hence the ordinance today. the reason we are asking for quick consideration is that the port commission is next going to consider the least disposition agreement after the board's approval. the port commission also has to approve that. they will be considering that on april 10. it is the recommendation of staff that we are going to request that the port commission take on these obligations and under the timeframes that are contemplated, that we also give the commission some comfort that it has the contracting tools necessary to be able to complete our collective job. with that, i would like to ask the clerk please to put up the slides, and i will walk through the proposed ordinance. we have an amendment that essentially narrows the scope of the waivers that we are asking for today, and then i would like to get into some of the history of the bids that the court has undertaken for the cruise terminal project and how we would hope to use the ordinance to deliver very specific improvements at the various sites. sup

indeed, the act is the sunshine ordinance. it is not just 67.35, is the entire body of the ordinance itself that is the act. it claims to be the same as the brown act or the public records act. that is where the ordinance gets drawn, draws its authority from. and its jurisdiction. so i would see there that is exclusive of the ordinance, the sunshine taskforce, that somebody did not want to go through that process and want to go straight to court or they could come straight to do, but it is only after they have made contact with a senior state official. that is supposed to take action on it. and the last part of that sentence. so they cannot come to you until they have exercised or exhausted their complete with a city or state official. -- or exhausted their complete with a city or state official. >> i just want to remind everyone, 67.30c, which is where the ethics commission has the jurisdiction to hear cases that we sent to you for enforcement. i think the plain language of that is very clear, that it is in our purview to hold

for the ordinance. that 6734, it will be official misconduct. high view that it was sort of the signaling and that for elected officials, there can be no question about whether or not it constitutes official misconduct for purposes of the charter provision and that talks about the implications ahead. and 6735 is the paragraph that deals with enforcement. and under that, if you wanted to go and get some preventive relief at the front and, you fail to notice them meeting properly. trying to get the documents, you had to go to court to do that. if the procedure had been exhausted, the question is if they have to exhaust them, the complaint and would have a right to go to court or to the ethics commission. i see nothing in that the section that limits the ability of a complaint to come to the ethics commission to only consider a willful misconduct. the fact that i say that we have the jurisdiction, i respectfully, with all due respect to the staff that i agree with, does a wonderful job and is over-worked as it is. i can't agree with their conclusion

for the ordinance. that 6734, it will be official misconduct. high view that it was sort of the signaling and that

the land use committee heard in the ordinance that will change the controls -- this ordinance began over a year ago with some modest changes to the controls for video stores. when we told the commission about the ordinance, you encouraged the staff to gogol. unanimously recommended the downsizing the 13 different definitions. you also recommended allowing be limited rest ought to be permitted and incorporating some taylor controls for certain neighborhoods. since your recommendation, it has been sponsored by supervisor wiener, chu, and olague. the sponsors and the department have continued to provide outreach by circulating the exceptional video by our own staff, it currently has over 34,000 views. producing fact sheets in english and chinese, indicating neighborhood meetings. he legislation has also received a great deal of press. the chronicle, huffington post, even the wall street journal. the chronicle also wrote in addition to their news story, an editorial with the new legislation. the ordinance now includes a consolidated section for the operating conditions there but eliminating

i agreed with their recommendations in amending the ordinance accordingly. the planning commission expressed concern about zero loss of commercial spaces or smaller commercial spaces where future developments may pursue what mergers for bigger spaces. resulting in larger lots and larger ground floor commercial spaces with fewer opportunities for small business owners. as a result, i am introducing an amendment that prohibits lot mergers resulting in lots with bridges > 50 feet in the inner and outer clement and the nc2 districts between second and eighth avenue on clement. i'm handing out the amendments. i believe these measures are concrete way of protecting the existing character of our commercial district while promoting flexibility in this out -- the design of our commercial places. it is my hope this will help stimulate active and attractive street and storefronts and contribute to an improved experience for pedestrians and patrons of our unique businesses. it is a successful way to help our merchant community and i urge your support. we have presentatio

walking through the timeline of the ordinance, if the board of supervisors has a first read on the ordinance, april 3, and then a second read april 10, the mayor could sign the ordinance as early as april 10. there is a 30-day window before the ordinance would become effective, bringing the dates to may 10. that is just a few days after we expect the issuance of a major permit for the piers 30-30 to work. we are still working with the regional water control board to make sure they can permit within that timeframe. and that is about the time when we expect to -- i think april 27 is the current due date for the final construction drawings. that would allow informally us to bid the work for 30-32 and potentially start the work around may 10. accounting for three months from may 10 -- that is in may, june, july, early august -- it is conceivable that we could have the 2012 world series event, the first of the two 2012 events, at piers 30-32 if we are effective with that schedule. it is possible that we would not, even with the expediting of the action from the board, be able to complete the impr

as i read the ordinance, it says "at all hours of operation." if that is the case, we will have serious problems with it. for instance, i will give you one example -- we have a parking lot on the corner of san some and pacific street, which is about a block away from broadway, and we have had that what -- that what has been in existence since 1954. it has about 50 stalls. we do about 75 cars during the day on the surface portion. monday through friday, we have staff 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., and that is the bulk of our business. nights and weekends, we do about $5,000 a month. if the staffing requirement is all hours of operation, like i said, nights and weekends are on a self-part basis with a machine. is that requirement -- $5,200 would not even pay for one week -- the staffing requirement, $5,200 would not even pay for one week. my question is when does that start? if it starts all hours of operation, that it virtually eliminates all self-park parking lots. i cannot afford to have this particular lot with a 1,000 feet of and entertainment establ

the difference is dealing with public meetings, it does not say that in the ordinance. the task force has determined this is a question of the spirit rather than the letter of the law. the ethics commission staff says, it doesn't say so in the ordinance, so we are not going to find that that section of 67.21 was violated. there are some differences of opinion there, in the interest of brevity, be aware that those inferences exist. >> to want to make sure the ethics commissioners, if anyone else would like to speak on the issue of whether the commission has jurisdiction under the ordinance of non-woeful and willful violations and not involving department heads, we welcome comments. >> i would be interested in learning a little bit more about how you think you would reach it, 67.35, both you and the other proponents. because we're struggling with the drafting of 34, and the usual interpretive the standard is that the differences make a difference. and there is a difference. if you can explain a little bit more about how you would use 35 define the jurisdiction? >> if they

the two ordinance's will be brought before you within the next three months or so -- the two ordinances will be brought before you with the next three months or so. that is my report. >> the board of appeals did meet last night. there was an appeal for a permit to replace windows, which the commission heard as a discretionary review just a few weeks ago. the appeals were withdrawn, so there was no hearing on the item. the second item is the beach motel. it relates to a letter of determination issued in 1997 that said that it was a residential hotel and not a tourist hotel the was appealed to the board of appeals. there was a hearing in 1998 that found they actually up held the letter of determination that was 3-2 to overturn the determination, but they failed to get the votes to overturn, so it was upheld by a matter of law. there was a re-hearing request filed on it, and there was active litigation at the time against the property owner. most of that litigation -- of course, all of it has now been resolved. the request was continued several times and ultimately indefinitely. it was on

that, not go to supervisor records, not go to the sunshine ordinance task force, where they are actively trying to adjudicate them selves on the run. but say they cannot get a record. they then called the city official, they call the mayor's office. if the mayor's office does not take any action on it 40 days, under sunshine ordinance, they can go directly to you or they could go to court to get satisfaction. >> you are not seeing 67.35d as the basis for the commission authority to hear non-violations for the task force? >> it is not for the task force. it is for any person acting on their own volition. if you look at a, b, c, you have to start with a. it talks about any person who has a complaint. that is what we are talking about here. we're not talking about the task force, we're talking about any person. and there are many different ways a person can exercise their rights under the sunshine ordinance to be able to get records. one way is through the process, as outlined 67.21. the other process is 67.35. >> ok, i see. >> ok. with all due respect, being the only lawyer on this side of

there are all kinds of ways city employees can violate the ordinance, and timing and not showing up at the meetings, but at the very bottom, the most basic thing is that the public its records and the public has access and public meetings. >> i'm very sensitive to that, and fully understand, but the goal here is to make sure the ordinance is complied with. i think now is a good time to move to the enforcement question. i think it is one where we have already had a lot of discussion. >> can i ask one question, mr. grossman? mr. grossman, you said from your point of view, that when the task force issued an order, when the complaints come to them, and the task force says the documents and public record should be produced, and it is not produced, that is a separate violation of the sunshine ordinance? >> a violation. >> how was it a violation? the violation is the failure to turn over the document that they have been ordered to produce. >> i'm willing to accept that. either way, it is a violation. either the initial failure that has been determined to be a failure by the task force, which

and there are many different ways a person can exercise their rights under the sunshine ordinance to be able to get records. one way is through the process, as outlined 67.21. the other process is 67.35. >> ok, i see. >> ok. with all due respect, being the only lawyer on this side of this group, i have to re-state what i think i have stated a number of times. i first want to mention what i was getting to what i could not quite finished about this letter. >> mr. grossman, what we're trying to do here -- i appreciate you being willing to this -- >> what we're talking about is 67.34 and 67.35d, and that is what you have been talking about. >> right, but what we were hoping for was an answer to the commissioner's question. >> i am going to. >> if you could start there. >> you have to look at all of those sections in order to understand what 67.35d is all about. there are three different ways a case can come to the ethics commission. two are described in 67.34, and one is described in 67.35d. of course, there is also the task force power under 67.30c to send it to you for enforcement. 67.3

i am proud to work with this collision, and the compromise ordinance. i'm aware of the hard work that is been put in their, and having worked in the bayview hunters point community for the past 20 years, i am aware that it has been isolated for decades. and one bad day in, the isolation does, they isolate the community from the main screen, and we misunderstood. people in general have a tendency to fear someone or something, policies that they don't understand. we are not opposed to the fbi, the san francisco police working together to bring about safety in san francisco. but as we all know, san francisco is a multi-cultural community. it is probably the understatement of the year. being that we are also multicultural of different religions and different people from all over the world, if they are going to be isolated, it is very difficult for the main screen to understand them. like to commend the board of supervisors for compromising and excepting this compromise ordinance for the betterment of all of the citizens of san francisco. we don't have to be

we will also handle referrals from the task force of any violation of the ordinance, a willful violation of non department heads for the employees and elected officials, and non local violations as well. for non local -- for non will full violations, we will have a hearing that will have to work at the details of, which will entail the responded to showing cause why the sunshine ordinance order should not be enforced. in addition, we will have to discuss with the city's attorney's office and the commissioners specifically what sort of enforcement, penalties come up for outcomes that we will have to -- that we can and should put in place. obviously, if we enforce something, we would like to be actually able to do something and make sure that the enforcement is carried through. that is something that we will have to address. is anything that i missed? >> in june of 2010, the commission voted on three procedures. when you do the regulations and recommendations -- my question is, how are you going to deal with the decisions that were already made? will you go back and revisit them and revise

president chiu: that portion of the ordinance is passed on first reading. on the other divided portion -- >> that is page 15, lines 10 through 13? that would be section 1.144. subsection b4. supervisor elsbernd: no. supervisor farrell: no. supervisor kim: aye. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor olague: aye. supervisor weiner: aye. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. supervisor chu: no. president chiu: aye. supervisor cohen: aye. >> there are 8 ayes and 3 nos. president chiu: that portion is also passed on first reading. why don't we now go to roll call? supervisor campos: thank you very much, madam clerk. i am submitting a resolution that is co-sponsored by eight supervisors a -- by supervisors avalos, chiu, kim, and olague. it supports the trust act introduced by assembly member amiano, which establishes that an individual in california will not be detained pursuant to an ice hold -- will only be detained if convicted of a serious and violent felony. we have seen under the so-called secure communities program that a number of individuals have been

to be a policy matter for the board because the ordinance waivesthe city pose a competitive bidding and the lbe contracting procedures as presently required under the city present administrative code. -- the city's administrative code. supervisor chu: thank you for your presentation. are there members of the public who wish to speak on item #6? >> good morning, supervisors. i would like to speak from personal experience dealing with bae systems. i feel this is a good company. most people do not know about the project on the world, but i have to give them credit for past work in iraq. i also went to one of their facilities near mohave, california. they do act as a good neighbor there and elsewhere, so obviously, approving this project could only help the citizens of san francisco. so i think having them here is better than encouraging the company to send more workers back to michigan. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. next speaker? given no other speakers, we will close public comment. do we have a motion to send this item forward? we have a mot

we agree with the way the budget analyst characterized the ordinance. there were two recommendations in the report. one went to removing demolition activities from the scope of work that would be covered by the ordinance. that is largely because that work can be conducted under the existing contract we have with turner. we are amenable to that recommendation. the was another recommendation that port staff report to the board of supervisors at the time we come to approve a debt issuance for that work about the actual costs associated with the contract end compliance with other provisions of contract in law, including the local hire ordinance and the like. we concur with that recommendation as well. supvervisor campos: thank you. i do want to echo the thanks to the budget and legislative analyst for the very quick work they have to do on this item. i think that the recommendations that were made by the budget and legislative analyst make a lot of sense. with those recommendations being added to what is before us, even though i do not think that waiving the

the first amendment guarantees the right of freedom of speech and i think the sunshine ordinance and the brown act both go to support and ensure that members of the public that wish to participate in public meetings are able to do so and to make comments including those meeting predicted the protection which are descending comments. the right to petition government for redress of grievances in most cases is going to demand that unless you are making wild accusations, you have the public records so that you can proof and show that what you are saying has a basis in fact but the california public records act and the sunshine ordinance are there to establish the right of a citizens access to the necessary public records so that they can put forward a cogent case to support what they are presenting. one question that the task force members can say, yes, something that is one of his bugaboos, i asked him to consider their performance in the light of what have you done to support the right of a citizen to speak freely at public meetings and what have you done to support the right of public

the ordinance before the committee today is an extension of the eastern neighborhood legitimization program which would extend the time of the program by six months from the adoption of this ordinance dated november 12 of this year. we have established a 90-day time frame by which the applicants must submit relevant application materials to department staff. i have no further amendments to this item today and would urge your support. are you interested in speaking on item number two? you don't have to. fantastic. >> i'm from the planning department. we made a presentation last week. supervisor cohen: are there any members of the public to like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor olague: i looked at the article that appeared in the "examiner" and it appeared to have exaggerated numbers. are -- do you have a response and can you clarify whether the information that was presented was accurate or not or am i asking too much at this point? >> we are aware of that article. there were a couple that ran, the second one was an editorial. our director is prepari

have you thought about the possibility where the sunshine ordinance task force could choose someone to stand in the shoes of the complainant, with the complaint's permission, to at the show calls, if that was the more expeditious or more comfortable for the plaintiff. i don't want to make it harder on somebody who has been frustrated. >> right, that is exactly right, and i apologize, i think i misspoke. in an instance where a referral is made to the commission, respondent would be ordered to show cause as to why the order should not be enforced. if the respondent did not appear at that, i think we would be left with no choice but to go with the record we have and enforcement would be made. i think it would be helpful for the complained to appear at that proceeding. but certainly the burden is on the responded to show cause as to why it should not be enforced. >> i would say that the order of determination, while it is maybe a few pages with an encapsulation of what had happened, it is not the complete record. what you receive as the complete record will be the advisement of legal couns

but the reality is that this ordinance is a live one. it's a live one because we have committed people in every aspect of the city and in the private sector working with contractors, the subcontractors to the enforcement staff of our office of economic and workforce development, our city build leadership, our departments, as well as the workers themselves believing that we're all watching each other with the very clear hope that we want to accomplish. that's why we get good results. we're breathing life into an ordinance that had in the past been simply good strong language of faith. and so breathing life into it means everybody has goals to be accomplished. the most important goal, though, in my opinion, is not so much the ordinance, not so much the departments because we all have jobs, it's the people who didn't have a job a year ago now transforming their lives and giving hope to their families as well as they come here. that's the real transformation that we wanted to have happen. that's the real performance, because when we do that,