lacking now at the commission level. i am going to go ahead and support commissioner antonini, hold him accountable, and certainly all the mayor's office and this board accountable to making sure we have people that represent diversity of communities, underrepresented communities in this city. i will be supporting the motion to keep him. supervisor chu: i want to speak up for commissioner antonini. i have heard a lot about diversity and i will certainly speak up for minorities and the underrepresented -- underrepresented. i understand the need to have commissioners from the bay view

or visitation valley be represented, but as we have struggled on this board with all thy dark -- all of our divergent views, it's important to have representation from the west side of the city as well. it's very important and it's a unique perspective and it adds value, even in our budget process. we have had many supervisors to talk about the uniqueness and the nations of the -- natures of the to our community and that has enriched the process and make sure we had a consensus process coming out of the budget and that can be replicated in many of our other bodies. i would encourage folks to think about diversity through many different lenses. on a personal note, i have worked with commissioner antonini many times before and have always found him to be a very thoughtful person. when we look for individuals to appoint, it's not what their positions are and what have been in the past, but whether they can have a thoughtful approach going forward and i think he absolutely has this. i wholeheartedly support his reappointment and hope you will

also. supervisor kim: i want to respect all the points that were made today and this decision is particularly hard for me simply because of all the attributes of commissioner antonini that was already brought up. he is clearly hard working and things through all of the issues and spends a lot of time as a commissioner. for all of that, we should thank him for his tenure of service and his dedication to the city. but i would like to disagree with the comment that we should appoint commissioners based on their work ethic. i don't often think that's how we make the decision and i don't think we often opposed the appointment because we don't think we have the votes. we can say all we want that it's always about the work ethic were always about this and we're always consistent but i think supervisor campos made a good

point with the sunshine task force. this committee members were removed because they took a different approach than many committee members felt here on the board. we often have these contentious arguments because there's a more clear split and that's why this debate happens and oftentimes we let go when people don't represent our values and viewpoints because we don't want to waste the time of the entire board. i do want to say that i think antonini has been a superb commissioner. because of his work ethic, have not had that opportunity to work with him but i did get a chance to meet him last week and found him to be thoughtful and kind and he has been the minority vote twice in supporting things i have brought to the planning commission as well. overall, i really believe we need a representative in the southeast sector and we need someone who is lgbt and there is

a commissioner on the west side already. we have nobody to live in nine, 10, or 11. given the fact that so much development and land use is happening on that side, i think it is a valid comment that has been made. of course, the same goes for the appointment, the nomination of richard hillis. in that case, i was disappointed in his ability to represent -- i believe he will bring a different set of tools that we currently don't have on the commission and i will also say i think antonini's viewpoints or are well represented and i don't think he's a minority vote. he is often in the majority, so to say he somehow was representing a diversity of viewpoints is flawed. thank you. supervisor wiener: i was not intending to speak again the several references have been

made to the actions primarily taken by the rules committee and then to a lesser extent by the full board about the sunshine ordnance task force. as if that had anything to do with the viewpoints of the task force members. i will repeat the remarks that were made. the sunshine task force was being run in an incompetent matter which violated the city's charter. they recommended removing almost all the incumbents except for one in this board voted to remove that final incumbent. so the majority of their mobile happened before it got to the full board and had nothing to do -- the majority of the removing happened before it got to the full board. the majority of the comments, we are entitled to have this policy disagreements and that's very different than what happened with the sunshine ordnance task force. supervisor elsbernd: in response

to supervisor kim's comments, with all due respect, if you think district 4, district 7, and district 1, i would strongly encourage you to come to the west side of town. to say that rodney fong is a representative of the west side of town is not correct. sea cliff is not the sunset. it's not lakeshore, lakeside. that comparison reeks of a stereotype that i think should not be in this chamber. you talk about a couple of districts that don't have any representatives, no one from one, no one from four, no one from seven. this really about neighbor a diversity, why would to get rid of him? why not a couple of the other appointees to work coming on to a commission where there is already someone from the district? if that is your real argument, be honest about it.

i don't think you are being honest. to the sunshine task force -- i think a supervisor weaner made the point, but if you have a problem with the planning commission decision, what happens? may end up here. we have that opportunity to impose our true policy positions. do we get that with the sunshine task force? no. maybe the policy implications might mean more with that. with the planning commission, you get the chance to veto it. if neighborhood diversity, if that is truly the reason, wrong person to knock off today. you should be going after one of the other two. if there's another reason, i'm happy to hear it, but never a diversity is a fake argument. let's be honest about what the argument is. don't use a fake one. supervisor chiu: this is not an

easy discussion. we can all agree unanimously that dr. antonini has been able public servant and he is a gentleman and i appreciate the time i had to speak with him last week. that being said, and to the question about articulating our perspective on this, i will say as i said to be a commissioner, i did not hear from anyone active in the neighborhoods in my district who thought i should support this particular appointment. every person who reached out to me from the north these neighborhoods has asked me to not support this nomination. i think the challenge is yes, we have tremendous diversity of our neighborhoods throughout this city, but the experience that the folks who are active in neighborhoods around the city is that they have always been on

the opposite side of votes cast by this commissioner and the challenge with that, i think it would be one thing if on the planning commission, the planning commission was known for having a difficult and conflicting votes come down on the sides of neighborhoods. but the fact of the neighborhood, we know this, the planning commission supports with the majority vote the developers over neighborhoods. that has certainly been the case of tough votes involving district 3. i will point out one vote recently at the planning commission where six members of the planning commission sided with the perspective laid out by the citywide neighborhoods, but also the neighborhoods with in my district and there was one vote against it and that was the nominee we have in front of us. that being said, have respect for dr. antonini and i did not say this, but i would consider

supporting him for another position but for this particular position, that is a challenge. >> thank you. supervisor kim: i don't want to extend the comment -- neighbor a diversity was only one. i appreciate sea cliff is not the west side. we don't have a planning commissioner that lives in district 6 and i could say it different from the tenderloin and from the castro. we cannot have an 11 planning commissioners. but i don't feel he's a diversity candidate in his thoughts. when you look at his votes, he votes with the majority. i believe his viewpoints are very well represented. the one perspective i continue to see is the southeast, latino

-- i think we all value different perspectives and i respect some value the neighborhood perspective more. this is the one issue that i think is a huge gap. the same goes for richard as well and i think it's a valid point. i stated he believes a different set of skills that nobody on the planning commission has. that is why i will be supporting him. supervisor campos: my reference to the sunshine task force had to do with the recommendation from the rules committee. that's a recommendation amended

here at the board of supervisors. maybe i misread the reasoning as to why that was made but my understanding was some of it had to do with the approach mr. wolf took with respect to the issues that came before sunshine. i think there are different reasons to vote for or against this matter. i don't think anyone of us is coming from a bad place. i think there are pros and cons. the bottom line is there are a lot of different reasons why boards have approved or disapproved nominations in the past. the unfortunate thing is that i believe that to get to the result where we have the kind of diversity and balance that is needed on the planning commission, though at some point we do have to reject a nomination and it so happens that in this case, it is this individual.

thank you. supervisor cohen: it sounds like there is a lot of heated debate on this. i'm going to make a motion again to ask for a continuance of one week. president chiu: the motion has been seconded. colleagues, can we take that motion without objection? without objection, this item will be continued for one week. why don't we move to item 36? >> a motion approving the mayor's nomination of richard hillis to the planning commission. president chiu: roll call vote. supervisor campos: aye. [roll-call]

there are 11 ayes. president chiu:: the motion is approved. >> motion approving cindy woo to the planning commission. supervisor elsbernd: i would like to make a motion to put a hold on this item for one week. this appointee was put in place to replace a latino on the board and we hear that a lack of representation even though we already have to asian members on the planning commission, this would make a third. i think we should discuss that. she lives in a red already has representatives.

this seat could be the one that addresses the lack of latino representation. the seat could be the one that addresses the lack of lgbt representation and this seat could be the one that represents a lack from the southeast sector and we wouldn't have to lose someone from the west side of town. let's continue this one as we continue the antonini one. president chiu: colleagues, any discussion? i would like to ask me take a roll-call vote on this item. supervisor wiener: i am going to be voting against this. i a understand the reasoning for the motion and i can disagree with anything supervisor elsb

ernd said. i want to make darn sure som commissioner antonini will be confirmed and if we can increase the chance he will be confirmed, i will support it. i am supporting this in the woo's reappointment. i have a lot of disagreements with her but i think she does a good job and deserves to be reappointed, particularly since she has only been the seat for a few months. while i cannot disagree with anything supervisor elsbernd says, for the reason stated, i will not be supporting the motion to continue. supervisor avalos: i will be supporting the motion. i think the geographic diversity is some arguments, but the most compelling argument is that there is a vote before us and i

will -- and i have the opportunity to vote about an individual regardless of commissioner antonini's success and i get to vote on the preference of how the votes and it's important to me as i am looking what is coming to me from the planning commission. i actually agree with a lot of what cindy wu does on the planning commission. want to support her today, so i will not be voting for a continuance. president chiu: i agree with the sentiments of the supervisors avalos and wiener. we all came here to vote for commissioner wu and to hold one item hostage for another does not feel right to me and i will be opposing the motion. supervisor elsbernd: i am not trying to hold one hostage.

i just thought we would try to show some consistency and not look like buckets. -- not look like hypocrites. president chiu: we just approved commissioner hillis -- supervisor elsbernd: you replaced a latino member with an asian. he replaced an lgbt member with someone who memberlgbt. we don't have that problem with rich hillis. in some of your colleagues were concerned about the issue of diversity failed to achieve your appointment. president chiu: i don't want to get into sexual, gender, or racial diversity when we talk about commissioner hillis, right?

most of us had come today prepared to support commissioner wu and don't think it's particularly appropriate to hold her nomination hostage while we consider and have a very genuine debate about whether dr. antonini should continue to serve. i can articulate my position on dr. antonini and i are to keep -- i just don't think it is fair with regards to this commissioner. supervisor kim: i apologize if i was not clear at the board meeting today. i believe that values matter what we are determining who are commissioners are and i said that the rules committee and i apologize it was not clear the last two times i spoke. geographic diversity matters, ethnic and gender diversity matters and so to the values we prioritize and our priority making. yes, everything comes back the full board and i get that. but i would like to see other priorities placed in the planning commission and i would

like ones that represent the southeast sector, where the development is happening that represents the latino and lgbt communities. i would like to see some of that address. this has been said, cindy wu represent many of the values i would like to see as we continue to do planning and land use in the city. one of them is affordable housing. we all agree there's not enough affordable housing in many constituents say there is not enough affordable housing in the city. i would like a commissioner that's going to say affordable housing is one of their priorities. unfortunately, with some of our commissioners, that has not been a priority. it has been alluded that if our priorities -- are commissioners say if you can't afford to live here, you should move out of san francisco. i think that's inherently problematic. supervisor olague: i want to speak in favor of cindy wu's reappointment.

we worked for a number of years when i was on the planning commission on issues that affected the eastern neighborhoods and the chinatown. we worked on alleyway improvements and transportation issues. we worked on a number of issues that had to do with improving the type of outreach the planning department does to underrepresented communities and we worked hard trying to establish standards around mentoring to ensure that when you come in the summertime that they are able, we expose them so they're not just their shuffling paper in the summer. we worked hard on a lot of issues over the years, so i

think she is young and provides a lot of leadership, impressive leadership, really. sometimes we agree, sometimes we don't, but i think she has been pretty positive and part of why i was choosing to leave after eight years was because i thought we need to encourage young people to step in and have the opportunity to serve on things like the planning commission. i was ready to endorse all of those who were appointed today and i think cindy wu provides a lot of good inside and leadership. a around issues like transportation and other things that are critical to the city and the eastern side of the city. supervisor chu: i don't want to belabor the point, but i came today to vote for all three

appointments and continue to support all three appointments. i will be supporting cindy today and i will be supporting commissioner antonini next week. next week when we have this decision before us, we will make that choice but we all know we had an opportunity with three appointments today and i think that's something we will think about next week. i intended to vote for all three and will continue to do so. president chiu: colleagues, any additional discussion? the motion was made to continue the vote. >> on the motion to continue when we -- motion to continue one week. >> [roll-call]

there are three ayes and eight nos. president chiu: the motion fails. >supervisor elsbernd: i intend to follow the standard put forth by this board for 10 years, by sophie maxwell and by supervisor ross mirkirimi, by many members of the so-called progressive caucus that has made clear sometimes that diligence to the work, dedication to san francisco, and willingness to learn, willingness to work with all sides is what we should base our votes on today. in following the standard of our predecessors, i am happy to support this nominee, who i

disagree with. but because she meets the standards, i am happy to support her. president chiu: roll-call vote. >> on item number 37 -- [roll call] there are 11 ayes. president chiu: the motion is approved. why do we move on to another noncontroversial set of items, to our 3:00 p.m. the special items. could you call those items. >> the items 38 through 41 comprise a special order at 3:00 for the supervisors to continue to sit as a committee of the

hole for a public hearing to consider three versions of a charter amendment. i am 39 is from the rules committee which would replace rank choice of voting for city- wide offices with runoff elections. item 40 would incorporate runoff elections and item 41 would replace ranked joyce with runoff elections. -- rank choice with runoff elections. president chiu: why don't we ask if there are any members of the public who wish to speak on this hearing related to the various options on the rank choice of voting and runoff elections. if you could line up on the right side of the chamber facing us. if we could hear from our first speaker please. >> and the director of san francisco open government. i wish you would just make up

your minds. you could rank choice, you foisted on the citizens who didn't understand what the hell they were voting for in the first place you had a department of elections that couldn't explain to anybody exactly how it worked when your first choice wasn't selected and who you end up voting with and against. nobody understood and we're going to go back and change again. let's just keep changing it so you can keep the citizens off balance perennially forever. i think that is really the intent here. let's just do this in such a convoluted and confused way that citizens have no idea what the hell they're voting for. i'm a member of mensa and i'm not saying that to brag. i'm a fairly intelligent man. i read the damn book and i couldn't understand it hide nor hair and i couldn't find anybody in the department of elections

who could explain ranked joyce voting to me. but the bottom line is you change it and now you're going to change it back before you even know what the hell is good about it or bad about it. i don't know who's pushing this, i don't think anybody here is being open and honest about what the purpose of this is. why keep switching it? what happened to the good old i vote for the person whose name is on the ballot and i put a mark next to their name and that's why beauport and if my boat doesn't carry the election -- if my vote doesn't carry the election, we have a runoff and vote. i know i've argued both sides of the argument, but that's what you're doing. you say we had to get rid of it and go back and go forward and none of you really has been clear about what the hell you think this should end up as. [applause] president chiu: next speaker

please. and if i could mention, we as members of the public not to clap, applaud or express opposition to, it's because we want to respect the speakers and keep the conversation moving as expeditious as we can. >> by look of the draw -- by luck of the draw of the board of elections, i was the ranked joyce opponent in 2002. i was part of a coalition and unfortunately the voters, in their wisdom, voted for ranked choice of voting back in 2002. i think ranked joyce voting along with public financing has created a perfect storm. we know there have