Transcripts For SFGTV LIVE Ethics Commission 20160126

[gavel] welcome, ladies and gentlemen to the regular meeting for january 25, 2016 of the San Francisco Ethics Commission. I will call be roll call. [call of the roll] commissioner anders, cohen hur keane. Let the record reflect all the commissioners are here. Item number two, Public Comment on matters appearing were not appearing on the agenda. I would urge if you have comments that relate to the matters on the agenda, to hold them until we get to them because i think this may be a long meeting tonight and id like to minimize the repeat statement. But, anyway, lets go. We have missed you for a few months. Ive missed you. Im patrick. Im not appear to thank commissioner hur over all four years of service on the Ethics Commission as his term is set to expire in early february. Many of herhave been problematic but i would be remiss by not thinking him for his seminal boat when [inaudible] when he cast the Ethics Commission sold vote when behavior had not [inaudible]. As i wrote the time in our analysis which eventually turned out to be offered, i think i think the private practice attorney Stephen Burke [inaudible] before the respective hearings clearly demonstrated the mayors trumped up charges did meet the definition of official misconduct. Thankfully, along with commissioner hur, supervisor campos, the same reach the same conclusion. Now with hurs term expiring next month perhaps the Ethics Commission can finally get around to [inaudible] Illegal Campaign contributions [inaudible] involving [inaudible] and now that the District Attorney is filed many charges against the pair. Along with former School Board President Keith Jackson did you charges against jackson are apparently tonys. But its not yet clear if thereare facing a felony charges. With commissioner hur a partner and the law firm is reportedly going to represent on a pro bono basisas soon as his term expires. This Commission Must make it a priority to investigate all Campaign Contributions and Money Laundering charges against jones and[inaudible]. The Ethics Commission investigation is long overdue. Everyone knows in the court of Public Opinion ed lee was in bed withand the fbi agent and he knew it was about paying down his campaign. You have to investigate this. Good evening. David. I do want to recognize the soon to end the term of commissioner hur and i was going to mention under item 8 rats in the future meaning of an appropriate recognition for commissioner hur and his good work over many years. Thank you. I should tell you that the assessor has asked commissioner hur to remain beyond the february 1 date to our next meeting, while she has an opportunity to that a replacement. So all of the compliments that are very deserved for commissioner hur, we can save until february 22. His term may officially end. Members of the Ethics Commission, you have not seen me in a while. I guess thats something youre not too unhappy about. I would like to refer this commission to the decision of the United States courts of appeal for the ninth circuit which is of course the circuit. The case is robert norse versus the city of santa cruz in particular. I would like to suggest reading the concurring opinion of justice kaczynski. Each of you has received a copy of that. His opinion reads in part, listeners reactions to speech is not a content for neutral basis regulation. Speech cannot be punished or band simply because it might offend a hostile member of the santa cruz city council. The Council Members should have known that the government may never suppress viewpoints it doesnt like. The defendants point in reaction to councilman vince morris that wanted counsel carting them off to the junkyard norse, surgeon of his Constitutional Rights was not the least bit disruptive to the First Amendment would be meaningless if constitutional councilman fitzwater justified the removal. On the copies i gave you if i look that shed judge also said they do not have qualified immunity for their actions because they had gonethey knew that they were not allowed to stop the comments. Now, the reason i mention this, i talked about this before. Can i get the overhead please . My time is running away. They are not doing it. Okay. This wont fit in december of 24 orders of determination. 24 times ive taken city agencies and officials to the sunshine passports they were actually found in violation. You know how much of this board of supervisors has manipulated the task force to make their job difficult, and yet i still managed to go and went 24 times which is a 70 success rate. The reason im saying this is because it seems to be some sort of a belief that if you chair a committee or task force something in the city, if you dont like what someone says you can shut them up. You can interfere with them. You can say theyre doing this or that we have to draw them into the task force. The taskbar comes out and say, yes they validated your rights under the law. They pass it to you and you dont hear it. By mike, the last time i had one point over here i was outofstate it was convenient was announced today that i left the state and the hearing was held before i got back and i mentioned to this before you and not one of you seems to have a conscience. He also reason i mention it i went to the city council 1a because i started to walk up to the podium as the next speaker, i said a lower work. Thats what i got. Since when does breaking a rule of a committee justified amendingi mean supporting her some them and writes . Unusual punishment. Thank you. Any other Public Comment . Turning to item number three on the agenda, discussion and possible action on a request for waivers from local postemployment restrictions submitted by evan gross, a former deputy City Attorney. Is mr. Crosier . Gross here . You want to come up and make a presentation . Commissioner, if i could make a brief comment about the process under the commissions ordinance its a process for individuals to seek a waiver from existing postemployment lobbying restrictions that may apply to their circumstances. When the commission receives a request for waiver from an individual there is a requirement that the Commission Consider and determine whether the waiver should apply. So we received at the staff request from mr. Gross earlier this month. The Program Requirements the regulations require we can achieve at the next Commission Meeting which we dont get we have a recommendation in the materials tonight agenda item number three and at the staff level we recommend thewaiver not be approved but if the commission has an opportunity to hear from the individual and others who mail the points they might share with you. The commission has certain factors to look to to determine whether not the waiver should be granted and then is required to make some findings in order to waive the imposition of the postemployment restriction. We can get that perhaps after the discussion. Thank you. I do want to complement the executive director and staff for the thoroughness of the presentation that you did make in the packet. Laying out these various statutory provisions and the areas of which we must make findings. But, unless any commissioner feels otherwise im inclined to let mr. Gross make his statement or presentation and then well take discussion at the Commission Level and then at the public level. Go ahead. Good evening, commissioners. Thanks for your time and your willingness to hear from you. I want to thank everyone whos taken the time to speak or write emails on my behalf. Theres quite a number people here to speak on my behalf. I hope you give them time to speak their piece. I would like to especially thank the mayor of housing and Community Development and the City Attorneys Office. And the diamonds that are most affected by my request. I just want to quickly mention that this evening the organizations that support my request and make sure using those emails. All from the affordable Housing Community in San Francisco. This ability can a service. Treasure island homeless initiative. St. Anthony foundation. Bridge housing tenderloin neighborhood corporation. And Community Housing partnership. They all are in support of my waiver requests. Culturally, the information i provide to you now you will hear from some of them will help you just see how important this is for San Francisco portal Housing Community. I want to make a few points to give you a little more context so that you can clear up some misconceptions that include an executive directors report. So i can show you because of the unique relationship and mutual interest shared by the city and by my nonprofit Affordable Housing provider clients, granting this waiver would not create potential for undue influence or unfair advantage in that denying this waiver would not protect the Public Interest would actually hurt it. I just want to apologize in advance for the length of this. All get through it as quickly as i can but this is incredibly important to me. Thats my one chance to present to you all the reasons why you should grant this waiver. How lucky are we talking about . Articulate as quickly as i can. 10 min. Or so. I knew stand you got along again. This is my life and live it and Affordable Housing in San Francisco. I like the opportunity to speak my piece because i dont feel the directors report fairly represents what youre being presented with. Mr. Chairman we have many important items and we keep them to 4 min. I dont see why we should make an exception in regard to this case. I dont think theres a fourminute limit for these particular waiver request. I think the sunshine mattersa run through it as quickly as they can. The concern i have is that there are errors in the executive directors report. What are the errors . I apologize. Not errors. Just misconceptions and i think theres some context missing from the executive directors report that i can provide for you to better understand how the affordable Housing Community works here in San Francisco and howard works with respect to how the city works with them. And how the interests are mutually aligned between the city and Affordable Housing nonprofit providers that i would represent. Also, to present elitist a little bit more context of what im doing and what i have done for the city and what i will do for the city. Thats all i like to present to you. I can do that very quickly do it as quickly as possible. I appreciate your time. First and foremost, i want to say i want to point out the City Attorneys Office Mayors Office of housing inc. May develop all the significant nonprofit portal Housing Developers in San Francisco unanimously and emphatically support my request. The only two city departments that id be working with that are impacted by this and everyone who works in the Affordable Housing development world, are telling you that the Nonprofit Developers and the city share mutual interest and not adverse parties. Theyre telling you preventing me from working on the citys most significant or portal Housing Project at a time when Affordable Housing is the number one priority issue in the city, it would severely hurt the city and Public Interest. They are also tell you allowing me to communicate with the city and work on these projects were not create potential for undue influence or unfair advantage and allow me to continue this work would be beneficial to the city and the Public Interest. I believe that should matter more than a rigid reading of the ethics rules. Youll not hear single voice of dissent out here except the session of the executive directors report which with all due respect, not as familiar with the photo housing world or the nature my work and gave no weight to the fact the City Attorneys Office Mayors Office of housing were, again this 82 city to province of the communicating with both emphatically supports the request. I think its especially significant in the case with the City Attorneys Office, as an attorney, im held to a higher standard of ethics that most of the employees because rules of special responsibility, and so the City Attorneys Office has to make its own independent determination that there are no conflicts that having its appropriate to waive my conflicts of interest and allow me to do this work address matters that i worked on before with the city. The City Attorneys Office knows the City Interests are not adverse to eight public nonprofit for the Housing Developers because of the unique nature of the work and collaborative relationship i cannot possess any material confidential information that could possibly be used to my advantage. The City Attorneys Office, was held to a higher ethical standard and me, the City Attorneys Office already has determined that a waiver is appropriate here and has provided me with a conflict of interest waiver, which is in your packet, which was already approved by the City Attorneys Office. The executive directors report provides no expiration as to why the City Attorneys determination that a waiver is appropriate here is being second guessed and considered irrelevant. Theyve given absolutely note weight. I implore you to give way to the City Attorneys determination and to the opinions and information shared by people actually do this work every day will be most affected. Second point, as the report itself points out, and the City Attorney confirms him over the past several years of this commission has obtained the same waivers and many times in most cases far less compelling than mine. There were only, waiver was not granted it was actually not denied and not granted. It was because the waiver request was considered to be not right because the person did not have a job already. The report provides absolute no definition as to my request is so uniquely different than all the waivers the past years that have been granted. In particular, this commission granted the same waiver for deputy City Attorney thomas along on the potential for this note influence for undue advantage and theres no conflict of interest. Significantly the board of directors staff report in that case gave greatly to the fact that mr. Long was an attorney would still be required to obtain a conflict waiver from the City Attorneys Office. Well, in this case a party received that waiver from the City Attorneys Office. Thomas longs case which are granted here yet was still given great weight by the commission. In fact, i can quote it to you granted a waiver in this case, this is from the staff reportgranting the waiver in this case would [inaudible] on behalf of his client on a matter that the city is a party or have a financial interest. For that reason and because of the mutual mutuality of interest, granting this waiver would not create the potential for undue influence or unfair advantage. As you hear from people, supporting me here today, theres that same general mutuality of interest between the nonprofit Housing Developers i represent now in the city. And before the housing world. To me, with the City Attorney has already determined the conflict of waiver is appropriate, identify that mcgibbon zero deference. Particularly, where it was given great weight in that recent granting of the waiver. So, i will skip had no. What will be doing its a small form. It is for fulltime attorneys clean myself. Two parttime attorney. All are signs are nonprofit Housing Developers throughout california. Its only people we represent. Other work will do is transactional. We dont go before committees. We dont represent the proceedings. We dont do litigation it just transactional work. We help them with all the work related to financing and real estate assets unaffordable house. Thats all we do. As you know, theres an Affordable Housing crisis in the state and especially in the city. Now, more than ever, we need all the resources we can get to deal with this crisis. This complex work. Its challenging work. Theres not a lot of people that do it and ive been doing now for over 10 years and consider somebody who is clearly knowledgeable and expert in the figure one of the reasons i was offered the job is because its hard to find people that do this kind of work. A photo housing, legal work in this country but certainly in the state and in the city. If you deny my request, to put someone who has a lot of expense permanently on the sidelines in respect to all the Affordable Housing projects because i worked here for eight years. Ive been the only person doing all the legal work for the Mayors Office of housing and ive touched every one of those projects. So every project thats coming up now, other redevelopment of the Public Housing sites, every mission bay, everything, transbay, hunters point, every photo Housing Project i would not be able to work on. You be taking away from the city from the Affordable Housing committee and for me personally. The lastagain, you hear from some other people about how affordable Housing Community is a private public side a small tightknit family. Will common goals and shared interest. We collaborate and treat each other as partners on the city side and on the nonprofit Affordable Housing side. Everybody moves around, changes organizations interchangeably. Doug shoemaker who is the housing director in the Mayors Office until a few years ago is now the executive director of housing in california. Now shes a director. [inaudible] what that Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation Get so did most of the mayors Housing Project managers. Its very specialized field of work. Everybody stays in the field and everyone is dedicated to it. Everybody moves around constantly. Its also really really important that i say, i dont have confidential information that would somehow be used for mike client advantage. Again as shown by the fact the City Attorneys Office made that same determination. Folks from the Mayors Office of housing point out that its not how the city works with the nonprofit. They dont hide information from each other. Kate hartley pointed out in her email earlier today that i hope youve seen and read them all this work is subject to multiple layers of review by the public, other Government Agencies. The public scrutiny on these deals is so great that there really isnt anytheres no confidential information thats hidden from it that wouldnt at some point be revealed anyway. The work we do is so transparent, so much in the full view of the public, the likelihood its publicly perceived at some undue influence or unfair advantage is so small, especially when balance against Public Interest in having me work on these deals. You know, its not like me going from the Planning Department to work for a forprofit developer. Im trying to use City Connections to make money again the system or going to work for some big Corporate Law firm. Im trying to continue to do the important work i started here in the city. The executive directors report again with all due respect provides no analysis. It gives no weight whatsoever to any of the points ive raised. During all these considerations in denying the waiver basically on those statements would effectively be migrating the waivers out of the law. It would mean there can never be a waiver because until you could always argue that to be some potential appearance of undue influence. Its leading that im being punished person. The city is being published. Because im simply good at this work and am expert and have a lot of knowledge that again. I just cant understand how that would happen. Anyway, to sum up, the truth is, granting this waiver would not create potential undue influence or unfair advantage so theres nothing adverse about the relationship between the city and nonprofit developer client and, in fact, having unique perspective again from representing the city, should actually benefit the Public Interest and the advantages for the city because it would allow me to be a more perceptive problems over and work towards our common goal of building and preserving Affordable Housing. Instead take one more minute and tell you a little bit about me. My whole career, all you care about his Affordable Housing. In law school in dc is in my entire last year helping low income tenants to purchase their building in order to keep it from being converted to condos. I spent three years year of presenting Nonprofit Developers. Before coming to the City Attorneys Office. I came to the City Attorneys Office not to be a City Attorney. Not to be a politician but to do a formal housing work. Its a specific position i applied for and i wanted to do. Its all i want to do. I just want to help get Affordable Housing built here in San Francisco get my data back so that im the only professional that he knew delivered delivery choosing jobs that pay less than the job i had before. Is that true this time . Know its not true this time. But when i was offered the job it wasnt about money. You can ask anyone here. I struggled deeply with indecision and i spent weeks of not sleeping because i love this job. I love the job. If we were to grant this waiver, and say a few months from now you received an offer from a big Corporate Firm giving you a lot of money, very tempting . No i have not finished. You, as white, someone professional and wants to move up in the world might have family needs, other types of things, say im going to take a job. Lets say you made that decision. What would be the effect . With the waiver be off . the apprentice waiver. Gremio waiver to do a specific work at a specific firm for Nonprofit Developers. Thats fine with me. I dont have a problem with that because i know this is the only job i will have enough i dont have this job ill have another job for the housing world. This is what my life is dedicated to. I truly did not make any decision in my professional career improving including this one about my. The reason i took this up with this opportunity was given to me is because i felt them after weeks of hemming and hawing about it and struggling it was an opportunity for me to make a larger impact throughout the entire state of california and, more important,i cant emphasize this enoughthe deciding factor for me was the after talking to the lease City Attorneys Office about it and knowing the mayors housing that i would be with to continue to do all the work here in San Francisco. I can honestly tell you i do not think i wouldve taken this job that i knew you guys would deny this waiver for me. Because i put my blood sweat and tears in the last eight years towards doing this work here in San Francisco. I have just sat here and watched as things have got worse here in San Francisco. There is so much going on now in their stomach that i put into that is just in their early stages, that i cant even imagine not being able to work on those projects. The idea that i would be denied the opportunity to do thatsorry. When you took the position that the City Attorneys Office, you are aware, were you not, of the oneyear ovation dealing with the city . Yes there are two things youre asking for. One would be a permanent, which is where you are directly working on something and now youre going to the other side and working on something in your same theres not really an other side were all one big family. I guess the code of the factual as perfect ethics is very clear that its an unwavering bull conflict if youre representing a client and you go to the other side and represent a client. Can i ask intomaybe Say Something about that . Let me make a brief explanation. Just to confirm, as mr. Gross said, my office has granted him a professional responsibility waiver to continue his work for his clients. It is owed a global conflict under the rules of california. We believe our waiver was completed appropriately. You are saying that under your interpretation of the rules of professional conduct that a lawyer can be a one side, and then go to the other side and represent them in the same matter and its waiver will . Yes. Its a waiver global conflict that we granted a waiver to that effect i dont agree with. Someone that teaches professional responsibility in law school and i talked it over the course of the last 15 years, that would be never waiver of all in terms of a lawyer, for one party, then going in the same matter, over being a lawyer for the other party. You are simply totally wrong good thats one of the complete mortal sins of conflict of interest. You are wrong. Ashley commissioner it is a way verbal conflict in the rules of professional responsibility it does nothing in here that prohibits switching sides. Certainly, if you have doubts about my view of the law, im happy to provide you with written advice and of the sub if you want to continue this matter but i know of no authority that imposes such a rule that you and commissioner steve rennie seem to otto. So theres litigation ill put the cities involved in which mr. Gross is an advocate on behalf of the city and that litigation, directly involved in that litigation, and he then we get this waiver and he then goes and joins in the other side in that litigation, just walked across to the other table and sits down and starts represent him, that is okay . No,. The key here is that weve offered consent to that arraignment conflict of interest are subject to consent. The client here is not your office. The client are the people of the city and county of San Francisco. So the fact youre at the attorney for the people in the city and county of San Francisco the fact that you are saying its okay with youon not talk about you personallybut your law office, its okay with your law office that the client the pity people of the city and county of San Francisco have a lawyer on the other side was a conflict of interest as to them in a particular piece of litigation, that they are going to be haunted by it, that that is all right because the lawyer says it is . Thats nonsense. Youre absolutely correct. On behalf of the city and county of San Francisco iapetus does have the authority to consent to the waiver of conflict of interest. As to this particular waiver i can assure you, as you recognize, its not stop at me. Went up to the chain of command and my office has a gun to the state bar of california as for an opinion as to what you would be doing as ethical for you as a deputy City Attorney in a piece of litigation with the city is being sued, the city and county of San Francisco involved in litigation will be ethical for you as a lawyer for the that client to get up in the middle the child say while going across. Im going to represent the other side should have begun to the state bar of california and asked them whether or not it is something that is appropriate under the rules of professional conduct . Not talk about you asking people in your office. Im telling you youre wrong. Have you gone to the state bar of california . Before he answers that, one thing to point out, the waiver is not for litigation. Im not a litigator. Im not asking for that. From you or the city attended of not done any litigation work in my computer i would know the first thing about it. That is not even something that our clients at our firm engage a sintered we would never do litigation it we dont know how to do litigation. We are simply transactional attorneys. That only to real estate and financing transactions on Affordable Housing work. Thats all we do. That is what the waiver was granted for. If you look at the waiver, the ashley carved out except for matters of litigation against the city. I would be perfectly fine with you having that out of litigation is your concern, im never get you litigation in my life. So, i dont know if that makes a difference in this discussion but i want to point that out. Its a lot more comforting than a general totally long statement that was made here by the deputy City Attorney. That kind of conflict did the lawyer could just give up any conflict on behalf of a client. Thats nonsense. So, your statement is somewhat comforting. Thank you. I understand litigation is a completely different matter and im happy for you guys to give me a limited waiver that only allows me to do the transactional work on Affordable Housing projects of nonprofit clients. The difficulty im having, the whole purpose of the oneyear requirement is the publics perception. You are saying there isnt any showing that the city is going to be prejudice or theres going to be undue influence, but the publics perception is, here is a City Attorney whos working on projects, who says he so valuable to the city, but im going to go across the street and get more money for the private firm im going to do the same work i did with the city, but now it is the perception the public has that its a revolving door. Summary works for the city. They walked out and there asked the Ethics Commission give us a waiver so we can keep on doing what were doing rather than saying we are going to when you took the job you knew there was this requirement. A oneyear waiting period. Now youre asking us that there some reason why we should waive that requirement when the perception is that what youre bringing to your firm is your expertise that you gained at the citys expense. At the citys expense am not so sure at this phase expense they paid you. Okay. Theres a few things in there i do understand. I think, if you want to readi provided all the reasons why i think that the waiver should be great. If you want to read the ethics rule in the narrowest of senses youre absolutely correct. Theres a perception there then you should not grant that waiver. However, the waiver is there for a reason. If you read it that narrowly, there will never ever be a time that you could ever grant a waiver like that because theres always going to be a theoretical perception when somebody goes from the city to private practice to do the same type of work that they are doing. I also think if you read it that way to be honest, do so larger conversation but you can have a hard time recruiting people, can the City Attorneys Office if they think their area of expertise suddenlyof becoming experts are going to be punished. The oneyear waiver, quite frankly im a little less concerned about that. I dont want there to be a oneyear cooling off or not. I like to be able to conduct business with the City Attorneys Office and help them because theres a lot of crucial projects, including what you hear from from the Mayors Office of housing. The Rabbit Program which is happening in the next six months. And something ive been working hard on. For the last two years. That work is being finished over the next settlement i liked it will to continue to work on that. Quite frankly, im less concerned about that than about the permanent ban from doing the work because again i worked here for eight years. For the Housing Projects as you can imagine, they take a very long time to go from inception to completion. Many many years. There are projects that when i came in to the city over eight years ago, we were talking about them and today were still talking about them and we have not started the work it. I would not be with to do any real of oil housing work in San Francisco for the next 510 years at least maybe longer. Some these projects are picking your projects at least. And i started to get some of their more concerned about although i will say that im sure in the City Attorneys Office supported this waiver, and folks were here today to speak on behalf of them, i know that they are very concerned about mine not being able to communicate with them because of my expertise and my ability to palms all on these complex issues. They need my help on that. I will say, from being on both sides of it, it really isi was hard to believe when you dont actually practice in this specialized area, but it really is a partnership. Its not an adverse relationship. You have to look at it from a different context from a different perspective and understand, the work we are striving for a common goal which is to build Affordable Housing in San Francisco. For low income families. And for the public benefit. That is our focus at the City Attorneys Office. Thats our focus at the Mayors Office of housing. The nonprofit and thats our focus at my firm. Mr. Andrews mr. Gross, you referenced in your presentation a waiver that the commission granted in 2011. Ms. Pound, do we know more about that . Under what justification we used to grant that . Other similarities and in what ways are they different . Can we take that without objection . Without objection i think mr. Gross as indicated we referenced it in the memo because there was a alignment mutuality of interest between the city and the organization that the former employee went to to represent the citys interests before another body. I cant recall the details forget we have to look at the actualdig into the actual was provided to the commission at the time. So, i think the question is a fair question about where the city of interest mutually aligned with anothers. I fully appreciate the collaborative nature of the work that mr. Gross is doing and the importance of the work hes doing good i think the challenge is setting aside those very worthy goals and looking to at least understand as a basis for your consideration was the purpose of postemployment lobbying districts serve. I think theres a distinction between on a legal basis and a different purpose with the provisions in the law for postemployment restrictions. I think one of things i just want to insert into the conversation as well, in terms of the permanent ban, the language of the ordinance talks about a permanent ban as relates to particular matters. I think one of the areas of difficulty we have at the moment is understanding for all of the list and litany of projects that mr. Gross worked on within that list, some matters that in fact which would permit him to work on those other matters, even if they relate to the same party. So, its a bit of a nuanced question. I dont know we have actually had full information. Perhaps mr. Gross can enlighten us on that but the intent certainly the permanent banister not prevent somebody gainful employment with her expertise, but to restrict that revolving door on direct matters where they have a direct personal involvement in a Financial Way both of all working for the taxpayers and the public. Why isnt it compelling that the City Attorney and the entity that mr. Gross have both way the conflict and what hes advising has gone so far to affirmatively state it would be beneficial for him to be involved . Can we take that without objection . Without objection i think those are factors that should be given weight in your consideration. I think the section on china make is that there still is a potential that when an employee has been in Public Service moves to private Sector Employment and is being paid by privatesector organization, to come back and shape those governmental decisions, theres always potential to have a conflict that a legal conflict of interest but the potential that his or her former colleagues may be unduly influenced because of theif there year within a year. Or so involved in the matter that might carry undue weight in the discussion. I think the other question is, undue influence or undue axis. Thats the new employer met that there may have been a number of employers potential employers for somebody who wish to hire somebody with mr. Grosss expertise, but theyre not a part. Can we take that without objection . Without objection i get that, but if youre the client can we take that without objection . Without objection i get that but if you affirmatively make a waiver and the clients as we need this guy, why then so much risk of undue influences the works the client presumably has his own best interest in mind. It isnt about mr. Bush. The client cares about himself and the client is going out and affirmatively saying its okay, you need to let him do this, that doesnt compelling to me. The weather that resolves waving a one year ban on not sure but my concern about the undue influence of certain lesson the situation. I can understand what the client would waiver otherwise. If anybody has information about that. Im all years. I just wonder if we could not get a little more explanation about how in the lowcost housing area the city and the Nonprofit Developers Work Together. I do know that the three special area in both parts, the community and the city, are working together so that, essentially, everybody is on the same side. There are technicalities that have to be addressed and perhaps thats the role that you are playing by moving over to the Nonprofit Sector. I dont know, but perhaps of the director of the Mayors Office of housing could enlighten us on that. Yes. Not just them but the paper Mayors Office of housing as well as some of the more prominent portable housing developer [inaudible] if the director of the Mayors Office can explain it, i dont know who else i be more than happy to see the microphone. Ultimately on the directors of the Mayors Office of housing. But in the directors of the Mayors Office of housing for the past five years so i am the employer of mr. Gross. I am his client. Ive been in the city for 25 years. Im working in the field of Affordable Housing. I have not gone from one side to the other conductors worked on Affordable Housing because i believe in Affordable Housing as passionately as evan does. I think the question that you all raised, is there indeed a conflict. From our standpoint, is the question of the mutual interest that some of the commissioners have raised. We have a very unique system of building Affordable Housing in San Francisco. We have a lot of repeat Nonprofit Developers could we work with them over extended period of time. We work with some of the Developers Behind us for over 30 years. Weve established a relationship of cooperation and mutual selfinterest that were all in it together. Were not going to screw each other. Because were going to have to work with each other anyway. So we go through this process being extremely transparent and really working for our own best interest. What the law firm that mr. Gross is going to work at, but they also do is working also for the citys best interest. They negotiate with investors in our Affordable Housing. They tried to get the best possible deal on behalf of. Developer clients, which also means i pay less in terms of the Gap Financing for our Affordable Housing. We shared that absolute goal of building Affordable Housing because the developers dont often find the projects by themselves. The Developers Fund the projects through our, either our rfp for a specific site, or weve already decided what were going to build. Theres not a negotiation about whether theyre going to build for the housing. Its a requirement. Theres no discussion about with the developer feed is. Sorry been set. Theres no discussion about how were going to write the transaction could be of underwriting criteria that the developer and the lenders have to meet. Because of the unique nature of this, because youre doing this for such a long time, we had to build all the set procedures theyre basically, the developers coming. They know the fees and the requirements. Theres a little negotiation on the edges with the lenders and investors, but again, its to get the best possible rate. Best possible terms for the developer. In terms of reserve requirements and things like that. Its also been, again benefits the city because the city doesnt have to put up those additional reserves. So theres an incredible mutual interest between our developers and the city. We need to developers to go out and make this housing happen. We need developers to stay in business extended period of time because of they go out of business, during the period of the agreement is the responsibility of the city as the backstop lender because were the lenders of last resort and we also have, in most of these cases, the underlying ground lease. And the goal of keeping whatever our developer partners produce as Affordable Housing premuch in perpetuity. So theres this incredible commonality of interest the real Work Together we all try to beat up the lenders and investors and the contractors to the benefit of the city overall. For the developers to be successful, we have to make sure that the buildings are financially feasible, but all that underwriting is generally done in terms of what the city would accept when the work terms prior to the developer coming into the transaction and the attorneys come into their transaction. So, much of this information, because of the long time we worked with all these developers, is very very public. You can go to any bar transactions and look at what weve asked what the developer fees were. With percentage of the cash flow was good with type of reserves we allowed. Its very transparent. Theres no confidential information in those particular transactions. In fact, we often go to the board of supervisors to issue bonds and we talked entirely about what the structure of the transaction is, prior to actually closing the transaction with the individual developer. The transactional work the actual closing the loan with the city and ground lease and the bond documents, happens at the tail end. Were in front of the other public bodies whether its the Loan Committee or the board of supervisors and we have a level of public scrutiny on those transactions, on those developers, on the Mayors Office of housing that would highlight any conflict of asia. If anything falls out of the norm the question these public bodies would be, why . Was different about this particular transaction . Its not going to be because evan gross happens to be the attorney because of this particular transaction or not. I dont think anybody in the photo housing fields would say i play favorites. Its really been the role of the Mayors Office of housing truly be Standard Operating Procedure for everybody. Thats the safest way weve done our business whether its any particular developer, any particular attorney, any particular conduct. Lender or investor is the Standard Operating Procedure for everybody because that is the only way we are successful in doing our work and maintaining the integrity of the program overall. So, and evan asked us whether we would sign onto the waiver, i said yes because of this mutual interest and the mutual goal of building and preserving Affordable Housing. I would takehe probably got smarter and is learn more about before to Housing Development and in part because we have this mutual selfinterest along with the developers and counsel. We want them to be the smartest developers possible. We want their counsel to be the smartest counsel possible because they love working together. Theres so many roars. There some a lawyers what you need him . Can we take that without objection . Without objection is not that many lawyers in the specific field. His firm has been in the Affordable Housing fields the parties are using his firm. Other members of his firm, right . Part of it is the size of this firm started in the field of Affordable Housing for those low income tax credit. They were doing syndications in the early 80s or mid80s. Then they followed this field during this whole period of time. They have three lawyers. Its not a big front. Theyre all really stretched trying to do the work that they were set up to do. They only do Affordable Housing. They only do Affordable Housing. They wont even do a photo housing for forprofit developers. The only do Affordable Housing for Nonprofit Developers. Thats why we find feel comfortable in terms of doing the waiver. Having more information, more expertise on the other side doesnt hurt us. It helps us. Were not afraid of it because we had good attorney did and we have a good staff and we restructure that basically has created frameworks for all of our transactions. So, we dont feel theres going to be conflict as we go through this process because the attorneys from the other side are not involved as we set the policies, as we set the and writing. We talk with our developer partners about that but its not a bunch of attorneys in the room lobbying us to give them the most favorite nation status or anything about and along those lines. Its really about working together this common goal. I would also say, we are in a time when my office cant build enough for the housing fast enough. Whenever i go to any public building is about why have you built it already . Actually, ill be perfectly honest the loss of them from the office the loss of evan from now this is a big loss. The fact that hes on the other side mitigates that the disease taken that expertise to help, move the process along. So i can close my big deals by Public Housing rebuilt my other transaction. I dont feel that im going to be at risk of having somebody on the other side know something secret about my structures or strategies in part because weve been so transparent about what we do already. Theres no secret to what we do get is just a lot of hard work. So, we would plead to this commission that this waiver not only would help my ability is im going to be judged on really not whether works for the City Attorney ormy ability to get housing done. I supported this waiver in part because it would be helpful to my goal of getting Affordable Housing done. Commissioner keane can we take that without objection . Without objection this is really unique and cries out with a lot of inequities. No question about it. Let me ask you this. You say everything is transparent. He knows whats in your mind at all times by virtue of what hes been doing for you know. When youre boosted the other side are still in negotiating situation with the other side the matter how much both sides might love each other, you still ingratiating on behalf of of the city to get the best deal for the city. Correct . Yes. Let me finish. Now your negotiating with someone who sort ofwhos got your family jewels, whos been with you and knows all your tactics. Not saying theres anything nefarious or anything, but rather than negotiate at arms length, youre negotiating with someone who has all of your strategies, your tactics, the way you play your cards. Those everything about them. On behalf of someone whos doing something trying to get something from the city of particular contract from the city. Are you at a disadvantage in negotiating with someone like that then you would be just with someone at arms length who doesnt know all of this information Strategy Tactics that you have, and being at a disadvantage than isnt the city at a disadvantage because theyre not going to make the best deal in every respect becausenot because youre going to get your pocket picked or anything dishonestbut its not an arms length negotiation in the transaction. Is metro . Beat let me put it in context. I talked a little bit about the structure in which transactions occur. Were not to be negotiating about the bond issue be. Were not to be negotiating about developer fee, about cash flow about underwriting requirements or all those other things that we would typically negotiate. But the city might negotiate with a private developer because those are set. We are the lender of last resort and were going to set those terms. So, theres not as much in negotiation that goes on. I would think in some respects, and having experience in my decisionmaking about what i like and dont like, i think simplifies the negotiations with the developers. They will not bring to me what i dont like. Because evan will know that i will consistent my decisions and if i said no before, unlikely, very very likely to say no again because i want to be very consistent in my decisionmaking. Some respects it helps me. I dont get stuff from the new attorney wants to break new ground who has not worked in San Francisco and says i work with soandso in Santa Clara County and we negotiated the developer fee. You would have to go through the high welcome to spare him. We have a system. Lets talk about how you aremakes it into the system because this is our structure. In some respects theres both sides of it. He does know the system, which is actually good because it facilitates our discussions with the other side he does know by decisionmaking on certain policy issues but again that facilitates moving to yes as opposed to butting heads with a brandnew counsel from god knows where and who may or may not have experience working in San Francisco. The city is San Francisco affordable Housing Community in the work we do is pretty unique around the state. Theres no other city that supports the Affordable Housing in the manner the city and county of San Francisco does. Theres no other city in the state that has their hands on the transactions as much as the city does. At the staff level. Not at the attorney level. We dont leave it for the attorneys negotiated transactions the principles in my office, my staff who are here as independent individuals, not on time,they are the people negotiate these transactions and we dont rely on the attorneys for negotiation transaction to the attorneys will be there to document it. They sure were doing it right but theyre not attorneys are not leading the transaction. Principles understand the business points and negotiate up. The revising the principles, are they . In terms of the attorney advising the principles, that attorney knows what your cards are, that youre holding, and the pencil is going to know whats in your cards, right . Can we take that without objection . Without objection as i said my cards are very transparent. My cards are pretty transparent to not only evan but to any outside counsel who actually takes the time to understand what San Francisco does. Any other commissioners, any questions . At this time, alaska for Public Comment. I will ask for Public Comment can we take that without objection . Without objection thank you. Im patrickand for over a year of and trying to work with the Mayors Office of housing and Community Development to obtain data regarding their down payment Alignment System program. Particular, investment to the tried into San Francisco retirement system and i can tell you they are not transparent. Ive had to pull teeth. Im getting basic excel spreadsheets. I cant get them. I get them in pdf. They are incomplete. The datasets are a mess. Mr. Gross says about hiding information public scrutiny is great. Mr. Gross and mr. Say theyre completely transparent. I kind of agree with him. I dont think you should agree with them either. It smells. People are already concerned about the undue influence the Nonprofit Sector has on the Affordable Housing. I believe the last time you heard a complement waiver request was for supervisor tony hall. I think in 2011. I advised him, dont do it. If you go to tee it up and use [inaudible] its not that big long before the mayor gets you forced out. With or without a waiver. Tony hall lost that job really rapidly. He made one mistake granting a postemployment waiver than taking another one. I would like to first say i understanding of the deputy City Attorneys recommendation and use member keane corkage. If i was a public participant in my attorney said to me i like the court represents you and represent the other side is that okay with you tech thank you i could tell him, yes no problem. What i . No. Im not an idiot. Basically, that argument makes no sense at all. I dont want my attorney knows everything about my side of the case to go to the other side. As far of this idea in the world were one Big Happy Family that would ask a bunch of cry. The fact is the Mayors Office doesnt agree the board of supervisors. If significant difference and i can see the Mayors Office wanting to go to work for these companies because the mayors point of view will be given to those people and the other members of the City Government might have different point of views will not. I think its also unfair to the people whod be hiring. There are a lot of nonprofits in the city and i will talk about nonprofits that have access to information that none of the other nonprofits were competing in the open market for city dollars and they will have an advantage over those other nonprofits. Because they will no ways to talk about things where they will know how to phrase them. Theyll know how to put it in a certain way so that the commission or whenever knows who to talk to, who do a nap. Which member of the commission is in our favor and how can we give them ammunition to fight on our behalf. The private sector they have a noncompete agreement. Everybody understands the noncompete agreementif you send one its a done deal. Its protect proprietary information and Everything Else that goes along with that. Allowing a deputy City Attorney who knows all about the citys position to go work for somebody who is to go shooting as mr. Kean said with the city, is just nonsensical. Its something that nobody who has their own self interest in mine would be willing to agree with. Thank you. I still 30 seconds. The public is look at phoenix and ive been coming here for your simplest waivers be granted and i thought what is going on here parks and recreation you sign a waiver when you take a job. It is a condition of your employment now youre coming in and saying dont do what i agreed to do in the first place. Mr. Gross agreed to have to follow these rules dont exempt him. Thank you. Good evening for my name is winnie jones dir. Of Housing Developments. In response to the housing crisis the city of San Francisco has taken on too momentous tasks. Trying to erect thousands of units and [inaudible]. Both are important challenges both are straining the Affordable Housing resources. Particularly human power and expertise of the city and practitioners within the city. Evan gross is an important resource in that effort. One of a handfula small handfulof people able to do this work. The work is not adversarial or collegial or filled with secrets. As witnessed by the fact my nonprofit side and my city adversaries are here in support of mr. Gross. We argue to waive the restrictions in wave let him practice immediately. Good evening, commissioners. Im barbaraim director of Housing Developments from percy housing. We own over 3000 units in San Francisco with currently hoping to Start Construction on 200 new units as well as all the other work were involved. The need for housing is staggering as we recently received over 5000 applications for 70 affordable units in transbay. Mercy is a very strong supporter of evan grosss request for a waiver. We desperately need legal talent is to develop affordable homes. Our work is pretty specialized. Partnership and collaboration, which youve heard a lot of that is really the way we get it done. I wish we could negotiate more but really, with the amount of free money him a need to put together in order to build Affordable Housing both at the state and federal level. What we do is problem solve. We really problem solve. We Work Together to try to figure out how that said we have to spend this much money by this much date or have housing built by this date we can use this money for that use, we sit around and figure out how to get it done. Its really not a negotiation. Its really following the most unbelievable set of rules and regulations that govern our funding as you can imagine. Very different from the forprofit for Housing Development. So, we need evan. There really is a handful of great Legal Expertise the knows how the federal funds, the pod funds, section 202 funds, prop a funds all Work Together. So i implore you to please grant him this waiver. We really hope to Start Construction on 200 units this year, but we need his help to do it. Thank you very much. Good evening, commissioners. My name is David Schnoor rector of real estate development. I also request you grant the waiver that will allow evan gross to continue doing this work. Committee Housing Partnership has a 25 year history for developing Supportive Housing here in San Francisco. Firmly most people and were part of the group of nonprofits working to transform Public Housing to mental assistance demonstration program. Theres a lot of housing the bowman activity in the former housing world in San Francisco reynaud him up with the passage of proposition but also created a new Affordable Housing bond with all the Public Housing revitalization going on, there was a lot of work and previous person has commented, not enough bodies to do the work it will trust at every stage to find enough people with specialist knowledge to make sure all this work can move forward. Evan gross is part of that specialized body of knowledge. We are excited by the prospect of having him be able to understand the citys perspective as we work on the loan documents, the transactional documents, lease agreements and so forth. Because its indeed a cooperative process. We rely on the partnership we have with the city to fulfill our mission. They rely on the partnership they have with us to fulfill their mission. Our mission are very similar to any of the organizations can state our Mission Statement it would sound very similar to those Community Development. Were all working towards the same goal. The great Affordable Housing here in San Francisco. I understand the cities conflict of interest is designed to protect the citys interest in the appearance of season to spend in this case it failed to grant the waiver were actually from the citys interest because we need as much knowledge as we have right now to address the critical affordability problems that San Francisco faces. I request the city grant the waiver. Good evening, commissioned my name is Sharon Christopher work with percy housing california as a project management is not to mention, anderson mercy supports the request. That he not work on saturday for one year. As work with evan for 10 years now. I will share an example of how havent worked with us and represented the citys interest in working with her. And freshest we worked at a project on sixth and howard street. The building had found the scene the state financing, i worked very closely with us to help hard understand the cities ground lease and the citys requirements and helped us negotiate and be comfortable with the ground beef which is something not comfortable with. Barbara mentioned, or evan mentioned, physical committee service, tight eyes about the support and work with evan on a previous project. I know youre aware of the critical housing price. I hope you be able to consider this waiver because i think it would help. Good evening, commissioned my name is benjamin mccaul street the decadent Deputy Director of finance for the Mayors Office of housing and many development. I strongly support the request. This waiver request should be approved due to the nature of Affordable Housing in the bay area and specifically is given. Its not a traditional adversarial relationship. Additionally, photo housing feels its very very specialized requiring years of Work Experience to fully understand it isnt part of the city be able to hire experts in the field and also to let them leave when its time. The best candidate to replace mr. Gross would be someone with a depth of experience in this field. The City Employees are not allowed to leave sitting from and to work with other parts in the San Francisco for the housing sector to recruit the best and brightest will be severely hampered not approving this waiver wouldve a Chilling Effect to accrued notches housing attorneys, but also Housing Development employees for our office. The standard for proving the waiver is that the Commission Must determine by granting the waiver does not create potential for undue influence or unfair advantage. The standard is met in this case. I urge you to approve mr. Grosss waiver request the me ask you a question. It comes to deciding whos going to get the contract to do the Affordable Housing that you talked about there is mercy and tenderloin neighborhood. Is that competitive . It is competitive, yes sir. Was mr. Gross involves . The attorneys are not involved in the competitor process. But certainly having mercy having him as an attorney is an advantage. Im not sure the attorney the type of work the attorneys do in the firm are in any way related to how the nonprofit would respond. My boss can more elaborate better on that. Who their attorneys are, is not a scoring factor in our selection of the proposal. Its about the quality of the design, the cost, the fact that theyre qualified to bewe never identified with their attorneys are as part of their quest fornor do we score that. With respect to that our firm does not actually get engaged on the project until after they been awarded the project. We dont do any of the work at that level. At the early stages. The nonprofits, what they actually are awarded a project and they know theres going to be a project thats when they engage because we only do the transactional work. I just want to ask a clarifying question. With her being opportunity for any of the Affordable Housing providers during that rfp process to hire you so that you would consult with them as they write their proposal whenever a key area you can provide . I suppose, to radically but ive never heard of such a thing happening, nor do i know how our Legal Expertise would have any bearing. Also, that rfp process, whatever those this but the design of the project and other factors that i dont even know because i wasnt involved in the prosecutor so, i have no idea what in that process and attorney would be able to provide in terms ofespecially me because i do not do that stuff. Thats kind of my point. Because you do not do that at the city and because these rfp can be comprehensive, theres probably some section in there that wants to hear from soup to nuts how its going to go from conceptual ultimately been built, and there could potentially be some reference to discuss some legal matters they may need to create a methodology around to get rationale around. Again, youre not im not a part of the rfp process. Youre not part of the rfp process but the fact is, there is a x factor that. There is nothing that would preclude any of them to hire you to give counsel . I suppose, not. Again, i dont know what counsel i will provide in that situation. I think that folks from the Mayors Office of housing can provide more illumination is to work those into those rfps that i dont think its the kind of thing where it would matter whether not i was consulting with them, nor again in the 20 years 22 years there is in a single time they consulted with on that kind of process. Anymore Public Comment . Hello. When the stacy capacity on the project manager of Mayors Office of development but im here in support of evans request. I worked in Affordable Housing in 10 years. I worked as a developer before i work for one of those tax credit invested. Now i work at the city. I just want to echo my all he other colleagues have said but the nature of her industry at its very transparent. In highly regulated. So i think i understand all your questions. They seem like good ones. They dont seem appropriate to our industry which is what a lot of influence of evan would have in contracts and getting awards just not how we work. So i want to diminish the work he does but its not closing deals so that we can Start Construction and get things though. I will give you an example. Mostly tax Credit Investors who want to put something that does not benefit theand doesnt benefit the city as well they want to exit a partnership after a compliance period you take a bunch of money with them. So well say no the city doesnt want to. The developers dont want that either. So are usually aligned in those ways so for those reasons i support the waiver. Members of the commission, minusim the director of Housing Development at the Mayors Office of housing to meet him. Im also resident of San Francisco have been in the field of Affordable Housing for more than 15less than 20 years. Im sure, to sport evans request for the two waivers like to explain one of the reasons why we think he should do that. I also want to make the point that with respect to the development of the Affordable Housing and discussion about whether we have these differenti didnt want to remember what would doing is developing Affordable Housing for low income people and not respect to be quite mutually aligned. Its also the case you can no longer build Affordable Housing without other funders that include the city but include credit bank and talk to Credit Investors likethose other parties about the nonprofit and the city of San Francisco are very aligned and looking into the best interest of people who live in the buildings in the future. I think is important for us to remember that. So, looking for to build highquality Affordable Housing. Looking to serve people and looking to create the best possible deal that uses the least amount of local city and countyso we can use whatever we have left over to build less. We have thousands of the thousands of units in the pipeline and many people like evan to be working with us in partnership supporting Amazing Group of nonprofit, a federal Housing Developers so you meet a tremendous needs here in San Francisco. Hopefully youll consider prompting printing those letters. Good evening, commission from roberti was on the 20132014 civil grand jury and we had concerns about the process where decisions like this were being made. I think youre confronting some of these palms right now. This is an important decision. As bad optics to it because it involves steady real property, use of bond proceeds, things of that nature. But it may be the details of whats going on here are so threatening. This is not a popularity contest. Is not just a situation where people can come in and make assertions did nothing is being said under oath. And youve got to wait all these different things. Im hearing gives me concern, we elect the City Attorney. I dont see anything signed by the City Attorney. Just for one. The one your weight is pretty standard and people can still work on matters. Its a matter for you talk to. If you talk your clients the clients talk to the city. Do somebody in between you and the city. It does mean youre not doing work for the clients. But it can all work out. I think the staff memo expresses some concern. They have not had a lot of time to look at the matters that are listed here. And theres a long list of existing matters that are attached to this waiver of request. As i hear people talk what the transparency of the process and things like that, it may well be is transparent enough. May well be there is a lot of confidential information. It may well be the work he is doing on these matters is with public information. Theres no need for a lifetime bar. I think youre in a difficult position to have to make a decision right away on this. I think maybe you want to get some more information about the lifetime ban issues so people can sort it out. If people know this coming apostolate this in the future when waiver requests come up. I think you have a framework here for a good process and a clear decision. I got to use that opportunity. Good evening, commissioner kevingood luck 15 year resident of bernal heights. I the pleasure of being housing director many years back. I now work for the Mayors Office of house and i think some of things you may virtue previous speakers may need out. Or this Incredible Team you come out and support this effort. I rescued to grant the waiver to mr. Rose for number of reasons. You heard a lot of transparency to get a photo Housing Development in terms of regular by federal and state programs as well as our own, your ddirector lee talk about underwriting those dealsat no time an attorneythat have to tell you im not issued hearing opposing attorney. About developer fees, rent, compensation or anything in the developers best issue. I can imagine in the years ive been doing this job that i happen attorney exercise undue influence whether an attorney of the scalper the city is really shooting itself in the foot to lose an attorney of the scholar with a legacy knowledge. I mention we do our own underwriting. We do a lot to make sure those deals are fully transparent and actually discussed at length with not only our internal Loan Committee on internal peer review process from the structure points out we have the stickies deals so theres a lengthy public process that goes into analyzing these deals. To make a connection, this attorney has somehow going to change the game is hyperbolic at best. I would say there is no attorney ive met that could influence individual deal points a little and this attorney. I desperately ask you to prove mr. Grosss waiver. Thank you. Good evening, commissioner. My name is olivia my job right now is to manage the urgent conversion of 3500 lap a housing units. This project is called that. Enjoys National Recognition as a city priority for the dozen or so the Department Working on. Several offices involved in this huge effort. Last year we converted 14 of the 20 projects and will do another 14 this year. Thats a lot of work for us. We were part but thats a lot even for us in the workload has required us to work more efficiently and cooperate more closely with our citys Affordable Housing developers. We had to work with them as we negotiate with the bank, bank of america is the project lender for the entire portfolioour mutual goal to developers and decent safe housing affordable in the long run. This is also the goal of a little over 5000 residents of these dilapidated units. A key reason to success what happened to date and i hope in the future is growth. The capacity as City Attorney evan authored and she owns a vote when transaction. He raked worked to protect residents. He was able to do this because of his deep and Broad Knowledge in Affordable Housing finance. And the funding programs and Government Agencies that are regulating our work. While its no longer a City Attorney, evan specialized expertise in complex deals such as the rat project is still absolutely critical luck at one of the best Affordable Housing orders in the country when we need him the most will make our difficult work even harder. Could even give him sophie hayward. Im here on my own time. To speak in support for the waiver request made by adding the gross. I respect very much of the role of this commission in considering waivers vertically the time they spend considering special circumstances that may justify such request as these. It could go as same, but ill say it, evan the scrupulous dissolves beside the point. We hope the comments here tonight to help provide Additional Information for you and for the public. But the specific role of evans work before the Housing Development both in his previous work in the City Attorneys Office and in his current position. As director lee and many others have eloquently described, basically when evans current clients get a good deal the city also gets a good deal. We have our interests along. The city pays less in Gap Financing for the development of Affordable Housing. The majority of our financing for Affordable Housing the roman and San Francisco it comes from the longterm housing tax credit. We then taxexempt bonds. Money from the state. Money from the home loan bank. Each of those carries with it very strict requirements so that by the time a developer comes to us with a financing plan and requesting the cd money the developer has been said by those stout federal state requirements. The castle has been determined that the occupancy rates have been defined. The rents have been established. Theres no room for an individual attorney to negotiate a better deal because were all reliance on the funding from state and federal sources that are so restrictive could we do make our loans its a very public process. The citywide Loan Committee approves or underwriting guidelines to the terms we put forth as my boss director lee talked about, our priest out again theres very little room to negotiate. In fact, no room. What we need great attorneys were the mutuality of interests occurs most importantly is in the Nonprofit Developers negotiation with conventional lenders with tax Credit Investors. If they negotiate a good deal its a good deal for the city. We are lied in that because it reduce the amount of public funds that have to go into these projects. The question was asked, doesnt put us at a disadvantage as negotiating table with evan on the other side of the table knowing how we work, what we think about what our priorities are . The answer is emphatically no. Were not at a disadvantage because those terms are prescribed. Leslie is so helpful to us is having someone who understands the regulatory labyrinth we have to sort through and get help us get our mutual goal faster and more efficiently and that is the production of Affordable Housing, is the great benefit to the city and one we should not give up. My name is katie lamont. Im the director of development we provide Supportive Housing in the housing and Senior Housing in the tenderloin and other neighborhoods in spain San Francisco. I speak in support of evan grosss waiver request and agree with the statement he made to many others before me regarding away Affordable Housing developers partner the city to realize shared goal of providing housing to low income people. I struck an example of the staff report of the deputy City Attorney long leaving to work for turn. The facts are parallel. The city forwarding for the housing developer of mutual interest and their advocacy for the approval Housing Project in terms of prices of the california state of california [inaudible]. An example of the mutual interest as mentioned earlier the city of San Francisco but thats a ground lease structure to prevent launching the affordability in future negotiations negotiationswithout wonders [inaudible]. When doing transactional work both parties are better served when each side has knowledge and experience in the associate competence and creativity need to Work Together to solve problems. Our job is basically problemsolving. I appreciate thatonce to develop the nextgeneration of its leadership is of an earlier mentioned that omega3 attorneys. In San Francisco is of a particular place to work the current partners the coven have come to know and understand mike this serves the city because there is a builtin understanding of its position alignment of goals and of both kate mentioned earlier its more efficient earlier if we know the ground rules and operate with them. We appreciate out evan olsen and kate and interacted with everyone is that they listen and operate in a fair manner. I do what i enjoy working this feels that everyone in our Development Financing team shares the mission of adjusting the great need for Affordable Housing in our city so we can preserve it as a diverse place for all cards of people to live and a will to solve problems as they arise. Witness the 14 coatings in december and that was the sheer force of will of literally hundreds of people. I urge you to please plan this waiver request and i want to adjust briefly in a question about whether working with evan poses a competitive advantage in our the stage . I would create it does not. Nearly every nonprofit developer works with that firm and really there focuses on omega ground lease work. How to make a commercial base work and these are common questions and not special. I think of your time. My name is tomsenior Housing Project manager atim supporting evan grosses lisa request. The challenge, i dont think is a negotiation between the city the Affordable Housing developers. Its really between the city and the developers together with all the other regulatory agencies. I just spent the last two years working on the project from the Housing Authority conversion and the real challenge came when all the legal documents are all being here finalized in but it shows up at the table. The permanent lender shows up at the table and start saying, we cant do these certain things. Evan gross was able to concretely provide specific examples and responses to their concerns that put those to rest as well as they could be. I think that in this city, this work is not confrontational. Its problemsolving. You heard several of us use that phrase. I think the mandating evan gross from the pool of participants, including, and probably especially the rat projects this next year who emanates very val legal resource to the city and developers. Im bob. Im the beneficiary of Affordable Housing but also rose on ethics i did a lot of delving in my own time wrestling with the question of waivers. You put a lot of arguments on deficiency. You posed questions on solid ethical professional principles. Within the lucky case statement we heard readout for over 10 min. Of this in detail overlooked in this analysis. This law firm already exists has three fulltime attorneys and two parttime attorneys. Youre not here in the case statement that absolutely none of these fulltime entry to both him can adequately and professionally serve these clients. You do not hear that. That doesnt mean mr. Gross cant do a good job but can they do a good job . Further, some of the people supporting these waiver requests are statewide agencies. The skills are so parent could heal them with our dirt jurisdictions because of his facility . Then, within any agency, any organization, yours want a backup. Just in case somebody gets sick. If mr. Chris is so skilled, what happens he gets critically injured by a drunk driver, and errant tourist bus. Does that really wait out that law firms skill and the ability of these firms to get adequate professional representation . Could he help his firm by doing inservice trainings from his skill to import in part to them. At this point you have a solid case that nobody else can do it within that firm that he cant help some of these providers now to better jobs outside. Thats why, to stop the idea of waivers being the common revolving door you might consider that maybe also not to rush to judgment tonight weve got a lovely come located agenda. Lengthy complicated agenda my name is. I served on to civil grand sureties and code of ethics. This commission has entered a new error of Higher Standards of performance. San francisco is a city littered with conflict of interest, ruby developers, and lobby groups that masquerade as nonprofits. Director lee from the Mayors Office on how to use the word unique, not traditional to describe San Francisco Affordable Housing contracts. However, civil grand jury work revealed is not something unique but instead filled with irregularities that beg investigation. Many building contracts in San Francisco are tainted and that includes Affordable Housing contracts. Mr. Gross signed on with the City Attorneys Office was advised of restrictions and might view no exceptions of a waiver in this instance should be granted when possible conflict of interest hangs in the balance. David. I listen carefully to the presentation. I dont know evani dont know he seems like a nice guy. Nevertheless, the question before you is on the waiver request. I think your question suggested concerned about both the instant of the request and the precedent it would set in other similar situations. I think that the city, overall, is not well served in generalwestside apartments, excuse me, midtown apartments, thats a complicated situation may result in litigation with the city and the nonprofit developer may not have the same interest. In fact, in general although they have the same goal as developing housing dont necessarily have the same interest in terms of how the transaction roll out. So, in summary, im not with granting the waiver. I think it at a minimum should ask more questions and consider and continue this but if the votes are there shall write tonight tonight. I think leeann and the staff got it right and i dont think the city is well served here. Just a couple other things i want to mention. When tom on matter came before the commission, tom long is working for a firm largely representing public ratepayer in just the state puc. Im not aware the city does Development Deals with turned so its a different situation. I would also point out was another deputy City Attorney, a lady who advised the sunshine ordinance who left the office just over a year ago to work for gold fiber and women which i believe does this work in this area. Again a very highly specialized area. I dont believe she made any request for a waiver. To not come before this Commission Found other ways to be gainfully employed as an attorney, former having worked for the City Attorneys Office in this related field didnt need a waiver. I think of heaven is as talented as we hear that he could work on these projects in other jurisdictions would you other solo work and theres no Public People granting these waivers. Ive not said this often but i agree with the staff report and i think you should follow. Ive experience in this area. I worked with director lee 15 years ago on the San Francisco wanchese. With a seat purchased [inaudible] put the policy charges made here to go through this Rube Goldberg machine to assemble huge amounts of funding to build new Affordable Housing it that some most efficient way to day public dollars and transform them to the public we want. So we want to get Affordable Housing we got a bunch of folks to make a certain [inaudible] outside of government and inside to ensure that those are viewed as the private property for construction of the widgets they produce when they may or may not be the best kind of a form housing we need to devote scarce Public Resources to. Someone involved along, ive never heard of a Public Meeting the Mayors Office of housing talks about a competitive process to allocate Affordable Housing to developers. It may happen somewhere but it doesnt happen in public. The reason lies in the Mayors Office is to keep that basically in the dark to see you get 4000 people that make up their lifes work to do this work and ostensibly desirable work but the outcomes never seem to quite get th that guide the party tries to play the guitar issue near 1520 years later seen the production of Affordable Housing in the way scaling to meet the crisis we face. So what we have. So skimpy to do this work, plodding along slowly, and the displacement pressure are increasing so rapidly not up to the pastor do it. So we need to have this commission stand for what the staff has said and take a stand on ethics permit the previous waivers should not serve as precedent in this commission should repudiate those bad acts of the past. Let people just know because your say youre doing gods work this commission is going go ahead and do the investigation to the analysis and stan here represent the interests by commissioner keane said of the clients. We the taxpayers the citizens voters of San Francisco. Its time to go ahead and blow the lid off what we had here. Thats where the ethical not is. They advocate for the money they get. That has to be knocked out right now. If its too complicated then youre doing it wrong. , larry bush. Im speaking for myself. I spent 15 years at the apartment housing and urban development. Working on Affordable Housing issues. Including in San Francisco. Have a great deal of respect for mayor lee and i worked at a lower spec for spec for mercy housing nt and easy. The reality is, here takes a 2030 organizations to fund a reasonable Affordable Housing development. Some of the places it can only take three or four if youre in the basket. Here, you have a problem with site acquisition. We have problems with the cost of housing production. In many cases the site thats been chosen about remedial needs that have to be taken care of and thats a whole other can of worms. In the meantime, all this is going on, is a great deal in flux but the Funding Sources. So you saw gov. Brown lemay the Redevelopment Agency as a Funding Source for Affordable Housing. At the federal level the Republican Congress limited funding for senior and disabled housing. What you have is in the middle of all this, trying to reinvent clear funders are going to be. Its a constant juggling act. To come up with something thats going to pay off in the end. Theres obviously going to be conflicts because some of the people that sign on as lenders would drop out and sometimes go drop out because they dont meet the standards one way or the other that the city has. So, while we all think of ourselves as partners together, and how it certainly thought that way, we also recognize there is differences in our sensibilities and differences in our oversight and they should not wash over into each other. I cannot imagine the situation where a hard attorney for Affordable Housing within take on a job like this. They do talk take other jobs obviously. After all that has been defined for all practical purposes they do not go to the other side of the table as fast as this. I would propose we do with these separately. One, the request for the waiver of section 3. 234 a1 which is the permanent disqualification, and i would ask if weif i hear motion concerning whether not we should grant a waiver of that section . Commissioner, i will say i have persuaded we should grant the waiver with perspective 3. 24 3. 2481. As i stand. The potential for confluence undue influence is taken seriously. This does sound like a unique situation to me. Hearing so many from the and await cd come and testify why specifically and so important for mr. Gross to participate, its compelling. The fact that the City Attorney has given a waiver as long as its not litigation, i also find compelling. Not only it doesnt appear to me specific potential for undue influence or vantage there appears to be a specific and significant advantage to the city. Which i think is also compelling especially in light of our housing crisis. I do like we have a different view than the one year man but on the permanent stand i think we should grant the waiver. Moved and seconded. Discussion . This is difficult for me because i feel tremendous affinity for mr. Gross in regard to some of the is doing the lords work. As someone whos been a lawyer for 50 years in many years as a public defender and always saw my students go for something worthwhile and helpful to people in general rather than help money, i see mr. Gross as an example of a reverse in this situation. I commend him for his career and what hes been doing. I can see him taking advantage of anything or doing anything untoward, but even with that, i cant vote for granting a waiver. Because there is some substantive meaning to the fact that where you have two sides to things and there are two sides weve seen tonight, and you have representation for each of those sides, that under the rules of professional conduct and under the standards for ethical representation, there should be a crossover. In this situation, even though we be doing it just for the oneyear period, there is indeed the other factor thats been referred to that in this city, the idea of the revolving door is something that has been become almost pestilential in terms of doing business with the city aspects of things which have a reason for the standpoint of corruption. Thats not whats happening here. Thats not what happened here. But it is something thats real and receipt in the headlines just quite recently. The conflict of interest thats involved, the fact that mr. Gross did indeed join the City Attorneys Office knowing this was the rules of the game. He did not have to take the job. He did and i commend him for taking the job. The fact that he now he wants to move on, that is fine. But, that was the rules of the game. Those are the rules of the game. And theyre important rules. I think we should stick to them. Even when were looking at something and say, well, this is really on the side of the angels, we should keep consistent on it. So, having said that im going to vote against the waiver. And the other commissioners i will say in hearing from so many summers like this is your life. You got to hear about wonderful things about himself we dont get to hear about things like that so thats nice. What i thought was a little late in the argument i want to hear was i want to hear abouti understood what value he will bring to the community and in particular to the city and county of San Francisco. I want to hear from his colleagues and the partners and the parttime folks at the law firm tell us, convince us, what unique skill ability and expertise hes bringing and how that will increase the capacity that ultimately was certainly facilitate the larger effort of Affordable Housing in San Francisco. Many things are in hindsight it wouldve been great to hear from his professional colleagues to tell us a little bit more about that. That said, i will vote for a waiver in the permanent restriction. I just would say for sure, if you move forward with this enough understanding of the work youre going to do, its important to have the support of your colleagues will be working with on a daily basis not necessarily your clients. Your potential clients. I would intend to support commissioner hurs motion as to the permanent waving the band. I think that provision was put into the statute to deal with the case where there was a direct litigation matter, where it be a direct conflict in the attorney sort of switching sides as weve talked about. So, i dont think, based on what weve heard, theres a justification for saying hes permanently banned from representing clients in this area. A point of clarification. The waiver of the City Attorney jim assured litigation. Minor standups imputed to the firm that mr. Gross is now going to so that the firm could not represent any of these nonprofits in litigation against the city . Its his current firm nothing in the waiver that we grant addresses the firm nor other is a default imputation idea. But i think, if what i was hearing, it am i doing those here and i dont think they do any litigation up. They dont now. I like to amend my motion that it only applies to nonlitigation matters. So mr. Gross would want this turn into a litigator against the city, these kinds in these matters, the waiver would not apply to that. So consistent with the City Attorneys Office. Okay. Does somebody second that amendment i will second that. Thank you. I think the only comment i want to add because im always surrounded by lawyers, here i have a problem sitting in judgment of someones career and livelihood. The idea that i could vote to permanent ban him to keep them from seeking his professional goals seems ridiculous. The result of a loving door in terms of lobbyists and influence peddlers but i think theres something wrong with the rules or laws that somehow are so broad that they apply to people were not going to be doing anything like that. This guy has said it. He works he works with transact. Hes a numbers guy. Hes a finance guy. Hes working out the details of something thats artie been decided. I just am not willing to do that. I think its something we need to look at and perhaps at some point we need to review and fix the rules. We are, within City Government they do apply. Clearly Google Business of influence and unfair knowledge and being able to determine things that are in heaven influe of course we need to look at that. But im not willing to ruin somebodys total career. So, im very much in favor of passing the lifelong waiver because that seems wrong to me. Ill call the question. All in favor of granting a waiver to section 3. 234, aye. Opposed . Let the record reflect the waiver was granted as to that section 41. I turn now to the oneyear restriction, which is section 3. 234. Do i hear a motion concerning whether or not the commission will grant a waiver of that section . I move we deny the waiver request with respect to the oneyear ban as the staff and chairman steve any point of perception does not did i think mr. Gross can still do the work thats benefiting the city without communicate with his former colleagues for one year. On that basis, i think the potential there is notim not convinced hes not t [inaudible] and would move we deny it second any discussion . I will call the question. All in favor of denying the waiver of section 3. 234, aye. Opposed . The record should reflect the motion was passed to not grant the waiver, 41. I will call a 10 min. Recess to allow a break. [recess] [gavel] i want to come home and the staff and ms. Helen for what i think is a good job to respond to the interested persons meeting in the comments they received, but you want to briefly give us a report on that item yes. Thank you chairman brandon. The documents you have on the agenda item for present a first take at trying to address the issue that have been made with regard to implement in regulation for proposition c. We tried to stay within the commissions directive to looking at this as an opportunity to clarify language in the existing language of the ordinance. We note where there are likely recommendations requiring legislative change. So the attachment you have in this item presents regulations that we have attempted to craft for your consideration and discussion tonight an additional input by the public about key terms that affect the interpretation of proposition c can help you understand for the expenditure of lobbyists. I think the question is balancing a number of things. Specifically, the charge for proposition c to make the registration and Disclosure Requirements as similar to the language that applies to the lobbyists under the cities ordinance. Also, we were trying to respond to questions about what counts towards the threshold for becoming an expenditure Lobbyist Group we tried to define what kind of activities and how they count and also how they give some guidance about the Registration Required or the regular disclosure thats required under the language of the ordinance. I would say weve had some constructive conversations friday some of us on the staff met with additionally some representatives at the Nonprofit Community to walk through in detail how these regulations were. Is after our regulations were completed and going to circulation because we want to rush out ideas and try to understand concerns. So, they stop all the information we have here and received, this is our first take. Our hope is begin actually come to an agreement as an organization to enact the regulation as soon as possible but we want to make sure youre comfortable with it and you got it as right as we can for the moment. Were hoping to get additional feedback on this language although we have Nothing Specific that we would continue to urge folks to give a specific language. I dont think weve received amendment language on this front. I believe we heard some comments from the front of ethics yes it. One of the things i do want to point out before receiving more Public Comment, we grappling with is question what kinds of activities count. The language of the ordinance is actually pretty clear a lot of regards in terms of what counts. One of the key issues that kept coming up how the staff counts. Has that count towards the 2500 per month qualification. One of the things we dont have in the regulations before you both want to parenthetically know for conversation this evening, is another approach is look further into the language today. We might see some alternatives for how you connect the activities that are undertaken with the 2500 special. I guess well leave that until we get to the specific points in the regulation. Q1 a lot of them would take Public Comment first . That provide baby alternative person language we have before you . Before taking Public Comment, i do want to give the commissioners an opportunity to ask whatever questions or comments they have on the draft proposition c implementation thats a part of the package. Does anyone have any questions or comments or concerns . Commissioner hur thank you for your hard work on this. I have some a bunch of questions and i think ill start with the attachment to, the proposed language. In particular, 2. 105 one but a and b. When not understanding is how you determine a person makes payments expenditure for qualifying activity is incurred when that might not fall upon at the expenditure that would have to be reported until to 12 months later. I think the example there was same organization. At the time of the report that studying an issue. They have a particular viewpoint and i want to present information on that issue. Then say, one month or six months later that reportage should it to public urging action on the recommendations that the report contains, urging others to communicate with the board of supervisors may use that report in that context. The question is whether when and whether that would get an expenditure would count. So, we tried to do is put in some sort of temporal connection to suggest its within 12 months of developing that report and used as an attempt to get others to communicate, that cost should count towards the 2500. When do they report it . I think in this case they reported at the time that the communication urging others to communicate happened. Until communication with others, urging others and soliciting others to communicate to lobby in official happens, there really isnt one of the key elements of expenditure lobbyists definition thats been reached. That make sense to me, but im not sure hes implement these regulations say that. Person makes payments at the time and expenditure prequalifying activities if incurred. Though, i pay for the report on day one. I dont use it to publicly communicate until day 364. Doesnt it suggest that i report on day one . Internet yes. It does. I think we have some tweaking to do. I dont know about tweaking but that seems to be a fundamental disconnect. You have to say the opposite, basically. The activity becomes a qualifying activity. It doesnt become a qualifying activity, necessary speed i think i understand your point. I am struggling to come up with the question as i sit here. I do think we need to figure out how to make that work. Isnt what youre seeking to do for this language to respond to the concerns that were expressed by a number of the persons. If they repaired a report but at the time they repaired it, its not for the purpose urging action by a public official taking action on public matter, and then they saiddoes that bring them in as expenditure lobbyists and the question was thats more than 12 months the presumption would be was not donethat report was not prepared for that purpose. Once 12 months were added and if etienne then issued a report it would not count as an expenditure. Because that was something that had artie been spent but not spent for that intention. Yes. I think commissioner hur slightly different. I agree with what you said. I get that the point is, when you have to disclose it. If you dont know, at the time you do the report