country, especially true in san francisco, a to-government. there is a lot of -- bash government, the board of supervisors, think very negatively of us, insult us, say all sorts of things. we know what they are. that is fine. it is a free country and people are entitled to their views. but i also know that there is a bit of a dissonance. some people are critical of the board, but a lot of those same people are the first to ask for help from their supervisor. we get that in the hundreds of e-mails that we receive every day. whether it is help with a broken street lights or a pothole, to help them to put together a plan to fix their local park, helping them navigate a problem within the department, whether it is an

idea that they want to to pursue, or legislation, of whatever it might be, there are all sorts of things that the people of this city correctly expect us to work on. so, i want us to be as effective as possible. i know that many of us work seven days per week. this is about making us effective in the checks and balances. that's also be clear, several years ago the voters of san francisco -- and it was not even a close election, they removed a 28 cap. they made this part of the budget process. finally, i just want to note that when you look at this budget, what the mayor put in and what this board put back in,

this is not a situation where all sorts of services have been decimated and we are taking money. assuming the budget passes today, this board is putting back money to hire rec and park partners, a park patrols, cleaning crews, to ensure the health and human services network. to add numerous police academy class is an fire academy class as, providing small businesses with tax incentives, giving money to schools for the cost of business adjustments. i can see the argument if this were a year where we were absolutely decimating public- service is, but we are not doing that. we are building and adding and i think that this is entirely appropriate to make sure that this board of supervisors can be as effective as it can be.

supervisor chu: thank you to my colleagues for the spirit of conversation. it is no surprise that when the priorities came forward, it was not mind. that is nothing that is hidden. it has always been very up front, from my point of view. i would also like to reallocate my share as well, and whether you would entertain allocating or taking away $214,000 from the board as many of the supervisors spoke eloquently before, and terms of the allocation, i value my aids and i would be the first to defend them and say how wonderful they are in making sure my job gets done as a supervisor. at the same time, knowing my

constituents and understanding the things i would like to do in my district, whether it's fixing a playground that has rusted swing sets on them or painting a crosswalk in a school where we have been trying to scramble and find money, that's where i would like to put my money. i think it's important to be able to respond to my constituents and i would rather have a larger part of it -- a larger pot of money to do that. every district is different and has different priorities but i would like to place my priorities on capital investments and would request the maker of the motion to make an amendment. supervisor elsbernd: you said $214,000 all to district 4. i'm sure you meant $107,000 to district 4 and $107,000 to district 7. if that is the case, more than willing to support your motion. supervisor chiu: i assume that

was seconded. why don't we now go to supervisor campos. >supervisor campos: i'm sure he means free muni for youth. [laughter] i think every district is unique and different and i would support the motion to direct the money in that fashion. i do remind folks that the fact that money is in the budget doesn't mean you have to spend all of it as was noted by supervisor wiener. you can choose not to hire anyone. i can only speak about the needs in district 9 and i believe the resources of having something we could use in district 9, but i understand your perspective and

another supervisor feels differently. at the end of the day, this is about making sure we have the resources we need to serve the public and each official has to make that judgment as they see fit. thank you. supervisor chiu: colleagues, unless there is any further discussion, can we adopt that motion without objection? without objection, that should be the case. supervisor chu: i would simply ask for your support of items 2 through 23. supervisor chiu: why don't we take a roll call votes? >> [roll-call]

there are 11ayes. supervisor chiu: the resolution is adopted. congratulations. what we did to item number 24? >> and ordinance calling and providing for a special election to be held in the city on tuesday, november 6, for the purpose of submitting the proposition to encourage the following bonded debt for the safety and quality of neighborhood parks and waterfront open spaces across the city. supervisor chiu: roll call vote. >> [roll-call]

there are 11 ayes. supervisor chiu: that ordinance is finally passed. no. 25. >> ordinance amending the code to oversee and coordinate all of the city's urban agriculture activities and adopting goals for the city related to urban agriculture. supervisor chiu: same house, same call. ? this item is passed. >> item number 26, for the -- supervisor chiu: same house, same call. this resolution is adopted.

>> item number 27, the retention and expansion of the san francisco wholesale produce market. supervisor chiu: same house, same call. this is adopted. >> item number 28, serving for the urban area security initial reproving security to retroactively expand fiscal year 2011 regional catastrophic prepared this grant in the amount of approximately $1.3 million to enhance emergency planning with in the bay area region. supervisor chiu: same house, same call. this item is adopted. >> -29 color resolution authorizing the san francisco means of transportation agency to execute the agreement for parking meter queen collection for a term of five years. supervisor chiu: same house, same call. this item is adopted. >> item number 30, resolution

authorizing a minute to the public utilities commission for the construction management services with jacobs engineering group for a total agreement rump of $26.5 million. supervisor chiu: same house, same call. this item is adopted. >> item number 31, to fund acquisitions of nolan easement. supervisor chiu: same house, same call. this item is adopted. >> authorizing public-works for the laguna hospital replacement program, increasing the contract amount to $53.9 million. supervisor chiu: same house, same call. this resolution is adopted. >> item 33, in determining the premises to premises transfer of a type 48 on sale general

public premises liquor license will serve the public convenience. supervisor kim: i would like to make a motion to read refer this back to committee. supervisor chiu: any discussion? can we do that without objection? without objection, item 33 is real referred back to city operations. item 34? >> a resolution authorizing the issuance and delivery of multifamily housing revenue note in the principal amount not to exceed $25.3 million to provide financing for the acquisition and construction of a 90-unit multifamily rental housing unit. supervisor chiu: same house, same call. this resolution is adopted. >> item 35 is a motion approving or rejecting the mayor's nomination of michael antonini.

supervisor chiu: colleagues, and the discussion? supervisor cohen: this appointment has not been an easy decision for me. i've heard from folks on both sides of the aisle in favor of the commissioner and those who would like to see him removed. additionally, just as few years after the eastern neighborhoods plan was adopted, we see that both sides are having challenges. with all of this change, it's essentially have a balance in the planning commission to ensure all our cities and neighborhoods are adequately represented. i have had the opportunity to meet with commissioner antonini and express my concern about the lack of representation from the southern waterfront in eastern neighborhoods on the planning commission and the challenges i see a rising in the southeastern

neighborhood, specifically with in district 10. while i remain concerned that with the appointments before us today, that we don't include anyone who lives or works in the southeastern neighborhood, i would like to ask you consider entertaining a mission to continue this item for another two weeks. supervisor chiu: is there a second to that? the motion fails for lack of a second. further discussion? supervisor elsbernd: somebody needs to get this ball moving. i would like to put forward the motion approving. i think the commissioner has served with great diligence over the last many years. i think he has proven himself to be capable commissioner, but

speaking specifically to the comments about neighbor diversity, as i have said to others, commissioner antonini is the only representative from the entire west side of san francisco and is one of only two who lives in an rh1 neighborhood. i think that's very important. the entire west side of san francisco, we had some very important projects in the southeast and have the redevelopment of the largest rental housing facility west of the mississippi that is just been approved and will be starting over the next 20 years. the commission was very close to the project and is very knowledgeable on the project and i think having his presence on the commission for another four years is important. truthfully, if the loan issue with him is the question of diversity among some neighborhoods, we have two other appointees in front of us, potential commission your aunt

and i believe the two of them live in neighborhoods that some of the existing commissioners already live in. if that is the only objection, i suggest it is misplaced to use that objection and it's more rightly placed with the two other appointees. there are many other reasons to support them and at i have heard for many people and have seen myself, there's no other commissioner planning commission, port commission, who is as dedicated to their job as mike antonini. whether you agree or disagree with his policies, he gives his soul to the planning commission. i don't want to put supervisor olague on the spot, but he gives his life and soul to it. i'm friendly with him, and friendly with his wife and his wife probably thinks the planning to mr. -- the planning commission is his mistress.

he spends more time with the planning commission and with her. he's a great public servant and someone i think a lot of our commissioners could look up to for their dedication, their open this, their willingness to hear all sides. the san francisco housing coalition sent an e-mail to all this yesterday that says something i wish some folks would say about me -- and it's one of highest compliment you can see -- he came to the job with certain opinions but is always open and he is willing to change his mind. he is someone who is open to being educated on issues. he will turn the corner if presented with the proper facts. the other thing to put into perspective is just the general nature of planning commission appointments. i tend to think there is an underlying fact running against the commissioner in that some of his votes are not what some of

the members of this board would like to have seen. maybe it is a fool me once -- but i stood here and voted for deborah walker. i voted for gabriel holland. respectfully, supervisor, i voted for you. knowing full well you would not vote the way i would want to see you vote. but i voted for all of these appointees, including commissioner sugaya when my good friend demonstrated all the conflict had and demonstrated some of the insensitive comments he made to the italian-american community right before the vote. but i did that because of his dedication and his willingness to serve the city of san francisco and because of his openness and because of his expertise. if we're going to go down the road of all the sudden we will have policy litmus test for our commissioners, i think that's a

sad statement. i don't want to see this board do that. we haven't done it for 10 years. this is the third time he is here. supervisor maxwell voted for and three times. -- voted for him three times. we have seen broad diversity supporting mike, broad diversity supporting oliver commissioners when they demonstrate a commitment to the citizens of san francisco and i hope we don't break that tradition today and i hope we can approve the appointment. supervisor chiu: supervisor winner? -- supervisor wiener: i would like to associate myself fully with those comments, but i second the motion -- i second the motion to approve. one thing that's important to me not to the planning commission that any policy body in this city is to have true diversity

of opinion. i don't agree with commissioner antonini on everything, but i respect the fact he represents the viewpoint and perspective that's not a minor one in san francisco and to suggest that prospective is not worthy of one of the seven seats on the planning commission, to me doesn't make sense. i also want to reiterate something supervisor elsbernd alluded to. i'm very uneasy with putting that issue of diversity on one supervisor. on one commissioner. i agree there should be representation from the southeast part of the city on the planning commission and i

think it's a valid point. i assume that discussion is being had with the two people to make appointments, the board president and the mayor. i'm sure it is on their mind and it's a legitimate source of discussion. there are no lgbt people on the planning commission. when commissioner cindy woo was appointed, that meant there would be no more lgbt people in the planning commission replacing supervisor olague. but i support cindy woo because she's smart, she works hard, and she has a certain perspective she represents very effectively. i will continue to advocate for lgbt representation on the planning commission, airport commission and various other commissions, but i'm not comfortable saying that qualify commissioner cannot hold the spot because i think there needs

to be an lgbt person on the commission. i don't think we should take that out on a commission appointee, particularly someone who is an incumbent who has served admirably. this is an important discussion and i respect supervisor cohen has raised the issue of why isn't there a southeastern representative, but i don't think that means we should reject commissioner antonini. supervisor campos: i want to thank my colleagues for their comments. want to speak to this issue because i did speak about this at the rules committee and i will reiterate what i said, which is i have a great deal of respect for commissioner antonini and have indicated my impression that he's an honorable individual who is a gentleman, was a class act in every respect, and my

interaction with them has been very positive and i commend him or the service he has provided to the city and county of san francisco and i think that's a fact he wants to continue to serve is commendable. i don't have anything negative to say. i do believe when it comes to deciding whether or not to appoint someone to a commission like the planning commission that there is no clear-cut approach. you have to balance the number of different things. one of the things i do think is appropriate for us to look at is not so much the specific outcome, but the overall approach and a rationale that has followed in making decisions at the planning commission. even though i respect where he is coming from, as a general rule, i think we have a different approach and different take on some of those issues. some of my colleagues have pointed out they believe it's inappropriate for us to do that and take that into account. i respectfully disagree.

i think there have been times when it comes to commission appointments that we as members of the board have looked at the overall approach the individual takes. i will give you the example of the sunshine task force and the appointments made to that task force. there were individuals who had every qualification to serve on that body but had a different approach that some of the members of the board of the supervisors, even though i don't agree with some of the outcome in terms of the appointment or non-appointment, i respect the right of my colleagues to take that difference in approach to perspective. i think it is part of the consideration we have to make. this is not a vote against commissioner antonini, is about what is the right approach for this city? i think diversity is important and i agree it's not something we should only look at with

respect to this appointment and not some of the other appointments. the difference for me is that with cindy woo, you have someone who's just appointed to the commission. i want to give her an opportunity to continue to serve and, i have yet to see a more qualified individual come to this process and i think mr. hill brings a unique set of qualifications. i do not think commissioner antonini is not qualified, but given what the planning commission looks like right now, i think there's an opportunity for the mayor to bring some balance to the commission. as a supervisor weaner indicated, there is no lgbt member of the commission, there is no latino member of the commission, that's an issue there are a lot of different things that need to be taken

into consideration and each and everyone of us have to make a decision that is right for us. from my perspective, in terms of what is right for district 9, what i believe is right for this city right now, having had an individual has served for a number of years, it's important to give someone else an opportunity to serve. i want to think commissioner antonini to serve. i just think other people should have a chance and that's why i will be voting against this. supervisor farrell: i have known dr. antonini for quite awhile and i can't think of a more dedicated public servant and i will echo what my colleagues mentioned and the first planning

commissioner in the building on thursdays, i mentioned that rules committee, i can't keep up with his phone calls back to me about things in district 2 that i have questions about, somebody i really truly enjoyed working with, and on the bigger picture, to start making the political because you don't like the way they vote is a shame and a very disrespectful. if we start doing that, it's a slippery slope. we could do that for every single commission. i did not badger the other people about their votes. it's something that in my mind, this is a dedicated public servant who has done really well. no one will question his work ethic. you can cut diversity of thousand for ways. he has elements of representing diversity. i can't think of a person i would like to support more than dr. antonini and i hope we get

six votes year to push him through. supervisor olague: all the decisions today are a challenging one. i'm concerned about the lack of diversity on the commission. when you look at not just planning commission, but the board of appeals, the port commission, and numerous other commissions, latinos are grossly underrepresented, given the percentage we have in the city. i do hope to work with the mayor's office and with a supervisor avalos and supervisor campos to make sure we are represented at these bodies. a year ago when i left, it left a void in terms of latino

representation and lgbtq representation, and is critical to have people from diverse communities at the commission level because it provides access to underrepresented communities. people may not feel comfortable going to commissioner moore when it comes to something on 24th street but they would feel comfortable coming to me because i think we really do understand our community better than anyone else does. i am committed to working toward that end and i want to see a more diverse group coming up on the following commission appointments to the port and board of appeals. that being said, i have worked with commissioner antonini for

seven and a half years on the planning commission. i don't think we were the sole votes on any issue. we agreed on very few issues. frequently it was a 3-4 vote and i think the one time we were the sole vote against a project, it was based on architecture. our values and politics are dissimilar to say the least. but he works very hard and i think if anyone was -- probably the main person secretly wishing this vote ends up removing him from the planning commission, it would be his wife because he's right. nobody is more dedicated in many ways than commissioner antonini. i think at this