question for you, or for you, mr. st. croix. >> there is often, an understandable feeling on behalf of candidates, that run and are not elected that they go through all of the rig ors of the candidate and all of the difficulties of understanding the myriad of laws and, we finally frequently just don't want it deal with that process, any more. they would like to just sort of shut it down and walk away from it and unfortunately, they can't do that, there is obligations that they encure to themself and there is a certain frustration level because people don't really how complicated it can be to run for office when they initiate these effort and so unfortunately, you know, in situations like these, really, are too bad, because if we could have worked with this person, and maybe, there would

be one count here in stead of six and possibly none, if they had paid off their debt and cleared out their bank, before that first filing deadline that they missed, you know, we take it retroactively terminate and that would have been the end of it but those obligations do exist and we are pretty clear in the training that the election day is not the end of the campaign. and for example, the public finance, candidates they have even more obligations and so we have to be sure that these folks know what they are, and but it is that syndrome that i just described that contributes a lot to this. >> understandable. >> and the other thing that i would say and what is the number, and it is 9,000 that the staff is recommended and the 9,000 penalty, is that

right. >> yes. and if you will allow me to try to add a rationale to a number. and in our last ruling there was 10,000 and we got to 2,000 and we somehow talked ourselves through that that we got there. and we have 9,000 here and i am thinking someone who did not follow a regulations, and in the fliers that you put out, if you are asking about harm, how many people were harmed, meaning that they could not read that form that they otherwise, could be able to read and be more informed, and from that harm, we made this determination? and for this particular one, there were 6 counts, and i understand, but then i think about how many people were harmed along the way and who is to define harm and how far-reaching that goes, but

this is this one individual's failure to file, over and over and over again. and, to in the absence of any other rationale, that we could apply to a fee, at least i see that there was a balance of $2300, at that time. in which case, i am not sure how we came to 1500 dollars per and maybe you want to say a word about that. >> so i looked at past settlements again where the people cooperated with us on these kinds of violation and it was in that $500 range and because of the effort of going through and going through the process, we thought that three times that was appropriate. and however, i said at the beginning for you to consider that in the majority, and the vast majority of the cases like this, when someone is cooperating with us, they could have terminated at the first filing that they didn't file. the issue of we don't know how she resolved this debt and we don't know if she raised more

money from people to do it, we don't know if she took on loans to do it, it is unclear, i agree that the public harm is probably very minimal. and this respondent and her campaign and she was unsuccessful and did not run again. you know, there is a fine structure in place for these, however, you cannot assess the fine until the filings is filed, and so there is a cap, but the limit would be the amount of activity on the late filing, so let's say that it was a year late, right? and she raised $6,000 but she needed to pass that debt, you could do $6,000. and if there is no activity, there is a different cap, it is much lower. and so you could look at it that way, but because these are never filed, we don't know, that answer. but, that is where i came up with that number and just looking at the effort that was put into this, opposed to people who are cooperative, and because this happens. and the people, and generally the people who once we contact them will work with us to

resolve it. >> i guess from all of that, then, i was just thinking, about that, and these counts, these six counts, at $500 is close to what your ending balance was in 2011. >> although, i am not sure that the ending balance necessarily has a correlation. >> it has no correlation, and i said in the absence of any other rationale and there is rationale and it is consistent on what has, and it was asked in the amount of cooperation, and other mitigating factors that were there and aggravating issues as well and i understand that you have applied that to it. >> is there a motion to accept the staff's recommendation to

find a violation in the amount of 1500 per count? >> i move it. >> second. >> all in favor. >> public comment? >> we did public comment, but... >> you are right, i am sorry. >> we did have a lot of discussion after the first public comment, is there anybody that wants to give public comment on this item? >> all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? >> no. >> that passes 4-1. >> the next item on the agenda... >> we don't need the stenographer any more. >> thank you. >> the next item on the agenda is possible discussion and action relating to a complaint received or initiated by the ethics commission. is there a vote, is there a

motion to go into closed session to discuss possible litigation as plaintiff. >> so moved. >> second. >> public comment? >> hearing none, all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? >> hearing none, that motion passes we will go into closed session. [closed session] >>

>> motion to keep confidential. >> motion >> second. >> public comment. >> you are going to entertain a motion keep your deliberations confidential? >> yes. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? >> hearing none, the motion to keep the deliberations relating litigation of the plaintiff, confidential, passes, 5-0. >> the next item on the agenda, is evaluations of the executive director. >> if there is a motion to go into closed session? >> is there a motion to go into

closed session, to discuss the performance evaluation of the director st. croix, it is a personnel matter? >> okay, public comment? >> wait, i think that we need to, hear if there is a motion. >> i will so move. >> okay >> public comment? >> you need a second? >> did i not, is there a second to that motion? >> i will second it. >> okay. >> assuming that you are having a closed session, i just want to say that the executive director continuing to do a good job, under difficult circumstances, the fact that you don't have enough resources to do the things that you want to do, that need to be done, i

don't think is directly the result of the executive director. i think that it is fine to set performance goals, and to check in with the director on achieving those goals, but, the question of resources to accomplish your tasks is really a budgetary matter. and i just wanted to make that clear. thank you. >> all in favor of going into closed session to discuss the personnel matter of the department head's performance? aye. >> aye. >> opposed? >> i think hearing none, that motion passes. 5-0. we are in closed session.

>> that motion passes 5-0. >> the next item on the agenda is the possible action on the minutes. >> any, just a procedural. >> yes. >> can you still vote? >> you have to. >> i move that we adopt the minutes as written. >> public comment in >> all in favor. >> aye. >> opposed. >> hearing none, that motion passes.

executive director's report. >> i will make this quick. you have an attachment that shows the tech community comments on our new ballot measure dash boards, i want to add that we sent them to the other california commissions in san diego immediately set out to copy in and think that it is fantastic, and we are also sending them to jurisdictions outside of the state and seattle has moved a copy of it as well, and so i tried to help them out and so there is a lot of buzz in the tech community. >> and the only other thing is that i wanted to say, is, we are moving right along in implementing the new lobbyist rules and that is coming along on schedule. >> great. thank you. >> public comment on the executive director's report? >> the next item on the agenda

is items for future meetings? >> at a recent meeting, commissioner hayon asked for an update on the (inaudible) requests and so i went back a year. and put these out, just so you guys have a history of what has been out there. and it is not really a discussion item, it is just that you wanted to know. >> yes, that is very helpful. >> i will give you one. >> thank you. >> sorry. >> oh, one other thing, the sunshine memo that he mentioned earlier, jessy going to give you a copy, this is on next month's agenda, and it is kind of irony that he said that we should not have given it to sunshine without considering it first. if we considered it first without giving a chance to comment, they would have been upset. so, we gave it to them earlier, and i think last week, and we were going to have this on the

october agenda and they asked us, until they have a chance to look at it and so, it will be on the november agenda. and we did extend the consideration a month, and we don't intend to extend it beyond that. >> and you will include it in the november packet as well. >> yeah that is a draft of what we have so far, and as mr. st. croix said, we provided it to the sunshine ordinance task force for their review and i went to that meeting and i went to a subsequent committee meeting and so they are talking about it and give me some feedback and then they are going to provide feedback at the meeting in november and then we also did distributing it to the department heads. and so, the ideas is to get this out to everybody, and get everybody's feedback, and as you will see in the memo, it is just a general, memo about primarily, procedural issues and referral issues that we have been kind of wrestling

with at least since i have been here in the hopes that we can take a look and come to some, con census as to how we are going to treat these issues going forward so that in the future we are get to the meat of the issues without dealing with a lot of procedural stuff. >> is the idea that the memo could change, based on feedback, or are we going to be discussing it as currently drafted? >> yeah, i mean that i would think that it is probably going to be mostly what it is right now, but, based on any if there is any feedback, why we might tweak it a little bit, obviously, and we have obviously extended the invitation for folks to send comments to us and the commission's consideration. >> other comments? >> david pilpal, speaking as an individual. the task force did have a brief presentation by jessy at the august, no at the october, the

early october meeting and then, in part, at my suggestion, sent it to the committee where there was further discussion last week and i think that it is back at the full task force next week, and so the task force and the sunshine advocates will have an opportunity to review it and provide comments, prior to the commission hearing it. so i think that was the intent and that is under way, and i spent some time with jessy on it, beforehand and i think the input was helpful, so, i hope that we have a good discussion, next month. >> great, thank you. >> also, i should note, in terms of future actions, there is an interested persons meeting november 10th, and 13th,; is that correct?? >> yeah. that is true. >> on, well, proposed changes, thank you, david. >> proposed changes to

(inaudible) we are looking for community and the public and etc., regarding third party reporting. and then also, disclaimers, and then a couple of the items that we talked about earlier this year, about amending the ordinance to take those out, and the unconstitutional provisions. >> so, between those two issues, i think, the commission staff is doing, at the out reach, work and so the people have a chance to review the things and discuss, before it gets to you, rather than just have to deal with things, so things are going well, thank you. >> is there a motion to adjourn the meeting? >> so moved. >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? >> none. meeting is adjourned.call

this meeting of the historic preservation commission to order. . >> welcome to the san francisco histosfoerk preservation commission meeting to order. i would like to remind members of the audience the xwhition does not tolerate any disruption of any kind. please silence any mobile dwietions that might sound during the meeting. please speak before the commission. i'd like to take roll. commission hasz, here. commission johnck, here. commissioner john, here. and commissioner matsuda. here. members of the public may address the commission on items

of interest that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except for agenda items. with respect to agenda items your opportunity to speak will be afforded when the agenda is reached. i have no speaker cards. >> thank you, come to the podium please. >> good afternoon, commissioners, the ruth goldberg building, she is on her way but i think we might miss our opportunity so i went ahead and jumped up. we want to thank you for being placed on the nofr 19 agenda, we are moving forward, we're excited about our report and the progress in trying to preserve our building. thank you so much and we'll see you on the 19th. >> any other member of the public wish to speak on an item not on our agenda? seeing none we will close public comment. >> commissioners, that will place you under department matters. item 1, department

report. >> tim fry, department staff. the director's report was included in your packets. happy to answer any questions you may have about the report. >> seeing no questions, we will move on. >> item 2, review of past events at the planning commission, staff report and announcements. >> commissioners, again tim fry, department staff. nothing to report from previous planning commission hearings, just wanted to reiterate something from your advance calendar. we did move the goldberg building from this hearing to your next hearing given the amount of time we had in reviewing the draft designation report from the consultant we needed another week to complete our review, which is why that was bumped. just wanted to let you know. but certainly available to answer any questions should you

have them. >> thank you. seeing no questions or comments, move on. >> commissioners, that will place you under commission matters, item 3, president's report. >> no official report or announcements. >> item 4, consideration of draft minutes for october 15th, 2014. >> commissioners, any corrections, alterations? seeing none, we will open up public comment on this. any member of the public wish to comment on the draft meeting minutes? seeing none, we will bring it back to the commission. >> i move to approve. >> second. >> thank you. >> on that motion to adopt the minutes from october 14th, commissioner hyland, yes. commissioner johnck, yes. commissioner matsuda, yes. commissioner wolfram, yes. that passes unanimously 7-0 and places you on item 5, commission comments and questions. >> commissioners, any

questions or comments? or disclosures? seeing none we will move on. >> moving right along, commissioners. that will place us under your consent calendar. all matters constitute the consent calendar and are considered routine by the historic preservation commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote. there will be no separate discussion unless a member requests in which case it will be removed. i have 1 dr item under consent, no. 6 at 3224521st street, request for certificate of appropriateness, i have no speaker cards. >> thank you, commissioners, would any of you like to pull this off consent? seeing none, open up to the public. any member member of the public wish to pull this off consent? seeing none, bring it back to the commission. >> i move to adopt the consent

klepb ker. >> commissioner hyland, yes. commissioner johnck, commissioner. commissioner matsuda, yes. commissioner wolfram, yes. and commission president hasz, yes. that passes unanimously 7-0 and places you under your regular calendar, item 7, the 5m project draft environmental impact report. please note that this public hearing is intended to assist the commission in its preparation of comments on the draft eir comments made by members of the public at this hearing will not be considered comments on the draft eir and may not be responded to in the final eir the planning commission will hold a public hearing to receive comments on the draft eir on november 20, 2014. written comments on the draft eir will be accepted at the planning department until 5:00 pm on november 21, 2014. >> commissioner hyland is voting we recuse him.

>> i make a motion to recuse commissioner hyland. >> on that motion to recuse commissioner hyland, commissioner hyland, yes. commissioner johnck, yes. commissionment hasz. >> for the record his firm worked on this project. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners, my name is michael jacinto, project staff and coordinator for the 5m project. the item before you is preview of the draft eir project. briefly, this project is demolition and construction on a roughly 5 acre site. the project would result in retention and rehabilitation of the dempster building. the project would result in demolition of six existing buildings on the site which include 910 howard, 912 howard,

924 howard street as well as 190 fifth and once the site is cleared the project would involve implementation of one of two schemes studied in the eir, either an office scheme (inaudible) the eir found through evaluation that the 430natoma building would be eligible for inclusion on the histostoerx register. the no project alternative code compliant cull attorney tif, unified zoning alternative and in this case the preservation alternative. commission members were transmitted draft copies at the beginning of the review period which will end on december 1st. we are here to provide an opportunity for the commission to receive public testimony and

discuss historic resource issues pertaining to this project. staff is not here to answer comments or questions today. comments will be responded to in writing in the comments and spoopbses document which we will respond to all verbal and written comments received and make revisions to the draft eir as appropriate. that concludes my presentation and i am available for questions if you have any questions. once again, as the commission secretary said, the planning commission is having a hearing on the draft eir november 20th and so for members of the public who would like to make testimony on that eir may comment in person at the planning commission on november 20th. thank you. >> commissioner wolfram. >> i had a question about in the -- it wasn't included in the preservation alternative, but there was a discussion about the is it the cannoline building, the potential of building it which would then

move the impact to less than significant, but is one of the criteria for moving it, one of the criteria was that it had to be moved off the 5m site and no site was found to be suitable off the site. why was that a criteria? did you consider moving it within the 5m site? >> this is something we can respond to in writing in the comments and responses document and i believe what you are ruefr *r referring to is the alternatives considered but rejected section. we will provide some more detail in response to your question in the cr >> anything else? >> i have a lot of comments but i can wait until later. >> okay, commissioner johns. >> has there been a presentation of this item to the commission before i arrived? there hasn't? i guess i'm surprised about that and was expecting that today, that there would be a presentation in order to, that

we can look at the environmental document in context and particularly environmental documents, while absolutely critical to the understanding of the project, they can be kind of mechanical and kind of functional and what you miss is an overall vision for what we're trying to achieve here. because this is a huge change in the city, it's very exciting but let's say i was expecting a presentation. and the other question i have, at some point i think it would be important to have one, however we can work that. the other question, i was a little confused about the establishment, the description of our jurisdiction in the environmental report. both on page s15 and then on 72 it says, well, we have to, the jurisdiction of our commission is over any demolition and a permit to alter but it was just

describing maybe one or two of the buildings. frankly, i saw our jurisdiction sort of spread all over the place, maybe more advice than necessarily, you know, permits or approval, but i'd just like some clarification on that and then there's some other ideas that i have but for now those are my general. >> thank you. commissioners, any other questions, comments? we'll open this up to public comment. any member of the public have a comment? seeing none. >> i would like to recommend we wrote a letter with our comments. i found this eir to be sort of unsatisfying, i guess, in terms of the preservation alternative. it was 740 pages and there was one drawing of the preservation alternative. of all the 740 pages i believe there's only 11

drawings of any building at all, so there was a lot of text and as commission johnck said, a lot of it seemed very mechanical. but there's 3 historic buildings on the site and they are destroying one of them so that's one-third. it felt to me there were a lot of other alternatives that could have been explored which was a very sweet building. if this concept is all about revitalizing the alleys, it felt to me it was unfortunate they were demolishing it. in all the gymnast sticks, i'm sure many many alternatives have been studied for this site, it's been worked on for almost 10 years, tes hard to believe there isn't an alternative that has the same alternative and i found it unsatisfactory that the buildings are moving within the site. they are creating