>> supervisor tang: good afternoon. welcome to our land use committee meeting of april 16th. i'm katy tang. we have vice chair supervisor jane kim and supervisor safai. we will be joined by supervisor peskin. we would like to thank jessie larson and mia hernandez and our

clerk, erica major. do you have any announcements? >> clerk: yes. make sure to silence all cell phones and mobile devices. items acted upon will appear on the april 24 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> supervisor tang: can you call item 1. [reading item #1] >> supervisor kim: thank you. i believe we have public works here. >> yes. rachel from san francisco public works. a list of projects will be funded by $23 million, state road maintenance and rehabilitation count account funds. it was created by senate bill 1,

which will raise over $5 billion for transportation throughout the state of california. one of the measures of sb-1 is requiring local governing bodies to adopt annual resolutions approving the project list. that's why i'm here today. public works has identified six various locations projects for next year. that will include 220 blocks, which is approximately 1/3 of the program's expected output in the next fiscal year. each location project typically includes 25-45 residential blocks spread throughout numerous neighborhoods. we use this project delivery approach for for the si purposes because we are able to group -- for efficiency purposes. to provide more kcontext, your packet includes the blocks. the blacks planned for next fiscal year with all funds and

other sources as well as all the blocks planned for the next five years. i'm joined by our paving program managers and we are happy to answer any questions. >> supervisor kim: thank you. i had a chance to look at it. it looks like it is prioritized by pavement conditions. >> and we look at coordination opportunities with other projects and other agencies. >> supervisor tang: great. hopefully we can hurley -- hurry up and use this funding in case sb-1 is a repealed. do we have any comments? seeing none. we will go -- did you have anything? no. okay. we will go to public comment on item 1. any members wish to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. can we get a motion on item one?

supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: sorry. send this item to the full board with positive recommendation. >> supervisor tang: okay. we will do that without objection. thank you. all right. item 2. please. [reading item #2] >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. we have a sponsor here, supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin:. i think the measure sets it forth. i have one small amendment, which i'm passing out which is on page three, line seven at section 106a.4.1 to insert the word either and i will pass those to the committee members.

i'm happy to answer any questions. i want to thank staff at the department of building inspection and the building inspection commission that recommended these clarifications by the unanimous vote of those voting inspection commissioners that were present. >> supervisor tang: thank you. supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: so, it says in here 2016 and the code there was an omission and it says that there's a reenacting paragraph. what type of construction is it? >> supervisor peskin: i believe we have somebody here from building inspection who can answer that or maybe deputy city attorney can answer that. let me just see if i can find that provision that was inadvertently omitted in 2016. >> supervisor safai: is that the heart of this act?

i understand it's 25% slope grade. >> supervisor peskin: so, originally, this legislation which requires peer review of work done by a licensed geologist or engineer, something we have learned about for projects that are in seismic hazard zones or in steep slopes defined as 25% came about because the original legislation referred to a map that is now outdated called the bloom map. and so, that language has been deleted and the language that says exceeds 25% slope grade is added as determined in the scope of this act. as to what was omitted, i see

deputy city attorney -- >> i have it hear i think. but i believe that that part said it would apply to construction work that include the construction new building, structures having over a thousand square feet of projected roof area or horizontal vertical additions having over 500 square feet. >> supervisor peskin: right. >> supervisor tang: also applied to any of the following activities, shoring, underpinning, excavation, grading of over 50 cubic yards or any other construction may have substantial impact. >> supervisor peskin: that's right, and it is on page 13. >> supervisor tang: from my understanding it still allows for the building official to provide their expert opinion, but just also clarify when these requirements apply. >> supervisor peskin: that is correct. >> supervisor tang: supervisor safai, do you have any other

questions? >> supervisor safai: that was one. and so, in terms of section 106a .4.1.4, line 21 on page three, so, currently is it that their being required to have the structural advisory committee review the reports and kurntdsly -- currently what is the practice? >> supervisor peskin: my understanding, that has been the existing practice. we can go to -- and dan, do you want to -- or mr. strom? mr. lowery. you guys are hiding in the audience. >> good afternoon. dan lowery. deputy director permit services. so, the current practice right now is that the slope or the

listed area off the map, if it's determined it's 25 degrees or greater, it's the option to have -- some of the -- mandatory review and they have the identified areas for that. and the other ones are options where they look at the site permit and determine if a sac review is required. >> supervisor tang: what i read was that in the legislation the review by the structural advisory committee, what you are asking about, supervisor safai, is it will be mandatory instead of discretionary. >> supervisor safai: just for the frontprojects of 25% or mor? if you have on the slope, do you have to submit to the structural advisory committee? >> yes. there's a little confusion on

our part as far as 25% versus 25 degrees. so, if it's 25 degrees, according to the maps that we have, yes, it could be under structural advisory committee. we do very few sac reviews a year. >> supervisor safai: i know that currently that the they shall -- the threshold is high. >> right. >> supervisor safai: what's the difference between current and what is being proposed? right now, what's the threshold to go to sac we view? >> if it is 25% rate, it will increase the area of the existing maps that we have. >> supervisor safai: what is the current map? what grade triggers the sac review? >> the map we have it can increase 25%, maybe even more.

that would have to be under review. >> supervisor safai: this is a significant increase in workload for your department? >> yes, it is. >> supervisor safai: is this the right threshold? >> it's -- [indiscernible] >> the code advisory committee looked at this and they weren't sure of the 25% because they didn't know where that figure came from. >> supervisor safai: that's my question. and i'm not trying to slow down supervisor peskin's proposal. i just want to make sure staff has had the right time to weigh in and make sure that this is the appropriate slope. so, do you need more time to work out what -- with the proposed sponsor so we have clarity on this? >> supervisor peskin: i would submit this wednesday to the building inspection commission and they are the policy body for the department. they recommend this by every

member who was there for that vote. and by the way, if you look at the bloom map, virtually all the areas on the bloom map that were the subject of the original legislation were 25% or more. so, i think the issue here that supervisor safai is getting to is the issue that is set forth in the mandatory submittal of reports and geotechnical review, which in the previous iteration were required to go to design review by a licensed geotechnical engineer. and in this particular version, are required to do to the structural advisory committee which is really a body that has the expertise to do it. relative to workload, this is all a function of fees that are paid for by the developer -- the fundamental thrust of this

update is just to make sure that there is the proper level of peer review on frontals that -- projects that are in seismically challenged areas as we have experienced as mr. lowery said at edge hill, where there will have been numerous failures and other parts of the city. telegraph hill has had numerous failures. so, it seems like having this level of oversight and peer review is the right, safe way of going about building in very challenging areas. >> it was approved by the building inspection commission. >> supervisor safai: right. is there a difference of opinion between staff and the commission? >> i think you need an engineer to report. i'm not an engineer. but they could tell you the statistics. >> supervisor safai: what i'm trying to get at is we have a significant portion of our city that is on slope and i agree with the thrust of what

supervisor peskin is trying to accomplish. i just know that going to the sac review adds a significant amount of time and project. and these projects, are they mainly additions or are they mainly new construction for the most part? >> it could be both. in edge hill, i know there's additions under sac review and it could be a new project. it is within the area of the map. >> supervisor safai: what i'm getting at -- so, that's one. secondly, you said that staff hadn't had an opportunity to weigh in in terms of giving you a few idea of how much additional work this is going to add to your department. >> i think this review was done under the corrode advisory committee. not our staff. >> supervisor safai: anything else you wanted to add, supervisor peskin? i understand the commission approved it, but i'm getting some differences of opinion from

staff. so, i don't know how you want to proceed. >> supervisor peskin: i would like to proceed and move the amendment and would hope that the committee would send this piece of legislation that has been kicked around for quite some time to the full board. >> supervisor tang: one last question only because our office has been working a lot with dbi on accessibility for businesses. one of the issues that came up in our conversations, especially recently was just the number of building that might have to comply with the a.d.a. law. but they might be located in chinatown or so forth where there are a lot of hills and slopes. so, how would this impact some of that work? because i know a lot of businesses are a little bit worried and hesitant about accessibility and how do we balance the need for safety as well as helping people comply?

>> this program wouldn't affect the accessible because there's a square footage that is a minimum before required to have that provision. [indiscernible] >> the slopes are existing. >> supervisor tang: thank you. >> that is a much bigger program and area where they have to comply. >> supervisor tang: okay. do we have any other questions or discussion on this? okay. why don't we go to public comment on item 2 then. >> i'm bob. i wanted to ask you to support supervisor peskin's legislation as requested to be amended. it's important to not talk about a.d.a. without knowing i think all of the ramifications of it. one of the provisions was if a

digs didn't have enough pun -- business didn't have enough money at the time, it should lay away money so that at a certain point in the future, it would have enough money to start that process. but there was no provision that building inspection departments or planning commissions do any training. so it was never passed along and never enforced. a lot of jurisdictions are behind the time in terms of trying to get businesses to put money away. i'm going to bring that up because some years ago, san francisco had an unreinforced masonry bond fund and it may be that it is something in the future to consider whether there's some possible low interest paid down fund that can help businesses make themselves accessible. but in the meantime, anything that can be done to make a structure safe or safer, whether it is an addition, a new home, a small office building, it makes

it helpful for everybody that are less likely to have people get injured in a collapse or as a hill starts to slide down. so, i am going to suggest please move ahead. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is pat. i think i'm the only structural engineer in this room. probably the only person qualified to talk about this and i have been practicing since the '70s. i was the engineer brought in for the land slide. very familiar with sac and the bloom rules. the bloom rule is a 20% threshold that requires you to then go to the map and because the map is ar kay yak -- ar kay yak, no one uses it. it is long been superceded by the state hazard seismic hazard

map. but the bloom map started off with a threshold of 20% and if you were at 20%, then you must look at a subsequent map. and there's a hundred of them. subsequent maps. you go from the big map and to the little maps. and those little maps are a block by block zone of slide. using the bloom map at 20 or 25% is totally wrong. if you're going to use the bloom map, you have to also use this 100-map text. the building department didn't have it. i have a copy of it. i have given a copy of my version of it. if you want to use the bloom map, you also have to set the threshold of these 100 microslides. we know where they are. but those slides and the map have long since been superceded by the seismic hazard act map. [bell]. >> this is a bag of sand. i can't get sand to slide at

25%. it slides at 25 degrees. so, this percent and degrees have been confused. the correct number is 25 degrees. that's 50%. that's two to one. that's the stability of sand. the weakest material in the city. [bell]. >> so, i think there's a confusion on percent versus degrees. [mic turned off] >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. are there any other members of the public who wish to comment on item 2? seeing none, the public comment is closed. colleagues what would you like to do with this item? >> supervisor peskin: madam chair, this has been through staff. obviously the bloom map is archaic and this is an attempt to replace the bloom map with some objective standards. i am not a structural engineer or a geotechnical engineer.

this 25% number has now been through legal review and commission review. this is the first time i'm hearing that it should be degrees and not percent. the bloom map was actually as he said, 20%. not 20 degrees. but if mr. strom, you want to address this on the technical side or mr. lowery as to whether or not it should be 25 degrees as compared to 25%. 25% is a pretty darned sleep slope? san francisco. 25% grade is nothing i would ride my bicycle up. >> supervisor, we can investigate this 25 degrees versus 25%. >> supervisor peskin: all right. madame chair, in the interest of

getting this right, i would ask for a one-week continuance and we will work with the department of building inspection. i would assume in so far as they have engineers and architects and builders on this that they would have caught this. but we will take one week off and talk about it again in a week. >> supervisor tang: all right. thank you. supervisor kim? >> supervisor kim: i will wait until next week. >> supervisor peskin: and just clarification on the amendment, that would be great. >> supervisor tang: all right. supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: want to thank the department for being here. but it would be good, mr. lowery, if you bring someone with technical experience so we can have a little more pointed conversation about that. that would be helpful. next time. thank you. >> supervisor tang: okay. thank you. so, can we get a motion on first the amendment and then the continuance? >> supervisor safai: i make a motion to accept the amendment

as proposed. >> supervisor tang: okay. without objection. >> supervisor safai: and then i make a motion to continue this item to the call of the chair. >> supervisor peskin: about one week. >> supervisor safai: one week. >> supervisor tang: we can do that without objection. thank you very much. all right. madam clerk, can we please call item 3. [reading item #3] >> supervisor tang: thank you. again we have supervisor peskin as sponsor. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. the ordinance before you today extends the term of lower polk alcohol restriction. it was established by my predecessors in 2013 to address the influx of new bars in the lower polk neighborhood and the community's desire to maintain a healthy balance of uses in that area. i want to give credit and acknowledgment to the stewardship of the lower polk neighbors which has been working

with businesses and residents on this matter. you will note that it includes one clarification having to do specifically with the demolition of a building at 1331 polk street which currently houses the hemlock tavern and i'm informed the developer have agreed to allow this institution returned to the building once it's reconstructed. so, this makes an exception and to that end, i have one small amendment, which is to use the word "submitted" rather than "approved" prior to january 1, 2018, which again is for the hemlock tavern provision. and i will pass that out.

i want to thank the planning department staff, mr. star, and the commission for their work and the commission's unanimous vote to recommend this to the board of supervisors. >> supervisor tang: thank you supervisor peskin. any questions, comments from colleagues? seeing none. public comment is open. aaron starr from the planning department. >> thank you. aaron starr. i'm just here to let you know the planning commission wanted to adopt it. the proposed modifications include we placing the one year abandonment period to one year. it is a new exception to the abandonment provision can be used and revice the ordinance so the footnote specifically identify lower polk street. we understand the supervisor is

proposing these amendments for you today and we would like to thank the supervisor for doing that. and that concludes my presentation. >> supervisor tang: thank you, mr. star. okay. so now we will go to public comment. any comments on item 3, please come up. >> good afternoon. i will be very brief. the restricted use district is working as noted in the staff report by planning. i would like to thank supervisor peskin for working with lower polk neighbors on this. i would like to thank the developer for working with hemlock tavern and for all the parties for working on the hemlock tavern accommodation in this ordinance. and i will see the rest of my time for your long afternoon. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. any other members of the public who wish to comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues can we go to motion item 3.

>> supervisor peskin: can you take the amendment? >> supervisor kim: i make the motion to make the amendments. >> supervisor tang: okay. we will do that without objection. >> supervisor kim: and make a motion to move this forward with recommendation to the full board. >> supervisor tang: we will do that as amended. thank you. madam clerk, item 4 please. [reading item #4] >> supervisor tang: thank you. once again we have supervisor peskin up. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, madame chair, colleagues. the item before you today is at least in my mind an obvious an standard piece of the overall legislative package to accomplish a permitting program for new and proliferating business model of motorized scooter or powered scooters. we are familiar with this because it is exactly what the

board unanimously passed for bicycles last year. as with the stationless bikes, we are ensuring that the san francisco municipal transportation agency creates a permit process, as well as giving public works department the power to enforce the sanctity and safety of our public space, particularly our sidewalks. the technical aspects of the legislation are not the only similarities from last year. i want to stress this because it is clear many of these companies continue to build their corporate empires off a basic premise. making massive profits and innovation is only possible by cutting corners. everything, including public assets are there to be mon anytized and it is somehow the fault of the local communities and governments that they didn't

think to publicize this first. san francisco's only here to quite literally, pun intended, be given the bird by tech ceo who jump from one company to the next. the hysteria apparently we are -- according to a press release issued by one of the companies at an emergency meeting, which it is not. it was actually introduced a month and a half ago and has gotten here during the normal course of business. there's nothing extraordinary about it. and as i said, it's virtually identical to the legislation that we passed unanimously with regard to permitting of stationless bicycles. i represent a district with the highest concentration of low income seniors in a city with one of the highest numbers of pedestrian collisions and fatalities in the state. district three is the dens district that rely on a.d.a. and

pedestrian travel. so, when i see fallacies being spouted by ceo's about how ever scooter is one less car and how seniors and pedestrians and parents walking their kids to school somehow just need to get over themselves and get out of the way of this machine, i find it to be offensively and arrogant. in addition to hundreds of form letters generated by bird and lime, i have also and i'm sure you have received hundreds of complaints, photos, videos, telephone calls and emails from angry people who feel exactly the same way. so, before we get into the actual policy issues with how these companies are operating, i will just say that the

pretentious -- we're saving the world attitude, who are doing important work to advocate for alternative modes of transit is really not welcome and i hope that that behavior stops. as policy makers, we're tasked with balancing the competing needs of our public realm and private corporations are at the bottom of that priority list. especially since i have yet to see any of them actually do one thing to actually address our massive transportation infrastructure. some of these companies are being financed by companies like uber. we're told that somehow uber is a transit alternative that is decongesting our streets, even though we have the hard data prepared by the san francisco county transportation authority that shows that at peak in some parts of the city they are adding to 20 -- 26% of the

congestion. according the an article in tech crunch, the cost of one of these scooters is $125 apiece. each scooter dies out in two months time. by the way, only about 80 of those uses would be profitable to the company. when people complain about street junk being dumped on the city streets, they are closer to the truth and that they know. all you need to do is to see the photos of scooters piled up in heaps as well as the ones dumped into trash cans. i have a lot more to say, but colleagues, i would like to hear from the public and i do have one small amendment that i have passed out at the suggestion of city attorney to change motorized to powered and those de minimis clarifications are in front of each member of the committee and i will also

provide that to our committee clerk. with that, madame chair, i will turn it back to you. i will bring up something at the board of supervisors, at the same time they are resincing, they are lobby -- resisting think want to introduce an assembly bill that will deregulate helmet and increasing speed by 33% to 20 miles an hour and to what end? to further impair our city's pedestrians and the users of these devices themselves. >> supervisor tang: thank you. colleagues, do we have any further comments or questions? i think i will save my -- i'm sorry. we are all going to save our comments until after public comment. given the number, i will be limiting public comment to one minute per speaker so we will be

able to make it through everyone. i have a couple of comment cards here. timmy waters, cathy deluca -- i'm sorry. we have m.t.a. staff here. my apologies. i will still call a few comment cards so folks can line up. john lowell. cow can please line up by the drapes. we have s.f. m.t.a. staff. >> thank you chair tang, members of the committee and supervisor peskin for sponsoring this important legislation. i'm happy to present this collaborative legislation today to amend division i of the transportation code to address motorized scooter sharing programs or as amended by supervisor peskin, powered scooter sharing programs.

we have been working very close with the board of supervisors on this legislation recognizing the point need. thanking supervisor peskin for his leadership and supervisor kim and her office for her help as well. to start, whether it is bike share, car share or other sharing, math sees the interest in providing more mobility options as a good thing. to the extend that motorized scooter help to make the transportation system safer, more accessible, we support it. but as the supervisor mentioned, we have a lot of questions regarding the operations of scooters sharing in san francisco. so, we are proceeding with a lot of caution. that's why this is a really important piece of legislation to make sure that motorized scooter are regulated in a manner that promotes public health and safety. i want to mention this division i legislation to the transportation code is being complemented by division ii

legislation that will be approved by the m.t.a. board of directors. the division i legislation prohibits stationless scooter sharing without a permit. the division ii would lay out the details of that permitting process. we expect to get to the m.t.a. board with that legislation on may one. so, recognizing there's a lot of public comment i won't say a whole lot. we want to say scooter sharing is new. it was launched in santa monica in 2017. three companies began operation in san francisco in march and we have spoken to other companies that have an interest in operating but have preferred to wait for a permit program to exist before launching. we regular news there's a strong need -- recognize there's a strong need to have the permitting in place. and we have heard from the city. primarily with regards to concern over the failure of the companies to comply with existing regulations prohibits

sidewalk riding and blocking pedestrian paths. so, our goal from this permitting program and from this legislation is to capture the benefits while eliminating the impacts. with that said, the division ii legislation would be heard by m.t.a. board on may one, there's a lot of details still being -- may 1st, but there's a lot of details being worked out. everything we do is maintaining the safety of our pedestrians and preventing sidewalks from being blocked by scooters and also preventing sidewalk riding. second requiring data sharing with the city so we can understand how scooters are operating and requiring review of the company's privacy policies to ensure the data they are collecting from their customers are ensuring consumer protection. and finally, concern with equity and ensure the programs have affordable membership for low income users.

in closing, the need for this legislation is clear and the legislation is a great xaem pl of collaboration -- example of collaboration between the m.t.a. and board of supervisors. we are excited to support this legislation and ensure any use of the public right-of-way is in the public interest and that standard applies to private companies as well as everybody else. with that i think we are going to public comment. i am happy to take questions. >> supervisor tang: thank you. supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: i want to thank mr. parks for the collaborative spirit they have worked with my office and supervisor kim's office. i want to underscore one thing that is important. the legislation that is before us today was introduced on march 7th and was introduced very publicly. it was actually reported in newspapers in san francisco and the various companies -- and

thank you mr., parks, there are other companies who chose not to do this who are in the same business, chose several weeks to dump these on the streets of san francisco, knowing full well that this day would come when we would be considering a regulatory scheme and a permitting scheme as we have in other instances of emerging shared mobility technology. so, it is a little preposterous for these companies to now be hysterical and issuing breaking news press releases claiming that we are doing something that they didn't know about. it's been very public for six weeks. it has been very public actually since the days we regulated segues on our public sidewalks a decade and a half ago. >> supervisor tang: thank you, supervisor peskin. so, now we will go back to public comment and i have some comment cards i will read one

more time. fran taylor, john lowell, timothy waters, cathy deluca and sam. again we're going to have to minimize public comment to a minute each so we will be able to get through everyone. >> i'm bob as a member of senior disability action. i support and we support the idea of this legislation to deter the misuse. this is simple regulation. it is not prohibition. and i -- i'm deter. recent stories have pictures that were in hood line showing a scooter with its handle in a blue curb parking lane. that means it is not really usable. [bell].. >> another picture showed a scooter blocking the mechanism to open the door to the sony -- meaning people with disabilities can't operate that motor vehicle

nifrm -- mechanism. i saw one of the mechanisms to inform the blind when they can cross. so they could stumble across it. there's hazards and dangers. this would help. >> supervisor tang: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon supervisors. my name is neo -- fiona lindsay. [indiscernible] >> we stand in strong support of regulation of these scooters primarily for the fact -- [indiscernible] >> and seniors and people who are -- use mobility devices. [bell]. >> for example when a person in a power chair might encounter

one of these scooters, they may have to swerve quickly to avoid accidents. also hundreds of these scooters piling up in the same place may block the loading and unloading for people using vehicles such as accessible vansment we believe more regulation is necessary -- [bell]. [mic turned off] >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisor. i'm speaking on behalf of the developers and work force development organization. i come to support the lime bike and their initiatives they do in bayview. we have been working with them since 2017. they are very supportive of our mission. two points i want to highlight. one proactively they are working

with us and have actually hired folks from our community into their operation. [bell]. >> work is fun but contributes to the growth of bayview. secondly in a comment i heard a few seconds ago, they are actually working on and will be rolling out low income solutions for polk folks in the community. that helps remove that barrier. we are here to support the program. thank you for opportunity. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is john lowell. under your approval i served for ten years on the pedestrian safety advisory committee representing the safety needs of those who are vulnerable, children, seniors and people with disabilities. from a person perspective, i also approach you to seek your approval of this as a committee for the whole board of

supervisors to vote on as it was 17 years ago i sustained many injuries when i was hit at the intersection on 14th and mission. [bell]. >> so many points combined, i emphasize the importance to you of passing this regulation ordinance to ensure that there is -- we improve safety on the sidewalks of all pedestrians and particularly those of us who are vulnerable. please approve this. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is cathy deluca. i'm here to urge you to regulate these scooter companies. the scooters have the potential to be part of our transportation system and we have to see how that will play out. but what we do know is happening right now is that pedestrians on our sidewalk are not safe. these vehicles can go up to 15 miles an hour and they are being

ridding an over our sidewalks. and sidewalks are the one place in the city where people don't have to dodge vehicles and it needs to stay that way. [bell]. >> we have been receiving a lot of criticism in the past week. saying that we're not focusing on the real danger on our streets, which is cars. and i will tell you that every single day of my job i fight for vision zero. i fight for safer streets as does all of walk san francisco. fighting for street safety and for sidewalk safety are not mutually exclusive. the city can do more than two things at once. we need a system to regulate these companies because clearly they are not self-regulating. thank you. >> my name is fran taylor and i support this legislation. i have heard the companies and their supporters whining, what about the homeless encampments. this is a total false e quiver

-- equivalentcy. i think the scooters run amuck. a plot of young people to kill us old farts so they could have our rental controlled apartments. [laughter] >> supervisor tang: i will call other speaker cards here. i see a lot of people lined up. >> good afternoon, supervisors. thank you for having us. my name is rodney hampton jr. i'm here representing bayview latino community, members of c-step and church members.

we are in support of bike lime scooters. i hear people's concerns of the sidewalks. you have the garbage cans. [bell]. >> you have a number of things, illegal dumps, feces from dogs and cats. the city has developed a number of policies to actually fix situations like this. i believe lime bike is definitely willing and hearing people concerns and willing to work with the city to make -- and address the concerns in safety and fashionable way. they are in the community. they are doing a fantastic job. [bell]. >> they have attended several events. [mic turned off] >> supervisor tang: thank you. next speaker, please. go my name is randall. i'm a district five resident.

scoot users will pay 50 cents to avoid one way busy sidewalks. second, independent contractor charges these companies are using are allowed to charge ten scooters at the time. i have seen people mention they are charging 30 scooters in their apartments. i believe this puts the community at risk to fires from daisy strips. i don't think it is a safe product to be shared. i have seen a number of scooters broken in half and with broken handlebars. how do i know the user before we didn't misuse in it a way that puts me at risk. like i said, these are consumer grade products not designed for shared use. and electric potentially e-waste isn't a sustainable form of alternative transportation. [bell].

[mic turned off] >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hi. my name is andrew lee. i support the continued presence of dockless scooters in san francisco. i rely on them as my primary mode of transportation. i do not own a car. before scooters i would take a lyft or uber. i hope legislation doesn't reduce the availability of the scooters in san francisco. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. i have been commuting into the city pretty much my entire professional life. i worked at city college. so, i come from a multi-variable perspective. i'm hear to speak in support of bird scooters and against this regulation. like most commuters, i think we have a crisis and we need to be progressive and realize there is no silver bullet to this crisis.

i'm here to speak in support of that. [bell]. >> asking the supervisors to please channel that progressive mindset and understand that including the creative ways of thinking into the bridge tapestry of this city is the way we have gotten here. we are proud of that tradition in the bay area. supervisor peskin, i hope you understand there are lots of people out here who think this is a creative solution that can work for the city. i hope you take that into account and not reactively legislate. instead look progressively forward to how to improve the city. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is sam. i am a resident of the city and i have been using the scooters for the last month for my work commute. i would usually use an uber. i'm aware not all scooter users have been well behaved but i have been able to mind the rules of the road and park in appropriate safe places. i agree we shouldn't have people

riding them on the sidewalks. just as we shouldn't have bicycles, tents, needles or human waste on our sidewalks, all of which i encountered on my way here. i didn't encounter any scooters on my way here. [bell]. >> i believe we can enforce the issues. at the moment the scooter concept is misunderstood but is december rattly needed in our city. just one parking space can fit over two dozen e-scooters and it can carry multiple users to and from their destination with zero emissions. i know with the right amoech we -- approach we can make the sharing great for our community. thank you. [applause] >> supervisor tang: thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is sam. i'm here on behalf of lime bike. first like to thank you all for taking the time to discuss this legislation. we look forward to a fair and transparent process that balances the real and serious concerns of the public with the many transportation benefits

that electric scooters bring. lime has implemented a robust community outreach and education program that includes community based organizations as well as groups that represent disabled communities. we have hired locally and been supportive of local community based events. [bell]. >> we continue to view the city and county of san francisco as partners in this effort and want to work collectively to craft solutions. thank you very much. >> supervisor tang: thank you. >> hello. my name is sherry, western edition. i'm amazed by the arrogance i have heard here today. it's astounding and i'm very distress. supervisor peskin was right. we have a situation here where the arrogance and you all should know better and you all quite frankly should have been preparing this a long time ago. what are you doing about skateboards? just the other day, three guys

on skateboards came towards me on the sidewalk. [bell]. >> one of them flipped their skateboard, hit me in the leg. i think i'm going to go back, live in the 1850s and i'm going to hitch my horse up somewhere and see how the scooters like that. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you. >> hello. my name is theodore lawrence. i'm here representing -- i'm a bayview resident. i just want to say as a young person out here living in the city and trying to make ends meet that these new companies that are coming around are providing a huge revolution for us as young people. it provides us, especially with the bikes, to get across the city easily. and the scooters allow us to get from place to place within the smaller confines of like downtown area. and they also provide more work opportunities for us young

people interested in the tech field. [bell]. >> the world itself is being revolutionized by tech. even over in china they have a huge bike share program. the scooters are providing us with ways to make money because they have a charger program and help with gentrification. because a lot of these people in low income cities are having a hard time with a lot of the new stuff coming up. this provides us to fully integrate as one. it is just the beginning stages. [bell]. >> yeah. [mic turned off] >> supervisor tang: thank you. next speaker please. >> good afternoon. i just came here to say that i'm from san francisco as a native, i can see both the problem of seeing the scooters kind of just entrapping people, just blocking the sidewalks and riding all over them. but the thing is, that's a problem of misdirection and

miscommunication being the company has only had a couple of weeks to deal with this. there's a lot of initiatives in place and procedures i can think of off the top of my head. [bell]. >> putting cameras on the scooters and putting more exact gps and if they want to make theme heavier, make theme faster so people can't pick -- them faster so people can't pick them up and thrown them in garbages. with these new toys, there's a lot of things that come with them. such as -- like, putting different measures in place -- [bell]. >> [mic turned off] >> supervisor tang: thank you. next speaker, please. >> thanks for doing what you guys do. please help move this in a

direction of moving away from car ownership and car ridership. i love our city. i think they would be much better with more pedestrians, more people on bikes and more people on scooters. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. president neighbor association. the patrol neighborhoods are rapidly developing mixed use neighborhood and we are looking for any option to get away from a car that we can, but those options need to be regulated for the riders, the users and for the other modes of transportation. we are in support of this legislation. we are also in support of development. there was a comment about the city being progressive and accepting new forms of development. the clearest way to get reactive legislation is to shoot first and ask questions later, which is what is happening in this circumstance. [bell]. [applause] >> this revolution i work with the san francisco m.t.a. on a number of issues. they are very open to new ways of getting around.

there are a number of policies that is divide car ownership. let's create a level playing field for the new technologies and not a playing field that will reward those that disregard our laws and disregard -- and harm those companies that do follow our laws. thank you very much. >> supervisor tang: thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is karen. i'm part of seniors disability actions transit justice program. i want to remind you what is going on, on our sidewalks already. garbage cans, fire hydrants, light posts, street signs, street trees, which i happen to love, parking signs, magazine stands, mailboxes, benches, bus stops and sometimes people on bicycles. they are very busy filled spaces already and pedestrians are -- [bell]. >> seem like we are getting left out in the cold. we have been down here before to

discuss with you segue, robots on the street and now scooters. and i don't say ban scooters but i think they need to be regulated and the use of sidewalks by pedestrians needs to be the highest priority. thank you very much. >> supervisor tang: thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm alice rogers. i'm part of the coalition and i'm president of the neighborhood association. i'm speaking for myself. i support the resolution to adopt some regulations. i hope this is just the first of a more complete package whether it is senator -- i mean supervisor yee's innovation task force or if it is more forward looking traffic demand manage. [bell]. >> principles -- we need comprehensive regulations for all of these wheels. but i really hope we can find equal opportunities for all of

these different modes of mobility. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you. next speaker. >> hi. i'm one of the organizers people protected bike line. we separate unprotecting bike lanes from the car lane and keep uber and other cars out of the bike lane. we should be talking about how do we adapt our city for our climate in the future. 46% of san francisco's, green house gases are from emissions. if you look at our city, our city tells me that you should be driving. we should be supporting these new types of transportation. [bell]. >> they should be regulated but you need to create more protective bike lanes and more parking and storage for these vehicles and do it quickly. thank you. [applause] >> supervisor tang: thank you. sorry. we need to refrain from making applause or any other comments. so, if you could just use your

spirit fingers as we like to call it. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm a san francisco native and i'm part of the chinatown transit research improvement project. i'm here to support the ordinance because as supervisor peskin said, there's a lot -- chinatown is really crowded already. so, if you guys have been on stockton street, you will know it is kind of like a football field. imagine your grandparents trying to go buy groceries for dinner and not being able to get back home because there's a scooter in the way. [bell]. >> i think the moped company is a really great company for the power scooters to look at. their model is one of the best models they have in the city. they restrict where you can park certain mopeds and they also requ m