next speaker please. last call for public comment. >> my name is jack strong. i'm speaking on behalf of the bird organization. as a rider and not the young go, go generation. and a general contractor. sometimes i need to get from place to place downtown five, six blocks at a time. and the convenience of the birds since they have come up has just been very helpful for me. i could get on it and go to another meeting back and forth. no having to call an uber, cab or anything else. [bell]. >> it is very convenient for me and i have seen how the city has adopted these scooters. and i think it is a very good opportunity for san francisco and for the general community. thanks. >> supervisor tang: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is darren. i'm the general counsel of a company you have probably not

heard of. i just want to highlight our company is one that did not launch first and comply later. i want to get that on the record. we are willing to work with policy makers, business leaders, community leaders, everybody under the sun to make sensible regulation a reality. i would like to also underscore that bird, lime bikes don't speak for the entire industry. i'm urging you to permit vigorous competition to allow the cream to rise to the top. >> supervisor tang: thank you. >> i have a gift for the investor who put 300 million into this and let it be rolled out the way it is. clearly they have a bump on the head. there's no place on the sidewalk for any of these vehicles. in my neighborhood, they are taking up all the bike parking, so post mates, delivery and friends have nowhere to park.

people will demand it get better. thank you. >> supervisor tang: again, if any other members of the public wish to speak, please come up. >> hello. my name is calvin quick. i'm a resident of san francisco. i was not going speak at this hearing. when i saw this item on the agenda, i didn't think it was going to be a particularly consequencial aye -- consequential item. but it seems to be what seems to be evasive scare tactics used by these companies who belie their professed interest in pursuing a productive discussion. [bell]. >> so, i just like to make that clear as what i perceive the situation to be. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you. thank you very much for being here, mr. quick. all right. any other members of the public wish to comment on this hearing?

i don't know if we have an overflow room. we don't. okay. then i'm going to close public comment. i know we have many more questions and comments to make. i will start with supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: so, i walked in midway through the -- >> supervisor tang: mr. hanson? >> i picked the farthest seat back. apologies. >> supervisor tang: i'm try to pull up the paper work. supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: i did appreciate mr. hanson's mention that they -- bird is now

requiring individuals to send a photograph at the end of a ride showing that the scooter was properly parked pursuant to existing law. i wanted to offer a suggestion and this is really outside of the scope of this legislation because this legislation is really a high level permitting authority to the agency that governs the use of our street. but the notion that you receive a photograph prior to the ride showing that the individual has a helmet. i know that my experience is not unique, which is that -- and i'm hazarding a guess. upwards of 90% of the individuals i see are not only on the sidewalks, they are without a helmet. i was very pleased this morning to see on columbus avenue two individuals riding in the street. both of them without a helmet.

and me and my colleagues are responsible for two hospitals in san francisco. san francisco general and laguna honda. and when you have a closed head injury you end up in one of our hospitals. if you don't have good insurance, the tax payers end up paying for it. not to mention the tragedy to the individuals and their families. i was taken aback there were members of the public who spoke against common sense safety regulations like the use of helmets. and by the way, that's not our law. that is state law. albeit i know that these companies or some of these companies have been behind the assembly bill to actually remove the helmet requirement, which seems to be pretty reckless. but i would suggest that you consider and the m.t.a. consider requiring as a permit condition a photograph of the individual with a helmet prior to their ability to unlock the device.

what says mr. hanson? >> i will say we do take wearing helmets and safety very seriously. i think we were the first company that offers a free helmet directly through the app. we have messaging both on the scooters and the app stating wear a helmet. it's the law. regarding the state legislation, that's intended to match the riding rules and regulations of these scooters with class two electric bicycles. similar helmet requirements speed and wattage. the purpose behind that is to create clarity for users, cities, for everybody to understand these are vehicles that behavior in a similar fashion and they should have the same regulations. >> supervisor peskin: and then relative -- and i say this -- and i appreciate mr. parks from

the m.t.a. addressing consumer data privacy. which in the age of cambridge and mr. zuckerberg receiving for two days in front of the united states congress the other day are paramount on everybody's minds. i was wondering, mr. hanson, if you could regale us with bird's privacy policies. >> we take privacy and data very seriously. that said, i think we're interested in entering into the stay with a data sharing procedure analogous to what is currently required under the dock share bikes permit. ensuring that data is allowing the city and m.t.a. to understand how these scooters are being used. and how we can best fit into the existing transportation network here in san francisco. >> supervisor peskin: so, reading through bird's privacy policy, it indicates that the

app collects personal and nonpersonal information. but what qualifies as nonpersonal -- holds on a second. this is one that actually got me was bird may partner with third party advertising companies which may use cookies along or in conjunction with other tracking technologies to collect information about you. what do you think about that? >> we have no existing partnerships or plans to partner with advertisers. >> supervisor peskin: but yet any time anybody unlocks one of those things through your app, they have given you that permission? >> like again, there's no existing partnership or planned partnerships with any advertising companies and we have stated on the record, our ceo has said it. that's not in the future for this company.

>> supervisor peskin: your company said this was an emergency hearing, and it is not. but as a condition of getting a permit, would you reverse that policy? >> i would be happy to speak with our team about that and we will get back to all the supervisors on that. >> supervisor peskin: let me ask you this, do you know if you or anybody on your behalf reached out to any policy maker on this board, supervisor and if so, when? >> yes. i know we reached out to all the supervisors, let them know background on the company. i think everybody has my contact details. >> supervisor peskin: are you talking about the letter you sent at 7:46 last night? >> no, the letter we sent when we introduced the pilots in late march. >> supervisor peskin: that one must have alluded me. >> supervisor tang: okay. thank you. i know supervisor kim has a question for spin. i think we had a representative. >> supervisor peskin: i have just one other question. i apologize for mr. hanson

before he goes away. which is can you tell us what the criminal charges were against bird in santa monica? >> there was a misunderstanding over the type of business that bird was in santa monica when we applied for the business license permit there. that's all been resolved. we are in a very good relationship with the city of santa monica. >> supervisor peskin: and you settled in what dollar amount? >> $300,000. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you. supervisor kim and we would like to call up the spin representative. >> supervisor kim: before you go, mr. hanson. >> supervisor tang: sorry. >> supervisor kim: i would like to talk to both bird and spin. this question i will ask of spin as well, although i have this specific question for spin and my apologies for confusing the

two initially. this question is actually really limited. i have seen a number of your mot mot motorized boards and i have seen a number tipped over. i'm concerned about having them parked anywhere. but i'm very concerned when they're tipped over because they're easy to miss and they are long on two ends and very easy to trip over. what whether you do to ensure that that no longer happens? this is for both of you. >> so, we have a phone number on every bird and email address. you can reach out. we generally can get someone out there within two hours to correct any situation. we want our riders to -- when they see something like that, be part of a culture you see a bird that has fallen over, you pick it up. we have seen people doing that. and i mean we understand that

concern. we want to make sure it's safe. we have the access number there so you can get a rep out to move it quick. they are very easy to move, if anyone sees it. so, i think -- >> supervisor kim: i guess my question is what can you do to prevent that from happening in the first place, because two hours is a very long time and there's a lot of people to trip over your vehicles. and it is not just you. it is for all the companies. at some point if this continues to occur, you are going to get sued because someone is going to fall over. so, i assume it is in your company's personal and financial interest to make sure that they don't get pushed over. is there anything you can do with the weight of the scooters? i think this is a really big issue and the fact that within the first week i had seen several that had been pushed over. i'm just very concerned about the long term viability. i can't seen a single one of the jump bikes pushed over yet.

and not to say that it hasn't happened. but they are a bit heavier. they are attached the a bike lock or a bike storage. so, what can we do about this to even prevent it from happening so we don't have to call you and wait two hours. >> i'm certainly happy to talk with our team if there are any design features that we could include that could address that issue. we are happy to look into that. at the same time, bikes fall over. and any kind of transportation technology is going to have its issues. i guess the piece that we want to stress is don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good here. the city of san francisco gives out over a million vehicle citations for car parking every year, a bulk of those i think over 20,000 are in the blocking drivewares and crosswalks. and if we're going to allow alterative transit to compete with the car that has had

ubiquitous access to the city for over 100 years -- >> supervisor kim: are you just saying -- you brought up the example that we cite when people are breaking the law. are you suggesting we cite and ticket you every time we see a scooter that has fallen over? as part of our regulatory framework? >> i absolutely support you in having regulations that address the safety issues. >> supervisor kim: why don't you require users to push them up against a building or wall? >> we require now that our users take a photo at the end of every ride. and if in your regulations you want to set specific standards about where it is parked, that's something we could use that photo verify. >> supervisor kim: great. several members of the public talked about local hire and how they are getting hired. could you talk a little more

about that and numbers. >> i can address your question about bikes falling over. in terms of the scooters being tipped over or falling over, bird mentioned that they require a photograph at the end of every ride. this was a big learning from operating more than 50 dockless bike share markets across the country. we have a user rating feature where users rate thumbs up or thumbs down on whether a scooter was properly parked. we encourage the public to reach out via our public health lines and we will pick them up quickly. we look forward to working with m.t.a. on the numerous potential hardware and software approaches to solving this problem. and we expect it to be an it rative process -- iterative process.

>> supervisor kim: i know the staff talked with you about this. it is really troubling that your company sent emails to my colleagues saying that you only put out the scooters in the south of market after you asked san francisco m.t.a. and supervisor kim for permission. that implies that we gave you permission to do so and that was not the case. >> and my colleague, brian, i think has -- we met with noel last week or earlier this week. we used the wrong word there. we did reach out and i think noel would acknowledge -- >> supervisor kim: you definitely reached out. >> to the relevant supervisors, to your office and we had several meetings with m.t.a. we also acknowledged the political climate has changed and is a fast moving thing and we apologized for using the wrong word in that email and want to continue to share data and figure out how to make this

safe and capture the transportation benefit which i think will prove to be profound over time. >> supervisor kim: i don't think it was as simple as using the wrong word. you actually said, and we only did so after we asked san francisco m.t.a. and supervisor kim's office for permission. i don't think what wrong words you used. that entire sentence was completely inaccurate. it is true you met with us. bird met with our office. i want to acknowledge, supervisor peskin, the companies outreached to us and that was the right thing to do. but to say that you asked us for permission and imply that we gave that permission before you deployed the small fleet of scooters isn't the best way to build trust. >> yep. and i acknowledge that. i would ask noel and her experience in the meeting yesterday. we intend to move forward and correct that mistake.

>> supervisor kim: i did talk with noel. she works for me. >> in terms of what we did, i think what we learned in our initial outreach in the meetings was as supervisor peskin acknowledged when the bike share ordinance was introduced last year, that there was no specific law regular lating or -- regulating or preventing us from operating. that is a big difference from permission and we apologize on the record for misspeaking in that case. >> supervisor kim: so, my next question was on the local hire piece which several members of the public alluded to. i would like to understand how that works in more detail. >> so, spin is a san francisco based company and the way that it works it varies across all the companies. but generally similar to how an uber driver would get a job where they go and can pick up a

rider. a charger and the different companies use different words can receive a bounty of anywhere between five and 15 or even $20 in some cases to go and pick up a scooter and charge it overnight. a lot of folks who are in the so called gig economy find it appealing because it can fit in around their other work. also folks with full-time jobs can supplement their income. our company strategy has been to partner with fleet operators who have folks who have vehicles and can do this charging work. >> supervisor kim: that don't sound like a targeted program. it sounds like by chance people that live in san francisco are doing this as a side gig. some members alluded to the fact there were some type of targeted program. that you were going out of your way to hire people locally here in san francisco. honestly working a couple of hours a week that is not a real

employment program. i would like to understand what the local hire program that you are conceiving of would look like. >> we are still doing outreach to the community on that front and we don't have a specific program to announce like lime bike may have. but we have hired exclusively local folks so far. >> supervisor kim: thank you very much. >> supervisor tang: thank you supervisor kim. if i could -- >> supervisor kim: mr. hanson didn't respond to the local hiring. >> supervisor tang: supervisor peskin, can you hold on. >> supervisor peskin: absolutely. >> supervisor kim: this is my last question. i don't want to just hear that people are signing up locally to work for you. i want to understand what the targeted program is. >> i think one of the things we're looking into is working with social service agencies to do job training for the local work we have. that would include getting people in ready and tools in hand so they can do light

maintenance in the field and we would love to talk with you and any organizations. that would be a big value to us and something we want to be part of. >> supervisor kim: okay. maybe i just was blending the public comment together. so it is specifically lime bike that has a program with local organizations. is that correct? is there anyone from lime bike here? okay. >> i think all of us are interested -- >> supervisor kim: i'm glad there's interest. but i wanted to hear about specifics if there was an existing program. i understand now they were speaking in regards to lime bike. so, if anyone from lime bike is here, it would be great to hear from you after supervisor peskin asks his questions. >> supervisor peskin: actually, my question was for lime bike. i was just going to note that at least bird puts on the floor of the scooter the fact that you need to have a helmet and that

two riders should not be on it. i noticed that lime bikes do not have even that basic piece of information. but they can watch that on the rerun. >> supervisor tang: thank you, supervisor peskin. and i actually wanted to see if i could bring up san francisco m.t.a. mr. parks. i just had a few questions for the department. i'm wondering when m.t.a. first heard from these companies whether it was the three we heard from today or others about them wanting to come to san francisco and launch their companies? >> i'm not going to have exact dpats -- dates but i can get that. i think the first we heard from any company was probably spin. and it was mid-february. and talked about interest in

launching a pilot program. and the legislation to create a permit program and we also heard representatives from lime in early march and told them we were creating a permit program and they expressed interest in operating in san francisco. we have talked to respectives from way bot and maybe a couple companies that i can't remember that are also potentially interested. >> supervisor tang: and when did bird approach m.t.a.? >> i don't believe that we were -- at least that i recall, i don't believe we were approached by bird until after they launched their pilot. >> supervisor tang: okay. >> we sent a letter to them asking for more information on what they were doing. >> supervisor tang: okay. thank you. and as you mentioned, m.t.a. started working on the legislation in february or march? >> we began initial conversation

in february, but we really didn't start working with the city until march. >> supervisor tang: and then supervisor peskin, you introduced i think it was early -- sorry. end of february, early march? >> supervisor peskin: i thought it was march 7th, but i'm looking at the newspaper and it is march 6th. >> supervisor tang: okay. and the reason why -- thank you, mr. parks. the reason i ask these questions is because in light of the discussion here -- you may sit down. thank you. i think all these new innovations and helping people get around in different modes is a wonderful thing. i myself road a vespa before scoop came along. i think these other powered scooters are great in terms of you can get around very quickly and easily. especially if you are wearing a skirt or dress. it is quite easy. so, i'm not against these

companies innovating and kraitding -- waiting ways to ease our transportation methods. but i believe in making sure our sidewalks are safe for people and again, the reason why i ask san francisco m.t.a. when they heard about this and when they got to work on the legislation i think is really important. right after they heard from these companies that they were wanting to launch in san francisco, they got to work pretty quickly on working on legislation. and it's probably the quickest i have seen. sometimes working with s.f. m.t.a. can take long, but this was quick. i think that if m.t.a. had said, well, they waited six months or a year to even start working on this, then i would have an issue with the department. but they didn't. they actually responded pretty quickly. in san francisco we regular late our sidewalks in -- regulate our sidewalks in terms of table and chairs, dining for restaurants, they have to apply for permits from public works to make sure there's clearance for wheel

chairs, strollers, et cetera, for pedestrian access. grocery stores are not supposed to have shelves of groceries taking up more than six feet of our sidewalks. again for accessibility issues. so, all these are just regulations we have in place to make sure that people have a path of travel, it's safe. especially people who are visually impaired or need a wheelchair or so forth. those are all important aspects we cannot just sort of write off and say we're actually against progressive new modes of transportation. that is not the case. we are very supportive i would say collectively of different modes of transportation. but it cannot impede on pedestrian safety. so, that is why i do support supervisor peskin's legislation today. i think we are not trying to ban any of these companies or these moesds -- modes of transportation. we are simply saying until the regulatory framework is in work. until s.f. m.t.a. issues permits

you cannot leave these items unattended on the sidewalks. i don't think that's asking for too much. i think in the spirit of competition between these companies -- one company launched on st. patrick's day. everyone else felt like they had to launch immediately right after. i think that you're all liter literally knocks yourself over to be here in san francisco. we would like you to be here but bewould like you to follow our -- but we would like you to follow our rules is my point. i will turn it over to supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: thank you, chair. can jamie from m.t.a. come back up, please. thank you. my question is, do you have to wait for the legislation to be enacted to start drafting up the permit itself and what the permit process would be or have you begun that process? >> we don't have to wait. right now if things go as

planned, i think this division i legislation would get a second reading somewhere around april 24th and there's a 30-day waiting period before it is in effect. our hope is we would have the materials ready in advance of that date so as soon as the legislation exists to create a violation without a permit that there's a permit you would be able to apply for. >> supervisor safai: so, after the 24th, your plan is to have something up online to people can begin the application process? >> yeah. we don't have an exact date, but we hope in mid-may to have it -- >> supervisor safai: so about a month from now you will probably have the application process. i think we all unanimously agree that we have to have a permitting process. i don't know what world any business lives in that believes they can just come into a city and operate without rules. and i understand that there was pressure on some of the businesses to move quickly because one other business did it.

but then you stated there's other people in this industry that have decided to wait. and the example that i like to use is chariot. i know chariot worked really long and hard on the permitting process with your agency and they now this past week were able to finalize a process. i think the best -- one of the things to take out of here today for some of the businesses that when you work in collaboration with the city, you have a much better result. and we collectively have received hundreds and hundreds of complaints about these being strewn all over the city. from all different types of advocacy groups whether it is seniors, whether it is people with disabilities, children advocates. whoever it is. but the public domain is the public domain and it is in our interest to protect that. i really urge these businesses that have come here today to work aggressively with the city and follow the rules, follow the process, put in the applications and within a month's time, you will be able to -- at least

there will be rules of the game that will be laid out. not guaranteed you will be able to operate in san francisco, but at least there will be rules of the game. i appreciate the m.t.a.'s work on moving quickly on this. [captioner switch]

>> and make sure that they're done safely, and that they're docked safely. but i do also feel the frustration of companies that feel like we're not moving fast enough, and i'm actually -- i'm very annoyed at how these companies moved forward over the last couple of weeks. there are companies like scoot -- supervisor safai brought up chariot, but scoot did work with you on the rollout of their products, and are patiently working with you to roll out their electric bikes. and so i know we have permitted jump, which is great, but i

think it's also a frustrating process as we figure out how to get people peopout of their ci cars as this grows, but in a same fashion. i know you're saying that you'll be ready in a month, but i'm just curious as to what will go into that process. >> sure. and just want to 'em ifemphasit our goal is to create a program by which they're regulated in a way which serves the public interest, so we have a way that can serve as an ability option, as well. i'd also say that one of the reasons that we're very interested in the data sharing is to understand exactly how these scooters do play a role in expanding mobility options to the extent that they're substituting for uber and lyft trips. if they're only substituting for people that would have been working otherwise, that's less. the data sharing isn't something that we're putting

out there, it's something that we're very interested in understanding. in emergency room its of our work to get this ready, our goal is absolutely to have this -- in terms of our work to get this ready, our goal is to have this ready by may. the public will be made aware of in advance of the may 1st board meeting. i would say all the numbers are being worked out, but probably more than one permit that would be issued, but some sort of cap on the number of permits. >> i think it's important to cap the number that are on the road so that we can see how it works out before we expand the program. have you thought about -- may 1st is very soon, so i think you would have thought about speed and where to allow the motorized scooters and how to dock them. could you share some of the mta thoughts about that. >> sure. in terms of where they're allowed on the road, we have

more limited authority, because that's generally covered under the california vehicle code, either under current law or pending election lation. they're not allowed on sidewalks, they are allowed in bike lanes, they aren't allowed on roads greater than 25 miles an hour, but that's not really subject to mta. we will be working on very detailed placement guidelines where you can and cannot place the scooters and operation plans that show that the scooter companies can meet those requirements, and if not, the permit can be terminated. >> can we create docking areas for these scooters? >> that could be something we could consider as part of the pilot program. >> i just think they are so easy to tip over, and i just -- i mean, that is the part that really gets to me is that there's just strewn all over the streets. and already in the first week, you know, i saw a number of them tipped over. and i know that somebody said bicycles get tipped over, to,

but i really have not seen it in that number. >> that's something we can look at more and explore through a pilot program. i don't know if that would be required in the legislation, but that could certainly be an option. >> well, what can we do to make sure they're not tipped over, then? what are ways to counter that? 'cause it's just too easy. >> ultimately, there may be a few ways where that could happen, but we would put that on the companies to come up to us with a solution, whether it's a docking area or special way to lock them up. we're not the experts of that, but they need to come up with a way where their operations don't impact public safety. >> i just don't know if they can do it within a month. because we asked them today, and they can't do anything other than coming within two hours to pick them up, and that's just not good enough. i really hoping you're not

looking to our office for a solution on how to dock them. >> no. we're looking to the companies for the solutions. >> okay. because i don't have the solution for you. i don't think we can permit this until we figure out how to dock them. i don't know why they have to have a permit to be docked anywhere. >> so -- so they -- they're definitely not left on sidewalks but only in designated docking areas? >> i mean, i just don't see a way around these scooters from getting tipped over. they're fairly light, and what i like about the jump bikes is that you do have to put them up against a bike -- you know, a bike storage lock. >> yes, yes, absolutely. and with the jump bikes, we were very happy that they had the locking mechanism, i think. in the case of scooters, we would not issue a permit to any company until we were satisfied

with their operations plan and how they were going to prevent scooters tipping over. we're not obligated to issue any permits. we would review that and make sure it didn't tip over before issuing. >> going back to electric bi bicycles, what is the serve mta plan to do that. >> right now, summit is operating under an 18 month permit program. that permit program started in january , and so next june or whenever that 18 months pilot ends, that's where we would have in place whatever the next phase of that looks like. >> so we're not going to perany time anymo time -- permit anymore electric bikes until june of 2019? >> for stationless bikes operating in the public right-of-way, that's currently the approach under the pilot program. >> i think i want to push back a little bit. by the way, i don't want you to

permit ksless electric bike programs, but i think as we talk about giving people options outside of their vehicles, you know, i would like to have a conversation with sf mta about that. and then, if that's the case with e-bikes, why are the motorized scooters any different because you said you could permit mum i am immediately. >> i think we're looking to do what we did? the stationless bike share program and learn from those lessons. and also in the case of bike share we have another bike share system operating, so it wasn't the case of only having a single operator. i'm certainly happy to talk more about the bike share program with -- with your office and how we evaluate the stationless bike share program. >> i mean, more than the

motorless scooters, i'm interested in expanding the bike program. that's a great ways for the folks to get around. we have a lot of hills in san francisco, and i don't think scooters are helpful on hills, but certainly, electric bikes are. it's great to see people riding them on the road. i just think it's going to be an immediate solution for so many folks to not ride in cars or ride share. i would like to have a further conversation about that. i'm not sure we're -- why we're thinking of permitting so many scooters about that, and not e bikes. that just doesn't make sense to me. >> thank you, supervisor kim. i actually had the same question. we can do a follow up on-line. i agree. i think we should allow the pilot program different kinds of companies to take hold and not just one company.

supervisor peskin? >>. >> supervisor peskin: can you chair to all of the members of the public and the committee members for listening to this. what i think would have just been a totally noncontroversial piece of legislation had it not been for the overreaction of one or more of these companies who as perusually or too often want to ask for forgiveness, and they all and mr. hanson admitted it, they entered the field, knowing this piece of legislation was pending, and then went and acted like it was a ban when it was not. to the gentleman from spin, instead of saying whatever nonanswer you gave supervisor kim, i would apologize and say that was a material misrepresentation. you did not give us permission. we misrepresented that, for which we apologize. i say the same thing to mr. hanson from bird, although he

kind of apologized, which is you don't go about and make misrepresentations to the board of supervisors and the people of the city and county of san francisco. it does not engender trust. the way this was designed to work was to put forth a mechanism to allow professionals at the mta in collaboration with the regulated community to come up with a common sense proving scheme. but when you enter the arena with that level of hubris and arrogance, you don't extend trust. i want to send a message not only to e-scooters, last year it was go go as the shared mobility world continues to evolved, it would be really nice if the tech brothers could come in and ask in a collaborative fashion for permission, rather than after

the fact for forgiveness, and with that, i would ask that you committee members send this to the full board with recommended. >> thank you, supervisor peskin. i want to reiterate we are here to ensure the public safety of all of our residents and people who visit. so with that, we have a motion to amend as supervisor peskin stated. and as amended if we could send that forward to the full board with a positive recommend as a committee report. >> second. >> we'll do that. >> supervisor peskin: madam chair, before you adjourn, i had gotten clarification on item number two that indeed it was supposed to be 25% and not 25°, and i have discussed that in a sidebar conversation here with supervisor safai, so if one of you would like to rescind the vote on the continuance and reconsider

sending it to the full board, it was indeed supposed to be 25% as reflected in the blue maps and the previous legislation. >> okay. supervisor safai make a motion to rescind the vote on item number two. >> supervisor safai: make a motion to rescind. >> okay. we'll do that without objection. okay, and now do we have a motion on item number two. >> supervisor safai: motion to send item number two to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> all right. madam clerk, do we have any further business for today? >> clerk: there's no further business. >> okay. thank you. we are adjourned. >>

thank you for your patience we had a joint hearing with the building inspection commission earlier today. please be advised that the commission does not tolerate any o outbursts of any kind. if you could silence your mobile enti devices and when speaking before the commission if you care to, do stern for the record. [ roll call ] >> commission president hillis will be absent. first on the agenda items