of glass i recognize that per that pose the privacy issue i have shown where the planter could be reduced in height or narrower it will allow more light into my home and it wouldn't reduce square footage on the proposed property or be shortened in height not provide a safety hazard because there actually is no safety railing on this side not much of m a drop and reduce the planting that could happen there are as well my suggestion - well point one is this at that particular time is exceeding the rear bumper out

allowances of a significant size so it could be considered has part of the building mass and also fallen material i'll urge for some sort of modification of the moose or stipulation that the material be different thank you you. >> are there any speakers in support of dr seeing none, project sponsor. >> good afternoon. i'm george column one of the homeowners and my partner michael steel is a homeowner and the architect for the project michael and i bought the house 5 years ago after in noah valley

and like the neighborhood and grown to love it bought the house to make it our long term home and this addition will hopefully help us do that i'd like to point out when we bought the how is it was a very poor condition an ice sore in the neighborhood and we've improved the foundation and restored the 18992 facade it is designed within the limitations of the planning code we've made concessions we set back the facade from the sidewalk due to the historic preservation we embrace that it will make the infrastructure better better and it is all of the evidence to reduce the impact to neighbors views we current don't have privacy in our backyard the lot

is oriented north soto south 0 so by the time the sun reaches noon our backyard it 125r9d to be shaded in a couple of hours with no sunlight in the backyard not only because of 89 harper but 11 harper one of our goals in doing the addition to have the deck so we're raised out of the shadow and can enjoy the sunlight as well as the neighbors i want to point out that we have widened the light we will we've accepted that and the planter itself has been widened since we made our first application the deck is reduced and the total

width between the east side of the planter and the out surrounding the windows is almost 12 feet almost half the lot away from the windows so a fairly good separation for us and we've taken away the privacy fence the privacy fence on the west side of our planter we've originally put it in under thinking that we talked about the materials and she didn't want the privacy fence at all that works for us we're more than happy to do that in terms of the height of the planter 3.6 par fit is allowed for the materials into the backyard and the learnt or planter will not building 3 feet deep but 12

inches we did the same thing on top of the garage a 3 feet planter that's transformed that front facade we're hoping that the same thing happens with the backyard planter we've not planted anything in the light well, so there is no further obstructions but to pull that planter away electricity wall is an eye sore for both properties we've done quite a bit already and interested in hearing our comments that i michael so you want - >> so that includes it with our approval we look forward to moving forward with our project. >> any speakers support of project sponsor doctor you have

a two minute rebuttal if you choose okay project sponsor two minute rebuttal are the public hearing is close commissioner moore just i think last week had a project we had discussed the privacy which in the strong built of in the city is increasing more important we want to give equal rights to people that want to improve and expand their homes but those who don't have any place to go to subdivided it is not combabld one way or another the situation we had a property and recommended a at that particular time to create a separation in that particular case the addition was lower then the

window to be looked into that required privacy here it is exact opposite my feeling the planter is mother the correct solution but i believe that pulling the deck in its entirety between the boarders off the before he went to make it a 10 by 12 size deck is my right separation if i can engage you in the conversation it sound like you had had dependence. >> i thought about it and our resident of the design team was okay with the deck in piss current configuration and project sponsor gave concessions on behalf of the neighbors and

concerns about having to revolve some of the scale in massing they've done they've given up a good amount of areas but the loss on the dr filers one the windows that we can still be allowed to maintain the level of light in the external residents and the folks will have the deck but reduced in size actually provide for the open space on the level. >> we're talking about affordability really protecting the vulnerable small unit i building that is kind of a solid thing to do it still a 10 by 12 foot deck a large deck and comfortable it is how it is facing no shadow and i would

suggest that the commission considers doing that particularly that they don't have room to grow their literally i'm not sure their property is referred to earthquake shack they're very, very small. >> go ahead. >> no, i will- i'm interested in other commissioners. >> commissioner antonini i'm support supportive of what commissioner moore said those 3 plays on harper are north korea conforming structures that were put in you know on a lost that is really a single lot and they built those without any thought of open space for those colonials so the open space that exist was sons-in-law property

it is kind of an unusual situation the dr requesters is asking about the planter how big it the deck staff what size for bringing the deck down to 9 by telling. >> 12 by 20 i think. >> 12 by 20. >> with the planter box. >> oh okay and so it is about 5. >> so we're changing it from 10 by telephone that's a fairly good-sized deck i don't see the night of that being done i'll be supportive it will help the dr requester with more light and supportive of that change either way works for me.

>> commissioner richards i think this is unusual you have those tree e three houses close together even though some separation your walling off the light of one entire house i like the idea of having the project sponsor having the programming in the rear yard 10 by 12 deck is reasonable vs. a 12 by 20 deck commissioner moore's idea i make a motion to reduce the deck to 10 by 12 to allow more light in the dr requesters house. >> second. >> second. >> commissioner wu i hear the suggestion i'm looking at a-13 the suggestion to get rid of the planter and shift even though western wall? that's correct >> over two or 3 feet to make it 12 feet by 10.

>> shifting you're eliminating the planter and make the department of education deck 10 by 12. >> the door has to shift. >> ? >> the entire wall remains glass the ability to look for privacy into another person's home is greatly reduced. >> commissioners there is a motion and a second to take dr to approve the project and take dr eliminating the planter and reducing the size of the deck commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards commissioner wu commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 do zero and places you on general public comment which i have in speaker cards.

>> any gener okay. seeing none this meeting is >> good evening and welcome to the regular meeting of san francisco ethics commission february 23, 2015, calling the roll arrest commissioner hayon commissioner keane commissioner andrews and chair commissioner hur has been excused item 2 on the agenda public

comment on matters powering or not appearing on the agenda within the jurisdiction of the ethics commission anyone have my public comments before we move to the next item hearing none i'll turn to the third item a presentation by san francisco stanford university students regarding their campaign finance project for the 2014 election and welcome and look forward to our presentation. >> thank you. >> you can come up. >> yeah. >> steven macy the technical officer want to take a moment to welcome christopher's and jeffrey they've been interning

from the b matters of admission project at stanford university and look at the laws of the data we collect and data and visiontion software we use in the office in the past two months able to produce data visualization on the november 2014 election i don't want to take away if from their presentation but the work they've been able to do in the past two months is very expressive we we've been very lucky to have them. >> thank you. >> thank you. can you hear me, i'm christen thank you for the opportunity to suspect with about our project what we'll be showing you tonight a data visiontion and

data project that analyses campaign data from the 2014 election cycle previously you'll landmarked did do not on the website in realtime so leading up to an election you can see who the largest contributor are we wanted to do this year once the end of the year filings in the beginning of 2015 to get the full aggregate data and do or in naturals on the spending cycle we'll be showing you a productive of what will have you ever had your deposition taken about going live on the ethics commission website in a few weeks the data from san francisco's on data portal with the finance data i'm going to pass it on to jeff who will talk about the specifics of the project.

>> hello. thank you again for having us i'm jeff as christen mentioned we took the data if on san francisco on data we've used a data visualization called tabla that allows us to create a story with chapters and section that tells a story of what will happy in 2014 in the campaign finance data so when we started to look at the specific sections that encoop lasts the story we're going to try to tell in the sections they include the first total spending in 2014 it also i should note within the city and county of san francisco 2, 3, 4 addition to the assembly race there was specifically within the kunlt jurisdiction from the alliance

additionally the types of contributors and there's 15 of those who are the largest contributors and the resent of those and the lobbyist consulate data and the political parties and the pack general committee data welling we get a good sense of whooped in 2014 cycle and eventually we will be hosting all 9 story that has chapter and sections of story and i'll pass it over to christen with the productive. >> thank you viewing and i will be going back and forth the first is total campaign spending giving me a moment i'll get this

centered here we found nearly $25 million was spent by ballet data committees in particular this doesn't include the june primary election in november and the circumstances a.a. are proportional to dollars spent this is $22 million that was spent by committees an positions who is one positions that have one and instead of saying winning elections we'll say position one the expenditures that are opted o opposed those are expenditures was 22 admission and losing walking was that million dollars this doesn't include the vicinity direct spending together and all san francisco elections as well as the statewide city elections with the visualization you can

interact with the data we'll drill down and look at how much was spent specifically by candidate committees over $7 million was spent by candidate committees to oppose them the green kshlgz recognize the size with opposing campaigns for positions that one you can click on the circles and get a pop up table below that shows you specific details of the expenditures so in this case those were expenditures expenditures to oppose commitments those were two committees that opposed david chiu and one that opposed jane kim this is how to manipulate

the finding and the money on those committees the sail visual lay out what's important most of the money was spent i guess kev you can say on elections that had the intended outcomes and 3 times more money was spent on ballot measures than on committees which is interesting so you can also click on those and look at that more closely on 7 details about how the money was spent so you get o could look at specific measures to either support or oppose them and the expenditures made that's a snapshot i'm going to pass it on to jeff now. >> thank you so with this section ms. package has been looking at the total contributions for the

contributor type and chops sorry about that we're connected to the. internet right now so this is in realtime sorry about that arrest those are infrastructure previews this is showing you can see the top is a bar that shows the total spending in 2014 and the different colors represent the types of contributor and you'll notice other generally includes corporations and, llc types and the yellow or orange indicates individuals blue is committees and then red which you can't see it is so small our small contributor committees both is

interesting one can basically look at this and see you'll see the bubbles change each bubble representatives a contributor and scan over and see information about 3 and to go back if the initial section which kind of electricities to why this is a contributor to the information there are out layers for example other others we see f c, llc american beverage association it contributed about $9 million and see see individuals and so what's kind of exciting you can dive into the cat those are bar charts on the right and that's individuals

- the bar chart on the right can show the recipients but those are ballet measures we see a pretty clear trend of what is the being spent that i contributor workplaceith that. >> we look at the expenditures on consultant and we found over $12 million of the $25 million i mentioned was spent on consultants either to support or oppose specific ballet measures or candidate so looking at the first visual the large circle represents measures and 88

percent of the expenditures on candidates was 12 percentage here being to support the candidates in fact all of the candidates were in support whereas the ballet measures what is what to support or oppose we'll see a further visualization and the activity dratted the activity if you click on the bubbles you'll look at the bar gravel here and what i did i aligned the location outcome similar to what i showed in the did the expenditures have the desired effect did it matter to spend money on consultants we see the layering e by and large the measure e if you look at it

closely the rest of the story i'm not going to show the other measures when you look at candidates, however, it was really 50/50 in terms of whether it was consultant spending that helped said candidates and quickly to show you some more of those this is a list of consultants and click on them with information on a pop up table which candidates give the money and what that money is spent for i'm going to turn it over to jeff he'll talk about lobbyists. >> so, yeah so this is one of the sections in the chapter about lobbying and we've seen here a word cloud in i minimal you're familiar with the word cloud essentially each words hepatitis e represents how often

a contact from a lobbyist made an association it becomes clear to the user which people are being lobbied so if you choose one for example, housing and property and tax on the left hand the official news cannot the lobbyist firm and in fact, the lobbyists clients we'll see a independent picture in the blue that says whether or not it was effective lobbyist contact or when a wasn't in the outcome we start you know it is constructing an interesting picture when is happening and effective. >> okay. we analyzed did activity of the political action committees i'm not to show you a

few fidelities if we get it online there is more we are showing you this is information who gave to political action committees and what they gave at the top we have timeline from january to december and what was interesting you see in may a peak in contributions before the june primaries and one in october before the general election this timeline is interact active you can click on it by clicking on it you'll activate the bubble graft down below that shows you everyone that gave during that month that you clicked in the boo timeline while click on the names in the bubble graft and so more

information about who gave for example local 2 is a union so you have individual names those are union if you look at something like that committee for a bright future you see a variety of corporate donors this is for political activities over time and drill down into the specific individuals is having given to them there's information in the analysis about what those political action committees are do go with the fund they representative interests information about contributions to committees so those are further detailed if you click on a bar gravel they've see the action committee how much so hopefully this will be a sfraurd a straightforward to see exactly what the action

committee is doing. >> and the last section our analysis about our central committee and we couldn't make a decision without this map this is a map we created and it is different pie charts represents the contribution amazes to the different county committees specifically democratic and republican central committee and san francisco green party reason why this is kind of fun to look at we can see based on the mapping the outside source of funding going going into the central committee and see and -