givner. >> deputy city attorney jon givner. the amendment that supervisor avalos is referring to is on page 16 line 22 or begins on page 16 line 22 of the residential dnc ordinance, and very similar provision but begins on page 4 line 10 of the nonconforming uses ordinance. we would recommend a few little tweak to some of the language that was adopted in committee to make it more clear. and in committee there was a discussion yesterday of how to handle a situation where a tenant was evicted under one of the no-fault temporary eviction provisions of the rent ordinance and then chose -- the tenant chose not to reoccupy the unit. the intent of the committee and supervisor avalos, i believe, is to exclude from the prohibition landlords who were in that situation or property owners in that situation. and the question that the committee what discussing was how exactly should we -- how can a property owner prove that a tenant voluntarily chose not to reoccupy. ultimately, supervisor avalos's amendment would provide that data that eith

givner. i'm turning into mr. chatfield my 150-word testimony that i will remail so you don't have to rekey it, introducing typos. i'm sorry, can you hand me that copy back? never mind, i found what i was looking for. so you will recall that when i was here, in october, i testified that 1040 doesn't apply and i also testified quite strongly, both here and at the sunshine task force that c3-699-13 doesn't apply either. i have been denied access to these records for two years. regarding access to litigation states, "advice and compliance with, analysis of, and opinion concerning liability under -- or any communication otherwise concerning the california public records act the ralph m. brown act, political reform act and san francisco ethics code or this ordinance," are -- pay atection to this, are public records. subject to disclosure. notably, section 6253c of sippra gives agencies ten days to notify requesters, whether the requested records are exempt or disclosable and that if an agency fails to notify the reques

givner. >> so your question? >> are we obligated to produce confidential documents in redacted form? if they contain confidential information should they be withheld? >> i think miss herrick's approach and suggestion was correct if there is a document that contains a little bit of confidential information that can be meaningfully redacted and a chunk of information is public, to produce the public portion. just to make sure that all the commissioners are on the same page, i believe by -- in reaching the conclusion that the documents are public, non-redacted portions of the document are public, you are concluding both that these documents -- these redacted records are not records of an ethics commission's investigation or the controller's investigation and also they are not covered by the official information privilege. i think that is miss herrick's recommendation to you. >> that we find that they are not part of -- in reacted form part of the official exemption >> could you just -- i got the first part that the

givner to go over the standard. i have printed out for myself the relevant sections. but to recap procedurally what happened, the miss herrick reviewed and determined that the redacted portion was privileged. that was covered by state law and/or local ordinances that protect the disclosure of this information, including c3.699-13a. her proposal i believe is to produce the information as redacted. >> not having that section at my fingertips, or in mind, and i don't -- but it's hard for me to make a judgment on this without knowing what that privilege -- knowing more about the nature of that privilege that would require that certain information be redacted. >> i am going back to her memo as well. this is the longer one. >> thanks. >> following up on commissioner studley's question, is the privileged standard that we're looking at the one we're talking about all notes, preliminary reports? controller's benchmark studies, audits, investigations and other reports shall be confidential? >> that is -- >> that is the first part of it. >> first part. >> and the second quarter

givner. >> deputy city attorney jon givner. in committee, the land use committee made an amendment to this ordinance that i think my office did not accurately take down. so, in committee, the amendment was to page 4, the further resolve clause that begins online 4. that during the pendency of these interim controls, the reestablishment of any commercial use that has been converted to residential use shall require planning commission approval through a conditional use and a proposition m authorization if triggered by planning code section 322. so, that will be -- that would be the amended language. >> supervisor kim, i assume you'll be offering -- >> yes. i'd like to make a motion to that effect. >> okay. is there a second of the motion? seconded by supervisor breed. colleagues, unless there is any discussion, without objection, the motion amendment is made. [gavel] >> and if we could take this underlying item same house same call as amended? without objection, that should be the case. [gavel] >> madam clerk, why don't we now go

givner? >> yes. >> okay. although it is sort of difficult to not take them in order. let's make the motion on whether or not to release the three pages as redacted by miss herrick. is there such a motion? >> so moved. to release the documents as redacted by miss herrick. >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? hearing none, that motion passes and the record should be produced as redacted. as a result of having produced -- agreed to produces the record as redacted, i think we should address the issue of whether the failure to release these documents was a willful violation of the sunshine ordinance. i think i have given my view that in light of the effort we made to review all of these documents, the discussion we had and arguments we heard with respect to this file and these records, that i certainly don't see willfulness here myself. i will open it up to my fellow commissioners to share whatever views that they have on the matter and we'll take public comment and go from there. >> i agree, i don't find a willful violation given the amount of time we had to sp

. >> deputy city attorney jon givner. yes, a supervisor kim mentions, there's no private cause of action. olfc on the sections regarding housing, hrc and the city attorney have the authority to enforce the ordinance against the housing provider. the speaker during public comment mentioned concerns about liability for the individual employees of the housing provider and the ordinance does not provide for liability for those individuals. >> thank you. >> thank you, supervisor tang. supervisor kim, so, you are moving the amendments. okay. and can we take the amendments without objection? the amendments are accepted. [gavel] >> and then we need to continue this by one week? >> i will make a motion to continue for one week, being that the amendments are substantive so they need to sit for a week so the public can view the amendments. but i just want -- i forget to mention at the beginning that we do have the support of our public defender and our district attorney both jeff and george as well as our sheriff's office. so, we do

givner, can you clarify whether or not that's the case? because the resolution doesn't appear to read that way. or did you need a little bit more time? >> yeah, just give me one minute. >> okay, i'll let her -- if you don't mind, you finish your presentation and then maybe the city attorney can let us know. >> sure, happy to. so, i'll just verbally go through. we have budgeted every year about $7 45,000 in staff salaries that are used to provide services inside the jails. one staff member is someone who manages our legal services. one person is a farmer who does the farming for gardening at c.j. side. we have a senior administrative analyst who oversees the services provided for women, and three re-- four rehabilitative services coordinators who coordinate the programming inside the jails. in addition, we spend -- we have budgeted $70,000 for professional services which include translation for people who don't -- who need translation to other languages, and subscriptions for items such as legal books that go into the inmates' library. we a

>> deputy city attorney jon givner. i unfortunately have to leave the meeting at 5:00. one of my very capable colleagues has volunteered to take my place. but in response to supervisor breed's question about where these amendments are, we have not drafted all of the amendments because they have been coming at the board today, some for the first time. but they are all changes to one specific paragraph in each ordinance. it's the paragraph regarding the -- regarding eviction. and in the demolition merger conversion ordinance, that is page 16 beginning on line 22, there is [speaker not understood] in a different [speaker not understood] there in aerial double underline font. and that language in the special font reflects amendments that were made two weeks ago by the land use committee. all the amendments today are changes to that language. the parallel language in the nonconforming use ordinance is on page 4 line 10, but it's basically the same language. what the board has done today is adopted a little bit of clean up from the technical stuff to make sure the language is