Transcripts For SFGTV Government Access Programming 20240713

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 ami, 30 units at 80, and ten for disabled only at 50 and 11 for disabled only at 13. The unit mix would be 90 studios , five one, five twobedrooms. In addition to the Inclusive Housing for the disabled which is the kelseys founding mission, staff supports this project due to the extreme affordability levels achieved, the integrated garden design and as well as seeing all the energy and sustainability targets which was the focus of the global competition. Laying out the milestones to ensure the proposal remains fiscally viable while the project enters the entitlement phase. The proposal assumes no initial funding from the city and anticipates the use of our standard longterm ground lease we deploy routinely for Affordable Housing projects. The negotiation term of the ena is 45 months. During which the Development Team must meet the Community Outreach design, entitlements and fundraising goals as stated in the agreement. If they remain in conformance to have the opportunity to secure ground lease from the city. That ground lease will come before the board, and the mayor for approval. I will be prior to two advancing the project. The current for late 2023. If you have any questions i am a from the kelsey. Could we have the bla report please . The proposed resolution would approve an exclusive negotiating agreement between the city mercy housing for surplus City Property on grove street and van ness avenue. We are reporting on this because the negotiating agreement does set the rent for the future ground lease which is subject to board approval of 15,000 per year. Considering this to be low market rent. It is consistent with the city policy to have ground lease set in these terms. We will be reporting further on this project when it comes forward for the actual ground lease including any kind of city finance that might be added to the project. We recommend approval of this resolution. Thank you very much. If it comes back to final approval for the ground lease, at a later date, is that the term that at 15,000 . So we are being made aware of what the ground leases being proposed that we still have to prove it at a later date gulf that is correct. Okay, i happen to, two nights before this made public i happened to bump into a family that was talking about what the city was doing on behalf of the disabled community and what we could do to build more housing and more accessible housing. I was really encouraged and excited to see this announcement made public right after that. Make sure to refer them to this. Obviously it is a few years out. I think the location has been sitting there for some time. What a wonderful way to provide something for a community that is completely, almost invisible even in the Affordable Housing world, right . We have very little of the housing. I think there is one site south of market. To have this in an area on civic center that is accessible to many Different Things in transportation as well as a seat of government, i think is a im really hopeful that everything will be done to expedite this process. We appreciate the department of real estate putting this offer proposal and negotiating good faith in them mercy and kelsey coming forward with a great proposal. Hopefully we will be able to realize this very quickly. Thank you very much. Lets open this up for public comment. Any members of the public like to comment on item number four . Public comment is i would like to make a motion to move this to the board with a positive recommendation. Thank you very much. Madame clerk can you please call item number five. Item five, 191110. Resolution retroactively authorizing the department of Public Health to accept and expend a grant in the amount of 350,000 from the San Francisco Public Health foundation to participate in a program, entitled California Community reinvestment grants program, for the period of october 1, 2019, through september 30, 2021. Thank you very much. Thank you. This is a Grant Program that applies partnership with the San Francisco Public Health foundation a total of a twoyear grant for 650,000. 300,000 will go to the San Francisco Public Health foundation and grin of 50,000 to the department of Public Health. The population this will serve is the present rancheria population and in partnership with transitions clinic network. They are both here to answer any questions you might have. The source of original funding from this is in california, the adult use of marijuana act, proposition 54 passed in november of 2016. It created the program to provide local communities that were heavily impacted by the war on drugs with grants Reinvestment Program to help those communities. The funding is the cannabis and tax excised revenue. The program is building on existing partnership between the clinic network, the San Francisco department of Public Health. Who has long supported this programming. The funding will allow the department of Public Health to hire. For approximately 200 transition clinics in new and existing clients. They will recruit new patients within 12 months are released from state or federal prison through the transitions clinic behavioral care and Health Worker services. The project funding at the San Francisco Public Health foundation, 300,000 over two years will provide or allow the establish of the Community Advisory board rancheria wellness group. Job support such as 100dollar muni cards. As well as finding some of the admin straight of overhead. As a department we would use the three and a 50,000 to fund 1. 0 full time social worker and this would be a temporary exam position. There would also be about 1,400 for reprocessing training for those clinical social workers. 17 indirect rate. Please let us know if you have any questions or would like further information. No bla report on this . Any questions or comments by colleagues . Seeing him. Any Public Comments on . Seeing him. I would like to move this to the bar with a positive recommendation. We can take that without objections. Madame clerk any other business before us today . I would like to correct the statement that i made earlier, at the beginning of the meeting. Items acted upon today will appear on the december 10 board of supervisors meeting, not december 3. No further business. Thank you very much. We are adjourned. Better. San Francisco Department of environment is a place where climate hits the street. We know that we dont have all the answers. We need to support our local champions, our local community to find Creative Solutions and innovations that help us get to zero waste. Zero waste is sending nothing to landfill or incineration, using reuse and recovery and prevention as ways to achieve zero waste. The Grant Program is a Grant Program specifically for nonprofits in San Francisco to divert material from landfill. Its important to find the San Francisco Produce Market because theres a lot of edible food that can be diverted and they need positions to capture that food and focus on food recovery. San francisco Produce Market is a resource that connects farmers and their produce with businesses in the bay area. I think its a basic human right to have access to healthy foods, and all of this food here is available. Its a matter of creating the infrastructure, creating jobs, and the system whereby none of this goes to waste. Since the beginning of our program in july 2016 to date, weve donated over 1 Million Pounds of produce to our community partners, and thats resulted in over 900,000 meals to people in our community, which were very proud of. Carolyn at the San Francisco Produce Market texts with old produce thats available. The produce is always excellent. We get things like broccoli, brussels sprouts, bell peppers. Everything that we use is nice and fresh, so when our clients get it, they really enjoy it, and its important to me to feel good about what i do, and working in programs such as this really provides that for me. Its helping people. Thats what its really about, and i really enjoy that. The work at the Produce Market for me representing the intersection between environment and community, and when we are working at that intersection, when we are using our resources and our passion and our energy to heal the planet and feed the people, nothing gets better than good afternoon, everyone. The meeting will come together to order. This is november 21st, 2019, special meeting of the budget finance committee. I am chair of the committee. I would like to thank San Francisco government tv for broadcasting this meeting. Colleagues, can we please have a motion to excuse supervisors Catherine Stefani and Raphael Mandel and . We can take that without objection. Thank you very much. Are there any announcements . Silence all cell phones and