mr. peskin told me three weeks ago that we should delay this to the november 2018 election. today, mr. hepner, you represented that it should be on the june 5, 2018 election. i am confused, but i will consider your remarks accordingly with guidance from our fellow commissioners and staff. doesn't require any comment. >> commissioner chiu. >> mr. hepner, could you please clarify, for any benefit, what exactly you're proposing with regard to the ordinance as amended that we've just discussed today from a procedural standpoint, what you are proposing? >> my proposal today, and it's he nuns yated in did he daily in the letter in your packet from supervisor peskin, that i guarantee 150% was properly noticed and agendaized before tuesday. i am proposing that you not consider this for the june 2018 ballot. do not, and that to commissioner kopp's concern through the chair, this is not -- i have not changed the position there. supervisor peskin has been adamant throughout that this should not go to the june 18 ballot. rather, if you kick it out to the november 2018 ballot, you maintain the leve

mr. peskin's office was to make sure to include the peskin ordinance proposal, the measure donor side of this equation into your amendments and recommendations to the board tonight so you would transfer the aco, i believe it is called, the anti-corruption and accountabilities ordinance, acao, and add your support, as mr. peskin had already requested of you tonight three days ago when he wrote or before then, to endorse his legislation as you would normally do in the legislative process so the public will know that tonight you would have a unified bill which has two components. mr. peskin's concepts and your concepts before you again when you meet with the board of supervisors as soon as possible. i assume this would go to the budget committee. maybe this is a question for the council. i assume the budget committee would be meeting on this matter since it is before them, but there may be something extraordinary, too, that could be done. i don't know. they have dual options, something extraordinary in the budget committee. sorry. well, it is before the budget committee now, anything you in

can figure out if he's actually representing aaron peskin or representing himself during public comment. public comment is public comment. it is not mr. heppner representing the comments of aaron peskin. aaron peskin is my supervisor, and he's a shady character. i don't trust him any further than i can see him. the bottom line is you're going along with this in such a way that i can't see any rain that this makes this valid in any credible function where you can go to the public and say that was not unduly influenced by the people who appoint you to those seats. >> mr. chairman? >> commissioner kopp? >> for the record, aaron peskin is not a shady character. aaron peskin is a trustworthy person. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, commissioner kopp. also, for the record, the discussion that mr. heppner was asking is part of the record that was circulated to the public, and the public knew that was an area of comment. it's not something that just came up by mr. heppner. >> i would like to second commissioner renne's observation. everything that we've been discussing so far has to do with the particular literal amendments that are st

mr. peskin has proposed in his letter of february 13, 2018? all of the provisions except the provision on recusal. can this commission adopt and remember all of those to the board of supervisors tonight? >> let me see if i understand. you want to recind it? >> no, that is through. >> it may be revived. don't get in the weeds with that. forget that. forget what happened. it is dead for tonight. i am asking you about this. can i move approval and transmittal to the board of supervisors. >> no as i explained. the ethics commission cannot improve 1.158 tonight. >> why not. >> this moved quickly. i understand supervisor peskin wanting to move forward quickly. as of today there is no version that is signed, it has moved quickly. we have not had the benefit of analysis from the city attorney's office and the ethics commission staff. the answer is no. >> could this be moved at this theoretical joint meeting? >> yes. >> when can the joint meeting be held, mr. hepner? bearing in mind you have to be at the registered voters by march 2 and. can it be held

[microphone turned off] >> chair peskin: mr. washington, this is about item number seven, the balboa transportation. >> public: i have another minute to talk, sir. >> chair peskin: you can speak during the general public comment at the end of the meeting. ace, you can speak during general public comment. >> public: this is my moment. [bell]. >> public: i'm able to get up here and speak because you have white boy -- >> chair peskin: ace, would you sit down, please. >> public: give me my time back, sir. >> chair peskin: you will have two minutes at the end of the meeting which will be a total of three and then that's enough. all right. next speaker, please. >> public: down here at silly hall. i done seen it all and i'm going to tell it all. i will be back and i'm going to say what i have to say about them -- >> chair peskin: ace! next speaker. >> public: is it on? my name is michael errands. i'm a member of the westwood park association and i'm appointed to the cac balboa reservoir committee. i gave my comments last night and i wil

next item please. >> clerk: adopt positions on state legislation. >> supervisor peskin: mr. watts welcome back. >> thank you. i have several short items to present today. just as scene setting in sacramento january 31st was the last day for two year bills to have passed and this friday is the deadline for new bill introductions. we haven't seen as many as i'm used to at this point in time, i'm a little fearful of the flood coming in the next couple of days. we're monitoring that closely. in terms of the first item, it's an action item for you to consider, two bills that are being brought to your attention in the case of one support and the other one opposition. the support recommendation by staff deals with sp-760 senator weiner's measure that deals with complete streets at the state and local level and referenced to a national association of city transportation officials. designed guidelines. the bill was robust but watered down coming out of committee and senator continues to move forward with the legislation in hand. the measures opposed to ab-1756 by senator brough, appe

are looking forward to ensuring the outreach and technical requirements for those. >> chair peskin: thank you, mr. shaw. commissioner cohen. >> supervisor cohen: i would like to withdraw my request to continue this. you want this to go forward. i will support it and vote for it. >> chair peskin: thank you. that works for the second. commissioner breed? the motion to continue is withdrawn and on the motion made by commissioner yee, a roll call, please. >> clerk: on item seven, commissioner breed. breed aye. commissioner cohen. cohen aye. commissioner fewer. fewer aye. commissioner peskin. >> chair peskin: aye. >> clerk: commissioner kim. kim aye. commissioner ronen. ronen aye. safai aye. commissioner sheehy. aye. tang aye. commissioner yee. yee aye. we have first approval. >> chair peskin: all right. before we read item eight, i want to thank you mr. hartnet for patience. i have had a request by a commissioner to make -- ask for a motion to rescind the vote on item number four. commissioner yee, would you luke to make -- like to make that motion? >> supervisor yee: move. >> chair peskin: seconded

mr. peskin for the opportunity to stand up here and say something.hank the board of supervisors for all that you do and all that you will continue to do. on behalf of the citizens of san francisco, we have to look good. the rest of the world is looking at us, always. we're always going to look good no matter what. no matter who is up in the big house. but with that, i thank you and may god bless you. [applause]

mr. peskin for cherry picking brown rules.i wonder what is going to be next on what rule he is going to legislate from the brown administration. but -- so i just want to share these thoughts with you about my concerns. i'm going to be voting no. i recognize this is the first draft and i certainly reserve the right to change my opinion. i will come back and have a conversation with you about this. but i just wanted to plant this seed in your hearts and in your mind as we begin to think about what the future of san francisco is going to continue to look like. and certainly serving -- runing from a border commission is, i think, can be a competitive advantage if you are a star candidate and it could also be not an advantage if you are an undisciplined candidate. so, thank you for allowing me an opportunity to share my thoughts. if you wanted to respond, i welcome your thoughts to hear what you have to say. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor cohen. i should also add to your comments that the people who serve on boards and commiss

mr. peskin for the opportunity to stand up here and say something. i thank the board of supervisors for all that you do and all that you will continue to do. on behalf of the citizens of san francisco, we have to look good. the rest of the world is looking at us, always. we're always going to look good no matter what. no matter who is up in the big house. but with that, i thank you and may god bless you. [applause] >> and i know that the director may be back -- all right, he's back. >> it's a good day for rec and parks. >> yes, it is. so robert is a san francisco native from the ingleside district. and he grew up attending laughton elementary and lincoln high school in the sunset. and his stomping grounds were oce oceanview and sunset rec centers and he was known to always have a basketball on hand to play a game of pickup whenever the mood struck. and he always thought as a young boy how awesome would it be to one day work at one of the rec centers and playing with the kids all day. and little did he know that one day he would be doing that. he woul

we also met separately with supervisors tang, peskin, and mr mr. hepner of supervisor peskin's staff. what the current status of the ordinance is at the board, yesterday, the file was duplicated, so there are now two files that are pending before the budget and finance committee. the first one is being called the ethics version, and that's essentially what is attached here as attachment one. that's the version you approved in november with the amendment. the other version, which is being called the committee version, has certain amendmented that were proposed by supervisor's peskin and tang. some of those overlap with staff's proposed amendments, some are the same. some are different, and they go further, and we can go over that, but not in this presentation. and then, also, the committee version of the acao does have supervisor peskin's major donor financial disclosures piece. that has been amended into the committee version of the acao. so before i go through the changes that are in the new staff's recommended amended version, i'll just mention th

today's meeting will be adjourned on behalf of the following victimed, on behalf of supervisor peskin, mr. norm larson, on behalf of supervisor ronen for the late miss alice gonzalez, on behalf of supervisor kim, for the late miss jessica evans, on behalf of supervisor stefani for the late miss ming chapin. on behalf of supervisor cohen for the late mr. howard eugene smith, chiropractic doctor, and on behalf of president breed for the late mr. dennis o'sullivan, mr. theodore cohen, and on behalf of the entire board of supervisors for the late miss sharon hewitt. >> thank you, madam clerk. colleagues, this brings us to the end of our agenda. madam clerk, is there any further business before us today? >> that concludes our business for today. >> okay. we are adjourned. thank you, everyone. >> the renovation of balboa park, the oldest in the city of san francisco, and now it is the newest part in the city of san francisco. through our partnership, and because of public investment from the two thousand eight fund, we are celebrating a renewal and an awakening of this park. we have it safer, h

>> supervisor peskin: good morning welcome to the transportation authority meeting for today february 27th. mr. clerk, if you could call the role. >> clerk: (calling roll) we have quorum. >> supervisor peskin: we have a motion to excuse commissioner safai made by commissioner breed and seconded by commissioner stephanie. we'll take that without objectjectiobjec objection. i'm going to talk about two issues we have been discussing here at the ta with increasing frequency, transportation network companies and driverless vehicles which have significant overlap. at the january meeting, we had a presentation of our tnc regulatory landscape study that staff outlined the regulatory arrangements. one of the findings of the report, the regulatory fees, tnc like uber and lyft pay to the commissions was a subject of an action proposing the rate on the state agenda a week later. uber and lyft wanted fees reduced even though there was no data to justify the decrease. the san francisco tna and i wrote opposition letters why we believe it is another give-away to companies unwilling to work with local governm

mr. hepner is going to speak on behalf of supervisor peskin. >> correct. thank you, president keane. in your packet, you have a statement that's authored by supervisor peskin. it exists in budget finance and duplicate committee file right now. i think we were having trouble wrapping our minds around why we were creating a disincentive to recuse. we want board members and commissioners to recuse themselves when they meet a requirement to the recusal, and to that end, amendment a provides some good clarification around when a board member or a commission member should recuse themselves. i would suggest this commission and supervisor peskin, rather than, suggested that this commission delete the sub section relate to repeated recusal that creates this potentially punitive dynamic where if you recuse yourself more than three times, you are subject to removal from your board or commission or the recommendation of ethics commission to be removed from your appointment or commission. that removes the disincentive to recuse. that allows for ethics investigators to instead focus on enforcement