Folks for sfgtv for the broadcast, clerk. Please be sure that all devices are silenced, items acted on today will appear on june 7 board of supervisors agenda. Please read the first item. To discuss the codes for Motor Vehicle tracking systems and all Motor Vehicles by the city. Thank you, this item is brought to us by supervisor yee, the floor is yours. Thank you, chair peskin, morning, everybody, the item we are talking about is telematics, and this is a technology that has gps along with capabilities to collect data on speed, mechanical diagnosis, safety and other information. In other jurisdictions this technology has shown significant benefits early on including increasing safety, substantial cost savings. Has been used to correct, train and coach, to improve driving habits. Decrease inappropriate or unauthorized use of the vehicles and shown to have environmental benefits and reducing emission. Typically San Francisco leads the nation in setting precedence but in this case we are actually behind the curve. Many commercial fleets and nearly every commercial industry has gps or Similar Technology in their vehicles. As a member of the board i noticed a trend in having to approve sentiments related to our citys fleet. So in february of 2015, i requested our budget and legislative analyst to do a report on cost, benefits and potential of teg telematics as it aligns with our city for reduced waste and safety and safer driving. The benefits are proven and clear. In the past several years we have spent millions in judgments and claims in our citys fleets. Telematics has the ability to monitor safety liability. And San Francisco have 184 vehicles in their fleet, cost 100,000 and save 60,000 in the first month, the county awarded 360,000 in the first months, and this is in gas savings. Telematics has the ability to gofence which trigger alerts from unauthorized use. This technology is a tool for us to be fiscally responsible and accountable to our public dollars. I imagine that the benefits will be demonstrated early on in these and many other counties. And in sf recognizes and for the fleet for enhanced safety. And mta for safe in light rails and buses and trolleys. In 2012 after the first year of operation bus accidents dropped with 50 decrease. Mtagps alone with Driver Training has significantly reduced the number of accidents. Basically we have cost savings and safer streets and its better for the environment. And currently in this legislation there are several exceptions of the citys fleet including the Sheriff Department and probation departments. However, there is overwhelming evidence that this technology can not only increase safety and save public dollars but a powerful tool for those departments and increased response for the safety and Law Enforcement. There are several large cities and jurisdictions where Law Enforcements have seen tremendous benefits from telematic technology, including yellow county and new york city. Who have used Similar Technology for over 15 years. New York Police Department were the first in their fleet to implement and similar to San Francisco has a vision zero is a visionzero city. However, i recognize the unique role and special consideration that needs to be taken for our Law Enforcement and this is the reason my office has been in touch with these cities and has directed the city administrator to specifically address the citys ability to address confidentiality for the use of Law Enforcement or investigations. I look forward to introducing trailing legislation in the coming months regarding these exemptions. Typically again as i was saying, San Francisco lead in many items, but in this case we are actually following [inaudible] county and new york city and so forth. As a chair of the zerovision city and following fatal accidents and this will increase safety and improve driving habits and potentially save lives. Telematic is aligned with our city goals, and funding with the city administrator and Staff Support has already been budgeted. I am proud to have this legislation heard in committee today and hope i have full support of my colleagues. So i have any questions or comments . Supervisor compost, any questions . Supervisor yee. Lets go to Public Comments, i have a couple of speakers. I have three speaker cards. Alice rogers, and janice paluka and jan lee. If you come forward, each speaker will have two minutes. First speaker please. Good morning, Committee Members, i am cathy paluka, on behalf of walk sf and members i am here to urge you to support telematic legislation. I would like to thank supervisor yee for being a zero vision champion, and this legislation that will be a very important tool to help our city get to zero traffic deaths by 2024. As you know we are not making great progress right now and we need all the tools available to us to reach vision zero. We are excited about this legislation, one thing that the Technology Allows us to do, is track speeding that we know is the number one collision factor, and hard braking can be tracked and acceleration. And this tool will help us track the city drivers and we know that city drivers make up the large number of vehicles on the streets. We support this legislation but we think it could go farther, we would like this legislation to be in 100 of city vehicles, including the Police Department. As mentioned other Police Departments have successfully used telematics and we think that our Police Department should lead by example. We urge you to support this legislation for vision zero, and we urge you to make it more robust by extending it to 100 of vehicles including city police. Thank you, next speaker please. Hello, i am janice lee, i am the advocacy director of vehicle coalition. And speaking on behalf of our 10,000 members, i am urging this committee today to pass the ordinance put forth by supervisor yee for the telematics system in all cityowned vehicles. Yesterday i attended San Franciscos annual ride of silence, we were joined by nearly 100 other bike riders to honor those lives lost on our streets. And joined by other folks that ride their bikes every day, having to live with this fear. And despite that in the last week, we had four people rideing and hit by drivers, in district 3 a couple of days ago, and one hit by an sfpd squad car on second street. Our city has embraced vision zero, we need to do everything we can and use every tool in the tool box to get there. This technology is in use and proven to work and from the report from february, 2014 shows. This ordinance will hold the city and the drivers of the city vehicles to the highest standards, adding another tool in our vision zero tool box. For any situation where a city vehicle is involved in a crash, that also happened this year. This is an area where the private sector is ahead of the public sector. This is proven to work and we stand with other members of the Vision Zero Coalition today to pass this ordinance. Thank you, mrs. Lee, other members of the public. Good morning, i am alice rogers and active with the south Beach MissionBay Association and i am here to support the previous two speakers and their comprehensive requests for 100 implementation across our city fleets. Our regular large segment of the city is a member of the Vision Zero Coalition and strongly want us to use all tools available. Thank you, mrs. Rogers. If no other members of the public to comment on item 1, Public Comment is closed, any department that would like to testify on this ordinance . There is plenty of information in the file from various departments. Okay, before we send this to the full board. I just want to thank supervisor yee for working on this for quite some time, i reviewed the file over the weekend, last weekend and you obviously have been working on this for a long time. There was money for it in the current year budget. Money in it for the coming year budget. A lot of correspondence between supervisor yees office and many of the departments who have overcome their initial resistance to this. So i want to commend supervisor yee and his staff for their many months of work on this. And supervisor campos, if there are any comments. Briefly if i may, mr. Chairman. I want to thank supervisor yee and his office for all the work on this. I knowa because of labor issues and requirements under the law, there are some departments not included here. I look forward to making sure that those are included once we go through that process. But i am very proud to support this, and with that i would like to make a motion to move this item forward with a positive recommendation. If we can do one little bit of House Keeping before that, that is to excuse supervisor breed from this meeting, motion from supervisor yee take without objection and a motion by supervisor campos to send to the board with full recommendation. Yes, i would like to say this has been a long road and hope to bear the fruits of this labor. Especially two of my staff members, my former aide, mrs. Armeno, and more currently erica maybar. And we concur in those thanks to supervisor yees staff and without objection we will send item 1 to the full board with recommendation. Madam clerk, please read the next item. Item 2, ordinance admending the administrative cord for aprecisely and appraisal review for acquisition and conveys of Real Property that the standards conform to the professional practice. Thank you, this piece of legislation has not been in the works as long as supervisor yees previous legislation. Probably something i should have undertaken under the board of supervisors a decade ago. I noticed when i was first reelected and took office in december, that he had a rather hodgepodge outdated administrative code provision as it relates to the citys acquisition and disposition of Real Property, that is property owned by the people of San Francisco by and through the city and county. To that end, with the great work of my staff. Lee hepener, we started to look at other cities and the United States of america do and to that end offered a wholesale rewriting of chapter 23 of administrative code for the standard process of purchase, sale, and lease and jurisdictional transfers of Real Property. Simply stated, if the city buys or sales property, this legislation will require that it be appraised by a qualified appraiser. Who is a member of the Appraisal Institute and astatelicensed appraisal. Further as the United States of america, and the state of california have long done, it requires that these appraisals be reviewed by an independent third party. Or by a third party if appraisals above a certain threshold as a matter of sale or lease. It further requires that the Effective Date of evaluation be not earlier than nine months than the proposed disposition of the Real Property is brought to this board of supervisors. I want to thank the host of departments that have worked with my staff. Ranging from the port of San Francisco, the airport, the Public Utilities commission. But most of all our department of real estate, john updike, and his staff have been very helpful and cooperative in crafting this legislation. And i very much appreciate their work. I think i neglected to mention the Municipal Transportation Agency who also worked with mr. Updike and my staff on this matter. And finally i want to thank deputy City Attorney carol wong for her excellent work in crafting this legislation. I am happy to go into the details. I know that we were not able to accommodate all of the requests of primarily enterprise departments. But i think in our effort to have a standardization of the citys appraisal and evaluation process have done it in a fair manner. But i am sorry if the puc is a little upset. But i know you will get over it. Having said that, before i introduce some minor amendments, mr. Updike, would you like to come forward and make any remarks on behalf of the department of real estate. Thank you chair. John updike, director of real estate. As you noted and i certainly echo your thanks to lee hefner for his work and carol wong and the departments. I think we saw good amendments through the discussions. This is a catalyst for me to hiring appraisal, a member appraisal. Which real estate as best we can tell in the last several decades never had on staff. We have always been dependent on consultant s as appraisals. And this could help address the concerns particularly from the enterprise agencies of the need of swift transactions. And having that will be helpful, and thank you for bringing this forward, that was a helpful element to gain that position authority. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you, mr. Updike, any questions from the members of the committee . Seeing none. Let me touch on a few changes i would like to introduce today. They are set forth on page 5, section 23. 2. Where we would the new section read as follows, from the enterprise agencies. The new section, transfers of pusuant property to this article would be paid for no less than 100 of the appraised value, except where the board that is the board of supervisors determines a lesser sum would serve a public purpose. And provide that the Public Utility Commission be paid at least of the historical cost of such Real Property. That would be the first amendment. And then on page 8, in section 23. 30. At the top of page 8 strike the Airport Commission at line 2. And that is because the airport successfully argued that pursuant to Aviation Administration standards they are subject to federal laws as it relates to appraisal. And so we have deleted them from this legislation. At line 8, insert see if i can do this in a better way. If the market rent of the lease is more than 45 per square foot at base rent, the administrator obtain the market rent for the lease, and unless, insert 1, the commission or agency determines acquiring the market rent would interfere with the core function under the city charter, insert 2, the board of supervisors found by resolution that a lesser sum would further a public purpose, or 3, if it interfere with the Port Commission parameter rate lease, mr. Benson and your department successfully argued that, those would be my proposed changes. And department City Attorney do you have comments on those changes or others . Deputy City Attorney, you handed me your draft earlier. There is one proposed amendment in that draft that you didnt read out, which is in section 23. 30, lease of Real Property. That the director of property, the second to last sentence of the first paragraph of that section. States that the director of property shall arrange for such lease to be highest bidder for the purposes of bidding and for no. Etc. , insert a or b, a lesser sum will further a public purpose. Thank you, and going back to 23. 30, we called the board, the board of supervisors, should we in 23. 20, say the board shall be the board of supervisors. Sounds good to me. Okay, i will insert, supervisors there. Colleagues. Second. I would like to move those amendments. With that, are there any other departments that would like to speak to item 2, the revisions of chapter 23, administrative code, very exciting stuff. Mr. Benson on behalf of the board of San Francisco, good morning. Chair peskin and memberss of the committee, appreciate the time that your office spent working with us on the proposed amendment that you just read. I think we would appreciate the opportunity between now and the board to work on the exact phrasing of that, i am not sure that interference is the right way to approach it. But the concept is sound. And really appreciate your legislative aide, lee, was available after hours last night to continue talking to us. The other one issue that we appreciate continuing to discuss, historic rehabilitation projects reviewed by real estate firm. They dont lend themselves to appraisal, because they are so complicated and appreciate continued dialogue on that. If my colleagues are willing to afford this to the full board, i am willing to have the conversation with you and your department over the next 10 days before it gets to the full board. Thank you so much. Mr. Gibbener. On mr. Bensons first point about the exact wording of subsection 3, in 23. 20, and one object of the interference question, just say 3. The Port Commission or the executive of the port, determines that the market rate of the requirement would conflict with the rental rate for the proposed lease. I like that, i assume that the staff would prefer port director over Port Commission, is that true mr. Benson . Yes. Colleagues i would like to adopt mr. Gibbeners sensible idea, because it will reduce the conversations i have to have with brad over the coming days, is that acceptable . Yes. Any Department Staff that want to