subsection 3. >> no. >> it's section 3.207, section a and subsection 1. no city elected officer or member of a board or commission may use his or her public position to seek or obtain anything of value. >> may i ask a question? >> sure. then i would like to get to hear whether there's a second or if we're going to continue discussing this. >> before we get to that -- >> well, commissioner chui -- >> you had a question? >> i'm not sure. you wanted to read -- is what you era asking is 3.207.a.1, no public elected official may use -- or seek to obtain anything for himself or herself, his or her immediate family or an organization with which he or she is associated? >> no. it would be for an organization with which he or she is associated. so my -- >> i think in the interest of order, in terms of robert's rules of record as well, at this point, since we've had significant discussion, since there was a motion and we haven't had a second yet, i'm going to ask my colleagues whether or not there is a second to commissioner chui's motion to amend and take out the

subsection 3. >> no. >> it's section 3.207, section a and subsection 1. no city elected officer or member of a board or commission may use his or her public position to seek or obtain anything of value. >> may i ask a question? >> sure. then i would like to get to hear whether there's a second or if we're going to continue discussing this. >> before we get to that -- >> well, commissioner chui -- >> you had a question? >> i'm not sure. you wanted to read -- is what you era asking is 3.207.a.1, no public elected official may use -- or seek to obtain anything for himself or herself, his or her immediate family or an organization with which he or she is associated? >> no.

section 3.209 subsection b. this is the repeated recusals. section -- page 31. line 23 through 32. i would delete this section. in my reading of this, i still think the section poses a problem. you have spoken to the fact -- the board supervisor should be taken out. as part of the community, i don't mind being regulated. but the 2 weeks ago, under state law, any of us are presumed as a matter of law to have a conflict if there is an appeal within a thousand feet of real property that we own. in my case last year in 2017, this never happened to me in the years i served on the board until last year, lo and behold by chance, there were two land appeals in 1,000 feet of my property. i didn't know what to do. i talked to the city attorney and recused myself of the board. had there been a third, my neighbours are upset i was not able to actually vote. i would recuse myself. i hear you about the broad nature of the jack of all trades and expert at none. i hear you. and it does make sense in the commission context. in my office, discussion with the ethics commission staff, i think the resp

should we insert that in subsection one? >> i guess it was our intension in section one there that those persons would be forming the committees and they would be reporting to us. if that's unclear, we can look back at that. >> and then in 1.124.82, how are committees supposed to determine if a business entity received funds through a contract or grant within the last 24 months? >> we believe that the campaign, the individuals, the candidates i should say are going to be the ones in the best position to know if these individuals had spoken to them, had lobbied in front of them. done any of the activities, such as they would be in the best place to report that information. otherwise, the discloser would have to change to the individual making the contribution. the committee would be in a better place to report it to us. >> are committees liable if donors are not forth coming and fail to inform the committee out of neglect? >> i think that's -- i don't think that was the intention of the commission but a policy directive for t

should we insert that in subsection one? >> i guess it was our intension in section one there that those persons would be forming the committees and they would be reporting to us. if that's unclear, we can look back at that. >> and then in 1.124.82, how are committees supposed to determine if a business entity received funds through a contract or grant within the last 24 months? >> we believe that the campaign, the individuals, the candidates i should say are going to be the ones in the best position to know if these individuals had spoken to them, had lobbied in front of them. done any of the activities, such as they would be in the best place to report that information.

if you look at page 4, it says in subsection b, the ethics commission shall maintain on its website with the names, departments and positions of persons that are required to file form 700, and they have to update that list no later than ten days after the submittal of a statement, and then, you'll see on page 3, subsection d, public announcement, if a member of a board or commission has failed to file a required statement at the beginning of each meeting of the commission or board that occurs after the applicable deadline for the submission of the statement, the commission sector any city staff that fulfills that role shall announce that the member has failed to file a statement as required by this ordinance. >> supervisor safai: no, i see that. so is the ethics commission going to contact the secretary of that particular commission? that's what i'm asking. they could put it on their website, the person could come in and say i've submitted. i don't know if it's been reviewed or not, but it's been posted. how is the commission secretary going to know -- i'm just thinking the mechanics thr

of josh and islam the army of islam a fringe islam missed group that john kerry himself called a subsect a subgroup of al-qaeda or isis yet now they're being made out to be he was huge interviews with them on television and whatnot and somehow everyone goes over the fact that they've been caught doing some very questionable stuff like putting women and civilians in cages and hosting them up into roofs to act as shields as human shields against air strikes shooting it demonstrators and beheading prisoners all sorts of things yet you know politics are such that they are being back now they are being routed for and. that allies such as nusra follicle other groups in eastern huta with strong strong very strong extremist connections jihadist connections being ignored yeah sure and we shouldn't lose sight of the fact even should be that the world focus seems to be on east and that's not the only hot spot in syria at the moment though it isn't turkey is not stopping its operation and afrin it says we're also exempt from this ceasefire because by b.g. the syrian kurds the is the school them they

that way i don't think that's right there certainly built within the various sanctions regimes subsections of certain authorities which state that if the party material assists a designated party then they themselves can be subject to those particular sanctions prohibitions. it's never defined simply by the fact that someone is russian the only parallel you may be able to draw is with the north korea and the cuban sanctions program where the authority itself blocks anyone who is a person of those countries and they're automatically blocked because of the nature of the authorities deployed now mr ferrari going back to the or in the fixations of the kremlin list i know that you believe that those named in the least may face delays in financial transactions as international banks subjected them to more scrutiny and i think many people in russia would actually welcome that because the illicit capital outflow from this country still significant according to russia's central bank it was around thirty one billion dollars last year could that possibly be a silver lining in this whole controversy t

and then, you'll see subsection d was added at the city attorney's languaadvice to mak that we include language that we don't include the board of supervisors there. so i will turn it over to the city attorney. >> thank you, pat. this is something that we took a very close comment following a comment from the first budget and finance committee, and also hearing comments others made around the time about that. i think in hearing the questions, there were a number of questions about what is the reaccusal view's purpose, and how would we count this 1% trigger for a review, so i just wanted to provide a bit of background on that. this language and thrust of this is really a basic tran parency issue. it would provide a way for these who recuse under the law, to do so for a good thing, in order to avoid conflicts. it would give the public a chance to understand repeated recusals, so there would be an opportunity to engage. if there is a repeated recusal, and we'll get into how this would calculate that, there is a process for the ethics commission to review those recusals, and determine if t

however that no resolution shall be required if the additional shelter crisis site identifies under subsection 4-a is located in a district that does not already have a crisis site within its boundary. i believe the amendment is acceptable to the author of the ordinance. >> supervisor cohen? >> supervisor cohen: thank you, i definitely support and accept the amendment being proposed here. >> president breed: does that mean you second the amendment? colleagues, can we take the amendment without objection? without objection can, the amendment passes and the item amended, same house same call? the amendment passes unanimously on the first reading. >> item 15, resolution to approve the license of building within 25, the equipment room at zuckerberg san francisco general hospital and trauma center with at&t mobility at the base rent of 5,000 to be waived and providing cellular services to the staff, patients and visitors. >> president breed: same house same call. without objection, passes unanimously. to accept up to 500,000 of in-kind grant from the trust for public land for the sgt. john mcauley

that is accurate, the only thing i would add and request is that this commission also a in the new subsection 1.158 and the additional as to 1.161 and 1.162 pertaining to measure donor disclosures and television and audio advertisements. you can savely continue this to the next meeting of your ethics commission which would be a joint session with the board of supervisorses and we could act on that. i look for the city attorney for support on that, but i understand that procedurally is above board. >> the joint session? >> amend in 1.158, changes to 1.1 and 162. commission to the next session with the board of supervisorses is that feasible as yesterday? i believe so? >> yes or no? >> you can amend it where the board of supervisorses can consider it. >> the staff would have some feedback to provide about the merits of doing that or not doing that. >> through the chair, i think there is ample opportunity for staff feedback to provide that in advance of the next commission meeting. >> when can we get this joint meeting? february 28th? >> it is not my prerogative. i believe the first week of marc

i think when you look at how this is reflected in the regulation 3.207, particularly in subsection(a) 2, which i know that commissioner lee did not raise, but what it means to indirectly receive a favor i think is -- is what would be prohibited and yet kind of unintelligible. i think it's much clearer and insures -- and anything from our perspective ensures clarity. i think that this might get around the question about whether donation of a water cooler for an event is prohibited activity, and i don't know that that smacks at what she's trying to get at, so private financial advantage would be our suggestion. >> commissioner chiu? >> thank you. can you direct me to the page on which this appears? >> in the red lined version, i'm looking at 3.203, on page 25, line one. >> okay. and then what is the language that you are referencing from supervisor peskin's amendment? >> right, and that amendment is in your packet at page -- gosh, i want to say it's between 87 and 92, again, i dropped my packet, and it got a little mixed up. but the language would be to delete favor and to insert privat

because then you don't get to add all the special interests off in the subsections. passed a budget bill, we're still learning what's in it. it's amazing. i just learned halfway buried in the budget bill, the senate announced they're not going to do a budget next year. that's brilliant. right? you really can't make it up. and it's broken. i mean, and that's where -- i want less federal. i want 50 state experiments. let's see who gets it right and people will copy them. >> so it seems we have a lot of consensus or some shared beliefs about the concerns that you have. i'm not asking for any names here, but do you see a -- is there a change -- you're both relative young members of the house. do you see a -- is there a generational shift that we could have -- maybe have some hope on in terms of seeing these challenges or limitations? >> well, let's see, i don't want to overstate the area of partisan overlap. you know, the -- i mean, there are clearly a lot of things that dave and i agree about, you know, for example, the most recent budget caps vote, the all-nighter we p

i want to call to your attention in section 4, this adds a subsection a-6, page #, line 21, to read, the board of supervisors approves by resolution the addition of the identified shelter crisis site. it would also update the name of the ordinance to include and to include, "approval by the resolution of the board of supervisors". so again, we're just changing the name of the ordinance to include an approval by the resolution by the board of supervisors, that's going to be found on page 1, line 17. so i do look forward to what the department of homelessness brings us, particularly as we expand the footprint outside of district 6, district 9, district 10. i think it's incredibly important, more so than ever, that every district in the city shoulders some of the responsibility and to ensure we're not concentrating our homeless crisis and already i'd say stressed neighborhoods, neighborhoods that are found in district 6, 9 and 10. supervisor fewer, you offered your amendment of the same nature for the extension of existing sites. and i don't know if supervisor stephanie has comments, bu

permits were suspended. [ please standby for captioner switch ] -- it would meet the demolition subsection of section 317, which asks whether or not the replacement project would match the dependency bity of the subject lot. two units would need to be designed in a manner that both meets all applicable requirements. with that said the department finds that the project with modifications to be necessary, desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods for the following reasons. the project would increase the number of units from one to two and maximize the underlying zoning and the scale is in keeping with the neighborhood pattern. no tenants would be displaced as a result of the project and although it is structure is more than 50 years old a valuation determined that the existing building was not an historic resource. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> project sponsor. >> good evening, commissioner, i am here to walk you guys through the project as revised per staff comments and we've revised the project to contain two units. and i'd just like to take a quick moment to talk