forego bike, uber, and tech lanes. let's not repeat the behavior and learn from the mistakes in the past. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. sir, welcome. >> good afternoon. i'm a native of san francisco. i'm going to keep this brief. i'm going to use whsome brevit here. i've only encountered actions with line bike in my neighborhood. since then, they've been given workshops to the people on the ground. we have to keep in mind that people in the bayview are aspiring engineering, and we can't just have day jobs. when things do start to get on the different fold for them, we didn't rust only have ground jobs and be underground, so let's hope up other options and possibilities to the folks that are working to aspire to be

more than just groundworking. thank you. >> thank you very much. very well said. mr. wiener. >> herbert wiener. perhaps the proposal should be called uber on sidewalk. no one should be on the sidewalk with these transportations -- alternate means of transportation, and that includes bicyclists. and i'm wondering if it's going to be save to leave my house and walk on the sidewalk with the, you know, scooters bearing down on me, and i'm wondering, should the police department make an exception. am i entitled to use mace or pepper spray to defend myself against these rogue means of transportation? what would happen if a member of the board were struck by a scooter? what would be their response? you know, i think that this is an opportunity to banish

scooters and bicycles from the sidewalk. it's against the law, you're upholding the law. and i think by having this lax enforcement of bicycles on the walk, you've opened the door to this problem. so, you know, it's -- it's really very frustrating, and for my own safety and for the board's safety, and for the citizens of san francisco's safety, shoot down this proposal. i'm sure there are other legitimate jobs that can be had. if you were to offer employment for hit men, you would certainly flinch at this. this is an illegitimate means of employment, and i wouldn't be snookered by this. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> again, speaking on behalf of the behalf of west side, best

side, we are ourselves a pedestrian safety committee, and we are very much against this being in the right-of-way and being ridden on the sidewalk, as well. although it's very clear that the priorities and we can see that in the sunset, are -- are kind of weird. in the sunset, you cannot walk a block, sorry, without having to step into traffic because you have people having privatized decks, so -- without walking into construction, people having privatized decks. so i think we need to refocus here. the reason that we're here today is to say we're against a numerical cap because we've seen on the west side the disaster that the 250 bikes -- [ inaudible ] >> -- is that with these 250

bikes, jump is not able to serve the west side. and we come at this problem with geographic equity in mind. if you leave me to 250 or 500 scooters, what's going to happen is exactly the same. these companies, they're going to serve soma, and they're going to serve the east side. they're not going to come to the west side, and if we want to get people out of their cars, we need to not have that numerical cap and instead think about every time a scooter has three or more rides perday, it can increase that cap. but yeah, please -- please do not have the west side once again be left out of this. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker. welcome. >> good afternoon, directors. my name is joesy ehrens, and i'm the senior community

organizer on walk san francisco. on behalf of -- [ inaudible ] >> -- in san francisco and in order for them to be successful, they need to be regulated so they complement or city's existing policies and priorities, including our transit first policy, our vision zero commitment and our emerging principles for guiding mobilities. this program takes the first steps towards protecting the safety and accessibility of our sidewalks. we also feel that the permit could go further to protect all people who use our streets. we and some members of the vision zero coalition are concerned that the parking specifications are not detailed enough. we really need clear guidelines for where the scooters can be parked on our streets to make sure that the public right-of-way are obstructed or hazardous for people walking but especially those with

accessibility needs. we are concerned that different communities across the city such as cbd's, and businesses across the city will gear the brunt of waiting scooters and have to wait for them to be moved. we hope you will partner with community groups and repay them for their efforts. what are your provisions for real-time enforcement for both parking and mobile use and does the pilot include consistent progress report to allow the city to modify and adjust depending on company and user behavior. to the end we're supportive of this program and we're looking forward to continue to collaborate to ensure the safety of our sidewalks and public realm. thank you. >> thank you very much and for all the work that your organization does. next speaker. miss taylor, welcome back. >> how did we get to this point

where taking a short walk to the store, you feel like the target in a video game? i hold this agency and other city policy makers somewhat responsible -- well, very responsible because of the lax enforcement over the years of sidewalk parking, which i believe has created a culture of contempt for pedestrians. when a sidewalk is known to be an option for a parking place, and it's considered just sort of a suggestion that maybe this might be someplace that you might want to walk on, but don't feel safe, then, this leads to the right-of-way violations that are so prevalent in -- in the focus on the side in vision zero for injuries and deaths in our city because the right-of-way of pedestrians is not respected. and this is just the latest episode. i can see enforcement being a

problem because it's an invitation to racial profiling, and so this is not the answer. the city has to make a chow. there are two paths here. the final -- choice. there are two paths here. the final insult could say the tables and chairs are removed from the sidewalk to make rooms for the scooters. or the city could say let's make the sidewalks safe. i'm a bicyclist. i don't believe that bicyclists believe on the sidewalk. i can say i'm almost 70 and i'm not too chicken to ride in the road. what's your excuse? i think the city has to do a lot of soul searching to do their part in figuring out what has happened. >> always good to see you. thank you for your input. next speaker, please. >> so let me be clear. i'm nine months pregnant, so i'm not going to be a scooter

user any time soon, and i'm not currently a scooter user. however mobility and pedestrian safety is kind of a new hot issue for me, and it keeps coming up with regards to these scooters? my friends and i have been reporting cars that block sidewalks as well as driveways via the 311 app? however reporting cars over the past few weeks friends of mine have been cold by sf mta dispatchers that we've been clogging up the system with reports that they're not going to pursue? we've been told that dispatchers are mainly interested to cars responding driveways, not sidewalk issues? in any call, a friend was told been a sf mta dispatcher that they know cars block the sidewalks but would not pursue ticketing these cars because it would -- and this is a quote, because it would be a safety issue for dispatchers. if sf mta is serious about creating a safe pedestrian experience this needs to be addressed. i think it's disingenuous to

have a slide in the presentation with a downed scooter citing it as a pedestrian concern but actively have members of the sf mta ignoring the issue with cars. finally, i could think the downed scooters are due to wind or some stupid guy tipping them over. even on my muni ride over, i saw an emt medic lay down two scooters for no apparent reason. the cars that block sidewalks are not accidently parked there, and i believe it's time to educate those owners, and i believe the sf mta has a did you telly -- duty to do this, and it's currently shirking it. sf mta has a personal responsibility to help people get out of cars. thank you. mr. golden, welcome back. >> i'd like to voice my dissatisfaction at the 1250 total scooter cap.

if we want to reach our mode share goal as a city, we have to increase the choices of mobility. this cap only gives us a small fraction of the number of tnc's on our streets. if somebody's deciding between a car and a scooter, and the nearest scooter is six blocks away, but they can get an uber in two minutes, their choice is clear. if this permit limits this too much, we will have lost the chance to add this low impact mode to our choice of options in the city. as to our issue of sidewalk parking, i think we've misappropriated the space dedicated to storing our different mobility devices. we've devoted many square miles on our streets to the storage of cars, but almost none to storing bicycles, scooters, etcetera. the result is a storage of bikes and scooters on precious pedestrian space. we shouldn't ride our bikes and scooters on the sidewalks.

why are we parking them there? i'm primarily a cyclist, but i welcome others tojoin me in th bike lane. i ask that you make space for their safe operation and storage off of the sidewalk. thank you. >> next speaker, please kevin here? >> hello again. this board in 2013 made a 2018 mode share goal for bicycles of 8%. i think we're currently around 4%, and what i'd consider you to do is to reflect on if we should start to include scooters in these other modes of transportation in those bicycle showed shares. i recommend that we do. three points for your

discussion after our comments. there's 6,000 tnc's operating on our streets perday. 4,000 personal cars line our streets. if we want more people to use scooters andic boos, we should make it easier than calling an uber or paying $150 annual residential permit fee. 1200 scooters is not going to be enough. 250 jump bikes is definitely not enough. zero go bikes west of the vez is not enough. parking meters being number one for clearing, bike corrals, parking signs, scooters, trash cans. please convert one parking space perblock perstreet to storing these things. and finally, sidewalk riding. this does not happen when a street has a protected bike lanes. this happens when bikes and scooters don't have a safe place to ride and feels

threatened by cars. director reiskin, you and i were on turk, and as we were there, we saw half a dozen scooters came down the street. i didn't see them on the sidewalks, they were on your protects bi protected bike lane. if you build it, they will come. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> thank you for having me. my name is darren winegard. i want to thank the sf meat in drafting mostly good regulations. i wanted them to put a face with the name. we are one of, maybe perhaps the only company that has not launched without permission in san francisco, and in many other cities, we were the first company to get a permit in washington, d.c. i think supervisor peskin essentially established under

what was cross-examination a couple of weeks ago that many companies launched in san francisco that many of the rules were forth coming and would be ruled on after they were launched on st. patrick's day. we have seen in cities remove their entire fleets from austin so they could have been done in the face of cease and desist letters. we were generally happy with the plan that the sf mta released until we saw that the percompany cap was lifted. the question for us is what kind of incentive do you as policy makers want to create? an incentive that takes account of regulations and rule of law or one that rewards companies for simply launching one company is represented to have as many as 1600 scooters on the streets of san francisco right now. a consistent percompany cap applied during at least phase one where the process is to be learned as to how phase two and a more permanent program could

be established is essential to creating a level playing field that we desire. a floating cap where a company could eat up a substantial part of the 1250 total cap limit seems to reward exactly the kind of bad behavior that many here have sort of acknowledged. the last thing, with respect to enforcement is i believe that most of the people that are in front of me now are old enough to remember the reagan year. we support trust with verification, so the api system has to account for the number of scooters. we support the creation of an affidavit that would put some personal liability on ceo's and other officers of the company to establish to you that the cap is being honored. thank you are. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. nice to see you again. welcome. >> thank you very much. another pilot program following along with the corporate commuter buses and also with chariot, now, we're following

along that. again, we're unfortunately rewarding back actors, and it's easier to ask for forgiveness than it is permission. bird provided a report in the safety meeting, and when you did the math, you came out to even though for a 30-day period, they had 1614 birds available, but they did 95,000 rides. so when you do the math and divide it out, they were basically on the sidewalk all the time, and that's the issue. i've had complaints some neighbors and noe valley that have approached me and said why is this bird in front of me house? so the resident went and called down to southern california and, you know, basically kind of almost got flipped off, but the bottom line is, the next day, that was not staged in

front of that resident's house. so i think everything is, again, to the lowest common denominator. again, it's the poor behavior of the patrons, and regarding the reimbursement fee, we charge $250,000 for a taxi medallion, and then, we're always saying, well, it's cost reimbursement. prop 218. well, i've read prop 218, and my interpretation was it's for your property tax below the line. in other words if there's vehiclet vector control provided by the county, the cost for that cannot exceed the fee. there is a a disconnect between the $250,000 that you're paying for a taxi fee as opposed to cost roam you arement, so that really needs -- reimbursement so that really needs to be

addressed. i guess that's the question. it's going to be interesting to see how well this program and how the customers are going to react. from what i've seen, and if you want to see the photos, i've taken them in noe valley, they're all over the sidewalk, and they're not being properly attended to. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> thanks for having me. first off i'd like to say happy may day to everyone. >> thank you very much. welcome. >> i'm a community organizer out of san francisco, oakland, berkeley, and san jose. i'm with c 3 d, hour, and ace. my main concern for these scooters is when they pick them up and charge them. i organize with government sustainable housing off of 33 perry, howard, and harrison street. these vans have been parked in only permit parking for

residents, and always been in the loading zones overnight. so if whoever and whom does get to the permits, i think you need to think very, very carefully to who you choose more for the community and the corporate than who has provided input today. >> very good. thank you. one speaker remaining. welcome. >> my name is olivia. i'm an employee of line bike. i do the recharging and the collecting and organizing of the scooters that are left on the sidewalk. on a personal level, i just want to say that the way this company has affect me and other people who have had the ability to get this employment has been so significant, i'm someone who is paying for my own residence, able to pay for my own dental

care, buying my own residence, and it's impacting me as someone of the lgbt community who is often turned down for jobs that others would have equal opportunity for. aside from that, being out in public, seeing the amount of hostility, seeing that someone should be assaulted for mace for riding a scooter, people throwing scooters angrily, causing the problems that they say we are responsible for as a company, and also, at the same time, the amount of upper -- upper focused transportation and there being no regulation for uber's parking in the like lanes, when i'm driving around there, picking these up, the ubers are filling up the bike lanes, six, seven cars. everybody sees this out there driving. they're forcing people who are on bikes to go into the auto traffic, and they're forcing people into the traffic lanes to go into the wrong lane of on

coming traffic, and this is causing people to stay on the sidewalks out of safety issues. line bike certainly does not promote people being on the sidewalk. i had a meeting with them yesterday, and they're working on incentives for riders and users to organize the scooters themselves free ride credits or other incentives for them to take the responsibility to cleanup the city, as well, and they're also considering having employment cleaning up the areas around the scooters. >> thank you very much for coming and sharing your story. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> is there anyone else who wants to have public comment on this item? seeing none, we will close public comment and move onto our deliberations. there are many items to go over here. i think first, what i'd like to say is to the folks who came down, there is obviously very passionate views on both sides

and tangential views on this issue. the first thing before we turn to some of the technical issues in the overall program that has certainly been a source of discussion is the issue of accountability and accountability for actions that have happened in the past. i, myself am concerned that companies here have asked for forgiveness instead of permit, and while i'm willing personally to give some forgiveness, and i'm also not necessarily willing to reward past behavior. i think this is an issue that we as a board are probably not well equipped to handle at the specific level but perhaps well equipped to handle at the general level. so what i would like to do so frame our discussion going forward is to propose an amendment to the legislation

that is before us to add to section 9.16, a provision that says in evaluating a permit application the director may consider the extent to which an operator has the capacity to meet permit terms based on past experience, including compliance with applicable laws in its efforts to ensure compliance of its users with applicable laws. so i would like to move that forward as an amendment. we have a second. i think it would be appropriate, miss cleveland knowles, to discuss the amendment now. is that correct? >> yeah, that's correct. we'd recommend that you add that to subsection e of the section that you recommended. >> okay. so agreed. do you concur with that? >> yes. >> so let's talk about this amendment first, fully understanding that we will go back to a broader discussion of the pilot program and give director reiskin some of the guidance that he has requested. i stated my reasons for making

the amendment. directors, is there anyone else who wants to comment on this proposed amendment? >> i think i could give him direction -- discretion. >> could you speak into the microphone. >> i think giving him the discretion makes sense, so i agree. >> yeah. i also support the amendment. i'm tired of the asking for forgiveness instead of permit model, and i think the way that we have seen these actors play out, whether whatever kind of shared mobility it is -- [ inaudible ] >> we'll turn back now to the

overall proposal as amended. itch he alrea i've already taken a bit of the bully pull p bully pulpit, so i will save my questions until the end, as well. director reiskin, is it legal to ride a motorized scooter on the sidewalk? >> no. >> is it legal to ride a motorized scooter without a helmet? >> no. >> is the gps technology that exists at these companies sufficient for them to do as one of our speakers said very eloquently, not only share usage information but share with us misusage information? is the gps technology that exists for these companies sophisticated enough for them to share with us when their riders are riding on the sidewalk as opposed to a bike

lane or a street? >> i don't know the answer to that. i know that at least one of the companies in their response back suggested that it was not. >> all right. staff? >> yeah. our understanding is that it's not that level of fi sophisticated, especially in parts of town where we have tall buildings. >> well, i would suggest hearing the comments that have come in, if one of the other responders is able to develop either a technology with gps or some other information that would allow it to report to you when its riders are riding on the sidewalk and therefore presumably discipline those riders, i think that would be helpful. enforcement, we talked about enforcement, are we envisioning enforcement that has to be carried out by a pco or some other government official or would the enforcement be open to relying on citizen

complaints, perhaps photos of -- you know, from business owners with scooters on their doorsteps, that sort of things. >> we would provide for enforcement -- we would take data that we get from publicly reported issues through 311 or otherwise, and we would be able to use that information in terms of evaluating the permitee's performance and ultimately potentially revoking its permit. >> okay. so you can use 311 data, but if a business owner, for example, sent in photos, would you entertain that and all sorts of other information or would it have to be something that comes in directly through a 311. >> yeah, through any means, any issues that are reported. >> okay. very good. is the training session -- i'm sorry. go ahead. >> on your point, how is that going to be reimbursed? cost of doing that? >> well, i think the idea is that the cost of the permitting

for the companies will fund the whole program of regulation, and that's part of the cost reimbursement of the program, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> okay. is a -- there was a request -- there was a -- one of our scoot riders, scoot, a company i think that has shown great forth rightness in coming to this board and working with its programs, there is a scoot rider who commented about training. there is not a training requirement for people who use jump bike or bike share or anything like that, right? >> there is not. >> okay. so in -- if we're making an analogy, you could make the analogy, you know -- i realize that a scooter may fall somewhere in between those, but just to play fair to the scooters, if someone wants to use the jump bike program or the bike share program or the other programs for bicycles, they do not have to undergo training before they do that, correct? >> no, they do not. >> okay.

miss mcnally asked questions about liability. enlighten us. if the plan is if there is an accident, the scooter company would bear in liability or would it all be on the operator of the scooter? [ inaudible ] >> could you speak into the microphone, please? thank you. >> i guess i'm not -- i don't know the details on that one. >> yeah. so we require -- we require proof of proper insurance policy as part of the -- our evaluation of the permit under this regulation, but the liability question -- >> okay. >> -- i would turn it over to my city attorney friend. >> so the permit program, as mr. mcguire just said -- i'm sorry. deputy city attorney susan cleveland knowles through the chair. the deputy city attorney requires insurance acceptable

to the city program, so any accident that was due to the scooters would be the liability of the scooter operators. >> okay. very good. and then, finally, in the questions category -- well, two more questions -- and i'll say, director brinkman has just been reaffirmed, so i'm going to enjoy my five minutes of fame. director brinkman and borden have just been confirmed. someone calls 311 about a scooter on the sidewalk, and there is no response from 311. >> that should not be the response from 311. i know we've been addressing

the way those calls are handled, but to the extent those are accurate, those should not be happening that way. >> may we ask you to follow up on that and -- >> we are doing so, but yes. >> and then, my final question, the cap -- there's been a lot of speaking about the cap on the number of scooters. my understanding is that the cap is really sort of associated with the pilot program, and that the idea here is before we get too big, we want to make sure we have it regulated right, but that the plan would be once we have a system that works, we would we wouldn't necessarily stick to the cap and would authorize more if the demand was there within proper regulation, is that fair? >> well, the program is designed as a pilot with a 12 month duration. the goal of the pilot is not necessarily to give a certain number of operators access to the system, the goal of the pilot is to learn enough about the operation of scooters to see if they can be handled in a safe equitiable way in san

francisco. so the idea of the cap is simply to move carefully. >> slowly. >> that's right. >> to get it right before we get big, but the idea is not to preclude it from getting big if that's in the best interests of the city. >> i think we're open to whatever we find through the pilot program. >> okay. directors, are there other questions to staff? director rubke, please. >> yeah, so i first wanted to see -- i know the staff proposed both amendments to the cap and to the duration of the program. i just wanted to make sure, is that the legislation -- is that currently before us or do we need to move that amendment? >> the latter -- there's two different changes that staff is requesting -- >> there's three. >> three? >> yes. >> so the board would need to move those if they wanted to consider those, otherwise, the underlying legislation is what's before you. >> the three changes requested by staff is to reduce the pilot

program from 24 months to 12 months, to maintain the 2500 total and they n allowing 150,0 permits within the first six months. >> okay. director rubke, do you want to move that? >> i'll move it, but before i do, i have some questions. >> okay. those motions are on the table. please proceed, director rubke. >> i had some questions. a few people were asking about the west side of the city not being served, and that seemed really relevant to our discussion we're trying to make this we cequitiable. is the staff able -- do you have comments on how we can work that out or how we can accomplish geographic equity in this program with the cap that you're suggesting? >> yeah. i would say that's covered in the language of the legislation so far. we are going to approve the service area that's submitted by the companies, and of course

require an operations and maintenance plan, so we could have a requirement or a goal that we would, you know, give fo fore -- more permits to companies that are committed to distributing more in different agree owe graphic parts of the city. >> and related to that, one of the -- my understanding, kind of i think maybe i made it up in my head, but you one of my underings, one of the reasons for the cap, a lot of people were concerned about having cars driving around, picking up the scooters and whatnot, and the effect of those cars on our streets. is that kind of a factor for limiting the number of scooters overall so we don't have so many support vehicles, let's say, or is that kind of unrelated? >> i would say it fits into the broader program of using the pilot program to evaluate the different things going on, so to the extent that there are

additional trips being made by chargers or other unforeseen consequences that we don't have that, the limited scope helps us evaluate those. >> and do we -- do we currently know the number of -- this was probably from one or more of the letters, but the overall number of scooters that are currently on our streets now, and also the number of support vehicles servicing those? like, the chargers, and that, do we know that information as of right now. >> i don't know the information about the number of support vehicles. a lot of those are independent contractors. in terms of the scooters, have a rough idea, but not the impact numbers. i think it's around 2,000 or 2400 altogether based on the latest verbal communications that i've had with the different companies. >> and assuming we pass this program, or this pilot program, would we be seeking information from the operators about the vehicle -- i am concerned about, like, the extra traffic on our streets, so i'm just

wondering if we're going to be monitoring that. people are talking like multiple cars being added to the same routes, picking up scooters. are we going to be monitoring that and are we going to have any say in kind of capping that amount or -- what do you guys think? >> i think we'll definitely be monitoring it. i don't know that we have a say in capping it, but that's something -- >> yeah. i think we would find a way to make sure that creatively is reflected in the terms of the permit. >> great. yes. can i keep asking questions or is -- >> you may. >> thank you. >> let me suggest this. you did make an amendment on the proposed staff amendment. >> oh, yeah. should we vote on that? >> we'll return to you for general staff questions. include not pro forma stuff, including this would remove the limit of 500 for any one company. now, the concern that that

gives me is, i suppose, you may give them all to one company. and while there may be some limits to do that, i think it limits the competition, including how best to comply with sidewalk and other laws, so i guess i don't have the problem with the amendment per se, but i'll just ask the direct question. is the amendment motivated by some plan or thought that it would be rolled out to just one company? >> no. we have no preconceived notion about the number of companies. we could find that there are five credible responsible applicants, we could find there are zero that meet our criteria. we just don't know. >> okay. are there any questions about the staff's amendments which director rubke has moved and director torres has seconded? >> just to piggyback on what chair heinicke said, the current amount on the road

right now does not impact how you would allocate. so in other words the concern was expressed that because somebody didn't put out the scooters already, that does not put that company at a disadvantage in the allocation, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> any other questions on these amendments? okay. seeing none, i would entertain a motion on the amendment. i thought we -- i'm sorry. a voice vote to all those in favor -- all those in favor please say aye. all those opposed. okay. those are adopted. director rubke, you had some more questions to ask. >> thanks. we had a lot of important concerns, and i know you are thinking about these concerns for people with disabilities and just convenient i donsenio sidewalks with people riding scooters on the sidewalks. that's a huge problem, and so i'm just wondering, are we -- are we giving -- well, also, not just riding fast on the

sidewalks, but when scooters are blocking the sidewalk, if somebody else knocks them down or whatever, and also if they're tied up to a parking meter. i know that affects the ability of people with disabilities to deploy wheelchair ramps and paratransits to access the curb, which they need. so i'm wondering -- i'm suggesting and asking what staff's thoughts are on the criteria we're going to be giving to the company either through the permit conditions and other ways, where these scooters can be and what are the consequences? i know we have some of those card laid out, but if you could talk about that more closely. this is a huge concern that i've been hearing a lot about from the disability community in particular. >> we'll be working really closely with our accessibility services as well as the stakeholders groups. we have an outline of some of the things that are covered, such as not blocking blue zones or white zones, ingress and egress. we have a number of things that

we're thinking about that we'll be making definitely more explicit. we have some precedent like with the bike rack siding guidelines and things like that that we're looking to improve in that process. >> i really appreciate your work on that, and i will note there are a few other people in the disability who appreciate these scooters for use as kind of a mobility aid when they have to get a few more blocks, they can use that instead of walking and that's actually an easier way to do that, so i think there's a lot of positive possibilities here. the other question i wanted to ask, and this is my final one -- or i guess i wanted to encourage us to make sure that we are doing good outreach to the community groups, but if some of them spoke here during public comment, and i do think it's important as we work with the companies to make sure equity program is in place that we're working with the groups with the folks who are on the ground who best know how to roll those out. so that is he aall i have.

thank you so much. >> wonderful. directors, general questions about the program? director torres? >> yes. i want to thampg tnk the chair the directors of the board for their obviously very thoughtful questions and the staff who put in so much effort. you may wonder why i'm so concerned about the issue. i wrote the helmet law in 1992, and 32% reduction in motorcycle deaths, but very little enforcement. it was only the chp who would catch some people, and that was about it. here, i see the same thing going on with scooters and young children riding bikes without helmets. no matter bills or laws you pass in the legislature, if you don't have the enforcement mechanism to make those laws work, it's meaningless. so that's why i've been so adamant about the enforcement provisions within this proposal. and the other issue that was raised by community members here, we need to engage people more than we did with the ford

bicycles, where people woke up and lost parking spaces as a result of bicycles being placed there without their appropriate input. and i know you've been work og that, and i know you're going to continue to work on that. the other issue is what aaron pesk peskin raised, and that is privacy. i saw the response by zuckerberg to senator hatch, how do you make your money, and he had to tell them, by selling ads. well, those ads go to people, and the reason they use ads is because you can show a marketing demographic. i urge you to think about how is the best way to protect the privacy of operators, even though i think they're mostly irresponsible, for the most part, the ones that i've encountered on sidewalks. but how do we protect their identity and their privacy, because this is a growing problem that not only

zuckerberg and others are trying to deal with, but we should be sensitive to, as well. thank you, mr. chair. >> it's my understanding that one of the things you will consider when issuing a permit is what considerations made concerning privacy policies and when they're involved in data escaping or whether they're engaging their investors. >> so what i've challenged our staff to do is to be as strong as we can in this realm, and i had a direct conversation with a supervisor about this, as well. this was right on the heels of the facebook testimony, and i think there are provisions that exist in a lot of these apps that first of all aren't apgsal. they're somewhat

understandable. i've tried to require my staff to put meaningful rules in place so people have the ability to understand before they sign up, and they can sign up even if they have opted out of all the data sharing provisions. if we're going to give privileged access through a permit to our public rights of way. i think that's a reasonable requirement. and if that doesn't work with the business model of one of these companies then perhaps this isn't the city for them to operate? . >> very good. directors, any questions about the overall program now that it's been amended twice. >> i've got a bunch of questions just in general about where we go from here. >> please proceed. >> okay. i want to thank staff for the hard work you put into this and thank you for coming out and expressing their concerns. the e-mails we gotta part from these form e-mails. i think these are really exploitive, and i think as someone who regularly employs

e-mails myself to elected officials, i think that the form e-mails are just -- they're insincere, and i actually resent them. i don't think they're a good use of time, and i would appreciate more informed ways of getting people to communicate their concerns to us. but apart from the form e-mails, and i do appreciate the e-mails that we got that were actually substantive and communicating people's real experiences with the scooter share programs or services. i do resent the idea that two wrongs make a right. we all up here are struggling with the -- too many cars in our city, cars being abusive with pedestrians and being parked everywhere. it's something that at least speaking for myself is something that i'm working on

regularly to try to change. and just because we have abuses there doesn't justify abusive behavior from other modes, expressly the scooter share one. i want to make sure that we get to a place where we can all be happy and support this program. i'm going to support this program today, but i'll be the first one to advocate for stopping it when it comes back if we don't get this right going forward. like i said earlier, i was in the meeting yesterday where some of the supervisors were talking about they don't -- they don't trust us anymore with some of the things, some of the decisions that we've made and the way that we have not been regulating as much as we should be, and i think that this is an opportunity here to start on a -- on a different path where we're doing more to respond to some of the concerns that we've heard. it's not always a clear choice for those of us getting around for whom muni isn't working for at the time, to be able to take

a tnc or uber or lyft requires a whole lot of -- it requires a credit card and it requires being able to afford it, and a lot of us don't have those means, and so it's not a clear choice to take uber or a scooter share. some of us are going to have a harder time getting in and down the sidewalks, period, and i think that i would appreciate if these scooter share programs and the providers would be a whole lot more sensitive than you have been in working with the community entirely and not just the people who are early ado adopters. again, when i first saw this, i was excited. i was like wow. this could be tremendous, and more choices of getting around. but my experiences of seeing them on the street has been terrible. just walking here the other day to city hall, on this sidewalk right next to us, i saw a guy without a helmet, on the sidewalk, carrying other

scooters, so i was part of the system, and was completely abusing it right here on the sidewalk. and i think that we've got a long way to go before we can get this right. so i'm actually was thinking we might be more conservative instead of rolling, expanding the numbers, we pull them back even more because i think we've started off on a bad foot here, and i would love to see us get right. it concerns me greatly that chinatown trip or the folks are deeply concerned about a lack of equity and true community engagement. i think it's something that needs to be addressed before i can be excited and supporting of these programs. i i'm -- when i see a scooter up right on a sidewalk blocking a

curb ramp, that's bad parking. i don't know if we've defined bad parking, but we need to. i think staff needs to address that, so that everyone's clear as to what that is. i also think that san francisco is a unique city for reasons. it's because we care about our people, we care about our community and the lively hooih from the people. i'm deeply concerned about the jobs that we're creating, and i'm glad that you came and spoke to about the value of good jobs, but i think that we need to make sure that these truly are sustainable living wage jobs for someone to bibe able to live here comfortably.

i think ultimately, i would have loved to see more of the training videos like scoot does, the little red electric scooters that you sit on. that kind of training, i think is important, and i would love to see more of that kind of training, that video tutorial, i think that would go a long way of helping people understand the consequences of what you just leave a scooter improper parked, and again, defining what that properly parked might mean in the future. i finally am a little concerned about the increasing interest of the providers to have policies that would apply to multiple cities and -- across the state. i understand that at least bird is looking at trying to get scooters allowed. they're sponsors legislation to get scooters to be allowed to be ridden on sidewalks and to

then actually have define for themselves what we would like our rules to be and i think that's -- i would have liked to have seen a scooter program or a scooter share service to come first and say we need to make sure you have a policy in place so that if the state laws change, you'll be protected, and i think that was the wrong way to go. so i'm not feeling really good about all of this, but i'm going to vote to support it because it's a pilot, and we're going to get another bite of the apple, and when we do come back, i'm hoping all of this is address before i'll be actively supported. again, i've stated some of the concerns that i have. when we do come back in 12 months to revisit this, i will certainly be concerned in hoping that all these things are addressed in the future. >> thank you very much, director ramos. >> thank you. i just have a couple final clarifying questions. so the support vehicles,

somebody from the public earlier said they actually go and race to pick up as many as they can. is this something -- 'cause that would be a real concern if that the process right now would be whoever gets the most, the faster you go, the more you can pick up late at night. is that how it works or is that every company does it a different way? >> yeah. i don't know exactly how it works for the different companies. >> we have one here. >> actually, if you could standup to the microphone, please, and give us your name. >> i can only speak for line bike -- >> could you give us your name, please. >> bibia looper. there's a maximum cap on the amount that an operator or a service person can get, so you can't just keep going and going and going and maximize that. they put that cap in place to make it so that more people can have jobs and get an equal

wage, and they put that cap so that there isn't that incentive to just go faster and be unsafe and whatever. >> okay. thank you. that's a very helpful answer. director. >> thank you. and then, the other question is i know at least the scooters used by two companies, i believe, are foldable, right, so has there been any discussion about actually requiring users to fold them, and then, they can't tip over as easily or is that not -- i know at least one of the models supposedly folds up, but maybe the ones that they purchase or not. do we know this? >> i'm not aware that the scooters are goldable. i know that a lot of personally, privately owned scooters are, but i don't know that the shared ones are. >> thank you. >> so is there anything else? i guess i'll say this. a lot of this is focused on the negative and the scrutiny and all that, and i think that's appropriate. we have been charged by the city and by the city laddeeade

with regulating this, and that's exactly what we should do. i suppose we could do nothing, and there would be no shared scooter program. i understand the city legislation says we permit them, and if we sit on our hands, that might be a defactor disapproval of that. i think this is a way to allow folks to take trips outside of cars. it is a way to allow people to be more efficient as they move across our urban core, which is not small, and i think it's a way for people to get around and see different parts of the city without the environmental impacts that other modes of transportation have. so i'm going to support this program, but this has to be regulated. these things cannot operate on the sidewalk. these things must operate

safely. now i know that i can't sit up here and solve this problem myself. i tried with my gps question. maybe it'll work. maybe the people will figure it out. maybe the incentive for them to figure it out will drive them to do it. there are all sorts of ways to do it. clear identification on a scooter, so if someone sends a video of a rider on a scooter, they can discipline that rider. whatever we do, there's no question there's going to have to be enforcement on the riders through the companies and the mta to make sure these safety laws are obeyed. i'm optimistic. i think the entrepreneurs that we've seen here today with all the technology and the brils a -- brilliantance of the entrepreneurs, and i'm excited. but i will say on the negative side of it, if there aren't

real solutions to those problems, i think it's very important that this board will not authorize this to go forward and will say these problems will need to be solved before we can go forward. i really do believe that will happen. i thank you and the staff, i think the companies for their inknow owe -- innovation. so with that, i would make a motion to approve. >> motion. >> is there a second? >> okay. we have a motion and second on the proposal. all those in favor, please say aye. opposed? okay. companies, scooter riders, staff, good luck. let's make this thing work. >> mr. chairman, moving onto item 12, consenting to the proposed provision -- >> we have been at it for -- yeah, i'm j goinot going to do

math, i'm just going to say for a long time, so >> yes. if i could call the mta board of directors back to order. folks in the audience, if i could ask you to take your seats. >> bang your gavel. >> folks in the audience, if i could ask you to take your seats, please. thank you very much. okay. we are back in session. the director will be right back, but we do have a quorum, and we will move onto item number 12. >> item 12. [agenda item read]. >> okay. very exciting proposals. thank you to all who've waited through our long meeting today. we appreciate it. that's just the order of the

call and generally where the bulk of public comment is is where i like to go so that our fellow citizens can get in and out. no disrespect to you. let's proceed with this item. >> good afternoon, directors. my name is sarah jones. i'm planning director of the sf mta. the item before you today pertains to the transportation plan for one of the major changes that is underway in the landscape of san francisco, so very different scale of discussion than your previous item. this is the candlestick point and hunters point shipyard master plan. so k ofi bonner, regional director of five point, which is the developer, as well as the regional vice president of commercial, residential and entitlement are here today, and you will be hear from five

point later on. after this presentation, therese brekki will walk you through the project, and then chris mitchell who has been embedded in the technical transportation for this project for a very significant portion of his life for this point will bring you through the transportation plan. also -- >> that's how he feels about this meeting. >> i believe so. also here today are lei leila hussein and sally hirth from ocii. it's the predecessor to the san francisco redevelopment agency and is responsible for implementing the redevelopment of the candlestick park and hunters point shipyard plan. i also want to acknowledge tremendous work over many, many months from my team. so as you can see, we are