Now im going to turn it over to my colleague. My name is darten eto and i lead the Innovation Team at sfmta. So to complement the division one amendments that kate just mentioned, for your consideration today are changes to division two of the transportation code. The first is to define what we mean by the shared Mobility Device Service. So these are not meant to that definition is not meant to cover personally owned devices or devices that are used by an individual. Rather, theyre shared and used in the public space, either stored or operated. Our general definition is that its a mobility device or group of devices that are capable of carrying ten or more people separately or together. We were looking at something that wasnt just the number of devices but potential impact it can have based on the size or the ability to carry people. The second part is the establishment of the proof of concept authorization. So while the division one changes would create the prohibition on operating without a permit or approval by the city, the proof of concept authorization would provide the clear path for a company to work with the city. Within the transportation code, it would describe the basic requirements, the requirement for an application, a testing plan, the ability to require fees for both application and, if approved, for the Ongoing Administration of the program. Finally, it would establish fines and authorize the agency to terminate if the conditions werent being met. So the general purpose is to provide a path to permits. This is for something new to the city being used or deployed in a new way. Our goal is to open up a discussion with the Company Early on, collect informations, and inform Pilot Programs as we move forward. Were hoping we can prevent unregulated launches and have the opportunity to work with the communities to establish the right framework going forward. Were proposing that the proof of concept authorization be approved by the director of transportation and were looking for this to be of things of a limited duration or geography. So not full deployment across the city, start small, and then fill out if we see success or promise from the Service Going forwa forward. So accompanying the transportation code would be a policy directive that would be issued by the director of transportation that would talk about how we would implement the proof of concept authorization. This would provide transparency to the companies and clearly indicate that the expectations of the city are. There would be application who, what, when, how the service would operate. Our process for reviewing the operations and what criteria we would use to approve or disallow. Public engagement plans. And then the criteria for establishing the terms and potentially terminating the authorization. So then real quickly want to cover the outreach weve done so far. Weve put together a project website with Contact Information and listing different copy of the presentation very similar to this. Weve reviewed the proposal with a number of advisory bodies representing accessibility, pedestrians, bicycle groups. Also the cacs for the Transportation Authority and the sfmta. Weve contacted other city departments or other Government Agencies that operate within San Francisco. And then we held a community formum that was attended by both industry and community representatives. Some of the things that we heard were the need to ensure pedestrian safety, that theres a process to hold the users of the services accountable, that complaints can be addressed. One of the things that we heard repeatedly was that theres Ongoing Community engagement. So not just when a service starts, but throughout its operation. And finally, the need to provide infrastructure to support the services. Well be looking to incorporate these into the authorization for any particular service as would be appropriate for that service. Ill turn it back over to kate to talk about where we hope to go next. Thank you very much. We put together a schematic. Sometimes the timelines can be confusing so we wanted to lay out a division 1 and division approval process. And moving onto the next phase is contingent on approval. As i mentioned, we introduced the division 1 transportation amendment to the board of supervisors early in october. It has to sit for 30 days. It is now able to be scheduled at committee. We understand its intended to be heard before the land use and transportation committee. We dont have yet a date by which this will be scheduled. Were hoping soon. So it takes two hearings for division 1. If approved, it goes to the mayors desk and youll see by the end of january 2020 based on that approval, that division 1 transportation amendment will be in effect. And below the listing of the months, we see the process for the division 2 amendment. So now were at the mta board for consideration. If adopted, its 30 days and is ratified. Notice we sync of edition 1 and 2. So the actual operative date will be when division 1 and 2 are finally approved and ready to go. We do have next steps. This is just phase 1 thats before you today, but phase 2 were going to take a look at the existing permit programs and create a package of amendments for your approval. So that will be coming soon. We want to allow the Regulatory Framework to be such that if and when new programs come online, they can slot in easily to the existing structure. We have heard a Feedback Movement of goods. We have listed that as phase 3. We think that that would be a great topic to collaborate with the office of emerging technologies on. This is going to be a really big conversation. This will require a lot of Community Engagement and outreach because it could touch a lot of businesses. So we wanted to note that as well as a phase 3. We also have ongoing efforts similar to looking at the regulatory structure and how the code should be rationalized. Were having the same look with the data. We want to make sure the data were requiring and collecting and analyzing makes sense on whole. We want to be able to Say Something about each program as compared to the others. Thats an ongoing internal process. Were working to make sure we have the right organizational structure. So were prepared to manage and handle. We feel by harmonizing these programs well achieve staffing efficiencies. As i mentioned earlier, this is a collaborative effort. The sustainable Street Office of innovation is that front door. They work on program incubation, proof of concept authorization. Really when there are new programs, thats the front door. Taxis and Accessible Services help support as needed. Then when there are ongoing regulatory permit programs, the idea is that they move under one umbrella, again, to make sure we have efficiencies. So thats a lot of information. I want to bring it back to the here and now and what were requesting the board today. So our staff recommendations, we are requesting that the board of directors and division 2 the transportation code to establish the shared Mobility Device Service definition to delegate authority to the director of transportation to authorize a proof of concept Authorization Program if theres not an existing permit program, establish fees and administrative penalties for violations, and to recommend that the board of supervisors approve an amendment to division 1 of the transportation code to permit authorization of a shared mobility device without a permit or authorization. Were happy to take any questions you may have. Directors, any questions . Are there any other jurisdictions that are doing anything like this just out of curiosity . This is a hot topic almost everywhere we go. We were up in sacramento speaking before committees, and there were five california jurisdictions talking about how theyre handling scooters and micro mobility. So i would say this is a big topic, how each jurisdiction is establishing that front door and making sure they have a program that looks different in different places, but there is a need for the conversation. You mentioned reaching out to industry groups, but did we reach out to the various companies and do a focus group with them. The valuation information of doing a proof of concept can help them get funding and set them up in different positions. I wonder if you had those conversations. What we did is invited the permit holders to our outreach session and we met with the chamber. The chamber of commerce was interested and supportive of this effort, in the same vein of it creating claritied and a path in the front door. It was very well received and we will continue having those conversations, but the feedback we heard is this is kind of the right path. To do what we can do to get the the chamber is great, but to get the people working in the Transportation Mobility services generally and have them be part of a maybe sort of an Advisory Group or a group we can talk to about whats coming online and what kinds of things people are looking at in terms of mobility and things they want to test so that we arent surprised. I imagine in the future there will be more Services Just to go straight to sales as opposed to rentals because it might be easier in some ways. That presents itself as a problem if youre not talking to them. The other thing is getting the word out early and often and going to all the places where people are creating innovation to let them know that this our process, number one, but number two, it is a real opportunity for them to better plan how to do their proof of concept in a place like San Francisco where we could ultimately think about how to partner. I think those are great points and particularly the advisory body and the need for the twoway conversation. Also, the community is hungry to have a voice in an ongoing way. Thats a lot weve heard about in our outreach session. So im making notes. Any other questions . Any Public Comment on this . Clerk mr. Chair, nobody has a speaker card and it doesnt look like anybody is moving to stand up. Wonderful. Well, youve bitten off a lot to chew, but i know you of all people can do it. Given where we are, ill entertain a motion on the adoption of this proposal. All in favour, please say aye. Thats passed. Agenda item 13. Ms. Kirshbaum, back so soon. I thought perhaps you continued because you missed me last week. Hello, im a transcript director. I will keep this brief because i know this is the second time this item has come before you, but i did want to try to address the important questions that you raised at your last meeting. This is our zero Emissions Program is a program that i am incredibly proud of. We have really made incredible progress both through increment investments in things like hybrid vehicles before anybody was doing hybrid vehicles. [ please stand by ] this pilot will help us in a small scale understand a facility upgrade, but were also working on a larger consultant study to really help us understand what is needed for the facility piece of this investment. The Pilot Program aims to purchase nine vehicles on three routes. It also installs charging structure at the wood division, and although these companies each have their own data and tracking for performance, weve required them to use a standardized system so we know were making an apples to apples comparison. I also want to flag that while i was at the American PublicTransit Association conference last month, another large manufacturer, nova, also announced that they were introducing an electric bus, so thats something we could look to pilot in the future to complement this work. The goals of the pilot are really to inform the larger procurement and to encourage future competition. We have not been very successful in attracting competition from Bus Manufacturers. I think the most significant was when we bought the 526 hybrids, and we only had one firm that bid. A lot of that has to do with whats going on in the industry itself. In the late 90s, there were six major Bus Manufacturers. They have consolidated down to three, so the electric bus industry actually has the potential to attract new manufacturers. And in fact two of the companies that were piloting, b. Y. D. And potrero, are relati relatively new to the industry, so we have to ask ourselves questions. For those newer to the industry, we have to ask, are they scaleable, and what is the full bus . So great that we have the battery technology, but what are your brakes like, and your systems, and how do you manage warranties . And for management, tried and true, we want to see how their batteries perform when they enter the market, so well be testing the batteries ourselves on the existing fleet. Well be looking at what is the very best technology in the market and youll see in a minute that what they have to offer at the current point does vary. Well be evaluating the full bus, not just the battery components, and then, were also using this as an opportunity to put on some bells and whistles that we dont typically put on our vehicles. So not only do we have all these things on a pilot, but were also looking at new seats, new security systems, a different type of door that opens out and offers more space, so an opportunity to consider all the things that customers have been asking us for to see if they make sense as we prepare for the larger purchase. As you noted in your last meeting, there is a range in price. The price for all three vehicles ranged from 3. 5 million to 5. 2 million. This includes not only a base price, but all the other items like a warranty and all the other items folded into the procurement. Questions . Please. Yes. On the three questions that you cite in the proposal, youre asking for all three to be answered to go forward. Now b. Y. D. Is a chinese owned business . Yes. Is there a ban on chinese doing business in america . Ill defer that question. Yes. There is currently two pieces of federal legislation, one passed by the house and one by the senate that would preclude using federal funds for some procurements. The one in the house i think would procure a federal im sorry, would prevent federal funds from using all rolling stock, and the other would prevent using federal funds just on railing rolling stocks, so those two bills that have been passed are in conference and need to be reconciled, so depending how they are reconciled may prevent using funds for buses and rails. So in your opinion, should we delay using b. Y. D. Until this is resolved . We believe that theres enough potential that it is my recommendation that you proceed, but it would certainly reasonable if the board so chose to hold. Well, im unclear as to what percentage of the funding that were talking about here is federally oriented. Is it all federal money that were talking about . To clarify, the the regulations that are going through at the federal level right now would not apply retroactively, so they would not apply to the current contract in front of you, but they would potentially apply to the larger procurement that we would make in 2025. Well, it could apply to the current contract because we havent approved it yet. Again, deputy City Attorney susan cleaveland again through the chair. If we were to approve the contract today, that would be permitted. It would be a question of whether you can use federal funds for a later procurement. But why would we spend money to pilot a bus or test a bus that we may not federally precluded from buying later . Thats my question. I think because of the uncertainty that its very possible that they will not proceed forward with the bus piece of that regulation as its only in one half of the house of the government at this point. But thats what Conference Committees are for, to resolve discrepancies between the houses. Given the president s current position, i think that might prevail. I do have a question related to that. I know we have a timeline by which we need to order these buses and have them tested out and if you could walk that out so we know what to expect . Yes. Thank you for that question. So it takes about 35 weeks to prepare for and build the bus. Our current schedule would have the buses being delivered in the fall of the first bus of each manufacturer being delivered in the fall of 2020, and then all nine by january of 21. And that would allow us about 18 to 24 months of data collections. We will essentially have to develop and issue the r. F. P. For the 2025 buses in 2023 because it takes two years to execute a contract of that scale. So even then i mean, i guess i mean, i understand the point that youre both making, but i guess in two years, things could go a lot of directions. So were not really sure how long with everything going on in congress, were not really sure how quickly thatll happen. If its i mean, if its if its worth it to us because of the type of technology that theyre looking at and there arent that many operators out there, and its true that many other jurisdictions are going in the same direction, and as i understand in this contract, a lot of people are looking at us to kind of test these buses for procurement. If this bus happens to perform well and be the one that we want, i would imagine there would be a huge push to create an exemption at the congressional level. I think we cant really anticipate what the federal level circumstance help us determine today because i think theres so much a long window on all these sort of things that need to happen. Being okay. Anyone else have questions . This is a bit of a thicket here. Director rubke . If we were to move forward on this recommendation and we did this evaluation on the b. Y. D. Data buses, and all this regulation materialized, and were unable to use the federal funding on those buses, on those b. Y. D. Buses that we cant get, would that still be useful in developing the r. F. P. For eventual procurement . I believe it would because were testing a range of battery strengths. Its actually a good transition