>> welcome to the rules committee of the san francisco board of supervisors for today monday january 10, our first meeting of the new year. i'm the chair of the committee, aaron peskin joined by vice chair supervisor rafael mandelman. our clerk is mr. young. >> clerk: the minutes will reflect the video conference. the board recognizes that public access to city services is essential and invites public participation. public comment will be available on each item on this agenda

either channel 26, 78 or 99 at sfgovtv.org or streaming the public call in number across the screen. each speaker will be allowed two u.m.u.s -- two minutes to speak. you can call (415)655-0001, meeting i.d. is 24937467581. you will hear the meeting session. you will be muted and in listen mode only. when your item of interest comes up, dial star 3 to be added to the speaker line. best practices are to call from a quiet location and turn down your television or radio. you can e-mail rules committee clerk victor.young@sfgovtv.org.

comments maybe sent by u.s. mail to city hall, 1 dr. carlton b. goodlett place, san francisco, california, 94102. that completes my initial comments. >> supervisor peskin: please read the first item. we are joined by board president walton for items 2, 3 and 4. first item please. >> clerk: item number is hearing considering appointing five minutes term ending december 17, 2023 to the sweatfree procurement advisory group. anyone like to provide public comment call (415)655-0001. the meeting i.d. is 24937467581.

then press pound and pound again. please dial star 3 to line up to speak. >> supervisor peskin: , we have three of five seats that are subject to applications. all of them individuals who want to continue to serve on this advisory group that was created during my second term as supervisor long time ago when then former state senator tom hayden was on a mission to get governments to reform their procurement behaviors. two of the three applicants are here today. david oringer like to continue to represent employees. there are still two seats that

are vacant. so people who are serving on the sweatfree procurement advisory group should apply to board of supervisors for the two seats. why don't we hear from the applicants present, marin julienne fisher. >> i'm marin. i served on the committee for more than the past four years. i've been the vice chair. do you have any questions? >> supervisor peskin: i don't have any questions. thank you for your service and your willingness to continue to work on this important advisory group. if there are no questions from committee members, why don't we move on to julienne fisher.

>> i'm working on my camera. i'm looking forward to the opportunity to continue as member of the sweatfree community advisory group. i look forward to helping with that and whatever other exactlies that come up in the coming years. >> chair peskin: thank you for your service and willingness to continue that work. i don't see any questions from members.

why don't we open up to general public comment. any members of ther public like to comment on item number 1? >> clerk: we're checking to see if there's caller in the queue. please dial 3 to be added to the queue. for those on hold, continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. we have seven people listening but nobody in line for public comment at this time. >> chair peskin: okay, we'll close public comment. colleagues, how about we vote. supervisor chan? >> supervisor chan: thank you. i want to thank all the applicants for submitting their applications and willing to commit their time and efforts in this critical issue. i want to give a shot out to julienne fisher who is a

constituent of mine and neighbor of mine. i want to commend her work not just for the sweatfree committee but also living wage coalition and ensuring workers rights and really a fair wage as well as good working conditions for them. i look forward to seeing their work, especially during the pandemic. today i noted that there's some studies coming out that during pandemic, the ethical practice of these factories may have downgraded significantly. i really look forward to seeing your work and partner with your work. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you supervisor chan for those comments. would you like to make a motion? >> supervisor chan: yes. it will be my privilege to make a motion to move forward three applicants with recommendation.

>> chair peskin: on that motion mr. young. roll call please. >> clerk: yes. on the motion to appoint jason oringer to seat one, marin to seat 2 and julienne fisher to seat 4. [roll call vote]. the motion passes without objection. next item 2, ordinance amending the administrative code to provide members of the public and sanitation and streets commission with health insurance coverage to the san francisco health service system. members of the public wish to provide public comment on this item should call (415)655-0001.

meeting i.d. is 24937467581. then press pound and pound again. if you haven't done so, please dial star 3 to line up to speak. >> chair peskin: thank you mr. young. we are joined by the author of this administrative code amendment. supervisor walton. the floor is yours. >> supervisor walton: this is to expand health service system. including public works commission, sanitation and street commission, and the sheriff's department oversight board so our new commissioners have the option of health insurance coverage through the

san francisco health services system. i'm requesting that this ordinance is sent as a committee report tomorrow's meeting as we are very close to swearing in new members of the sheriff's department oversight board. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you mr. president. one question for you. which is i don't see reference in the file before us which is what this will actually cost. relative to the in addition of these three bodies. >> supervisor walton: thank you, supervisor peskin. give me couple of minutes i will get that to you. >> chair peskin: any questions or comments from committee members? seeing none at the moment. we can item number 2 up for public comment. >> clerk: we are checking to see

if there's callers in the queue. please dial star 3 to be added to the queue. for those on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicate you have been unmuted. it appears we have 9 people listening and one caller to speak. >> caller: yes. my name is denise mayfield. i'm coming to you about p.o.b., protect our benefit request. there's a supplemental cola that has been put aside for those that retire before 1996. >> chair peskin: i'm sorry, that is not germane to the issue before us. you can make that general public comment tomorrow at the board of supervisors. this is an item on an amendment to the administrative code to

provide healthcare benefits to individuals on three public oversight bodies. are there any other members of the public who like to testify on this item number 2? >> clerk: that was our last public commenter for this item. one moment. that was our last caller. >> chair peskin: public comment on item 2 is closed. president walton? >> supervisor walton: thank you. why don't we move to item 3 and come back as i get a response. >> chair peskin: while we're awaiting to answer to item 2, mr. clerk, please skip over that for now and please call item 3. >> clerk: item number 3 is an ordinance many amending the elections code to submit information, documenting the

city's intended open source pilot program to the california secretary of state on behalf of the board of supervisors and upon approval of the secretary of state to implement such a system for use at the november 8, 2022 election. members of the public who wish to provide public comment call (415)655-0001. meeting i.d. is 24937467581. if you haven't already done so, dial star 3 to line up to speak. just to note, there's a request that items 2 and 3 be sent -- [ indiscernible ] >> chair peskin: i'm aware. president walton this item has been brought to the committee. >> supervisor walton: again, i'm

back. this one is another very simple item i have before you to authorize an open source voting pilot in san francisco. this legislation will allow the department of elections to submit a pilot for review with the secretary of state as you all know, the board has tried previously for over the past 15 years to push for an open source voting system and we're very close. we've been innovative leader when it comes to settling standards for fair and transparent elections. this will allow us to continue to do that. i'm requesting this item to be sent as a committee report and i like to thank elections director for moving forward with this project. elections commissioner chris and trent lang director of california clean money campaign for the advocacy organizing the community support throughout california system. deputy city attorney for helping

us draft this legislation and my chief of staff. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you. are there any questions or comments from committee members? this thing has been kicking around this institution as long as i've been kicking around in this institution. let's go to public comment. are there members of the public who like to comment on item number 3, related to open source voting? >> clerk: we are checking do see if there are any callers in the queue. please dial star 3 to be added to the queue to speak. we have 7 callers in line to

speak at this time. please note that public comment is through call-in only. you should not be on microsoft teams for public comment. again, the public comment line to call for public comment is (415)655-0001. meeting i.d. is 24937467581. then press pound and pound again. you can press star 3 to be added to the line to speak. mr. atkins, can we have the first public comment? >> caller: good morning, my name is alec bash. i'm calling in support of this ordinance. i want to express my appreciation to the president of

the board for sponsoring it and to the other cosponsors and to chair peskin for his having to continue this for so many years now. i've been involved with that issue from the outset. i want to tell you how important this is and how beneficial this is for san francisco to proceed with this. i want to thank you for going forward with this. which i believe the committee tends to do. thank you, that's all i had to say. >> chair peskin: thank you mr. bash. next speaker please. >> caller: thank you. good morning. my name is c.j. cole. i'm with the organization fair fight voting. national nonprofit to strength. democracy for all voters by promoting the responsible use of technology in elections.

my comment are likewise. we support this legislation. we appreciate president walton for bringing this forward and others that have been involved in crafting this legislation and pushing for this for many years within san francisco. open source voting is a good idea for transparency. it is worthwhile mentioning that open source voting is not sufficient alone for security. there are other safeguards that should be in place including robust post-election auditing. restoring trust in instilling trust in elections and outcome of elections through piloting this open source voting project certainly will be paramount. we support this idea. we hope receive favorable report to the full board and fairable from the full board tomorrow.

appreciate this coming forward and verifying voting support. thank you so much. >> chair peskin: next speaker please. >> caller: thank you to the members of the rules committee. my name is matt roe. i'm speaking on behalf voting works. nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that will be providing the hardware and software and services for the proposed open source voting pilot. voting works is the only nonprofit voting systems vendor deployed in the united states elections. i submitted a letter in september last year to the board of supervisors election commission and director of elections indicating we will be interested serving open source

voting system pilot at no cost to san francisco. i worked with director of elections john partnership to - john arnst. most recently, i worked with the director to draft procedure for the pilot program to start the regulation process for open source voting system in california per the secretary of state november request. i'm coordinating with the mayor disability council to incorporate feedback. i want to thank the san francisco election commission for their support today, board of supervisors president walton for introducing this legislation and director of elections for his partnership finding pilot program. thank you for your consideration. i'm available to answer any questions regarding voting work

and our technology. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you. are there any questions for -- i see no questions. all right. why don't we -- we already dealt with ural item. you have been recommended to the full board. i see you trying to get in. we already discussed item number 1. we can move on to the next caller. >> caller: hello, supervisors. trent lang, president of california clean money campaign. nonpartisan, nonprofit organization with over 100,000 supporters in california. we've been very pleased to work with president walton on this pilot project as well as the commissioner and the secretary of state office to ensure that the regulations in place in time for this pilot project to go to help san francisco fulfill

long-term goals to move to open source voting systems. the board of supervisors long taking leadership in the movement to have more secure and transparent elections with open source voting systems. it's been a very long road. you allocated funding to help develop the system. now it's extra exciting that voting works has come through and designed and built a very strong open source system so the county doesn't have to spend the millions of dollars to build its own. which is pilot project would help to approve and give more transparent elections that people want as well as huge cost savings for the city. we're also especially excited about this because once it's proven in san francisco and certified, then the whole state and the whole nation will be able to use this system.

very excited about this opportunity. thank you all for your support. thank you supervisor mandelman for coming on as a co-sponsor. let's help california lead the nation for more transparent and less costly elections. thank you. >> chair peskin: next speaker. >> caller: hello, supervisors. my name is brent turner. i'm here today representing some folks -- i don't know if they'll be able to show up on the call. i've been speaking with former cia director as well as fellow by the name of dr. juan gilbert who is very well-known in this particular space and also i want -- just in case allen decker doesn't show up, i want to give our full support for this work and thank everybody involved. i do have to mention that back

in 2004, when alan decker first demonstrated this kind of system with open source, we were soon to present in san francisco. i think around 2006 this work actually started out and then later was carried by others -- i have to thank trent lang for carrying the ball here in san francisco with the public and making sure this didn't go dark on us. obviously, it's important voting works is able to fill the role that we need right now of providing the trial system and it's a great day for the county and we look forward to seeing

this more prevalent throughout the united states. thank you all. >> chair peskin: thank you. next speaker please. >> caller: hello. i'm with the national voting rights task force. i have been speaking of open source since 2005. we need this. some source code that has been used in california and across the country was written by mr. elder who had 23 convictions for embezzlement. we need to look at the source code. we need to know who wrote it.

beyond that, there are data files, log files of who logged in. who used the password, who ahead this phone call from the machine. it's just a lot of files that we have not yet been able to get access to. by making it open source, we won't have a -- we'll have a much more transparent election and much better idea of what's going on. the final point is this, the pilot will impact election systems over decades across california. because it's open source across the country. our elections are really billion --being challenged. we need to make transparent possible. i urge your support for this

legislation. thank you. >> chair peskin: next speaker. >> caller: hi, i'm marin, you just appointed me to the advisory group. it happened at my day job. i maintained open source project for 10 years. i want to say code is law. source code, it counts votes. it's making decisions and those decisions are properly in the hand of elected officials. for example in san francisco, we passed rank choice voting. we limited to three choices not because of the decisions by the public officials, because the vendor say they can do no more than three. that's endangering trusting code to handle something as voting to

a private entity. i'm hoping this is a sea change how we think about government and software. we move more software that makes government decisions into open source and into the hands of the public. thank you. >> caller: hello, i'm david smith i'm long time volunteer for the california clean money campaign. i'm commenting in support of this legislation. i want to thank board president walton for introducing it. committee member mandelman for cosponsoring it. the pilot project from november is a great opportunity. san francisco won't need to spend millions of dollars to develop its own open source voting system. the nonprofit voting works has developed complete, open source system used in u.s. elections. we can use it. let do it.

thank you. >> caller: good morning. i've been the board appointee for the past years. now i'm working closer with president walton's office on today's legislation. i want to thank president walton for their work, committee member mandelman for sponsoring it. i know chair peskin you presided over hearing.

before today's legislation, the city is developing its own open source system. in 2018 the board allocated to start that development but that money was taken away during the pandemic and never restored. during that time, the nonprofit voting works was able to develop open source system on the own. i first discussed the idea mid-september and mid-october, the commission president and i met to discuss the pilot size and scope. the commission discussed the pilot at its september, october, november and december meetings an voting works was in attendance to answer questions. at our december meeting, the commission voting unanimously to support this legislation. we ask you to support it as well. thank you very much. >> chair peskin: thank you, commissioner for your continue work on this matter.

are there any other members of the public for public comment on this item? >> clerk: i believe we have one more caller in the queue to speak. >> caller: hi. my name is carla. i'm a resident of san francisco and a volunteer with california clean money campaign. i worked years ago when we were out gathering signatures to get support for pilot project few years ago to do a trial open source voting process. one of the things really impressed me, whenever i approached someone who was in the tech industry, i hardly heard word of open source system. they more than general understood immediately the

advantages and security involved in open source voting. it's more important now than ever that we can rebuild the trust that people have in our voting systems that we have secure voting systems and we have the transparency that will support that. thank you. >> chair peskin: are there any last speaker or speakers? >> clerk: one last check. that completes our caller list for public comment. >> chair peskin: public comment on item number 3 is closed. president walton? >> supervisor walton: thank you so much supervisor peskin. thank you to everyone who called in so we can move forward with this pilot and get to the transparency that we all see when it comes to voting. i appreciate everyone who worked on this with us and love for this to go in as a committee

report. >> chair peskin: all right. on a motion made by myself to send this item with recommendation as a committee report. mr. young, a roll call please. >> clerk: on that motion. [roll call vote] the motion passes. the matter as a committee report. >> chair peskin: let's circle back to item number 2, president walton? >> supervisor walton: thank you. still, working on that per person amount. one thing we do know range on whether or not the individual decide to take advantage on the insurance or number. still waiting on exact number per person. >> chair peskin: all right. mr. clerk, call item number 4.

>> clerk: a hearing to unlimited power of inquiry and of course on potential failure to expose conflict of interest in board of appeals member darryl honda. member was of the public who wish to provide public comment should call (415)655-0001. meeting i.d. is 24937467581. price pound and pound again. >> chair peskin: thank you. we are joined by president walton who i think in mid-october, october 19th, requested that the board of supervisors use unlimited power of inquiry with regard to board of appeals member darryl honda

has it relates to allegations in the press with regards to potential failure to disclose conflicts of interest. that led to a letter that president walton sent to mr. honda about december 2nd, requesting the production of various documents. that letter is set forth in the file for this item. subsequently on december 13th, colleagues you will recall we had a brief hearing wherein mr. honda represented by counsel requested that we continue this item into early 2022 so that they can do more thorough research into the matter which spans a number of years. we are in receipts of the letter

dated december 31st. that is part of the file that responds to many of the il--allegations and assertions n that article. we have the opportunity to explore that. i want to thank mr. honda for diving into thinks -- into his files and coming up with information that forms that 10-page letter. wish him beginning of 2022 year. i think there are a number of questions that i have and i know we are joined by presidential walton and thank you darryl for attending this morning. i will also point to the fact in along the way, a member of the public sent a letter with other

allegations that is also part of the file that i will ask some of the questions about. as a threshold issue and i certainly understand and respect what was set forth in the letter namely, that many of the documents that president walton requested have not been furnished on the theory that these documents may contain proprietary information and financial information related to individuals not involved in the matter before the rules committee and therefore, have not been produced to inform this hearing. but that paragraph on page 2 ends with if the rules committee still wishes to review any of these documents after reviewing this letter, we mr. honda and

his counsel, can work with city staff on a way to produce these documents while maintaining confidentiality. i have discussed that with the city attorney's office and city attorneys office will be working with mr. honda and his counsel to determine a method by which we can have access to those documents while maintaining confidentiality. the choices, options range from redactions to having people be able to review them but not keep them. i will let the attorneys for the city and the attorneys for mr. honda work that threshold issue out before we presumably hear this again.

there are a number of things that i would like to explore that are in the letter. before i do that, i would like to start by offering president walton the opportunity to say anything or ask any questions he may wish to ask first. >> supervisor walton: thank you. i appreciate the time. i will defer to you for now. >> chair peskin: okay. i think one of the important issues that is raised in the letter -- i think i understand this -- i'm very pleased to hear that as set forth in the letter. mr. honda has recused himself on many occasions. numbers not jumping out at me.

what i recall, i think 16 occasions in his tenure on the board of appeals. is that in recent time? i'm trying to find where that was in the letter. >> since 2015. since the first matter was called out in the article. >> chair peskin: and has disclosed relationships, business relationships or personal relationships on at least 34 occasions presumably in the same time period. that's very important to know that mr. honda takes his duties to disclose and to recuse seriously. he does as to the three matters that are raised in a mission local article, bernal heights

apartment, the carolina matter and duncan matter discussed at some length that in two of the matters there was no legal requirement for recusal or disclosure given the fact that or the assertion that there has been no income received from the consulting party. not the ownership party sia consulting in the prior 12 months. in the duncan matter, i believe, there is sounds like some after the fact knowledge that was gained wherein it turns out that it was less than the one-year period for recusal by actually an hand full of days, i think it

was 11 months and 17 days and there about. it sounds from the way it's portrayed that was an oversight. i'm summarizing the letter. i want to get to this notion that there is a difference between s.i.a. consulting and the principles of s.i.a. consulting. indeed, mr. honda asserts, i believe this to be true, he has in his role as a realtor, never sold property for s.i.a. consulting but has sold property for its principles. i think that's something that we need to understand a little bit. there is pursuant to the mission local article and this has to do with a lawsuit brought by former

planning commissioner dennis richards, there is a deposition wherein mr. honda considers s.i.a. and its principles to be synonymous. whether it's s.i.a. that he had the business relationship well or the individuals, i think for the purposes of this conversation and our inquiry, that they should be treated as one and the same. let me get to a number of questions that i wanted to ask mr. honda. this may be a question for our legal counsel. the conflict rules or laws under fair political practices act in

the state of california, are not just about receiving income in the last 12 months period. they are also about the promise to receive income in it last 12 month period. this gets interesting. i have not -- i did ask for some legal research on this. which i am not in receipt of. it is an interesting thing as it relates to the role of real estate agent or a real estate broker. in so far as the listing agreement is kind of a promise to be paid but only if the transaction closes. if a realtor gets a listing agreement for say a period of one year and doesn't sell the property, the realtor doesn't get paid. the question that i'm asking,

we'll have to wait for legal advice, does that constitute a promise to be paid? if not akin to when you have a contract to build something, which is a promise that can be enforced through a mechanics lien or lawsuit. you have this relationship with the party even though you may not be paid. that requires a little bit more exploration. with all of that background, ask a series of questions. one of them in so far there have been not allegations i think

proof that other parties associated with s.i.a. consults that are not set forth in the letter. his family gave a loan in the amount of $180,000 to a member of the department of building inspection. his name is absent from the letter dated december 31st. which does speak to two individuals. mr. s.i.a. topzov.

my question to mr. honda is if he has any -- if you ever sold or had listing agreements with with him or whether for that matter, he's ever provided a loan or offered to provide a loan if you done any work for him or for that manner, anybody else affiliated with s.i.a. consulting? >> thank you chair peskin. good morning supervisors. supervisor chan, co-chair mandelman. i have never done transactions with him today. he's never been a party of s.i.a. consulting, period. not a principle, nor as a

worker. i never marketed property for him. i never been approached by him to handle any property, nor have i done any transactions with him. >> chair peskin: thank you for that answer. one thing, i appreciate the forth rightness of this, the december 31st letter that mr. sutton provided this committee, does indicate that in you mr. honda, you have actually retained s.i.a. consulting to provide engineering or architectural services on some of the projects do you as a developer. my question there is -- this can be part of the exploration city attorney does -- did you pay the full rate for those services? were you given a discount or were any services performed for

free? >> again, chair peskin, i've hired the llc, hired s.i.a. consulting on three separate occasions. no discount was offered to us. we paid the standard normal fee they would charge any client. as such with -- [ indiscernible ] >> chair peskin: then, in the letter where there is the admission of the oversight with regard to the duncan matter. may be this is a misstatement or may be i'm reading it incorrectly. this is on page 8 under the

commissioner honda's legal duties on the third paragraph. i think this may be a question for mr. sutton, it says in the duncan matter, mr. honda was not aware at the time of the vote that s.i.a. consulting worked for the property owner in the past. he was not aware when he joined in the unanimous vote that he received income from an owner of 11.5 months earlier. the word owner there was confusing to me. as i tried to establish earlier, one of the responses that you have made in this is that regardless of the financial relationship between principles of s.i.a. and mr. honda n no

event were the owners, the real parties in interest, have had paid mr. honda in the previous 12 months. here you used the word owner. can you explain that? >> thank you for pointing out too many clauses. we're referring to the owners at s.i.a. consulting. >> chair peskin: got it. that jumped out at me. let me jump a little bit to something that was raised in the unsolicited letter that was part of the file that comes from jerry dradler.

, i have done fess, as to his allegations about the alleged improper issuance of a certificate of compliance or certificate of certificates of compliance, i frankly didn't really understand that. i'm not a lawyer or claim to be an expert. it did raise other issues around form 700 that led me to do some very cursory quick research on the form 700 that are available for everybody to see. i wanted to ask commissioner honda, a few questions with regard to his form 700.

for each of those years, amended it to show a source of income in excess of $10,000 for a commission for the sale of real property. what i wanted to understand -- let me ask you this, mr. honda, you're a realtor. you done that for more than 20 years? >> correct. >> chair peskin: i know every year is different, how many properties do you sell in an average year? >> as i gotten older and in my late 70s and 50s, i'm down

to about a dozen a year, myself personally. in the early 2000, it will be around 40 to 50 a year. >> chair peskin: i assume, given what property is worth in this town, that the average commission even when you split it with the other brokers involved is more than $10,000? >> correct. >> chair peskin: why you doing a dozen a year in your middle-age, less than you did when you were a younger? are you only listing four sales in four years. i don't understand that. >> i was unaware that i had to submit my form 700 transactions where i received more than

$10,000. i believe what happened was after the jerry dradler case on 17th avenue, was reported to the ethics department. the ethics contacted me said that my form 700 incorrect. at that point, i retained counsel to go through all my transactions. >> chair peskin: i get that part. what i don't get why why you only reported 4 when you dozen or 40 a year. >> i haven't done 40 in a long time. i reduced my workload quite a bit. i have a team of six agents that pretty much i manage and help them do their products. as i gotten further down the road here, decided to not do as much real estate.

>> chair peskin: what you are representing is that between 2017 and 2020, you only as set forth in the four amendments that you filed on october 14, 2021, you only had four real estate transactions in that period of time where were in excess of $10,000 of commission? >> it's five or six. it varies every year. >> that's per year. that's not for the total. i believe we made an amendment for that. for me to get that information, we went to the management of the broker that i work for. they pulled up all the information that was on file. then i handed that to my attorney jim sutton. then he at that point, completed the forms.

>> -- supervisor peskin, i understand your question. the difference between a dozen deal than 5 or 6 on the form 700. we'll follow-up with darryl. we'll make certain they contain all the commissions here and every year. >> chair peskin: okay. there other real estate brokers who serve on other commissions that require the filing of form 700s. they all -- i shouldn't say all, to my knowledge, they had several pages that would list out each and every year, every commission he received over $10,000.

it's nice to know that after nine years commissioner honda has realized that this is information that has to be disclosed. the reason for disclosure -- this isn't a gotcha thing, that gives the public as well as the commissioner who claims to very carefully look at every one of his business relationships before votes at the quasi judicial body board of appeals, it gives them to know that. if you doing a dozen deals -- let me ask you this, commissioner honda.

what is the standard industry practice for a real estate commission on sale of residential property? >> as far as what? 2.5%. >> chair peskin: to each broker? >> correct. >> chair peskin: 2.5% to the buyers broker and seller broker? >> 7% total. >> chair peskin: what's the average size of a deal? >> 1.7. >> chair peskin: what's 2.5% off 1.7? >> $40,000 i think. >> chair peskin: more than 10. assuming that you are doing 12 deals a year or 6 deals a year or 8 deals a year and the average is 1.7 and indeed, your

own website in 2017 alone lists two sales in excess of $3 million that closed in that calendar year on your website. your commission at 2.5% was significantly more than $10,000. it's not good that you never listed these but you listed four of them for a period of four years three months ago. just basic logic tells me that you haven't listed dozens of them. i needed to say that for the record. the certificates of compliance are beyond me. i don't really understand that part of mr. dradler's letter. i think that's an important thing. i'm sorry to ask, i mean that sincerely, these questions

publicly. i would be remised not to do so. talk about people's money, it is personal. mr. honda, are all of your financial investments only in real property? >> yes. >> chair peskin: you have no stocks? >> no stocks. no 401. >> chair peskin: i wanted to establish that you never filled out schedule-a. then, mr. dradler does point out that -- this may be well beyond the period that you would have to go back and file an amendment, he does point out that in 2015, a period where you

filed your form 700s a year and approximately 4 months rate that you reported no reportable interest on any schedules. yet, the year before the 2014 year, you list half dozen ownership and half dozen properties in the year after in 2016. for the 2016 year you listed half dozen properties. what happened in 2015 that you listed no reportable schedule -- reportable interest on any schedules? >> what happened was, i got contacted. i thought i had submitted all the correct forms. i got contacted by the ethics commission that it was not filed. i believe that was the year that they switched from it being faxed to online.

i'm the least i.t. compatible guy except for the iphone. i thought that was submitted correctly. when the ethics department contacted me and then my director contacted me, we submitted the form. >> chair peskin: there are other questions i could ask. one i wanted to point out, which is one of the things that the form 700s require that when you acquire reportable interest, real property, stocks, you must report when you acquire them and when you dispose of those financial interest, you have to report when you disposed of them. one can do the deduction -- in

so far as real property is pretty easily trackable -- i will note that in 2020, 438 ceases to show up on your form 700. clearly it will tell you why. you got to report that you sold it. it doesn't just disappear off your form 700s i'm sure that's an innocent reporting mistake. i wanted to point that oversight out. form 700s are important. the city attorney of san francisco will actually review

your draft 700s before you file them. i don't know if colleagues, if you have any questions or comments. i will turn it over to you colleagues. president walton. >> supervisor walton: i have two questions. commissioner honda how long have you been serving on board of appeals? >> i was nominated and appointed in november 2011 for less than four-year term. when that term ended, i was renominated. i was nominated by mayor ed lee

then i was renominated again by then mayor ed lee for an additional four terms. that term ended in 2000. i was then nominated by the board of supervisors then president norman yee to serve four years at that time. >> supervisor walton: i believe you mean 2020. >> sorry. yes. >> supervisor walton: when did this term end? >> i believe in 2024. >> supervisor walton: thank you. that's all i have. >> chair peskin: thank you president walton. supervisor mandelman? >> supervisor mandelman: thank you chair peskin. thank you president walton and

chair peskin for convening this calling and having this hearing. i don't have anything particularly to ask. this case very much, i think, goes to kind of attention in having people who are intimately involved in development and real estate on these bodies that oversee real estate development. there's sort of baked into the chartered provisions around building commission. which i know chair peskin, you and i agree may be off change. there's still this notion we want to have people who have direct immediate experience, we know what's going on will know what -- will know the impact what they are doing. they live it and work it and see it every day.

on the other hand, when we put people in these roles who are in their day-to-day work, doing real estate developments, we can move around what the lines are requiring -- we can do some of this at the state legislature. we can move the disclosure and require this or that, you can't have this kind of relationship. ultimately, there's going to be, i think a perception of potentially, perception of a problem in that folks are making money off of things that are very close to the things they are being asked to adjudicate on these bodies. i don't know what the right answer is. i know what the right answer is on the building commission. there's a real tension there between these two values.

that's just a thought i'm having in morning. thanks. >> chair peskin: thank you. supervisor mandelman. yes, i think you are touching on something that's important for us to really think about. it does what you have those relationships actually create environment where in commissioner honda's case, if you add together the recusals and the disclosures, it's a huge number. i appreciate the fact that he is doing what required under the law. i will mention that as set forth

in mr. sutton's letter, recusing himself in all situations is clearly the safest course of action. i would pause it, do so respectfully, commissioner honda has not always taken the safest course of action. what the letter lays out, mr. honda we're checking to see within 12 months. he missed one, kind of sort of. it's not like every time the rubin firm stands up or every time s.i.a. is involved, he does that. it says in the letter, it goes back and sees whether or not he has to disclose or whether he has to recuse. the advice about recusing itself in all situations as the safest course of action is not necessarily been respectfully honda's ammo. i want to ask one other uncomfortable question which has

been the subject of some media attention. i believe it's the subject of some litigation which is allegations and whistleblower case that has become public by a former board of appeals staff, paralegal with regard to the allegation of removal of information from a file by the commissioner. can you shed some light on that matter mr. honda? >> sure. as far as that particular matter is concerned, i believe it happened in 2019. for the people that are watching as commissioners, we are not involved in the day-to-day hiring, firing a omicron varianr body. we are voluntary civil servant that show and do the brief.

we have nothing to do with the employees of our particular boards. i was unaware of this matter until it got released to press that a member that worked as a legal aid of board of appeals was fired. i was not aware any of the allegations until it was in the papers. when i heard the allegations, i called my director who's on this zoom call now and asked her what was the situation. she said that a staff member had been fired. i was not a party to any of that information. i was not party to her firing. there was no need for them to let me know any of the particulars on the case. i read through the media she had accused me of removing a text

that was, i believe, in the dennis richards case where it says, yo bro, what's going on. it's ridiculous. when dennis richards came --before us, that information ws released. nor could i have removed it from the files. i'm not involved with the day-to-day operations of the board of appeals. the fact that information was already released -- their attorneys had it. everyone had it. there will be no reason for me to remove it nor would i. that text, unfortunately is still on my phone to this day. >> chair peskin: i don't want to put words in your mouth, simple

yes or no question, have you ever removed any file or information from any file at the board of appeals? >> absolutely not. >> chair peskin: thank you. uncomfortable question. i felt that it needed to be asked and answered. thank you for that candid response. colleagues, before we open this up to public comment and having consulted president walton who brought this item before this committee, it would be my suggestion that we give our counsel and counsel for mr. honda the opportunity to figure out how those documents that president walton asked to be produced be made available for us to see in some form or fashion.

understanding that there is proprietary information and confidential information to be respected. i ask that we continue this item to the call of the chair while the attorneys are figuring that out. with that, why don't we open this up to public comment. >> clerk: mr. chair, operations checking to see if there's any callers in the queue. please call star 3 to be added to the queue. for those already on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicate you have been unmuted. it appears we have two callers with one person in line to speak.

>> caller: supervisors, i think this corruption or kind of corruption appeared before mr. honda many times. given my comment on other cases. we need to fine tune the form 700 for everybody. i can name many people. kimberly blandin, lynnette suite, chris jackson -- even your president of the board. don't you think that we advocates are stupid. we have access to the freedom of information act. we collect documents and we know

how this process works. my thing is, we need a person, we need somebody in the ethics commission to go beyond call of duty to put things on track. including with the board of supervisors. nitpicking like this is not good. we already lot of divisiveness in our community. like now, i know a person is creating divisiveness. when i worked for 40 years in the bay view. you supervisors don't know that chronologically. i wanted -- i do know mr. honda.

i'm not saying he's a saint. >> clerk: speaker time has expired. >> chair peskin: any other members of the public on this item? >> clerk: one more person has jumped in. >> caller: can you hear me now? >> clerk: we can hear you. please proceed. >> caller: good morning, this is david pilpel. i'm choosing not to weigh in on this particular matter in substance at this time. although, i'm very fascinated by the concepts and the details here. i did want to observe that in my experience with d.b.i. and plan and to some extent board of appeals, various forms call for a signature of either an

appellant project sponsor or agent. it's not consistent across the various departments as to an agent authorization where there's an agent on behalf of a property owner project sponsor and perhaps that's something that could be examined in connection with this or separately. it also doesn't always make clear where an owner or a representative is with a firm or an l.l.p. or l.l.c., who the principle is. so you have entities like 1000 market street associates or something like that. it's not clear who the people are involved.

if there's a way to make that more transparent between those agencies, ethics form,eth, we might be better served. that's my thought on this at this time. i do not weigh in on the particulars with regard to commissioner honda at this point. thank you for listening. >> chair peskin: thank you. are there any other members of the public for public comment on this item? >> clerk: that completes our list of public commenters on this matter. >> chair peskin: public comment on this item is closed. president walton, any last words? >> supervisor walton: again, i want to thank you chair peskin for deliberating over this process. thank you commissioner honda for submitting a portion of the documents requested. i want to 100% agree with

supervisor peskin, we need to find out from both parties attorney how we're going to furnish the rest of the documents that were requested so we can move forward and get all the information needed. i appreciate this hearing today and i stand by your motion. >> chair peskin: all right. thank you president walton. mr. sutton, our counsel will be in touch with you. you guys will figure out whatever the right path is for us to see what we need to see. namely all those listing agreements and things -- sound like, we're able to locate many of them. city attorney office will be in touch to figure that out. with that, like to make a motion to continue this item for the time being to the call of the chair pending resolution of that

matter. on that motion, a roll call please. >> clerk: yes. [roll call vote]. the motion passes without objection. >> chair peskin: all right. why don't we see mr. honda and mr. sutton, item number 2. >> like your suit there, chair peskin. >> chair peskin: thank you. it's an old jacket and old tie and trying impress. [ laughter ] item 2. president walton? >> supervisor walton: thank you. i do have an response for you. it may not be as crisp as you would like. the reason it did take a minute is because there's really no

static number due to the fact that it would depend on what type of insurance plan a commissioner would like. the city allows a few options with several healthcare providers. i will say, going on the san francisco health services website, the cost for the city is at its lowest contribution from the city, $307.32. that's for the least expensive plan. it ranges up to $399.80 for the most expensive plan. city who partake in the insurance plan, pick a different type of insurance plan, costs will vary. those are the ranges. >> chair peskin: it sound like if you do the math, maximum if everybody close the most expensive health plan and everybody chose it's about $100 a year. thank you for that.

sorry for not giving all heads up, i was going to ask the question. >> supervisor walton: that is perfectly good to know and have an answer for moving forward. >> chair peskin: may be it will come up tomorrow at the full board. on a motion made by this chair to send this item to the full board with recommendation as a committee report a roll call please. >> clerk: on the motion to recommend as committee report. [roll call vote] the motion passes without objection. >> chair peskin: we are adjourned.

>> the city has undertaken a pilot program to hook up private privately -- owned hotels. >> the community members say this is helpful for them especially for the seniors and families with kids from seniors

being able to connect with the family during the pandemic and too watch the news has been really helpful during this time where they are stuck inside and are not able to go outside. for families it is important to stay connected to go to school, to get connected so they can submit resumes to find jobs during the pandemic. [speaking foreign language] >> challenges that might seem for the fiber in chinatown is pretty congested. the fiber team found ways around that. they would have to do things such as overnight work in the manholes to get across through

busy intersections, and i think the last challenge is a lot of buildings we worked on were built in the early 1900s and they are not fitted with the typical infrastructure you would put in a new building. we overcame that with creative ideas, and we continue to connect more sites like this. >> high-speed internet has become a lifesaver in the modern era. i am delighted that we completed three buildings or in the process of completing two more. i want to thank our department of technology that has done this by themselves. it is not contracted out. it is done by city employees. i am proud and i want to take a moment to celebrate what we are doing.

>> good afternoon, everyone. this meeting will come to order. welcome to the january 10, 2022, meeting of the land use and transportation committee of the san francisco board of supervisor. this is our first meeting of the year 2022. may it be better. i am the chair of the committee joined by the vice chair. the committee clerk is erica major. i would like to thank the folks at sfgov tv. >> clerk: the committee members participating