benefit of your experience. thank you. >> thank you, mr. bush. >> i would just mention to the commission that we are spending the day with the fppc on june 11th. >> and that seems like a good suggestion, to have a regular update, whenever there is pending legislation. that we should be aware of or that it impacts anything that we do. and any other public comment at this time? >> okay. the next item is a discussion and possible action on a request for waiver from alan martinez, former member of the historic preservation commission >> this waiver is different than the last one that the commission considered. the prior one was a waiver that so that someone could serve on a commission th. one is for

someone who has left a commission and requires a waiver to conduct this particular business nthis case architecture. i believe that mr. martinez is here to present and answer any questions that you have. >> is this on? >> i imagine that you have read the documents, and basically, the way that the charter is written. there is no distinction between the planning department and the hpc. so you know my work is continually reviewed by the planning department. but, so i need, you know waiver to continue to work in san francisco to get reviewed by the planning department but as far as i can't have dealings

with my own commission or and frankly, for the past four years, i have not had a project that had come before my own commission. and most of my work these days is being relatively small remodeling and small addition and that sort of thing and i have not had even a project that went before the planning commission for the last four years and at least for the next year i would need this waiver just really to continue to work because my projects are reviewed by the planning department. but again, i would still be excluded from any representation before the hpc. so, do you have any questions? >> commissioners? any questions? >> mr. martinez at this time? >> i do have one question.

excuse me. >> not so much with respect to the particular waiver for you, but in your letter, you said that it was your understanding that after the completion of your term that section 3.234 could be waived and i think that it is important for all of the members of such bodies to get an accurate understanding of whether a waiver is possible. so would i just like to know from whom you got that understanding. who talked to you? >> well, basically what happened is this is a new commission. >> and it does have, you know, seats with the particular qualifications and the one that i served in was for a architect with a background in historic preservation and so it does have particular qualifications and you know before i agreed to be on the commission i did have

a conversation with marlina about the ethics aspect of this position and whether or not i would be able to continue to work and you know to what extent i would be able to have dealings with both the planning commission and the hpc and it was my understanding, from that conversation, and i may have misunderstood her. but that the waiver was more or less automatic and they did not actually have to come to this body. and so, you know, it was four years ago and i don't really remember the details of the conversation, but you know frankly i would not have taken the position if i knew that my work was going to be... that i would not be able to work. so, you know, if i had known, i would have come to you four years ago for both waiver during and after that i am going for now. and i think that, you know, as you have seen in the last, i guess your last hearing you did

grant a waiver to david sternberg and i think that it has been put into place as far as the city attorneys informing them in a clear fashion of what is expected of them. because you know whatever the conversation was, which i don't remember the particulars of, i was left with the impression that it was a waiver as of right, not of something that actually had to request. so, so i think that the correction has been made and the reason that you know this all came up was that we were having a larger discussion about, you know, the details of the ethical, you know, what the extent of what i can do and what i can't do in my, you know, for the next year. so, i think that some of that is detailed in here. so, but i think that i am clear now. and you know, i have had pretty thorough conversations with her. >> i appreciate that, the only reason that i flagged it was not so much the specific to

you, as to the commission and the city attorney's office, being able to guide people who introduced and i think that the core word is on board commission members and other people working with the city and so that the people to avoid anybody getting caught in a misunderstanding that could be difficult for them later or presume determinations that we need to make. but it sounds like you are clear about that and that... >> yeah... >> i think that we have the information that we need. >> now that they are clear and they need to tell people before they agree to do it that they are going to have to go through this process. >> thank you. >> i just have a question i have is that why, we have got this requirement of the one-year where you can't contact the deal is that the

department... where you serve. and why is your case special, that we should grant a waiver? because clearly the legislation is not intended to be an automatic waiver, everybody that came in and said that we want a waiver. >> i think that it is special because of the qualifications for the seat. you know, that it is required that it be an architect and first off that it has to be somebody that lives in san francisco and second it has to be someone with a preservation background and that they can't do the work in the city is that you have a small pool of people to choose from. i think that this is in the public interest to keep it open to working architects not only

because you will have a greater pool, but because people like me, understand what is going on. you know like we understand the housing, you know the building stock in san francisco. and understand the problems and understand what is possible and not possible. and construction-wise. and you know, i think there is another commissioner okur ently serving who is an architect and who is, you know, very intelligent and very cap able. and he does not do work in san francisco he does work in other country and so on and so forth. so, i think that he has a good understanding of the historic preservation but he does not know the san francisco context as well as someone like me or david. and i think that it is in the public interest to keep it open to people like me. >> commissioner hur? >> mr. martinez are you saying that you would agree not to

petition the specific commission on which you served the hpc? >> yes. yeah. >> and i mean like i said in the past four years i recused myself because my friends had projects butvy not had one that came to the chvc. >> you don't anticipate that. >> and i would not take it and i am fine with that for a year. >> additional question that i is that you work entirely alone. >> i used to have employees, you know. >> no partners. >> before 08. but you know i have no partners so i have no one who could represent my firm besides myself. so, i am kind of stuck in that position. and i am doing all right but things are still pretty slow and i don't anticipate hiring everyone, especially not an

architect who could adequately represent my work >> any other comments or concerns from the commissioners? >> i have a motion? >> i think that i would be in favor of this sort of waiver, but i would add the caviot that he would not be permitted to come before the hpc. i mean that is where you are... where i am able to find that there would not be the potential for undue influence. i think that the fact that he has some actions before the planning commission. on which he did not serve and which is really a body that i am not sure that he ever appeared in front of even as part of the hpc. and the additional caviot that is included in the memo i would be comfortable. >> thank you, commissioner hur, i would say that since this is the second waiver request that has come before us from this particular commission, perhaps,

we need to meet with the director of that commission, or whoever the appointing body is. so that individuals who are appointed to the historic preservation board have a full understanding of what is involved once they leave that particular commission. because otherwise, i think that we may continue to see continuing requests for waivers. either before or after. and that is not the intent and then there is something wrong with the process of who is chosen to be on that board i would say. >> i think that would be good. this all came out because of my inquiries and my initiatives and you know talking to marlina about what i could and could not do, if i had not said anything to her. >> we are glad that you found out, thank you. >> any public comment on this?

>> i am larry bush for friends of ethics. >> we are not taking a petition on this waiver. but would i like to point out that the city attorney's office has been working for the past year for what is called a guide for good government and includes information on rules for commissioners in terms of incompatible activities as well as conflicts of interest and it is not as of yet being made available on-line but the commission, your commission may want to urge that that process be expedited. this is the 7th waiver, since mayor lee became mayor, to come before this commission, you have granted six of the 7. all six that were granted were people that were part of the mayor's administration, the one that was not granted was a former aid to (inaudible). and if you just looked at it from that standpoint alone, it does look as though there is not a balance in how things are being done, i realize that every case is with that on its

own merit and just take one step back and you have to ask yourself, to what extent are people being well informed about what their criteria are? when i worked in the mayor's office, we had a very hard time finding people who could serve on the police commission, because once you have lawyers who were soul practitioners they would take a client that could end up in front of the police commission and could no longer vote on those issues. it is not just for those with special credentials and it is an over all issue and well deserves some examination. >> thank you. >> any other public comment? >> commissioners if i might, the deputy city attorney, for the public, mr. bush mentioned the good government guide and indicated that it is not yet on-line. our that you have been producing our good government guide which discusses all applicable ethics, sunshine and

open meeting laws for many years. the current version of the good government guide is available on the web and it discusses the rules among many others. and it does have the ones that we are putting on-line. >> but it is on-line on the city attorney's website? >> under the resources time. >> perhaps, maybe we already do, we have some kind of link to that >> do we have a link to that on our website? >> we do. >> we do? >> okay. >> that i think is beneficial and obviously if there is an update, we would like to know when that comes up. >> commissioners, would you like to handle this? >> do i have a motion? >> i move to grant the waiver

subject to the communications on behalf of the architectural clients and not be extended to decisions on behalf of other persons or entities and that it prevent him or not include communications to the hpc. >> i will second the motion. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> and the motion has passed. >> you have granted your waiver. >> thank you. >> it is not because you are appointed by mayor lee, we look at each case individually, it is important to note that. >> item four. >> the analyst report. >> this discussion will be

about the budget analyst report that was released last year. the essence of this report i would like to point out is that they found that there are some areas where los angeles practices are superior to san francisco. and also several areas where san franciscos are i use the word superior, but the report says more stringent and that each city had practices that were better than the other and it finds that neither the city and county of san francisco or the city of los angeles is informally more or less stringent than the other. but it boils down to a series of seven areas where they expressed that they leave that la is more stringent and we

will discuss those one at a time tonight and i will point out that one of them that the frequently of which the candidates much report in la is a little bit off in that la has primaries and san francisco does. factoring that in, they do have two more reports every year than we do, also, it considers that the higher limit is more stringent than the san francisco limit of 500 dollars and i don't think if that qualifies, but it concludes that higher contributions may offset the influence of

unregulated expenditures. to get feedback from the commission if you would like to us move forward in developing some proposals and in these areas. we will follow up with the additional work in the areas to improve some of our practice wheres it is demonstrated that la may be doing something better than we are. it is san francisco and not la and so it does not feature where san francisco is better, although it does... (inaudible). >> okay. so, let's start with the first question. xh is should san francisco increase the period during which contractors, subcontractors, principles, and

other may not contribute to political campaigns from six to 12 months and prohibt contractors, subcontractors and principles etc. from fund-raising on behalf of the candidates. >> contracting on behalf of candidates is something that we could certainly do, and we would have to draft mu regulations to ex-expand those prohibts and also figure out the best ways that we would be able to track it and enforce.

do you have an overwhelming opinion for the people that attended those meetings. >> i don't believe that there was an overwhelming desire by a lot of people who attended those meetings that we go way one or another but i think that a number of good suggestions were raised and they recommend that we look at a 1 to 6 to determine where

>> at the present time there is not a prohibt in san francisco in so far as fund-raising, as it just relates to direct contributions. >> right,; is that correct?? >> yes. >> and i do think that the one meeting that i attended interested parties meeting, that there was, they could hold fund-raisers and i think that some of the participants felt that we ought to limit the ability to do that. >> >> and we could certainly do that. >> if the commission is interested in moving there, again, we will put together proposals along those lines. >> are you saying just a

complete prohibition of that? do you favor six month or one year period? >> because i don't really, just speaking for myself, i don't really see, i don't understand what the difference is with an additional six months. what it will do, or can do. >> i think that the more time that you build in reason the less chance that the fund-raising or the donation is sort of a pay for play directly in response to approval of a contract. or favor in contracting. >> i think that i agree that there is no magic number and it is not like 12 will solve all problems and six does not solve

any problems. for me what is the additional burden with adding additional months and is it worth while and based on what i have seen it is hard to make that determination. >> just one more factor to commissioner hur's comments. it also in the scales would be the public perception and whether a year seems more natural or secure period of time. so i would be interested in hearing public comment on that in particular. because i agree that there is no magic number, but it is whether it feels the way that they conduct their activities or i will do that for you in six months or is that better than i can do it in a year and

reduce the likelihood of the public feeling uncomfortable with. i think that it is, very much a perception and magic breaking point, anything else? any public comment on this particular issue? >> larry bush, in addition to this in part one, it talks about the contracts that are under $100,000 but the contracts under $100,000 are often the way in which a contract is begun and then slipped in. and right now, we have federal authorities involved in criminal investigations of two

contracts with the san francisco housing authority. both of which came in at under $50,000. but, which now have exceeded $100,000. and the criminal investigation is whether or not the contracts were awarded due to undue influence. also, the staff memo refers to the october 2010 memo about this section. and i would just point out since two of the members of the commission were not on the commission then, that this is what the commission was told, and what it voted to do. and it said that based on my observations, coming from the executive director, section 1.126 does not address a serious risk of pay to play arrangements or appearance of the state develop agency and to appoint the members of the body and the city officials rarely have the involvement with the contract and prohibting from making contracts from the city

elected officers does not serve the anti-corruption goal only to recall that the mayor returned from china and accompanied by lanar where he was trying to assist in obtaining funding from china, for hunter's point. exactly the kind of thing and the reason that this provision was put into california, or into san francisco's law. was because there was a fund-raiser at treasure island from san der son for nusom and that was viewed as being acceptable because at that time it was a state agency and it was not under the city contracting rules. and so commissioner joe lynn put it an amendment which the board approved and the supervisors approved, to include state agencies, like the housing authority, like what would now be the success or agency and like the health authority so that they are covered, one of the reasons for going for a year instead of six months? is because contrast it as modified, and in addition to

which, candidates are prohibited i believe, that this is correct, from collecting money for a campaign is over, which is a six-month period and it should go for the full year so that you are not trailing afterwards. so i urge that you take a full year and a look at the full range of those issues, thank you. >> thank you. >> any other public comment? >> hello, i'm glen rogers and i am here for a ethics violation. but i was not planning on speaking on this issue. although i feel as if i might be able to shed some light on it. and you know as a landscape contractor, i have had many times when i have waited six months for a project to begin, when you have the large projects that have to do with a city, construction, you know,

park merced for example, this project has been going on or waiting for development for over a year, year and a half. and it could as long as that into future. i think that the longer that you have to wait, the longer that you have the people wait, in order to make a contribution, the more likely it is going to be a contribution that is not going to have any influence. and i think that undue influence is really what we want to avoid here. and one year is good, but two years might even be better. that is my suggestion, thank you. >> thank you. >> good evening, david pilpal and i want to clarify as to mr. bush's point about the san francisco housing authority. my understanding is that the housing authority is a separate agency from the city created under state law and subject to hud requirements but not subject to city ordinances, although the mayor does appoint

the members of the housing authority board or commission. and i don't believe that our ethics law extend to the san francisco housing authority. thanks. >> thank you. >> any other public comment on this item? >> based on this conversation, i think that for item one, we will go ahead and bring follow up proposals because you are not going to make any decisions tonight >> might we make a decision tonight? >> no. >> you didn't know. >> because you need the specific language. >> right. >> so, we will have language where you will have the option of extending it 12 months. we will look at the threshold for 100,000 dollar threshold and if you want to reduce that and then we will look at

restrictions and prohibitions on fund-raising by contractors who are prohibited from making contributions. >> so based on the discussion on item one, we are going to follow through on those. commissioner hur? >> just a couple of additional comments. on the $100,000, i'm personally at this point in favor of keeping the limit. i understand there is a burden for those who are going for contracts of that side. that it does not apply in la, but i think that we are also, i think that we have a smaller budget, right? than la? >> yeah. >> over all? >> so the percentage matter, i am not sure the difference is as big as it seems. in addition, i think that it would be very helpful to