spirit of empowerment, and the -- the proposal -- the noncitizen voting # #ignores t significant proportion of noncitizens in the city who are part of the school system. so i urge a negative response to the proposal by supervisor fewer. >> supervisor safai: thank you. next speaker. >> hi. i'm lotu 1ed hi-fong. came here in 1982. put both of my kids in spring valley school, which is the oldest school west of the mississippi. kids were bussed from the mission and whisked in addition to spring valley, other schools

without any teachers or even paraprofessionals in place. cambodian were bussed out to bayview point, etcetera, etcetera. i can vouch for marlene tran's qualifications as a kindergarten teacher at cec. i think we are ten years behind the curve. if i'm not mistaken, new york and los angeles did this a decade ago, so if you look at the nature of the population in sfusd, trace it back to the history of chinese children being excluded from the public schools and the case of mamie tape versus hurley. trace it back before that to the 1 882 exclusion act. there are many reasons that immigrants have been

discriminated against. i thank aaron for mentioning the central american wars in the 80's. these kids and their parents deserve full empowerment, so we have three meetings a month in chinese, spanish, and english, and we had the first parent grant from the san francisco education fund when gladdie thatcher was alive. and those parents and their kids i think have come through the system and are in the higher education system now. so of all places, why would san francisco not allow voting rights for the parents of the kids in sfusd? oh, and don't forget ethnic studies in k-12. thank you. >> supervisor safai: next speaker. >> hi. my name is leti montano.

i'd just say what the person just passed said. san francisco's kind of behind on this. we have a lot of immigrant parents here, and i'm really thankful for supervisor fewer for bringing this up, and i hope that you can see the value of, you know, parents to be engaged and just given the power that they deserve. it's their kids future, and so they should be able to vote, and they should be able to have some saying when it comes to their board of education and any kind of proposals that they bring, so i hope you guys can see that. thank you. >> supervisor safai: any other members of the public wish to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is

closed. supervisor fewer, do you have any last remarks? >> supervisor fewer: no. i just wanted to make a say that we hear the public. we actually share the same sentiments. we think that everyone should have the right to vote. and as i mentioned that i am asking for a motion actually to continue this. and i will bring back amendments next week. >> supervisor safai: thank you. >> supervisor yee: go ahead and make a motion to continue the item. >> supervisor safai: great. without objection that item is ordered moved. >> clerk: just to clarify, mr. chair, we're continuing that to january 24th, 2018. >> supervisor safai: yes. so ordered, moved. thanks. >> clerk: item 4 is a charter amendment for the june 8, 2018 election to appoint the charter, forfeit their office upon declaring candidacy for state or local elected office.

>> supervisor safai: thank you, madam clerk. i see we're joined by supervisor peskin here today, so unless there's any other comments by the board members, we'll hear from supervisor peskin. >> thank you, chair safai. as i recall in october of last year, i publicly requested the city attorney draft the charter amendment that was before this committee today. so historically during the eight years of willie brown's tenure as mayor, there was a

rule that was almost uniformly foer enforced by then mayor brown regarding the moment any city appointed board or commission member took out papers to run for office, that they would resign. since those days, that good government practice that really leads to avoidance of conflicts of interest, of misuse of those offices has been on the wane. and as i indicated in october, i believe that the best way to make sure we don't have play to pay politics and that we have commissioners that are independent and discharge their duty to the public would be to codify this in the city's charter. i want to thank rules chair safai, supervisor yee and

supervisor kim for their cosponsorship and answer any questions that this panel may have and hear from any members of the public who may be interested in commenting or testifying on the matter, but simply, this would remove any temptation for corruption or misuse of office and would be applied evenly and fairly, irrespective of political stripe or allegiance. >> supervisor safai: great. any additional comments my colleagues on this item? we can come back if there's -- we can go to public comment. any members of the public wishing to speak on this item? you have three minutes to speak. please come forward and clearly state your name. seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor yee? >> supervisor yee: thank you. just want to thank supervisor peskin for bringing this

charter amendment to our attention and i'm fully supportive of this because i think this is good government practice and hopefully the rest of my colleagues will see -- have the same opinion on this. so if there's no other comment, i will make a motion. >> supervisor safai: i will just say one thing. i just want to appreciate being a former commissioner and been in this situation. i think many of us have been in similar situations. i think it is important to remove the semblance of any type of conflict of interest, and i think that's what this is about. it's about removing conflict of interest and being very clear and direct to the voters so when you present yourself as a candidate, you are a candidate and not multiple things at the same time. unless you're currently an office holder, and then, i have no problem with that. but i appreciate you bringing this forward, supervisor and thank you for advancing this. thank you.

>> supervisor yee: okay. i'll make a motion. >> supervisor safai: please. >> supervisor yee: go ahead to pass this out of committee to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> supervisor safai: thank you, and that -- without objection and second, that item is ordered and moved. please call the next item. >> clerk: item number 5 is a charter amendment for the june 5th, 2018 election to the reduce the mayoral appointments to the retirement board from three to two members and require the city attorney to appoint one all be subject to a hearing by the board of supervisors and require the disclosure of certain investment information. >> supervisor safai: so again, the primary sponsor is supervisor peskin, so i'll turn it over to supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: hopefully, this microphone -- >> supervisor safai: miss clerk, maybe we can set this chair up, because we have other members -- supervisors coming in here today and there will not just be supervisor peskin, but we'll also have a few more,

so maybe we can get that fixed real quick. are we live? yes, i believe so. please proceed. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, mr. chairman. i believe the summary that the clerk to this board just read the amendment to the charter amendment which would change the authority of the retirement board. let me be abundantly clear. i think this is about having the san francisco employees'

retirement system meet its fiduciary and investment position on the fossil fuel system. i hope that mayor lee's announcement that he was going to announce on the 12th would be going to this board. i am hopeful, given the timing that we can send this to the board of supervisors and hopefully, we will have some progress on january 24th relate to fossil fuel divestment, something that this board has voted for unanimously, not once, but twice. first five years ago in 2013, and then again last year. it is my request that we forward it to the full board with a recommendation. >> supervisor safai: okay. i have a few questions, but we can do that after public

comment. any members of the public wish to come forward and comment on this item, please do so, and there's more than this gentleman, can you please lineup to the right so we can move the process forward? please proceed. >> i'm a retired city worker, speaking for myself today, and i have no problem with this, although i do have a problem with the city attorney appointing somebody since the city important is suing the retirement board over supplemental colas. and i think this is a conflict of interest having the city attorney appoint somebody to the board that he is suing. i suggest amending this and having the city treasurer appoint somebody. while he does not deal in the complex finances that tat the retirement board, he does deal in short-term lending and

dealing with banks and does have some background, and i think ecoappoint somebody with the knowledge that we need to be on the retirement board. so i would urge amending this to a point -- have the city treasurer appoint somebody instead of the city attorney. thank you. >> supervisor safai: any other members of the public wish to comment on this item, please come forward. seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor yee? >> supervisor yee: yeah, from the gentleman's testimony or comments, i just want to ask supervisor peskin, do you have any remarks or -- >> supervisor peskin: sure. i'd be happy through the chair to address that, supervisor yee. the city attorney is not suing the retirement system. the city attorney has filed litigation against five fossil fuel purveyors.

chevron, mobil, british petroleum -- i forget the other ones. maybe mr. givner remembers -- on the theory that they have created sea level rise and other issues that are costing the city money. so i don't think there's any conflict there. it is not uncommon for the city attorney to make appointments to certain commissions as is the case in the ethics commission, and so i don't see a conflict of interest there. i see a convergence at least as the policy position of this city attorney has been to go over fossil fuel companies, and the mission here is to divest $478 million from fossil fuel investments, many of which have been huge financial losers over

long period of tims of time fo retirement board system, so i don't see that conflict, but i repair his testimony. >> supervisor yee: thank you. >> supervisor safai: so i have a couple of questions. you and i haven't had a chance to talk about this, but one of my frustrations have been with the retirement board is -- i don't want to say policies because they're trying to less policy oriented and more kind of if i swoofiduciary in their. my concern is when you spread this around, there's less of a directive instance. i know in the past from some of the work that i've done in our conversations about housing, new york has a wonderful system of working with targeting investments, particularly as it

relates to housing that's under funded. we tried to implement that here in a particular manner. i think having the mayor have three appointees, and so we talked about -- i guess the mayor talked about that with his office and with this board. and then, the elected members are elected, and they're usually elected to represent certain constituencies that are vested in the retirement right, so they come predisposed with their own agenda -- i don't want to say agenda, but they certainly have their own issues that they're trying to accomplish. so when we're trying to do things like fossil fuel divestment or divestments that have responsibility, it gets harder to achieve that. i'm not saying i'm not with what you're proposing, but i just -- i worry that if you don't have a unified body then staff is able to fight back

consistently, not to say that the mayor appointee and the city attorney's appointee wouldn't ultimately be on the same page, but that is my concern because i think we have missed an opportunity with this retirement board to do more targeted investments. we're the seventh largest investor in the afl-cio's housing investment trust. that's a dig bobig deal, but w comes to some of the other things that we're trying to accomplish, they haven't been able to meet that because it's been purely about one way of looking at things. so i just want to see what your response would be to that. >> supervisor peskin: so let me start, mr. chairman by saying in the ten years and one month that i have been on the board of supervisors, i have been extremely reticent to second guess the investment

decisions of the retirement system. i am aware, as i'm sure all of us are, about other steps -- moral steps that the retirement system has taken over time, when it's divestment from the arms and munition industry, divestment from big tobacco. but i believe that this issue of climate change and global warming and sea level rise and greenhouse gas emission is the moral imperative of our time. we won't get to argue about trust funds and many other things if the city and our coast are inundated with water. projections for a meter of sea level rise by midcentury, and we need to do what new york did last week. and it has been five frustrating years since 2013

when the board unanimously passed it -- our representative that this board appoints to the retirement system. that is actually the appointee of the president who was just before this panel. supervisor cohen has been steadfast for divestment for all of the years that she has been on the retirement system, and it's time to shake things up. i believe the best way to do that -- i believe in large part, this conversation has moved forward because of the presence of this charter amendment. i am hopeful as i said at the beginning of this conversation that this issue will resolve itself at their meeting on the 24th day of january , and that we will do as well or better than the city and state of new york has recently done in that we will be a trend setter in getting institutions and municipalities to start divesting from fossil fuels, from thermal coal, from coal,

from all sorts of fuels that the federal administration is now recommitted to. it is as i said the moral imperative of our time. so for that reason, i think it rises to level. my hope is -- >> supervisor safai: no punish intended, right. >> supervisor peskin: we will see meaningful change on the 24th, and that will obviate the need. i think we need to put our money where our mouth is and it's the right thing to do. >> supervisor safai: so just to follow up, just so members of the public understand what you're saying unless i missed it, what's happening on the 24th? >> that's when the sfers, san francisco employees' retirement system is meeting to consider a devestment. i want to thank the chief of staff, jason elliott for the

work with my office and staff at the retirement board for moving this conversation forward. >> supervisor safai: so that's clear. but i guess what i didn't hear is how changing the appointment changes that dynamic. so has there been some resistance from some of the appointees? if so, that's fine. let's put it out in the open. >> the answer is it has been a 4-3 split, and this would result in a 4-3 split the other way to pass. >> you imagine that would be the case. >> which is precisely why having the city attorney who is pursuing fossil fuel lawsuits is the right person. >> supervisor safai: no, that's clear. i just wanted to put that out there. you're saying if they do make the decision on the 24th, that might obviate this, and that

might negate the need for this? >> supervisor peskin: yes. >> supervisor safai: okay. any other comments or questions from this committee? all right. seeing none, can i entertain a motion? oh, did we do public comment? yeah, we did. >> supervisor fewer: all right. i make a motion to move this to the entire board with a positive recommendation. i know number 171 -- >> supervisor safai: yeah, i'm just thinking if i want to do a roll call vote or not or if you want to se want -- >> supervisor peskin: or, if you want to send it without recommendation, that's fine. >> supervisor safai: you can do that? >> supervisor peskin: yeah. >> supervisor safai: that's fine. let's send it out with positive recommendation. thanks. next item? >> clerk: item number 6 is a charter amendment for the june 52018 election to authorize the public utilities commission to authorize revenue bonds for the power utilities when approved

by two thirds vote of the supervisors. >> supervisor safai: again, supervisor peskin is the coauthor along with supervisor tang. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, chair safai. we have here from the public utilities commission miss barbara hale who has a presentation to make and hopefully by the time that presentation is done all of you want to send this to the full board with a recommendation. miss hale? >> supervisor safai: before we do that, are there any members of the committee who would like to make any additional comment? supervisor tang, did you want to say anything before we hand it over -- okay. and i just want to say to the clerk, miss clerk, can you add my name as a sponsor on this, please? okay. please proceed. >> good afternoon, supervisors.

barbara hale, assistant general manager for power. i am going to make a presentation that describes the charter amendment that would provide the public utilities commission that would have the power for new power authority. the puc has been providing power to our customer base since about 1918. we've been generating electricity, putting san francisco's water supply to work. we passed water that's consumed here through generators and generate greenhouse gas free electricity. we provide that electricity service to all city departments and to public agencies like the san francisco unified school district, community college, and -- and to other purposes such as our affordable housing development. our provision of service provides the city the ability

to take some of the savings we have relative to pg&e rates and share them with our customers. and as a result of that, san francisco's budget saves about $40 million every year with lower electricity costs. and what we do with the revenue we receive from our customers is we reinvest those revenues into our facilities, so we're getting reinvestment back into our clean and renewable energy if si facilities that the puc enterprise manages. we've seen a reduction in our carbon footprint of about 387 million pounds peryear, so we're strong contributors to the city's efforts to reduce or carbon footprint. under current law, the puc is able to revenue bond finance replacement facilities and new

water and waste water facilities. but power facilities, new power facilities are not allowed to be financed through revenue bonds under that charter provision. we are allowed under a separate charter provision to issue revenue bonds for certain power facilities, but that is quite limited, just to renewable and energy efficiency facilities. so with this existing authority, we are constrained. we can only cash fund new power if a ilt ises, which isn't a particularly efficient financial approach, and it keeps us from really being able to strategically invest in facilities that could serve multiple customers, because we have a financial cap -- an

annual financial cap, basically. since 2015, we've been required by federal law to own more electrical facilities in order to serve our customers, and so that cap is becoming more of an operating problem for us. we can't serve new customers if we don't have new facilities to serve them with. the bonding that's needed will help us keep our costs and our rates low for our customers and to allow us to better serve or existing and future customers, to better serve the city. but i understand that supervisor peskin has distributed the charter amendment, and i just wanted to take a minute to talk about how it would work. under existing city practice and requirement, bonds go through a particular process, and this bond would go through the same process that has requirements and certain

controls. we would need to receive permission from our mayor, supervisors and public utilities commission before we could obtain any bonds. we'd need to obtain independent engineering certification that the bond funded project meet cost, so we wouldn't be able to fund any bond project that we don't have sufficient revenue to support. and we'd be receiving the necessary planning department ceqa compliance certifications. and of course, we'd anticipate having ongoing review by the public utilities commission's revenue bond oversight committee. >> supervisor peskin: and it would require a two thirds vote of the board of supervisors. >> yes. thank you. any project would be brought here would require the standard two thirds vote of the board of supervisors. so what -- what we're looking

to bring in terms of benefits from this amendment is to really increase the amount of clean and affordable energy that's delivered to san francisco. we generate more electricity from our hydro system than we currently consume here in san francisco, so we end up selling it off -- the excess off into the wholesale market. we don't make as much off of it, and we don't get to bring the benefits of that clean power to san francisco. it goes somewhere else, so we'd really like to see the bond authority allow us to increase our customer base, create greater reductions to the city's carbon footprint by doing so, and reduce the health risks that are associated with dirty energy. we'd have a greater ability to incorporate innovation, the kinds of innovations that san

francisco's known for: solar, electric cars, grid control, as we build out our electric facilities. and that would give us greater independance. that would allow us to reduce delays in project city departments and reduce disruptions. we also see it as an opportunity to increase some of our resill wriency goals and i would allow for more efficient and cost effective finances -- financing of projects, and with that, i'm happy to answer any questions that you have. >> supervisor safai: thank you. supervisor peskin, do you have any additional comments? >> supervisor peskin: the only thing i'd add is in 2002, the

board of supervisors put on the ballot a virtually identical measure to give the puc pursuant to a two thirds vote of the board of supervisors revenue bonding authority for improvements to the water system, and here we are a decade and a half later, and that has worked wonderfully. it's given them the flexiblity that they need and it's allowed for the whole scale improvement of our then ageing water delivery system not only to san francisco but to municipalities all the way down the peninsula and over to hayward, so i think the puc has proven that it has the ability and the fiscal wherewithal to do this properly. the board maintains oversight in each and every one of those cases since 2002, and i think it is time to give us all that same ability as it relates to power facilities.

>> supervisor safai: thank you. supervisor yee? go ahead, please. supervisor yee? >> supervisor yee: just some -- -- well, first of all, this is -- thank you again, supervisor peskin and supervisor tang for bringing this forward. i guess i can make the assumption, by i didn't hear you say it, so i'll ask. if we're creating new power facilities, can i assume that the power facilities is generating clean air, clean energy? >> yes. >> supervisor peskin: and if i may, supervisor, i just actually -- i'm going to ask for an amendment through the chair, and you will see that in the amendment that i have circulated, there is actually language very specifically to that effect to make it abundantly clear that it cannot

finance the construction of a power plant that generates electricity using fossil fuels or for that matter, nuclear energy. >> supervisor yee: that's great. >> supervisor safai: thank you. supervisor tang? >> supervisor tang: thank you. i'm just excited that this is coming forward. i think the puc has the record, and i think it is time for us to do this the same on the power side. i'm really looking forward to this passing so that we can continue to provide a more clean power for our customers here in san francisco. >> supervisor safai: thank you, supervisor tang. supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, chair safai, and again, thank you to the cosponsor of this measure, supervisor tang, with whom it has really been a

pleasure working on it with. i just wanted to, as i said a moment ago, bring to your attention the amendments that are on pages 3 and -- >> supervisor safai: supervisor, i'm sorry to interrupt. can we just go ahead and take public comment first? >> supervisor peskin: sure. >> supervisor safai: is that all right? great. okay. any members of the public wishing to comment on this item, please come forward. seeing none, public comment is closed. please proceed, supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: so the amendments that are set forth on -- in section 8(b).124 are set before you. i just said them and i'd be delighted if you could adopt these amendments and continue them to the next meeting. >> supervisor safai: do we need them continued to the next meeting? is there additional amendments coming? >> supervisor peskin: no, that's just because of the

charter requirements. >> supervisor safai: it was my understanding we needed to send it to the next meeting. we could make the amendments and send it to the next board, no. >> no, you cannot -- any amendment requires a continuance. >> supervisor safai: oh, i'm sorry. correct. okay. so the motion -- well, can i entertain a motion to accept the amendments as proposed? >> yeah. >> supervisor safai: so moved. seconded. those amendments are accepted. and if there's not any additional comments, then, we will make -- let's make a motion to continue this item to the next meeting on january 24th. without objection, that item is ordered. miss clerk, please call the next item. >> clerk: item number 7 is a charter amendment for the june 5th, 2018 election to eliminate the municipal transportation agency's jurisdiction over parking and traffic regulations, grant the legislative authority to the

board of supervisors, and create a livable street commission and department to manage parking and traffic. >> supervisor safai: thank you. so i will take the lead on this item since myself and supervisor peskin were working on this item. just want to give folks a little bit of background and some clarification. the intent of this charter amendment is not to create wholly two separate agencies. it is designed to utilize the existing mta board very simile to the way that we as members of the board of supervisors sit as both transportation authority commissioners and members of the board of supervisors. first of all, it would create a joint commission. secondarily, it would create a department of livable streets that would be reporting to the same commission. and some of the combination of

the genesis began between me and supervisor peskin as well. there's a long history with regard to the sfmta. it started in the 1990's, and a lot of it was to remove the politics as it related to pedestrian safety and all of the issues that resolve around the sfmta. however, what ultimately ended up being created was a scenario where we removed 11 decision makers that were part of the process and created one. and this body -- and i'll allow supervisor peskin, so he was involved in those conversations in the beginning, but what we as supervisors and many of my colleagues have commented on this, we are hoisted all the responsibility with absolutely no authority. when i go and i spend time in my district to talk about issues with regard to parking,

with regard to traffic safety, with regard to pedestrian safety, with regard to traffic calming, all of the issues that are not related to muni, they absolutely dominate the conversation in my district and in the overall conversation of policy as it pertains to san francisco outside of housing. and what i am forced to, based on the parameters of the current charter, we are -- the response ultimately ends up being that we have no real authority as it pertains to the decision making on these issues, whether it's a stop sign, whether it's a speed bump, whether it's any pedestrian safety issue. and so as i have been in my role, we have consistently been asked to intervene on these issues. right now, if you want a stop sign in your neighborhood, you're required to go through the process of getting 50% plus one of your neighbors, and it gives citizens the false hope

that that actually will be implemented. but that's just step one. after that it's submitted to the sfmta and it's reviewed and often times ultimately rejected, which may or may not be right. but the process is a lot of the decision, a lot of the impetus is put on the citizenry to come forward on these smaller issues, and these smaller issues are what we hear about consistently. i want to be clear this charter amendment is not designed to relive or reinstitute many of the old conflicts that happened in the city with regard to pedestrians, bicycles, and cars. it's designed to infuse into the process a better decision making as it relates to some of the smaller issues that are very important in this city. so myself and supervisor peskin got together to move this conversation forward if haand a

robust debate. and i can tell you, save some of the parties like the bicycle coalition and the transit riders coalition, every day citizenry, since i've been in office, i have not received more positive feedback on an issue, and i think supervisor peskin will allagree, as well,o i'm going to allow him to make some comments on this issue. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, chair safai. we've been to enough meeting that we have the same rap pretty much. if you will. i associate myself, as i say with your comments. >> supervisor safai: i'll do that before you get up -- i just want you to say a little bit about the late 90's and 0 2008, because i think that's

important for the public. >> supervisor peskin: sure. so just by way of history, the function that's now municipally used to be a part of the public utilities commission, the same puc that does water and power and sewer. and that ultimately was, in 1999, as the result of a charter amendment, proposition e, became its own independent, what we call the sfmta. and certain powers and authorities that the board of supervisors had relative to budgetary authority -- when i first became a member of the board in 2001, the board of supervisors would literally approve each and every yellow, red, white, blue curb, and i don't know if you remember, but the land use and transportation committee used to have pages of red zone 25 feet west of, you

know, stockton and what have you. and in 2007, there was a wyatt spread sense of creating the sfmta had not realized all of its promise. and we were at a juncture, and the juncture was should the board of superviso board of supervisors reinsert itself as it existed prior to 1999, or should it hand virtually all legislative authority over to the mta, and i became the author in 2007 of proposition a, which folks in the taxi community still don't believe i did not realize would negate proposition k, but that

was an unintended impact of that. although most of that got rolled into the new transportation code. long story short, at supervisor safai stated, the idea was to get the politicians out of the transportation business and to give that relatively insulated body the ability to make tough decisions that politicians either don't want to make or get in trouble for. the problem is as supervisor safai stated, and this is not a criticism of any particular mayor, is that the mta ended up being an agency without checks and balances and largely thinks it is an entirely executive branch function. and so therefore, while mr. mcguire and his colleagues come and tell us what's going on, if we don't like it or our

constituents don't like it, we don't really have any legislative ability because i put that with my colleagues in 2007 before the voters and the voters adopted, and it ithas h many successes. but hence what is before us today. is that... >> supervisor safai: yes, thank you. so i would just say we can mtae public comment on this item, but i would just say, we have heard and we need to have some additional conversations with those in the taxi industry, so we're going to continue this item for one week to have those conversations, but right now, we'll just go ahead and open it up for public comment on this

very important issue. please come forward. >> hi. my name is richard rothman and i'm a resident of district one. and i have the same frustrations with mta. you know, if they say no to a traffic sign or crosswalk, that's it. there's no hearing or public appeal. those people, you know, they don't have to answer phone calls. they can take their time. i think there needs to be checks and balances. maybe if it's going to be postponed, maybe there's a legislature -- administrative responsibilities that could be changed. two that i would like to see is have a planner and engineer assigned to each area of the city so we would know who to talk to, instead of calling 311 and maybe you'll get an answer. but if somebody's actually specifically responsible for that area, then you know if

they can't do it then they would assign it to somebody else. and the other is if they say no to a stop sign or crosswalk or some minor improvements, maybe there needs to be an appeal process like the board of permit appeals where there could be a hearing instead of just saying no. let them come explain why they say no and let the public come and say why we need these changes. if we need a charter amendment, i'll be 100% behind it, but maybe some of these changes can be made without having the charter amendment. but i feel something definitely needs to be done because there's really no checks and balances in the neighborhood. thank you. >> supervisor safai: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, chair safai and supervisors.

my name is brian weedenmeyer, and i'm the chairman of the san francisco bicycle coalition. i'm not here this afternoon to defend the sfmta. i think the record shows frequently we've been among its harshest critics, in asking them to do more, to be more responsive, to do more outreach in our neighborhoods, and to make the streets safer for all users. i'd like to present the letter that we presented on above of our 10,000 members and on san francisco of walk sf, and from a separate letter that was sent to you from the san francisco chamber of commerce urging you to continue the consideration of this charter amendment. the short version and consolidated version of that is we do not deny there are problems within the sfmta that needs to be fixed. this is not the solution. this charter brings a sledgehammer to a problem where a scalpel is needed.

i cannot emergency a scenario in which we create two city departments that does not further bloat our city's budget and create more waste and inefficiency. i think the changes that we need are doable within our current framework of one agency, and i would urge you to reconsider in charter amendment. thank you so much. >> supervisor safai: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, sbrieupervi. i'm charles rathbart. i'm a long time participator in the taxi industry, and thank you for giving us the chance to weigh in on this whility ae still incubating. my concern is i would urge you to make sure in advance, if it gets power over the taxi cabs, that it has the full legal authorities that are needed to carrie out its duties. in particular, three items.

one is the illegal authority to conduct department of justice fingerprint based background checks. second is to make sure that the agency or the new department has the proper authority to issue high dollar amount citations. the mta currently issues $5,000 citations for illegal operation of a taxi cab. my recollection is it was quite an undertaking to get that authority. it was not automatically something that the mta had. lastly, the city's paratransit system depends on prop k sales tax dollars and those go through -- my understanding is they go through the mta and ultimately through the paratransit broker. if the new department is going to have the authority over taxis, please ensure that nothing happens to interfere

with that flow of funds. thank you. >> supervisor safai: thank you. next speaker. >> my name is herbert winer. i'm an entailed stakeholder of mta. for me, mta stands for more train wrecks ahead. it's an agency that's too big to succeed. right now, i can't imagine the burden that's placed on ed reiskin for monitoring traffic and muni. it's an overload. they don't exercise powers. they don't excite bicyclists for riding on the sidewalk, which is plainy illegal. and right now, the most significant groups, the bicycle groups, the citizen coalition, and vision zero. we're up against nonprofit

corporations that have deep pockets supporting tlem. how can we possibly make our voices heard? the el taraval line was a disaster. people who are disabled and seniors have to walk long distances to the bus stop. this is insane and it's cruel. insanity is perhaps forgivable. cruelty is not. so supervisors can act on behalf of their constituents in their districts, they should put this on the ballot. basically, i disagree with the bicycle coalition. the surgical precision that's needed is not a hammer strike. right now, the model that's needed for the mta is if you're not under the bus, you're under the wheels. thank you.

>> supervisor safai: next speaker. >> thank you, chair safai, board members. my name is mark gruber. i'm a board member of the san francisco taxi workers alliance which has not yet come to discuss this measure, so i'm speaking of my own impressions, speaking for myself. while the details of this measure need to be worked out, and i have a number of questions, and i'm sure the board will have a number of questions, i do want to express personal support for the concept of checks and balances in this legislation. if the board of supervisors had retained regulatory authority over taxis back in 2009, the disaster that is the medallion sales program might never have happened. the board ceded its authority over taxis to the mta based on false assurances from mayor

newsom. supervisor peskin knows this story very well. within three months of the mta's take over of taxi regulation, the mayor went back on its word. this has ruined dozens of drivers lives. dozens have defaulted on their loans and many more are in prospect. likewise, if the board had kept ultimate authority over transportation, the disastrous impact of uber and lyft on taxi driver's, the taxi city and the streets of san francisco might well have been avoided or at least greatly diminished. i acknowledge efforts within the mta to mitigate the damage done by tnc's, and that program, but it's been too little, too late, and what all this goes to show is too much power concentrated in too few

hands leads to no good, so i'd like to see this go forward, and i'm eager to see -- >> good afternoon, supervisors. i represent medallion holders, and you have to realize the taxi industry as far as the mta is concerned is the ugly step child. the only thing they wanted us for was to finance buses, which they did by selling between 500 and 750 medallions. and most of the medallion holders that bought medallions are now bankrupt. they're struggling either to buy food or to pay for the medallions. so far, there are 70 defaults

on these medallions, and the mta is currently being sued by medallion holders, and it is also being sued by the san francisco federal -- whatever, savings, trust, federal board who largely financed these. and now, could itself go bankrupt because this represents half its policy. the other side to the coin is because of politics, that we had a particular mayor at a particular time who decided he did not want any legislation against tnc's. he has bankrupted the industry. thank you.

>> karl winkman. mta has power over various entities, including taxi. your amendment introduces checks and balances. a few months ago, mta ignored your unanimous resolution urging them not to assess a large renewal fee on 1100 typically elderly people and distraught medallion holders. they never reinvested in taxi. not even a single radio add. instead it used profits for muni needs, including employee compensation. 45,000 uber and lyft driver's flood our streets playing dodge

ball. san francisco countered the tnc numbers by enforcing state vehicle laws on our city streets. for example 100% of tnc's violate vehicle code 260 prima facie by not having a license. [ inaudible ] >> tnc's lose billions annually and the practices violate antitrust law. notably they have yet to mandate a single app for the 1800 licensed taxis, even though that will better serve constituents in your out lying districts. i look forward to working with you to upgrade the current

structure, and thank you for assigning taxi to the new department. >> supervisor safai: next speaker. >> hi, supervisors. my name is richard magu. i went to uc berkeley, got a bachelors degree in european history. i went to sf state and got a master's degree in history, and i was in a doctorate program at santa barbara that i didn't complete. one of my specialties i learned is that the progressive republicans around the turn of the 20th century decided that it would be a good idea to take politics out of the hands of the people and assign it to large commissions appointed by all knowing scientific administrators who would be able to run the government efficiently without the influence of corrupt politics. now that was in 1900, circa,

and it's been pointed out many, many, many times -- in fact even originally at the time, that simply failed. these large organizations, these appointed commissions, boards, what have you, eventually become political. anybody with a bachelor's degree that has taken at least two history courses should have known this when they allowed the creation of the mta. the mta has now destroyed our lives, destroyed -- well, not just the mta, but the cpuc, but the mta's own mission and comission have led to the present situation. i -- this is, like, i think the mta are simply waiting to see what happens. they're not for us, they're not against us. they just want to see how this all pans out with uber and lyft and figure out how to make money from it. how to get taxes, how to charge

them 5 cents perride and that goes into the city coffers. it's just like the horse and buggy. the old business -- >> supervisor safai: thank you, sir. i appreciate it, but your time has run out. thank you. thank you for your time. >> in 1999, voters approved prop e. this stated, for too many years, san francisco's municipal railway has been the public service its citizens most love to haste. what should be the nation's best transit system is instead known for late trains and buses, long delays in the tunnel,