i appreciate supervisor wiener's comments about transbay and mission bay and hunter's yard still impacting the city but that still mao*ef -- leaves a majority of three members, i do think they can at least represent the constituencies that we represent in our districts. >> any further discussion on the motion to amend? on supervisor kim's motion to amend, roll call, can we do that without objection, colleagues, roll call vote. >> supervised sore chu. >> no. supervisor cohen? >> aye. >> supervisor elsbernd? >> no. >> supervisor farrell? >> no. >> mar, no. supervisor a lag gi, aye, supervisor wiener? >> wiener, no. supervisor avalos, aye,

supervisor campos, aye, president chiu, aye. >> i think supervisor kim, you have another amendment. >> city attorney. >> to the -- i'm sorry. >> john, deputy still attorney, i want to confirm what that amendment would say, so it's c-1 shall be a resident of district 6, c-2 shall be a resident of district 10, they should be of a city of no specific district, was that your intent? >> i'm okay with that but it was specific that i would like them to represent the area plan. it wasn't specific that they had to live in the area plan but they represent the two out of the three area plans. >> not necessarily. >> supervisor elsbernd? >> how will it work, if they own property is there not a financial conflict of interest

on voting on any of those issues? >> mr. gib ner? >> that depends, there could be conflicts. >> to the maker on the motion, your thoughts on that? >> i did not ask that they had to reside in the air y plan but they are represent give because they've lived in the area. >> so, they don't have to live in the district? >> no, what the city attorney had stated was they were district 6 and 10 residents that represent the two out of the three area plans. >> so, that is the intent, you want them live ining the district? >> yes. >> but cannot own -- more likely than not can own property in the area plan because that probably be a -- >> if it is the case that they would have a conflict, if they own in the area plan, actually, that is a surprise to me because my understanding is in the commission in the past where we've had residents that have been on the commission and

there was conflicts so this is a written k l that was brought up by supervisor elsbernd. >> for the president again t conflict analysis can be complicated, it depends what the question is before a given commission and what the financial interests are of the commissioner. there are some exceptions in conflict of interest law that allow people to vote when they've been appointed to represent a certain constituency, i would have a hard time now on the fly thing whether a particular commissioner, theoretical commissioner is going to be conflicted on any particular question. typically, that is an issue that we deal with, with the commissioner on a case by case basis as issues come up. >> i feel comfortable with the language as is then. >> supervisor wiener? >> six members of this boards have voted for an amendment that we're now debating afterwards what the amendment is. >> why don't i suggest the

following, supervisor kim, i think if we move forward a motion to rescind and restate the amendment so it's clear what we're voting on, i think we understand what the intent is but make it abundantly clear and then we can have further discussion on that. >> my original motion. ing >> okay, motion to rescind. >> seconded by supervisor campos, the previous motion is rescinded, supervisor kim, if you could clarify your amendment. >> and i'm willing to hear supervisor cohen, my original is at least two of the seeds would be held by individuals that can represent the areas of plan of which this redevelopment commission has oversight open, trans bay, shipyard, i'm fine with my motion as is without stating a residency requirement but if supervisor cohen is more

comfortable, i'm happy to make that as part of the motion >> >> members and gentlemen of the motion, we do not allow discussions and [applause] to what we're discussing here on the board, just a question to you that shall be a resident of the plan, can you explain to us what it means to represent an area plan? >> we have organizations for example that are active around the development of mission bay or trans bay and that are very knowledgeable of the area plan, have history and expertise in working in those areas and they usually live in that neighborhood or in that district, but not necessarily. >> and to the city attorney, i'm just not clear as to whether the word represents has the definition in the code that was just described to it by supervisor kim. could you explain how would it be interpreted to be stated that an individual needs to

"represent an area plan"? >> john gib ner e n*er, deputy city attorney, the ordinance itself does not define the term represent if the ordinance passes, we would -- ultimately, it would be a policy by the mayor and the board as to whether a particular nominee represents an area plan, supervisor kim's description of the intent of the motion. >> if i may -- >> legislative history has little weight if any in the understanding of a definition in the statute, is that true? >> when a term like this which could be ambiguous if not to find in the ordinance, when there's a question about that, the meaning of that term, one to have tools we use to look at

is at the legislative history to resolve the ambiguity. >> unless it got litigated. >> okay. supervisor kim? >> maybe this will clarify that. how does extensive expertise in the area plan work? >> colleagues, is there -- so, supervisor kim is making a proposal that -- can you restate the amendment now. >> the motion is to reserve -- to set qualifications of two of the seats where the individuals would have extensive sper tees in at least two out of the three area plans. >> so, the individual would have to have expertise in to of the areas as opposed to one of the three areas? >> no. >> supervisor kim, if you would -- >> if there's a better way to

phrase it. >> we worked on these amendments with the mayor's office. >> they would have to be representative of one of the area plans but we would want one individual from two out of the three. >> if i could make an attempt, we have three project area plans, right, a, b and c, and what she's proposing is out of the five members, as of five seats, at least two of them must come from the area of a, b or c. >> that's not -- >> i don't think that's what supervisor kim was saying, she was suggesting that the individual need to have an expertise in the community which is different from saying they must be from the community or be a resident or property owner and i'm just trying -- i want to make sure we're precise. >> if i could jump in in the conversation, we're getting further away from what i'm comfortable with, if we were going to be naming seats and i think it should be a residency

requirement and mr. gib n*er, sir, i'm going to have to ask you again to go over what is -- what are the requirements, residency requirements? i'm a little concerned as to what supervisor elsbernd was bringing up, the conflict of interest that could potentially exist. >> chair, john gib n*er again, it's difficult for me to state any absolute roles about whether a particular commissioner would have a conflict or not have a conflict. the general rule is that a city official cannot make or a public official cannot make a decision regarding land use controls or contracts affecting property within 500 feet of property that that official owns and rents on a more than a month to month basis, there are various exceptions to that rule.

the analysis particularly when we're dealing with very large areas can be complicated and it's really individualized, so we would work with any given commissioner to figure out whether that commissioner had a conflict in any particular case. >> thank you. >> so, do we have -- is there a motion to amend? >> so, again, i wanted to maer from supervisor cohen, but if -- i want to ensure that at least two members are represented of the area plans over which this redevelopment commission is going to have oversight over, so if it is a resident of the area plan, that is fine with me. i also know that we have individuals that have extensive work experience with these area plans tho don't necessarily reside in those areas but i am certain that we will be able to find individuals that also reside in those area plans as well that won't be necessarily home owners, so i'm comfortable

with making it just a resident of the area plan. >> okay. >> if that is the cleanest way to do it. >> okay, supervisor kim has made the motion that it be a resident of the area plan, seconded again by supervisor campos, additional comment, supervisor cohen? >> no further comment. >> okay. supervisor elsbernd? >> i just want to make sure, we're just talking about residents, no more of this you have to be part of a select group in such a way that we like them so we listen to them, it just has to be a resident of the area, that's all we're saying? >> so, as i had already stated -- >> i'm confused, there's so much going back, i don't understand. >> as i already stated, if it is more clear to sigh *f say that they have to be a resident of the area plan, that's fine,

i wanted to ensure representation of individuals that have knowledge of or live in the area plans, if this is the cleanest way to do it, i'm happy to forward this as my motion. >> supervisor wiener? >> i have an idea that maybe could be passed forward on this and i do have a concern that if we're limiting these two seats to people who reside within the area plans, the fppc regulations around the 500 foot rule are incredibly complex. i just want to make sure that you can hear this. i think limiting the seats to strictly reside in the area plan knowing that complex they are within the rule and we have no way of knowing what exactly they're going to have to vote

on, whether it's going fall -- and not just the 5 foot plan, there's an area plan as well, maybe we can have legislation to encourage the mayor to consider that because i'm just not comfortable with that restriction given what i stated before, but also given the fppc regulations and the possibility that we could have appointees who can't vote on significant things. >> supervisor farrell? >> thank you, president chiu, i know the president is involved in these certain things, any comment from the mayor's office. >> no one lives there. >> thank you, supervisor jason elliot from the mayor office through the president to supervisor farrell, we appreciate the mayor appreciates the intent of supervisor kim's suggested amendments, whenever they may be to include a community voice on the commission to make sure

that residents or people that are involved with the area plans have a voice in the commission, we would point out from an operational perspective as the board considers the policy choice if to make this amendments, there are no residents we could appoint from from hunter's point and in trans bay, there are no residents, there are in mission bay, understanding the intent of supervised sore kim's suggested amendments, the mayor is committed to include community voices for two of the three or three of the three projects but certainly include community voices, as the major makes his appointments, this board will have the opportunity to reject those appointments if they're not suitable from community input, from an implementation perspective, we would ask that we be provided a bit of latitude to identify what an interested party means and i would add that the old

redevelopment commission before dissolution had no slotted seats and had no residency requirement for living in san francisco, we felt that was inappropriate so in the ordinance before you, we've added that, i'm happy to answer any other questions. >> mr. elliot, just to clarify, supervisor kim suggested they be a rez department of the area plans, you're saying there are no residents, it's humanly impossible to fit that. >> there are few people of whom to choose and the mayor may have a hard time finding someone. >> supervisor farrell, do you have a follow-up question. >> just a comment to my colleagues, if we have up and down votes here and we're having issues about residency and clearly not on the same page, why don't we leave it as is, if we're going to have an up or down vote, you heard publicly the mayor's intent to appoint people with community concerns or input with the

community who live in the area who have expertise in the area, why not leave it at that. >> supervisor campos? >> well, i certainly understand the complexity of the issue here. i don't know if there is one clear-cut way that addresses all of the points that have been made but in my mind, the idea of simply requiring that the person be a resident of district 6 and 10 might be the clearest way to get us as close to this as possible, and i appreciate the fact that the mayor's office, you know, is going to make sure that the concerns of these area plans are taken into account, that those communities are represented but i think it's important for us to have something that goes beyond, in respect to have who is the mayor and on the board of supervisors, i think it's gaot to have clarify because those roles may change, so i will defer to supervisor kim in terms of how to approach it but

i'm willing to support a motion that focuses on residencies and districts 6 and 10. >> supervisor kim? >> thank you. i'm happy to make it a motion that the resident of district 6 and 10, it would be simpler to let the district 6 and nominate it, but being i don't have the support for that, this is the language that i'm moving towards. it's not that i don't trust the mayor's office, it's this mayor is not going to be in power for 30 years, there has to be words in this ordinance to protect future plans of which this committee has oversight over, we have redevelopment commission ins the past that have had no representation from the south of market despite the extensive work that redevelopment was doing in our very backyard, so

this motion is merely to ensure some representation, and i'm not asking for a lot, i aoep not asking for a majority even, at minimum, two community voices are incredibly important to ensure that we have representation. >> okay. supervisor kim, i understand you are going to make a motion akin to what supervisor campos said, this is a suggestion that we state that two of these five appointments represent the supervisorial districts in which the majority of the plan areas exist because district 6 and district 10 may change over time over the next 30 years. >> that's fine. >> okay. >> okay, so the motion has been made by supervisor kim, if you want to restate that because i want to make it clear to everyone. >> president chiu, would you

restate it. >> i may subjecting that -- suggest that two of the five seats, the representatives come from the supervisorial districts that include the greatest majority of the area plans. >> okay. seconded by supervisor campos, supervisor chu? >> thank you, i appreciate the comments, i think frankly i think if supervisor kim had stuck with the recommendation to have at least two of the representatives be seats where they have expertise in the area plans, i would have been comfortable with that because i think that that is actually the way to go on this. i think that by restricting it to district 6 or district 10, whatever the future boundaries may be, i think you don't avoid any of the conflicts we talked about earlier -- not violations, conflicts, so i would have been okay if you had said, you know, to of the five seats are representative of individuals who have extensive knowledge of the area plans,

but to put it as a resident in any particular areas, hearing what we heard from jason about the challenges we have, i would be less comfortable, i won't be supporting that motion, but if it was the other one, i would have. >> any further discussion? okay. roll call vote on the carefully crafted motion. >> supervisor chu? >> no. >> supervisor cohen? >> aye. >> supervisor elsbernd? elsbernd no, farrell, no, supervisor kim, aye. supervisor mar, aye. >> supervisor alag by. supervisor avalos, aye, supervisor campos, campos, aye, supervisor chiu, aye. >> it passes, supervisor kim, do you have a second amendment? >> please god, no.

>> okay, no further discussion, supervisor campos? >> i don't know if supervisor kim was going to make another amendment but i have an amendment that i would like to make, have a motion and i would ask the city attorney if he could point me in the right direction in terms of the page where the delegation of authority language is, but i would move that we strike from the ordinance the language that reads as follows, the commission may delegate to the executive sdrekt tor -- >> what page are you on? >> i believe it's page 12 or 13 of the -- >> john gib n*er, deputy city attorney, of the amendment as a whole, that was circulated by supervisor alagi, it's on page 13, lines 2 and 3. >> so, it would be on page 13,

lines 2 and 3, strike and delete from the ordinance the language that reads, the commission may delegate to the executive director any of its duties it deems appropriate. so, i move that we strike that language from the ordinance. >> supervisor campos has made a motion to strike that sentence on page 13, lines 2 and 3. is there a second to that. seconded by supervisor avalos, discussion, supervisor wiener? >> i don't know if supervisor campos had intended to make comments, i would defer to supervisor campos. >> simply, the reason that i'm making a motion to strike that language is because i do believe the nature of that expressed delegation of authority is very unique. it's not something that i have seen before and i do think that it creates some issues in terms of the power that could be vested in one individual. you could have a situation

where as was explained by the city attorney except for the issue of the labor agreements that are power over which is expressly limited in term of its being able to be delegated, except for that, you have a situation where the entire authority of this commission could be delegated to the executive director, i would hope that something like that would not happen but i don't think it's good public policy to leave open that possibility, and so i think that for the commission to be able to exercise the kind of community engagement, transparency that is needed, i think that having a possibility where this body can delegate that level of authority to one individual, i don't think that serves the public well. my understanding is that we want an agency that is going to be transparent, that is going to give as much of an opportunity to the public, especially the communities that

are impacted to be involved in the decision-making, that before decisions are made, that there are meetings that are agendized, that are noticed so that people know what is being decided. you know, that is in many respects how every agency here works and i'm not saying the delegation of authority would lead to this executive director having that level of power but why leave open that possibility? arguably, if the delegation of most of the agency's authority takes place, this individual could decide to act on a number of these issues without giving the public notice, without telling people this is what we're going to do and i just don't think from a public policy standpoint that it's a good precedent for us to set, that's why i think it makes sense for us in the spirit of what i think we're trying to do to delete this language because i think that the language

creates the possibility of going down a path that in the end is not going to serve anyone, so that's why i think it's important for us to make sure that the actions live up to the letter and the spirit of what we're trying to do, that this level of authority not be delegated to one individual. >> supervisor wiener? >> thank you, mr. president. i will be voting against this amendment. i actually feel this amendment could be debilitating to the successor agency. supervisor campos mentioned that he hadn't heard of any other instances but we were just informed by the city attorney that the port commission has exactly the same authority. we have -- i'm looking at -- from the transportation authority, that supervisor elsbernd just mentioned that it

delineates the duties of the executive director of the ta and at the end, it indicates the authority -- that the director can perform such other and additional duties as the authority may prescribe. you know, as i mentioned before, the planning commission and planning department, if the planning commission weren't able to delegate certain kinds of permits and decisions to staff, it's already hard enough to recruit planning commissioners because they have to put 30, 40 hours a week, they have to put 130 and 40 hours a weekend to hear permits, so i think this would have a significant and negative impact on the commission, it would require it to handle all sorts of matters and decisions that one would expect to be delegated to staff, and in fact, the fact that this is in here and if we vote to strike this out, there's now an

explicit decision by this board basically questioning any delegation authority from the commission to the director and i can guarantee you that there will be protests for any single decision made by the director, no matter how mundane, no matter how bureaucratic because this board has made a decision that you can't delegate anything, so i think this would be a very, very negative amendment and i am not supporting it. >> further discussion? >> roll call vote. >> supervisor chu? >> no. >> chew, no. >> supervised sore cohen? koe yen, aye, elsbernd, no. supervisor farrell, farrell, no. supervisor kim, kim, aye, supervisor mar, mar, no, supervisor alag gi, alag gi, aye, supervisor wiener, aye,

supervisor campos, aye, there are 6 ayes and 5 noes. >> the motion passes, supervisor cohen. >> before we break into applause, i would like to rescind the vote. >> seconded by supervisor chu, colleagues, any objection to the motion to rescind, without objection, that should be the case. >> thank you. >> roll call vote or do you have additional comments. >> roll call vote, please. >> this is on the campos/avalos amendment? >> correct. >> supervisor chu >> >> no. >> supervisor chu, no. cohen, no, elsbernd, no, supervisor farrell, no, supervisor kim, aye, supervisor mar, no, alal gi, aye, wiener, no, supervisor avalos, avalos,

aye, supervisor campos, campos, aye, president chiu, aye, motion amend fails, any additional amendments? okay, colleagues, let's take a roll call vote on item 24, the underlying ordinance as amended for the first three, madam clerk? >> mr. president, i need to change my vote sheets, i ran out of paper. >> it's one of those days. >> roll call vote, please. >> on item 24, supervisor chu? >> aye. >> chu, aye. supervisor cohen, aye. supervisor elsbernd, aye, supervisor farrell, aye, supervisor kim, aye, supervisor mar, aye, supervisor alag gi, alag gi, aye, supervisor wiener, aye,