first meeting. not like i wasn't involved. but i really have difficulty. and i have to say this is not, i didn't know about this meeting. if i didn't google something from the bike coalition. i wouldn't have known this existed today. i have been inquiring. i think a lot of safety issues can be addressed. there is still not a pedestrian count-down light on masonic and church. the biggest street. i don't think there should be left-turn lanes at all. excuse me, no right on red. because the drivers don't look for pedestrians. and they are busy looking for turn. and i am a pedestrian and the limit is pointless. and because of the commuter lanes are going to be eliminated. why not eliminate them now.

and see what happens. [bell] as of now the parking is too big of an issue. >> thank you. next speaker. >> elizabeth stamp. >> good afternoon, i am elizabeth stamp, the execute you have director of walk san francisco. i am here to speak in support on behalf of walk sf for this project. as you know masonic is a big, wide, fast, dangerous street. and earlier a speaker mentioned going to trader joes and not wanting to be killed on the way there. and to bike on the sidewalk, and to provide space for people to bike on the street and get people off the sidewalk. and have a ripple effect to reduce the speeds on corridor, because someone was killed

walking back to her car with her groceries recently from trader joes. it's a real tragedy and totally preventable. and one shortcoming on this plan is that it doesn't go as far as it could. it doesn't go to trader joes. we ask that there are some improvements made at oak and masonic. which is one block south of where the project extends to. feld and masonic is a big place for bicyclists to cross, because of the light. but oak and masonic is a place for pedestrians to cross. it was a two-lane left turn from oak to masonic. it's now one lane, which is much better but there still could be a lot of improvements.

this will improve conditions for everyone, walking and driving and biking. and it will make clear that masonic is not a speed way. people live along masonic, it's a neighborhood street and should be a place for people to walk in safety and comfort. >> stephanie tucker. >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon commissioners. i am stephanie tucker, we are here to express our strong support for this project. we have heard from district 5 residents their strong support for this. two deaths are too many along masonic avenue. and we thank everyone who has done their due diligence in outreaching to the community. and problem solving any potential issues that could come up as a result of removing

parking. and i just want to say, our office is highly empathetic to our residents who are losing parking. especially those who have disabilities that prohibit them from being able to walk or take the bus. but in the end, we feel that this project is the right project for district 5. and it's the right thing to do for the citizens of san francisco. for five years we have been pushing to have this project realized. we are very grateful to see that we are taking this very important step today. and i -- i strongly support you approving it and moving forward. thank you. >> thank you. >> peter lauterborn. >> good afternoon. >> afternoon. thank you board for hearing this item. i am peter lautenborn, i am here to voice strong support for this

project. it's a little to the east of our district. but it is used heavily by our residents. it's the way that the people connect to the new routes in the park you put in. and connect people to the paved streets and northern bike routes and people coming from the north to the wiggle. we are really supportive of this. and we are more supportive of the words that supervisor marr introduced a hearing request of the impact there. and that was supported by supervisor alagy and supervisor feld. and we will go to the t.a. to find ways to fund this project. thank you and we appreciate and hope this gets approved. >> next speaker. >> michael helquist. >> good afternoon, i am michael

helquist, i live at golden gate and central. one block east of masonic. i lived in this location in a home i own for the last 15 years. i use muni. i walk and sometimes drive and bike. i try to avoid traveling on masonic by any means. because i know it's not safe. i helped organize two community vigils for people hit and killed by motorists driving dangerously on masonic. neither the pedestrian nor the bicyclist were crossing or riding against the law or against the light or doing any unlawful. i want to thank you for considering the change on this corridor. there are two additional points. i was involved in the plan and development for the last two years. first and foremost the strongest feeling is that this is about

safety for all road user. it was never just a bike plan. this is what neighbors and community organizations have stressed for several years now. i am a member of the north of panhandle association, and i can't remember how many articles there were published. not only published in our newsletter but that gets hand delivered to 3500 residents in the neighborhood. our side of masonic. and second i want to commend mta for recommending the most comprehensive outreach undertaken. it was almost like someone would have to decide not to hear about this to avoid the mailings and post cards and e-mails and door-to-door contact. and i want to mention about the north panhandle neighborhood group. with they took a survey of the

residents, 80% of the people supported. >> elias sumari. the last person that submitted a card. >> i am elias and i bike on masonic going to trader joes and places north of presidio. it's crazy and scary and i try to avoid it. but most of the time i try to avoid it. sometimes i ride on the sidewalk because i am afraid. someone said she is scared to death to lose the parking. and i am scared to ride on it, anyone with a parking as a fundamental right, shouldn't be

living in san francisco. i am excited to see the changes after all of these years. i guess that's it. >> thank you. >> any other member of the public wishes to address the board that has not spoken? >> i am going to close the public hearing. >> aye. >> this passines. >> i want to say i thank you for all of your work on this. i know that you were personally

involved with mill's vigil and reaching out to the family. i hope they aware of this. >> a motion and second. any further discussion? >> first to those who have come down to say they are concerned about parking or driving and all of this. we welcome your voices here. you shouldn't feel shame of voicing your views about what you want for your neighborhood. i hope that is some response to you and comments made. that said i favor this program. i think it will enhance safety. i ha i have voiced my one concern. we need to look at ways to be sure that traffic flows evenly. and there is confusion when the director and i spoke, and the offers. i hope you look at no turn

restriction on the northbound masonic at feld. i think that will cause congestion. i want to address that and note that. >> we have a motion and second to approve the resolution as amended. >> aye. >> ayes have it. thank you. >> item 13, approving proposed policies. >> there are no speakering cards. whereas clause the word proposed has removed from the fifth,

sixth, seventh language whereas clauses. inserting language for policy. the whereas clause would read, the management of policies that affirm existing parking management practices and continues as is. and deleting the word "proposed" out of sixth whereas. and on the eighth whereas and the language inserting: as a separate policy proposal. and the language is the same. mta will consider reform to better reflect the needs. and then with read to the result clause. deleting the words "approved the proposed" and inserting the

affirmed parking policy for approving for parking management. >> deal with the amendment first. does a member of the board. >> motion to approve. >> second. >> so we have that. on the item itself, members want to discuss. we have a written report. >> we had this at policy and governance and we had a discussion about it. and i believe we were all pretty much on the same page in improving it. >> i was surprised, did i read this correctly, no other city in the country has done this. putting these together, as far as we know? >> as far as we know, these are policies and practices that have been in place for years that reflect the engineering judgment of our transportation professionals. they have not for us been documented and codified in one

place. and the clarifying amendment to the resolution was to clear up confusion among the public. whether we were implementing something new than documenting the existing practices. and any changes that we make in traffic will always come to you. we are starting practices, and anything that we contemplate there, we will take through an exhaustive public process. this item is articulating and documenting existing policy. >> we have not done that and this is fine. members of the public didn't understand this. there were a number of things. >> i wanted to commend the staff for putting together such a great report. i thought it was fascinating.

learned a lot. the parking program was brilliant and helped me to inform this decision. >> okay, we have -- >> not specific to this item, but i expected this to be in the policy breakdown. we hear a lot from the public on the meters on holidays. and i realize that's a separate item, and one that i shouldn't bring up at this hour of day. but i would like to find out more about that at another board meeting. and since we put that in place, and how it's been working out.

and has it been effective and promote what we want, parking turn over and what is it costing us per what we are getting from it. that's separate but related. >> you are right, we get a lot of comments about fourth of july and labor day. >> part of that is selfish, i want to have an intelligent answer to respond. >> anything else? so the amendment first. we have a motion and second on the amendment, all in favor say aye. >> aye. >> ayes have it. and on the amended resolution. >> motion. >> second. >> all in favor? >> ayes. >> ayes have it. and no closed legal session. >> no closed legal session. >> that's a shame. >> thank you, mrs. morley.

thank you everyone. we are adjourning in memory of mr. baker. >> thank you. [gavel]

>> president chiu: good these classes are for folks to actually learn the rules of the road in san francisco. we ride on real street, on felt street, oak street, and paige street, and see how it feels to ride with other people. we talk about the public health department and the police department and our safe routes to school. we're reaching hundreds of kids each year. these are public schools that have been selected

throughout the city. we're reaching kindergarten, first, second, and fourth with the safe walking and biking. and we participate in bike to school day in the spring. and walk to school is in october. hopefully a lot of you will come out and partner in that. sellita mentioned we partner in the "light of the night" campaign. we give out more than a thousand bike lights to folks who need them. people who are riding at night without bikes. we know that is a serious hazard. we're out with the police department, with the m.t.a., not just giving out lights, but installing them. we don't let you ride away with light in hand. we install it on your bicycle. we hope to do a lot more in spanish and cantonese language. we're hiring at the bicycling coalition for a spanish-speaking community organizer. we would be excited to have someone on staff who can lead our work in spanish. we want to knowledge there

were challenges. if it were all light and easy, you probably wouldn't invited me to speak and talk about the challenges. we have reality challenges and image challenges. i think they're very much related, obvious. i'm highlighting here, and we have copies of the san francisco bicycle coalition where we publicly and directly talk about this. what are the realities? what are the persceptions? and what are the perceptions on the street about people who walk, about people who walk, >> president chiu: the ethics commission will have opportunity to make a presentation of up to 10 minutes explaining its recommendation. after that the mayor will have opportunity to present for up to 20 minutes, with an oral presentation, as to the charges that the mayor has brought.

the sheriff will then have an opportunity to make a presentation of up to 20 minutes, followed by a five minute potential rebuttal of the mayor. there will be opportunity for public comment and obviously we will have glib ration at that time. i want it mention to the public that the clerk of the board has already notified the parties and provided the parties with opportunity to submit written response to the ethics commission recommendations and we expect those sponsz by september 25. with that, madam clerk, could you call the consent agenda. >> clerk calvillo: 1 through 10 com comprise the consent age. >> president chiu: colleagues, would anyone like to separate any of those? take a roll call vote on the consent agenda. >> clerk calvillo: items 1 through 10, president chiu, aye. supervisor chu, aye.

supervisor cohen, aye. supervisor elsbernd, aye. supervisor farrell, aye. supervisor kim, aye. supervisor mar, aye. supervisor olague, aye. supervisor wiener, aye. supervisor avalos, aye. supervisor campos, aye. >> there are 11 ayes. >> president chiu: those resolutions are adopted and ordinances passed on the first reading. next item. >> clerk calvillo: item 11 is an ordinance amending the police code to modify and eliminate other certain requirements for secondhand and antique dealers setting the permit application fee at $200. >> president chiu: supervisor wiener. >> supervisor wiener: colleagues i have a typographical correction that i need to correct by way of amendment. i provided those to the clerk. i don't know if they've been

distributed yet to the board, but they are purely typographical. >> president chiu: mr. clerk, have they been circulated? >> supervisor wiener: my apologies. it's one coming up shortly. please disregard my statement. >> president chiu: colleagues, with regards to item no. 11, could we do this same house, same call? without objection this ordinance is finally passed. item 12. >> clerk calvillo: item 12, ordinance amending the administrative code to authorize the airports commission to enter into leases with entities providing aviation support services without competitive bidding for a term not to exceed 10 years. >> president chiu: same house same call this homeownership is passed. >> the clerk: item 13 ordinance waiving the fee in the

public works code for temporary street space occupancy as part of the arts and culture festival on september 15, 2012. >> president chiu: same house, same call, it's passed. >> clerk calvillo: item 14 setting san francisco's rate and pass-through rate for tenants 2012-13. >> president chiu: same house, same call, this ordinance is finally passed. >> the clerk: item 15, ordinance amending the business and tax regulations police and planning codes regarding parking tax simplification for property taxes. >> president chiu: now to supervisor wiener. >> supervisor wiener: as i said before this is what i meant to raise. we have a typographical errors in the ordinance that need to be amended. so we are distributing those. but, colleagues, before we get to that this legislation seeks to simplify the process for small property owners to pay our city's parking tax.

under our codes, all people who rent parking spots, even a homeowner who represents a single spot to a neighbor is required to pay the parking tax. small property owners who rent that one spot are treated the same way by our city as the fifth mission garage. we don't distinguish between them. what that means is you have to get fingerprinted, you have to have a background check, you have to buy an expensive revenue control device, you have to get bonded, you have to pay a yearly fee, which can frequently exceed the amount of tax you owe, and you have to pay all taxes collected on a monthly basis. this legislation aims to simplify this process for smaller property owners, those who rent out no more than five parking spots. now, many, many small property owners also have no idea that they even owe this tax. so this legislation will

dramatically simplify the payment of parking taxes by people who are renting no more than five parking spots associated with the residential property. by doing that, it will allow more people to come forward and pay. it will increase revenue, particularly for the mta. in addition, because there are so many property owners who have not paid this and had no idea that they were required to pay it, it provides a partial amnesty, whereby from january 1 to june 30 of next year, if a property owner comes forward, pays up to two years worth of back taxes, without penalties or interest, they become legalized and can start paying going forward. they will have to simply fill out a simple form. they will not have to have the revenue control device or the fingerprinting or the background check and will no longer have to pay a fee. they'll just have to pay a tax

on a quarterly basis. this legislation, i believe, is a step in the right direction, and i urge your support. >> president chiu: supervisor olague. >> supervisor olague: received and i believe other supervisors did, a request from market and octavia cac to postpone the vote on this until analysis can be drafted by the city planning department, the sfmta. so i would like to support that request by the cac of the market and octavia plan. >> president chiu: is there a motion. >> supervisor olague: making a motion to continue it. >> president chiu: to how long? >> supervisor olague: there's no specific dates because they are asking for some additional analysis by both of those departments so i'm trying to -- i'm not sure how long that would be. maybe a week or two? i guess i'll go two weeks. >> president chiu: okay. supervisor olague has made a

motion to continue this item to to weeks. i think that would put it to -- >> clerk calvillo: october 16. >> president chiu: two weeks, october 2nd. is there a second to that motion? motion seconded by supervisor avalos. supervisor wiener. >> supervisor wiener: mr. president, thank you. i will not be supporting this continuance. and this is the first i'm hearing that any member of this body was interested in a continuance. this legislation has been thoroughly and fully vetted and i believe what supervisor olague is referring to is a portion of this legislation. right now, if you rent out a spot in your residence or your building to someone who doesn't live there, our planning code requires that the person live within 1250 feet of the parking spot. this is in the planning code.

it's two and a half blocks. it's unenforceable. it depresses the price of parking inconsistent with city policy and also undermines the city policy of disaggregating housing and parking. it also has problems because, if you have only a small pool of people to whom you can rent as a small property owner, where whoever rents your spot is likely to have access to your home, you have less choice in terms of making sure that you're comfortable with the person to whom you are renting. so this legislation would change that 1250 foot rule, and specify that you are required to rent to someone who resides in the city and county of san francisco. the planning commission evaluated this and supported this by a 6-1 vote. and this came out unanimously from the budget committee. so i think that this is a piece of citywide legislation.