>> 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

>> deputy city attorney john gibnor. in the c.u. process you're reviewing a decision by the planning decision in a quasi determination and so you have to make findings based on the legal standard that applies. here you will be acting in a legislative capacity, reviewing the m.t.a. board or the m.t.a. directors' legislative decision. so basically -- >> in 60 days? >> right. there will be procedural parameters but you'll have legislative discretion. the way that the ordinance is structured, if the board decides to reverse the m.t.a.'s decision the board will make findings about why you have reversed, why you have reached a different conclusion. and the standards that -- that you apply will be determined by the board. >> okay. so it's pretty subjective. based on what i'm hearing in terms of what we like or don't like. okay. and, you know, i would like to -- i would like to at a later time in this meeting ask if we truly are going to try to model off the c.u. process, maybe not the standard, but the process, if we could to increase the

aminable and we can read into the record the particular language and work with deputy city attorney john gibnor on that. >> i'm happy to hear that we're on agreement on that and so not having the board of supervisors weigh in on loading zones nor passenger type loading zones. okay. >> so as part of a development project, yes. >> that are part of, yes. okay, so i think that concludes the presentations. is that correct? okay. and i'll just chime in real quick and say that i'm glad to hear, yes, in the last couple months some of the changes that m.t.a. are making. as staff know from the private conversations over the years i wish that these changes had occurred more quickly and it wasn't after the threat of a valid measure that they were made. and as you know we have a legendary excel tracker just for issues in our office because there's so many that come through our desk and we have to respond to them. so i hope that what you have outlined here is going to happen and i do believe that there's a good faith effort to really respond to our needs. now with that said i absolutely agree with the goals