Generating clean air, clean energy . Yes. Supervisor peskin and if i may, supervisor, i just actually im 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 thats great. Supervisor safai thank you. Supervisor tang . Supervisor tang thank you. Im 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. Im 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, im 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 id 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, thats 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, im 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 theres not any additional comments, then, we will make lets 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 agencys 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. Theres a long history with regard to the sfmta. It started in the 1990s, 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 ill 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 its a stop sign, whether its a speed bump, whether its 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, youre 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 thats just step one. After that its submitted to the sfmta and its 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. Its 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 ive been in office, i have not received more positive feedback on an issue, and i think supervisor peskin will allagree, as well,o im going to allow him to make some comments on this issue. Supervisor peskin thank you, chair safai. Weve 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 ill do that before you get up i just want you to say a little bit about the late 90s and 0 2008, because i think thats important for the public. Supervisor peskin sure. So just by way of history, the function thats 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 dont 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 dont 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 dont 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 whats going on, if we dont like it or our constituents dont like it, we dont 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 were going to continue this item for one week to have those conversations, but right now, well 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 im 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, thats it. Theres no hearing or public appeal. Those people, you know, they dont have to answer phone calls. They can take their time. I think there needs to be checks and balances. Maybe if its going to be postponed, maybe theres 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 youll get an answer. But if somebodys actually specifically responsible for that area, then you know if they cant 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, ill 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 theres 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 im the chairman of the San FranciscoBicycle Coalition. Im not here this afternoon to defend the sfmta. I think the record shows frequently weve 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. Id 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 citys 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. Im charles rathbart. Im 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 citys 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. Im an entailed stakeholder of mta. For me, mta stands for more train wrecks ahead. Its an agency thats too big to succeed. Right now, i cant imagine the burden thats placed on ed reiskin for monitoring traffic and muni. Its an overload. They dont exercise powers. They dont 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. Were 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 its 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 thats needed is not a hammer strike. Right now, the model thats needed for the mta is if youre not under the bus, youre under the wheels. Thank you. Supervisor safai next speaker. Thank you, chair safai, board members. My name is mark gruber. Im a board member of the San FranciscoTaxi Workers Alliance which has not yet come to discuss this measure, so im 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 im 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 mtas 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 drivers, 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 tncs, and that program, but its 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 id like to see this go forward, and im 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. Theyre 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 tncs. 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 drivers 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 tncs violate vehicle code 260 prima facie by not having a license. [ inaudible ] tncs lose billions annually and the practices violate antitrust law. Notably they have yet to mandate a single app for the 1800 licensed taxis,