Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board adopts appeal process allowing supervisors to review some SFMTA decisions
Summary
The Board of Supervisors advanced an ordinance on first reading creating a narrow appeal pathway for certain San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) decisions after a year-long staff-and-commission negotiation. The measure passed the first-reading vote 10-1 on May 15, 2018.
The Board of Supervisors on May 15 approved on first reading an ordinance that creates a limited procedure for the board to review certain SFMTA commission decisions.
Supporters said the change is a narrowly tailored oversight tool that restores some review authority the board ceded under Proposition A (2007). Supervisor Safaei, a primary sponsor, told colleagues the board has been frustrated by interactions with the SFMTA and needs a way to “take back some authority and some oversight over some of the issues and decisions” made by the agency.
Supervisor Raza Peskin said the new appeal option has already improved communication between the board and the agency. “The mere presence of this appeal procedure has already, I think, started to effectuate the kind of communication that many of us felt were lacking,” Peskin said.
The ordinance was introduced after more than a year of work between supervisors and SFMTA staff. It requires five members of the Board of Supervisors to sign onto an appeal before the board will consider a decision made by the SFMTA commission. The measure includes a small amendment clarifying that certain development applications already reviewed under the planning code for on-street parking and loading entitlements would not be re-litigated through the new procedure.
Deputy City Attorney John Givner told the board the draft also fixes clerical timing issues with the clerk’s review of appeals.
On the roll call the ordinance passed first reading as amended, 10-1, with Supervisor Cohen the sole no vote. The board did not schedule immediate weekly reviews; sponsors said they expect to use the tool rarely and strategically.
The ordinance returns for a second reading under the board’s rules before becoming final.
