mr. gibner is there do you have an opinion a as to who the city can allow a private operators to break state law? does the city this the authority to tell those prioritizes they don't have to comply with the code >> john gibner, deputy city attorney. the as my colleague ms. burns stated that particular question is not before the board the legal authority and the mta is the city agency that has the jurisdiction to adapt the program. our city department worked with the program to authorize the program our office signed and approving the resolution just like all the ordinances before the board indicating that the mta does have legal authority to meet with the program >> so it's the city attorney's office position to tell a private operator they can break the state law. >> that's certainly not what we would say there are a number of vehicle code regulations that law the red code to operate and advising the mta on this program we elevated those vehicles codes provisions including the code section that you sited and others and look at the code scheme and reached the conclusion that point mta has t

mr. gibner said it's not enabling anybody to violate the state law but gives mta the authority to allow these of red zones and allow the use. is there someone at mta who knows the section of the code? again are you going to enforce this against the operators >> so the question would we be enforcing the part of the code that says only southern kinds of transit i'm not an attorney so i'll ask the city attorney to weigh in and the exception made by agency to prohibits all other uses from stopping at red zones. so maintained from the city attorney's office is that they're creating an exception through the prosecutor permit >> i'm not asking about the legality will you enforce this code against the operators we can deal with the city attorney. >> are you asking during the pilot program we will be gore that code for the 2 hundred stops that are included in the network or everywhere else. >> the 2 hundred stops >> yes. our muni investigators will be issuing tickets to those who don't have a permit that has been authorized by mta to use those zones. >> but if the operators pomegranates in the pilot

mr. gibner. sure john gibner, deputy city attorney. the the lawsuit that gave rise to this piece of legislation was settled last year the board approved the settlement has part of the she means to the departments handling the case agreed to remedy to the board adapting locomotion along the lines of what's before you today so clarify the existing rules about the ability of people who have permits to be in the parks and their right to exclude others the legislation our referring to supervisor kim that passed last year dealt with free speech zones and that's in union square >> ultimate it turned out there was two areas we needed to address in order not to run afoul of the first amendment we're saying the right to exclude only applies to public event currently it says all event you have the right to exclude but a public event you can only exclude in someone is interfering say you're having a wedding reception or a corporate event in a public park you have the right to exclude people from coming to your wedding reception we distinguished so

mr. gibner's amendment on the future funds. can we take those items together as one motion to amend? >> so moved. can we take that without objection? okay. i just really quickly want to say, thank you all for being here and to supervisor avalos. having projects like this, i understand some of mr. rhodes projects about the neighborhood projects, and projects that can bring neighborhoods together like this in san francisco is invaluable. i know it's challenging for sure but certainly fundraising a big part of that. but when it comes to fruition, it's special. i think we should be doing in all areas of san francisco as we can. and supervisor avalos i pledge my support in whatever manner i can going forward. so, supervisor breed? >> i just wanted to add because i'm always looking at the nuts and bolts and business side of things. any other -- i know this project has going on for a long time and a lot of people committed countless of hours to volunteer to make this a reality. i hope they stay involved and i hope the support for this contract to do the architectural design gives them the e

mr. deputy city attorney can we require the board of supervisors hold a hearing on this topic. >> deputy city attorney, john gibner. the answer is yes, you can make that amendment today and pass the ordinance on first read. generally, the board procedures are, we try not to prescribe board procedures in ordinances because the board's hearing process is generally within the board's authority, but of course it's your policy decision as to whether you want to include that in an ordinance and bind the board i year from now. >> i'm happy to support this legislation. i'm happy to include a hearing requirement in one and 2 years. so happy to make that motion. >> okay, president chiu has made a motion and second by wiener. can we take that without objection? so moved. supervisor avalos? >>supervisor john avalos: thank you. supervisor farrell, for me this legislation is a long time coming and complete with what we want to do with it. i do appreciate president chiu bringing it forward. i live in a district that has seen it's population grow by 6,000 residents from 2000-2010 census. my area is redistricted to a smaller size.