Otherwise stated. Ok. Thank you. Item number one. An amendment to implement charter section 16. 129 providing that the city should maintain street trees and be liable for injuries and Property Damage resulting from the failure to maintain trees and making appropriate findings. Thank you. I will turn it over to supervisor sheehy. Thank you. Good morning, colleagues. Today were here to consider an ordinance amending the public works doed implement charter 16. 129. In november of 2016, the voterses paed proposition e which provides that the city shall maintain street trees and thus is liable for injuries and Property Damage resulting from the failure to maintain street trees. Prop e passed with almost 80 of the voters support and set aside 19 million a year to run this program, which went into effect july 1, 2017. Thus public work code needs to be updated to reflect the city intention, which is that the city will be responsible for maintaining our street trees. I do want to give a shoutout to my predecessor, now Senate Senator scott weiner for his leadership. There is a threeyear holding time before thety is eligible to take a tree. New trees arened mraeed from a variety of sources, including individual Property Owners and developers. After three years, the city will look to see if the tree is established, meaning that it has met specific criteria to be accepted by the city. Simply, the street tree s. F. Makes it possible that the city does not take on maintenance for trees before designated time period and, thus, reduces the citys liability. It is important that we continue to work to sustain a longterm vision and strategy for our street trees. This will help us achieve beautiful streets and help the environments. Ill now turn it over to karla short which is part of the department of public works. Thank you, karla. Thank you. So, were here today to consider some proposed code changes as required by the ordinance to the public works code. Ill justs give very brief background to how we got here. As you all know, budget. Budget cuts to the tree program over the last decade resulted in inadequate public works through the public forest. As a result, they transferred them to property own ores. A hugely unpopular but necessary initiative. It was lousy compared to other cities. The report provided recommendations for improvinging the situation. One of the Key Takeaways was to adopt sustainable funding stream to provide public works with the resources needed to properly care for the citys 125,000 street trees. We looked at best practices in other jurisdiction and potential surrounding scenario and came up with a proposal that premiered on the 2016 ballot as proposition e. As the supervisor noted, the proposition was passed overwhelmingly by San Francisco voters. Street tree s. F. Guarantees public works 19 million a year in general fund money for street tree care without raising taxes. Street tree s. F. Went sbaoe effect on july 1, 2017. Transferring maintenance responsibility of all street trees to the city. The ordinance also includes a provisions to protect the city from liability when inheriting more than 80,000 for maintenance on july 1 and essentially if it was identified as an issue prior to the july 1 takeover Property Owners do share some of the liability for that condition. It also required a Code Amendment to bring the public works code in line with the new measure. So that is where we are today. There were a few key changes to the code that ill just highlight for you today. The obvious one is that it eliminates the section that makes Property Owners responsible for maintaining the tree in the rightofway adjacent to their property. And equally as important, it eliminates the provision to allow the department to relinquish responsibility. For example, if a developer is required to plant a number of trees as a mitigation for their building project, the city will only accept those trees for maintenance after theyve gotten established properly and we have inspected and determined that well take them on for maintenance. It also adopts a process to it a how Property Owners to opt out and hire a private contractor to perform street tree maintenance. We have many Property Owners who have taken great care of their trees over the years and they would like the option to continue to do so. So, the code change allows that. Another important provision from my perspective is it requires Property Owners who damage trees to take steps to repair the damage. And to remain liable for the trees until the city determines that they are healthy and structurally sound. If someone tops a tree and that results in damage to the tree, which is going to have a poor structure and be prone to limb failures, the city does not have to inherit that problem. And we can require them to structurally prune the tree and restore it to a structurally sound condition before we take maintenance responsibility back. And it also adopts rules and standards for contractors performing work on city trees. Essentially prop e does not cover planting costs of new trees so well have to seek other funding opportunities to cover the cost of planting and establishing trees. But we hope to grow the urban forest by 50,000 new street trees and the future vision of street trees in San Francisco will look something more like this. Thank you for your time. Colleagues, any questions . If not, we can turn to Public Comment unless supervisor sheehy had more. I think dan flanagan was going to be here. But i dont see him. Anyone wish a comment on item number one . Im gail bau, and weve been working with karla and d. P. W. On restoring the octavia boulevard where the street trees have been neglected. Ive also seen something similar on divisidero and potentially on cesar chavez where there are center medians that have trees and im not sure im really asking the question of karla, if those trees are covered by this new ordinance. Anybody else before anybody else wish to publicly comment on item number one . Ok. Seeing no Public Comments now closed, supervisor sheehy. Those trees are covereded, yes, karla . All right. Supervisor p esskin . Supervisor peskin . I just want to thank you to the staff for getting us up to speed on this longawaited change on policy and thank the voters and my former colleagues and supervisor weiner for gettinging this thing before the voters and finally solving a many decades problem and cant wait for it to be rolled out. Ok. Thank you very much. Any other questions . If not, colleagues can we get a motion . So moved. Move would you like the send this out as a Committee Report . That would be terrific. By motion supervisor peskin to send this item forward as a Committee Report and we can take that without objection. So, colleagues, item number two is sponsored by supervisor breed and i think were waiting on her getting here. Lets go to items three and four first. Call item number three. Item number three is an ordinance amending the transportation dozed prevent motorized scooters animo pedestrians to park in designated motorcycle spaces and making appropriate findings. Ok, mr. Thornly is here. Welcome. Ill take this spot. I dont have a presentation to make for you, if you dont mind. Ill just give you a verbal. Im andy thornly of the pr up transportation agency. We brought to the committee a little bit of legislative business. And pardon me. The sequence of things we are talking about, the motorized scooters first, i believe. Lets see. Let me verify that. So, we actually two items here. These are both mine. So, these both have to do with shared mobility. The s. F. S Municipal Transportation Agency having watched with a small pilot how small changes to parking policy would support a shared electric moped system. We have Scoot Networks runninging the system in the city. We tried a year of relaxing time limits in resident permit areas. We decided from our analysis and listening to neighbors and your constituents that we should create a permit. We now created a shared electric moped parking permit for 325 a year. A qualified moped operator can get such a permit and scoots moe mopeds are now all showinging this particular permit. Have a look at that. In the code, we discovered that the parking infraction for parking if a marked motorcycle stall was not quite exactly right. Right now in division one of the transportation code, its an infraction. You can get a citation. If you park something other than a motorcycle, in a motorcycle parking stall. Well, its been the m. T. A. s policy and practice for quite a long time that we allow mopeds, scooters, other motorized two wheelers in motorcycle stalls. So were asking for a very minor correction in the language of division i, in the infraction having to deal with parking in a motorcycle stall. Thats section 7237. And we are proposing to add a couple of words to that. So that you are now ok to park a motorized scooter or a moped or a motorcycle in a motorcycle parking space. Its taken me longer to describe this than the legislation. We respectfully request that the board of supervisors make that change to division i. Thank you. Just quick question. Would you mine just, for members of the public because we get the questions sometimes between where we are today, where weve been the last year and what were approving now . Where weve been, we have had now since june of this year, the m. T. A. Has had a permit program in place. For qualified moped sharing organization, such as Scoot Networks. Currently they are the only one recognized by the m. T. A. For an operator of shared electric mopeds, you make seek permits. The permit exempts the moped bearing that permit from a few parking regulations. You may first park in a permit area and not worry about time limits. You can also leave that moped in a metered motorcycle stall and not pay the meter at the motorcycle stall. And then thirdly, you can park that moped between vehicles and conventional parking spaces, metered spaces and not have to pay the meter. That last one we get raises eyebrows about. You say i can park my moped between two parked cars at a meter . Yes, thats been legal for quite a while. Youre able to share one of the stars or your vespa or your harley. That is all legal. As long as youre not obstructing traffic. But if you are the fellow on the vespa and pull up at that meter and it is not paid, you have to pay else when the parking control officer comes, you are all in jeopardy of getting a ticket. So, this permit forgives the moped of having to pay the meter. It basically liberalizes acts of mopeds from parking from a meter and the cleanup that were bringing to you for your help is the infraction for parking your own vespa or shared vespa in a motorcycle stall, strictly speaking, isnt legit right now. Even though for decades the m. T. A. And d. P. T. Have permitted motorcycles and mopeds and scooters from parking in stalls. This is Good Housekeeping on the infraction that if you parked a humvee at a motorcycle meter, youget a ticket. Were just opening up that infraction to say you can park a motorcycle or a moped so that we can take a permit and exempt the electric moped from that. Question for you. Have there many people, aside from scoot, who have been working with that applied for or gotten these permits . We have not had a second Party Interested in this. Sort of surprised. I expect at some point well have a second and third. This is not unlike the station of the spike share systems that the board has talked about and worked on. At this point, its just Scoot Networks who are operating. And they have 570 of these permits in effect. Got it. And we talked about this before. But my concern has been big parking spot, or a parking spot. And if residential zones and they come in and park in those parking spots. So now youre taking them away from people who have been coming home from work. And scoot has been good at alleviatinging that as much as possible and i appreciate their willingness to work together. My fear would have been, had there been a ton of them and there is no working relationship with them that that would get exacerbated. But potentially that is not the case at this point. Indeed. That is our sentiment as well that having this relationship with scoot and having a permit binds us to them. They have been good players all along and working with district two office, weve had good fortune. We find this appealing because it is an interesting and policy positive mode to get around but also to have a relationship that is built on this kind of bind or bound were bound together. It does have a little more control. Thank you. Supervisor . Its with regard to the fee per vehicle which i assume has to pass the prop 26 Cost Recovery . Correct. How did you determine the costs and how often is that fee nexus audited for accuracy . This is just only our first fiscal year. So were only a few months into this permit. But if Cost Recovery calculation includes lost meter rev gnueer, administrative cost, my time and some other folks time and a little bit of enforcement time. As you know well, its hard sometimes to gather up expenses to make a politically palatable cost. There are some folks who would say it should be much more than that. So, how much of the fee is dedicated to the admin side and your involvement timewise. Its been mostly mostly lost meter revenue and the other half is administrative time. So, i think we projected as as 1,000 permits, times 325 for a year. We will certainly be auditing and truing up when we come around the corper into next fiscal year with real data to look at the actual cost that we incurred. It sounds like you are getting off to the better start in the case of the google bus stops relative to that fee calculation. But lets look at nit a year. Supervisor tang . Thank you very much. I think our neighborhood had a little bit of a struggle when Companies Like scoot first came to the neighborhood and i say this as someone who is a who rode a scooter and i love scooters and i love that it is an electric moped that theyre using. Certainly when they were directing people to just flood certain neighborhoods with parking, even though it was like the little sliver in between driveways, thats legal, it really was creating a situation for neighbors where it was difficult for them to get in between two mopeds to get into their driveways and so forth. Im glad there are new strategies in place now. Im wondering did was there any analysis around the fact that these mopeds will be able to park in parking spots, where theres ample parking for motorcycles that are paying to use them . Great question. There is a finance supply of motorcycle parking, we the m. T. A. , places motorcycle parking not a systematic, premeditated way but in response to demand. Your constituents, for instance, will tell us. Im really having trouble. Three of my neighbors are with motorcycles. And well strike motorcycle stalls in response to that. Obviously opening up space, making it more accessible for mopeds and scoots right away were paying more attention to do we need strike more motorcycle parking and were looking for supervisor officers and constituents to let us know that its gotten tight. We know, for instance, at the cal train station at 4th and townsend, its always been contentious there so well make sure that we provide more parking at that location. But to supervisor peskins point, balancing and paying attention to how much paid parking scoot is using to provide all constituents access to that parking without throwing the balance off. So, excellent question. Were paying attention and please you and anyone watching at home, if you see a need for motorcycle parking, 311 it in and well get it on the list. Ok. Thank you. I do look forward to further analysis on this. Ok. Thank you very much. Anybody wishing to comment on item number three . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Colleagues can we take the same in house ok. Same house, same call . So moved. Ok. Ma dad clerk, item number two. Item number two is a resolution imposing for 18 po nls incoming zoning controls to limb offstreet parking for new development and remove the possibility to apply for c. U. Authorization to increase such parking in the area known as the hub or the Market Street hub and making appropriate findings. Ok. Thank you, colleagues. This item was, again, sponsored by supervisor breed whos just joined us in committee. Ill turn it over to her. Thank you. One minute while we get our microphones sorted out. Thank you for your patience. Colleagues, today im presenting legislation that will impose interim controls for the Market Street hub area, also known as the hub. The hub is the most eastern side of the market octavia plan and includes the intersection of Market Streets with valencia, haitt and goff streets. Its currently amended by the planning domestic called the hub project to better reflect the needs of one of the most dense and transitrich areas in the city. The hub project provides us an opportunity to better ensure that the areas growth supports the citys goal for housing, transportation, the public realm and the arts. Recent ri there was a, ceqa appeal of a highrise in the district. And a current iteration of the plan, developers can seek additional parking with additional use permit and through one oak was granted a c. U. For their parking. It brought to light an important part about parking and it relates to cumulative impacts along the hub. As long as our city grows, buildings get built and our neighborhoods get more dense, the more crowded our streets get and the more impacted our services become. All of these developments for all this new parking has a cumulative impact. We know it and we see it. Yet the guidelines that we use to measure impact say there isnt a significant impact. We all know that is flawed. So, we as legislators have found our own ways of making sure that were developing in a smarter, more sophisticated way. Were the most expensive city in the country and we must be more responsible about how we build. In the hub alone there are about six projects in the pipeline. Imagine if every single one of t