and i think that we just move forward and approve this and from my perspective as a new supervisor, let this be a warning to anyone who wants to raise money to have furniture or anything else in this particular capacity that they look at what the laws are and look at what the requirements are which i did to make sure it was okay for me to purchase that stuff and bringing it into city hall before i took those steps. i think it's important for any department that uses this as a way to do business should do that. i'm happy to move this item forward. >> supervisor mar. >> it's helpful to know that

fppc is not taking action on that. when i see a $9999 contribution, it raises my eyebrows. the gifts were some were requested by you for support from your office you did initiate them and some of them came i think from some of the chronicle and the guardian coverage from some individuals that might have had some questionable activity, but i think ms: deberry, there is no on going conversation right now. my eyebrows are still up. i think there is a public perception if you take something for your office. there is something from the chronicle, i don't even know if the desk that you are sitting

in are the chairs from the gift or not but i think there is a perception that there is a personal benefit because it's your office. i totally support the victims lounge but i think there may be a personal benefit there. so filing an 801 form is the least to me for you to show that there has been some acknowledgment of the gift and some personal benefit based on that you are getting a benefit as opposed to your whole office. that to me would be the way to clear up any public perception of issues of this # $9999 gift. i think it was october when the gifts were requested. that's my take on this. i feel like it's a small

amount of money before this budget committee. i wish you didn't have to come here as well. it's a certain precedent how much coverage is received in the press and how much questions are asked in the neighborhood as well. that's my take as well. i appreciate you being here. my eyebrows are still up. >> thank you. >> supervisor avalos? >> thank you, supervisor breed talks about since the paperwork is the same, it's kind of redundant. the paper is not redundant. there are two reasons to do the paperwork. i would feel comfortable to support this if you filed an 801. i feel it's expected and requirement and described by mr. gibner that it would be most appropriate. i feel like you followed the proper procedures. otherwise i feel

like i'm approving something that wasn't quite done in the most correct way. i think it's fine about the 803, but not with the 801. i would feel most comfortable if you could file an 801 before i can prove this accepted expense. i'm fine with the victims services. clearly it's not benefitting an individual within your department and clearly i have been to your office and to the department, i know the condition of the furniture that is there and i'm really glad you saw the to get the support for the victims services and clearly for your office you need it as well. i would feel most comfortable if the proper paperwork was filed. >> i appreciate your concerns. we disagree. i believe an 801

is not required. i have checked with council as the final fpcc and therefore i will not be filing an 801. i preach your concern. >> i thought i heard from mr. gibner that you are required to file an 801 but you didn't do it on time. >> no, the fpcc is the final arbitrator and they believe we followed the rules as to their perception and i will not be filing an 801. >> thank you. i appreciate that you have been put in a difficult position. i feel i'm put in a difficult position here. that's why i'm making the request. my request is there and i have told you what my conditions are for voting affirmatively on this.

>> i appreciate that. if you feel should you vote against it, then you should. thank you. >> supervisor wiener? >> thank you. just to be very clear on something. my understanding is that you received advice, information from the f pcc stating that a form 801 is not necessary and 803 is sufficient. >> no we filed an 803 and there was a complaint and we immediately approached f p krchl c and my attorney worked and the fpcc came back and said we are comfortable. we feel you have not violated any rules. this has been given for the purpose of use. this is a gift and they have indicated that this is appropriate. >> in other words the 803 was

the appropriate form and not an 801. >> we filed the 803. the 801 never came up. we fully disclosed the process and the gift and we filed the 803 and have posted all of this information on our website and all the disclosures that we are required to. i feel comfortable with the decision. >> i have looked at the complaint and says an 801 should have been filed and the fpcc responded to this complaint that saying that you are okay? >> correct. >> okay. so,also sed than an 80

qualify because i requested the furniture to go for a specific purpose that's why the 803 is the appropriate vehicle. i believe that's why the f pcc, the complaint indicated that i should have filed an 801. that was a complaint. they have ruled that wasn't the case. >> the point i'm trying to make is that from what i'm seeing that it appears that you are being told one thing by the fpcc and by your attorney whoever that is and the city may have a different perspective on it and in my view that is an issue either you are complying with the ethics laws or not. you based on the cult at consultation that you are. if someone believes differently they can

file complaints or whatever they want to do. but ultimately from our perspective you have filed a form 803 in your mind and the mind of others that is sufficient although some people may disagree with thachl in terms of what is before us we have an issue of whether or not to prove the acceptance of furniture with self disclosure of these are the people who have contributed to the effort and the amount and the dates from which they have contributed and the purpose is for public disclosure so members of the public can draw whatever conclusions they want about different done donors or different amount. i'm comfortable of supporting the acceptance of the gift. everything is out on the public domain and people can have whatever opinion they want to have about that. and given

that, it would be one thing if you came in and said you haven't filed anything and you said i don't know that i'm required to then i wouldn't feel comfortable with moving forward but you have sought council and found the form 803 is an appropriate inform. to file. >> i know i said this earlier. it's really important to look at what we are talking about here. we are talking about furniture that has been don't donated to the city, we are talking about furniture being used for city businesses and talking about furniture that will stay there forever until it becomes unusable. there is noing about this gift that has

a personal gift. this furniture is not going to my home. other than inside the city, the district attorneys office for city business. quite frankly i'm somewhat disappointed at some level of the discussion. i really appreciate your support. >> actually i'm very disappointed. you are responsible for enforcing the law. we have the law that is stated we have to file an 801. that is a local law. it's been requested of me to feel comfortable for approving this. i feel this is a great stubbornness about this unless there is some kind of threat, i don't understand why you wouldn't want to do that. >> supervisor, the d. a.'s office the f pcc stated it was an inappropriate form because we made a specific request for

the offices and we designated where it would be located. it's an inappropriate form and i respect their opinion and the atrney we used in this matter e 801 and 803 are state regulations. that agency has said it's not an appropriate form. 803 is the appropriate form. we filed that and that contains all the information. we have addressed the concerns that you are raising about filing the appropriate forms. the state and with the city and we've done that. >> thank you for the explanation. i expected it. mr. gibner, could you state one last question i have that whether our local laws about requiring filing around 801 whether that requirement should be followed? >> just to be clear, they are

both derived from the political reform act. her to both state requirements even though the 803 is filed locally. they are both state riements requirements. this is based on the language that would require them and the f pcc on an analogues situation. we advise -- our local officials with the state laws past written advice. in terms of mr. berry's, again, i haven't spoep with the fpcc. the rule regarding filing an 801, if an individual receives the benefit and it requires

someone other than the individual receiving a benefit mates the decision about who benefits from the gift, i understand the resolution that's been introduced for the boards consideration of the cfo of district attorney's office has discretion where the furniture will be placed. >> supervisor breed. >> okay. just for clarity's sake, you are saying that, are you saying that you would advisor legally that an 801 and 803 should be completed? >> my offices advice in a

situation like this, is based on the legal requirement. the question that i think the committee is discussing here today is whether the furniture, this is a personal benefit on behalf of the district attorney and it's clear from this discussion different people could reach different conclusions about that. based on the fpcc past advice in other situations we would advise city officials in this situation to file the form 801 because our reading of the political reform act is that 801 is required. >> so you are suggesting that the information that is being provided by the district attorney's office is not accurate? >> absolutely not. i have not had conversation with the fpcc about the complaint that was

filed. i can only tell you what our advice it's to officials in these circumstances. >> so the information on 801 and 803 are pretty much the same thing >> they serve different purposes. they both disclose that a gift was received. 803 disclose that an elected official benefited from it. here the district attorney has filed the 803 that he solicited the gift. he didn't file the 801 that he personally benefited from the gift and the office determined that it would be used for the executive

office. >> okay. >> any other questions. from my perspective, i think that i associate myself a lot with wiener's comments and i appreciate it as seems to be difft inns about the forms that need to be filed. we mentioned all the information is out there. i believe they filed for a different purpose. i don't think there is any questioning about the information being out there in a public domain. i think that at the end of the day, these are state mandated filings and if you ask the state agency and they recommend one and not the other, that seems to me a very reasonable course to follow. so, and again, this is accepting a gift from a city perspective i will be comfortable moving this forward. one thing i would suggest perhaps before the full board what be hopeful to

get the fpc krshs put it in writing so we don't have a full debate on the board to get the fpcc's advice. i don't think there will be much debate. >> i will talk to my attorney and try get that. >> anymore comments, questions. i have to get a roll call. clerk? we have public comment? >> is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> can a roll call vote. on the motion supervisormar, no, supervisor avalos? no, supervisor breed aye, supervisor wiener aye, ferrel, aye, the motion you very much.

item no. 9 passes. could i have to motion to rescind item no. 8. he was absent when we made the motion. could we have a motion on item no. 8 to move that forward with recommendation and we do that without full opposition from the committee. >> mr. clerk, do we have any other items? >> that completes the agenda. >> then we are adjourned. good afternoon. welcome to

the san francisco board of supervisors land use and economic development committee. member chiu the vice-chair and kim will be joining us momentarily. >> clerk: please silence all cell phones. thank you. i want to thank

sfgtv for broadcasting today specifically caroline and jennifer loe. just a couple housekeeping matters, if anyone is here for item no. 6, relate together condo lottery legislation item no. 6, it is my intent to enter a motion when this is called to continue the item one week to may 20th. this item last week was transferred from the full board back to this committee for a hearing today but we are not yet ready to proceed with that hearing. if anyone is here for item no. 6, it's my intent to enter a motion to continue the item in one week. in addition if you are intended to make any

public comment for any item on the agenda please fill out a card and please indicate the agenda item number for the item you would like to speak. madam clerk call item no. 1. >> 130070 [planning code - duboce park historic district]1300701.sponsor: wienerordinance amending the planning code, by adding a new appendix n to article 10, preservation of historical, architectural, and aesthetic landmarks, to create the duboce park historic district; and making findings, including environmental findings, and findings of consistency with the general plan, and planning code, section 101.13 >> i'm as the sponsor. before us today is consideration of the first new article 10 historic district. this is approximately 3 small blocks in length bounded by the waller street and scott street and

dead-end streets. district includes 87 buildings and i would call the planning department to provide an overview of the district. there are folks here from the district today. i see supporters and opponents of the district and this district has undergone a spirited discussion over the last few years. the district underwent and extensive community process after it was identified as a potential district as part of a survey associate with the plan. shortly after i took office we began holding a number of community meetings over the past two years approximately 8 different community meetings including planner workshops that the planning department conducted in local cafes.

numerous people participated. we have taken significant community feedback about the scope of the district and this district is actually i believe the most narrowly crafted district than any historic district in the city in terms of what it covers and the items for which it requires historic review for certificate of appropriateness. the reason that is as narrow as it is on community feedback about not wanting the district to cover anything beyond the truly characters of the district. also my request because to me it was very important for any district that we consider to be very narrowly and sharply focused on what actually makes this district historic and unique. for anyone in this propose district is truly one of the most beautiful areas of the city thanks in significant part to the people who live

there who have absolutely transformed it and turned it into the beautiful neighborhood that it is next to one of the most beautiful parks in the city. this district also gave us an opportunity to take a look at how we administer the mills act which allows for tax credits for owners of historic property to maintenance contracts in the city. it's been used in a very robust ways and counties in the city of california has been somewhat looser here. it was illusory for those small property owners. that became an apparent during the process around this district so i offered legislation working with the san francisco heritage and

planning department for the use of the mills act. we have a usable miss act in san francisco and that was important to me because if we are telling residents in the district that they can get potential tax credits that they are in the district, i thought it was important that it should be reality and we have now made that a reality. after we went through this lengthy process with many community meetings with a lot of views expressed pro and con -- and everywhere in between, i requested the planning department conduct a survey of the property owners in the district. you may recall that i temd to have that as a requirement in article 10 and i did not get that part of article 10 passed by the board but i nevertheless requested the planning department survey the residents and owners in the

district because for me it was very important to have a good sense of what people thought. that survey was conducted late last year and 38 households responded only one response per households. there were some consolidated. 38 households responded and approximately 1/3 of the properties in the districts responded and the survey came out 2-1 in favor of the designation. after the survey there were those who raised concerned that the survey may not have gotten to all home owners. my staff conducted significant due diligence looking back to make sure that every property was mailed and and in fact the mail had gone to every property and

in addition the department and i had e-mailed to the district to alert about the survey and forwarded to the neighbors. as the survey, a very dedicated residents in the proposed district have been talking to their neighbors and i know have conducted their own survey and which shows a different result than the survey that the city did. i understand and respect that there is a diversity of viewpoints on this proposed district and that is precisely why and frankly insisted that the planning department conduct a survey through the planning department using our official means so that we would know where people stood. that survey is an important piece of information, but i do acknowledge that this is not unanimously supported within

the district, that there are opponents. we have tried very hard by drawing the district narrowly and by revamping the mills act. i want to address one item that i think keeps coming up the most more than other concerns and that is generalized frustration with our planning and dbi process in san francisco. i can tell you within this district but also elsewhere the number of times people have contacted our office because planning process is taking too long, dbi process is taking too long, something is stuck somewhere and in terms of this district, we've heard that over and over again. i had this nightmare situation trying to change my windows or trying to put a garage in or whatever

it might be, so why are you trying to put more process on us? i completely understand the general frustration with our planning and dbi process in san francisco. we don't resource the properly and things take too long and too complicated and too challenging for property owners. that is an issue that goes beyond this district. but i honestly believe this district will not have an meaningful impact with the experience that you are going to have with the planning department. this is will not make it worse. it will make this beautiful architectural unique neighborhood thchl district only covers certain things. there are many many projects that will not require necessity additional scrutiny as a result of this district. in addition we have a created