to my colleagues look at the possibilities. we will be doing that today. thank you. chiu: any additional conversation? if we could take a roll-call vote on this item. >> item 24, campos aye. chiu aye. chu aye. daly no. dufty aye. elsbernd no. mar. aye. maxwell aye. mirkarimi aye. alioto-pier no. avalos aye. there are seven -- 8 ayes and three nos. supervisor chiu: this motion is approved. >> item 25 is an ordinance amendment that five of the general plan for the downtown

plan to change the height and vote classification of the west corner for property located at 222 second street. item 26 is an ordinance amending the zoning map 1ht to change the height and bulk declassification of the west corner. on items 25 and 26, campos aye. chiu aye. chu aye. daly aye. dufty aye. elsbernd aye. mar aye. maxwell aye. mirkarimi aye. alioto-pier aye. avalos aye. there are 11 aye. supervisor avalos: -- supervisor chiu: these ordinances are passed on the first reading. >> item 27 is an ordinance

designating 1890 chestnut street as a landmark under article 10 of the san francisco planning code. supervisor chiu: this ordinance is passed on the first reading. item 28. >> item 28 is from the land use and economic committee with a recommendation of do not pass with an ordinance designating the north beach branch library located at 2000 mason street as a landmark under article 10 of the san francisco planning code. supervisor chiu: colleagues, this is an item that came out of our land use committee with a "do not pass" recommendation, and i would like to ask for your no vote on this measure. the specific issue before us is whether we should designate as a landmark the north beach branch library. the historic preservation commission debated the potential landmarking of this library at eight meetings between july 2009 and september 2010. they voted three times on it.

deadlocked once. it twice passed with a one-vote margin. there has been a legitimate question if the north beach library deserves landmarking. we have received numerous feedback from prominent architects, architectural historians, neighborhood historians, and those from the preservation community against the landmarking. they point out that of the seven libraries that have been designated by appleton and woolford, the north beach library is the least representative and most lacking architectural characteristics of that style. as i'm sure all of you here support preservation when merited, our city has to date renovated and preserved 18 public libraries. we have also preserved a six libraries from the sperm for future generations, and i certainly support that preservation, but i do not think that including buildings that black architectural merit -- i think that cheapens the historic

landmark designation for other buildings that do have merit, and this is why, colleagues, the land use committee decided what we did and why i would ask for your note on this item today. -- for your no vote on this item today. supervisor campos: colleagues, can we get a roll call on this? same house/colorado? no, roll call? >> campos no. chiu no. chu no. daly aye. dufty no. elsbernd no. mar no. maxwell no. mirkarimi no. alioto-pier no. avalos no. there is one aye and 10 nos.

supervisor campos: this ordinance is not passed on his reading and fails. supervisor chiu: we have a number of committee reports. why don't we start with item 29? >> item 29, motion approving the mayors of women of clotting -- the mayor's reappointment of claudine cheng to the treasure island development authority board. supervisor chiu: colleagues, if we could call item 30, 31, and 32 together. >> item 30 is a motion approving the mayor's reappointment of john elberling to the treasure island development authority board. item 31 is a motion approving the mayor's reappointment of linda richardson to the treasure island development authority board of directors. item 32 is a motion approving

the mayor's reappointment of jean-paul samaha to the treasure island development authority board of directors. supervisor daly: thank you, mr. president and colleagues. let me say there is at least one director here who i have supported several times, who has done excellent work on tida and who deserves to be reappointed, and i think that there is some merit to some of the other appointments as well, but representing treasure island here on the board of supervisors, having in the rules committee gone to some lengths to block commission appointment in order to get actual representation from residents of treasure island on to the

treasure island development authority at this 11th hour, not just of the appointing authority's tenure as mayor of san francisco, but also the 11th hour of this supervisor's tenure here on the board of supervisors and my role on tida. i think that these appointments, especially in addition with the two other appointments considered in committee of the two weary -- larry appointments are a slap in the face of the residents of treasure island and more specifically, a slap in the face of the current share -- chair of tida and treasure island resident owen stephens.

when these appointments surfaced and when chair stephens was not reappointed by the mayor, residents, the folks who are active on treasure island -- i believe unanimously -- weighed in in opposition, and this is difficult because these are technically redevelopment appointments that are effective if we do not act by 2/3 vote right now to reject. but the past -- teh ask -- the ask from treasure island is to reject these appointments, including director elberling, whom i'm close to, until we get a sound slate of potential directors to us, whether it be from the current mayor of san francisco or the next mayor of san francisco. it is my understanding that if we do reject these appointments,

that the existing directors will continue to serve, so there will not be a lapse in the work program at tida, but these are lame-duck appointments in more ways than one. to not allow the next district supervisor, who will have to work with these directors, the opportunity to weigh in is incorrect. to allow the outgoing mayor, and i think there may be some patronage involved in some of the particular appointments -- to allow the outgoing mayor to do that, i think, is incorrect. it is not a slight of me because i ain't going to be at this desk, but it is a slight of several thousand san franciscan

s who deserve to have representation on the body that deals with day-to-day issues and day-to-day management of the island and what is happening and the conditions of the buildings and the condition of the fields and the conditions of the playgrounds and of the streets. these are day to day issues, and there is no representation in front of us. the mayor, when there was pushed back, said that they would take applications from island residents in the other seat -- when there was push-back. as far as we can tell, the mayor did not require these appointments to make applications. he did not open up all the seats to applications, and for the life of me, i did not know why -- i do not know why chair

stephens is not back here. he is not a close friend or ally of mine, but he has done a good job on tida. he is the current share. and douglas, the one who spent two hours with me on the affordable housing provisions of the term sheet we discussed earlier this year -- he did not even realize that he was not appointed back into his seat on tida. he is in the administration, and the only thing i can come up with is what we have here is some bottom of the barrel appointments. i encourage you to reject them, to demand better, and if we do not get better, wait for the next mayor to come along who hopefully will do better. supervisor chiu: i have a question -- could you go through

these appointees, which of them are continue -- continuing on with their service and which are new appointees? supervisor campos: sure. the rules committee considered these appointments, and the reason why we forwarded the item as a committee report is because we have a deadline that requires that we act at this board meeting either to reject or to approve. with respect to the various appointments, my understanding is that commissioners cheng, elberling and samaha have been serving on the tida board, and with respect to commissioner richardson -- she is serving right now, but she was recently appointed to that position. there were two additional

appointments made to the tida board. those appointments were not forwarded to this meeting because the timeline to act for those appointments is actually different. in terms of what transpired at the rules committee, there was a motion to move this forward without a recommendation. i can only speak for myself to say that my preference was to continue these items because of the concerns that were raised by residents of treasure island, who were very worried about the fact that there is no island resident that has been nominated and that the one person who lives on the island who is currently serving on the tida board was not renominated. when asked about that, the mayor's office indicated they would open an application and have requested applications from

residents of the island. it should be noted, though, that currently, there is no vacancy, and that doug shoemaker is serving on the board, and we were informed that he would be asked to step down so that the resident of the island could fill that vacancy. what i have indicated and what i continue to believe is that it is very unfortunate that representation of island residents is something that came up after the fact, that it -- if indeed it was important to us to have a representative from the island, why would that not be considered before the entire set of nominations was forwarded to the rules committee? i want to underscore that the specific things that each of these candidates brings to the table -- and i think that,

certainly, the commissioners who have been working on the tida board for quite some time have been confirmed very recently by this body and continue to do a good job, but the question remains for me is -- is this process the right process? i do have a question for the city attorney's office in terms of what happens to those commissioners who certainly sit on the board, if the board were to reject the nominations, the appointments. what would happen to those commissioners? supervisor chiu: mr. deputy city attorney. >> supervisor, i'm afraid i do not have the information readily available to me. it would depend on when the current directors were initially appointed to their seats. perhaps someone from the mayor's

office can provide you with some more information. >> thank you. supervisor campos, i believe they would remain as the mayor's appointments. they serve at the pleasure of the mayor. supervisor campos: the reason i ask that is because i do think we have a process problem here. irrespective of the marriage of appointing these individuals, there is a larger issue of whether or not we should have a different process. given that even if rejection happens, there will continue to be worked on by these commissioners, that is something that i am certainly considering because i do think that we need to get a better process for those residents. i do think that we owe it to them to make sure that there is representation, and that is not to take anything away from the individuals that have been forwarded. one last thing i would say is

that i do believe that given that we will be having a new district 6 supervisor, not to take anything away from the current district 6 supervisor, it might be a consideration to make sure that that individual has some at least input on who is selected. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. supervisor campos spoke to some of the salient points, but just one question i want to ask through you to the mayor's office -- what is the timeline for appointing somebody from a resident of treasure island to this body? >> an application was sent out and a press release was sent out calling for applicants for the resident spot in mid-october. the deadline for this

applications is november 15, and shortly thereafter, we will be doing a review of those applications and then making the appointment. supervisor mirkarimi: according to the context that supervisor daly provided, it sounds like you have an able represented already -- commissioner stephens -- and able representative already, commissioner stephens. >> he certainly has been applied -- encouraged to apply for that position. supervisor mirkarimi: as it goes to the question of process, the formula is set up for the legislative branch and has very little recourse in this process. rules committee could not really do much except to pass this on. they cannot really reject, and continuing would have only solidified the current roster

that is before them, so rules committee proved to be not effective because of just the way the procedure has rendered it so, and for us, it would require a supermajority to render a response if we wanted to see something different. that is unfortunate in that the executive branch had an opportunity to work out with the legislative branch, but in particular, the district 6 supervisor and others, to make sure there was a healthy balance on this committee. that did not happen, so i think we are rolling the dice to make sure there will be effective representation, but it feels like and what i'm hearing is that that is not being committed to, and that is a real problem, i think. and it is no reflection on the candidates and those who are before us again that have served ably, but the process in itself undermines, i think, any kind of inducement to the residents

of treasure island, which i think sends exactly the wrong message -- undermines any kind of endearment to the residents of treasure island. supervisor alioto-pier: a lot of the conversation obviously surrounded the fact that mr. stephens is a resident and the need to have a residential appointment on tida. the commitment that was made on committee and has been made publicly outside of committee and in the newspapers is that right now, currently, mr. shoemaker's position will be filled by a resident. what we did discuss in committee is the fact that it had -- that the post had been advertised. we were seeking applications -- actively seeking applications from residents. had been going on two weeks

before we actually met in committee. i believe one person had filed an application. the process will be open for another two weeks, but the spot is designated for a resident, and i feel very confident that a resident will be placed in that position. it does not seem to me that the thing for us to do right now is to hold up appointments of members of tida who have been sitting on tida and doing a very good job. there is nothing, in my opinion, that should prevent us from moving forward on the appointments we currently have, particularly because we are the ones who will be approving the resident, and i think we can all feel very secure in knowing that ultimately a resident will be appointed to that one particular position. so i would hope that we would move the mayor's appointments through. these are mayoral appointments

that sit at the pleasure of the mayor. there is nothing to stop the new mayor from making appointments if he or she sees fit, so i think we should move forward with what we have in front of us today. supervisor daly: i would be hesitant to encourage the next mayor of san francisco to a undue seated commissioners -- to undo seated commissioners because we are unable to take care of business at the board of supervisors. that seems backward to me. if you want to check whether or not there was good faith, we have a chair of the tida board, who is a treasure island resident, is very active in island affairs, very active obviously on the board of directors, very well liked and respected by residents -- i

mean, if you spend any time over at treasure island or with treasure island residents, these are typically people who already feel like second-class san franciscans because they are out on the island and do not have many of the same things we take for granted here. we have seen it when we discussed bus service. we saw at the school district when we discussed deliberations on the closure of the school. already, we have several thousand san franciscans out there. we have folks who are formerly homeless in terms of many of the programs that are on the island, and it is separated physically from the rest of san francisco. then, we went and got to get an island resident, which is by no means -- i'm friendly with mr. stephens, but in no way is the

in my political camp or a close ally of mine, but he is a san franciscan who has been active and has done good work. if you look at his seat, larry mazolla, jr. has been appointed to succeed him, and that appointment was made without any assurance to island residents that there would be an effort for proper representation, and it was not until they started e- mail in me that the mayor's office started changing their tune. and for a resident of the island to have to apply, and that seat that he has to apply for, currently occupied by mr. shoemaker, who is the expert on affordable housing issues, and affordable housing is one of the big issues on treasure island -- this is backward. if you want to make a party-line vote, fine.

go ahead and make a party line vote, but it is backward, the way this is happening. is that would to say that the next mayor of san francisco should come along and and do this if they do not like it -- it is backward to say that the next mayor of san francisco should come along and undo this if they do not like it. supervisor campos: i just really want to underscore that for me, the concern is not -- this is not about the individual candidates. it is really about the process for me, and i think it is unfortunate because you have people who have done a lot of good work. again, i think that process has been, in my view, lacking in terms of addressing the concerns of the residents of treasure island. thank you. supervisor chiu: colleagues, any additional discussion? i suggest we proceed with a roll call vote on each of these items.

if we could start with a roll call vote on item 29. >> item 29, campos no. chiu aye. chu aye. daly no. dufty aye. elsbernd aye. mar aye. maxwell aye. mirkarimi no. alioto-pier aye. avalos no. there are seven ayes and four nos. supervisor chiu: this motion is approved. item 30. >> on item 30, campos no. chiu aye. chu aye. daly no. dufty aye. elsbernd aye. mar aye. maxwell aye.

mirkarimi no. alioto-pier aye. avalos no. there are seven ayes and four no. supervisor chiu: this motion is approved. next item. >> on item 31, campos no. chiu aye. chu aye. daly no. dufty aye. elsbernd aye. mar aye. maxwell aye. mirkarimi no. alioto-pier aye. avalos no. there are seven ayes and four no. supervisor chiu: this motion is approved. finally, item 32. >> item 32, campos no. chiu aye chu aye aye. -- chiu aye.

chu aye. daly no. dufty aye. elsbernd aye. mar aye. maxwell aye. mirkarimi no. alioto-pier aye. avalos no. there are seven aye and four nos. supervisor chiu: we have received a letter from the appointee withdrawing his name for consideration, so i understand this motion is tabled as a matter of law. i could confirm that with the deputy city attorney. >> that is correct. supervisor chiu: this motion is tabled. if we could now move to roll call for introductions. >> first on a roll call for

introductions is supervisor campos. supervisor avalos. supervisor avalos: thank you. colleagues, i am very concerned about the transition to the successor mayor or interim mayor for the city and county of san francisco. we know that gavin newsom is the lieutenant governor-elect. there will be a vacancy in the mayor's office in early january, and we need to make sure we have a steady transition, especially with our budget deficit that is looming ahead of us. the earlier we get started on writing -- righting this ship, to help with that process, which i believe needs to be a collaborative process with the boar