Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Advisory Committees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rules Committee delays Central Market/Tenderloin advisory committee after debate over appointment process
Summary
The committee heard widespread public support for creating a Central Market/Tenderloin citizens advisory committee to advise on community benefits agreements and displacement mitigation but paused the item after supervisors raised concerns about allowing a single district supervisor to nominate the committee’s members; the file was continued to May 19 and some non-substantive amendments were adopted.
The Rules Committee on May 5 heard extensive public testimony supporting an ordinance to create a Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) for Central Market, the Tenderloin and nearby areas, but paused final action after supervisors questioned the nomination process.
The ordinance would create a CAC to advise the City Administrator and the Board of Supervisors on community benefits agreements and policy ideas intended to limit displacement as economic revitalization proceeds in Mid-Market and adjacent neighborhoods. Supporters from neighborhood groups and community-development organizations urged approval, telling the committee the CAC would be a mechanism to ensure revitalization benefits existing residents, small businesses and nonprofits.
Several neighborhood speakers testified in favor, including representatives from SamCan, Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation, the North of Market/Tenderloin Community Benefit District and other neighborhood organizations. Supporters emphasized balancing job growth with protections for low-income residents and small businesses.
Committee discussion turned to procedure. Supervisor Ellsburn expressed concern about embedding in the code a process by which the District 6 supervisor would nominate all CAC members, calling that an unusual departure from the city’s ordinary appointment practice and urging an open application/Rules Committee confirmation process. Other supervisors proposed a split appointment model and asked staff for precedents. The chair offered a compromise amendment to split appointments between the Board and the District 6 supervisor; members agreed to continue the item to allow staff to refine language and to return with the original version plus proposed amendments.
At the meeting’s close the committee adopted non-substantive technical amendments and formally continued Item 9 to the next Rules Committee meeting on May 19 for further consideration. The continuation preserves the opportunity for more briefing on appointment mechanics and any final amendments before the full Board consideration.
Outcome: some amendments adopted (composition and nomination language to be refined); item continued to Rules Committee on May 19 for further action.
