known this is something they inherited or bought a long time ago. this is a part of san francisco, these are working families. and they have no other options really. so, you have a lot of children. you have a lot of monolingual speakers. you have people coming from all over the world and this is a home that was not disclosed to them that they were experiencing flooding. they were not -- it was not identified to them that this was something that they would experience. and so, they are horrified. and so, i think the right way to approach this is there's a very organized group in our district that can identify every single home that is experiencing major flooding. and so, what i would suggest is working with that group to identify those 50 or 60 homes. i want to commend the puc. i know would have been having a lot of conversations on information before purchasing the home and raising the

driveways. we are looking at maps yesterday where there's new construction right next to a home that has a downward sloping driveway and that person is experiencing significant flooding and the one next door has a driveway that slopes up to the home and. i think there are more affordable solutions than making the sewer up to a hundred-year capacity that would affect the rate payers dramatically. if you are talking about a three or $400 million upgrade for one system to even get it to a 25-year storm versus doing -- raising the foundations or the driveways or 50 or 60 homes, you are talking about saving millions and millions of dollars. so, maybe a $20 million project for 50 or 60 homes versus $400 million. that is a lot of savings but it is real. i think we need to move quicker. we have had early conversations with contractors this is what they specialize in. i think we need to get -- i

would request the puc to put together a request for information, rfi, get a qualified list of people together. we can build out a scope of work. you all are the experts. let's come up with a cost estimate because we are getting into the rainy season again and i know from talking to these folks it just builds tremendous anxiety and stress because they know their homes are going to get flooded. they are not hoping for no rain in a drought and we had that for a couple of years and there wasn't anything. but, you know, 2:00 a.m. beginning of this year, there was five minutes of dramatic rain and my phone started ringing off the hook at 3:00 or 4:00 in the morning and i know supervisor sheehy was down there in the early a.m. and the water stays there for a while. i'm glad we are pushing caltrans. i know initially they didn't want to continue to investigate looking at reengineering and

having some flood mitigation at the end of cuyoga. i understand that it is a little bit slower to work between interdepartmental agreements. but i think we just need to do everything we can to move quicker at this point. let's have a firm date on the rfi. let's have some cost estimates and then work with the folks in the audience that have identified -- they can tell you exactly the 50 or 60 homes. i don't want to get into semantics. but if two feet of flooding is happening in my home versus three feet and you are going to say no for the two feet, that just doesn't seem fair. i think at some point if there's flooding in the home and the property is being dodammed, we have to figure -- damaged, we have to figure out a strategy to mitigate that. this is many, many years of build-up in terms of the infrastructure and design. that is not pointing fingers at any of you. but there are billion dollars projects all over the city and

then you have one part of the city that has water coming up to people's car door. it feels unfair. so, i think that it is important we move aggressively at this point. you have had time to put together a plan. maybe it is rebuilding barriers and moving driveways. let's move aggressively so we are not here next year right when the raining season is going to start and people are feeling that anxiety again. so, if you can give us an idea. maybe director kelly can come up and say what it would take in terms of a time frame. what would be a reasonable amount of time to come up with an rfi. and i'm talking about the extreme before selling the home. people don't want to sell their homes. let's talk about the extreme of raising the foundation and what

that would cost and a time frame for that. >> so, our plans are -- we recognize first of all that approachi approaching homeowners, low income. we are trying to develop the grant program to make it easier for them. so, we are putting out a request for interest on designers and contractors. and so, hopefully by the end of this movant, we will have a list. however, if the applicant is familiar with their own designer or contractor, that's fine as well. we want to make sure that they understand the types of options that are out there and work with the designers and contractors to achieve that. so, the plan is that probably in two, three weeks we are going to go out with that.

>> great. >> we are just going to put a quick rfi and make sure people are bonding and insurance. so, we are going to move forward with that. what is important is we are going to provide these options and we are going to let people know. it is really -- really depends on them filling out the application and taking the initiative that, yes, we want to, you know, utilize the grant program and be in the program. >> i would just say to go back on that point. some of the organized neighbors have an entire list, phone numbers, addresses, e-mails. i think that would be a good place to start. then some of them are attorneys. they can help with filling out the applications for those that might not be as familiar with that process. i think it would be a clab

rotive -- collaborative effort. some people are intimidated by that. i'm sorry to interrupt. >> if there's any feedback, we want everyone to participate. we want to try to make sure that they participate so we can reduce the risk of their homes flooding. we would like everyone participate because even if we were to go from a five-year to a ten-year, some of these areas when it goes beyond that will still flood. i think it is pru dent for everyone to take -- prudent for everyone to take us up on this program. >> i think there's going an upgrade over near the farmer's market. how much pressure is that anticipated to take off of the area that floods on cuyoga? >> do you know?

>> the objective of that project is to meet our level of service and to minimize flooding from a five-year storm in that specific location. but it will have an impact on what's happening higher up along the cuyoga corridor. so, i think what the very preliminary modeling is showing is that by building the parallel sewer and increasing our capacity, that at the foot of cuyoga near 280, in that area, we would be looking at cutting flood depth in half in a 25-year storm. that's what the preliminary model is showing. but that project is still in very, very early development phases. it will be undergoing more detailed analysis. >> thank you. just one last question for director kelly. so, after the two or three-week

rfi process, how much time do you anticipate before work could potentially begin on some of those homes? i know you have to create the grant. >> yeah. right now they are actually -- applicants can apply. and for the dry wet proofing, they can apply. it is really a case by case situation. and that's why we would like to meet on site, look at -- because it is very site specific on what measures would actually work. so, you know, we are going to take it case by case on every one of the applicants. so, if we have 60 applicants, we plan to meet with each and every one of them. >> thank you. >> supervisor sheehy. >> a couple of things that i wasn't aware. what is this with -- what is the plan? i don't think that was really -- i think maybe supervisor safai

has been informed about it. but the caltrans plan. what are you looking to do there? >> that project is at the cul-de-sac of cuyoga, below rouso. >> i know the area well. i have been down there. >> so, what we would be proposing to do is to make maximum use of the caltrans property that's there. and right now the berm supports the highway. what we have to do first is build a structural wall to hold up the highway and that would allow us to remove the berm and regrade that area to create a depressed detention area so that the water when it floods has a place to go instead of just sitting in the street and sitting up against the berm and creating a pool there. it would move into the area that the berm now takes up and have a

place to go. so, we would be regrading the street, regrading -- building the structural wall, regrading the property and then the water would be able to fill up and sit until the peak intense rainfall has passed. >> what's the timeline on that? that's not going to happen this year? >> no. no. i think if negotiations go well with caltrans, i -- if i remember correctly, the construction was in 2019 or 2020 to start. 2019 or 2020. >> you and i need to push them on that because they initially said no. and then i had a scheduled meeting with them on a whole host of issues in my district and that's when we reopened the conversation to say this is something we share a desire to

push because this could help with the mitigation. now they have been work for the last five months on creating the opportunity through an mou to work together. caltrans is all about liability and doesn't want to do anything. >> yeah. we sent the project concept to them early in 2017. and then they said no, we are not interested in the project. and then supervisor safai held a meeting and asked them to please work with us to consider it a little bit more carefully. and so now, we are in the negotiation phase. but they still haven't done a detailed review. the mou defines their involvement in terms of even just reviewing the documents we submitted earlier this year. >> and then, what is the

timeline for the almeny fix? >> that project is part of our capital program phase two. so, that is a little bit later in the 2020's. but i would to go back and give you an exact date. ki follow up with you on -- i can follow up with you on that. >> so, the combination of those two elements, to what degree would that reduce the level of flooding? >> our metric for flooding is our design storm which is a five-year storm. and there's no flooding in the upper cuyoga corridor. so, these no flooding in that cul-de-sac in our design storm. so, we have to look at larger storms to understand what the benefit would be and i can get back to you and we can take a look at that and get back to

you. >> i keep getting a sense that we are going to be spending a lot of money and i'm wondering -- and doing a lot of work raising houses. i just wonder having been down there immediately after and having seen the flood line, i just wonder if we are really getting to something that is really going to fix things. i look at the grant program and raising houses and doing, you know, wet and dry protection. it's just -- wiping it down, i know that it is just not attractive. and i understand. but it is just -- and i don't -- supervisor safai was mentioning -- is there any possibility, is there any real way to negotiate at least for that last block

which is what i saw as being most dramatically hit to figure out a way to make people whole enough so the purchases could take place? unless you are going to fundamentally change the way in which water moves through that, i just -- i just -- i just don't know. raise a house three feet. i was seeing four or five feet of flooding. and being able to wipe down your walls and have your walls not be all funky, it's still funky there. that entire block is funky. i'm trying to put a very polite word on there. but i know for the residents, they would use much more extreme language and i can totally understand why they would. and i know a house on that block is for sale right now. at least it was yesterday.

so, are there possibilities to like -- >> can we have one conversation please? >> so, we have definitely interested as an option of purchasing property. but we would have to, you know -- we are working with the city attorney because we have to offer fair market value. and what we are intending to do is fair market value considering that if you were not in that low-like area. and so, that's what we would offer someone. so, it would probably be more than they would actually sell because we are now saying you have to disclosure in that area. so, that was in the plan. so, it would have to be willing sellers. the other way is go eminent

domain , which we didn't want to go in that direction. because people like supervisor safai said, that there are so many folks who lived there for years. so, we are looking at every option possible. >> because i'm just curious. do we have a plan? because it did seem like that that one block is like really bad. and somehow converting that into -- especially if we get the caltrans piece as well, might be able to alleviate some of the pressure on the houses upstream and maintain and sustain the neighborhood. has there been any thought about looking to see if we could -- and again, this would have to be i understand with the willingness of the sellers. but when you start looking at

various costs, this grant program is going to be expensive. you have to go in every year after the floods and try to make people whole. so, we pay costs -- not every year. but every time there's a big flood. there's a clean-up. but is there a model if we could somehow have a conversation with the folks on that one block and take that space -- i didn't see any other way. i mean we will go -- we can do these grants and raise houses. but from everything i saw, the water comes up above that. and we are not going to get the caltrans space it sounds like for at least a couple of years. and then the alemany is more years down the road and we have human beings living with this situation. i think for them if they were to say to me i find this intolerable, i would certainly agree. because what i saw was really,

really, really -- i'm trying to keep the tenor down. because i know people are so frustrated. it doesn't seem like we really have a plan within the next year or two that will solve the problem. and we are pouring money into it. and i feel -- these folks are my neighbors. just because i'm at the helm doesn't mean i don't feel for them terribly. i feel like -- i can understand why blaine got so frustrated. because we keep going around and around. but we never like say, okay, this is the way we are going to solve the problem. and i think we always try to put band aids on it. i understand we had this whole back and forth and we do need the cooperation of the community in order -- but either we have to build a new sewer, which

seems unfeasible or it seems to me these just two choices. either build a sewer or buy out the folks who are impacted. the way in which the whole thing flows -- if we are going to have a fix soon. that's just my opinion. i don't know where the neighbors are on that. and i don't know what the conversations have been about. and it does sound like there's some progress in making fair market value. actually what the house would be worth if it wasn't in this location. because i don't want to see people pushed out of the city. everybody here has helped build this beautiful city. but just hoping that we could have some sort of dialog that doesn't -- where people feel like we are getting somewhere. you know, you have to apply for a grant and have somebody come out and do work on your house and then -- at the end of the day, you are still going to have a couple of feet of flooding by all the things that i have seen that is going to be disgusting. i know you are trying to work your way through it because this is kind of novel.

to the degree we can incentivize people, especially in the hardest hit blocks and maybe look at ways we could repurpose that land to take pressure off -- because otherwise it is like 50 or 60 houses. ? you could really concentrate -- that's a natural low point. to have something that could maybe allow everybody else to have -- i don't know. i know i'm just kind of wandering around. but i feel people's frustration. i know the pressure you are under because at the end of the day, some things cost -- you look at the long run if we could somehow solve for this soon, i think we would end up better off for rate payers and better off for the neighbors. >> i would definitely -- i definitely understand your frustration. i remember early this year we called you and we went down there. and i agree. it is really a bad situation.

so, that's why, you know, we are, like we said, are working with caltrans to try to do that. we thought it would be a quicker fix. and then we have the alemany with the farmer's market will alleviate that. meanwhile, the challenges even if we do that work, if we get a hundred-year storm, it is going to be the same situation. you have to start adapting. we can spend as much money, but you are going to have a bigger storm. and so, the question is, when we -- our system tried to collect as much water -- it never floods when it doesn't rain. don't see raw sewage come out when it duvents rain. you only -- doesn't rain. you only get it when you get these flash events. it was like 15, 20 minutes it just downpoured. and kwhaps is so much -- what happens is so much water comes

in and the system is pressurized. it goes out the manholes because it is so much water trying to get in there. high school highly pressurized. and the reason it pops out the manholes, which we want it to, because if it didn't, it would blow out your home toilets. it is a challenging system. but, ultimately, those are our customers and we are trying to do what we can. going back to your point is we are definitely open to purchasing property. especially in that area. we are going to look at the properties that are currently up and we will probably have a conversation with those folks in the area and see what options would be best suited for them. >> supervisor fewer. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. so, this is completely

overwhelming. i just have some questions, but i do think that this is at a level now which is so severe and because we have seen nationwide flooding and also natural disasters that we didn't think we would see in a thousand years. so, when we hear a five-year estimate, i'm just thinking -- a five-year storm, we are preparing for that, which is 1.3 inches in three hours. i don't know. i'm sort of thinking myself, mr. kelly, that the -- topography and the raising of the housing, the house next door, you fix the driveway. that one next door is not flooding. but how do we know it won't? i think when we had the first presentation here, we spoke a

lot about the topography of san francisco where these natural areas where they flood. and i think that -- so, some of the questions i have are -- we have certain areas we have designate, cuyoga, folsom and others as being the most severe. is that correct? these are the three areas we have talked about. >> yeah. part of the presentation we identified the low-lying areas which were formerly creeks and marshes. we pointed out if we were to make capital investments what the cost would be. >> economical. yeah. so, then i'm wondering -- do these homeowners ever ask for a reimbursement on the damages and if we have had that throughout

the years and what is that amount of money that we pay out? >> so, i think that -- i guess the way that i would respond to that is that for a storm event larger than our sewer can handle and you live in a low-lying area, i think the city can do what it can do. but, i don't know if we are totally responsible for alleviating flooding from ever happening to everyone. like in houston. the city is not paying everyone for the system. the system performed as designed. it is just mother nature. and that's where you have insurance. so, one of the things that we are asking folks to also do is have flood insurance if you are in those low-lying areas. that's why you have fema and all that out there available. >> so, that's a question that i

had. has there been designated as an official flood area? >> so, that's one of the things that we wanted to make sure that people are aware that these are flood prone areas and we are mapping it. we are doing a hundred-year flood prone map that we are planning to release and have everyone to understand that you are buying property or you own property in a low-lying area. >> but we haven't done that yet? >> we are working on it right now. that's one of the first things i wanted to do because when i was out there a year ago, a lot of folks said i just bought this house and i didn't know that it flooded. although it is a requirement for the seller to disclose apparently the person didn't disclose. so, we are trying to have mechanisms in place where buyers are aware of these areas.

>> yeah, because you must -- if you are designated in a flood area, you must buy flood insurance in many cities. and i think -- i didn't know what the official designation was. i know my sister in nevada lives one block away from a flood zone and she wasn't required to buy flood insurance. but we are recommending she does. is there an designation -- an official designation because we would like give people recourse. the supervisor mentioned there is a home for sale right now. and is someone going to buy it knowing they have a flood problem? >> so, fema does designate formal flood planes. they map them. and san francisco is in process of finalizing those.

when we look at the fema flood maps, the preliminary maps, they are along the bay and along the ocean. there are no open waterways -- mission creek doesn't any longer run. >> right. >> but that actually works to our advantage in san francisco because anyone is eligible to purchase fema flood insurance. if you are in a flood zone, the premiums are very high. but if you are not in a fema designated flood plane, premium rates are very low. and last year i think if you are a renter and you are ensuring content only, it was like $44 a year for the premium. and if you were an owner and insuring contents and structure, the premiums started at $137 a year. it is not like earthquake insurance. especially when you are not in a designated flood zone.

i think fema wants to have people not in flood zones into into their plan. there was a little bit of a clerical error in fema's designation of san francisco that we worked through feinstein to fix. and now -- and then we hosted with fema an insurance agent training last year i think to make sure that the insurance industry -- it was completely sold out. it was to make sure the insurance industry understands how to provide these insurance policies to their clients. and so, now we are doing outreach, but we do encourage property owners and renters to get flood insurance through the fema subsidized fema program. and with most of our flood prone areas not being in official fema flood areas, it is good for

insurance rates. >> this flooding isn't water. it is raw sewage. we have been hearing folks last testimony last time was about raw sewage flooding into their homes. into their basements. have we done any health assessments on that at all? do we know anything about that? it just sounds like a complete hot mess if that was your house. yes, you might be able to clean up everything. i don't know. i know this is something not only that -- but the idea of living there, knowing every time it rains that this could happen. it could drive you crazy. i'm concerned these probably a

health aspect to this now and a health hazard. >> so, our systems are designed to be a combined system. so, the majority of the -- when we size a pipe, we size it based on a five-year storm. that is going to come statistically once every five years. when we don't have rain in dry weather, in the summer for example, those pipes are almost completely empty. the amount of raw sewage flowing through the pipes is just a trickle in the bottom of the pipes. when we get a big enough storm that causes flooding, so much water that our pipes are completely full, the sewage -- the amount of sewage in that combined water is less than 1% city wide. i'm not trying to say that sewage -- >> isn't there. >> yeah. but i do want everyone to

understand that it is diluted -- it is not raw sewage as we think of raw sewage, which is what is trickling down the pipe in dry weather. it is more than 99% storm water and then a small portion of sewage. that said, urban storm water is not clean. >> yeah. >> so, when you think about when you are walking down market street and everything that you see on the sidewalk washing down into the gutters and into our pipes, we are talking about, you know, peopling walking their dogs and birds and things like that. humans. there's all kinds of stuff in urban storm water. we have been in conversations with the public health department about this. but i would say that any flooding when it comes to urban environments like this is -- >> unsanitary. >> yeah. >> right. actually, i don't see the

situation getting better, especially immediately. i concur with the supervisor that i think we are in for much more flooding. i think if we are looking at how the world is changing and the climate, these areas will always be flood zones. we can try to mitigate some of the things about walls or this or that. but mother nature has the last word and we have seen that very clearly regarding flooding but also fires, everything else. we are going into us -- unprecedented, environmental hazards we have never seen before. i guess my suggestion concurs with the supervisor. i think we should do an assessment of which of the homes will always be in the flood zone. to say it is a five-year we

don't get that. but we don't get -- well, houston also built like crazy. and that's what happens when you put concrete on everything. also the fact we don't even have a municipal code about the infrastructure. if people were to build on that property, we don't even have a code that addresses that which exacerbates the problem. should we be building on these areas where we know they flood and have a tendency to flood? should we be allowing people to be building on these areas knowing we can't -- you can try to control and mitigate the situation, but eventually it is out of our hands. so, i just think we should be looking at home homes are the hardest hit, where there's an

appetite for homeowners to have their homes bought and if we do acquire that land, what are some of the things we can do to help mid gait some -- mitigate some of the issues. that is land we can actually work with. thanks. >> i wanted to chime in. first i want to appreciate the puc because there has been a lot of progress between the last hearing and today. and i feel as if you have laid out a very clear set of interventions that you are willing to make, work with homeowners that are affected up to purchasing the property. and echoing my colleagues i do think that that's probably going to be the right option if individuals are willing to sell. i also want to express gratitude because this was sort of a demand of myself and my

colleagues that you purchase at market rate, not taking into account the flooding. and you are offering that. and i think that that's as much as we can expect. and so, i just absolutely like all of us feel so much for the homeowners and individuals that are impacted by this. it is awful. we have seen the heartache and it is completely understandable. but we are now at a stage we know we are not going to build our sewer system larger than a five-year storm and that makes sense. the cost benefit analysis to build a bigger sewer system and the havoc it would cause on the streets of don't make sense to me. and might not even deal with the problem given the extreme weather events that we are having throughout the world these days.

i think it is time for homeowners to realize where we are at in the situation we are in and to work with the puc and the supervisors because we can all play a role in being helpful here in the neighborhoods that are impacted to face the reality of the situation and to choose the best options. and it is such a grim hearing and it is every single time. the benefits of a combined system is that all water gets treated before it is released back into the bay and that given how quite frankly we all recognize how gross the streets are in san francisco, which is an issue we are all dealing with in our district. but that is also a positive thing. i just wanted to have one light to this dismal hearing. but i do want to work with the residents in my district and the puc to face the facts and look at the options, use the

individualized assessments that the puc is willing to do and come up with the right option for each property. >> i will wrap it up then if there's no other questions for my colleagues. i want to thank puc for the presentation today. when i called for the hearing and it was heard in april, much of the discussion was about, you know, why homes are being impacted by rain and so forth. and we talked about the five-year storms and 25-year storms. so, a lot of it was pointing out that it happens because of certain things and our system isn't able to handle beyond a certain storm. and what we didn't talk about was what we talked about today.

what are some of the solutions? even though we can't solve everything, we didn't hear as much of a solution oriented discussion in april. that's why i asked for a continuation of that particular hearing so that you could come back and say, well, you have thought about it, war -- what are you planning to do. i appreciate that although the solutions presented today or the strategies may not be perfect for everybody, i feel like there's been some real attempt to look at the situations for my district. seems like two of the three hot spots -- wet spots will be somewhat mitigated and i know that there will be a discussion over at 15th and ramona. that will take a little more time to get to.

but again, i appreciate that we are moving in the right direction and hopefully we can move quicker. especially for those heavily impacted at cuyoga. madame chair, i think i will ask for this item to be tabled and then if we need to have further discussions, we could call another hearing. >> supervisor ronen: i will make a motion to file this item. without objection, that motion passes. thank you. and i will just note that supervisor yee has officially replaced supervisor sheehy for the remainder of the hearing. or of the committee meeting. sorry. mr. clerk, we already did call item two, right? we can just begin the item? >> clerk: yes. just for the record i will read it again. supervisor yee has been appointed in place of supervisor

sheehy to sit in as a member of today's meeting. item two, ordinance amending the public works code to require a permit for the testing of autonomous devices on sidewalks amending the police code to provide for administrative or criminal devices and affirming the planning department's determination under the california environment quality act. >> supervisor ronen: thank you so much. supervisor yee. >> thank you. colleagues, thank you for your patience for these items today. thank you for hearing this item again. and we have a number of robots -- robust discussions. [laughter] >> yeah, i know. especially on balancing the need to prioritize or sidewalks for people. san francisco is a city that supports technology innovation.

however, there are unintended consequences when the industry goes unchecked. it is our obligation as elected officials to protect our limited public resources, including our sidewalks. it is important to make sure that it was never a ban on delivery devices. it was about our obligation as elected officials to protect our limited resources such as our sidewalks. to this date it is unlawful for bicycles to operate on sidewalks. however, the delivery device technology really is in its infancy and one that is requesting to operate on a public infrastructure. we are compelled to create regulatory framework to ensure public safety. until this technology is perfected, until a thoughtful system is in place for emerging

technologies, we really need to regulate this as a new realm and carefully considered and crafted. up until late yesterday, i continued to meet with companies that are interested in automated deliveries in san francisco. received feedback from departments that oversee our public infrastructure and from my colleagues and also from those that are advocating to keep our sidewalks for people. in order to create legislation that works for the city, this board of supervisors had to work on a number of amendments. san francisco prides itself at being a walkable city and every one of us has spoken about the desire for more family-friendly city. the version introduced at the last board meeting in addition to the amendments being

introduced today strengthens the legislation and allows us to protect our residents, public infrastructure and support the technology and the tech sector. i have continued to meet with companies and now have hopefully the support of these amendments. this legislation is an example of meaningful regulation of emerging technologies that ensure safety of our sidewalks, maintains quality of life, upholds our values of protection of public space. before going through the amendments, i want to thanks my co-sponsor, supervisor ronen and the advocates for sending and continuing to send hundreds of

letters of support. i want to thank neighbor emerging association, parent voices and richmond senior center. and dozens of other people that came and testified in support of this legislation two weeks ago. and truly thankful and humbled by their commitment to fight to protect public space. i also want to thank the city attorney's office, namely andrew sims and my staff, erica mayborn and jen to actually craft some of the amendments that we will be introducing today. i probably should go for the amendments before public comments. and i think you have a copy of the summary of amendments. but i will read everything into

the record. i will just summarize. it provides a streamlining process that strengthens the frameworks so the department of public works can have flexibility to enforce as we learn more about the new technology. the permitting process gives opportunity for public process and appeal if there are concerns. we have clarified a process which will come to the board of supervisors. permits will be at the department of public works and requires 20 days noticing to inform the public of a permit application. due to the length of the permitting approval process, i'm suggesting that the permit durations go from 60 days, which is in the original legislation to 180 days with extensions should companies follow the

permitting guidelines and prove to be good stewards in the public space. this provides companies up to a year of testing if there is no incidents. i hate that we live in a time where there are regular occurrences of terrorism. i would not risk someone creating a fake robot with explosives because the permitting process is overly permissive. therefore, i'm requiring that upon renewal, permits must submit a report or data or any useful information for the public. the other change i am proposing today is to ensure that we allow more innovation among different companies. the new permits would allow up to three automated delivery devices to be tested instead of

two. companies are limited to applying for one permit at a time and this should not be more than nine devices permitted at any given time. i also want there to be discretion from dbw on the distance between devices to ensure we are not obstructing any one sidewalk. i feel very strongly that if operating on sidewalks, these devices should not be faster than a human, especially given that the companies are in the research and development phase. due to the fact that we have persons using asis tifr devices and -- assistive devices and children can be unpredictable in their paths. i have allowed for some flexibility in the speed, but only up to three miles per hour from the two miles per hour that

is on the legislation. the other changes are substantive, but provide guidance and clarifies penalties for violations. i believe this legislation strikes a balance for our needs today and in the year that dbw will return to the board having analyzed the effectiveness of the permitting process and its impact on our public infrastructure. i hope you can adopt these amendments today. i'm happy to take any questions to clarify any of these amendments. i just want to make sure that i want to put some emphasis that after companies have spoken to me, that we wanted to allow for the research and development so that at least for companies that want to prove themselves and especially those that might be

operating in the city, that they have an opportunity to fine-tune that machines and eventually for those places they want to allow these machines to operate on sidewalks, then they have the opportunity to also grow their company here. at the same time, i want to make sure that whatever i did in the permit process that no one company monopolizes all the permits. this is so that we can encourage in the future maybe other companies that may want to test their devices here or actually start a company here. so, those are my statements for now and maybe unless we have questions, i would like to open up to public comment. require that sounds great. so, we are opening up this item now for public comment. each member of the public will

have two minutes to speak. supervisor yee, do you want to read the name? dennis. laurie, roger, joan. come up in the order i called your name. >> roger hoffman. software developer for 30 years. it has been my privilege to work with medical researchers in the battle against aids. will delivery robots interfere with first responders? will they cross picket lines? how will they cope with parades, protests? robots will be hacked. everybody in this room has had their information hacked.

equifax, yahoo, twitter, gmail, hbo, cnn, disney, all hacked. consider ro botd hacking could cause fizz -- robot hacking can cause physical harm. if robots can learn, will they learn to play nicely? microsoft developed a chat bot named shea. a company with thousands of computer scientists. shea was designed to chat with 18 to 24-year-olds. within 24 hours of release it was a nazi. here's a question for you. so, what did you expect the robot to learn at the folsom street fair? consider robots' impact on

tourism and sales tax revenue. why do people visit san francisco? why do they shop at union square? for the same reason they go to a sporting event they can see on tv. they want to be there, feel the energy and excitement. now we will ask tourists and shoppers to dodge robots. are we reducing the attractions of our city? is there a potential to kill the geese that lay our golden eggs? [bell]. >> public: the legislation doesn't appear to cover what thirty parties might do if they obtain information collected from robots. that i believe this is something this legislation should consider. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> public: thank you for this opportunity. i intended to come here to

support the legislation until i read the amendments. and i have a great deal of respect for all of you, including specifically supervisor yee in our recent relations around housing stuff. but i notice that the amendments do not permit arming of these machines. but it prohibits them from carrying ammunition. it doesn't require taillights and side lights. just points. but i want to make a different point. i came here thinking, well, these robots are really a camel's nose under the tent. and now i think with these amendments, with all due respect, the camel is eating your lunch. and i really liked this measure as it was originally intended. in order to actually deal with getting ahead of the tech crunch disrupt world that is obviously disrupting our world in negative

ways. smart is not always appropriate. smart and innovative doesn't mean needed, good or appropriate and i don't think these robots are needed in these circumstances on our sidewalks to deliver sandwiches. they will never deliver medicines upstairs. that's nonsense. and the public is more important than the robot. so, i like down and i say well, what about the other industries? [bell]. >> public: well, tesla is laying off hundreds. amazon is going to hire more and more robots and lay off more and more people and google wants driverless cars that will wipe out millions of drivers including truck drives. i want to say this. -- drivers. i know that drones want to operate in a public space --

[bell]. [microphone cut off] >> public: i live in district five. the evidence is everywhere that san francisco has consistently failed to protect the public and our infrastructure from the ravages of tech run wild. uber clogs our street and a culture that infected our policy. robots should only be used to do jobs hazardous for humans. as someone who spent the last 25 years of my working life representing union workers, i urge you to consider the effect on jobs, on the workers and their families and the larger

community. what about privacy protection? look at the invasions of privacy made in the interest of profit. in order to function on our sidewalks, robot must be outfitted with cameras. what is stopping their masters from collecting data about people on those same sidewalks? will they be recording speech? will these really be only used for deliveries? will they deliver a bogus pitch about delivering medication to shut-in seniors? we have an opoid crisis because of the complete failures of regulators to say no to big pharma. [bell]. >> public: are uber and lift giving usda that? if these machines are permitted to occupy human space, it is your responsibility to make sure they do no harm. disrupting public safety are not san francisco values.

unfortunately, these last minute amendments appear to promote the eventual proliferation of robots on our sidewalks. >> public: good afternoon. my name is john. i'm a resident of the richmond district and an operator at marble. i want to start out by thanking supervisor yee for the collaborative approach we have had over the last few weeks working on crafting these regulations. my background is in city planning. during my stulddyes my focus -- studies my focus was on pedestrian and bicycle safety. i joined marble because of the mission that they instill in their company and employees and

their proactive approach to regulation. we want to be regulated. i have a role to craft safety and to protect the public and make sure those safety requirements are enforced throughout the company. as an operator, i'm with the robot on the streets. i walk the sidewalks. i interact with the public and i educate them about what we are doing. i'm excited about the civic applications that marble has to the city of san francisco. we are interested in data sharing, working with non-profits and improving accessibility throughout the city. marble is committed to being a san francisco company. i both live and work in san francisco and i hope that can continue. i want to also say that i appreciate the frameworks we are setting up and i hope that we can continue to move forward and find a solution that works everyone and protects public safety. thank