pattern with a lot of people who purchase homes in the city, violate the law, pay the penalties and still able to move forward with their projects, which sometimes, unfortunately, changes the character of a community. so i'm trying to understand how that continues to happen in these particular cases. >> supervisor breed, the planning department shares those concerns. and that's why we've asked for legislation that will strengthen and enhance the administrative penalties, provisions of the planning code, that are in sections 176. and as far as allowing a project to proceed, the remedies that have been issues are ones that have suspended all work on the project. this project sponsor is not being allowed to proceed. work was done out of scope and there's work the subject of a discretionary review hearing pending before the planning commission. what is proceeding is this hearing on the adequacy of the ceqa determination. unless this body finds that the planning department improperly i issued that exemption, it could would not be allowed to go on. we're hope to work with this body to develop legislation to remedy concerns. >> president breed: and i think that -- i'm still not satisfied with the arguments of the waiver around the issues of contamination in the soil. i'm not comfortable with the fact that you can and can't waive it, but then there's no charity as to what it would do on contaminated soil. i don't need you to answer that at this time. i will move on with the presentation, and then we can get into more detail about questions, but i'm still not satisfied with the argument as it relates to that. at this time, i will ask the project sponsor or representative to come forward. you have up to 10 minutes for presentation. >> thank you, president breed. members of the board. i'm tom toney on behalf of the project sponsor. the architect is here as well. we're available to answer any questions you may have. staff presentation and written responses have addressed each of the arguments in this appeal. the appeal concerns the ceqa document at issue in this project. while we understand and appreciate the character of the home, there is simply no violation of ceqa in this case. ceqa is very clear concerning historic resources. the project may cause significant impact when the project "demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner the physical characteristics of an historical resource that conveys historical significance." can we show the overhead? this shows the two properties. the proposed project does not expand the property's facade. it will not alter or effect the appellant's home in any way on the front facade. this image shows the worst-case shadow impacts of the proposed rear addition. as you can see, it's set back almost 4 feet. doesn't touch the home. it's visible from the home, but views from the home as have been established are not characteristics of the home that convey historical significance. the integrity as explained is not affected by this project. the appellant has not provided any evidence to the contrary. a preservation consultant submitted a letter yesterday advocating for additional review, but that letter, while they discussed the historic character of the home, do not identify any impacts under ceqa to the home. the appellant in the letter discussed the possibility of the properties being included in the historic district, but planning has studied this previously and concluded that the property should not be included in the district. we're also aware of the recent publicity and public concern about the demolition of historic resources and building permit violations. we want to assure the board that that's not the case here. we have taken every measure to proceed with care and in accordance with all codes and regulations. the villainization of mr. durkin that has occurred here today is inappropriate and inaccurate. he's here and he's willing to answer each and every question the board may have about project construction. with respect to the recent complaint filed consideration the foundation work, mr. durkin, who is a licensed civil engineer, managed the work himself. two chimneys were removed and they were unenforced, unbraced. they could have fallen and caused damage. they were removed to avoid damage. the subject property and the chimneys are not historic resources. no historic resources have been or will be compromised by mr. durkin's work. from the beginning of the project, we've taken every step possible to proceed with care and ensure this project was sensitive to the neighborhood. before submitting applications, we met with planning staff and had a formal project review meeting. at these meetings, we identified the relevant historic issues and other issues particular to this property and we designed the project to be sensitive to those issues. mr. durkin held two neighborhood meetings. the second meeting so that additional neighbors could attend and address neighbors' concerns. neighbors will have an additional opportunity to discuss the project at the planning commission's discretionary review hearing. finally, this project has not been "piecemealed." planning studied the entirety of the project in categorical exemption. the issuance of the permit was authorized because environmental review had been completed. there may be a misunderstanding about the nature of a categorical exemption. the issuance of that exemption does not mean that no environmental review occurred. as you know, the document is significant. and significant review occurs before that document can be issued or approved. appellants, again, have provided no substantial evidence to show any environmental impacts or to show that the exemption was improper or to show that there's been any procedural violations. to the contrary, more than substantial evidence supports the planning department's approval of exemption and this board's upholding of that approval. for all of these reasons, we urge the board to deny this appeal. we're available for any questions you may have. thank you. >> president breed: thank you very much. all right. we'll open it up to public comment for members of the public that would like to speak in opposition to the appeal. if you would like to speak in opposition to the appeal, please come forward. >> hello, mayor breed, and board of supervisors. i'm ward epstein. i've known chris durkin for 10 years. he has a young family, two kids. he would like to be the neighborhood to the downhill and uphill and have a good, neighborly relationship. for some reason, they don't want him to raise his family there the way they did theirs. he's trying to work quickly to mitigate the noise and the disturbance to everybody. all of his work has been approved by the planning department, architects, engineers, general contractors. everything's done correctly. some of his neighbors feel like they own the entire block and they own his home and he's merely a custodian of his own home. he's trying to mitigate the possibility of earthquake damage to his own home. almost every building in this city has been required -- if it's multifamily, to have their brick foundations replaced. some of his neighbors have used political influence. he's trying to work with everybody. he really is. it's funny how there's working done on every block in pacific heights, let alone the rest of the city, but somehow chris shouldn't be able to do the work on his own home. he's being singled out by bitter and vindictive neighbors. if they got to know him, they would find that he has a lovely family and they just want to be part of the neighborhood. i ask that you find in favor of mr. durkin and allow him to build his forever home. thank you. >> president breed: thank you for your comments. any other members of the public that would like to speak in open anythin -- 0 up opposition to the appeal? seeing none, we'll have 3 minutes of rebuttal. >> i would like to address some of the comments that have been made. first off, ceqa says expressly at 20084-e if a project may not be exempt ed if it adversely affects an historical resource. this is clearly the immediate surroundings of an appropriate resour resource, and it will change the setting, feeling or association. we've gone chapter and verse about how drastic an effect this project will have on the historic house. the staff simply missed that. second, staff points to 21099 saying that aesthetic concerns don't matter under ceqa, but ignore subsection d, as in david, of that statute, that says it does not apply to historic resources. once again, we come back to the historic nature of this property. third, may i project this again? the city cannot get around the fact that this property is on the city's map of contaminated sites. our expert has concluded that there is contaminated soil from leaky underground sewage tanks. staff says, it's been used for residential purposes. true. but it does not negate the fact that there is contamination in the soil and should be cleaned up. also, the approval from the city says that a site mitigation plan should be required for the facility. staff has today said they will not require a site mitigation plan. that's stunning. that means that the categorical exemption is false. it's false information to the public. the reason for that, they only have one rubber stamp for approvals and disapprovals that's proposterous. they cannot get a rubber stamp that said no? the -- finally, i'd like to close with mr. durkin's statement about the ceqa review. that's exhibit i to our attachment. this is an appeal that mr mr. durkin himself filed at 1026 clayton. in this appeal, mr. durkin himself and his law firm said, a project should not be exempted from ceqa review because it may affect a historical resources. in that case, the neighbor wanted to put a roof deck on a garage and mr. durkin said it would affect the historic resource. in that case, no property had been listed as historic, unlike in this case, where we're talking about a category a1 resource that will be adversely affected. what applies with mr. durkin's neighbors should apply to mr. kauffman. thank you. >> president breed: thank you. that brings us to the end of our hearing. this hearing has been held and is now closed. this matter is in the hands of the board of supervisors. supervisor farrell? >> supervisor farrell: thank you, president breed. i have thoughts on this, but i will defer to colleagues if you have any further questions. >> president breed: before i call on supervisor farrell, supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: relative to the last hearing we had where we were all deeply troubled by the demolition of a property at 841 chestnut street, which was an historic resource, the sentiment that this board expressed to the department of city planning, as well as to the zoning administrator and the department of building inspection, is that when you have important historic resources, you err on the side of the resource. in so far as categorical exemption, means there could be no impact. we don't even have to look at it because there can be no impact, in this case, to an historic resource. as counsel said, it's not just the building. it's the resource next to the building that may be effected. there is evidence in the record. the evidence in the record is very clear. we can quibble as to if it's factually correct, but there's evidence in the record that supports the appeal. this is not an e.i.r. it's a categorical exemption. i just have to say with all due respect to counsel for the appellant, i looked up chris durkin, unless there are three chris durkins, i came up with the same 1026 clayton appeal, and also 1055 asbury. to the speaker that said it's the dream home. no. it's a developer. that's fine. people can be developers, but you can't pretend that this is your dream home when it's one of a number of projects. that has to do with voracity. i'm happy to defer to the district supervisor in this case, but i hope it's a learning moment for the department. it's not categorically exempt if it has an effect on the a-1 historic resource. end of story. >> president breed: thank you, supervisor peskin. supervisor farrell? >> supervisor farrell: thank you. i'm going on my eighth year here at the board of supervisors, i've never seen reason to uphold a ceqa appeal dispute in my district. i think this may be the first one. where we are, there's a lot of questions about planning and building inspection and drs. just to let people know. on may 16, a cat x was issued for the project. then on may 18, two days later, dbi issued a permit for the foundation replacement and that was without planning department approval. it wasn't until a complaint was filed, that dbi found the permit approved building a new foundation, but required a 311 notice that had not been sent out. to me, it's a sign, not a ceqa issue, but a project sponsor not operating in good faith. they're communicating with the planner, but moving part of the project forward without proper approval. then planning approved with some reservations. my office has been trying to get an answer as to why that happened. we haven't gotten a real answer. october 10, a 311 notice is sent out and three drs were filed. some of them spoke in support of the appeal here, but it's usually done well in advance any ceqa that comes before us. it allowed the excavation work to begin before it was complete. ceqa appeal had to be filed, which was filed on november 22. you would think when a ceqa appeal is filed, anything permitted would stop, but it wasn't the case here. work continued on this site. and to me, it's a pattern of bad behavior here. it wasn't until december 21. y'all recall what was going on over the holidays and certainly mr. the holidays after nearly two weeks of my office issuing a stop work order was issued. i find this shocking. the sponsor demolished chimneys without a permit, which has left the home damage and easier to seek demolition approval. i've voiced many frustrations with planning not making common sense decisions with their reviewal to make common sense changes and landmarking neighborhood without letting the supervisors to know. in this case, they allowed one part of the project to move forward with the rest under review. it doesn't make sense to me. in terms of the ceqa appeal. and the main issue i had. and i will not belabor the point, is the issues that supervisor peskin talked about. i usually find that planning at times has gone very far, sometimes too far, about landmarking and preservation issues. i cannot believe they would allow work to happen without analyzing the impact. it's not e.i.r. i appreciate president breed's comments. the thing to me is the preservation issues. there is evidence that this is historic resource. in the morning, we learned that coxhead house, i will not get into the history of this, though it's amazing, will be likely eligible listing as a local landmark. our own landmark designation program is backlogged in san francisco. it's not acceptable when it's against the wishes of homeowners. you only have to see pictures of this home, read what's in the record, to see the nature of the home itself. when i saw the proposal to construct a large home next door, along the windows that are part of the location, design and feeling of the home, i could not believe it was happening. in this case, i'm going to. what i would like to do is make a motion to table 19 and approve 20 and 21. and -- sorry about that. i am concerned there's a substantial evidence in the record before the board that the project presents unusual circumstances relating to historic resources and hazardous materials and as a result, the project may have a significant effect on the environment. that's my motion. >> president breed: supervisor farrell has made a motion. >> to table 19 and approve 20 and 21? >> president breed: yes. seconded by supervisor peskin. madam clerk on the motion, please call the roll. >> supervisor fewer: aye. >> supervisor kim: aye. >> supervisor peskin: aye. >> supervisor ronen: aye. >> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor sheehy: aye. >> supervisor tang: aye. >> president breed: aye. >> supervisor cohen: aye. >> supervisor farrell: aye. >> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> supervisor cohen: i would like to request that we close out our meeting in honor of mr. joe boss. joe boss was a district 10 residents for more than 30 years. he lived in the dog patch neighborhood. he dedicated his time, energy and livelihood to the entire community. he served on the eastern neighborhood citizens advisory committee for six years from 2011 until this summer. he served on the portero dog patch foundation before anyone can recall. he's been a steadfast neighbor and confidante. he was a tough negotiator. i can attest to this. oftentimes, we would butt heads, but worked together to find in the best interest of the neighborhood. he was a tireless advocate. he worked on every bond issue, every community meeting with parking or bus routes or open space. joe was also a devoted husband and worked in close partnership with his wife, who has been left to grieve. and janet carpenelli, equally strong and forceful advocate. collectively, they made quite a team. i wanted you to know that joe was a father to tom and christina and absolutely grandfather to his beloved beatrice. joe boss had a sharp wit and a strong sense of justice. he had a big heart and cared deeply about his community and everyone in it. i want to lift up his family in this great time of need. i also will comment that the entire district 10 community mourns his loss and will most certainly miss his leadership. the rest i submit. >> president breed: thank you. supervisor farrell said he would submit. back to you. i was going to reiterate, i would like to make a motion that we entire the board meeting in honor of joe boss. thank you. >> president breed: can we do that without objection? without objection, we'll do that. madam clerk, please call items 22-25. >> persons interested in determination of exemption under the california environmental quality act exemption approved by the planning commission on november 23, 2017, for the project for cell services. >> supervisor kim: i want to thank members of the public that waited patiently. both parties have requested that it be postponed. i would like to motion a motion to continue. >> president breed: to what date? >> supervisor kim: february 27. >> president breed: it was seconded by supervisor ronen. on the motion, is there any public comment regarding the continuance? seeing none, public comment is please. colleagues, can we take that motion without objection? without objection, this item will be continued to february 27, 2018. madam clerk, are we finished with roll call for introductions? >> clerk: correct. >> president breed: we'll open it up to public comment. please read public comment and this is an opportunity for members of the public that would like to comment on our clovered session as well. >> may represent the board for items before the november, minutes, special order at 2:00 p.m., specifically on the closed session regarding labor negotiations and items 31 and 32. pursuant to the board's rules, direct your remarks to the board as a whole and not individual supervisors and nor to the audience. speakers using interpretation assistance will be allowed twice the amount of time and if you would like to display a document please state such and remove the document when you want the screen to return to live coverage of the meeting. first speaker, please? >> thank you, madam clerk, ladies and gentlemen of the board. president and acting mayor breed, i again ask for your resignations. you violated your oaths of office. you swore to defend the u.s. constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic and yet you have the citywide case management and community focus. a joint project with the san francisco campus of the university of california, which the city and county funds at the rate of $100 million per year! citywide, it's the assertive treatment program. it's responsible for involuntarily medicating and performing medical and surgical procedures on residents of this city and county. they can do this by depriving its patients on life and liberty without due process. citywide also denies patients of freedom of association and right to petition the government can grievances. citywide perpetrates unreasonable searches and seizures in violation of item 4. citywide denies the right to jury trial. citywide exact truly and unusual punishment from its patients. denies its patients bodily integrity protected by amendment 9. it uses medicine to control its patients unnecessary and violates amendment 13. it denies patients equal treatment under the law. if you do nothing to prevent them, so you have violated your oaths of office. i ask for your resignation! my name is misspelled. it's h-i-l-l-i-e-r. back to you. >> president breed: media services has assured me that our speaker system is working just fine. next speaker, please? >> make no mistake, we have an emergency here pertaining to homeless people out on the street. ed lee, god bless his soul, he calculated that part of the emergency that we have on our hands is $82.2 million deficit. by the same response, ed said if we continue to roll in the manner we're rolling, within two years, the deficit will increase to approximately $262 million. ed said to take care of the program, all departments are going to have to cut back at least 5% of the expenditures on their departments. moreover, i came up here well over several years ago and pointed out that a negative cash flow was going to take place on the grounds that high-tech companies twitter is getting a minnesota munl of $125 million a year of free money along with five other high-tech companies getting a minimum of 125 million a year of free money, which is $3.1 million. you've been rolling like this for seven years. so seven years with this amount of money is $217 billion. how can you give this amount of free money to high-tech companies that are not homeless in the street, not suffering from a combination of mental and physical disabilities, and yet when you campaign you claim you want to take care of the homeless problem. i further move to have each and every one of you look in the mirror and ask yourself to incorporate the true and correct way to take care of the homeless problem -- >> president breed: thank you, sir, for your comments. next speaker, please? >> good evening. my name is john fitch. the purpose of this communication is to notify you as a breach that has occurred with section 13.101b. this amendment states that in the event that a mayor died holding office that the president of the board of supervisor shall several as mayor, stipulated by the ethics, charter, makes it clear that only a qualified candidate would be deemed qualified. candidates not on record and sworn in prior to december, 2016, would not be deemed and qualified as a successor. john fitch is the only certified and qualified candidate on record since 2015. same -- i urge you to vet this process thoroughly. as the media and overseeing agencies will have significant interest in developments relating to this matter. thank you very much. >> president breed: thank you, sir, for your comments. next speaker, please? >> hello. i was famous before this, but i was called a hero in '06. there is no avenue for me to speak how bad the city is prejudice against all homeless people and how unwilling they are to hear there's a good homeless person. how they treat me, howed about it's affected me and how horrible these things are. i'm going to ask that you either listen to my advice and pay me like a high-paid advisor to make the city a good place again, or i will sue the city for about $50 million. i will sue you. you need to get ahold of me soon. and i can tell you all the little things i will sue you for, the prejudice, but it's -- guilt lies with the whole city. equal rights is okay, but when it comes to homeless people, it goes out the door. it's ok to street us like crap. you guys are driving cars around, you know what i'm saying? you are not all pure. it's sick. i have a real god and he rose me up to a certain height and now you guys have put me down here. i want to be back at that height. and that includes the house that god gave me on top of twin peaks that you kicked me out of, right? i want you to get ahold of me or i will sue you for $50 million. you know pied piper, how you took my sleeping bag and you never gave it back? i will pied piper you guys. you will pay for that sleeping bag. $20. you still have that issue. when you see me with a pipe and there's children following me, you know what's going on. don't laugh. you better hide your children from me. >> president breed: thank you, sir, for your comments. next speaker, please? >> president breed, board of supervisors, i bring you greetings and happy new year from the board of directors of the san francisco african-american chamber of commerce. president breed, we're very pleased as to how you are serving as mayor in this time of challenge here in the city. and the board of supervisors of the around american chamber of commerce has expressed that they would like to see you continue until the june elections. we're very pleased. we know that you are unquestionably competent, experienced, for this. and we wish you much success and we are in support. thank you. >> president breed: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please? >> hello, supervisors. i'm ken johnson. i'm a native san franciscan. i concur with what brother fred said and i want to say this here to the supervisors that when the mayor was shot, supervisor feinstein took over and there was no mention of anybody taking over as mayor except the president of the board. supervisor breed has been president of the board twice. you voted her in twice, so it shows she's super qualified. plus, look at her life. i worked with london breed when she ran the cultural center. that building was horrible until she stepped in and she modified the building. her whole life has been spent working, you know to, better the city, the community. you can't have a better person as mayor as the person you have there now. so i'm -- i'm just asking the supervisors to look at the history of the person. look at -- i mean, she could be the next president. you have a qualified person, you know, as president of the board that can step in and she's been working with mayor lee on different projects and to stop that, you are to change that up and then somebody has to learn what they was doing. but you can't stop a -- something in the middle of the stream. so i'm just saying that you have the person -- >> president breed: thank you, sir. thank you for your comments. next speaker, please? >> good afternoon, supervisors. president breed, i'm a long time resident of the city of san francisco. grew up here. went to galileo high school and then up to the university of washington up in seattle. and i'm here to just ask the supervisors to take a look in the mirror. and stop all the silliness going on. we have a process that's been established. we have others who have transitioned to the mayor's office. and i want to see president breed transition to that position. i also want to say to the women advocates and all the things that are going on in our country today, we have no guarantee that the person that's going to be elected will be a lady. i would like for you to just think about that. at this point in time, ladies, you have a tremendous opportunity not only to allow a woman of color but a woman to ascend to mayor of this great city of ours i want to ask you, let's stop this and do what has been done. thank you. god bless you all. >> president breed: thank you, sir, for your comments. next speaker, please? >> thank you. i'm mark d'antoni. i live in district 8, mr. sheehy's district, but i happen to do a lot of organizing in district 5 and i will say that district 5 could use representation and we would love it if we had our representative back. right now the representative is doing three different jobs and we're concerned that the people in the district has not been able to get the attention that they deserve, especially the tenants the midtown, which is an important issue to all of you, as it is to me. thank you very much. >> president breed: thank you, sir, for your comments. next speaker, please? >> hello, board of supervisors. i'm david wu, born and raised in san francisco, in the haight, where i still live. i am here to talk about the conflict that exists with the current mayor also being a current supervisor and running a campaign at the same time. this is a great conflict. no one person to do all those things by themselves. our current district ever supervisor before they fell into the role of acting mayor had been largely unresponsive to many core, community needs. the role of this district 5 supervisor will only exacerbate issues that need attention from a district supervisor. there must be a caretaker mayor that is put in place that will not run for mayor. and this issue needs to be resolved. thank you. >> president breed: thank you. next speaker, please? >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is lisa aubrey. i'm a district 5 resident for nearly 30 years. i'm also a member of the group affordable to bis, focused on the development of affordable housing in our community. we need the undivided engagement and attention of our very own distri district supervisor now. we want to engage with our supervisor to find solutions for, among other things, our growing homeless problems and to focus on the critical issue of the development of truly affordable housing sites, like the mcdonald's site. we expect and deserve a supervisor who is 100% focused on the unique challenges we're facing today. and in the coming days. it's un real eight istic to thit any single person could perform both jobs of mayor or district supervisor. i urge you to appoint a caretaker mayor that is not run forge mayor or a sitting supervisor. >> thank you. next speaker, please? >> i'm denise sitlow. i've lived in district 5 and in san francisco almost 30 years. i will voice what lisa just said. i urge you to appoint an interim mayor because i feel like our supervisor -- we need our supervisor in our district working on crucial issues that are there. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please? >> board of supervisors, i'm normal daigleman, and i live in district 5. i want to urge the board of supervisors to appoint an interim mayor that will not run in the june election. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please? >> can we put this up on tv? okay. i went into ronen's office today and read this, which i believe is approximately 99% lies and . b.s., but there's one statement that i would like to talk about on page 10, which is not a lie. and i would like to rectify the slander and lies and hate that you showed against p.g.i. i have met brad dinkus, good, tolerant, christian man and you said some lying things against him. this takes about an hour and all i have is 2 minutes. we'll forget this one. read the coquran. turkey is getting ready to pass a law to marry 9-year-old girls. mohammed married a 9-year-old girl and she had a baby at 10. in regards to pacific justice institute, when ronen gave this transgender, who he is a guy, he has a -- you have a -- you called him a her and a she, what, 10 times in 2 minutes? good to november 14's meeting, fast forward two hours and you will see the lies. you are all full of lies. god made them male and female. some females are lesbians and some are not. some males are sod sosodomites,s what i call them. repent and believe on jesus. he would forgive you. but for the grace of god, i would go to hell. >> next speaker, please? >> no hate. no islam phobia. good afternoon, supervisors. i'm trevor martin. i'm a member of the san francisco progressive alliance, and san francisco for democracy. they say that history repeats itself, but who would have known we would find ourself in this situation once again so soon. our former mayor lee, rest his soul, was appointed as a caretaker mayor on the promise that he would not run. he backed out of that promise and he ran. and when he ran, he got the powerful benefit of incumbency that he did not earn. and here we are again. we are will an open, fair, and transparent, democratic process. this isn't about any candidate. this is about making sure that folks start on a level playing field. all right? i have a respect, supervisor breed, but i have more respect for this city. i have more respect for the people in the city. and i have more respect for an open, fair, democratic process. i ask that the board appoint a caretaker mayor until june that is not running. also, i would like to request that the board look into setting a fixed time for public comment during every single tuesday board meeting. folks take a lot of time to come out here. public comment is a time for folks to come in here and express their feelings and give their opinions, express their concerns. and you work for us. you should listen to us. >> thank you. next speaker, please? >> my name is steven javie. i'm a resident of san francisco since 1970. i want to talk about -- first of all, i agree with the interim caretaker mayor, versus somebody that wants to run for mayor, but i have another concern. i sometimes think of things on federal levels and the u.s. was founded on certain fundamental principles. and perhaps biggest of all is the operation of powers. and that is something that it seemed to be muddied here. it's a very dangerous situation to blend those together. and i urge the board of supervisors not to do that. i don't think, regardless of what the charter may say, with all due respect to the city, that it would withstand a careful, judicial scrutiny. it's like the president of the united states deciding to act as a u.s. senator. so i urge you to keep that issue in mind. i'm not addressing this to any one individual person, but it's a slippery slope when he blend the separation of powers together. >> president breed: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please? >> good afternoon, board of circumstances. i'm curtis wu. i urge you to appoint a caretaker mayor because it's fought a level playing field and i urge you to be loyal to principles, not people. the status quo is not working and we're in a pivotal time in our society and we need to break the status quo. regardless of who is interim mayor or acting mayor, even if it's someone i like or not like, doesn't matter. even though it's the charter amendment or -- it doesn't make it right just because it's the way it is now. i urge you to appoint a caretaker mayor. thank you. >> president breed: thank you for your comments. >> good afternoon, acting mayor breed and board of supervisors. i want to say, great job of dealing with the death of mayor lee. i am in favor for a caretaker mayor. i'm a resident of district 5. resident of midtown park apartments. he know all about that, especially supervisor breed. i think that a caretaker mayor would be the best for san francisco and i've been troubled to harry reiding articles and so on and so forth, people influencing the process. we need to know it's the people's place as well as you are honored and blessed to be elected by your own constituency. so you need to understand that the people pay your salary. so i believe having a caretaker mayor is the best process. and when they do run, let's put them on an even playing field and let the resume speak for themselves. no one should have a hand up and especially in my community where they say you need to work hard. so i never had a leg up. i worked hard. so, again, you need to grow up and have a caretaker mayor and let that individual run on their own. thank you. and thank you for the opportunity. no more outside influence. thank you. >> president breed: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> thank you to the board and president and acting mayor breed. >> president breed: pull the microphone close. >> i'm everbright, member of the lgbtq democratic club and women's march leadership team, but today i'm speaking to you as a co-chair of the san francisco progressive alliance. no one seeking the office of mayor should be appointed before the voters get a chance to vote. we're here to support a level playing field for all candidates and fair election for all voters. incumbents have enormous advantages and it's been 15 years since san francisco has had a mayoral election without an incumbent. we've seen neighbors pushed from their homes. out of the city, where they're forgotten or on to the street where they're criminalized. after today's filing deadline, this board has the rare opportunity to appoint a take -- caretaker mayor. we call upon this board to prioritize those representing marginalized communities, especially women of color, and con conduct their process openly and honestly. put simply, to appoint any candidate to an office they're publicly seeking before the voters are allowed to vote, is unnecessary and undemocratic. thank you. >> president breed: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please? >> hello, again. i'm anjo wu. i would like to bring the attention back to san francisco instead of talking about multimillion dollar homes in pacific heights. i've also been an advocate for single-payer in california and had the opportunity to speak with many small business owners in my neighborhood, district 1. one of the stories that stands out to me is a small business owner who has had her business in the neighborhood for 25 years and her landlord just raised her rent, tripled her rent. she had to move out of her home, out of the city and she's struggling to holding on to her business. san francisco -- when i hear people say that san francisco is losing its soul, i wonder why our working class neighborhoods are pleading, hemorrhaging. it's working class and im pant communities that give san francisco its heart and soul. i hope that the next mayor will hit the ground running for affordable housing, rent control and dealing with the lohomeless issue. i'm asking that you appoint an interim, neutral mayor, so all candidates have the opportunity to earn the seat of office of mayor based on their merits in a fair and open process. thank you. >> president breed: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. [please stand by]

Related Keywords

California , United States , London , City Of , United Kingdom , Turkey , San Francisco , American , Ed Lee , John Fitch , David Wu , Tom Toney , Curtis Wu , Chris Durkin ,