thank you. next speaker. >> i want to speak for the majority of the upper plaza homeowners. i want to correct one initial statement. i am neither for nor against as a group for the cbd. individuals will have their own opinions. the leaders of the cbd remove dust from it because it was, for many of us -- we have small houses. it was a major burden. the upper plaza was expected to pay $42,000 a year to the cbd, and that was excessive for the benefits we're getting. we cannot shop in this area.

we have to go outside of this area. we are in a very difficult situation, a different situation than the people in union square. thank you. president chiu: thank you. are there any other members of the public who wish to speak in support of the assessment district? let us move to individuals that oppose the assessment district. could you please step up? >> thank you, supervisors. i would like to read a letter from david harrison, who is the managing partner of the companies who own the former triple a buildings. i am sorry he had to leave. he was here. i enthusiastically support the formation of the civic center supervisor campos: supervisor daly: -- iced enthusiastically support the formation of the civic center cbd. i've been fortunate to serve on the board of another cbd in san

francisco, in fisherman's wharf. i've seen how it is benefited the fisherman's wharf area by providing needed services, but also by serving as a forum where members of the community can come together, air their differences, and find common ground to move forward on issues they care about. i look forward to the day when the civic center neighborhood can enjoy the same benefits. i urge you to support the formation of the civic center cbd. sincerely, david harrison. i would like to echo that as my own sentiments. president chiu: thank you. any other members of the public was to speak in support? seeing none, i will ask for members of the public who wish to speak in opposition. >> do not accept money or give money to the foundation. this is a bad idea for some very specific yet reasons and for some general reasons.

first of all, in terms of the general concept, a cbd is money flowing in the wrong direction. it is additional money coming in for these improvements. the city is one of the largest property holders in this area. 36% of it is taxpayer money that citizens have voted for improvements through the city as a whole. to take that money and send it out is unclear in concept. we have heard this term now called the stakeholders, and i believe this is probably been in operation.

it is time to send a message that everybody is a stickler when it comes to civic center. the bruin belongs in civic center. what they call beautification is too often the removal of you and me. an ugly statement was made when the library approve and was sought as to how these things work. often, the way it works is very ugly, and we need to make sure that this remains in public hands for reasons of justice. thank you very much.

>> businesses and those adding value to land value should the paper community benefit districts. these parties to benefit the community by the value that they add. the proper source of funding for community improvements is an ad valorem tax on location of value. the added value will not be privatized in the term of locational rent. >> peter wharfield, library users association. it is wrong to place any at six bases and streets to any aspect of control over those places of streets to the private groups, and nobody from the public boats on the formation of this or the

authorization of the cbd. when mr. chappell came to do library commission in october to seek approval for going ahead with this, he told as the chief story of success and the removal of a homeless woman who was trying to sleep in an alley in another community benefit district, and the so-called embassadors by repeated approaches eventually drove off and she was never seen again. there was no mention of beautification in this story, now that there's any problem that had been had from her before. it was rousting homelessness and homeless people. that is what a lot of this is about, despite all the nice language of ambassadors. there are first amendment issues we have written to you about. we have had experience of being stopped in public spaces that were controlled by other cbds

and their so-called ambassadors or employees stopped the public constitutional right to speech and assembly. in other instances, there have been other problems of control, and i have sent you a letter regarding a "nation" article from 1995 -- "trespasser on main street -- you." "the new york times" did a series of articles about cbd gone wild, bullying the homeless. thanks very much. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> good evening, supervisors. i am jim kerwin.

i am an international columnist and illustrator and have been for over 50 years. my question to you, after listening especially to the two last hours of proceeding time -- i cannot understand how this body could have accepted this proposal in the first place. this has to do with the maintenance of freedom in this country and the maintenance of civilian police that are answerable to someone besides the board of the cbd. cbds may be very good for commercial districts, but we are talking about the city's government here. i have written you three times and got no answers whatsoever. i am sure you are familiar with my opinions, not that it matters much. this city is five days older than the constitution of the united states.

in all that time, we have not seen fit to give up policing our own citizens to a private corporation. what i am maintaining here is that your heart seeking to privatize the citizenry in the name of business. it is not really a good idea. i would really like to hear from you as to how you thought it was possible to even entertain this idea. privatizing the government of the city of san francisco is not a good idea, and if you think it is, you need to find other work. thank you. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> good evening, supervisors. my name is bob stewart. i am an organizer with the coalition on homelessness. you took your offices because you believe government has a particular role in society and want to make the decisions that will fils. that includes public safety and the maintenance of public

spaces. through a cbd, you effectively for fit your own responsibilities in those areas in a fundamentally under crop -- undemocratic way that marginalizes people in our society, especially homeless people and youth. beyond giving up on government, cbds in this form, where the government is paying as a member, are bad government. we are talking about spending a quarter of a million dollars on a structure where there is no accountability whatsoever. i strongly encourage you to vote against this. thank you. president chiu: next speaker. >> there is a reason there is a line between private property and public property. if property owners want to spend a few thousand bucks beautifying their properties, let them. but leave me alone in public space, please.

[laughter] president chiu: why don't we go with the panda first? >> i am here with the world series giants and is celebrating giant panda to go with the black-and-white theme. in need something green. the civic center -- you need to bring something better there. as i heard today, you'll speaking today, i cried as chris was talking to you all about his sorrows and people who have been left out of this city sometimes. you know, it is time to bring everyone to that table a, you know. in san francisco, we always say we have diversity. diversity has to go further. injustice in this city should never -- it is so diverse. people come from all around the country and around the world

here. this is the one part of america where if you're going to do something right -- this time we are asking you to go from california to d.c. it is time to have some activities -- the people you see on the street are dying in hotels. it is time that you become humane to civic center for everyone. figure. -- thank you. >> my name is michael nulty. i have been involved in several formations of the community benefits district. it is a community benefit district we are talking about, not the business district. it turns out that this particular group has not done

out reach to the community organizations. it did not even go to the upper plaza. why do they want to be exempt? they probably were initially -- they were basically forced -- the whole thing was forced on them, saying you can be included so we can get some money out of you to help pay for the services. here is a plaza here, the word exempt right here. the thing is that i have been involved on the board of several cbds. there is no accountability, usually, which is one of the problems because the people that get involved are a small number of people. people are not aware of the meetings they form. it ends up being that the cbds

end up being a miniature city entity trying to make decisions for that neighborhood. it is very unclear how that entity is going to work with the rest of the community. since i am involved with other community organizations, it would have been a courtesy if the cbd had contacted me because i am involved with several of the organizations in district 6. personally i will speak that i do not appreciate how this cbd was formed and do not believe it should be formed until they have done proper a reach to all the community and gotten the community to help decide what the plan should be. [applause] >> my name is -- excuse me.

my name is nancy cross. i am just inspired to speak on this matter, even though i did not recognize it at its beginning. there is something that is comparable in the situation. i beg your pardon for my voice. i do not know where i got that chill. the city and county have a library with an administration and a board which reads in public and keeps records. you can see accountability there, whether it is well or not used, but accountability. but there is also the county law library, the san francisco law library. it has a community benefits district run the show for san francisco citizens. it is conceived as a department of the city government, but it does not respond to the sunshine law. it imposes penalties of presence

or absence from the library just by arbitrary action. the state law says the rules are to be adopted by trustees. there is a statute there. that is also part of the city charter. they can be reconciled. it requires the board of trustees of the county law library to meet at least once a month, and the rules are adopted by the board of trustees. there is never any notice in advance posted in the library. the library website advertises a book by its chair person. there are no notices of when the board will meet, no public meetings. this half of the board is approximately half x-judges and the rest are attorneys. they run the show and are in

competition with people doing their own more research. they target them. president chiu: thank you very much. are there any other members of the public that wish to speak in opposition to the assessment district experts -- district? if there are not at this time, this public hearing is now closed. i want to mention that at this time the tabulation of ballots will begin. we will continue with our business of the board for the remainder of the board agenda. when the tabulation is complete, our court will announce the results. if we can now go to our next four-o'clock special item, items 29 to 32. >> they comprise the hearings of persons interested in are objecting to the department of public works, at dated november 30, 2010, approving a tentative personal map -- tentative parcel

map for a two-unit condominium conversion located on castro street. item 31 disapproves the tentative parcel map and item 32 directs the clock to prepare findings. >> -- president chiu: for the hearing today, we will determine whether the two-unit condominium conversion is consistent with the general plan or whether any specific plans apply. will first hear from the appellant, who will have up to 10 minutes. the multi public comments from those speaking on behalf of the project. -- then we will take public comments from those speaking on behalf of the project. dpw will have up to 10 minutes for their brands to approve the parcel map. then, others will have time to speak on behalf of the real party of interest. finally, the appellant will have

up to three minutes for a rebuttal. colleagues, and the objections to proceeding in this way? >> the parties have reached a verbal tentative agreement. we respectfully ask that this matter be continued for three weeks to allow it to be produced in writing. i am the petitioner. the parties agreed -- reached a tentative verbal agreement. request this matter be continued for three weeks in order to allow it to be reproduced in writing. president chiu: is there a representative of the real party of interest here today? a representative on the other side? >> they are gone. president chiu: did they provide everything in writing? supervisor elsbernd: i would love to make a motion to continue this. president chiu: we will make a

motion to continue this item to three weeks from today based on the representation from the appellant. the other side has also agreed to the continuance to january 25. let me ask our deputy city attorney if discontinuance would be timely. >> a continuance is fine. deputy city attorney cheryl atoms. i just want to make it clear on the record that you have actually opened the hearing, because you have a certain amount of time to open the decision from the time the hearing is called. if you opened the hearing and continue it open, you can continue it for three weeks. president chiu: let me make it clear that with the appellate at the microphone we have opened up the hearing. at this time, superviser dufty has made a motion to continue for three weeks given a representation by both parties that they have hopefully reached agreement. that has been seconded by supervisor campos.

without objection, these items will be continued for three weeks. >> that would be at 4:00 p.m.? president chiu: continue to 4:00 p.m. here in this room. >> thank you so much. supervisor campos: thank you so much. president chiu: if we could now go back to item 46, which is the item potentially regarding the committee as a whole for the taking of nominations in the appointment of a successor to mayor. supervisor campos: thank you, mr. president. for purposes of clarification, at this time we can actually make nominations with respect to the appointment of interim mayor. is this just to vote on whether

to -- president chiu: sit as a committee as a whole. supervisor campos: i have consistently said throughout this process that it is important for us to deliberate on this issue sooner rather than later, and i think that the people in the city and county of san francisco have been waiting for a long time to get to this point. i am sure that all of us on this board have repeatedly been asked the question of who is going to be the next mayor. i think that the reason why people are asking that question is because it is a question that needs to be answered. even though there are differences of opinion on a number of issues, and think that at the end of the day all of us are here because we want to do the people's work, the people's business. i think that requires that we swiftly move to make a choice,

and that is what i hope we do. with that, i will leave it open to my other colleagues. supervisor mirkarimi: generally speaking, i completely agree. and i think that we are, with the very limited time window, in order to, i think, provide for what i think is the right decision, and that is today -- and i think we should move forward today. i think that was our intention right before the break when this was considered. time has matured, even though we did not do that. now i think it is that opportunity. supervisor daly: you know, part of this job is figuring out when

your position probably is not going to fly. the motion which i think was seconded to continue this -- i have heard from my clerk that i would prefer to move forward now. this is your board, no longer mine. so i will defer to their judgment. supervisor mar: the thank you, president chiu. i feel confident like my colleagues that they have a number of strong candidates that will be nominated. i am prepared to support the strongest one that can lead our city forward. i am ready to vote tonight as my colleagues are as well. thank you.

president chiu: we have a motion to go into a public hearing and take nominations. should we have a roll-call vote on this motion? aye. supervisor chu: aye. supervisor daly: aye. supervisor dufty: no. supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor maxwell: aye. supervisor mirkarimi: aye. supervisor alioto-pier: no. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. >> there are nine ayes and two nos. president chiu: this motion is approved. we can now go to items 25 and 26. could you read those items? >> they comprise the board of

supervisors sitting as a committee as a whole for a public hearing to discuss the proposed motion to take nominations and support a successor merit in the case of a vacancy in the office of mayor. president chiu: this is a hearing to discuss proposed motions to take nomination's in the event of a vacancy in the office of the mayor, as we decided upon. the way we will discuss this hearing is i will first receive comments from board members and then open it up to public comment. once all public comment has been heard, i will then close public comment. why do we hear from our colleagues? supervisor campos: if i may, just a clarification -- is it appropriate at this point to make nominations? president chiu: it is not. what is appropriate at this time is you can make comments on anything related to this topic,

including individuals. we will then hear from public comment from members of the public who wish to say anything they would like about this topic of the appointment of a successor mayor, including qualities that would like, specific individuals that ought to be considered -- anything related to this topic. once we have heard all public comment, i will close public comment. at that point, it would be appropriate for us to consider nominations. supervisor campos: thank you. i don't have anything to add at this point. president chiu: supervisor elsbernd? supervisor daly? supervisor daly: i am not going to pass up this opportunity. [laughter] this process has been byzantine at times, frustrating, but i

think that we all can appreciate how important is that, given probably four or five speeches on this topic. i will not do too much rehashing of them. but we know that we have a strong mayor form of government, and probably the most significant strength that the mayor of san francisco has is as the leader, the main voice of san francisco. i think that as i talked during my acceptance of my certificate here for 10 years of service, i was cognizant of this decision moving forward. and i think that we have an opportunity today that does not come along very often, and that opportunity -- it basically is

the great neutralize your -- neutralizer or equalizer in politics, and i mean neutralizing the corrosive influence of big money, of special interests in politics, the watering down of democracy. i get lamb vested in the newspaper when i say this, but the american voting system is not very democratic. an underwhelming percentage of people of san francisco boat for the mayor of san francisco -- vote for the mayor of san francisco. in 2007, the percentage was