this the mta is interested in the operational benefits which could enable the transit to into up to the market street tunnel. and to not prevent access it that facility. i'm understanding clarifying the revenue service ridership potential just recognizing it's two different ridership or travel routes so it could go up to the park and the rail line would cut off past bay shore. we can look at this in the stud but julie asked we confer with her whether there our report or

consultants. if you can be flexible on how this can be done arrest or. >> one of the things we've been talking about because of the issues we've been talking about we're about to start a scoping session on fixing some key bottle necks in the network. we have some key ones that are causing liability and one of them is not having the runtcy through the facilities. it's a significant issue if something goes wrong in one of those areas the rail is cut off. so we said want to start the discussions and do that under that scenario but to help improve the next time performance. it could be looking revenue

service in the future that would be definitely part of it because whatever we can do to prevent redundancy. we're not sure how much dialing detail into this study and a could it be that there needs to be some kind of reference to the bus rapid study for geneva after it would be necessary to have it in the report >> if it goes to the mta report the mta should look at the high ridership. and - >> is the mta looking at the redundancy of the light rail vehicle and the light transit on

the same system is it possible. >> understand that the rail piece would be long-term, the bus transit would be short-term and the next in the next couple of years. >> that's what people want tongs we have some redundancy in the light rail system so we can make some improvements and not create a complete disaster if one goes down. >> we could see what the demand ridership is to further include the bus system we will look at that. >> appreciate that. colleagues any other proposed amendment is to item 20 is the advisory committee for geneva

bus rapid transit. i want to make sure we have another neighborhood that is realignment in my neighborhood is i want to take one of the at large seats and moving that towards a neighborhood seat in my neighborhood as defined by 280 open the west and ocean avenue and ashton to the north and holloway and brotherhood way to the southern border. that would include the neighborhood that's more adjacent to the geneva avenue for inclusion on the c r.c. and i wonder in if the t r staff

is okay with this >> we can do it with board approve. >> staff could i brief go over with us the make up of the c r.c. as well as the passenger seat bodies. >> it's on page 2 hundred and 17 of your packet. it's an easy c r.c. so the seats are split between san francisco and san mateo. the comtion would have one seat in the bay point neighborhood and two seats for the little hollywood valley altogether and two seats out at mission and there's one appoint by san mateo and then two at large seats so

there would be one at large seat and one san francisco seat added >> so i understand to make sure i understand we're talking about a 9 member body? >> seeing it is - 11 members we'd simply change one of the san francisco at large seat to a local seat. >> very good. and that seat would be a member of district 11 or 7. my neighborhood covers both district. i'd like to make that amendment. okay seconded by commissioner cowen. and colleagues can we take that out objection. okay. he amendment is made. and then those items we can open

up for public committed. any pun member want to commit? seeing none, public comment is closed. i think we have a change hoists so 23 we could do a roll call vote on those items. yes and on 18 and 20 as amended (calling names) these items pass >> the items pass. thank you. madam clerk our next item is our closed session.

actually, i was caring whether or not we wanted to go into closed session we can - we're going to have interviews with 3 candidates for today but due to unforeseen circumstances we'll be postponing those until the 30th of next week. but i'm willing to go into clogsz session if suggested by the commission >> i think we're hearing everyone is okay. so why don't we do public comment and we'll continue this item until next week. so public comment is open on this item. and ms. sax >> i certainly hope that you

realize the fact that lombardi has been stepping in for a gentleman when we couldn't take the meetings and everything in the - i've been involved with the various prop 89 but that everything was done - all the hiring was done in house they did it from within and she's very qualified. she understands what she's doing. i strongly suggest i vote for her. i know that the whole department supports her

>> any of the public want to incriminating comment? >> ms. sax i'll agree that she's done a wonderful job for the transportation authority and i'm sure she appreciates your comments as well. so colleagues we have had our full discussion at the intellectual committee so we'll not be meeting we've got 3 names and we'll be interviewing those candidates next tuesday and this meeting will be for the whole discussion. beginning in september we'll make a final determination for the if not lift and look forward to having that discussion next week and making our final

decision. so we can go on to our next item which is item 23. introduction of new items. >> commissioner breed. >> thank you. i'll be brief. i just want to request a hearing at the september plans meeting concerning the posh for the mta tow increase passenger capacity of our light rail vehicles. this is an issue that i have been interested in for sometime. i understand the mta has start the process of pursuing to replace the existing fleet and those some be configured. but they won't arrive for several years and we have serious overcrowding now. reconvene fingering the seats

will alleviate the crowding. i said the staff to collaborate on the feasibility of doing this. so thank you very much. >> thank you, commissioners breed. colleagues any other comments for introduction. okay. we go onto the public comment on this item. any member of the public want to commit? seeing none, public comment is closed >> item 24 public comment. >> time for a general public comment. >> chair avalos i'm glad you agree with me what i said earlier about maria but i want i all to understand you need to have someone that understands

the city and understands our transit system that knows what's going on and then not having someone costa mesa coming from outside and saying this is what's going on the other end of the country you should take into consideration that as well. also i was supposed to be up for reappointment today but i'm not going to worry about it. it's on the agenda. if i have to wait another month i'll do it or two months but my term ended this month so take it from there thank you very much >> ms. sax you are reappointed to your seat on your u our calendar congratulations. >> thank you very much. >> if there are no other

members of the public wishing to commit. public comment is closed. and madam clerk call our next item >> item 25 i will adjournment. >> colleagues we're adjourned.

>> now the session. >> commissioner andrews? >> present. >> commissioner renne? sfe. here. >> commissioner hur is excused as is commissioner studley. >> >> first off, any public

comments? matters appearing on the agenda or not appearing on the agenda at this time? >> yes. good afternoon commissioners and director st. croix, my naik is dr. derek kur sxim a whistle blower. you are violating the city charter. specifically, article four of the campaign and governmental conduct code. it is also known as the whistle blower protection ordinance. you are mandated to annually report four things. one, the number of complaints received, two, the types of complaints, types of conduct complained about. >> three, the number of complaints that you refer out to other agencies, four, the number of investigations you conduct. this assures the public that complaints coming in are matched by the complaints going

out. you have not done this since 2005. your annual reports only note the number of cases quote resolved, unquote. not investigated. the director's monthly report deleted all of this data in 2011. now, the public has no idea how many complaints are coming in, how many go out, and how many are buried in between. since you are responsible for reviewing claims of whistle blower retaliation, real advertising should be listed as a type of conduct complained about. but it isn't. you are violating article four. please pay attention to this. thank you for listening.

>> here is my statement. >> thank you, dr.. kur. >> commissioners ray hartz director of san francisco open government. waiting for the clock to reset still. you guys like to quote the government guide to us and so i would like to quote a little bit of it back to you. quasi judicial bodies must afford a fair hearing, the principle that the decision makers come to the meeting with an open mind prepared to hear both sides and to decide the case on the merits of the evidence presented and the governing law. in february and may i read two complaints that came before you against the city librarian. a conflict of interest is a set of circumstances that creates a

risk that professional judgment or actions regarding a primary interest will be undually influenced by a secondary. including the duties of public office. it exists, if the circumstances are reasonably believed on the basis of passed experience and objective evidence to create a risk that it may be undually influenced by secondary risks. and so when the sunshine ordinance task force found the city librarian in violation of the sunshine ordinance twice, for the same matter, they had no conflict. they reviewed the law, they reviewed the evidence and found them in violation. now when they referred those to you here at ethics, for enforcement, i guess that they did not think about the third case which was against your executive director mr. st. croix for the exact same reason based on the exact same facts with the exact same finding.

finding herrara in violation would have been in debtment to the interest of this body, and you know it. with three of the five members being attorneys i have continued to wonder if you considered to whether you could be impartial in those two cases i said this at the time. there was a six findings on the same subject. mr. st. croix was referred to the same violations. they violated my rights and the rights of other citizens of san francisco for a period of more than two years by advogating and censuring our public comments and preventing them to show up in the minutes, and yet you guys did not have any problem knowing that you had a case against your own executive director finding mr. herrara not in violation without looking at the facts and

without reviewing the law, you did neither and i pointed that out in my case, because your investigators only looked at what they wanted to look at to let mr. st. croix off of the hook and give you an out. who will watch the watch man? >> any further public comment? on matters appearing on the agenda or not appearing on the agenda? >> the first order of business will be discussion. and possible action on a request for a waiver from the campaign and governmental conduct code section 3.222. and he is an architect that on occupies two of the architect seats on the commission and has requested the waiver, >> the details of the case are layed out in the staff memo.

and mr. kass is here to answer any questions that you may have about his application. >> mr. smith? >> hello. i'm kass and we have spoken before. do you want me to cover my position on that at all? >> i think that will be appreciated. >> just to clarify a few things, my name is cash smith and one of the two architects on the commission and there are two architects on the civic review committee where we review all of the exterior architecture of any building on public property, which ranges from the stations and parks and recs and landscaping and library and any building, basically. and there is rio from the (inaudible) on the commission,

and on the citizen review committee, but i chair that and i have for four years and i was appointed during the news and campaign and i just took my oath under mayor lee. so, any how, my firm ccs architecture is a 15-person firm and i have been practicing it for 16 years and i degree up in the bay area and went to uc berkeley and most of the staff lives here too. so what i am asking for, and one thing that i have noticed being on the committee, is the way, is the variety and number of projects that are put forth for our review. and how they are designed and i have seen through my kind of vision of it is kind of my vision of a public servant, on the committee as well as an architect who is an interested and improving the environment that it could be a win/win situation, if my firm were not

in an conflict of interest to design certain projects that i would be asked to work on. >> and sometimes it would just be conducting. i don't think that it is very many. i don't think that it is the large ones. and who knows if it will or that if it will even materialize, and you know the rfq processes and rfp processes and the city has pretty good staff of architects and what used to be the bureau of architecture and now it is called the building and development and bcd, building and construction department. and then there is also private architects on the list and so what i am basically requesting is that if the waiver is granted my thumb would be on the sort of approved or one of the lists that could be solicited and then, i would have everybody in my firm other than myself manage it and i would like to say that i am 75

percent on it and i know that it is 40 percent above the threshold and i am way above that and of course i will recuse myself on the commission from voting on any of those projects. >> and so i look at it as a win/win, and you have a very dedicated skilled architect on the projects and plus you have me on the committee reviewing project as well. i totally understand if that looks like a conflict of interest and you can't grant that waiver and i get it. so that is my request today. >> thank you. >> commissioners? any questions or comments on this? >> yeah, i have a couple of questions, mr. smith, as i understand it from your letter, you have already served four years in this role on the arts commission; is that correct?? >> i have. and roughly for, four or something like that. i think that i am starting my fourth. >> the waiver that you are asking for relates to the new

appointment by mayor lee, to that position; is that correct?? >> right. i was just reappointed and confirmed. so we will relate to the projects into the future under that current... >> in the past four years, you didn't ask for a waiver from the ordinance that... precluded you from presenting things correct? >> correct. >> because i... what concerns me, and kept the number of these, is i agree and i think appreciate your willingness to serve the public because you are performing a fairly important role and it requires the commission requires two architects to be on it.

but i'm troubled by our so routinely granting a waiver when there is no showing by the mayor that he can't find someone else to appoint to it, who is prepared to perform as you did in the first four years, without seeking a wave. >> and i guess that my question is, why, why are you... why do you feel a need to continue on because i think i take it that you will not except it without the waiver,; is that correct?? >> that is not true, i would... with that... or without the waiver, it does not, it does not influence my decision whether to stay on the commission or not. my whole... i have always been, i am on the commission until i decide to do something else or if i really enjoy it. i think that we have... i was actually kind of surprised when

i joined the commission i did not understand that there was a cdr and i was very surprised at how much impact positive impact that we can have. >> and you know, your letter that you talk about you talk about recusing yourself to talk about voting on the projects put forth to the civic design and that is the projects that your firm would be putting forth. >> just those ones specifically. and the interesting technicality that i do not completely understand but i think that john st. croix pointed out, is that the waiver not that it would be granted, but, can be granted if the charter of the arts commission requires two architects to be on it. which i thought sounded interesting and i kind of assume that it did not require that, but then i checked with shar ron and it is within the

charter. >> that is one of the reasons. >> that allows it, if the commission, for example, the preservation, and there is one architect that has to be on it. >> and central to that, that might be a small thing, but i was just bringing that up again because it was interesting. >> yeah. >> mr. st. croix i have a question in my mind it is fuzzy. the waivers apply to the individual only? or to the individual and the firm which that individual represents? and by the same token the reverse of that? is that how it applies if in the terms if that firm was applying for a contract with the city? >> because, the gentleman... or the neighborhood principle that applies. >> thank you. >> i could sell my shares and go down to 19 percent.

>> for the record. >> it sounds as if you really place a very high value on your commission seat? >> i do. it is an honor, i think that there are five of us on the civic design review and we get along well and i think that we are productive and it is surprisingly, you know, it is one of those things that you feel that they are doing something, i know that i think that even paid employees of the cities are in politics sometimes people like that, what do i do with impact. and i am like, i sit around and they go, well, we give some good advice to that architect or to that agency and they listen and they made the changes and look at how much. >> one of these days, we want to do