herrera for his dogged work on this legislation and congratulate him and his office for recently securing the largest municipal legal settlement of lobbyist enforcement action recently. he has shown we can enforce our lobbying laws. i also want to take a moment and thank the extensive work of his very able deputy city attorneys, joshua white, andrew chin, lee, jon givner, and alley fisher who have been working with my office on these issues for quite sometime. in recent months my office has heard from nonprofit leaders, attorneys, ethics advocates, permit expediters and many others and again i want to thank you for the extensive input you have all helped to improve our legislation. and finally, i want to be clear that there are several proposals that i have not included in this ordinance that we are definitely continuing to contemplate and i fully expect them to be revisited in the future. as i said at our last hearing on this topic a couple of months ago, our city has decent ethics and lobbying laws.

they are among the most detailed that we've come across in our research. but we know that we can do better. during my time on the board i'm proud to have passed several pieces of ethics ordinances that require online reporting of lobbying activities, require the electronic filing of campaign statements, and updates to our city conflict of interest codes. but in my second term i have a much stronger sense of how influence impacts important and lucrative decisions in our 7 billion plus budget. i have 26,000 employee base that we have making decisions every day about how we use public dollars. i regularly hear from constituents concerned about governmental transparency. this legislation is designed to increase public confidence in the everyday workings of our local government, shining a brighter light will lead to better and more open decisions by city officials. and while our proposals will effect certain activities such as lobbying and permit expediting, i want to make it very clear that we are not

saying with our legislation that these activities cannot or should not occur. we are simply saying that it's important for the public to know when they do occur that there be transparency. as supreme court justice louis brandeis once said, sunlight is the best of disinfectants. i want to briefly summarize the changes that we have made to the legislation since our last hearing and there are a number of categories in which we have made changes. first and foremost, we've created a distinction between in-house and contract lobbyists for in-house lobbyists they qualify if they have more than five contacts in any calendar month. for contract lobbyists they would qualify if they get paid for lobbyist services and if they have one or more contacts in the calendar month. now, in our legislation we have also eliminated the attorney exemption, but we state clearly that nothing in the ordinance shall be construed as an attempt to regulate the practice of law. to those of us who have worked on this, this is as narrow as the attorney exception can possibly be.

another change that we have made is to create a nonprofit exemption for all 501(c) (3)s and smaller 501(c) (4)s, this is an amendment that came after many meetings with the nonprofit community none of whom are currently registered as lobbyists under the existing ordinance. following places like los angeles, i believe makes good policy sense and let me also note that nonprofit organizations already have limits on their lobbying under federal tax law. under the substitute legislation we have, we've also added a duty to cooperate and assist officials in investigating claims around ethical violations. we have also added language to hold employers jointedly and severally liable for the conduct of lobbyists acting on their behalf. and also clarify that every unreported contact as opposed to each [speaker not understood] unfiled disclosure is a violation of the ordinance. and with regards to permit expediting, we certainly heard concerns that require disclosures of every contact would be overly onerous on a

business where expediters have dozens and dozens of contacts with staff at various permitting departments. so, we have amended the permit expediting provisions and specifically we've eliminated the requirement that every contact be reported as lobbyists need to report. and instead of monthly disclosures, we ask for quarterly disclosures, not of every contact but of the name of individual staffers within city government who the consultant contacts. if you talk to someone 15 times in a quarter you only have to make a report on that once. you won't have to report on each of the 15 congnats nor will you need to report every month on these contacts. i do believe that it makes sense for us to bring permit expediters under the umbrella of the ethics commission. i also want to mention i will be today, colleagues, asking for technical nonsubstantive amendments. on page 15 line 2 to simply

state that the controller rather than saying the controller shall assist, it will now state that the controller may assist on page 18 lines 14, we would amend a reference to include the fact that permit expediters, that the "squawk box"tion clarifying permit penalties enforcements for permit consultants would be identical to those for lobbyists. and then i want to also mention we have included language to exempt from permit expediting affordable housing developers, but we also specifically want to mention that if there are agents of affordable housing developers that are assisting them that they would be able to help with permitting expediting or the permitting process as we all know we need to make sure that affordable housing in our city is expedited. so, that is something we do not want to capture under our ordinance. so, with that, colleagues, what

i'd like to suggest unless there are any questions, and i know potentially there might be some additional comments, is to open it up to public comment to get any feedback before we he move on this. supervisor tang has a question. >> i just have one question about, i know there's exemptions for 501(c) (3)s and 4s. one of our merchant associations for example became a 5 01 c6 and i want to make sure they aren't captured under this ordinance. >> laid out the 501(c) (3)s would be exempted as well as smaller c4s. we hadn't connell templated c6s. this is the first time i heard about businesses transforming into a c6. be happy to learn more as to why they would want to be exempted from the laws. do you have -- >> the 5 01 c-6 in particular in our district they are a merchant association. ~ so, we interact with them on a fairly regular basis and i just wanted to make sure they

wouldn't have to go and register because, again, we do work very closely with them on various community issues. >> so, my understanding is that there are many trade associations that are 5 01 c-6s that i think most of the public would understand we have to have some understanding of the activities that they have lobbying us. but on the other hand, i certainly know for smaller merchant association that's something i could understand. so, i'm happy to learn more about it. >> okay. so, we're going to open this up to public comment at this time. are there any among those in the public who would like to speak on this item? if there are a few, you can line up there and just come on up, line up to my left and your right. that side, please. mr. welch, welcome. supervisor breed, chair, supervisor tang, supervisor chiu. i'm speaking in support of the amendments and therefore the

legislation of supervisor chiu. i want to commend supervisor chiu on -- and his staff and the city attorney staff for diligently addressing our concerns as nonprofits. nonprofits in san francisco play a really unique role. we provide an extraordinary amount of services provided generally by city departments and other counties, and we are the principal developers of affordable housing in san francisco. in that regard, we are in virtually constant contact with elected officials in terms of advocating changes, advocating budgets, advocating policies. and supervisor chiu's amendments recognize that fine line between lobbying and policy and advocacy. as he said in his opening remarks, we are under an extraordinary burden from the federal government, a burden

that has been widened in the recent controversy in d.c. over the role of 501(c) (4)s. it would have been virtually impossible for us to register as originally this legislation was formed as a lobbyist and still meet the requirements of the federal government. so, we're very happy in the concessions that have been made which we think indicate the difference between advocacy and lobbying and i speak in support of the amendments and the legislation. thank you. >> thank you. >> again, i just want to thank mr. welch and all of the nonprofit community leaders that worked with my office on these issues and appreciate your feedback. and i think it is in a better place. >> next speaker. thank you. good morning, i'm jonathan vernick, i'm the executive director of [speaker not understood] places, member of the human services network. san francisco has, has prided

itself i think on a very educated board of supervisors and government in general. one of the reasons for that is that community based organizations play a role far beyond service. they are, in many cases, the first responders to issues that need to be brought out into the public and need to be responded to. we go all the way back to the movement of the dee institutionalization which freed people from institutional care who were mentally ill and allowed them to be in community based organizations and residential treatment and so forth. when we dial back to the aids crisis of the '70s and '80s in particular, programs like needle exchange, the treatment for chronically ill adults in a residential setting, all of those things were the result of this topography between thea first responders, these community-based agencies, and city government.

it is a critical aspect of why we've been as successful as we are in san francisco in terms of responding to public need. and this legislation along with its amendments plays a significant role in recognizing that. thank you for your time this morning. >> thank you. next speaker, please. good morning, supervisors. i'm anita mayo from the law firm of [speaker not understood] pit man. i previously submitted written comments to you but i have a following additional comment. to avoid imposing the burden of registration and reporting for the lobbying of small matters, most lobbying laws including san francisco's current law have registration thresholds. the proposed amendments have a threshold for employee lobbyists but no threshold for contract lobbyists. a single contact in the calendar month in any amount of compensation will qualify an individual as a contract

lobbyist required to register and file monthly reports. both categories of lobbyists should have registration thresholds. developers of major projects and not those who oppose the development projects, had been unfairly targeted to disclose their contributions and the contributions of their affiliates to nonprofit organizations. if those organizationses have lobbied city hall on any matter, even if the matter is unrelated to the developer's project within one year before the environmental evaluation application for the major project was filed. this requirement is inconsistent with the stated findings regarding this ordinance. section 3.500 provides a public disclosure of donationses by developers to nonprofit organizations who communicate with the city hall regarding major development projects is essential to protect public confidence and the fairness of the land use decisions. the emphasis here is on communications regarding the development projects, not

communications regarding any matters. although i'm opposed to the ordinance, if it is retained to be consistent with section 3.500, the definition of nonprofit organization should be amended to reflect that the term refers to an organization that has attempted to influence city hall regarding a donor's major development project. and finally, there is a technical error on page 13 line 5, the citation to 2.106 a 10 should be corrected to read 2.106 b 10. thank you. >> thank you. >> could you submit your -- i'd like a copy of that letter particularly on that last technical issue. on the error? >> yes. you said page 13? yes, page 13 line 5. >> line 5 -- and there is a reference to section 2.106 a 10. it should be b 10. >> b 10, thank you very much for catching that. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

good morning, supervisors. my name is jeremy paul. i'm a permit consultant and i am here to suggest that section 34 10 ha some real problems in it, but that do not work towards the goals of the overall legislation and should be taken out and reworked if it were to be included at all. it's -- i find it somewhat ironic that this is small business week in san francisco and that this legislation is coming up now. what most permit consultants do is help the smallest businesses in san francisco sort out what it's going to take to become a legal business, a legal entity in san francisco, how we're going to make it work. now, we do not influence public policy. there is no association with lobbying in what we do. what we do is we go to the employees of the city that are paid for by the taxpayers of

the city, by us as tax payers and access the approval process, the entitlement process to help get businesses, small property owners, solve their smallest problems. now, if this process is not available to these smallest of businesses, if it becomes more expensive because of more burdens being placed upon us, people like myself will go to work for either architect firm, engineering firms, attorneys offices that are less exempt and would be much more expensive. and that cost will be passed on to the business owner who is trying to start something up. i want to clarify that all the information that you are asking for is currently available. there is absolute transparency in what i do, that every time that i have -- get an approval from any city agency or we get

any authorization, it is posted online and could be accessed for any consultant in this room within just a couple of key strokes of the department of building inspection website. there is no need -- >> thank you. next speaker, please. good afternoon. my name is pat buscovich. i'm a licensed structural engineer, past president structural engineer association, [speaker not understood] which is writing the city's erg quake plan, former building commissioner, former state building commissioner appointed by the governor. i think i'm the guy that you want down there and the way you've written the engineered record exemption, you want engineers down there. regretfully, the way this is written and i think there can be -- it needs to be worked on, is engineer of record is a

really defined tasks. today, this is my normal day, three hours, three building permits. i'm the engineer of record. i think i'm exempt. what else should i do? i did permit research for someone on the legal use of a building. that's not anything of record. i'm going to have to report that. i'm doing special inspection coordination on a project ten years old where the engineer retired. i'm not exempt. i'm looking or actually i'm working against someone illegally removing a unit for a neighborhood. i'm not exempt. i'm doing research on a building permit. i'm not exempt. someone wants to look at my drawings and i have to respond to the city. i'm not exempt. i'm working on a notice of violation for somebody. i'm not the engineer of record. i'm not exempt. i'm doing fire protection for a high-rise building where i'm not the engineer of record because that's a very defined term. i'm not exempt. i'm dealing with the board of appeals case where someone did

some work and at the board i'm going to have to register as a lobbyist because i'm not the engineer of record? i'm representing somebody. i'm working on a mezzanine where someone wants to know code analysis. i'm the structural engineer. i'm meeting with fire and building, but i'm not the engineer of record. so, we're going down a path where 90% of my work as a licensed structural engineer doesn't fit within that narrow band and where you're going to get in trouble is [inaudible]. >> thank you. your time is up. next speaker, please. good morning, supervisors. my name is jim [speaker not understood]. i'm a small business owner in san francisco. i have a business called bacon, bacon. i started the business a few years ago.

it was a small business and quickly we started to grow and to explore brick and mortar opportunities. and when i began the process it was really daunting. i tried to do it on my own and quickly realized i was getting into an area that was above my pay grade. and i needed to hire a permit expediter, permit consultant. and that was key into my success and to my being able to expand my business. you know, i moved here 15 years ago and for the first 12 years i used to tell people i love san francisco. as a small business owner, i really like san francisco. we make it really difficult to start small businesses. and i believe that if i didn't have access -- and by access, i mean be able to afford somebody like a permit consultant -- my business which started as -- employing 3 to 4 employees, i now employ over 30 employees in

san francisco. i'm proud of that fact, but i don't think i would be here today if i wasn't able to get through the permitting process. and i didn't get through the permitting process, i had to hire a permit consultant. and i'm just concerned that if we move forward with it as it's written that the accessibility of consultants would put small businesses like myself or not make it possible for small businesses like myself to succeed. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. yes, my name is a mad [speaker not understood], general contractor, licensed contractor. and i stopped doing construction because to getting a permit for myself was very difficult. so, i'm doing a permit expediting and as pat buscovich says, i'm a license [speaker not understood], i'm narrow to one thing i can do for myself. but the other contractor calling me to do the service for them, i cannot do that.

yet on the other hand i have seen the supervisors calling the building department and asking for the permit to go through and, so, therefore, those supervisors are expediters or not? are you putting them on the list so we know who each supervisor called at city and ask for a client? because i know a lot of them do that. i have heard it, i've seen it. i've been with the supervisor when they're calling the city to find out what the status of the project. so, this expediting things is not right and i don't believe that a small businesslike myself, one-person operation, have to report every movement i make because i know how to do the job doesn't mean i'm a crook, i'm a lobbyist. i just do whatever i know the best. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. good morning, members of the committee. peter cohen with the counsel of

community housing organizations. we have a 22-member community based operation that provide a range of housing services, affordable housing development, employment services and engage in advocacy around good housing policy in san francisco. you heard earlier from some speakers how important and critical that's been over years of shaping some of the excellent policy we have. we support the legislation and appreciate the amendments supervisor chiu has included to recognize that unique role that the nonprofit community has played in san francisco around advocacy work as well as recognizing affordable housing development in particular, how we actually do those projects. most of that being kind of in-house staffing program, sometimes using folks who are working with staff and also recognizing that we now have a priority formally in san francisco coming from the mayor's office and our planning department to see affordable housing moves as quickly

through that pipeline. so, this will really help. again, thank you for the amendments. support the legislation. >> thank you. next speaker, please. good morning, my name is wendy [speaker not understood]. i am a [speaker not understood] consultant but also a building code consultant. i started out 10 years ago as a field admin working in the field making sure we're following the building code, [speaker not understood]. uti started sending me down to the building department to pull permits for them full time. when 2009 came i lost my job and i had to go independent so for gci and i work for several general contractors and architects including [speaker not understood] the chair of the code advisory committee. i'm well respected by these people and i'm consulted by these people on a regular basis to help them get a permit. we do small tenant improvement jobs. jobs are usually under $2 million. jobs that are for law firms,

for nonprofits, for start-ups. these people have no influence over any kind of public policy in the city. they are people who are trying to grow jobs and part of construction is growing jobs. if you pass this legislation you are going to bottleneck the systemment you are going to make people not want to get a permit. you are going to make it harder for people get a permit. it is going to create this a chaos at the building department where you have people like the owner of bacon bacon or homeowners who tap me on the shoulder every day and ask me for a business card because they are stuck in the meyer. the people in my district who eric mar's office called me when green apple books can't get through to [speaker not understood] and when marlena bakery can't get their ovens approved, these are people that i help all the time. i do not do this for my own profit. i make around $60,000 a year [speaker not understood]. if i was a lobbyist, i'd be making a lot larger than that. i provide a service that is administrative and solely that,

not to influence anybody else. i don't meet with elected officials for anything other than what i want to do in my neighborhood because i care about my community and it's nothing i do for a living. i'm asking supervisors tang and [speaker not understood] to consider that and not legislate this legislation move forward. the way it is written it is far too broad. >> thank you. next speaker, please. good morning, supervisors. henry kamilowitz, [speaker not understood] also the south of market business association. this is not an easy process to get through the different departments to get a permit issued. so, for someone today [speaker not understood] to go out and get a permit, you have to navigate through so many areas, you know, starting from planning to dpw to health to a

whole mo rass to try to get a permit. that's why people come to dpi. they get lost in there trying to get from one place to another. so, it really -- what conceptual consultants is to be able to navigate, to get a permit quicker because they know who to go to see, what to say with their -- with the drawings, sometimes the drawings aren't correct. you have to go back and [speaker not understood], so forth. bottom line, though, bottom line, permit consult atctiontion ~ consultants are not lobbyists. they do not deal with elected officials nor appointed officials. so, i urge you to really reconsider the way the legislation is written right now. i also [speaker not understood] did not have too many meetings with stakeholders. one meeting with stakeholders, that was it.

thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. good morning, supervisors. my name is peter [speaker not understood] and i'm a small property owners of san francisco. we have several hundred members that have limited english and are also quite intimidated going down to government offices. we help them get their permits. they often hire a friend or pay someone 100 or $200. i hope the new amendments, which i haven't read thoroughly, have narrowed this concern of ours. we want to definitely make sure that the process is speeded up and that bureaucracy doesn't get us all entangled in thing that delay the process. we want to help the mayor achieve his housing policy and his goals and you can't do that by laying on layers of bureaucracy. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

good morning, i'm debby lerman with the san francisco human services network an association of about 80 health and human service nonprofits. when we first heard about this legislation we were deeply concerned about the potential chilling effect on our community-based nonprofits who engage regularly with elected and appointed official in the development of public policy through partnership and collaboration to improve our systems of care, our health care system, how we address homelessness and a broad range of other issue that affect our communities and the clients that we serve. this requirement to register as a lobbyist if you had five contacts would have had a tremendous chilling effect on that participation and i can speak from firsthand experience from many conversations with nonprofits, many of whom don't understand their rights to

engage in public policy. many board of directors are averse to that participation. there are foundations that hesitate to fund organizations. if they were registered lobbyists, the irtion would increase scrutiny of those organizations. and that fear alone would discourage many nonprofits from participating in that very valuable public policy debate. we are engaged in the policy arena not for personal gain, but to advance our missions as leaders to provide voices for the most vulnerable populations in the city. and we are very thankful that president chiu's office has worked with us to allow for this exemption and allow that participation to continue. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. next speaker, please. my name is bob belke and i'm a permit consultant. i'm opposed to legislation as it stands right now, and agree

with the -- many of the comments made this morning, mr. paul, mr. buscovich, mr. carnilowitz and so on. i recommend you hold off taking action today on this legislation so that some of the permit consultants can take a further look at this legislation and maybe get some input. it's pretty severe and public consulting is not lobbying and i would recommend strongly that you hold off action today and give us another chance to look at this. thank you very much for your attention. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public who would like to speak at this time? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> supervisor chiu, you want to clarify the situation around the permitting process, please? >> sure, absolutely. and first of all, i want to thank those of you from the permitting expediting world for taking part of this discussion. as you know th