Rules Committee continues inquiry into Board of Appeals member Daryl Honda’s Form 700 disclosures

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors' Rules Committee on May 2 took public testimony and questioned Board of Appeals member Daryl Honda in a continuing inquiry into whether he properly disclosed real‑estate interests on his annual Form 700 filings and whether he engaged in incompatible permit‑agent activity while serving on the board.

Chair Aaron Peskin recapped earlier hearings in December and January and reported that Deputy City Attorney John Givner and Honda’s counsel had reviewed proprietary materials related to the inquiry. Peskin flagged discrepancies in Honda’s 2021 filing and pointed the committee to a May 5, 2021 property purchase tied to an LLC associated with Honda that did not clearly appear on the filings the committee had received.

Honda told the committee his attorney had ‘‘taken over and completed all the form 700s’’ and said he believed the amended filings were now correct. He described his involvement with a limited‑liability company associated with 1161 Post Street as being ‘‘a manager’’ who did not have direct ownership or compensation and said, ‘‘If not, then it will be amended.’’ Honda also described his work as a longtime realtor and said some permit‑related work arose when he accompanied clients to the Department of Building Inspection; he characterized his hands‑on help on individual projects as non‑professional assistance and said he had not actively facilitated permit processing for several years.

Public commenters, including Jerry Drattler, presented documents alleging repeated Form 700 inaccuracies and wrote that Honda ‘‘has been a building permit expediter while serving on the BOA,’’ listing multiple properties and asserting failures to report ownership, indirect ownership through LLCs, and gains from sales. Callers and in‑person speakers also raised concerns about an instance in which a member of the mayor’s office contacted Honda on a personal matter and later worked at the Department of Building Inspection, saying that contact created troubling optics.

Honda told the committee the city’s Ethics Commission reviewed his records and, in his words, ‘‘confirmed that I always recuse myself properly.’’ Peskin pressed that even where Honda says he did not seek compensation, a Board of Appeals member being listed as a permit agent can create ‘‘preferential treatment’’ or the appearance of it and noted the city’s written statement of incompatible activities prohibits that role.

After questions and public comment, Chair Peskin announced the committee would continue Item 1 to the call of the chair; no final determination or disciplinary action was taken at the meeting. The committee will revisit the record and any needed amendments before deciding next steps.

The committee’s materials filed with the clerk list the specific property entries and amended filings that are under review; Honda and his counsel indicated they will confirm and, where necessary, amend missing entries.