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 talking about the very southeastern most corner of san francisco. you can see in the corner there

exactly where the project is, as well as more detailed map. this was once home to of course shipyard operations, and also of course the jiengiants and 4 stadium at candlestick point. the redevelopment covered three areas. the shipyard phase one which was approved in 2006 with 1600 homes and 80,000 square feet of retail as well as parks. this is a portion of the project that has been constructed and is occupied at this point. and then, in 2010, the other two areas, a redevelopment plan for the other two areas was approved. one was candlestick point, which is a mixed use area with housing as well as a regional retail mall. and what we're really focusing on today, which is the 700 acre shipyard phase two.

the predominant uses that are now proposed for this area are over 3,400 housing units. the total over the whole site is about 10,500 units. also within shipyard phase two what we're talking about is 4.2 million square feet of r and d and office, up to 400,000 square feet of retail and maker space, and hotels artists, artistude yos and approximately 400,000 square feet of school use. so just to give you an idea of the scale of office development that's proposed, the salesforce tower is about 1.4 million square feet, so that's kind of the -- just to give you a sense of what kind of development we're talking about. so of course supporting this development is an integral part of the master plan. this master plan is built around achieving a 45% auto

mode share, so a transportation plan was developed for the full area that covers all aspects of transportation, including an on-site multimodal network that is focused on transit, with exclusive bus lanes, a transit center, and extended muni routes as well as new routes and an expanded fleet to serve that. there's a parking strategy, offsite improvements to neighborhood streets and transportation demand management. so-so of course a lot has changed since 2010. when approved, it it 2.5 million square feet of office and a football stadium. however even at that time there was uncertainty around the 49ers location, so a lot of property variants were reviewed

during the development and during the review of the transportation plan. the revised applications was one that captured the variance, so in addition to the extra office, some of the other changes that are being talked about today are reorganization of land uses in the street grid, including shifting some land uses across different parts of the site or different phases of development. there's increasing office as well as retail, and adding in the educational uses, maker space, some hotel use, so greater variety of land uses would be covered. there's greater retention and adaptive reuse of the historic buildings in the shipyard, and improved bicycle and pedestrian connectivity. the transportation plan is being updated to reflect these project adjustments since 2010. while many aspects of the original transportation plan remain relevant and as i mentioned, like the

environmental review, the transportation plan did build in an understanding that over the course of development there might be changes in use. it was still necessary and appropriate to make sure that the land use and the site plan changes were captured in the transportation plan. and also, while the transportation plan in 2010 was very robust and particularly strong on providing major transit improvements, some updating was needed to reflect the current trend and position us for expected future changes that were unforeseen in 2010. in particular, the plan now much better reflects the link between parking and trips that we are now really doing a lot of our transportation planning around. so to that end, before this board today are amendments to the transportation plans and the infrastructure plan for the project. the whole are amendments to the

redevelopment plan, the development and disposition agreement or dda, and the various supporting project documents, such as the transportation plan for the design for development, also known as a d for d. and then, after today, the final stop for this project will be the board of supervisors in the next month or so. i do want to add that about 1:00 p.m., supervisor malia cohen sent an e-mail asking directors to take additional points in this project. asking to explicitly define the consequences for not meeting the 45% auto mode share and also asking that the plans ensure that garages that are

constructed can be adapted for future reuse, you know, different uses in the case that parking is no longer needed in our uncertain transportation future. so on both the first and second points, that 45% mode share is fundamentally built into the project itself in all aspects of what's being provided in terms of streets and services are built around efforts to achieve that. so the updated transportation plan goes beyond what it did in 2010. it spells out that not only will monitoring take place but that if the monitoring shows that we're not achieving that share, five point would be responsible for remedies as appropriate. one of those remedies is explicitly a reduction in the

amount of parking being provided. and with regard to the garages, it is a point that some members of this board brought up, and we've asked that five point specifically address how those garages might be repurposed in the future. so with that, i'm going to pass off to miss brekke, and of course you will learn more. thank you. >> thank you very much. welcome. >> thank you very much, directors. therese brekke with five point. ak. sarah was telling you, if we step back, 'cause this project was consuming a lot of my life, we'll go back to 2010 and the entitlements at that time, which included a stadium, but we also studied through ceqa and had approved under the

redevelopment plan for 5 million square feet of r and d. now since then we've had an opportunity to think about how people are living today. and while we want to pursue all that we can under the redevelopment plan, we want to acknowledge that having 5 million square feet of strict r and d is really not creating the kind of community that we're wanting to create. we're wanting a much more mixed-use type of community. we're looking to add additional retail, add hotel. and most significantly is we're taking away approximately 400,000 square feet of r and d to provide opportunities for schools on-site. they were never contemplated in 2010, so these are the kinds of things that we're doing. we're also adding some really important sustainable design

features. so along with our solar energy, we're also looking at geothermal energy use for district heating and cooling, and we're also building a recycled water plant in order to reduce the demand on domestic water. the other things that i want to talk about and follow up on have to do with some of the changes that have been made to this project just over the past several weeks as we've worked together with staff. so what we have done is we have committed to reducing the retail parking ratios. we've -- reducing those from three to two per-1,000, and that will be implemented over time. we're also going to do a strong commitment to reducing parking

if in fact we are not achieving that 45% single occupancy vehicle mode maximum. so our ideal is that most people are taking transit, they're biking, they're walking to rk would. no more than 45% of individuals arriving to the site are to take it by cars. and then, the last thing that was mentioned, and i also want to reassure you is that we are designing our garages for conversions to alternative uses in the future. so they may become offices, they may become condos. how we are doing that is the first floor is going to be designed at 15 feet for retail-type uses, and the floors above that are all going to have 9 feet from floor to ceiling so that in fact it can

be converted to an alternative use. that has been incorporated as a standard in the design for development document. we're also creating more activation at the ground floor so that as a transit user, as you perhaps pass by parking garages or as -- as someone who is living and working on-site, this becomes a more interesting and inviting experience. it is not just a garage. what i want to 'emphasize abou what is remaining, one of the things that is remaining is our commitment to affordable housing. some of you may know that we're committed to providing 32% of all housing at affordable housing rates. we have some homes under construction, as sarah was

saying earlier up as a part of phase one. we have alice griffith homes. we have been front ending the affordable housing such that of 675 homes that have been constructed to date, 54% are affordable, and of those, 306 are replacement units at alice griffith. what else remains the same? our commitments to an $80 million community benefit package, as well as a commitment to build a new artist building, which is under construction right now. so these things all remain the same. the land use plan, the reorganization that i spoke of and that sarah referred to, the r and d is shown on this side, the other side, the blues and yellows, and oranges, the idea

is to create the kind of integrated, mixed use communities that we all like, and we've had the opportunity to preserve more historic structures than we originally identified, and we're also able to create more parks and open spaces. the land use plan is going to be developed in phases. as one can imagine, we have a total of three major phases or six sub phases, and of course the development. the development program, i want to assure you, is one that is financially sound as it is phased in over time. at the end of our buildout, which we're approximating to be about 2035, there will be net revenues to the general fund of

$40 million. that's more than double what the original 2010 plan indicated. we have 15,700 jobs that will be associated with this, which is 5,000 more than we thought would be in 2010. chris mitchell will speak now on some of the details of our transportation plan. >> very good. thank you very much. mr. mitchell, welcome. >> thank you. >> you're going to focus on the drp transportation aspect of this? >> yeah. thank you very much, directors, and thank you very much, therese and sarah. this is a plan that has been going on since it was approved

in 2010. i'm going to try to balance moving forward and keeping things balanced, so if i go too fast, there's always an opportunity to ask questions later on. just on the transit side, the -- in the hunters point shipyard part of the site, there are three transit routes that are getting extended into the sites, the 22, the 48, and the 44. in addition to the extensions, we're going to increase the frequencies of service. there's also going to be a new hunters point express bus that will make stops through the bayview neighborhood before traveling nonstop express to downtown in in the candlestick site, there is the express increasing stops downtown, as well very efficient transit service to and from downtown as well as to and from the

adjacent neighborhoods and actually throughout the rest of the city. >> so if i can ask one question just while you're on there. >> yes. >> one of the questions that i have about this is will the express bus routes downtown be more -- be quicker than taking the 24 to the t and taking -- i mean, i suppose it depends on where you're going, but is connecting can the central subway plan down there part of the plan or are the express buses the sort of work horse of the plan here. >> many of the routes, the 22, the 44, connect to the t, but the express route is being designed that it will be faster because it doesn't have to make as many stops as the t. >> very good. wonderful. >> yeah. in addition, i just want to mention the extension of the 28-r into the project site which would operate brt through the project site, connecting the candlestick and hunters point to the south. so with all of that transit

service, the site will be extremely well served by transit, but not just the site that we are talking about proposing here. all of the neighborhoods that are serviced by those routes that are going to experience service transit frequency increase, it's really going to help transit throughout the city. >> so significant campus, this is not two blocks. let's say you're coming from b.a.r.t. to this campus. i guess my next question is have we thought about how people will move throughout the campuses? bike shares, that short of things? >> yeah. the project is designed to people can get around without walking -- excuse me. >> you're out of here. >> oh, man. i just lost my job. >> that was the last item. >> i confirmed everyone's worst

fears. no, excuse me, without driving. >> you sure you want us to ask questions. >> you can get around by biking, walking and taking transit, so the roads are designed to be as narrow as we can make them, the fire department will approve. the sidewalks are being designed to meet better street plan standards. there's a robust bicycle network, bike share, car share, all part of that, plus the transit routes that connect between the sites. >> very good. i will not jump ahead anymore. >> very good. thanks. all right. in terms of -- some of the things that aren't changing, we'll talk a little bit about the shipyard transit center. there's a point where all of the transit routes serving the shipyard come together, and people can connect very efficiently. one of the things that's new about this project is we are exploring the possibility of

providing water taxi service from one of the dry docks in hunters point shipyard which will provide water service to and from various points along the waterfront in san francisco and potentially even the east bay which would be another way that people can get around without driving. and finally -- and we will talk a little bit more about the transportation demand management component of the project. the project is going to be responsible for supplying at least one full-time coordinator that will be responsible for implementing all of the transportation demand management features, marketing them to residents and to visitors and employees, but also to working -- to monitoring its effectiveness and working with mta staff to adjust it over time as conditions warrant. >> excellent. thank you. >> it's, of course, therese mentioned, they're looking at about 2035 before we achieve build out. it's a large development. it's not that we have a good robust transit development in

2035. we want to make sure that we've got a transit system at all times that's robust and indicates to people at all times that this is a transit oriented neighborhood. request we're working to find the right balance that's proposed at different phases but also doesn't oversupply transit to the point that it breaks the bank for mta. so this is what phase one is going to look like. let's see if i can switch over here and operate the mouse. the transit system won't come until the later phases of the project, so in the interim we are making sure that the transit routes connect and overlap without having to transfer. phase two, simply new roads are built. the routing is justed a little bit to correspond to the new

roads that are built and service frequency is increasing over time. and finally at full build out you'll see all the routes come in and serve the site with the transit site in the middle so i mentioned that the bicycle and pedestrians network is intended to be very robust. we've made several adjustments to this plan since it was approve index 2010, and i think each time we've improved mab many components of a particular pedestrian and bicycle network. the major change here from what has been approved previously is that we -- we -- at the last time this plan was adopted or updated, the project added a -- a two way cycle track which is essentially a facility that's off of the road, separated from

cars, that can travel straight through the project. we've adjust it had in this go round and in working with mta staff, that is a green line that you'll see traveling right through here. it used to be up here, along crisp road. so now it goes through the very heart of the project site. it crosses over the dry dock here with a new bridge and connects -- it will connect here at robinson street and continue over across to the north side park area, where it will then connect with the cycle track that's being extend does as part of the blue greenway. so it really filled and connected the gap in that bike ramp throughout the entire eastern waterfront. i'll just highlight a couple of the other features. i mentioned the coordinate jar that would be employed at the site. i think something that tends to get overlooked as part of this project, but i really want to

make sure we understand it, this project is only one of the two projects in the entire city where all residents are in homes that are above homes that are 60% ami -- [please stand by for captioner switch]. >> we've talked about the -- the monitoring program that's part of the tdm program. the tdm coordinator will monitor program behavior to see if it's meeting its goal. if it's not being achieved,

there's a number of actuals that the tdm coordinator and mta have in terms of adjustments to meet the goal. one is reducing parking supplies. in emergency roterms of the pas being developments, prefer ential treatment for carpooling, there'll be space provided for car share and bike share, and all buildings will be outfitted for the typical amenities for bikers: showers, lockers and storage facilities. i mentioned the transit center in hunters point shipyard. this gives you a little bit more detailed look at how it's going to operate. i won't go into a lot of the details of how it works unless you have questions, but suffice to say this is where all of the transit routes from the north and the south so people can transfer from any line to any

other line serving the site with one transfer. there's also spaces provided -- this is actually the end of the line for those buses, so there's space for them to lay over, driver rest rooms and other amenities, and five point is going to provide space for electric charging facilities at such point as the fleet converts over to electric vehicles. one of the questions that we've heard from a few of the directors as we've presented this to various sub committees has been a concern about the experience of the transit rider, particularly those waiting for the bus at this corner. this building right here is a parking structure. there was a concern that people waiting for the bus would be waiting by a big parking structure that tends to be very active, not typically a place that signals this is a real transit facility.

so i wanted to spend a lot bit of time talking about what we've done to try and address that. the design for development includes all of the design standards, and that's not before this body today, but i did want to highlight some key components of that that should answer some questions. all of the components of the stand-alone parking garages are required to include active uses, that could be retail, restaurants, entertainment uses or bicycle storages. all of the garages will include screening on the facade so that it does -- it's more of an attractive building, and as was mentioned, they'll all be designed to be convertible to other uses, so ideally, this building could be converted to an office building or some other building in the future. these are excerpts of the design for development building chlts are just give you examples of the ways that garages have been active in

other communities. and then finally, we talked a lot about the improvements in the project to make this project work really well for residents, visitors, employees of the site, but there are also a whole set of offsite improvements that are being designed in part to get transit into and from the site effectively, but also to really make sure that any impacts that increase traffic and increased usage is mitigated and offset to the best as possible. all of these blue lines highlight roads into the project and we'll ensure that these streets are made beautiful and work for the people that live on them. we've also done a fiscal impact report to make sure that this all works financially for mta

and for the greater city. i'll talk more specifically about the transit component, though. therese already mentioned a couple of the highlights, but the point is we worked closely with mta to identify what are the true costs of operating increased transit ssts, the cost of the buses, the cost of operating the buses and the cost of storing the buses. we've updated all of that looking at the data, and made sure that every phase along the way, that this project pencils out, at build out, the project should be generating an annual surplus of about $40 million, compared to $16 million in the old study. specific to transit, similar ly, the old plan generated about $1.5 million surplus, and this projects

about a $4 million surplus, so almost tripling that annually. the other thing you're being asked to approve is an updated infrastructure plan for the hunters point shipyard plan, so without the stadium, we're revising some of the street grid to include the new uses, removing the requirement for the overhead contact system, which is basically the wires for the 24 route that's getting extended into the site. the idea being that by the time that route is scheduled to get extended and approved service, the fleet is going to be converted over to electric, and to the visual impact of extending all of those wires and the cost for such a short amount of time doesn't make sense, so that's no longer part of it. and then, i mentioned the infrastructure for electric charging at the hunters point shipyard transit center will be provided. so that's all of my part. i will let you all ask questions and discuss, and look forward to answering any

questions you have. thanks. >> thank you very much. well, before we get to questions, i know we have a visitor from supervisor cohen's office, so as we've done in the past, if i could -- there's brittany. very good. welcome. thank you for coming down. >> thank you. good afternoon? my name is brittany, and i'm a legislative aide in the office of supervisor malia cohen, and i'm here to follow up on the letter that she submitted at the beginning of this board meeting. so the supervisor was unaware of the negotiated reduction of the parking in particular at the neighborhood retail space. as sarah jones from mta spoke to and then was reity reiterat the team from five points, the other issues have been addressed, so she would like to withdraw her letter, and she is

currently at the board meeting, otherwise she would be here. >> well, thank you so much for coming down to tell us that. collaboration at the meeting is something we love. okay. are there questions from staff, from our directors? okay. seeing none, i'll ask, is there public comment on this item? >> yes, mr. chairman, there is. >> okay. before we get to public comment, director ramos, you wanted to speak to this? >> yeah. i wanted to add just a couple of questions of staff -- [ inaudible ] >> okay. probably better. okay. there were some concerns as have been brought up and has been addressed with respect to some of the initial parking ratios that were proposed as part of the transportation plan, and it looks like you have been in conversation with the development team to address some of the concerns that at least i had raised and i think some of the others had brought up, speaking expressly to the

idea of the maximum parking being sought after at three spaces pefr 1,000 square feet, and instead, we went down. i think the developer acknowledged that and said yes, okay, we'll come down to 2.7. and then, there were a couple of other tweaks in the transportation plan, as well, namely, limiting the amount of parking persquare feet that would be phased in over time, that we would reduce that. so there's been some amendments to the transportation plan from what i understand that could be captured in -- whereas that i'd like to make sure it gets introduced in and would be an amendment, if you will, a new whereas, and i'd want to make sure this captures everything that we've heard, both from myself and everybody else, the concerns that we've had and from the supervisors' concerns. and i'm wondering if i should

read this out for everyone to make sure that staff feels comfortable that it addresses all the concerns. >> whereas and the resolved clause. >> yes. >> so whereas the amended transportation plan identifies reduction of parking ratios as a potential tool should the project not meet its mode share goals, developer and the mta will monitor changes in the park paper bag -- parking supply and road share modes. with the exception of proposed reductions in the hunters point shipyard phase two neighborhood retail rate tied to development phasing with a maximum of 2.0 spaces per-1,000 square feet by build out and regional retail reduced to a maximum of 2.7 spaces per-1,000 maximum square feet. grocery store rates would be specified as an additional category at a maximum of 2.7

spaces. and then, there's the -- there's the result clause. there would be an amendment to actually insert some language and that's in that first resolved -- i'm sorry, it's in the fourth? oh, yeah, it's in the fourth. a resolved approval of the subject by the board of supervisors, the sf mta here by does consent to the -- and this is the new part, including the parking requirement and parking implementation strategy changes in the amended transportation plan, close parentheses, and hunters point shipyard phase two infrastructure plan. can you speak to that? does that capture everything? >> yes again, sarah jones. yes, we have concluded that that language would capture the

discussions we had and the -- you know, various back and forth around trying to balance, you know, building out what is now a relatively difficult part of san francisco to access, and the ultimate vision of a true urban place with, you know, people moving around in this part of san francisco the way they move around in a lot of other parts of san francisco. so this is -- so this is picking it up, and we do feel that the additional provisions really drilling down into recognizing and reflecting that link between parking and trips is appropriate, given where we are now. >> so from my peculiar spective, thspec -- perspective, that all sounds fine. but from amending it on the fly, we have