If i can take that without objection madame clark, do you have any announcements for us today . Make sure to silence all cell phones. [inaudible] can you please call item number one. Item one, 191033. Ordinance amending the administrative code to create an office of emerging technology within the department of public works; amending the public works code to require a permit to obstruct the public rightofway within public works jurisdiction; amending the administrative code to codify the public works Directors Authority to take official actions, as defined herein, including adopting regulations for the pilot operation of emerging Technology Devices; amending the public works code and police code to provide for administrative, civil, and criminal penalties for unlawful obstruction of the public rightofway, including operation of emerging Technology Devices without a required permit; and affirming the planning departments determination under the California Environmental quality act. We have with us today president yee. I am actually excited to have this legislation to be heard in committee today. This is the culmination of nearly two years of work expanding over several pieces of legislation. The technology and trends are changing the way we work, communicate and live today. I will argue that we are in and industrial revolution. One which were the speed, scope and pervasiveness of technological advances are unprecedented. Industrial revolutions of the past came with many benefits. Including increased job opportunities. Increased production levels. Inspired innovation allowing for faster communication and reducing the influence. However, before regulations of these benefits that took place, there were a lot of unintended consequences that had profound negative impacts on the public including the use of child labor, unsafe working conditions, unregulated hours with no minimum pay and the list goes on. This was the past. This is because the pace and impact of technological changes is ever increasing while the speed of government is considering adopting regulatory legislation did not keep pace at the time. Today there are softwares and businesses and tech work philosophies that adopt to these environments. They allow the reassessment of plans because that is what is required in order to be successful. Our city can no longer function with blinders meant to protect justifications rather than cross functionality. Things like share rides such as uber and lyft are super examples of companies that remain unregulated and became powerful enough to refuse to cooperate with the city and now only do so when they are forced to. This is what has happened in San Francisco. Today with the office of emerging technology the unintended negative consequences stop. Early in 2018 when they tried to ban delivery robots it was seen as anti tech or solving for something that was not a problem. A few weeks later after my attempt to regulate the robots, there were hundreds of scooters out there that were dumped on our sidewalks. And suddenly everyone understood what i was talking about. This city and our residents demanded action in order to control what was taking place on our streets. City and states are fighting and working to pass legislation requiring companies to identify their workforce as employees in order to be compensated. Data breaches are common with role companies pirating personal information for financial gains. In hong kong we were seeing Technology Surveillance used against protesters and in China Technology based social Credit Systems are being rolled out by be roared or punishing people according to their scores. Surveillance is being used to track individuals and some places protests in ways that were unimaginable just a few years ago. To address this by being reactive and legislating after the technology our devices already launched is not Good Governance nor sustainable. To address this, we need to be as innovative in our policies as emerging tech is in adapting and launching products. San francisco will be the first in the nation, i believe may be the first in the world that will create a Regulatory Framework i will establish an office of emerging technology. It will allow the city, and the public to effectively evaluate emerging technologies before it operates in our Public Infrastructure or our public space. I support innovation and technology. But, our residents are not guinea pigs and our Public Infrastructure are not a freeforall for unregulated spaces. San francisco welcomes and encourages emerging technologies and the office will ensure that the technologies provide common good measure and identifiable ways and that they are safe and appropriate. Emerging technologies are new and potentially useful. They work better or have unique applications when they do not arrive without a need for accommodation. Many emerging technologies impact the public. They utilize our Public Infrastructure or write a wave. Our airspace or our data. I want to be clear that the objective is not to control these technologies but to balance the Public Service of innovation with the public good and safety. This is why i am proud we had a robust, thorough and collaborative process through my emergency technology. City administrative kelly will present more details. It is worth noting over 200 people and organizations participated including small startups, well established tech firms, advocates, labor and merchant and neighborhood associations. Multiple departments and academics. The recommendations from the report then formed this legislation for the office of emerging technology was born from that effort. The office of emerging technology is uncharted territory that we now have a realistic framework and i am confident in the process that has brought us here. As a reminder of most examples of emerging technologies today our mobility focus. The office will be inclusive beyond mobility tech to anywhere there is a nexus between an unregulated technology and Public Infrastructure and public space. Whether this is hover boards on the water facing public collection. Biometrics on the public rightofway. Anywhere there would be an impact to resources. The office of emerging technology is charged to analyze potential impact. For the first time emerging tech will have a clear streamlined process for approval. It is imperative that departments move away from working in silos and collaborate with the office of emerging technology. The office of emerging technology will be the front door in the Central Point of contact because it is our responsibility as a city to evaluate benefits costs and risks to our residents safety. Their privacy impacts seniors, children and label. Before a new technology is allowed and be launched in public. The Office Creates a streamlined process supporting innovation by facilitating approvals from all departments that are impacted by emerging technology. Not currently regulated. The office will also be charged with forecasting variation so that our city can be proactive with what may be coming down the pipeline. I will just stop at that. I want to say sometimes when we look at regulations. One of the things i found in the past is that we create regulations then lo and behold, whos going to enforce these regulations. It could be our Police Department it could be our department of public works and yet we are paying a city for enforcing these regulations and something seems to be wrong when new technology is costing the city more. I think that needs to be part of the analysis to analyze what the cost of the permits should be. For the committee, you know, i would like to have city administrator, kelly, share more details and background. I want to recognize the director of the committee of Informational Technology and also who oversaw the emerging Technology Workgroup is here as well. They are here to answer any questions if you have them. Good morning. Naomi kelly, city administrator. Thank you for having me today to talk about the office of emerging technology. As you heard, this process got kick started in earnest on aprif supervisors passed a resolution asking the City Administrators Office to convene a working group to focus on San Franciscos response and emerging technologies. The resolution enacted 12 principles for regulation emerging technologies. You can see these principles on the slide here. The creation of the open working group was instrumental in order to engage the many players in the space. As you heard president yi talk about the tech companies. And government agencies. The working group also informs recommendations on our regulatory and permitting processes. It provides a foundation of framework on how it could also become, how are permitting and regulations process could be nimble and also protecting our infrastructure in residence. Also the working group resulted in final recommendations to myself, the board of supervisors and the mayor. The working group had a five official meetings. Let me tell you that doesnt really capture how much work went into this process. There were 478 rsvps to these different meetings. 200 active participants and when i say not just official meetings, there are many subcommittee meetings. With many Different Community groups and from labor industry, the disability industry. The tech, pedestrian advocacy groups. Representatives from the private sector, local government and nonprofits. They focused on the following areas. Collaborate and partnership, to have agile permitting unaccountability. To have Community Engagement and city priorities. To have equitable benefits. You accessibility and safety to have, and i dont have the others, thank you. Accessibility and safety, and forecasting. What is going to happen in the future so we are not caught left footed. At the end of the process the working Group Published a final report from the emerging Technology Open working group. With five final recommendations to ultimately help the process of drafting the office of emerging technology ordinance. The first thing that everyone recommended was created front door to provide a Central Point of contact. The second thing was to improve communications with the community by informing Technology Companies of best practices to engage local residents and businesses. Third was to do safety tests and evaluations of new technologies with clear evaluation criteria. Fourth was the support of responsive policy development in areas such as equity, sociability, privacy and data ethics. And finally, foster smart forecasting through expert collaboration. At the end we decided to have the front door, to be the office of emerging technology, be in the department of public works. It was for good reasons. I would say three very important reasons, because we can hit the ground running. The department of public works and their project Management Department already has an existing permitting system. We are not creating the ball from scratch. They already collaborate with many of the different city agencies and the different permitting agencies. They have regular collaborations. To his example of the robot, that robot wasnt just in the streets but it was on the sidewalks. It was delivering medicine, or food. You need a permit from public health. You need a permit from public works. And you need to make sure that you are not blocking access to those that are disabled or those who walk slower. They already have the existing collaboration with the multiple city departments and also public works has existing relationships with community advocates, and community nonprofits. They are not creating these lists from scratch. Before i invite deborah up to talk about public works and how they plan to roll out the office i just want to say thank you to matthias from hoyt to take the bull by the horns and facilitating the working group, deborah from public works use and mapping. Good morning. I want to say thank you to city administrators,. What do we mean by emerging technologies . How do we define it . Emerging Technology Means one or more physical objects that are mobile or stationary that constitute or incorporate new electronics, mobile technologies, applications of technology which are proposed to use a pond, above or below City Property within the public rightofway. This includes beta tests, or pre products, software, failing to have written analysis meant to be met by any regulatory body of the united states, the state of california or the city. [reading notes] generally this is something that is in the testing phase. It is not consumable at market and does not have a permitting structure or process in existence. A question we spent a lot of time discussing and working through his what fits into the emerging technology . This discussion led us to anything that does not have a defining permanent structure. This allows for a testing environment and with consideration for equity accessibility, privacy, sustainable use of data among all of the other city requirements that need to be considered throughout a process like this. What does the process look like . This graphic is a representative of the permitting and engagement process. It all begins with an idea. An idea for a new or repurposed meant of a technology with ability to impact the public rightofway. The ideas brought to the front door so potential applicants can engage with the city early. During the application process the office would facilitate and support the applicant answering questions, providing guidance and setting expectations. During the application review and analysis timeframe the office would facilitate engagement with all impacted city departments which may vary depending on the technology. Would coordinate the interagency discussions regarding a, referral organizations to ensure the applicant was working to procure any associated or necessary permits and ensure all of the agencies were integrated. The office would also ensure Public Engagement and lead those efforts. If there is support for a Technology Proposal than the office would issue a notice to proceed for a limited duration pilot. At the end of each pilot the o. E. T. Would issue a report evaluating the technology during the pilot. And give recommendations. [reading notes] the office will provide an annual report to the board of supervisors. That concludes our presentation. I am available if theres any questions. Could we have the bla report, please . Good morning. This legislation actually approves the establishment of the office of emerging technology in the Public Works Department the permitting requirement it sets the permit amount, and the applicable penalty for fines if the permit is not followed. And then it gives the director of public works the right to set the rules for the pilot operation of emerging technologies. The board of supervisors appropriated 250,000 for this office. Public works would use it to offset the cost of existing staff positions in the department. We would consider approval to be a positive recommendation from the board of supervisors. Lets open this up for public comment. Any members of the public like to comment on item number one . Good morning supervisors. I am with a San Francisco. I am very happy to say that walk San Francisco was a participant in the working group that supervisor he put together. Not only was our participation important for our organization as a pedestrian advocacy organization, but also because we lead the Vision Zero Coalition and particularly the senior and Disability Working Group of the Vision Zero Coalition. This look at how our emerging Technology Impacts our sidewalks is very important to us. I believe one of the most important outcomes of the office of the emerging technology is alerting the public in groups like walk San Francisco about an application process. Because we do want to be able to work with these companies its really good for us to have a notice that these applications have been submitted. Its really important. I think what we really did learn is a lesson with the sidewalk robots. I just want to voice my support and our support as an organization that we would love to see this go through and hope this group passes this office of emerging technology. Thank you. Thank you very much. Good morning. Cami blackstone from at t. I do appreciate all the work that has gone into this legislation. I want to reiterate that it is my understanding that this ordinance refers to new technologies that dont already have a Regulatory Framework and permitting process in place either at the local, state or federal level. Just for the record i want to confirm that although telecom 5g network to have a robust review process so would probably not be subject to this additional review. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good morning. Rudy gonzalez with the San Francisco labor council. It has been great to see the process unfold. I really appreciate and our unions appreciate the equity lends that board president yee brings to, and all of you under your leadership the equity lends about our children, our disabled, the elders in our community and particularly around the workforce. This conversation has historically come up in our movement. I think it is really important that we approach these conversations from the perspective of frontline workers and from the perspective of the city staff that are charged with dealing with a very real social impacts that play out. Not only in the Administration Enforcement and permitting, but in the real effects they see on our city streets every day. We appreciate the thoughtfulness and collaboration towards taking the city administrator and we look forward to seeing this passed unanimously at the board of supervisors. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good morning. I want to think the city administrator and president yee for the leadership on this. As a company, i am with post mate, a company that was involved with very early on. It has been awesome to see how we can create a Regulatory Framework, i think were one of the only companies that has applied for and complied within that framework. But also to see now the development of this office which we think will go a really long way in getting the last speakers remarks. When we champion and want to celebrate this office, we have a couple of thoughts based off of our today. One, when it comes to the selection to the director of this office i think this is an Incredible Opportunity of someone that has only worked in the Public Sector prior to coming to the private sector. I think having somebody that brings a perspective from both fronts would be really important. This is an era in which government needs to build empathy for technology. The second concept on the front door approach that kelly spoke to i think it is really important. We were new to the conversation was city hall. In some that can help connect a company to the desperate stakeholders in the conversations that they would have. We know it would go incredibly long way to make sure they are good stewards of the community. To see that actually in there. One area of consideration is on the data sharing site. I think we are very keen and interested in sharing data with the city. Right now we are going dpw on the robotic side. One flag i would have is sometimes data sharing can involve proprietary information and trade secrets. One consideration would be to make sure the way we are sharing data is aggregated and anonymized that does a compromise some of those various if it pacific trade outs for the Company Along the way. Thank you again for the leadership. Any other speaker . Seeing them. Public comment is now closed. Any comments or questions . I think that was pretty thorough. I would like to make a motion to move this to with a positive recommendation. We can take that without objections. Thank you very much. Adam clarke can you call item number two. Item two, 191013. Ordinance amending the transportation code to establish a violation for operating a shared Mobility Device Service without a permit or other authorization from the municipal transportation agency, and to repeal certain parking restrictions related to stationless bicycle share programs and powered scooter share programs; and affirming the planning departments determination under the California Environmental quality act. Good morning. I am the director of taxis and Accessible Services for the sfmta. We are excited to be here collaboration and partnership with the office of emerging this is a continuation of this conversation and we are aligned with the work that has been ongoing. We are going to be discussing mobility will mobility permanent harmonization. What does that mean . Its a plan we have been working on for quite some time to require all new Mobility Service operators that are under mta jurisdiction to have authorization before starting operations and to streamline the authorization process. We have many goals with this effort. We want to shift from a reactive to a proactive regulatory approach. We want to allow for innovation but through a clear path for the new Mobility Services. Again very similar to the office of emerging technology. We want to standardize our processes and tools to administer and monitor, and enforce and we want to coordinate data reporting, and understanding the transportation network. Again very clearly partnering with the office of emerging technology with this very important city family approach. Why do we regulate . If you look at the pictures. I think the pictures say it all. You can see sea on the upper right that there is scooters all over the sidewalk cluttering the accessible path of travel. That is before regulation. After regulation we see a scooter locked to, you know, this facility, bike rack. Thank you. We see that it is out of the way. It, there is an accessible path of travel because of this. That is our core regulatory values go to Consumer Protection , public safety. It is part of our mta chart mandate. We align our regulations with the citys policy framework and theyre very well developed Guiding Principles in the office of technology. The reports, mta and the Transportation Authority also have approved Guiding Principles which include many of the same elements. Its all very important for us. We have a number of existing regulated Mobility Programs already under mtas umbrella. We have bike share, powered scooter share program, private transit vehicle programs. We have the Regulatory Frameworks set up for that. There is no provider currently in that space that the chariot wasnt permitted under the permit program. We have commuter shuttles there on street vehicle share and shared electric mopeds. Today what is before you is what we are calling phase one of our permit harmonization. Part of that is to bring a request to the board of supervisors to amend the vision one of the transportation code to do two things. Basically to expand the parking restrictions that previously have been applicable to bike share and scooter share. To broaden that to category called and then to create a violation for operating a shared Mobility Device Service with permit or authorization. This will allow mta to have the right to regulatory tools in place to regulate and enforce when a new mobility type of Service Comes and decides they want to operate on our streets. Not going to ask my colleague to come up and talk about our division ii amendments. Thank you. Good morning. I am with sfmta office of innovation. I want to talk about some complementary actions that the mta board took recently earlier this month to Amend Division ii of the transportation code. The first thing that they did was to define shared Mobility Device Service. That definition and part is mobility devices, device or ten or more people separately or together. The important component here is that we are looking at shared services not to regulate personally owned devices. This definition would incorporate the existing bike share and scooter share programs. The second major component was to establish concept authorizations so this is a way to prevent unregulated launches of services, create a clear path for companies that would like to test or deploying the city but on a limited basis. Limited by the number of devices , the time that they are testing, or the Geographic Area that they would be operating. The most important parts of this is for us to collect information to understand if and how the city shall regulate a new Mobility Service. This program would be authorized by the director of transportation as i mentioned, our board approved these changes earlier this month. A little bit more background on the concept authorization. The transportation code provides basic requirements such as requiring an application, payment of fees and the ability to impose fines or terminate the authorization if needed. To complement these there would be a policy directive that would be issued by the director of transportation to describe the application requirements. The process for reviewing those applications and the requirement of Public Engagement plans. The criteria we would use to establish the terms or concept uppers station terms. Authorization terms. We want to be as clear as possible and commuting what our expectations are so there is transparency throughout the process. We have been doing outreach with various groups. Key stakeholders. We presented and discussed the proposal with the member of committees, such as the system advisory committees for the Transportation Authority and the sf mta. The city advisory body, that oversees accessibility, and bicycle groups. Reaching out to other city departments and other governmental agencies here in San Francisco including the Golden Gate Bridge at district. National park service is and such. We have a Community Forum where as of the public, industry and Community Groups had an opportunity to understand what we were trying to accomplish with this process and provide input. Groups like the Bay Area Council , sf chambers, Leadership Groups that participated along with industry including jump and spin. Through this process we have heard a few key concerns. One is that Pedestrian Safety is really important. That there needs to be user accountability. Ongoing Community Engagement and that the citys infrastructure needs are thought about when approving these services. Many of these things would be incorporated in that policy directive that i described. The engagement plan that would be required and then working with 311 and other channels to ensure that issues like sidewalk writing of scooters and things like that are properly addressed. I will turn it back over to kate to talk about where we go next. We have a timeline before you. You can see at the top of this timeline the board of supervisors approval process. We move onto the next step if approved. This we are tracking together because we want to think of the start dates, the operative dates for both pieces of legislation, the division i transportation code changes and the division ii transportation code changes. I mentioned that this is a phased process. There are many existing elements of our Mobility Programs that we want to look at as part of a whole. What has happened over the past few years as you very well know new services, new Mobility Services have cropped up on city streets. Mta has been in a reactionary position. Taking a look at our permit programs and look for areas of a better alignment and make sure that they are coordinated. To bring together the collaborative city approach to thinking through movement of goods and potential regulations. That is a lot of information. I want to bring it back to what we are asking of you today. We have again, two main recommendations that have been approved by the mta board recommending the board of supervisors to expand the parking restrictions previously applicable to bike scare bike share and scooter share. And to establish the violation for operating the shared Mobility Device Service without a permit or authorization from the mta. Thank you. We are happy to take questions. Supervisor he stefani . Thank you. Can you take me through enforcement when there is a violation . I can use scooters for example. We currently have, parking citation for a scooter program. We have a both for services that have a permit and services that dont have a permit. For each parking infraction of a scooter that occurs, there is either 100 citation or a 5 citation with the overall violation for operating without a permit if that were to occur, that is a 5,000 violation. Who is writing the citation . The sfmta staff. We have an Enforcement Team that is on in the field. I had a few stats that i thought would be of interest. In the last fiscal year there were 69 citations issued, total amount 161,000. So far, to date, since july 1 of this fiscal year there have been 849 citations issued. Those are for improperly parked scooters. It would be similar with the parking violation, and there is a violation for operating without a permit. That would be unimportant as well here. Is it complaint driven or is it monitored . We do both. We respond to complaints. We have teams, our team is out in the field, they are enforcing a range of enforcement activities and scooters are part of what they are looking at and would be the same for additional regulated Mobility Services, shared Mobility Services. Thank you very much. Lets open this up for public comment. Oh, president yee . Thank you for being here. I know this would have been in in land use, i think the idea was connected to item one. I forgot who i spoke to recently about the scooters in terms of how it is regulated. My discussion led into asking questions about what happens when these scooters are actually being used on the sidewalks. The answer is they could be ticketed. The answer was the Police Department. This is what i was saying earlier. To me this is a waste of our resources in terms of policing. We have to pay for this . My question would be how can we do better in getting the companies to be responsible for enforcing stuff like that . Our gps system, or whatever system they have two track isnt Accurate Enough where they can tell whether they are on the sidewalk or in the street. They have new technology where i understand, they can tell where theyre at according to the roughness of the pavement. I would like to see if somehow we could put that responsibility on the people that are making money off of us to actually regulate. You and on the sidewalk, i know you in on the sidewalk, were not going to allow you company anymore. It saves the city money to use our company anymore. It saves the city money. Those are really good points. Rider accountability in the Company Accountability is really important to us. Having the right Regulatory Framework in place allows us the tools to do that. With scooters, you dew point out that issuing a citation for being on a scooter on a sidewalk is a moving violation that would be conducted by the San Francisco Police Department. Our team does not have the authority to stop someone and issue a moving citation. We are tracking those complaints. We do want to hear about those complaints and we do have other mechanisms to follow up with the company. We meet with the companies regularly and we go over what is working on not working. We have the ability to issue administrative penalties. That would be if the companies are not living up to their terms and conditions. If they are not in compliance with their permit, then we can issue a citation for that. If it continues on and there is no improvement we can potentially move to revoke the permit. We do have some tools, but you know certainly we are constrained with the ability to actually issue though citations for operating on the sidewalk. We have a multipage list of permit terms and conditions and accountability as part of that. I think you are right, the message needs to go to the companies. He needs to people on the scooters and we need to take this very seriously. I think, it seems like there are other companies and there is existing companies that we have been given permits to that want to expand. I would take it a step further, i would suggest to take it a step further i would say to company in order to get a permit you need to prove to us that you can detect where the scooters are being used. I believe the technologies they are if they want to do this. If were not going to ask them for that then its always chasing after them and then theyre going to say well we really cant do it because we didnt install the right technology. This is one of these things can we be a little more forward thinking. Thank you. Supervisor safai . Im happy to be here today. Im sitting in for someone else and im glad that i am here for this presentation. I agree with president yee. I think rather than being reactive and talking about administrative penalties after the fact. I think it is important to talk about upfront as we are establishing this permitting process i understand todays conversation is about violations for operating without permits but its a larger conversation i dont think weve had enough of a robust conversation in the land use and Transportation Committee to say with the elephant in the room is and it is about people leaving things on the sidewalk. I think thats very important. I also think it is about how these companies are operating and allowing their customers to operate their devices. That is the biggest complaints we get from residents all the time is people almost getting hit or getting hit by people on the sidewalk without any impunity. To believe as president he said that a Police Officer is going to be the one to regulate that. I think we have to have a different way. Particularly when you have companies that have technology in a sense that they can track the exact location. They can track the exact usage. They can track the exact user. They know exactly what is happening all you might not have the authority of a moving violation but you have the authority, as we are talking about today remove parking restrictions and making it about mobility. You have a way of tracking devices in understanding who they are. As we use 311, it would be very proactive to say we got a picture of this person, this time in this location. You may not be able to write a citation but the companies i work more aggressively. I actually think there needs to be further conversation rather than just talking about establishing violations for permits and operating without permits. There needs to be a more robust conversation of this overall. We have not had that at the land use and Transportation Committee. I would say we should have that conversation to move this conversation forward and be more aggressive about this for you rather than playing a reactive role. We are very happy to have that conversation. We are happy to have this move forward if you so choose today. We are anxious to get these tools in place and on a parallel path have that conversation as well. We can put together what we require in terms of permit terms and conditions. The information we get from the companies, what we are hearing from 311 complaints, how issue citations. Let me ask you this. How many permitted operators do you have in this field right now we have 4. Have you put restrictions in place about operating in violation of the terms i understand you have administrative penalties. We do. I think it is in the range of 50 permit terms, its multipage. Im happy to bring that back, we are happy to again come back to the Land Use Committee meeting if that makes sense. We certainly have a robust restrictions. Do you have the statistics on the amount of violations that have been issued and what the companies are doing to remedy those and how they are regulating their users . I think i mentioned earlier, but for fiscal year 19 there were 69 type citations issued. Since july 1 of this year. Citations for . And proper parking of a scooter. Improper parking of a scooter. How many violations for improper usage . For being on the sidewalk . We do not have the ability to issue a citation for. That is my point. That is what were are talking about. My point is, thats the number one complaint on top of people leaving things in we have to have a way. Is that attached to the permit terms and conditions . There are user accountability requirements in the permit terms and conditions. We also have a complaint database requirement. We meet with them regularly to go over where they are at. These would be the permit terms and conditions. I understand you say you dont have the ability to write a moving violation. But you say you have 30 or 40 conditions and if someone is we have not issued any of those citations. Okay. That is my point. Since july 1 of this year, 849 citations. For people leaving them in the public rightofway . That is correct. Those are for permitted and unpermitted scooter riders. Its any members of the public like to comment on item two. Public comment i would like to make a motion to move this, there is no bla report on this, to move this with a positive recommendation to the full board. Thank you very much. Madame clerk, can you please call item number three. Item three, 191098. Resolution approving modification no. 11 to airport contract no. 10511. 41, Program Management support services for the Airport Security infrastructure program, with faith group, llc, to increase the contract amount to 3,279,901 for a new not to exceed amount of 17,381,359 with no changes to the term, for services through december 31, 2021, pursuant to charter, section 9. 118 b , to commence following board approval. We have Kathy Weidner here from the San Francisco international airport. Kathy weidner with the San Francisco international airport. The item before you seeks your approval for a modification to an existing contract with the faith group for project Management Support Services for the Airport Security infrastructure program. The proposed amendment would increase the contract not to exceed amount by 3. 2 million, to improve existing systems by upgrading into a singular access. Adding camera systems throughout the terminals and airfield and providing Network Infrastructure system for future and limitations. The project Management Contract of the faith group is the result of a competitive request for proposals process in 2015. It has the scope of work for design and construction management, project controls, contract administration, Cost Estimating Services and field inspections through the end of the project in december of 2021. The Budget Analyst Office has reviewed the modification, recommends approval and i would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Colleagues, any questions . Can we have the bla report . Yes, this contract approved resolution approved the 11th modification to the contract with the faith group to related services to the Airport Security infrastructure program. The Airport Commission approved a twoyear extension to this contract through december of 2021. That corresponds to a change in the program in which they are adding additional cameras and different design build contractors to complete the program over the next two years. The increase in the contract amount is 3. 3 million from 14. 1 million up to 17. 4 million. Page 3 item ten of this report. We consider this to be a reasonable expenditure. We recommend approval. Thank you very much. Lets open this up for public comment. Any members of the public like to comment on item number three. Public comment is now closed. I have one question for you. This is about cameras and actually installing more cameras is this to meet the faa standards, or is this actually exceeding the faa standards . I dont believe this is a an faa standard. Component that would have to do with the faa. This is throughout the entire airport. It is consolidating our Security Camera infrastructure system into one point of access. There may be an faa component on the perimeter, but this is an overall Airport Security program update. Thank you very much. Any comments or questions for my colleagues . I would like to move this with a positive recommendation to the full board. Thank you very much. Madame clerk item number four. Item four, 191111. Resolution approving an exclusive negotiating agreement ena with mercy housing california, a california nonprofit Public Benefit corporation, for a proposed ground lease of city Real Property at 155 grove street, 165 grove street, and 240 van ness avenue assessors parcel block no. 0811, lot nos. 016, 019 and 021 , with an annual lease payment of 15,000, under the jurisdiction of the real estate division, subject to several conditions; affirming the planning departments determination under the ceqa; adopting the planning departments findings that the transaction contemplated by the ena is consistent with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101. 1, and that the transaction contemplated by the ena is not defined as a project under ceqa guidelines, sections 15378 and 15060 c 2, subject to citys discretionary approval after the completion of environmental review; and authorizing the director of property to execute documents, make certain modifications and take certain actions in furtherance of the ena and this resolution, as defined herein. Thank you. Before you is a property across the street on grove. The city owns a tshaped property consisting of 240 vanness, 155 and 165 grove street. About 9,000 square feet. The two buildings that are improved on the site have been deemed not historical, are registered in the vacant abandoned yielding program and are generally unsafe from seismic performance standpoint and are not occupied. The garden was located at 1625 grove street i was a collaboration between the city and two nonprofits. Currently it is unused today. All of the properties were declared surplus in 2015. In 2016, the analyzation of suitability for development as 100 Affordable Housing, pursuant to the Surplus Property regulations i found them to be infeasible for then in 2017, the city provided notice to local and state organizations as an opportunity for Affordable Housing development with no response. Under the direction of then mayor ed lee, the city was invited to participate in a global Net Zero Energy develop a program hosted by the sea 40 climate city Leadership Group known as reinventing cities. The city included the subject properties and to the competition. The city received three strong proposals for the use of this property in may have 2018. And a team of ten experts including some in the city and some outside of the city, including architects and housing experts rated the proposals in the spring of this year. Following a subsequent vetting of the two remaining highest ranking proposals, before you is the final recommendation for reward of an exclusive negotiating agreement. The most responsive bidder is a team led by the kelseys, supported by mercy housing on the architectural firm. Their proposal is to develop 102 units of affordable inclusively designed rental housing on the site in a building of six stories over basement that would be no heavy vicki akil are parking bikes. Twentyone of those units will be set aside for the disabled which would be a substantial increase of new construction, affordable units tailored specifically to the disabled community. Fiftyone of the units would be priced for occupants at no more than 100 of
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.