i'm here on behalf of these people to let you know that we were made aware of this proposal just discussed. after the meeting last year we fully ask you to do this study. the reason is that there are three of these parking lots into sunset and four of these parking lots as well on west. please do this study and do not take account the zoning. i hope for a very good out come. thank you for your time. >> next speaker, please. >> those are the last speaker cards that i have. if there's anybody in the over flow room who wishes to address the board on matters not on today's agenda if you could please come upstairs now. >> the floor is yours. >> thank you. first item regarding the twin

peaks shut down. when this project was originally evaluated it was going to be weekends only shut down and construction. when it was approved the second time around it was just going to be a 60-day shut down and then early shut downs on weekends from march until june with different times. now those times have been shifted. this is the first time today that i hear that there will be a full weekend shut down on memorial day. this project keeps changing. i think when folks on the west side hear about the level of shut down they are going to be pretty unhappy. this is just a precursor to the shut down for like a year and a half, two years for construction. so i don't know how much out reach has happened to the west side but there really aught to be more to explain these changes and why they are happening. briefly on the land use committee yesterday, i was not there but i watched the hearing

very interesting, particularly those of you who were there, it has not been well explained how the agency is addressing both the -- well, a number of things but the legislation, the poet's strategy to work, the rie, the rapid improvement exercise, other changes to out reach. there are a lot of different things happening and they haven't been properly put together in context. i hope that may happen next week at the hearing. recently there was a presentation at the sfcta about the late night transportation working group as a result supervisor stefani asked for a late night hearing on transit. perhaps you can get an update at this board about the late night working group and the proposal to move forward there. i think that would be helpful.

>> thank you. all right. next speaker. public comment on items not on the agenda. >> milo, lizzie. >> i'm here to request a study on building social housing on mta parking lots. so to respond to the question of what is social housing, it's essentially just housing owned by the government. it's not entirely without precedent, not even in deed in san francisco. the housing in the precidio is owned by the government, so that's market rate social housing. if the mta were to do this with the city it would be a very progressive policy to enact. it would meet a housing need and create revenue for the city. one of the things is maintaining

ownership of the land so it's on going benefit to the public. on the same note i would like to request another study, the feasibility of using the top floor of parking garages. there was a study previously on the mosconia center and the 5th and mission parking garage on the usage. they concluded that in 2016 that at no point, even in peak shopping season in december, is the parking garage 70% full. that means the top floor is essentially empty. that space could be used to expand the san francisco shelter system. and it's also ideally located in the mission so there's 21 i think parking garages that mta has and we could use this to ramp up at least temporarily our

shelter capacity. i think today is actually a good day to be asking for these kind of outside the box thinking with tun vailing -- the unraveilingf the new logo. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> the last three people who have furnished in a speaker card. >> the floor is yours. >> thank you. i'm here to address for this issue this idea of the feasibility study. i just want to put another voice behind it. ever since i heard about it i've just kind of had it stuck in the back of my head, like what a cool way to be clever about both our housing issues and also an additional way that sfmta can get some revenue, i think that's brilliant. i really hope that this is something that the group takes and runs with. there's a lot of possibility out

there. as a west side resident and homeowner i actually would love to have any way to get additional people out there and this seems like a really clever way to do it. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> nor ma guzman, sam saddle. those are the last people who have turned in a speaker card. >> i'm norma guzman. thank you for your time. i just want to quickly support a study for housing, government-owned housing also on mta land. i grew up in government-owned housing although it was in a much more rural location and i wished that it was somewhere there was a lot denser and vital like san francisco. i think mta has a good track record of trying new things, of trying pilots for programs, trying new street designs. i think mta would be a great agency to spear head a new pilot program for housing. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> sam saddle. >> mr. sat l, welcome.

>> hi. thank you. my name is sam saddle. we advocate for housing and transportation on the east side of the city. the housing crisis, we need all of government to help us. one all we are asking for is the study. please consider it and we would love to be part of the process mauving forward. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> mr. chairman, that's the last person who has turned in a speaker card. >> is there anyone else who wishes to speak on items not on the agenda? seeing none we'll close on item 9 and move on to the consent calendar. >> thank you. just for the record, item 10.1a, b and c, item 10.2 and item 10.5 have been severed at the request of members of the public as previously stated item 10.2d had

been removed from the agenda at the request of staff. >> okay. so 10.1 is off of the consent calendar, 10.2 and 10.5 is severed. not a lot left there. that leaves 10.3, 10.4 and 10.6. i assume with no severance we have nobody who wants to spoke on those items publicly? >> correct. nobody has turned in a speaker card on those matters. >> very good. so we will close public comment on items 10.3, 10.4 and 10.6 and i'll entertain a motion. >> so moved. >> a second? >> second. >> with that all those in favor of 10.3, 10.4 and 10.6aye. >> aye. >> passed. >> let's go to the next one. >> they have to do with traffic

modifications on slope boulevard. >> public comment, please. >> yes. patrick skane, jennifer -- is jennifer here? okay. she was for the other one. patrick skane and david pillpill are the only two speakers on this matter. two minutes? >> two minutes, please. >> good afternoon and welcome, sir. >> good afternoon. my name is pat skane. i'm a member of the park neighborhood association. i wanted to speak in favor of the proposed changes. the main concern here really is line of sight, line of sight that affects the pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicles as well. the over pass at sunset boulevard is kind of an extended four leap clover. there's a significant merge coming from skyline boulevard going eastbound which causes drivers to engage in a number of different activities merging, turning off and also proceeding

eastbound. so we've had problems there in the past. we really do think that by eliminating parking in this area will help the line of sight and help the safety issues. in terms of lake shore plaza, it's a city issue. there's people turning in and out of lake shore mra -- plaza. this will assist drivers entering and exiting onto slope boulevard. i can see cal trans this morning, other issues with regards to slote. hopefully before the stern grove concert association it will come into play. i would urge the members to perhaps extend some additional educational opportunities to the neighbors with regards to enforcement. this could be a big change along slope boulevard and the concert will have significant impacts on traffic so i'd like to see some

additional traffic control officers engaging in education and also control efforts during the summer months out there. might be a big help in providing the greater safety to pedestrians and travelers in that area. thank you. >> most appreciated. if you would repeat the name of your neighborhood organization, please. >> we are on the north side of slope boulevard, it's the pine lake park neighborhood association. >> that is the neighborhood where we are actually removing the parking spot? >> right. we are adjacent to slope boulevard. >> thank you for coming down and voicing your support. mr. pellpill. >> followed by bill and barbara cheonseni. >> i'm neither speaking in support or opposition to these items. i just wanted to note that i don't think this has been a particularly inclusive process. there's been some private meetings about slope boulevard that i was not invited to. the environmental review process which as you know i continue to

be concerned about, there were prior approvals related to various items on slope boulevard, there was an exemption issued for these items. i'm going the appeal to the board of supervisors. the deal is there's been piece mail planning for slope boulevard, many over many years, perhaps more to come. there's a discussion about a bike lane on the east side from 19th to 21st avenue. this is exactly the kind of corridor that i think need today have an over all plan rather than this approach including public works, mta, cal trans to some extent the police department. not a whole lot of involvement from the lake shore plaza property owner. so i have those concerns. again, i'm not speaking in support or in opposition. i did want to call out especially tony henderson and thank him for doing a positive out reach when something happens

about that. he does contact me and tony is a good person within sustainable street. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> bill followed by barbara chioncini. those are the last two people who turned in speakers cards. >> good afternoon, directors. i'm the president of lake shore acres improvement club. i believe y'all have a letter from me on this very topic along with a letter from david hershell, the president of pine leak and senator weiner sent r letter out in support along with a supervisor. thank you for the work and members of your department for working with us on this project. it's been 8 years. we are not only having light at the end of the tunnel, we can see light at the end of the tunnel. we can touch it. i would like to approve these changes. they go hand in glove with the entire state project. i understand some of the issues that people have with the way

things have been done over time. we have lots of issues. those behind us now are moving forward. with that thank you and we hope you approve it. thank you. >> very good. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm barbara. i'm one of the people that got this project going on slope boulevard. i want to let you know that it's been a long haul, 8 years of this. we all stuck with it and we got it through and projects are like that. if you want to be successful you have to stick with it. you have your ups and downs. the neighbors love it. i hope some of you -- i know lee has been out to the neighborhood to see slope boulevard. it's a huge difference. we've had a lot of tragedies on that street. a lot of fatalities, a lot of hit and run. i personally was involved in this project and a year after lost a family member to hit and run accident. we have met the families of people who have had problems out there. so we -- it was a very open

process. we never excluded anybody from any of the meetings. a lot of the meetings were held in house as well as other homes in the station and other things. i just hope that you approve it. we just want to kind of get on. the whole idea of this project was safety, safety, safety and i think it's going to make a difference. we are just about ready to get the hawks turned on. anybody who has been out to the road can see a vast improvement. thank you for your support. >> thank you for your citizenship. i walked that very stretch with my kids and some of their friends the other day so i appreciate what you're doing very much. >> thank you very much. >> any other public speakers? no more public comment on item 10.1. with that if there are any questions i'll entertain a motion. >> move. >> okay. is there a second? >> all those in favor please say aye. any opposed? very good. a safer slope street. item 10.2 please. >> item 10.2 environmental

review findings to expand the hours of and bus on mission street between 1st and biel and on mission street between main and 1st streets. it adds or amends preexisting transit only lanes in either locations and approves various traffic. >> this was severed at the request of a member of the public? >> yes. >> is that member of the public here? >> yes. >> if you keep going you get a free sandwich. that's not true. keep going. >> on the item regarding the new routes to the transbay terminal, i think that the route should be market right biel and enter the terminal. this as i understand involves a much more complicated route where vehicles from market street would make a right on 1st, left on mission and right on biel. two extra turns. 1st street is often congested

even with the transit only lane. i think if we had a transit only lane on biel from market to at least the transbay terminal and frankly biel isn't that congested in that area, that would be better. there really needs to be parking traffic enforcement at market and 1st because that intersection is not great at many hours of the day. so i'm just concerned about what this means for transit, travel time for transit riders going to and from transbay terminal if this -- if you do approve this i hope that you would have staff re-examine the route after the transbay center opens and consider a reroute if it makes sense in the future. i just think that it's going to be more convoluted. i heard that people have to walk from mission and fremont through this plaza to access the

transbay terminal and i think whether that's going to be a problem i don't know. i just think that there are a lot of issues with what is happening at the transbay terminal transbay center and this just touches on part of it. so those are my concerns and i hope staff will reevaluate this in the future if you approve it. >> very good. any other speakers on 10.2. mr. mcguire ran out of the the room. why not right turn on biel? if i may indulge. thank you so much. >> shawn kennedy, acting deputy director for operation support at mta. so the planning for transbay offen obviously goes back in years when it was designed by the bus service. it was based on this idea of coming down market, taking a right on 1st, using the existing

transit only lane there, taking a left on mission, dropping passengers at the pedestrian plaza which is a center piece of the development right at fremont and mission and then going up to biel over where the buses take a right and then enter transbay. mr. pellpill is correct, we are considering the idea of splitting some of the buses. right now we have 60 buses making that move an hour during the peak period, which is an awful lot of buses, especially when you mix those with the 20 on the 14 mission as well as transit going to gate buses. that is something to look at. we think that the infrastructure as designed can handle what we have planned. as mr. pellpill said, we are always evaluating and changes and making changes to the service plan as we see fit and as things materialize and if it does become a problem we can make changes. >> okay. i'm willing to support it on that. i will say i hear from

mr. pellpill is saying about this one and i'm thinking down the road where we have a market street that's free of private autos that will not be true of 1st street as long as that's the access ramp to the bridge. so to me keeping the bus on market street, assuming we get our plan -- i don't want to assume. i was accused of that earlier. that might be the better route. the reality is you guys can evaluate this as it goes. this is not a concrete change, this is simply regulation change. so i assume it is still your recognize -- recommendation we go with what we have before us? >> yes. >> directors, any questions for mr. kennedy? if not i'll entertain a motion. >> move. >> second. >> all those in favor say aye? any opposed. 10.2 passes. let's move onto 10.5. >> 10.5 approves amendments between the san francisco municipal transportation agency and the transport workers local

2000 modify the seniority for classification 9153, transportation controllers who transferred to that classification. this was severed a request by a member of the public. >> this is the last time you get to hear from me today. so the disclosure of this minor change to the mou i found buried on the website under labor relations. i did not find notice of this under public notices which is the intuitive place where other such notices are in place in the future. i think such required sunshine disclosures should be under public notices. also the staff report references analysis of the text and the cost and i was not able to find such analysis. all i found was the strike out language in the text. i'm not sure that there is any cost. this is just clarifying the seniority rules for employees

that transferred into this classification, never the less i think that we should be consistent and appropriate here as it relates to labor relations because when we have big significant mou changes we should follow that practice and it should apply equally to side letters and smaller things like this. those are my comments. >> very good. >> have a nice day. >> thank you. are you aware of any significant cost impact from this change in the mou? >> no. as i reported when we sunshined this four weeks ago there are none. >> okay. so with that is there a motion on this item? >> yes. >> second? >> second. >> all those in favor please say aye. any opposed? all right. that takes us off our consent calendar to item 11. >> moving onto item 11. on the regular calendar, to establish a pilot powered scooter share permit program for 24 months, requiring a permit issued by the director of

transportation, establishing a fee for the issuance of the permit, establishing administrative penalties for failure to obtain a permit and collection of administrative penalties for parking or leaving standing an unpermitted power scooter subject to the pilot powered scooter share permit program. say that five times fast on a sidewalk street or other right of way making corrections in division ii. >> very good. mr. mcguire, are we hearing from you today? >> good afternoon, directors. tom mcguire, director of the sustainable streets division at mta. the bulk of the presentation will be done by my colleague, who is the acting head of our bicycle section. i just want to give a little bit of background here. on april 17th the board of supervisors unanimously passed an ordnance that requires companies who offer shared motorized scooters on the streets of san francisco obtain a permit to operate from the

sfmta. today we are here to consider enacting that permitting system to we can put in place the board of supervisors vision for that ordnance and the themes you will hear from the presentation and in all of our comments is that we believe that any use of the public right of way, sidewalk, street, bike lane, ought to be in the public interest and we think that a scooter permitting system, any scooter permitting system could authorize us to put in place should prioritize public safety, public equity and focus on accountability by operators. we'll go through each of those points in our presentation. we encourage you to allow us to carry out the vision set forth by the board of supervisors in those particular areas, safety, equity and accountability. with that i will turn it over to my colleague miriam. >> the floor is yours. >> thank you.

>> good afternoon. thank you so much for having me today. i'm miriam surel and i'm the acting bicycle program manager in the streets division. i'm happy to present our recommended legislation establishing a permit program for shared powered scooters in san francisco. today i'm going to give a little bit of background about where we are with scooters in the city and then talk about at a high level some of the things that are in the legislation package before you. so i first wanted to say as the sf mta i support these emerging options. we are happy that the private sector is getting involved and providing innovative new ways for people to get around the city as the scooters provide a

last mile solution. we are really excited to see that continue. however, we are proceeding with some cautious optimism because we know that there are potential issues with this and have been issues on the streets and we want to make sure that as we step in as a governmental agency we have the opportunity to make sure these things are meeting the public interest. so a little bit of background on the scooter system themselves. you may have seen these on the streets. they have been out there for just about six weeks in san francisco and in a few other cities in the u.s. a little bit longer. they are really new. it's a new model. it's similar to what you see in our dock less bike share system, you use the app to find a scooter near you and to unlock the scooter and then you can drive it to your final destination which you don't need to have a specific docking station. so there's that level of

flexibility. the scooters are electric powered so they need to be charged. one thing that we've been seeing from some of the scooter companies is having contractors go out and charge the scooters usually at night for a fee. the scooters are generally taken out of service in the evening. we've been hearing a lot of excitement from members of the public about these scooters. people have written to us to tell us how they are now able to use these scooters to make trips they weren't making before or instead of other kinds of car trips so that's great to hear. we've been observing ourselves and hearing a lot of reports of some of the challenges associated with these scooters. so the most important thing in san francisco is the safety and access of our streets and in particular sidewalks need to be the place where you know that you can walk and get around without encountering safety hazards. what we've been seeing since the

deployment of these scooter programs is there's some lack of compliance with rules regarding where to park the scooters and where to ride the scooters. people are riding them on the sidewalks, parking them in ways that obstruct the pass of travel and this is particularly an issue if you're somebody with a mobility impairment, maybe you're in a wheelchair or have a visual impairment. you wouldn't be able to avoid these hazards in our streets and it's something that we need to find a way around. so that's something that we think is really critical as we move forward with this program. there are regulations that govern the usage of these scooters, in particular regarding prohibiting sidewalk riding, requiring helmet use. those are in the california vehicle code along with requiring a driver's license and recommended bike lane ifs there's one present and then we have local ordnances as well that talk about the sidewalk space and not obstructing the

right of way. those apply whether it's a shared scooter system or if you are an individual owner of a motorized scooter these apply. what we don't have on the bookings right -- bookings right now is any regulation. that's why we are working on this two-tiered approach that you've seen in other permit program where is the board of supervisors has made division i changes to the transportation code that established a new violation for scotter companies operating a shared system without a permit from the sfmta. the legislation before you today is to establish that program and authorize the director the offer permits to scooter companies. there's one more level of detail, terms of conditions and application. you've probably seen in the legislation that a variety of the items note that the director of transportation is authorized to specify further details of

the permit program. so the legislation is long. i'm not going to go through every single provision included in it. i wanted to draw your attention to some of the high level goals that we've had that we've been thinking about when we developed the legislation and talk about some of the details that relate to those goals as well as some of the additional requirements that we could have in the permit itself to address them. so of course being that you are hearing from me today we want to ensure safety and access on our sidewalks. some things include requiring the companies to provide user education, requiring the companies to be responsive if there are -- if we notify them of issues with scooter parking, have their phone number on the scooter so that individual members oh of the public can contact them if there are issues. this is a really important issue for some of the members of the board of the supervisors that

we've been working with and one of the things i wanted to add is we'll have a cap on the total number of scooters issued through this program because we want to stem the possibility of proliferation before we can get these other issues under control. so we have one of the changes since the legislation was shared on thursday is that we are changing that cap so that it's five permitees will be -- the maximum that we might grant and we have a total cap on the number of scooters which is 1250 and then up to 2500. now we will be in the permits themselves issuing a number for each company so each company will only have a certain number but this allows us to, you not my, see whether there's any nuisances and what the company has proposed to do with their allotted scooters. so that's a change. i also wanted to add that

regarding the requirement of user education around parking the scooters and riding on sidewalks we are working closely with our accessibility services program at the sfmta to provide clear guidance beyond what is in the public works code and where we expect to see those scooters and what we consider to be an appropriate parking garage. even an individual user who thinks they are doing the right thing may not understand the issue. we want to be clear about that and we will be including those kinds of requirements in our permit application to inform the scooter companies of what they should share with their users as well as inform the users themselves. we also want to be protecting the interest of users specifically so the first set of things are really about the broader population of san francisco. that includes provisions around requiring a privacy policy, so to protect and safeguard the private information of users of the systems and then also making

sure that they are aware of specific safety laws and safety operation of the vehicles, so helmet use and things like that. as an agency regulating these programs we see it as a great opportunity to promote equity in the expectations for the scooter companies. we will require a low income plan, a multilingual website but we are also going to be asking them to share their service plan with us and that would need to be approved. it's something where we have encouraged them to consider deploying in communities of concern and we can weigh it as we look at the applications received and potentially award a certain number for deploying in certain areas. that's something that we are excited to continue to consider in the details of the permit. finally, we are looking at evaluating a brand new transportation option. this is our opportunity to gather that information and come back to

this board with some for the recommendations. that's why we've implemented -- or drafted this legislation as a pilot program. another change since what you were sent to shorten the pilot from 24 month to 12 months. i've learned so much about scooters in the past six weeks as i'm sure you all have to. we know in the next 12 months we'll be able to learn a whole lot about the operation of these on our city streets and make recommendations about how to proceed into the future. now in addition to having the pilot requirements we will require the company to provide us with data so information about the number of scooters they have, the number of trips per scooter, kind of origin, destination, data, that kind of thing and then we will ask for demographic information as well as travel choice, mode choice questions the might be through a survey that we ask them to administer. so through those things we'll be able to evaluate what the actual benefits are to the

transportation network, meanwhile we'll be collecting data on what some of the impacts continue to be. finally we want to minimize the burden on our agency, public works and other agencies in the city. we don't want this to become something that taxpayer dollars are covering the cost of a lot of staff time administering this kind of program. as we often do as our pilot programs we are establishing a fee to apply for the permit as well as a fee for the annual permit program which could cover the cost of administering the permit. we are also requiring the companies to pay into an endowment which would be used to fund reimbursing us or other agencies for -- >> how much. >> it's $10,000. they're required to reimburse us for cost incurred so we don't need to ask them to reimburse right away, we already have an

account going. as the dollar value pile up for impounding the scooters or any damage to property value we would be able to collect on that. then we also have a violation for either operating a permit that isn't part of the scooter share program, not a permitted scooter or for violating the terms of the permits. those are things we will be administeri administering. in order to achieve those goals we set forth we have end goals to dwruse. the first part is the application for the scooter company to demonstrate their intent. we will require a maintenance and operation plan where they explain where they plan to deploy the scooters, how they plan to dispose of the batteries from the scooters and other things like that and that would be where we would consider things like how many scooters each permitee should receive.

the application will also just spelling out in detail what our requirements will be regarding user information, et cetera. that will be their opportunity to agree to those requirements and those will be further developed in the terms and conditions as part of the permit issuance. this will also be the opportunity to ask them to be creative and what they might do. it would be as a second phase in the user education and insintives and information doesn't provide the desired outcome. we are not requiring it but we want companies to think about are they going to require a walking mechanism or something like that. not part of the initial plan but we'll look for that information from the different companies. after permits are issued we are going to be monitoring these guys really closely. we need to make sure that we are seeing improvement month over

month. there's a learning curve with these. it's pretty new. we want to make sure that we are tracking percentage of sidewalk riding, are there differences between the different companies that are shuissued permits alon those lines. those are the kinds of things we will be tracking. if we are finding issues with those we have the authority to revoke a permit. so we would issue a notice and ask them to get in line and that is definitely something that we think is really critical. i didn't want to include a lot of language from the legislation in this presentation but this one is important. if the users are continuing to violate the law that we can hold the scooter companies accountable for it. that's a problem in our current lack of regulation on this issue. so we'll be monitoring for that sort of like continued failure of the users to comply with existing laws and that's something we expect to see in order for companies -- in order for companies to continue to have a permit or in order to

understand if the permit structure is strong enough to achieve the benefits that we need to see. so with that i just want to close by saying i think that the legislation is really comprehensive about addressing the issues that we have before you today. it's really critical that we implement legislation that allows us to regulate this so that we can achieve the maximum benefit to our transportation network and convenient and mobility of san francisco residents but also minimize that potential negative impact that we've been seeing so far today. with that i'll take any questions that you have. >> mr. mcguire? >> i'd just like to clarify something that miriam said and i was supposed to say at the beginning. there's two specific word changes to the legislation that you have been you that staff are suggesting. as miriam said, we have been racing quickly to learn all we can about this industry. we have two suggested changes to the legislation that's before you. the first is changing the duration of the pilot program

which the legislation is written as 24 months, we are suggesting 12 months so we can get more quickly to a final decision about what the future of scooters might be in san francisco. the second has to do with the number -- the allocation of permits and the number of scooters % -- per permitee. we are looking at a cap of 500 each and recommending not the 500 cap with any particular operator to simply have a cap of 2500 permits for the ultimate build out of the program to be allocated among any credible operators who apply. we note that we don't know whether we are going to find five operators apply who might meet our standards and be granted a permit, we could find that we have zero. so we are looking for a little bit of flegs -- flexibility to make sure that we are granting

them who meet the permit requirements. >> anything else? >> there's technically three changes in the legislation. so the 12 months changed and then saying that a total -- the total number at six months is 1250 and then the total is 2500 for the remaining six months of the program. >> all right. very good. all right. here's the order of show. we have an aide from supervisoo peskin's office here and then i'll ask my board members if there's questions. the board members will wait until after public comment. thank you very much. the floor is yours. >> just a few comments to put this into context for the board of superrise advise -- supervisors as well. as you probably know by now

earlier this year in february -- it was about mid february we started to hear about the controversial roll out of scooters in san diego, santa monica, news stories and then people who were close to the issue either at mta staff or members oh of the public asked us what are you going to do about this. i believe in part because just a year ago we went down a very similar path with stationless bike share. in then collaboration with the mayor we had an establishment permit like the one before the board last tuesday. per your division ii authority you are here to establish the provisions. i have to acknowledge that we were surprised by the fanfare around scooters. i don't think that anybody expected it to grow into such a conversation and such a controversy particularly given how pedestrian -- excuse me --

the stationless bike share legislation was and the permit process around that. this is just a very casual in our view regulatory role to institute this permit requirement. that division i amendment was passed by the board unanimously last tuesday. it ought to be effective in about a month's time. much to sfmta's credit, they are doing this in tandem so that the division ii legislation will be effective around the exact same time as our division i transportation code amendment. i think that may be evidence that we are getting better at this process and anticipating the challenges ahead. i think the idea is yes there's a reason to be excited about emerging mobility services. we think there's public benefit to be had from the arrival of scooters or stationless bikes or electric bikes. it's actually really hard to approximately and assess what

that benefit is until you also assess and approximate and address the potential harms to the public realm as well. that's the prerogative to anticipate those harms and enact permit conditions that help this new industry evolve into something we can stand with and stand behind with the utmost confidence. i want to think about harms that transcend the very obvious harms that we've seen and have been spoken by pedestrian advocates across the sidewalks. that i think is probably the most apparent harm that we've seen but certainly there are other things that have been brought to our attention as well. i do want to sfmta, for instance, for addressing some of the more environmental conditions. you know, they certainly carry

the banner of reduced emissions, getting people out of their private automobiles. what, for example, are the things to assess the impact of cars that are zigzagging across the city on a nightly basis, to retrieve scooters and redistribute them in the morning. how does that impact the over all carbon footprint of electronic scooters. the material impact on our landfills, i think that the department of environment provided some input on exactly, you know, what are the best practices around the recycling, the reusability of potentially tens of thousands of scooters a year. there was a tech crunch article. if these have a life span of about two month that's potentially 2500 per two months over 10,000 scooters ended up in landfills, hazardous materials. we should at least be assessing the best practices in that realm as well. privaciily -- privacy policies

this is not something that's at the forefront of everybody's minds. our office has been looking through these privacy policies and noticing kinds -- kind of trouble things going on with personal private data. i don't think that users necessarily understand that when they are signing up for one of the scooters companies they are con sending to them accessing their credit reports and they are using that and making that accessible to third-party advertisers and web beacons. i don't think that users are particularly aware that these terms of use can change retroactively with respect of uses of non-personal and personal information without notice to the user at all. what kind of conditions can we develop as a city to mitigate some of that potential harm? certainly i think that we would be excited if there is capital in the private transportation spear that's very good. but should we be okay, is it an acceptable trade off to allow companies to capitalize and

increase their value based on the information they are acquiring from users and selling our montizing for a third-party user. i think that's something that body should consider as well. a couple of things i don't think that are really in here. first to the extent that individuals are looking at being a quote, unquote charger of these scooters either as supplemental income or as a wage, what from visions can inhibit some -- provisions can inhib inhibit some practices. is this a viable form of employment? at the very least i think that's something that should be studied here. this is one that supervisor peskin is about, approaching the

companies about past bad behave -- behavior. we've seen the introduction of our permit requirement and after that multiple scooter companies coming in with a great deal of arrogance, i believe, and causes thesis troubles on our public rights of way. is that behavior that we should be rewarding or can we insert something in 916 subsection e of the legislation before you that would allow the detector of transportation to consider the past behavior of these some these companies. it's worth knows that there are other scooter manufacturers who have not entered into our public rights of way right now and are waiting to see mow this plays out and maybe that should be considered when we see who is allow allowed to operate instead of the compas -- the companies tha opted to move fast and break things in our city. i'm very much forward looking

forward to extensive public comment here. thank you for indulging my comments as well. >> thank you and please thank your boss for his leadership on this issue. we appreciate. so order of show is clarifying comments. this is just if you have a question about what something means. board members will do that now, other wise we have a plot of -- a lot of members of the public here to speak about this and i would like to hear about them before we get into a debate. director torres. >> director torres: we will get into a debate later; is that correct? >> i guarantee it. >> director torres: clarifying questions then. on the fines the companies would be fined how much for violaties violations? >> it depends on the violation. violating the terms of the permit is subject to an

administrative -- let me find -- >> director torres: of how much? >> one of them is -- just a second. the fine of $100 for being unpermitted. so you were a scooter company that had 50 scooters deployed in san francisco over a course of days then that would be 50 citations. >> director torres: these companies are worth $4,100 -- are worth $400 million. $100 is nothing to these people. they will continue to laugh at us. we have to look at that number one. number two, section 916 which supervisor peskin's aide talked about in terms of past behavior, can reconsidered putting that into regulations?

>> we would offer input from the board on past behavior. i think there's some discretion that already exists in the language as proposed and maybe during public comment i can ask our attorney and staff to explore the ability we have to do that and if not i would certainly be open to that. i think it would be appropriate. >> director torres: i've been hearing complaints from bart they they are left in access to transit. are we conversing with bart as to their input? >> we have not been in touch with bart yet. there are a lot of agencies who are interested to work with. we've worked with the port and public works. we can talk to bart for sure. >> director torrez: these people are bad actors. san santa monica had to file a criminal complaint until they got their attention and settle for $300,000. we are having the same problem

in san jose, in san diego and in washington dc and now we are having it here. i guess it goes back to what we said earlier in terms of past behavior. we should not be rewarding people who have stuck their fingers at us dealing with cease and desist orders. those on the panel believe in the rule of law. what are we going to do to that and where's the insurance policy? i think that you sited that earlier. is it included in these regs? >> the legislation doesn't specify the detail, it says the city risk manager will. >> i have full confident they will negotiate. i will reserve my comments. >> very good. thank you director torres. >> i understand the cap of $2,500 at the end of the -- or eventually and 1500 interim. what's the thought behind capping the number of permits to five? >> probability management. we wanted to allow more than one

and have a few but having eight or ten per mitt -- permits we think that's beyond the capacity of staff to manage. it's something that one an appropriate number for users of the systems if they were divided. if you had an ina infinite perm then you would only get a few per company and it wouldn't work. >> if the legislation didn't have the cap we could limit the number of permits we are issued? >> that's correct. >> clarifying questions? yes? >> that was the end of my clarifying questions. thanks. >> director ramos? >> what happens at tep the end in pilot? what happens at the end of 12 months? >> we would need to come back to you with new legislation. so we'll be, you know, working on whatever kinds of changes we think need to happen to make these programs a success.

or earlier if it's clear. >> i think the idea would be a revised program that learns from what happened in those 12 months. >> uh-huh. >> thank you. >> okay. seeing no other clarifying questions from this board i will ask public comment. how many speakers do we have? >> 25, mr. chairman. >> okay. two minutes a piece, folks. that's a long time. you don't have to use all two minutes. you can align yourself with the comments of other people. that's a great way to endear yourself to the board but you all have two minutes. >> i know there are some people in the over flow room and if they have not turned in their speaker card if they could do so now so we can make sure they get called. i'll read you three names in a row so if any of these people are down in the over flow room

they have time to come upstairs. >> line up here so you can speak. two minutes. >> i just think that the 2 500 cap -- i mean, do we have a cap on the amount of cars or bicycles in the city? >> we should. >> we probably should. i agree with you. you know, if the problem is with financing why don't you just charge more for the permits and allow more scooters. >> very good. >> that's it. thank you. >> thank you for being the

model of efficiency. i hope that everyone was watching. >> jack strong -- >> if i may with just a question for staff just that question on the title of the permits, is there a cost recovery? i think the answer is yes, this would fall under state rules. >> yes, it would. it's a cost recovery program. >> our next speaker. >> jack strong, rodney hampton, s sam. >> thank you. welcome. >> thank you for hearing me. i'll try and be brief but probably not. for me to see the joy and laughter as groups of young and old adults going by on these means of transportation. it's priceless for me to take time off of work to come here to defend. it's time to let the

people of san francisco enjoy the city again. we the people of san francisco deserve to enjoy our city again and these little birds can make that happen then you the supervisors need to make that happen too. i don't know from anything but first impression social securiti securities -- impressions is what the american people go by. i think it's full of great, motivated hard working individuals. as a native of san francisco for 55 years i appreciate the relationship i now have developed with the bird industry and hope to continue working with these open minded and hard-working group of people. if you limit the amount of the small means of transportation you will take away the ability for me to continue to be motivated in collecting and charging these scooters and getting them off the streets at night. also you limit my ability to make a living and you limit the ability of the general public to use these scooters as short but necessary transportation of the downtown corridor. thank you. >> thank you very much.

next speaker.

. >> -- that are isolated from a mobility perspective to take advantage of this -- of this option. we've detailed this and other recommendations in a letter delivered to you, the board, and other staff yesterday, and

in support of this program, we've also met and shared information with mta staff over the past couple weeks through full-time employment. this is a great thing, and i'm here to ask you to support that and allow line bike to help you assist this situation and help