>> john, gibner city attorney, and just a few provisions in the ordinance, and the ordinance approving the contract, waived the concern requirements. and two of those requirements that are proposed to be waived can't be waived because they are adopted by the voter initiatives and one is government comment code, which you are both familiar with, that prohibts contractors from getting campaign contribution to elected officials, and the other is administrative code section or chapter 12 g, that prohibts city money from being used for political activities and so our recommendation is that you strike those sections of the ordinance on page 4, lines 8 through 11. and the contract itself, provides that the parties will be subject to all applicable laws and so the contract acknowledges that pg&e will continue to be subject to these provisions. >> okay. obviously we would completely agree to it accept that the amendments and leave it at that. >> supervisor avalos? >> just a couple of questions, is there any schematic designs so far of the hydroelectric generate ors? >> i am sorry i didn't under

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 sa

city business. i have been advised and i believe i had appropriate advice given the fpcc decision. the 803 was a process and i would not be filing and 801. >> another question for mr. gibner. just a question about personal benefit. does that mean that you can actually receive a gift for a department that benefits an individual and that gift could be situated in the departments building and perhaps the office of that individual that could be considered that gift does not necessarily benefit that individual is that possible? that seems to be an interpretation that the fpcc is taking on this. >> i haven't spoken to anyone at fppc about this. they issue advice letters and they have a catalog of those letters. some of them are informal and some are them are more formal. they have issued written advice in the past that is available on their website and legal search engines indicating that a gift of artwork say that is to a department that is placed in the head officials office is a gift that could be a gift of personal benefit to the official that is to the department. >> okay. thank you. >> i'm going to move this over. next. >> supervisor breed. >> thank you, i just wanted to