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 mor