Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  May 7, 2018 9:00am-10:01am PDT

9:00 am
tom and the agency has every best intention, but we have been talking about a community response team for five, six months and i still have yet to meet that person. i have no idea who that person is so i think that dillon does a great job of reaching out to our staff but part of the negotiated response and the response to our charter amendment is that we were going to have a community response team. this is the first presentation that we have received about that on the record. and although stop signs may not be as much of an issue in the older parts of the city where you have multiple forms of transportation and north beach, chinatown. we installed -- yes, photos in there -- we have a stop sign where individual neighbors had been asking for three years for an area that was significantly in need of a stop sign. i have no idea why it was denied
9:01 am
but i have appreciated the sfmta responding and i appreciated being out there installing it. you can ask mr. maguire, people were coming out of their house -- multiple people came out of their house -- at least 10 neighbors at 10:00 on a friday or 11:00 on a friday, they came out to really tell their stories. one woman said i was the person that personally put in the petition and was denied multiple times and she came out. she had no idea that we were even installing it that day. so she was ecstatic. so i can tell you that i have no intention of wanting to review every single stop sign or speed bump or traffic calming measure. but what i will say is that is one of the goals of what we intended to put forward is that there can't always be this burden put on residents to say you need to go out and gather signatures and do the job of the planners and the engineers and so on to make the case for some
9:02 am
of the things that they're being asked for. that is not -- one email that i got when i first came into office there was a 90-year-old woman that was asking in front of the church on sainta rosa and she had never going to go around and get signatures, she can't, she's physically unable to do that. so that's part of the process. and also part of the process that we're trying to talk to you about -- and i had this conversation with president brinkman is that when you're doing your notice and outreach, the planning department has a requirement of a certain number of buildings and residents that need to be notified in a certain radius. there's no standardized process that the sfmta has to go through if terms of their outreach. i have seen a significant improvement and i do commend the department for that. but there is no standardized process. so residents are often left to look for the sign or a posting or maybe there's some outreach, maybe there hasn't been to the business owners. some have, some haven't.
9:03 am
so part of what we're trying to accomplish here today is to talk about some of the standardization of that outreach and review. but, no, we have no intention -- i have no desire, supervisor tang, to review every single stop sign request, but i do want the ability in there if there's a significant request. one of the areas that we had a stop sign installed, again, neighbors organized for multiple years and pedestrians were hit on that location. and there is a conflict sometimes between the desire of muni and the desire of pedestrians and so we have this conflict embedded in vision zero goals and muni goals. so we're trying to come up with a solution on how we can work together with your agency. so i would just say just before we get to public comment that many of these amendments that we're putting forward are part of a larger negotiated compromise. and i think that we've come to a good resolution. >> so speaking of standards, i'm
9:04 am
just curious -- and i don't know who would be the one to answer this -- but under what criteria will we as a board of supervisors be reviewing these particular items? so, for example, blue zones, green zones, yellow zones. i know that it has been stated this legislation is modeled off the c.u. process for planning. there we have a criteria whether a project is necessary and/or desirable. but what is the criteria here for these, whether we like the blue zone or not? >> 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 --
9:05 am
>> 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 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
9:06 am
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
9:07 am
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
9:08 am
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
9:09 am
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
9:10 am
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
9:11 am
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
9:12 am
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.
9:13 am
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
9:14 am
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.
9:15 am
>> 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
9:16 am
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
9:17 am
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.
9:18 am
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?
9:19 am
>> 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
9:20 am
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.
9:21 am
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.
9:22 am
so deputy city attorney if you want to offer any thoughts or advice on that issue? (please stand by).
9:23 am
. >> 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
9:24 am
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
9:25 am
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
9:26 am
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
9:27 am
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
9:28 am
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
9:29 am
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
9:30 am
9:31 am
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
9:32 am
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.
9:33 am
>> 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
9:34 am
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
9:35 am
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
9:36 am
think eliminating the 50 resident appeal process and limiting it to five members of the board will, i hope, help with that process, and hopefully, we will have a bigger say over i think some of the bigger projects that supervisor peskin was referring to, i think in large part, like the e. scooters and large shuttle buses. i think some of those large city programs, i do have a lot of questions, and it's frustrating that we have to hear from the constituents on those issues, but we don't often get to weigh in on it except to, you know, certify an exemption of a -- of a ceqa determination, which is very d dissatisfying and then often confuses our constituents on what our positions on programs are. but on stop signs and daylighting and i think meter hours, i share supervisor tang's kind of reluctantance to
9:37 am
hear those issues, and what i would like to hear are some of the big programs that sf mta oversees. so that's just my overall feeling. i do want this to go through because i know that supervisor he is pin a-- peskin and safai have spent a lot of time working on this. i would like to see some other priorities, including our vision zero implementation work. i would not want to see that slowed down because we're talking about lives, not only fatalities, but consequences that have impacts on the -- our families and our communities. thank you, colleagues.
9:38 am
i will support this today. i definitely think we should have a year point at which we evaluate how this has been working with this board, and i know that supervisor peskin and safai will be on the board to ensure that, and that would just be my one suggestion today at land use. >> supervisor tang: thank you, supervisor kim. i was going to say the exact same thing. i am reluctantly supporting this, i would like to see how it's going, whether it's effective before going down this road and to leave room for change or even potential repeal, depending, again, depebding d depending on how it goes, but i'm willing to experiment, and again, the ultimate goal is to ensure that we're being responsive with community members. we had a couple of motions on the floor. we had supervisor safai wanted to add stop signs as part of the review. there was a motion from the commission to include passenger
9:39 am
loading zones. there was a suggestion about increasing the supervisor threshold from four to five in terms of putting the appeals on our board of supervisors docket, and there was the elimination of the pat50 signatures or more on the appeal as well as the filing fee. is there anything else i missed? >> supervisor safai: yes. there was on page two, line eleven, from was contemplated all the way to and arrest. >> supervisor tang: okay. >> supervisor peskin: and then, there was the definition of bicycle lane on page one at line 18 and then as defined term on page two at line 12, capitalizing bicycle and lane. and i believe everything else you referenced, madam chair. >> supervisor safai: and then -- >> supervisor tang: and then of course our clerk's office recommendation, which we will, i believe, get to next week or next time around. >> supervisor safai: are you talking about the filing fee waiver? >> supervisor peskin: no, about the ten day, 30-daewoo.
9:40 am
>> supervisor safai: well, that was also one, didn't we do the filing fee waiver? >> supervisor tang: yes, i already did that. >> supervisor peskin: which appear nz two places that i mentioned. >> supervisor tang: okay. that was it? deputy city attorney? >> in the document that supervisor safai distributed at the start of the meeting, i believe there are a number of different proposed amendments around timing, including the ten to 30-days, the timing for the clerk's office to review the -- the supervisors or members of the public request for review. is the committee making these amendments subject to changes next week or just removing them from the docket now just so you can make all the changes next week. >> supervisor safai: just through the chair, i think unless somebody disagrees, do no less than ten days but no more than 30 days. i think that was what we had
9:41 am
worked out along with the deputy city attorney along with our two offices. >> and then, there are a number of different -- a number of other changes about the process and timing on pages four and five. >> supervisor safai: right, along review and goes into 48 business hours. i didn't read those into the record because i thought we had submitted to emergency room inform, but if i need to highlight those, i think we should leave those as is, and then, if we need to make additional changes, that's fine. i just had one point of clarification, just to what supervisor tang summarized, and it was about the project -- it was about amending the project of final mta decision to be included in development project. >> supervisor tang: okay. thank you for that clarification. >> supervisor safai: and i think you understand what we're referring to, deputy city attorney givner? >> yeah. this is the supervisor tang's reference to the loading zones. i believe it's a new definition of the rest room development -- development proje
9:42 am
developmendevelopment -- -- term development project, but then excluding that from the matters that be under the board of supervisors. >> supervisor safai: it would be on page 19, line 1, any final sf mta decision, and then, when you get to the, shall not include on page two, line ten, we would insert that as an item, right? >> okay. >> supervisor safai: so basically, final to exclude development project and then you define development projects. do you have that language? okay. thank you. >> okay. >> supervisor tang: and then, madam clerk, do we have to take each amendment separately or could we adopt them all as a whole? >> clerk: you can adopt them all as a whole? >> supervisor tang: okay. that's fine. i will take all of them as a whole. >> supervisor safai: duly noted. >> supervisor tang: we can do that without objection.
9:43 am
okay, and then, as amended, can we get a motion on the item? >> supervisor safai: so i'd like to make a motion to send this item to the full board with positive -- >> supervisor tang: oh, no, continue. >> supervisor safai: oh, we have to continue this item for one week. >> supervisor tang: so motion to continue this item for one week out objection. thank you. and thank you to everyone on sf mta and everyone else who was here for this item. madam clerk, is there any further business? >> clerk: madam president, there's no further business. >> supervisor tang: okay. we're adjourned.
9:44 am
>> hi. i'm shana longhorn with the san francisco league of women voters. i'm here to discuss prop h, a measure that will be before the voters on june 5th. the san francisco police commission is a civilian body that sets residence lation for the police department tazers are weapons that discharge electrical currents into an individual. auto mated external defibrillators are portable electronic devices that are used following a heart attack. san francisco police officers do not currently use tazers. about half of police department patrol vehicles versus defibrillators. any policy control on tazers or defibrillators cannot be changed by the commission. tazers may be used when a person is actively resisting, assaulting or exhibiting any action likely to result in
9:45 am
serious bodily injury or death of another person, themselves or a police officer. proposition h would authorize the police department to purchase tazers for each police officer subject to the following conditions: the officer has successfully completed the department's use of force and threat assessment training, uses only police department issued tazers and holsters. holsters the tazer on side of his or her body opposite from the firearm. police department vehicles are equipped with defibrillators in districts where tazers are carrie, and there is an investigation and report each time an officer uses a tazer. this may be amended only by a majority of the voters of san francisco or by an ordinance adopted by a vote of four fifths of the board of supervisors. a yes vote means if you vote yes, you want to set a policy for the use of tazers and authorize the purchase of tazers for each police officer by the police department superintendent to specific conditions. a no vote means if you vote no,
9:46 am
you do not want to adopt this measure. i'm here with tracey mcray from yes on h and a proponent of proposition h. welcome? >> thank you. >> we're joined by john roy, a proponent of no on h. thank you for being here. >> thank you. >> we're going to start with tracey. why do you believe this proposition is so important. >> so i'm a native of san francisco. i was born and raised here. for the past 29 years i've been a police officer in the city and county of san francisco. currently i work in the bayview district which has had a number of high profile incidents, shootings, assaults. as police officers, we need the best tools available for us to do our jobs, to go home safely, to keep the public safe, and this ballot measure will do that. i know that people have often times felt that tazers are
9:47 am
inherently dangerous, we don't need them, we've been in a long, arduous fight trying to get tazers, even though when the d.o.j. collaborative reform recommended in their 27 two-page evaluation that we have tazers, that people have always stated that no we shouldn't. and numerous police departments throughout the bay area have them. >> thank you. john, why do you feel this proposition is so important. >> well, i think the most important thing for people to take away is just the unbelievable opposition to the scope of h. if you heard what tracey said, if it was really that simple and true, you have to ask yourself why are both protazer people and antitazer people opposed to it? why are progressives and moderates, why is the san francisco chronicle and san francisco activists? because it's not as simple as tracey portrayed it. this is not about tazers, yes
9:48 am
or no. the police commission already approved tazers, and the p.o.a. went ahead and put this measure on the ballot. this is about when tazers are used and more importantly who gets to regulate them. this ballot measure is reckless and dangerous. it would strip the police chief and the commission from their ability to make any changes in the policy that was carefully created, no matter what happens, and i look forward to getting into greater detail. >> well, that is going to lead us into our questions, and the first question goes to you, john, and it's what are the advantages or disadvantages to this proposition. >> well, honestly, i don't see any advantage because even if you're protazer, the policy has already been created through the process recommended by the justice department, the obama justice department cop's office, and just to slightly correct tracey here, they didn't recommend tazers, they recommend that it be strongly considered, and that a collaborative process be used to try to develop the policy, a collaborative process that has been tried all over the
9:49 am
country. i've worked with the department of justice, departments all over this country. you bring in the union, the stakeholders, experts, medical people, and you craft the best policy possible. this is what happened. the police commission approved tazers in november , and they adopted a policy on march 14th that the mayor supports, that the police chief supports, and yet, the p.o.a. is going forward with this measure because they do not like it, and they want to strip the commission and the chief from the ability to regulate it. there are two big differences between what prop h would allow and what the p.o.a. law would set into stone. one is prop h would strip the requirement that officers try deescalation deescalation before using force, especially important on as weapon as dangerous as tazers. second, the commission looked at this weapon and said this is a dangerous weapon. they need to use this only when there's resistance, and they have proposed in this law and locking into place no physical dangerous whatsoever, moorely
9:50 am
bracing, moorely verbally noncomplying, and you can use this weapon, and it's dangerous. >> thank you. tracey, same question to you. what are the advantages or disadvantages to this proposition? >> well, i respectfully disagree with him about the language. so the language of this proposition, the way the police commission has it, has been very restrictive. so the most restrictive language, the less the officer will likely use this device. so we're getting into semantics will assaultive behavior, like he said, bracing. no, it's clearly spelled out in the p.o.a.'s language for proposition h about the training and the need to deescalate and having proper training, the 40 hours of c.i.t., another ten hours of deescalation practical exercises, so the training is there, having the medical equipment on-site. it -- it boggles my mind that the sheriff's department has tazers, and we never had this
9:51 am
sort of diversion about getting this piece of equipment. they took away the carotid restraint, which we never had a negative use of force. i've used that numerous times, but then it was taken away. we were given shields and long batons to use, but there was no training given to us on how to use those. so it was here you go, they've taken that away from us, but here's a baton and shield. our position is the language is too restrictive. if they want to down the road revisit language, the police commission can do that, so -- >> thank you. the next question will go back to you, tracy. should voters be making decisions about police weaponry? >> the voters are part of the community. the community is a stakeholder.
9:52 am
they should have a stake in this. i'm a citizen of san francisco. i vote, so why not have a say in what we do? the police commission, now two commissioners are leaving the police commission board, so when are we ever going to get to meet and confer about this topic? so it's incredible that it's taken this long, eight years, that we've been talking about this, when other departments have this. the sheriff's department, their tazer policy is four pages long. you have oakland that has this, san jose that has this, but all of a sudden, san francisco, we're a world dlsh class cit-- class city, we should beequipping our officers to keep the people safe. >> same question to you, john. >> they shouldn't be locking into law a standard that cannot be changed. i need to correct here what my
9:53 am
friend from the p.o.a. said. it's clear in the language of this law that it cannot be changed. the police commission will have no power, the chief will have no power to change anything that is inconsistent with what is being proposed here. that is what is so dangerous and radical. it is unprecedented, and i'm not aware of a single police union that has actually tried to take something like this away. this is an unbelievably radical measure. and with respect to the particular standard, it's right here in black and white, the terms the p.o.a. chose to use were active resistance, which is defined. it's a police term of art. it's defined in sfpd manual as tensing or running away or not complying. we want to see if we can make a looser standard over time, why
9:54 am
not start with a more restrictive policy, on a weapon that has been this controversial. again, tazers have already been approved. this isn't about whether or not you get tazers. that's already been decide dangerous dred. that's not the issue on the ballot. >> thank you. closing statements, i'll start with you, tracy? >> like i said, it's been a long process trying to equip our officers with tazers. voting yes on this proposition will ensure that officers do their annual training, complete deescalation. they will be required to have accountability, which we do right now. as a sergeant, i fill out a very long form to do that. with he will have medical equipment, defib railators on board if we do use this tool. prop h, i believe, is the correct policy. people have the choice to vote
9:55 am
yes or no. obviously, we got enough signatures to get it on the ballot, so obviously, people want this -- this tool, this device for us to use. if that wasn't the case, then we wouldn't have been able to put it on the ballot. >> thank you. your statement. >> this is a deeply cynical argument. the p.o.a. has put $180,000 on this campaign already. they spent $140,000 on a paid campaign to gather signatures to mislead voters. they told them this was about whether or not they have tazers, when in fact the police commission already approved it. this is why the league of women voters and sffovtv did this. we strongly encourage you to read the voter guide. there's more information on our website, you will vote no like most of
9:56 am
the people who have looked at it have already decided. >> thank you for your time. we hope that this discussion has been informative. for more information on this and other measures in the ballot initiative, please visit, remember early voting is available on may 7th from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and if you don't vote early, be sure to vote on june 5th. thank you. - >> shop & dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges resident to do their showing up and dining within the 49 square miles of san francisco by supporting local services within the neighborhood we help san francisco remain unique
9:57 am
successful and vibrant so where will you shop & dine in the 49 san francisco owes must of the charm to the unique characterization of each corridor has a distinction permanent our neighbors are the economic engine of the city. >> if we could a afford the lot by these we'll not to have the kind of store in the future the kids will eat from some restaurants chinatown has phobia one of the best the most unique neighborhood shopping areas of san francisco. >> chinatown is one of the oldest chinatown in the state we need to be able allergies the
9:58 am
people and that's the reason chinatown is showing more of the people will the traditional thepg. >> north beach is i know one of the last little italian community. >> one of the last neighborhood that hadn't changed a whole lot and san francisco community so strong and the sense of partnership with businesses as well and i just love north beach community old school italian comfort and love that is what italians are all about we need people to come here and shop here so we can keep this going not only us but, of course, everything else in the community i think local businesses the small ones and coffee shops are
9:59 am
unique in their own way that is the characteristic of the neighborhood i peace officer prefer it is local character you have to support them. >> really notice the port this community we really need to kind of really shop locally and support the communityly live in it is more economic for people to survive here. >> i came down to treasure island to look for a we've got a long ways to go. ring i just got married and didn't want something on line i've met artists and local business owners they need money to go out and shop this is important to short them i think you get better things.
10:00 am
>> definitely supporting the local community always good is it interesting to find things i never knew existed or see that that way. >> i think that is really great that san francisco seize the vails of small business and creates the shop & dine in the 49 to support businesses make people all the residents and visitors realize had cool things are made and produced in san >> president breed: good afternoon, everyone and welcome to the board of supervisors meeting for tuesday may 1st, 2018. madam clerk, please call the roll. >> cleth