that commissioner. and i am happy to answer any questions. >> [inaudible] >> are we taking questions? yeah ms. wheaton. so are you aware of commissioner comight's waiver? >> his waiver request? yeah. i was made aware of it. >> i think you're in support of commissioner chow. >>i am. >> i am wondering what your position for commissioner smith, if you had a thought? >> yeah. i think with commissioner smith it was a different type of waiver, a blanket waiver and not a case by case basis. i think commissioner smith -- he served as director of the firm and he has the ability to decide on behalf of the firm what projects he can take and not take and the financial implications of that.

i think with commissioner chow being one of five members in leadership it's not apples to apples so i think it presentses a different case in this instance. >> this may be a question you can't answer or too difficult to answer. was a request made by commissioner smith to write a letter of support or endorse ments and could you have? >> a request wasn't made and i wasn't made of that waiver request. we appreciate commissioner smith's service on the arts commission and we reappointed him which shows we believe his service benefits the city in the arts community so i recommend to the mayor that we support a letter in support of his waiver. only keeping in mind there has to be i think processes put in place and those

out lined by commissioner chow that would prevent conflicts from occurring. >> good evening commissioners. i am director of cultural affairs with the arts commission. thank you for the waiver requests. on behalf of our president. jd beltran i am asking for the requests. commissioner chow has served not only as the architect on the committee but member of the executive committee. he served in the search for my role and a key leadership position and i do think that the challenge to replace a significant leader in the commission given the population of san francisco, given that they're theiring down to architecting that reside in san francisco and we would be

precluding any ark . >> >> architect is that would work with the city would hinder this. when commissioner chow pursued the request and a valid and not pursue this request and the moscone is with a nonprofit and we have a standard practice of grants to nonprofits and commissioners recuse themselves and step out of the room. commissioner chow identified that conflict and recused himself and left the room and managed these real and perceived with appropriate action. in the case of commissioner smith's waiver request brought forward that was a blanket waiver request and if approved he wouldn't have to resign from the commission and it was a different approach to expand his work. in this instance we

would lose commissioner chow's service and have a vacancy and begin immediately as my understanding and require that vacancy until we find someone to serve in that architect's seat. i am happy to answer questions to manage the conflict of interest if it's possible to pass this waiver request but because they're narrow specific projects now heard on public record and identified before the commission and standing conflicts of interest it's on par with other conflicts of interest that commissioners manage in relationship to nonprofit grantees and i guess my final point is we also want an architect that is knowledgeable of the city so preventing them working with the city and county of san francisco it means we are prevented from finding a commissioner that understands the nuances of working with the city and i think the commissioner brings that expertise in terms of managing

timeline and budgets that are city bound so that skill set of a commissioner that understands the workings and it's a challenge as well and i am happy to answer any questions and i appreciate your consideration this evening. >> david pilpel again and again i am speaking as an individual. i do not know commissioner chow but i think in general on waiver requests i support the motion to deny the request. my understanding that this seat is a license the architect. it's not specific to large or small firm. it appears to me that another individual could be found in the city who is a small firm architect or merely does

private projects in the city or elsewhere or public projects not in san francisco and i think that where we can avoid recusal and have full participation of members on all matters been them that should be encouraged and knowing that there's a potential conflict or issue of influence that should be avoided and another individual found. unfortunately in this case that works against the commissioner i'm sorry and so be it, so that's kind of my thinking. thanks. >> all right. i have a call for the motion. all those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> opposed? >> opposed. >> record should reflect that the request for the granting of the waiver was denied 3-1, one

opposing and staff will prepare the necessary papers to reflect that decision. >> yeah. >> all right. where's my agenda? all right. number four is discussion and possible action regarding the adoption of graph regulations related to the lobbyist ordinance and permit consultants and developers of major real estate projects and amend to interpret and implement the lobbyist ordinance including recent amendments effective july 26, 2014 and the permit

consultant and permit requirement by requiring guidance with contacts and lobbyist and fundraising among other things. attachments july 23, 2014 staff memo. draft regulations. recent changes to campaign and conduct code. it would be my congratulations -- the draft. >> >> suggestion, the draft covers all of the proposed changes that the commission deal with the entire set of draft -- the draft prior to public comment as to any comments that the commissioners may have as to any

of the proposed draft regulations. let me say at the out set i want to commend the staff for i think an admirable job of carrying out what you stated at the very beginning that the implementing regulations shall be construed in a mearnt that provides for the greatest disclosure of lobbyists in the city and county of san francisco. i think you have done an admirable job. i had as far as i was concerned i had only one question or comment on example number two on page two under regulation 2.1 061, contacts used as intermediaries where you say the staff members

do not state -- example two, paid representatives of a real estate developer meet with staff at the planning department to discuss possible modifications to the draft environmental impact report for the developer's project. the staff members do not state or otherwise indicate in the representatives have no reason to believe that they will have the substance of their conversation conveyed to either the planning director or the zoning administrator. the representatives have not made a lobbying contact. i guess the question -- why isn't it assumed that when a lobbyist contacts a staff at the planning department that it's doing so seeking to impact whatever the planning department has issued? i mean it just seems they shouldn't have to say "are you going to

tell this to your boss?" >> thank you commissioner renne. i am the executive director. this is an example. we talked with -- two things about this. this is in response -- this example was drafted in response to concerns primarily from the attorney community about showing up at the planning commission and whether that was sort of the practice of law which is actually a second sort of exemption as you know, and we went and talked with folks -- in particular attorneys working for the city attorney's office, the planning department, and folks at planning in terms of the mechanics how this might work if an attorney shows up and talking with a staffer regarding an eir or another declaration finding, and what we learned is based on what we heard from the planning

folks is that there may be a lot of back and forth with staff regarding eirs, other environmental findings that don't ultimately -- the report might make its way up there but the conversation doesn't make the way up to the department head or the commissioners so we thought it was reasonable to draw the line there and say hey to the extent you're talking with staff who are not city officers you're generally trying to influence it but ultimately there will be other decisions that likely -- there's going to be be lobbying on those decisions too. we can draw the line there and say if the staff doesn't indicate and take what you said and attribute to what you and up the line. i don't know if that answers the question.

>> it does but it raises the concern i have. >> sure. >> you were talking about the planning process. so much of it is talking with the staff people and trying to convince them what they're proposing should do something else or do that and to say that's not a contact when the end result may well be that the staff accepts and recommends that, but yet there will be nothing in the public record that the staff made that decision based at least in part on the individual that is an attorney or consultant or whoever is and went to the staff. here's the problem. this is what we need to do. that's the whole evil seems to me that you're trying to at least let the public know that john doe has gone there on behalf of the developer to try

to get the eir adjusted or something else at the planning process. i am troubled by example two. >> okay. i certainly thank you for the comments. i certainly understand that, and one thing i would say and this is based on my understanding speaking with the community and the planning departments is that generally the larger projects where -- let's say a greater interest in public disclosure. the contacts with the john ion let's say they're going to be happening and they're going to be reported so there is the distinction between -- in other words, this may not exempt out that many folks but your concern is real. your concern is real. >> my guess would be that the most important contacts are at that lower level before it ever

gets to the planning director. >> so -- deputy city attorney, just to add more to the example because it illustrates an important thing about the lobbyist ordinance and the intended reach and first of all the lobbyist ordinance only contacts between officers and the highest level and not necessarily a single staff person. you may quibble with that approach but not every contact is a lobbying contact or converts a person into a lobbyist, so i think that's why this example is helpful because it illustrates how in many instances a contact with a staff person wouldn't constitute a lobbyist contact. a second point i would add as well and the commission will get into this more at a later date that a lot of the action with the

changes are concerned with land use so in addition they deal with permitting consulting services and a lot of these contacts -- addressing the primary concern is planning staff on a range of projects that is covered by the separate revision and not necessarily the lobbyist but others picked up by the legislation. >> i thought as i read your regulations that you're picking up the contacts talking to the supervisors' aids. that's a contact. it's not a city official. >> requirement i don't want to speak for jessie obviously but i think at least a substantial difference in -- not in kind but substantial difference in terms of degree. in a supervisor's office there is currently only three aids. three full time aides working with the supervisor. the planning department -- i don't have a

specific number but it's significantly larger. i imagine there are hundreds of employees in the planning department and i think this example is intended to illustrate not every conversation you have with the employees is necessarily going to get to john rahaim's eers or the ears of a planning commissioner. >> any other comments by the commissioners? anybody want to make a motion that we adopt the proposed regulations based upon the draft that was provided to us? >> i will move it mr. chair. i have also found the staff's

analysis of this to be very helpful. so thank you. good job. thank you very much. it covers a lot of areas. i am sure in the future we will look back and say why did we do that because there is so much here, but just generally looking over what's a vast array of many possible difficulties that have to be met i think it's fairly comprehensive, and i would move it. >> second? commissioner andrews seconds the motion. >> i'm sorry mr. chair i just want to say there are a couple of tiny little edits that are sort of non substantive in nature that are grammatical changes, so i guess we could either -- >> [inaudible] >> read them quickly, so page one line eight instead of

referencing an entity we would reference a person because for a lobbyist employer that's how we designated them as a person, not an entity so for consistency sake. >> okay. >> page three line 17 multiple copies. this indicates that multiple copies of the same communication sent and we would say from the same individual to the same officer constitutes only one contact. page five line three. the determination -- what constitutes the practice of law is based on an analysis. and then same page line 13. let

attorney and the ceo. >> >> we would add that attorney and the ceo have each made a contact specifying that the contact made a contact as well. i think that's it. >> with those -- >> pardon me? >> [inaudible] >> for public comment on this issue. >> i just want to get the motion. >> okay. >> then we will -- >> [inaudible] >> i will accept the changes. >> okay. all right. now public comment on the motion? >> sorry about the interruption guys. good evening. i am jonathan [inaudible] and work at the [inaudible] law firm and

hopefully you have in front of you this evening we submitted a letter to you on comment about the proposed regulation and wanted to bring to your attention before a decision or action is taken. i would specifically like to speak to the issue regarding the actual way that lobbyist fundraising activity would be reported. right now the recommendation by staff and the proposed regulation states that there should be an itemization of each contributor of over 100 that is given as a result of the lobbyist's fundraising appeal. we suggest that the approach be taken that -- that's not the approach taken but the [inaudible] standard used and instead of listing each

individual contributor the date is given so if you do a fundraising event and responsible for 10 people contributing $500 the event shows $5,000 from the lobbyist to the specific candidate. we believe should should be done and effectuates the policy and not over burden the requirements. the real intent of the law is ensure that the public is aware of any possible undue influence that occurs between a lobbyist and an office holder or candidate and that will be clearly shown on a report that shows total sum of money -- maybe more helpful to have the total sum than what each contractor gave and in addition the report will show. >> >> what they gave over $100 and

which contributor giving to which candidate is shown and [inaudible] on a lobbyist. a lobbyist will have to know each and every person that contributed on their behalf which is a hard standard to go by and probably discussed later. they will have to get the addresses and the amounts of each contributor and the campaign will say one thing and the lobbyist report will say something different of the last thing it might unnecessarily or unwillingly tie a contributor to a lobbyist and disclosed on that report with simply getting an email from a lobbyist based on the broad standard which this is disclosable so we hope you

adopt the san diego approach and they will have one large number saying which lobbyist and which candidate. thank you. >> thank you. >> good evening. commissioners. jim sutton with the sutton law firm and also have a different comment about the proposed regulation regarding the disclosure of fundraising by lobbyists. we too commend the staff by confronting vague and ambiguous provegzs of the law and doing a yeoman's job on coming up with guidelines on of lobbyists we present that struggled with these forms on a monthly basis but we have a concern with the regulation that would dramatically change that the way . >>

>> lobbyists disclose and the proposed regulation comes up with a entirely new legal standard. does know or have reason to know standard which in los angeles is used in some laws but not used in san francisco laws and we have concern that the new standard is really much more unworkable and really vaguer than even the current law although we agree that the current law on what fundraising activities lobbyists have to disclose is in need of clarification so i like to use this example why it's unworkable to expect lobbyists to disclose contributions which they have reason to know or made because of their fundraising efforts. i like all of you will get invitations from elected officials and candidates to go to events so for instance the supervisor in my district who i

have given a contribution to before chances are i will do that again this year when they're running. because i have given before, because i have gotten to know him i might get a phone call from that supervisor asking for a supervisor and my neighbor might have a house party and they get invited to those but i get an invitation from a lobbyist to go to an event they're cohosting or in their office. when i go online and make a contribution to the supervisor because i got that invitation from the lobbyist they have to put my name, address on the report saying that's why i gave when that may not be the case. did i give because i gave before? did i give because my neighbors invited me or because the

candidate called me? and the vague and reason to know standard i could go on and on with the various scenarios where it's not appropriate and we apologize for the last nature of the letter but the staff memo that came out last week changed the proposal. again we urge as the prior speaker said the san diego approach. san diego did a very thoughtful lengthy analysis of this issue of fundraising disclosure and decided it was only appropriate to require a lobbyist to disclose contributions they fund raise they took credit for the candidate, if the candidate knew they raised the money. if the candidate doesn't know they raised the money there is no policy reason to disclose that. >> times up. >> okay. thank you. >> good evening commissioners.

i am ryan patterson and a land use attorney in the city. am taking the opportunity to introduce to you the san francisco permit professionals association in the city. this is a new organization that has been formed following the passage of the recent changes in the lobbying ordinance dealing with permit consulting services. we consist of land use attorneys, permit expeditors, architects, code consultants, other design professionals and we have come together to in part interface with this body to help you with implementing these new laws to help with designing new rules as part of this process, and i want to thank staff for their outreach so far and we look forward to working with you in the future. thank you very

much. >> commissioners. there's an old expression marry in haste, repent in leisure and i think we have that here in the case of a complicated law. many of you have mentioned it and all of a sudden it seems a rush to get this done even though most of you i think have admitted you aren't fully conversant with all that is in here. now, i don't see any reason why there is this immediate need to pass this thing when you yourselves as commissioner keane mentioned will ultimately have to deal with the out fall when you realize there are things that weren't covered, or should have been covered going forward. now the second thing i would like

to say number one this memo from the sutton law firm shouldn't be considered in this discussion. the sunshine ordinance rieshes anything that is going to included in the discussions or . >> >> deliberations had to be in today and it wasn't in there and i reviewed it online and wasn't on line and as a result it's illegal to have it introduced here when members of the public had no opportunity to look at it consider whether or not they want to attend this meeting and what's what the ordinance requires that everything considered is available so that a person of reasonable intelligence can decide whether they should attend the meeting and if so what they have to say so including this at the last minute is a violation of the