he was going on except the people who were enduring it and being uprooted and moved out the city by it the. you have confirmation powers. use it and if you don't trust those powers you shouldn't use them either. >> thank you, next speaker. >> good afternoon, my name name is miguel bustos, residence of the mission district, born and raised, but i'm a former member of redevelopment commission. i was appointed by the mayor and i was confirmed by you unanimously. and that was a proud moment, because i saw us working together. a mayoral appointment, approved by the board of supervisors and on many occasions i consulted with a lot of you on the projects that were going on with redevelopment and on many, many, many, many more occasions i consulted with many people here and it's great to see the folks who came before us during

my time as a commission on redevelopment. you know, i'm proud to have served. not only as a redevelopment commissioner, but i was proud to have served my city. and our city owes a lot to its people. and that is what this is really about. it's about the housing that will be created, that is desperately needed. it's about the jobs that will be created that are desperately needed, as well as the permanent jobs. and so what excites me about this is that i'm asking you to support this, support this promise. u.s. support the promise we made to people living in many, many parts of city that said you know what? we're not going to leave you alone. a day delayed is a person not having a job. and so if we want our

communitis to stay and live here in the city, i ask you to please support this, move this forward, so that we can fulfill our promise and get this done. thank you so much. >> thank you, next speaker. >> good afternoon. board of supervisors, david elliot willis with a few final comments. clearly the former redevelopment agency made errors, and maybe in part that is why it was abolished. i think we need another one and i support the creation of a new one. i would like to see if we could learn from our past errors. i would like to see a lot of citizens oversight and not  just transparency through the sunshine laws, but real oversight and i support the amendments by supervisor chiu and i hope you approve those.

>> any other members of public wishing to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor kim? >> thank you. i am actually happy to hear that we have three amendments moving forward. and i would like some clarification, but before on those amendments, because i think that the one concern that this entire board has is on our affordable housing obligations. and our replacement housing obligation as well. i think the big question that i think that continues to -- that i continue to ask as we talk about recreating a commission, along the lines of what we had previously. is what is the appropriate balance of power? the checks and balances that we have here between the legislative and executive branch? i think members of public have brought up numerous concerns that have occurred in history of redevelopment and to counter that they we have as much

protections as possible is to always strike that balance of power. i'm not going to propose per se what that would look like. i think there is a lot of thinking that needs to happen to that. unfortunately, after ab 26 was passed by the state, they recently made an amendment that does require us as the city and county of san francisco to make reforms to the current successor agency as we created it back in the beginning of the year. so acknowledging that this is something that we did not initiate the either the board of supervisors or the mayor, but we're trying to address because that is what state has come to us and stated. now the question comes before the board as you recreate an oversight body to entire the the promises made to our neighborhoods, whether mission bay, transbay our hunters shipyard, what is the most appropriate form to ensure constituents have a proper say? some of the ideas that have

floated is the idea of the split appointment, which has come up by members of the public. i think we have seen in the history of the redevelopment commission, for example that the south of market has had no representation on a 7-member body. this is despite the immense amount of work that redevelopment has done in mission bay, south beach and of course western selma and 6th street as many of you know well. so the questions that i merely ask is how we strike that balance? how we ensure proper representation and accountability? i think that both the current mayor's office and the current board of supervisors are both very committed to ensuring that we fulfill our affordable housing and replacement housing obligations and we want to ensure there is always a check and balance, because we will not always be here over the next 30 years. just a little bit of history, as well. i took some time -- our

office took some time to do some research on the ten largest california cities and how they operate their redevelopment agencies. out of the ten that we examined, only two originally gave all appointing powers to the mayor and that is san francisco and los angeles. in san diego the city council sits as the redevelopment commission. in san jose, the city council sits as the acting commission with the mayor. in fresno, the city council sits as the commission and in sacramento, all 13 civilian members are appointed by the county board of supervisors and the city council. in long beach the citizens committee is appointed by the city council. in oakland, the city council sits as the redevelopment agency. in bakersfield, the city council also sits as the redevelopment agency and commission and in anaheim the council sit as the agency in

conjunction with the mayor. as a supervisor representing two of the area plans both mission bay and transbay, i have a lot of concerns about representation. i think at minimum we want to ensure that both the district 6 and district 10 supervisor have a say over who sits on these bodies as we wind down our obligations, but also to ensure that we commit to our promises to these neighborhoods around infrastructure and affordable housing. while i appreciate what a citywide elected can bring to balance at how we look at citywide development i want to reiterate these plans are only in two districts of san francisco and we're most accountable to those neighborhoods and communities. >> supervisor campos? >> thank you. i want to associate myself with the comments of supervisor kim,

and i think with the presentation, she referenced checks and balances and that is the key in terms of how fast a i think we need to approach this. the reality for this agency to fill the mandate given to it, all of us need to be part of that work, part of that process, which is why that i think the exploration of split appointments make sense. i saw one of the residents in my district, former redevelopment agency commissioner miguel bustos, who does a great job on that agency. and i do think that the kind of approach that he brought to the job is the kind of thing we want to see from members of

this body. i don't think that is precluded by a split-appointment process. so i do think that we need to have some time to think about what the right approach is? but i do have a question that i wanted to ask our city attorney. because i'm trying to understand how the legislation that is before us would work. and there is an interesting provision of this legislation, i think it's on page 12. that says that, "the commission may delegate to the executive director of any of its duties it deems appropriate." which is not something that you usually see, at least that i have seen before. so i'm wondering if you could take a little bit about that? what exactly does that mean and are there limitations on what the commission may delegate to the executive directors as being

proposed? >> john gibner, city attorney. in the document that was circulated i believe it's on page 13. lines 2 and 3. the ordinance authorizes the commission to delegate it any of its duties to the executive director. there is no limitation in that authority other than the subsequent section that requires that the executive director follow the commission's policy directions on collective bargaining matters. >> does that mean that except for that limitation on collective bargaining matters that you could have a situation where the commission could delegate all of its authority to an executive director to decide as they deem fit? >> that is right that. is what the ordinance would allow currently. >> thank you very much for

that clarification. i wanted to clarify that, because i haven't seen that level of expansive language delegating that much power to one individual and actually, mr. gibner, under the ordinance right now, who appoints the executive director? >> colleagues i look forward to hearing any other comments, but i personally believe it's aprecipitate for us to do a little bit more thinking about how to proceed. i think that the comments that supervisor kim in terms of how

other jurisdictions are dealing with this matter and with that in mind i make a motion to continue this item for one week. >> supervisor campos has made a motion to continue this item for a week, seconded. colleagues, further discussion? do we continue without objection or roll call. >> on the motion to continue supervisor chu? no. (roll call ) mar no. supervisor olague, aye. >> supervisor wein. wiener. there are 5 ayes and 6 nos, motion to continue fails. colleagues let me state this hearing has been heard and

filed unless there is further discussion. further discussion? supervisor kim? supervisor olague i thought i heard you say you were going to make amendments. >> basically the amendments that chu had? >> we don't have them. >> if i work on those and take more comments. >> supervisor wiener? >> thank you very much, mr. president. i support what is before us today. and i don't support modifying the appointment structure. i think that having the mayor make the appointments subject to confirmation or rejection by this board is not only the appropriate balance, but it's the traditional balance in terms of the redevelopment agency. one of the things that we heard

and we actually said a lot during the debate at the state level about whether redevelopment would be eliminated was that san francisco's redevelopment agency even though we had a rough start and did some really bad things early on, in recent year ours redevelopment agency was an absolute model for the state. there were all sorts of examples of bad redevelopment and abusive redevelopment and that funding things that should probably not been funded, but if you look at what redevelopment did in san francisco, in terms of affordable housing, building infrastructure and other positive additions to our city, it was a very model agency. çappointed and the board confirmed. so i don't think given the history, the recent history there is any reason to deviate from that model. i think we do have checks in place in terms of the board's confirmation authority. san francisco, unlike some other cities has a strong mayoral system. our mayor is the chief

executive officer of our city and our make has accountability for our city moving forward in the right direction and i think that is a good thing. because when you diffuse appointing authority too much, if something goes wrong, nobody is accountable. i think that the mayor should be accountable as the chief executive officer of this city and as the person elected by all the voters to lead our city. so i won't be supporting any effort, if there is one to change the appointment structure. i do want to respond to the point that supervisor campos made relating to the potential delegation of authority from the commission or whatever it's going to be called, to the staff of the successor agency. i don't know that that is particularly out of the ordinary. i think there are a number of

agencies, as i understand it, that delegate significant authority. for example, the planning commission delegates a wide swath of authority to staff. a small percentage of planning matters come to the commission and i think it's important for the agency to have the ability to decide what to delegate as opposed to being micromanaged by the ordinance. i have the faith that the mayor is going to nominate good people and this board will scrutinize the mayor's nominess and we'll appoint people with good judgment to be able to know what should be delegated to staff? and what needs to be retained by the commission? so i don't think there is anything out of the ordinary or inappropriate in terms of that particular delegation power. and the one thing -- final thing i will say in terms of

split appointments, i have become more skeptical of split appointments over time and frankly so have the voters. i think it was like 70-30. and one of the challenges that we have had is that these are not actually true split appointments, because the board can reject mayoral appointments, but the mayor can't reject the board's appointments. so what we do when we split appointments, at least in the way that we have done is that we give the board in significant ways the upper hand; and we saw one particular situation when the planning commission first got split. i don't know if anybody was on the board, who is currently on the board but where mayor brown nominated four people. the board made its three appointments and was going to confirm one of the four, so it would have a quorum on planning. and not confirm the other three. so the board would effectively control the planning commission. and mayor brown met with

nominees and we nominated them and it was a game of cat and mouse and made no sense. so there are real problems when we talk about split appointments. i apologize for the lengthy be supporting this legislation today. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you. i just wanted to bring up another perspective, which is the assumption that a split appointment naturally confuses an agency or provides more inefficiencies in the agency. i think from members of this body and the mayor's office a direct commitment to serving the city of san francisco. so i am not sure where that argument comes from. i'm not sure what the fear is based on or what the sudden confusion that is going to occur in our area plans. the one thing i can say is when the supervisors that actually represent these three area plans have no direct

appointment powers, i think it does allow appointments to happen that may be okay, but may not be the most representative of the area plans. i think that we have seen over and over again that when we have mayoral appointments confirmed by the board, they are not always the individual that we feel most represents the values that we stand for or the values of the neighborhoods that we represent. i think that there is a difference in who gets to appoint. and i think that when you have just a confirmation process, that people will get through that are good, but may not be ideal. my largest concern is really in making sure that we have representation from these three area plans in the district. and of course, to appropriately strike that balance of power moving forward with these three area plans. i want to make clear at the end of the day, this is a commission that will only be reducing kind of its

authority and jurisdiction over time. it's one that is winding down the activities of the successor agency and it's not adding new neighborhood or area plans. so i think there is kind of a confidence that we'll move forward on both ends to appropriately lift these area plans as we have previously committed. i do have some questions and i think supervisor campos brought up one of my largest concerns in this ordinance and that is the line about the commission delegating any and all of its authority to the executive director. i was hoping that the city attorney, i know you said it would be aua!ñbut if you could elaborate further in terms of what that might mean. so when we talk about amending ddas previously approved by the board z does that mean in a that the commission can delegate that authority? and

i'm also curious the amendments that supervisor olague's office has been working on with the city administrator's office is that enough for our affordable housing obligations, which i believe is emp's top priority in these chambers. >> supervisor olague, could you walk us through these amendments? >> i can walk you through some of them. i will just go through some talking points, but i could use a little more time? do i have that? can i take a couple of minutes? why don't we continue to others? >> yes. i will be right back. >> supervisor campos? >> i wanted to give the city attorney an opportunity to respond to supervisor kim. >> thank you, job gibner, deputy city attorney again through the president. the board of supervisors

ultimately would have to approve ddas, coming up through the commission. the commission could delegate its initial authority to the executive director before ultimately the board would approve. so i think that is just another way of saying yes, the commission could in its discretion delegate any of its powers to the executive director. >> i just wanted to clarify, i think this is what i heard you say. so if they do delegate its authority to amend a dda previously approved by the board, that amendment, even if it's just the executive director making that change would have drom back to the board of supervisors? >> that is right. >> it would have to come back? >> right. >> supervisor campos? >> following up on that, to

your knowledge, has there been any other ordinance we have enacted where there is this level of delegation of authority given to an executive director by an agency? >> i don't know of any ordinances with this particular language in it. commissions in the city can and routinely do delegate various of their powers to their @ executive directors. and i don't know that typically ordinances have an explicit limits on that delegation authority, but to your question, i don't know of any ordinance that explicitly makes that unlimited. >> the question was whether or not that expressed delegation of authority was codified in an ordinance before? i wasn't sure so i wanted to ask the city attorney that. >> one point of clarification, that i have just been informed the charter authorizes the port to delegate to its executive

director any of its authorities. >> okay. thank you. >> supervisor elsbernd. >> yes, supervisor campos, pretty sure we delegate a lot of authority to the director of transportation authority. it seems to work. >> colleagues, is there any additional discussion? okay. i think i understood supervisor olague to have offered amendments, was that seconded? >> i think you wanted someone to walk through the amendments. >> i think the problem is that supervisor olague is not here at the moment. >> in supervisor olague's absence i'm willing to walk through amendments. >> that would be great. supervisor cohen. >> colleagues, the first -- there are three key points that we need to key into on these amendments. one is to ensure that the board

of supervisors retains its power on the redevelopment law to review and approve the operational budget of the successor agency. i think i mentioned this earlier in my comments and also we must ensure through clarifying language -- here we are. supervisor olague, i will yield the rest of my time to supervisor olague. >> supervisor olague. >> i also wanted to bring forward a member of choo-choo, because they were instrumental in drafting these estimates. i believe fernando is here. >> supervisor elsbernd. >> that takes the unanimous vote of the board to bring an individual. i'm sorry. i'm not interested in hearing from a registered lobbyist on legislation. >> jason elliot is here and he can certainly add to the discussion. >> actually, let's take it one at a time.

supervisor olague, are you going to walk us through the amendments? >> yes, i am going to go through the amendments. >> i am just -- >> supervisor cohen. >> thank you, mr. president and please forgive us members of the public. there are a couple of things had a we what that we need to cover here. first that the board of supervisors retains its power on the redevelopment law to review and approve the operational budget of the successor agency. second any plan come back to the board of supervisors and this is critical to the new commission and third and finally we're adding requirements that the successor agency come back to us in 120 days to deliver a straightforward roadmap for the future. thank you. >> okay. so supervisor olague

i understand is making an amendment. colleagues we have the motion to amend without objection? without objection is the case. any further discussion? supervisor kim? supervisor kim, your mic is off. >> i would like to make two amendments. one being that we don't have the support for the split appointment at this time. the first motion is to ensure that at least two of the seats of the commission are represented by at least two out of the three area plans. so that be designated in the mayoral commission appointments. and the second amendment -- >> why don't we take that amendment first. the amendment made by supervisor kim that two of the five seats involve residents from the two districts that involved the redevelopment

areas, which at this time are districts 6 and 10. that amendment has been seconded by supervisor campos. any discussion on the amendment, supervisor wiener? >> i am going to listen to the rest of the discussion. i completely understand the motivation behind it, but the development that is going to be coming out of redevelopment, whether it's transbay or treasure island, it impacts the entire city. so i don't know that restricting two out of five to people who actually live in the plan area, when these developments are incredibly important to the future of the entire city and county of san francisco. i don't know if that is best way go. i think it's entirely appropriate for this board to carefully scrutinize who comes forward from the mayor, and if six supervisors agree to lay down the law and convey that to the mayor, even ahead of time, i want to listen to the 1

>> supervisor cohen? >> my question was more to supervisor kim, if i may through the chair, as a point of clarification that you are proposing that we specifically name -- that we put specifically named seats on this body? >> yeah, so we see, for example, with the entertainment commission which we heard at rules commission last week, they are designated for specific types of expertise so we are have a public health seat, they're nominated by either of course the board or the mayor, but we do have some delineation in terms of either qualifications we expect to see in a commission, what i'm merely proposing is the mayor would get to a point or nominate these five commissioners but at least two of those seats would be reserved for individuals that can represent at least two ut