambrose: all right. public comment is closed on agenda item number 8. i will call agenda item number 9. which is adjournment. commissioners do we have a motion to adjourn the meeting? >> so moved. >> second. >> chair ambrose: thank you. can you stay on for one quick second. i want to show you something after we adjourn the meeting. so, the motion is moved and seconded to adjourn the meeting, please call the roll. >> clerk: motion has been made to adjourn the meeting. i will call the roll. [roll call vote] four votes in the affirmative, the motion is approved unanimously. >> chair ambrose: the motion to adjourn carries. thank you. that concludes the march 12,

2021 meeting of the san francisco ethics commission. thank you. shop and dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges residents to do their shopping and dining within the 49 square miles of san francisco. by supporting local services within our neighborhoods, we help san francisco remain unique, successful, and vibrant. so where will you shop and dine

in the 49? >> my name is ray behr. i am the owner of chief plus. it's a destination specialty foods store, and it's also a corner grocery store, as well. we call it cheese plus because there's a lot of additions in addition to cheese here. from fresh flowers, to wine, past a, chocolate, our dining area and espresso bar. you can have a casual meeting if you want to. it's a real community gathering place. what makes little polk unique, i think, first of all, it's a great pedestrian street. there's people out and about all day, meeting this neighbor and coming out and supporting the businesses. the businesses here are almost all exclusively independent owned small businesses. it harkens back to supporting

local. polk street doesn't look like anywhere u.s.a. it has its own businesses and personality. we have clothing stores to gallerys, to personal service stores, where you can get your hsus repaired, luggage repaired. there's a music studio across the street. it's raily a diverse and unique offering on this really great street. i think san franciscans should shop local as much as they can because they can discover things that they may not be familiar with. again, the marketplace is changing, and, you know, you look at a screen, and you click a mouse, and you order something, and it shows up, but to have a tangible experience, to be able to come in to taste things, to see things, to smell things, all those things, it's very important that you do so.

>> good morning and welcome to the rules committee to the san francisco board of supervisors today monday, march 15th, 2021. i am the