their final destinations. we've been working with local groups to help push for perbike lanes and a better network. at the end of the day, we thank you for your leadership. we're super excited, and we hope to do our hometown proud. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> welcome. thank you for coming. >> thank you. good afternoon, board of directors, our local transportation advocacy group, chinatown trip, supports this program for the power scooters. however we suggest a few points of amendment for your consideration. first 2500 scooters is a rather large number for our limited sidewalk space. sf mta should consider limiting the number of scooters stocked perblock or suggest that

companies must proactively clear and declutter the sidewalks to maintain a clear walking pathway. two, companies should require users to complete a user education piece so that users are held to the same accountability as everyone else. third, power scooters should be restricted to bike lanes only as to not impede on the safety of pedestrians on the sidewalk. and lastly, i do want to agree with dr. torres which is $100 is absolutely laughable. thank you. >> thank you very much as director torres laughs at that. next. >> chen, welcome. thank you for coming. >> good afternoon, directors. my name is queena. i'm an sf native, and i'm also part of chinatown trip. there's some things that we would like the board to consider. the scooter permit pilot is really similar to how scoot the

moped company is working currently. i'm a personal scooter user. i love them. what they require us to do is watch training videos, take quizzes, complete an inperson training class, and have a 2k mv background check before any members could actually rent these scooters. so since electric scooters are considered to be motorized vehicles, they should follow the same laws. it's really important that riders know how the traffic law works before jumping onto an electric scooter and riding onto traffic 'cause cars are very dangerous, right? electric scooter companies needs more in place to ensure the safety of scooter riders and the general public. our next comment is as some of you giet might now, chinatown is the second most densely populated neighborhood in the u.s. most of the residents in chinatown are seniors. if you guys have ever been to stockton street, you know how

crowded it is, and it's like a football field. you can't get through. there have been instances where we've seen grandmas and grandpas holding groceries, and there is a scooter in the middle of the sidewalk, and they just stare at it, what is this? and they have to walk around it with their heavy groceries. they're just trying to get home to make dinner. so it's really important to us that community stakeholders should have a say of where scooters could be parked, and we hope that these electric scooter companies will work with the community to make sure that this program fits san francisco's needs. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. welcome. thank you for coming. >> thank you. i'm nancy mcnally chl i. i'm representing four generations of natives, and i was run over by a scooter rider

april 18th, and i was coming around the muni overhang protection thing to avoid the scooters on this side -- on the sidewalk side, and i walked this way, and the guy on the scooter came up the sidewalk right in front, facing the street and hit me, and i asked him to stop very politely, and i flipped me the bird. so that's not the reason i'm here. i'm just saying that this kind of thing is going to happen again, only somebody's going to get really hurt if not killed, because a lot of these young guys don't follow the rules at all. >> nope. >> so that's all i have to say. >> thank you, miss mcnally. >> somebody is going to get killed. >> very good. glad to see you well here today. next speaker. >> andy blue, mary sore enson.

>> good evening, board members. i'd like to thank the sf mta staff for working so hard on this after you've been ambushed once again. the one way to guarantee that you're never ambushed again is to refuse permits to bird, line, and spin. companies coming to the city with no permit, no warning, beyond this behavior, this business model is terribly problematic, not proven, doesn't pencil out. from the production of the scooters and oversees sweatshops to the landfills and toxic e waste dumping grounds they are defendastined for aft their two month life span, this interest is to serve the

community, not public corporations. we've seen it before. where have i heard this before? oh, yeah, uber, the company that did the same thing exactly about seven years ago, when it ambushed our city with this same model. remember how we had to accept them with no conditions because they were going to relieve the congestion on our streets? here we are seven years later with 30% more cars on the streets because of uber and lyft. thanks. no more rewarding recklesserant law breakers for their behavior. we have evidence that the scooters are not carbon neutral. contract workers drive around all day picking them up. they may drive seven miles to pick up scooters that went four blocks. you want a solution? make this city one like co

copenhagen or amsterdam. no more rewarding reckless, arrogant reckless law breakers. zero. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. welcome. thank you for coming today. >> of course. i'm not seeing a lot of scooter hatred. i don't know. is that a thing? but i'm seeing an mta that must be taking massive amounts of many from tnc's and ford and all the others that are stealing our infrastructure. it's ridiculous that something like a bike plan has to go through ceqa and environment san francisco but it's a give away like scooters. then it's treated as an

emergency modality and given a permit. what are the jobs? running around, picking up the scooters that died? assembling them? those don't seem like full-time jobs to me, and i just want to know, who am i going to sue when i get knocked down because i've seen a lot of people get hit by these scooters on sidewalks, and i don't understand how anybody's going to enforce them. don't kid yourself that there's going to be an enforcement on this. it's a joke. you're going to let them go, they're going to go on sidewalks, they're going to throw the scooters down and they're going to hit people. so do i sue mta or do i sue the scooter companies, because if you hit me, i do break. >> just to be clear, mr. speaker, there are no speakers in the overflow room or waiting outside. >> good afternoon, board members. peter papadopoulos with the

mission environmental agency. we do think that this is a time to set a new precedent where we do in fact say we're not going to continue to reward or bad actors, and we don't think it's accepting responsibility so say oh, no, this unpermitted rollout is not the problem, it's our people are the problem. it's the neighborhood impacts are the problem. it's all one system, and they're responsible for all of it, and we're all responsible for all of it. so i think that the other thing we want to think about is let's -- let's take our time and do this right. we don't need to keep moving on the planning schedule, right? these are not our urban planners. you're our urban planners, right, and the planning department's our urban planners. we want to move on our timetable and do things right. this is going to be a pilot program, typically, it paves the way for what comes next pretty thoroughly, right? we all see this over and over, so what we want to do is start with what is our real overall

equity framework on every level. let's not hurry forward a program before we know where we're headed. let's think about what are those elements that we want to put into it, and what are not. we're hearing ceqa and environmental concerns. we'd like to see some studies on why is this program operating? what does it mean for two workers to be racing a route to pick up a scooter that only one of them gets that night. we'd like to see what social impacts, so we don't mirror some of the problems that we had with our more recent programs. we'd like to see this low income program rolled out, and more importantly we'd like to see it culturally competently rolled out and more in conjunction with each of our neighborhoods. we'd also like to see high enough rate of fees associated with it that we're recapturing a true equity to put back into

the program. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> sir. welcome. >> good afternoon, directors. thank you very much for being here today and looking over this issue. i just wanted to take a quick few of my minutes to go ahead and readdress what was mentioned by mr. blue. i think it's very important that we think about the precedent that we're setting here, and that we should not and cannot wawe cannot award c who come in and break the law and then be rewarded subsequently by being granted permits. i think we have to think about what we're doing not only for the city but for the citizens, as well. i don't think that that's a message that we want to be sending as a see citcity.

in regards to the companies that have been coming in and invading our streets for six weeks, i don't think they should be rewarded with permits. it is it should be given for t -- to the companies that have been patiently waiting on the out skirts to begin with. even though we have a current transit first policy that is engaged in the mta, it doesn't mean that we have to ignore equity completely. in the report that was listed, the status quo was that there would be an inequitiable distribution in what i would call the scooter share program and scooter rental programs would be implemented. well, i would say that -- i would say that there's not going to be equity and uneven distribution if there's not property community engagement. when looking at the organizations that were outreached by the mta, i saw

the sf bike coalition and walk sf. i did not see any organizations that engage with low income communities and communities of color on the regular. so in terms of bringing out a low income community program, how do you know that this low income community program is going to benefit low income citizens if you're not engaging organizations that engage with these people. that's essentially just taking an outlook of saying if we're american citizens we're going to -- >> thank you sir. you get to finish your sentence. that was a remarkable long sentence, so i was letting you go, but thank you for your passion. >> good afternoon. my name is eric arguella with kalle 24 in the latino district, and we're asking to deny the permit for bird, line and spin scooters. outreach should be done before that. they should meet certain

requirements first before the companies are out on the street. some of the programs that should be developed is an equity program, cultural competency review, plan with communities. make sure it works and respects neighborhood planning, and planning through a social justice lens, recycle and reuse policy, privacy policy, fire safety, labor harmony provisions. we tend to permit these -- we tend to permit these deals and then deal with the problems later. the permit itself should be the incentive to get these other programs in place before. if this is approved, this will continue the animosity with the company, the mta, and those who use them. this has happened before with forego bike, uber, and tech lanes. let's not repeat the behavior and learn from the mistakes in the past.

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

perhaps the proposal should be called uber on sidewalk. no one should be on the sidewalk with these transportations -- alternate means of transportation, and that includes bicyclists. and i'm wondering if it's going to be save to leave my house and walk on the sidewalk with the, you know, scooters bearing down on me, and i'm wondering, should the police department make an exception. am i entitled to use mace or pepper spray to defend myself against these rogue means of transportation? what would happen if a member of the board were struck by a scooter? what would be their response? you know, i think that this is an opportunity to banish scooters and bicycles from the sidewalk. it's against the law, you're upholding the law. and i think by having this lax enforcement of bicycles on the walk, you've opened the door to

this problem. so, you know, it's -- it's really very frustrating, and for my own safety and for the board's safety, and for the citizens of san francisco's safety, shoot down this proposal. i'm sure there are other legitimate jobs that can be had. if you were to offer employment for hit men, you would certainly flinch at this. this is an illegitimate means of employment, and i wouldn't be snookered by this. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> again, speaking on behalf of the behalf of west side, best side, we are ourselves a pedestrian safety committee, and we are very much against this being in the right-of-way and being ridden on the sidewalk, as well.

although it's very clear that the priorities and we can see that in the sunset, are -- are kind of weird. in the sunset, you cannot walk a block, sorry, without having to step into traffic because you have people having privatized decks, so -- without walking into construction, people having privatized decks. so i think we need to refocus here. the reason that we're here today is to say we're against a numerical cap because we've seen on the west side the disaster that the 250 bikes -- [ inaudible ] >> -- is that with these 250 bikes, jump is not able to serve the west side. and we come at this problem with geographic equity in mind. if you leave me to 250 or 500

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

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

brunt of waiting scooters and have to wait for them to be moved. we hope you will partner with community groups and repay them for their efforts. what are your provisions for real-time enforcement for both parking and mobile use and does the pilot include consistent progress report to allow the city to modify and adjust depending on company and user behavior. to the end we're supportive of this program and we're looking forward to continue to collaborate to ensure the safety of our sidewalks and public realm. thank you. >> thank you very much and for all the work that your organization does. next speaker. miss taylor, welcome back. >> how did we get to this point where taking a short walk to the store, you feel like the target in a video game? i hold this agency and other city policy makers somewhat

responsible -- well, very responsible because of the lax enforcement over the years of sidewalk parking, which i believe has created a culture of contempt for pedestrians. when a sidewalk is known to be an option for a parking place, and it's considered just sort of a suggestion that maybe this might be someplace that you might want to walk on, but don't feel safe, then, this leads to the right-of-way violations that are so prevalent in -- in the focus on the side in vision zero for injuries and deaths in our city because the right-of-way of pedestrians is not respected. and this is just the latest episode. i can see enforcement being a problem because it's an invitation to racial profiling, and so this is not the answer. the city has to make a chow. there are two paths here.

the final -- choice. there are two paths here. the final insult could say the tables and chairs are removed from the sidewalk to make rooms for the scooters. or the city could say let's make the sidewalks safe. i'm a bicyclist. i don't believe that bicyclists believe on the sidewalk. i can say i'm almost 70 and i'm not too chicken to ride in the road. what's your excuse? i think the city has to do a lot of soul searching to do their part in figuring out what has happened. >> always good to see you. thank you for your input. next speaker, please. >> so let me be clear. i'm nine months pregnant, so i'm not going to be a scooter user any time soon, and i'm not currently a scooter user. however mobility and pedestrian safety is kind of a new hot issue for me, and it keeps coming up with regards to these

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

ignoring the issue with cars. finally, i could think the downed scooters are due to wind or some stupid guy tipping them over. even on my muni ride over, i saw an emt medic lay down two scooters for no apparent reason. the cars that block sidewalks are not accidently parked there, and i believe it's time to educate those owners, and i believe the sf mta has a did you telly -- duty to do this, and it's currently shirking it. sf mta has a personal responsibility to help people get out of cars. thank you. mr. golden, welcome back. >> i'd like to voice my dissatisfaction at the 1250 total scooter cap. if we want to reach our mode share goal as a city, we have to increase the choices of mobility. this cap only gives us a small

fraction of the number of tnc's on our streets. if somebody's deciding between a car and a scooter, and the nearest scooter is six blocks away, but they can get an uber in two minutes, their choice is clear. if this permit limits this too much, we will have lost the chance to add this low impact mode to our choice of options in the city. as to our issue of sidewalk parking, i think we've misappropriated the space dedicated to storing our different mobility devices. we've devoted many square miles on our streets to the storage of cars, but almost none to storing bicycles, scooters, etcetera. the result is a storage of bikes and scooters on precious pedestrian space. we shouldn't ride our bikes and scooters on the sidewalks. why are we parking them there? i'm primarily a cyclist, but i welcome others tojoin me in th

bike lane. i ask that you make space for their safe operation and storage off of the sidewalk. thank you. >> next speaker, please kevin here? >> hello again. this board in 2013 made a 2018 mode share goal for bicycles of 8%. i think we're currently around 4%, and what i'd consider you to do is to reflect on if we should start to include scooters in these other modes of transportation in those bicycle showed shares. i recommend that we do. three points for your discussion after our comments. there's 6,000 tnc's operating on our streets perday. 4,000 personal cars line our streets. if we want more people to use scooters andic boos, we should

make it easier than calling an uber or paying $150 annual residential permit fee. 1200 scooters is not going to be enough. 250 jump bikes is definitely not enough. zero go bikes west of the vez is not enough. parking meters being number one for clearing, bike corrals, parking signs, scooters, trash cans. please convert one parking space perblock perstreet to storing these things. and finally, sidewalk riding. this does not happen when a street has a protected bike lanes. this happens when bikes and scooters don't have a safe place to ride and feels threatened by cars. director reiskin, you and i were on turk, and as we were there, we saw half a dozen scooters came down the street. i didn't see them on the

sidewalks, they were on your protects bi protected bike lane. if you build it, they will come. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> thank you for having me. my name is darren winegard. i want to thank the sf meat in drafting mostly good regulations. i wanted them to put a face with the name. we are one of, maybe perhaps the only company that has not launched without permission in san francisco, and in many other cities, we were the first company to get a permit in washington, d.c. i think supervisor peskin essentially established under what was cross-examination a couple of weeks ago that many companies launched in san francisco that many of the rules were forth coming and would be ruled on after they were launched on st. patrick's

day. we have seen in cities remove their entire fleets from austin so they could have been done in the face of cease and desist letters. we were generally happy with the plan that the sf mta released until we saw that the percompany cap was lifted. the question for us is what kind of incentive do you as policy makers want to create? an incentive that takes account of regulations and rule of law or one that rewards companies for simply launching one company is represented to have as many as 1600 scooters on the streets of san francisco right now. a consistent percompany cap applied during at least phase one where the process is to be learned as to how phase two and a more permanent program could be established is essential to creating a level playing field that we desire. a floating cap where a company could eat up a substantial part of the 1250 total cap limit

seems to reward exactly the kind of bad behavior that many here have sort of acknowledged. the last thing, with respect to enforcement is i believe that most of the people that are in front of me now are old enough to remember the reagan year. we support trust with verification, so the api system has to account for the number of scooters. we support the creation of an affidavit that would put some personal liability on ceo's and other officers of the company to establish to you that the cap is being honored. thank you are. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. nice to see you again. welcome. >> thank you very much. another pilot program following along with the corporate commuter buses and also with chariot, now, we're following along that. again, we're unfortunately rewarding back actors, and it's easier to ask for forgiveness

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

again, it's the poor behavior of the patrons, and regarding the reimbursement fee, we charge $250,000 for a taxi medallion, and then, we're always saying, well, it's cost reimbursement. prop 218. well, i've read prop 218, and my interpretation was it's for your property tax below the line. in other words if there's vehiclet vector control provided by the county, the cost for that cannot exceed the fee. there is a a disconnect between the $250,000 that you're paying for a taxi fee as opposed to cost roam you arement, so that really needs -- reimbursement so that really needs to be addressed. i guess that's the question. it's going to be interesting to see how well this program and how the customers are going to

react. from what i've seen, and if you want to see the photos, i've taken them in noe valley, they're all over the sidewalk, and they're not being properly attended to. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> thanks for having me. first off i'd like to say happy may day to everyone. >> thank you very much. welcome. >> i'm a community organizer out of san francisco, oakland, berkeley, and san jose. i'm with c 3 d, hour, and ace. my main concern for these scooters is when they pick them up and charge them. i organize with government sustainable housing off of 33 perry, howard, and harrison street. these vans have been parked in only permit parking for residents, and always been in the loading zones overnight. so if whoever and whom does get to the permits, i think you need to think very, very carefully to who you choose

more for the community and the corporate than who has provided input today. >> very good. thank you. one speaker remaining. welcome. >> my name is olivia. i'm an employee of line bike. i do the recharging and the collecting and organizing of the scooters that are left on the sidewalk. on a personal level, i just want to say that the way this company has affect me and other people who have had the ability to get this employment has been so significant, i'm someone who is paying for my own residence, able to pay for my own dental care, buying my own residence, and it's impacting me as someone of the lgbt community who is often turned down for jobs that others would have equal opportunity for.

aside from that, being out in public, seeing the amount of hostility, seeing that someone should be assaulted for mace for riding a scooter, people throwing scooters angrily, causing the problems that they say we are responsible for as a company, and also, at the same time, the amount of upper -- upper focused transportation and there being no regulation for uber's parking in the like lanes, when i'm driving around there, picking these up, the ubers are filling up the bike lanes, six, seven cars. everybody sees this out there driving. they're forcing people who are on bikes to go into the auto traffic, and they're forcing people into the traffic lanes to go into the wrong lane of on coming traffic, and this is causing people to stay on the sidewalks out of safety issues. line bike certainly does not

promote people being on the sidewalk. i had a meeting with them yesterday, and they're working on incentives for riders and users to organize the scooters themselves free ride credits or other incentives for them to take the responsibility to cleanup the city, as well, and they're also considering having employment cleaning up the areas around the scooters. >> thank you very much for coming and sharing your story. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> is there anyone else who wants to have public comment on this item? seeing none, we will close public comment and move onto our deliberations. there are many items to go over here. i think first, what i'd like to say is to the folks who came down, there is obviously very passionate views on both sides and tangential views on this

issue. the first thing before we turn to some of the technical issues in the overall program that has certainly been a source of discussion is the issue of accountability and accountability for actions that have happened in the past. i, myself am concerned that companies here have asked for forgiveness instead of permit, and while i'm willing personally to give some forgiveness, and i'm also not necessarily willing to reward past behavior. i think this is an issue that we as a board are probably not well equipped to handle at the specific level but perhaps well equipped to handle at the general level. so what i would like to do so frame our discussion going forward is to propose an amendment to the legislation that is before us to add to section 9.16, a provision that says in evaluating a permit application the director may consider the extent to which an

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

direction -- discretion. >> could you speak into the microphone. >> i think giving him the discretion makes sense, so i agree. >> yeah. i also support the amendment. i'm tired of the asking for forgiveness instead of permit model, and i think the way that we have seen these actors play out, whether whatever kind of shared mobility it is -- [ inaudible ] >> we'll turn back now to the overall proposal as amended. itch he alrea i've already taken a bit of the bully pull p

bully pulpit, so i will save my questions until the end, as well. director reiskin, is it legal to ride a motorized scooter on the sidewalk? >> no. >> is it legal to ride a motorized scooter without a helmet? >> no. >> is the gps technology that exists at these companies sufficient for them to do as one of our speakers said very eloquently, not only share usage information but share with us misusage information? is the gps technology that exists for these companies sophisticated enough for them to share with us when their riders are riding on the sidewalk as opposed to a bike lane or a street? >> i don't know the answer to that. i know that at least one of the companies in their response back suggested that it was not. >> all right. staff? >> yeah.

our understanding is that it's not that level of fi sophisticated, especially in parts of town where we have tall buildings. >> well, i would suggest hearing the comments that have come in, if one of the other responders is able to develop either a technology with gps or some other information that would allow it to report to you when its riders are riding on the sidewalk and therefore presumably discipline those riders, i think that would be helpful. enforcement, we talked about enforcement, are we envisioning enforcement that has to be carried out by a pco or some other government official or would the enforcement be open to relying on citizen complaints, perhaps photos of -- you know, from business owners with scooters on their

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

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

would bear in liability or would it all be on the operator of the scooter? [ inaudible ] >> could you speak into the microphone, please? thank you. >> i guess i'm not -- i don't know the details on that one. >> yeah. so we require -- we require proof of proper insurance policy as part of the -- our evaluation of the permit under this regulation, but the liability question -- >> okay. >> -- i would turn it over to my city attorney friend. >> so the permit program, as mr. mcguire just said -- i'm sorry. deputy city attorney susan cleveland knowles through the chair. the deputy city attorney requires insurance acceptable to the city program, so any accident that was due to the scooters would be the liability of the scooter operators. >> okay. very good. and then, finally, in the

questions category -- well, two more questions -- and i'll say, director brinkman has just been reaffirmed, so i'm going to enjoy my five minutes of fame. director brinkman and borden have just been confirmed. someone calls 311 about a scooter on the sidewalk, and there is no response from 311. >> that should not be the response from 311. i know we've been addressing the way those calls are handled, but to the extent those are accurate, those should not be happening that way. >> may we ask you to follow up on that and -- >> we are doing so, but yes.

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

that's in the best interests of the city. >> i think we're open to whatever we find through the pilot program. >> okay. directors, are there other questions to staff? director rubke, please. >> yeah, so i first wanted to see -- i know the staff proposed both amendments to the cap and to the duration of the program. i just wanted to make sure, is that the legislation -- is that currently before us or do we need to move that amendment? >> the latter -- there's two different changes that staff is requesting -- >> there's three. >> three? >> yes. >> so the board would need to move those if they wanted to consider those, otherwise, the underlying legislation is what's before you. >> the three changes requested by staff is to reduce the pilot program from 24 months to 12 months, to maintain the 2500 total and they n allowing 150,0

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

fore -- more permits to companies that are committed to distributing more in different agree owe graphic parts of the city. >> and related to that, one of the -- my understanding, kind of i think maybe i made it up in my head, but you one of my underings, one of the reasons for the cap, a lot of people were concerned about having cars driving around, picking up the scooters and whatnot, and the effect of those cars on our streets. is that kind of a factor for limiting the number of scooters overall so we don't have so many support vehicles, let's say, or is that kind of unrelated? >> i would say it fits into the broader program of using the pilot program to evaluate the different things going on, so to the extent that there are additional trips being made by chargers or other unforeseen consequences that we don't have that, the limited scope helps us evaluate those. >> and do we -- do we currently know the number of -- this was

probably from one or more of the letters, but the overall number of scooters that are currently on our streets now, and also the number of support vehicles servicing those? like, the chargers, and that, do we know that information as of right now. >> i don't know the information about the number of support vehicles. a lot of those are independent contractors. in terms of the scooters, have a rough idea, but not the impact numbers. i think it's around 2,000 or 2400 altogether based on the latest verbal communications that i've had with the different companies. >> and assuming we pass this program, or this pilot program, would we be seeking information from the operators about the vehicle -- i am concerned about, like, the extra traffic on our streets, so i'm just wondering if we're going to be monitoring that. people are talking like multiple cars being added to the same routes, picking up scooters. are we going to be monitoring that and are we going to have

any say in kind of capping that amount or -- what do you guys think? >> i think we'll definitely be monitoring it. i don't know that we have a say in capping it, but that's something -- >> yeah. i think we would find a way to make sure that creatively is reflected in the terms of the permit. >> great. yes. can i keep asking questions or is -- >> you may. >> thank you. >> let me suggest this. you did make an amendment on the proposed staff amendment. >> oh, yeah. should we vote on that? >> we'll return to you for general staff questions. include not pro forma stuff, including this would remove the limit of 500 for any one company. now, the concern that that gives me is, i suppose, you may give them all to one company. and while there may be some

limits to do that, i think it limits the competition, including how best to comply with sidewalk and other laws, so i guess i don't have the problem with the amendment per se, but i'll just ask the direct question. is the amendment motivated by some plan or thought that it would be rolled out to just one company? >> no. we have no preconceived notion about the number of companies. we could find that there are five credible responsible applicants, we could find there are zero that meet our criteria. we just don't know. >> okay. are there any questions about the staff's amendments which director rubke has moved and director torres has seconded? >> just to piggyback on what chair heinicke said, the current amount on the road right now does not impact how you would allocate. so in other words the concern was expressed that because somebody didn't put out the scooters already, that does not put that company at a disadvantage in the allocation, is that correct?

>> that's correct. >> any other questions on these amendments? okay. seeing none, i would entertain a motion on the amendment. i thought we -- i'm sorry. a voice vote to all those in favor -- all those in favor please say aye. all those opposed. okay. those are adopted. director rubke, you had some more questions to ask. >> thanks. we had a lot of important concerns, and i know you are thinking about these concerns for people with disabilities and just convenient i donsenio sidewalks with people riding scooters on the sidewalks. that's a huge problem, and so i'm just wondering, are we -- are we giving -- well, also, not just riding fast on the sidewalks, but when scooters are blocking the sidewalk, if somebody else knocks them down or whatever, and also if they're tied up to a parking meter. i know that affects the ability of people with disabilities to

deploy wheelchair ramps and paratransits to access the curb, which they need. so i'm wondering -- i'm suggesting and asking what staff's thoughts are on the criteria we're going to be giving to the company either through the permit conditions and other ways, where these scooters can be and what are the consequences? i know we have some of those card laid out, but if you could talk about that more closely. this is a huge concern that i've been hearing a lot about from the disability community in particular. >> we'll be working really closely with our accessibility services as well as the stakeholders groups. we have an outline of some of the things that are covered, such as not blocking blue zones or white zones, ingress and egress. we have a number of things that we're thinking about that we'll be making definitely more explicit. we have some precedent like with the bike rack siding guidelines and things like that

that we're looking to improve in that process. >> i really appreciate your work on that, and i will note there are a few other people in the disability who appreciate these scooters for use as kind of a mobility aid when they have to get a few more blocks, they can use that instead of walking and that's actually an easier way to do that, so i think there's a lot of positive possibilities here. the other question i wanted to ask, and this is my final one -- or i guess i wanted to encourage us to make sure that we are doing good outreach to the community groups, but if some of them spoke here during public comment, and i do think it's important as we work with the companies to make sure equity program is in place that we're working with the groups with the folks who are on the ground who best know how to roll those out. so that is he aall i have. thank you so much. >> wonderful. directors, general questions about the program? director torres? >> yes. i want to thampg tnk the chair the directors of the board for

their obviously very thoughtful questions and the staff who put in so much effort. you may wonder why i'm so concerned about the issue. i wrote the helmet law in 1992, and 32% reduction in motorcycle deaths, but very little enforcement. it was only the chp who would catch some people, and that was about it. here, i see the same thing going on with scooters and young children riding bikes without helmets. no matter bills or laws you pass in the legislature, if you don't have the enforcement mechanism to make those laws work, it's meaningless. so that's why i've been so adamant about the enforcement provisions within this proposal. and the other issue that was raised by community members here, we need to engage people more than we did with the ford bicycles, where people woke up and lost parking spaces as a result of bicycles being placed there without their appropriate input. and i know you've been work og that, and i know you're going

to continue to work on that. the other issue is what aaron pesk peskin raised, and that is privacy. i saw the response by zuckerberg to senator hatch, how do you make your money, and he had to tell them, by selling ads. well, those ads go to people, and the reason they use ads is because you can show a marketing demographic. i urge you to think about how is the best way to protect the privacy of operators, even though i think they're mostly irresponsible, for the most part, the ones that i've encountered on sidewalks. but how do we protect their identity and their privacy, because this is a growing problem that not only zuckerberg and others are trying to deal with, but we should be sensitive to, as well. thank you, mr. chair. >> it's my understanding that one of the things you will consider when issuing a permit

is what considerations made concerning privacy policies and when they're involved in data escaping or whether they're engaging their investors. >> so what i've challenged our staff to do is to be as strong as we can in this realm, and i had a direct conversation with a supervisor about this, as well. this was right on the heels of the facebook testimony, and i think there are provisions that exist in a lot of these apps that first of all aren't apgsal. they're somewhat understandable. i've tried to require my staff to put meaningful rules in place so people have the ability to understand before they sign up, and they can sign

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