if we could to increase the process from four supervisors to five to the number that could be able to get the appeal to the board of supervisors. okay, so we'll ask for that later. and then also i would just point out as well that sometimes it's very difficult i think -- you know, if we are hearing a planning appeal, you know, there's a project -- a specific project in our district. it's a building there. and with these it tends to i think impact potentially other parts of the city -- i'm not talking about, you know, blue zones or whatnot, but let's say a stop sign where it might impact a bus that you're trying to get on a rapid network or something like that. so i do think and i caution that we may be faced with situations where maybe a community wants a stop sign but it may also hinder transit effectiveness as well. so with that said, supervisor peskin, did you have another question before we go to public comment? >> i'm happy to hear from the public. i have a number of questions,

mostly to the city attorney. i would agree with you relative to the c.u. process, i was only referring to the appellate portion of it, the c.u. process had been in place for many, many years. just th the appellate process. and i agree with you five, from how the c.u. appeal from the board itself works. so i would agree with that. i do in addition i'm not a member of the committee to th the -- to the amendments that i recommended before. the deputy city attorney pointed out on page 5, line 8, we would have to make a conforming amendment to conform to the threegz odeletion of the fee toe the words "any filing fee paid shall be returned to the

requester." and i did have some questions for the city attorney. and before we hear from the public, i should probably also put on the record that i would also like a committee member to make one other change at page 2, line 11. which is the provision that says that a final sfmta decision shall not include a decision by the m.t.a. that was contemplated as part of the implementation of a prior final m.t.a. decision. which i think is extremely vague and as i said to my staff earlier today this piece of legislation has been contemplated for a decade. so i would like to remove at page 2, line 11, the words

"contemplated" as part of the i. implementation of a final sfmta decision and/or that would prevent us from getting into a lot of different skirmishes and us all yelling at deputy city attorney kennedy. >> okay, with that said we'll jump to public comment first and then we'll resume our conversation. so any members of the public that wish to comment on item 3, please come on up. >> good afternoon chair tang and supervisors, i'm with the bicycle coalition. before i launch into the meat of my comments i would like to take a moment to thank the authors of this amendment, supervisors peskin and safai for working with those of us who care about active transportation in our city. to make this appeals ordinance do what we think that it should do rather than what we think

that it shouldn't do. let me begin by stating that the sfmta is an imperfect agency. it must do more to deliver safe streets for those walking and biking and taking transit and it must deliver those projects faster. if we hope to see the sfmta lead the way in achieving vision zero in meeting our ambitious climate goals and realizing our transit first policy we have to give the agency the ability to act with some speed and relative independence. my concern and our concern as people who bike about the original draft of this appeals ordinance was that it posed a threat to that independence. and if adopted it would slow down the delivery of crucial transportation projects across our city. we agree with the removal of the public petition threshold for appeal as it would consume endless hours of this body's time in hearing appeals based on -- not time -- but parking spots, you name it.

we agree that the threshold number of supervisors necessary to hear an appeal should be increased to five in line with conditional use appeals. we thank the authors for considering amendments that amet strengthen the exemptions to include specific bike lane exemptions and transit projects and hopefully other vision zero projects as well. the goal of having the sfmta to be more responsive is a noble one and we want to see an appeals process that has safe and affordable housing choices so we hope that this legislation can be amended to do that. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> thank you. my name is glen teksara and i run the largest linen and uniform company in california. i am in the dog patch area of san francisco. i would like to talk today for a moment about my experience with the m.t.a. it was a very positive

experience and it surprised me greatly. i come from a background of running business and i'm not all that familiar with the way that the system works. i heard at the 11th hour about the program to handle parking in my area. and i was surprised when i reached out to the m.t.a. that there was response. strong response. and i actually got some of the things that i wanted by working, which is a huge surprise to my wife who i have been complaining for weeks about having to deal with regulation of parking. and at the end of the day i was in great support of it and i really appreciated work with the m.t.a., with hank and a number of his people on the team. and i was surprised that i was able to get something done. the reason that i came here today is they wanted to let you guys know that i was very pleased with that and as a default i am never a strong fan of more oversight as a default

because i like to see things get done. and things did get done, which was pleasing. we are the last uniform company in the city of san francisco. there were probably about 10, and they all moved out. so i appreciate they were able to listen to us and get things done and i wanted to give my support and make sure that you were aware that i'm very pleased with the m.t.a. and what they did for us. i will let the rest of you battle out the details of the arena that i'm not familiar with on who is in control and who is in charge. so enjoy. >> thank you for that. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is rachel haiden, with the transit riders and like the name we are a group of transit riders who want to see fast, efficient and reliable service. i am here today because we're concerned that this appeals process before the committee is going to hinder the ability to deliver the service and improvements that riders

deserve. i want to recognize that the ordinance or at least in part arose from a frustration that is a real problem, the responsiveness and tran transpay and accountability. but as written it doesn't address those problems it. adds another layer of process to an already complicated process that is undoubtedly going to result in further delay to crucial transit priority projects. i am happy to hear that the public petition threshold has been remove removed and i encoue number of supervisors to hear the appeals to be increased to five. i was happy to hear you, chair tang, to mention that. but the language for m.t.a. decisions that are exempt from review needs to include any municipal railway, trends of priority project. you saw the list that tom -- that tom showed earlier of several projects that would improve reliability, that improve service delivery, that would be subject to this appeals process and will undoubtedly cause further delay to ruling

those projects out. so, again, i urge you to exempt any municipal railway project that seeks to improve service reliability. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisor, i am the executive director of the walk san francisco. i'm here to express serious concerns about this ordinance and how this ordinance will slow down the sfmta in a city that desperately needs our transportation agency to speed up. this weekend we had another fatality, a 40-year-old man died trying to cross 19th avenue. two weeks ago a resident was killed walking home from church. two pedestrian fatalities in april and five already this year. there is no time to wait and debate street safety redesigns because people are dying going about their everyday business. we thablg this appeals legislation and the way that it's currently written threatens vision zero.

a city-wide goal to end all serious and fatal crashes by 2024. just this month on walk to work day we're all standing by city hall and expressing our commitment to vision zero and i remind us that we only have five more years yet to get to the goal of zero. and we still have a long way to go. while san francisco would like to see vision zero projects added to the list of exemptions in this ordinance, we would also like to see an increase in the number of supervisors needed to appeal from four to five. thank you, supervisor tang, for making this recommendation. we know that sfmta is not a perfect organization and they certainly have their challenges. and so we believe that we should be finding solutions for the sfmta to do more to dligz on the vision zero projects faster and not to slow them down. thank you for giving me this opportunity to express my organization's concerns and the safety that it will lead to on our streets. thank you. >> thank you very much.

next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. new name is alyssa kias and i'm here representing spur. thank you for the opportunity to comment on this item. the appeals legislation before this committee as currently drafted will hinder the city's ability to provide a functional and a sustainable transportation system. afmta must do more to make transit more reliable and further and to make our streets safer for biking and walking and to deliver them faster. but this ordinance will seriously curtail the sfmta's ability to deliver crucial transportation projects across our city. the sfmta needs to be able to act with speed and independence to achieve vision zero, to improve access and mobility for people across the city. to safeguard the city's ability and to make the transportation system work we believe that the following changes need to be made to this legislation. one, we support the proposal to change the threshold number of

supervisors necessary to hear the appeal to five, in line with conditional use appeals. and, two, the appeals legislation should include exemptions for transit projects and other vision zero projects. that's all i have to say, thank you very much. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> eileen bokan and i'm here on my own behalf. i support this legislation in principle as a means of restoring some checks and balances. my question would be if this review could apply to prior decisions. >> thank you very much. any members of the public who wish to comment on item 3? okay, seeing none, public comments closed. and i don't -- in response to the last public speaker's question, correct me if i'm wrong, deputy city attorney john gibnor, but i don't think that it's retroactive to prior m.t.a.

decisions? >> deputy city attorney john gibnor. no, the legislation couldn't be retroactive. with the amendment that supervisor peskin proposed a few moments ago you could -- the board could review new decisions that are related to projects that had already been reviewed. so you could have multiple -- basically appeals of different m.t.a. decisions over time within a single project. >> okay, thank you for that clarification. supervisor peskin? >> thank you, madam chair. with all respect to the representative from spur, who i think that were one of the original proponents of proposition a, including the carve out that i proposed that

the sky will not fall, that there will be a handful of decisions that are reviewed on an annual basis as i referenced earlier relative to the board bringing conditional uses before it. and hopefully they will be things that positively impact the public realm and transportation, particularly around the ever evolving world of new emerging mobility technology where directors and this board agree that actually having some accountable elected officials make tough decisions in the end, and regardless of who it may or may be, and how that individual may be affiliated with tech billionaires and venture capital companies, this is the people's house. actually, having a bunch of city council members, if you will, who have to hear it every day on the streets of san francisco

will be a positive thing. so with all due respect to spur, i put that in prop a precisely to have this level of oversight. it is a decade overdue. and it is coming shortly. i agree as i said earlier with my thumbs up that we should change the threshold to five supervisors. i did have a couple of questions for the city attorney and i mean no disrespect. i didn't mean any disrespect to the speakers, but i actually wanted to give our two deputy city attorneys a heads up about the questions that i was going to ask and that's why i walked over there. most importantly and this probably also implicates the clerk of the board of supervisors, it has to do with timing issues at page 4 in sub-section c [2] relative to the window, if not less than 10 days and not more than 30 days. and i just wanted to hear from the city attorney -- and this is

really just a kind of temporal issue as well as potentially from the clerk's office. i think that it might need a little bit of massaging and we have a week to do that. so deputy city attorney if you want to offer any thoughts or advice on that issue? (please stand by).

. >> supervisor safai: just through the chair, just to build on that, my understanding, at least the way i was reading it is we had to at least make an attempt to review the decision that happened within 60 days or we have to have our work done within that 60-day period. >> your work has to be done within 60 days or else the decision is ampld. -- affirmed. >> supervisor safai: and that's based on the reading of the charter? >> yeah, that's based on the charter. so it squeezes the timelines a little bit which is why i think the clerk's office maybe wanted to play with some of the numbers and make sure we did it right to give the board enough

time. >> supervisor safai: right, but that would be just like any other meeting through the chair, just like any other meeting, it would be agendaized and maybe a special item, and once we did that, we would, as you said, make affirmative actions to either overturn or amend or whatever? >> yeah. you only need to have one hearing. so some of the questions are, should you -- how much time should you have -- give to file the appeal, how long after the date of filing should we notice the hearing to occur, should the clerk provide ten days' notice, those kinds of issues? >> supervisor safai: okay. and then that would include public noticing or whatever? >> my deputy's here to answer any questions. >> hi. elisa somera for office of the board. we didn't realize there was a 60 daytime constraint. it's different than other appeals where we're able to

continue them out to farther dates where we can hold the hearing but put off the decision so we're still working with that. >> supervisor peskin: and madam chair, i think one thing that's very important is this 60 day hard stop for the board of supervisors to opine or not should allay the fears and statements made by a few members of the public and specifically the director from spur. as director reiskin knows, i always like to needle him that when there's a problem and a supervisor mentions it to mr. nuru, it happens in about 24 hours. and when you mention it to mr. reiskin -- and i appreciate that he is following the spirit and the letter of the law, it takes six to eight to ten months. so the 60 day hard stop is not going to be the end of the

world. and i insofar as i still have the floor, i have another question for the city attorney. >> supervisor tang: go ahead. >> supervisor peskin: so the other question has to do with the definition of a final sf mta decision, and i note that at page three, starting at line 14, the words changes in operating structure as it relates to private transportation programs is stricken, and insofar as the main thrust of my interest in this legislation really resolves around, and director reiskin agrees with having legislative surprise -- supervisory oversight over that policy. i'm wondering if it would be

stricken and b i'm wondering if that body can still get to those issues in pilot programs or other ways. i wanted to give that to counsel to answer. >> deputy city attorney jon givner again. the reason it's to line it up is the authority that the charter gives to the board. so the abort that's the authority to review certain types of decisions, time limitations for parking, prefer ential parking, etcetera, but doesn't have discretion under the charter to review the types of decisions that are listed in the -- in the struck out portion of changes of operating structure of permitees. the board, when it initially considers an mta decision, could put parameters on that decision to ensure that your concerns are met. you could apply permit

conditions to the program, you could also, as you suggested, make it a pilot program, so if you have concerns about how something might roll out, the mta has approved a five-year program, the board could ultimately make that on review, a one-year program, so that the program could come back to the board of supervisors at the end of the year if the mta decides to continue it. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, counselor. and then, finally, madam chair, i just wanted to say for the record that i acknowledge my staff, lee hepner, and as well as supervisor satisfai's staff. >> supervisor tang: one thing we would be able to hear is overweight vehicle issues.

i know there's been a sort of halting of this problem of late, but there have been talked with sf mta that would help attempt to get more services to those individuals living in campers. so i know that this is on our list for things that we might be able to see on appeal, but today, i'm using this opportunity to say that i want the department and the board to really move forward with that idea that you had chaired with me, director, because i do like it very much, and i think it's a great way for us to address the issues that we see with the campers, but yeah, helping the individuals in need. okay. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: yeah. i just have a couple of things that i wanted to ask. so i just wanted to ask director reiskin to come back up for a second, if he has a minute. so i just kind of wanted to go back to my issue about the -- the staffing and the reorganization, and i know we talked about that. and we've talked about that for a long time. but what's a firm date in terms

of your community response tea

understanding as to why these bike stations are not included in our ability to review. >> deputy city attorney jon givner again. so the bike stations on the street, which would be within the mta's jurisdiction aren't

included because they don't fall -- they don't fit into the specific categories of -- that are authorized under the charter for adding time limitations, etcetera. bike stations on the sidewalk would be dpw jurisdiction, so they're not included in the -- in this ordinance because they're not -- you wouldn't be reviewing the mta's decision. >> supervisor safai: okay. but it doesn't seem that these were even contemplated back when the charter amendment -- so i don't even know if there's any -- i think that what the determination was because these are a red zone, they're not part of your review because you can't review red zones. but you are in some instances removing metered parking to put these in place. so it seems to me as though this is a little bit more of a gray area.

>> mr. givner: unli. >> unlike a change in meters parking this is a decision to put parking in that spot where you now have the bike parking. >> supervisor safai: do they define limit? >> they do not. but -- but our -- our advice in our reading of that charter provision, especially in light of what comes before it regarding mta's exclusive authority generally and how this is a specific carveout, our advice is that the board has authority to review time limitations but not to review absolute predictioohibitions at parking and stopping, which is why this ordinance doesn't review, for instance, red zones. >> supervisor safai: okay. through the chair, i'll just -- i'll follow up with you all on

that one, but other than that, i think i've pretty much said clearly what our amendments were. and did supervisor peskin, did you speak specifically about the fee waiver? i know we talked about that, so we're good. >> supervisor tang: yeah. supervisor kim? -- >> supervisor safai: oh, by the way, one last thing, i am also in favor of putting the threshold at five. >> supervisor tang: thank you. supervisor kim? >> supervisor kim: thank you. i just wanted to acknowledge that i am in support of putting the threshold at five, and i just want to thank you all for being here today and spending your time with us. i do want to say, just on a positive note, that i really have had a very good working relationship with sf mta over my seven years. in terms of moving forward, many of the vision zero improvements that our office has fought for, curbouts and

daylighting, and whiprotected e lanes. while the projects don't always move as quickly as i'd like, i think we do have a good communication. i think the one thing we've never been able to figure out is parking permits in these fixed-use neighborhoods. traditional we've had residential neighborhoods and commercial neighborhoods in san francisco, but the residential neighborhoods that we are now building largely in my district and district ten and nine are mixed use neighborhoods, so they traditionally don't fall under the rpp permits, and while i would like a city where there were no cars or no one owned cars, there has to be some balance, so that is one issue that i've worked on for seven years. but other than that, i do feel like i've been able to push through many of the items that i'd like to see here at the board. i probably have a different set of constituencies from my other colleagues, so i want to really respect what they have been

hearing and, you know, the changes that they'd like to see. i'm a little hesitant to see more appeals come before the board of supervisors, but i do think eliminating the 50 resident appeal process and limiting it to five members of the board will, i hope, help