(calling names). for those of you who are not aware commissioner dorothy lou resigned at our lastometer and hopefully next meeting well have somebody sitting on that seat >> first agenda is matters appearing or not appearing on our agenda in our jurisdiction of our commission. no one? okay. let's move on to possible action from a request from jonathan and mayor lee conduct coincide on behalf of mr. paralleling man a left hand

architect on the historic preservation commission >> thank you i'm jonathan i'm a practicing architect here in san francisco and now serving on the prehistoric commission. >> i'm quite honored by mayor lee selecting me to position to be able to serve the supply in a a captain that i both love and care about historic buildings in san francisco. and in my practice over the last 18 or 19 years i continue to work on projects throughout san francisco. they do account for about 70 percent of my business is in san francisco or projects in san

francisco. so given the fact the seat that i sit on in the prehistoric preservation commissions has is credentials that i hold. there is is clearly a conflict with section 225 will 4 with presenting my work to - continuing my work or the plan checkers in the planning and building inspection. i have a small firm i had since 1995 in the city and i was up to about 7 people in the 2000 these now we're up to four for the most part my projects don't are not credit card before the

administration. one project in a particular the alexander theatre outthink a boulevard is my roenlt and we have a hearing this thursday and there's no one in my affirm that has the information to be able to present the projects. i have one left hand architect who works for me and hope to have one or two more so in the next month's. so if other projects do move along and a do need to be presented i can have staff working on the projects. the large projects have professionals involved to present those projects. so i'm asking inform a waiver to

continue my livelihood as long as serve on the prehistoric committee >> any questions? >> what would you do if you worn out granted this waiver. >> i won't be able to serve the big conflict is not appearing before the commission but that i work with planners and staff in the building department and the planning dependent on various projects. obviously anything that is a conflict on that board i will recuse myself. i would go everything i could to

have someone else presents those projects. but this is really related to ongoing work with staff. >> my understanding is the remit for seat number 3 are very difficult to find is that your experience? an architect historian that you but more or less in our experience how many people do you find with your backyard. >> there are historian who don't work in the field and there's historian that are not architects so there are a few

people who cross over. >> any information as to whether or not in the past minute who served in the seat that you're sitting in the 3 has also sought a waiver? >> the commission was started in 2009 as a propose j so there's only been one person charles. and charles is a partner in a very large firm is any project that is handled by his first name business it - i don't think he asked for a waiver because there's many staff workers in his firm >> so your sense is that because he had a lot of associates and a lot of other architects when we went before

the planning commission even though it was his affirm he might have seen a principle that that was deemed sufficient separation? >> you kn >> you know architectural research project i don't know the significant amount of work in san francisco there might not have been a lot of work in san francisco but again, if it's a staff member that's handing a project that would be would take away the conflict. >>

. >> on their own so, yes, of

course, i'd like do everything i could from taking advantage of my position. >> anything further? the mayor's office has a representative here from his office >> good afternoon. i'm the mayors appointed secretary. i'd be happy to answer any you questions that you have whether it's mr. pearlman >> that was unanimously approved by the board of supervisors? >> yes probably about a month ago. >> how many candidates did you look at? >> so overall we started vetting candidates for 4 seats on the commission maybe in november of last year there were

4 terms that expired the end of december. and so we have had a 60 day window january 31st, 2013. so during that process we seriously reviewed between 25 and thirty candidates. for this seat in particular after speaking candidates we narrowed for this seat to 3 serious candidates >> how many of those candidates were with small firms? >> no one other. >> did you discuss the waiver issue with your interviews? >> yes, it is something we discussed to make him be sure

that he go through this process since his work is so often for the city. >> were the other candidates willing to forego a waiver? >> it wouldn't have required a waiver. >> what about mr. pearlman - i've certainly read the letters and the argument in support but what about mr. pearlman distinguishing him from other candidates you went with a candidate that needed a waiver? and the other candidates were fantastic they wanted to serve the city. but mr. parallel man's

qualifications philosophy matched what the mayor wanted and besides the fact he is a small business person we feel was important. through his past practice expressed the importance of a philosophy that we share. with him that the other two candidates did not necessarily express as strongly. we found him to the best candidate and most aligned with the philosophy of candidatescy. >> can you sky to articulate that philosophy? >> yes absolutely. what we were were really looking for is a pragmatic approach as commissioner pearlman does but

also tries to make it a pal table thing for the public not a scar i didn't. it was really somebody who had had experience in san francisco and he has done that through the harding theatre. and has really had a first-hand experience with residential southerners around preservation as well as on a more grant scale so we found him to be a pragmatic candidate. it's impacts on the community an approach towards preservation that benefits the community now and into the future >> thank you.

welcome. any other questions? >> not at this time. >> do you have a motion? >> i move that we grant the waiver. >> i'd like to hear public comment first? >> any public comment on this request for a waiver. >> i don't know mr. pearlman we met briefly 10th at the beginning of the meeting. i'm generally concerned about granting of the waivers but i think to fill this seat is

difficult. it does call for specialized skills and he meets those qualifications and does work in the city that's why we've got the waiver process. my only brief comment it would have been helpful had the waiver request come in sooner perhaps at the time of nomination. i believe the appointment was granted on march 12th so mr. pearlman has sat for 3 meetings? 2 meetings. it would be helpful to get a waiver certainly not before a nomination is made but it could have been before this body at the last meeting.

i support the waiver and would encourage the second that was on the fence there. thank you >> and just for clarification we had originally planned to have this at the last meeting but we had scheduling problems. >> my only comment is that while i think the regulations about conflict of interest are certainly well-taken i also am concerned about putting undue obstacles in the way of san francisco citizens who want to serve. and especially, if it's an area where special expertise is required i think we want to make it possible to have people participate in the process so i

support the nomination and the waiver >> i hear that and i understand it. i guess i'm with all of those waiver requests i struggle with the term necessary. is it necessary to have the city recruit other candidates. sounds like there were other qualified candidates in this case. the seat 3 requirements states it could be any north american city. i guess i think i'm inclined to vote to allow the waiver or to vote for the waiver because i also recognize if you don't - if

we don't grant a waiver in this situation you're saying a small business owner can't participate in something like this and it's clear mr. paper man wouldn't be able to have his business and while categorically eliminating an entire group of hoping people i have concerns. >> agree with that in terms of larger firms the fact that someone else in the firm can appear other commissions to speak on behalf of their project. i don't see the difference in terms of conflict and i'm in favor of small business owners saga say in participating.

i agree with that >> i'll renew my motion of approval. >> all in favor? the motion passes. thank you, mr. pearlman. you've been granted your waiver mr. pearlman >> thank you for our service mr. pearlman. i was going to say i've had a vacation plan for the last year that happened to be in the last three weeks >> next item on the agenda is discussion and possible action on internal revenue service regulations to allow signers to file a completed signature verification form with the commission.

>> i'm an i t officer. solar the governor signed a rule saying we can accept pay in a paperless statement. those changes were approved by the board and mayor and went into effect in march. the political form act is to be verified by the filer. the proposed regulations in the memo clarify and fierltz will sign those documents in the electronic format and staff has proposed because of complying.

we have developed a process in exchange the filer would receive a filer id and a secret code. that would be used to verify the signers identity. this is for january the first deadline of the year we're proposing the same rule? san diego. the signature file is faxed into the office or we could have the signature card notarized.

happy to answer any questions. >> any public comment? i guess i'm the public here tonight. i'm in support. it appears that the potential obstacles i saw before committees not do. killed here was having a notary sign s it this would have to mail in a document and would receive the signer id and pin code. in the instance where someone comes into the office and they're showing on id i assume

the staff would not take a photocopy of that. otherwise i think the draft letter to committees was on old letterhead because it still had commissioner lou on here but i think this does the trick. in terms of timing if you adopt this regulation tonight the board would have two months to consider not approving the regulation so i'd prime you, you wouldn't be notifying filers until the end of june they would need to go through this process fairly quickly in june or july so they could submit their semiannual at the end of july.

how many potential filers are in that universe that would need to complete this process in order to submit their filing by the end of july? is that a manageable review and train during that relatively short time period? anyway, i assume in terms of the signature verification it would be treasurers and it would be a poom pool of people. anyway, i'm wondering what those numbers would be. i think this is good and steven is doing a wonderful job for the commission >> as the sole recommendation of the public we appreciate your

comments. seven in response to the question that the gentleman proposed >> i believe our intent was to notify the filers as opposed to because a they'll need some time to complete the verification code card whether or not they're coming into our office. so there's merit to sending it out as opposed to and we can - we're just using the identification of the filer that they are who they say they are. and there's i believe on the draft form there's a check form to show the fact that the staff has seen the id >> so you'll begin the process

even though the process won't begin for a couple of months. is there any problem with that? >> i think the board has endorsed the signature process already. >> is there a motion? >> what - are you aware of any fraud problems or anything that have come up as a result of how san diego has used this? >> no, but there's a lot of potential for it. if you're faxing in a signature card there's no way to verify who sent it in or whose receiving the pin number.

in the future we plan to have the form 410 that is established for the committee and another form when they're going to run for office. if we put that in electronic format we'll never see the individual. and if we move to protein for those two additional forms we can verify the filers identity but in san diego they're not going to be able to do that >> and it's that is up to the person to keep their information secret. >> we feel what we have a

robust enough to avoid situations. >> san diego is not strong enough so we took it to a step further. at the later date if the person gives their pin number to someone else - in san diego there's no way on behalf of the candidate that they would keep their information secret >> we may have to implement a process where you'll have to change our id information. we'll want to monitor it and we can institute further things to

keep information save >> if i might. for a candidate controlled committees where a candidate has to sign and the treasurer has to sign there maybe multiple committees were not the same treasureor for that candidate so will candidates and treasurers be independently be able to sign off and not be identified? and i'm thinking through that. >> so one of the reasons we developed this to separate the signers from the committee. and there's a committee account and the filing is created in that account usually by the

treasurer and each individual will have to check in and for instance the information will stay in a file until sent out. anything else? >> is there a motion to approve this? i move to approve that change to the sequa regulation. >> second. >> all in favor? okay. the motion passes. another computer issue we're