Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    December 28, 2014 6:00pm-6:31pm PST

6:00 pm
tember and i was wondering what those results were. also one more thing, mr. chiu was representative from the city to bcbc and i was wondering, since he's now gone if there will be a replacement for the bcbc. i wanted to remind you they have authority, not only other the shorelines of the bay, but marshes, creeks, tributaries, to 100 feet landwork so they're a very imposing presence on what we may do. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public who'd like to provide public comment at this time? >> i basically here to speak on -- here we have a new era here in san francisco an you hear all these spin words and
6:01 pm
what i'm hearing a lot and what i'm seeing a lot where we are not participating with the mayor's using is work groups. well, let me just say ladies and gentlemen, and even ed lee if he's listening, these work groups are all these work groups. who are in these work groups and who monitors these work groups and who gets the chance to see these documents and these groups and these meetings that they call these work groups? let me say to the city and county as we are on record, i am going to implement a program here at city hall that has never been used before that's outside the box where you call community reform where we as a community, people that will be affected by these work groups, that we need to be at the table in the round table discussion on things that affect the
6:02 pm
citizens, the people that you're serveing. we as individuals in the media -- this is the new type of social media -- we are, as you see my little camera here, i'm not crazy, but this is a call dommenting all these work groups an supervisors, having these hearings, you don't get no information. most of questions you asking, what do you get? we'll get back to you. and does that ever get back? i don't think so. but if there was another concept, supervisors, that community people like myself and other, media be there involved with this so called working groups, what do you working on and who are you working for and who is working these groups? so the spin word now is working groups. >> thank you mr. washington. are there any other members of the public who'd like to provide public comment at
6:03 pm
this time? seeing none, public comment is closed. so at this time, president tang there are a number of changes that i am going to propose to the board of supervisors responses to the civil grand jury for this particular purpose, starting with the recommendation 1a the city should repair and adopt a risk assessment in preparation for developing its comprehensive plan regarding the sea level issue. this recommendation has been implemented with a summary of the implemented action. as reported by mayoral staff at the government audit and oversight meeting on december 11, 2014 on september 22, 2014, the capital planning committee adopted the guidance for incorporated sea level rise into capital planning in
6:04 pm
san francisco, assessing vulnerability to support adaptation so that's for item number 1a. and for 1b the city should assess costs of both implementation of adaptation, strategies and potential losses from failing to do so. and the possible -- the recommended response is the recommendation has been implemented an a summary of the implementation actions and our response today is as reported by mayoral staff at the government audit and oversight committee meeting on december 11. the capital planning committee adopted the guidance for incorporated sea level rise into capital planning in san francisco, assessing vulnerability and risk to adaptation. item number 2a, the planning
6:05 pm
cold should be amened to include maps showing the areas in the city that are most at risk from the impacts of sea level rise. the planning code should be amended to prohibit the development in at-risk areas unless there's compliance in the city's building code and the port building code is applicable to projects outlined in recommendation 3a and -- choose me. so for 2a -- i think i'm confused by my chart. >> for 2a i would say that that recommendation will not be implemented given that
6:06 pm
maps have been published that are vulnerable to future flooding through the year 2100. furthermore ceqa provides planning department with sufficient authority for planning projects to be designed and mitigate po sensual hazards and thus an amend. m to the planning code is not recommended. >> thank you. so item number 3b is planning code should include a provision that the amended sections of the code including the rising sea levels be reviewed and assessed every five years. the recommendation will not be implemented and ceqa, the board of supervisors agrees with the tenure of the recommendation and any supervisor can take an effort
6:07 pm
to amend the building code but cannot guarantee one of its members will choose to do so. >> for clarity, that was the response for recommendation three. >> 3b. >> the recommendation that was requires a response was 3. >> which one? >> for rising sea levels. >> okay. >> madam chair, i believe it should just be recommendation. >> i need to take a five minute recess because i think i have some mix ups in my paperwork. >> you have the same thing that i have. >> okay. so we're not going to take a five minute recess and supervisor tang is going to finish the recommendations of the board of supervisors.
6:08 pm
>> all right, so through the chair for the recommendation 3, which basically touches upon city building code and the port's building code, a recommendation that it should be amended to include provisions that address impacts. the board of supervisors is stating that this will require further analysis because city departments are actively working with one another right now with city and regional agencies to evaluate and develop consistent guidance and policies to address sea level rise. that's for recommendation 3. moving on to recommendation 11 d, this is where the recommendation at the city should request an insurance premium estimate from fema and compare that against future flooding. the board of supervisors' response would like to suggest that we say the
6:09 pm
recommendation will not be implemented because fema's naksal flood insurance program does not offer it to private municipalities, only to private owners. and then for recommendation 12b the state said the city should create a local working group for stakeholders. the board of supervisors, i'd like to suggest that we say the recommendation will be implemented in the future because the proposed work program for developing a comprehensive adaptation plan will provide a robust outreach to community members an stakeholders. >> thank you president tang. so i'd make a motion to move those items as recommended by the board of supervisors in response to the grand jury.
6:10 pm
without objection those items are entered into the record and moved forward. are there any other comments regarding this item? okay. so with that, is there a motion to table this item? >> so moved. >> okay. without objection this item is tabled. >> madam clerk can you call the next item? >> item number 4, the hearing to receive updates from various city departments on response [inaudible] civil grand jury report entitled ethics in the city titled promise, practice or pretense. >> okay. mr. kim -- did he leave? is there anyone who's going to present on behalf of the
6:11 pm
mayor's office? i have mr. kim as the presenting person for this item. item 4 for ethics in the city. mr. saint croix, are you going to present for this item?
6:12 pm
>> good morning. i just have some brief updates on the five items we were asked to follow up on. as to recommendation 2, the commission endorsed the recommendation. as to recommendation 11 there is a pending california supreme court case that will affect such policies. the commission is waiting for the resolution of this case to inform any potential action. as to recommendation 16 the commission is planning a policy discussion about the ethics of the possible need of additional disclosure requirements for donations for government travel and government travel recording. it will then send knee proposed changes to the board of supervisors. as to recommendation 18, the commission is not a respon dant. and finally as to recommendation 21 the commission [inaudible] investigator and will work appropriately with the mayor and board on the next budget.
6:13 pm
6:14 pm
6:15 pm
>> good morning. i was on the grand jury and wrote the report that's sub of this hearing. in terms of mr. saint croix's statement, the point is that the commission is not seeking to have a separate secretary for the commission. i think they felt it would be important to have that sort of professional staff, whether on a full-time basis or part-time basis, and in discussions with the board of supervisors about this on the report we fell that the board of supervisors were more likely to take this
6:16 pm
forward than the ethics commission staff and we'd hope that you would look at it as part of the next budget hearing and sort of leave it back in your court for further action. there are also a number of items in the resolution that the board of supervisors adopted last september after this committee acting that called for further action by the board of supervisors right around this time so i'm not sure how you're putting that information forward. thank you. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public who'd like to provide public comment at this time? seeing none, public comment is closed. okay, so there are lists of recommendations from the board and specifically for items 2, 11, 16, 18 and 21.
6:17 pm
i will start with item 2 and read it into the record. the board of supervisors should request an independent audit by the city attorney to determine whether prohibited contributions were forfeited to the city as required by law and this recommendation will not be implemented. the board of supervisors supports this recommendation, but implementing it will require an individual supervisor to propose an audit, which should be conducted by the controllers city auditor division, with assistance from the city attorney. well, any supervisor can undertake such an effort. collectively the board cannot preemptively guarantee one of its members will choose to do so. for item number 11 the ensure preservation of e-mails and
6:18 pm
text messages consistent with preservation of other public records, the policy along with policies of preservation on public record should be made for public comment. once completed it should be made available on city attorney and ethic commission web pages that list each department's policies and how to obtain documents. the recommendation will not be implemented. by nature, such policy changes would be beyond the jurisdiction of the board of supervisors. the board looks forward to up coming work on this issue by the sunshine ordinance task force, the ethics commission and the city attorney. item number 16 the ethics commission should require full disclosure of contributions of payments for official travel of city officials including the actual amount contributed
6:19 pm
in the names of official donors. official business should be disclosed including the meets, participants, topics and other
6:20 pm
-- i need to get back to that one. item 18, the board of supervisors should provide a rule subjecting themselves to a rule regarding the sunshine ordinance. the recommendation will not be implemented as evident by the report supervisors already
6:21 pm
willingly disclosed their calendars. and item number 21, the board of supervisors should provide the commissioners an executive secretary separate from the existing commissions employees base who will among other duties prepare the commission's agendas, maintain minutes, list of complaintses and interested persons, meetings and assist a commission member to be the parliamentarian. and this -- the recommendation will not be implemented. the board of supervisors agrees that additional staff member could improve the effectiveness of the ethics commission. the board will consider this recommendation as part of the ethic's commission next budget. unforeignly the constraints and pros by the civil grand jury response process do not allow the board to officially say this recommendation will be considered at a later date though it will.
6:22 pm
and -- yes, that's it. okay. supervisor tang, are there any comments or questions? >> no. i would agree with your recommendations. >> okay. and i think i missed one. i apologize. my charts are such this they're very difficult to read and understand and enter into the record. a lot of detailed information here and i think that i missed one in terms of a comment. >> recommendation 24. >> i don't have recommendation 24 as a board of supervisors response.
6:23 pm
okay,so from my notes the only recommendations we have are number 2, 11, 16, 18 and 21. i think it's appropriate for us to move forward with recommending the responses that i've proposed unless there's any questions. supervisor tang. >> no questions there. i agree with your recommendations again and i think that although our responses are such that they will not be implemented, i
6:24 pm
think that our board, our city attorney's office or ethics commission, we are waiting for some additional decisions made outside of our jurisdiction that may guide us in the future. based on these particular recommendations that is our recommendation. >> okay. and just for clarity from our budget and legislative analyst, in terms of our responses, is there anything that's missing or anything that needs clarification? >> madam chair, president tang, my only comment is recommendation number 24, we can work with both of your offices to prepare motions for both of these items as you've indicated today. >> recommendation 24 had a requirement of a board of supervisors response. i think that's where the
6:25 pm
confusion was for me because that was not where the board was required to submit a response for. >> recommendation 24 is not included in the agenda description for this item. it indicates the board will responds by december 26 of this yore. they will try to respond by that timeframe. >> we are not scheduled to have another government audit and oversight committee meeting this year. >> so one possible option is to consider including a response to recommendation number 24 at next week's full board meeting. >> okay. >> that's one option, but we can see what else we can do. >> so we are required to respond to that particular number. >> it indicates so on the
6:26 pm
resolution, but there seems to be a slight discrepancy to the agenda description. >> maybe this a question for the city attorney would it be okay if we issued some sort of memo or statement attached to this recommendation that we'll be traveling to the board of supervisors indicating what our response would be for item 24 had it been included in the long title? >> one of your offices include something on the legislative file to indicate what your recommendation would be, but we may be limited in discussions here. getting something to file i think that would get you to where you wan to go with this recommendation. yeah, i think it could be something that we'd address to the full board. we'd have to revisit the agenda description notice. frnths >> we're required to do it
6:27 pm
before december 26. >> that's what the resolution itself requires. >> and if we don't, will we be in trouble? >> certainly we always want the city and all its officials to comply with the law as much as possible so we'll do what we can. >> okay, sounds good. so for now we will recommend -- we will take these recommendations without objection. without objection the recommendations are recommended into the record. and so at this point we can not table this item. we'll need to continue it to the call of the chair. >> you could table this item if you want, no? >> madam chair, the hearing is prepared in committee as a motion, it turns into a
6:28 pm
motion and you'll recommend it out to the board. venlg >> okay. >> so through the chair i'd like to make a motion through the chair that for item 4 we forward out to the full board of supervisors for recommendations for number 2, 11, 16, 18, 21 that has been agendaed. >> without objection, those are recommend. at this time i'd like to rescind the vehicle vote for item number 3. without objection the vote for item 3 is rejektd. jected tank. >> item p 3 to instead of tabling this item we are going to forward it to the full board of supervisors. our recommendation responses for number 1a 1b, 2a, 3, 11d
6:29 pm
and 12b. >> okay. without objection those items are recommended. madam clerk, can you call item 5. >> a hearing on the stattous of san francisco getting to zero effort [inaudible] and hif advocates. >> okay, supervisor wiener has asked that we continue this item so i will need to open this item up for public comment. are there any other members of public who'd like to provide public comment on item number 5? seeing none public comment is closed. supervisor tang, do we have a
6:30 pm
motion to continue item 5 to the calm call of the chair? >> so move. >> without objection it is moved to the call of chair. any further items today? >> there is no further business. >> seeing none we are adjourned.