important. i've been listening to a lot of the conversations and i have to say i appreciate how everyone is listening to everyone's comments and where the city is going. right now i would like to let you know 100%, our intention is to open up the mint. a lot of times people will always interested on what is inside. what is happening with the mint. that is what we're working on in many, many ways of opening this up. we work with non profits, we work with chs tours, we have history days, we worked with san francisco art institute, mast percenmastersprogram and one ofe ways is we have an event called --

>> thank you. that's your time. >> good afternoon. john torre, electrical workers. i'm here to speak on behalf of the mechanical electrical and plumbing unions in support of the central soma plan in general. i thank supervisors kim's office for having us in for very early conversations. we're very excited about the idea of a housing sustain ability district. we are supportive of one of the recommendations in particular that came out of the planning commission last week, in regards to three hotels that are already in the pipeline. two of which both the meps trades and local two unite here have agreement with the owners.

we worked long and hard on those agreements. local two is in a tough negotiation situation right now. they're doing a lot of prep work there. but they asked that i express their strong support for those two hotels that are currently in the pipeline as of january 1. it's a community benefit also to have good jobs in the south market area for citizens that can walk to work, et cetera. thank you for your time. we support those items. >> hello, supervisors, david woo with the south market community action network. the central soma plan is part of the larger neighborhood fabric of the south market. any development or rezoning of its area has a ripple effect on the city. especially in terms of gentrification and displacement. planning needs to revise and those controls should be incorporated throughout the whole central soma plan, not just what over lapse with the

s.u.d. and the plan. these controls must be included. incorporate four bedroom units into the plan. restrictions on micro units and s.r.o.s and amend existing laws so no s.r.o. buildings can be converted. a strong community opportunity to purchase act. aggressively land banking soft sites and future new 100% affordable housing developments sites such as the cal train rail yard and new next us study on the jobs housing linkage feet. a new study on prop k. require pre defined popos defined guidelines. living walls and living roofs and all new developments regardless of height and use type. a yearly housing balance study just for the south of market. require a c.u. for all cannabis dispensaries. require on site childcare facilities in all large development projects. require that developers and or city agencies work directly with soma to incorporate design standards into new projects and aggressively purchase existing

rent control buildings because with or without central soma, we need more funding to purchase these buildings. we have also learned that there are three new hotel projection in the street soma plan but not being considered as key sites. 816 and 305th street. they are in the youth and family s.u.d. and since the purpose of the s.u.d. is to expand the stock of affordable housing, who urge you to not support these projects and instead consider them a site for affordable housing to address the huge jobs housing and imbalance in the plan. thank you. >> hi name is erika. we still have numerous urgent issues with the central soma plan. one of them is around transit. the transit objective of the central soma plan is to ensure that transit is a safe and convenient option for people moving within and through the

plan area including improvements to the transit system. due to years of lack of infrastructure improvements, the central subway is addressing a past need not a present or future need. in addition, on august 20th, 2018, sfmta spokesperson erika said in a statement in the san francisco examiner that all transit red lanes are going to allow google buses, chariots, if it calls for reducing traffic lanes and on car parking to make improvements to transit, biking and walking we need to see this in the plan. legislation restricting private shuttles and vehicles other than taxis, which were previously permitted in these lanes, use the red lanes in the plan area and include legislation permitting the red lanes to only public transportation vehicles and taxis so transit does movie efficiency in the area and all around the city.

also, include legislation that restricts the operation of any electric foot scooters in the central soma plan area, especially since the area has a high concentrations of senior housing. please do not support the plan until these restrictions are included. thank you. >> before the next speaker, i see staff from smmta and we may be proposing the red lanes allow commuter shuttle buses is news to me. after public comment, i would love a response to that. >> good afternoon. i am born and raised in the south of market. we still have numerous urgent issues for the central soma plan and one is around displacement and gentrification. the scale of development and commercial development described in the plan are not conductive to a healthy neighborhood. there are several ways the central soma plan encourages displacement and area already suffering from increased no faulty convictions and skyrocketing rent. it encourages luxury high and

high-end housing in soma which in turn encourages the price of other housing to increase. the landlords of the properties change more rent or will be doing more evictions to cash in on the new populations in the nearby luxury condos or new high-end shops. my family and i already have faced an eviction once but we were able to find housing again in the same area. just within the few years, my current housing is again in a vulnerable state. my mom is in fear of getting evicted again. if the central soma plan passes, it will intensify. instead of looking to market base slides to address gentrification and displacements, the city needs to start prioritizing and interventions and regulations that can actually keep people in place. they outline the emergency steps for the central soma plan in ordeplanaggressively soft sites%

affordable housing developments such as cal train rail yard is one site where new affordable housing could be developed. allocate a higher percentage of housing linkage fee to purchasing rent-controlled buildings. incorporate four bedroom units as a requirement into the plan and not just two to three and more soma residents have a better chance of getting into these units. please do not support the plan until these are included. thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is gina, i am with so many can. we still have numerous urgent issues with the central soma plan around preserving existing residents, displacement and gentrification. the plan states, as one of its mean goals, accommodating housing demand and addressing such demands to alleviate housing prices. the plan, however, does not provide any studies or figures that support the claim that new development will drive down housing costs.

with that out of controls and enforcement in place, they will not continue to be used as open and e new affordable housing. it will be high-end luxury or sitting vacant because they are owned by invest ar investors wht live in the units. new condos will be commercial short term rentals, corporate rentals or student housing instead of residential use. the city needs to counterbalance the displacement by protecting, assisting buildings by amending existing laws with no s.o. building can be converted into tech owe ups like what happened at park hotel on folsom street so there are staffing from the city to monitor and regulate this. there needs to be a restriction on micro units and market rates developments and there needs to be a yearly housing balance study just for soma.

please, do not support this plan until these are included. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. the housing sustainability effects allow the streamlining of housing production but there's no additional affordability required. there must be a much additional and requires and for the privately owned public space and the exemptions allowed 25% of indoor popos allowed to have ceiling heights of less than 20% and 10% of outdoor to be under. highlights a larger issue of the reliance on this form of privatized open space and the plan. the issue is that they are and will continue to be an accessible and unfriendly to children, youth and families.

there are no controls in place to require that popos are designed and programmed to be community-serving and actually function like true public open space. these exemption cement the reality that popo is not public open space and the strategy for providing public open space under this plan is extremely inadequate. the p.d.r. replacement requirement must be applied to all types of development regardless of use, for example, p.d.r. replacement requirements must inclues residential developments. >> by sightin citing housing an,

we have better and more sustainable choices for the residents and employers of our region. so it is true, that if we were starting to plan today we would want to see more housing in the plan. everyone agrees on that. but today, i think we need to move the housing and benefits forward now. that's why the houses sustainability component is key. i urge you not to add extra burden on that use the housing sustainability district, tools are needed to make these viable and provide housing and benefits we want. i want to emphasize the importance of greening and sustainability package. the air quality of the neighborhood -- as well as making the right decisions pridely. lastly, i want to celebrate the

unprecedented 2 billion-dollar package and it's aggressive. we will see huge benefits to the city over all and the quality of the neighborhood. and i understand the temptation to get more through the on going negotiations that happen. there's so many more needs for the neighborhood and the city. the feasibility is important and i would just remind you to keep that in mind. thank you for moving this plan forward. >> hello, supervisors. my name is leanne. i do grassroots community planning with youth, seniors, and families on street scape design art and history in soma in district 6. i was here last wednesday to support an appeal questioning the com pen tennessee of the central soma i. e.r. a lot of people stated their case, one after the other and the planning department

responded with insufficient data. the presentation of the planning department was not about the e.i. r. number three, that they did not include the impact of the uber and lift in their report. even if everyone was heard the e.i.r. was pushed forward. even if we stated our case that building more for the central soma billion dollar project is a danger to the health and pedestrian safety of our seniors. health and safety has not been addressed. can you please address the impact of pollution of cars and traffic who are in the threat of eviction. the city has changed in

significant ways with the additions of vehicle traffic and in the congestion of cars and uber and lyft. the impacts of the city's action on the health of its residents is a issue. the california environmental quality act. think about the health and pedestrian safety of youth, seniors and family first and foremost. this needs further research. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is lordis. i'm here with so many ca somkan. soma is the most open spaced deficient neighborhood in san francisco along with the neighboring tenderloin. instead of providing publicly accessible space and they have

many impact on the community for many reasons. they aren't open to the public. activity is discouraged and hours are limited. they're not protected by the proposition shadow ordinance because they're not open spaces and rec and park department. these spaces do not represent the type of open space that is public and accessible for youth, families and seniors. like a public park. there is one rec center and two full parks in soma. the m.d. park and south park. we need more. if you are going to add more people in the neighborhood. with that, the city meets to create a new public work and by purchasing the land and they should be help that need community design, stands address and an excess study on prop k that includes popos and all public spaces and so many. please do not support the plan. thank you.

>> good afternoon. my name is gina gomez and i'm a vender from the san francisco flower market. i'm here today to show my support for the central soma plan and i also just wanted to state that we're really excited about it being a flower market and retail above and just wanted to voice my concerns that there will be i don't think housing should be allowed on the site. thank you.

>> we hope that all development can include b.m.r. commercial for small businesses. b.m.r. nonprofit space to ensure that community space nonprofits continue to thrive and that all developments should include a public art component to recognize the filipino community and our contributions to the neighborhood. for central soma park, we have been in conversation with the developers to include family and senior friendly amenities as well as economic opportunities and cultural and -- and space for culture development. we are also still looking for a

location for a new arts and cull ent -- culture center for soma philippi filipinos, and we hope that the board of supervisors will be part of this. thank you. [inaudible] >> i recently circulated a petition to people in our neighborhood, and received over 50 supporting significances, and i wanted to just read a couple excerpts from that petition. we are becoming increasingly concerned with the state of the old mint, having watched its

steady de-kay over the last decade and up close. the city isn't doing enough to preserve this landmark and it is in need of care. a building as large and as complex as the old mint requires significantly more attention. the current minimal care has left the building filthy, covered in waste graffiti, often used as a space for homeless and infested with rats, all of which are quality of life risks for hundreds of residents in the neighborhood. the only way it will thrive is through continuous use and care which necessitates its restoration and funding. the restoration requires a herculesan effort by the city and all interested parties, and if the city is unwilling to do

this, the mint should be torn down. letting it did ecay into a biohazardous ruin is irresponsible. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm the community organizer for soma pill so soma filipinas. whatever so called burdening that we are putting into advancing this plan, i just want to let you know that our people are not a burden, but we want to announce our support for the arts plan specifically, and the central soma plan is one of the most important plans, and by

that, i mean negatively that will have far reaching effects into the cities. our cultural institutions and community service institutions are also at risk. many of our small businesses and nonprofits are being priced out, and we ask that the b.o.s. help ensure that all major development can include b.m.r., nonprofit and commercial space. soma filipina is compromised of 20 organizations, some of which don't have our own space, five or six habitating one space. we hope that the board can be an at row indicate through this community process.

thank you. -- advocate through this community process. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is david peterson. please forgive me, public speaking's not my forte. i'm here to support the $20 million restoration of the old mint. i've been sitting here for the last four hours in this room, admiring this room. every day, i get to walk into the old mint, and what a treasure it is to the state of california and the city of san francisco. we've hosted everything from the soma filipino night market to various nonprofits at the venue, and i'm just here to lend my support for the $20 million restoration fee. thanks. >> supervisor kim has a question. >> supervisor kim: i'm actually so glad you're here.

>> hi, supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: hi. i'd like to know if you've worked things out into a current agreement in the future with so soma filipinas. my understanding is that you have not reached an agreement so that they can continue events at the old mint. >> i have not been involved in these negotiations. >> supervisor kim: i would love that resolved because if we fund an important resource in this neighborhood, it has to be a benefit to the neighborhood. >> absolutely. >> supervisor kim: thank you. >> thank you. >> good evening, supervisors. mike pueller on behalf of san francisco heritage.

her tanl heritage is a long time proponent of the mint and cowd. this is guided by the concept to create a community cultural commons. we are also encouraged by the planning commission's recommendations that identify a path forward for restoring mint funding to $20 million providing preserving funding for p.d.r. relocation and assistance at the $10 million level. we are also encouraging to hear that discussions are ongoing, and we urge you to incorporate the planning commission's recommendations into that final package. thank you. >> hello. my name is an alisa scovello, and i hope i won't take up your

time. i just want to urge you to consider planning commission's recommendation to bring into $20 million for the old mint. the old mint is a national building, and it has potential to be a vibrant cultural institution. the space is a chance for -- to create inclusivity, and to create a space for arts and culture and history in san francisco. i work a lot with cultural districts, cultural districts and with a lot of cultural organizations. and it will -- just will -- more culture and more art will be a benefit to the businesses in the area and just give a chance for a lot of youth to be a part of that space, as well. thank you, guys. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is kathrin pet and i'm a future historian. my comments have to do with the old mint which since 2002, it's

been a city owned building. in 2002, it was purchased from the federal government for $1? the $20 million amount is just part of the project's future capital costs, which, stating the obvious will be significantly higher? at every opportunity over the last two years, the public has shown up to request more funding for the mint, not less? both the planning and historic preservation commissions have now voted unanimously for greater funding for the mint? all advocates, city officials, district six residents, and members of the public persist in requesting amounts much higher than the $20 million that's been discussed for the last two years. the old mint is one of our city's greatest historic assets, and its revitalization has

tremendous potential to be an economic catalyst. the mint project finally has a viable vision and it has momentum, and now the time is to invest in the mint. i ask this committee to advocate for mint funding equivalent to the previously approved levels, and more importantly that you signal the entire board of supervisors the leadership, stewardship, and commitment that will be required of the city to restore the mint. thank you. >> supervisor tang: any other members of the public who wish to comment? okay. well, seeing no further comment, item 13 through 17 public comment is closed. committee members, supervisor kim? >> supervisor kim: i have introduced all the amendments that i'm introducing just in today's hearing, understanding that some of the other controversial amendments will be introduced at the next land use and transport committee of

october 5 -- my apologies, for october 15. i did -- just because members of sfmta are here fore the next hearing, i was hoping you could address the questions asked by members of somcan in regards to use of red lanes. i had assumed that red lanes were only to be used by muni and buses, but if you could clarify that and what can be done. >> sure. just to clarify, the use of red lanes that are marked as bus lanes or transit lanes in the city is governed by the california vehicle code. in the case of a red lane that is marked with the words bus lane or transit lane, that lane is available for private buses. we also have many lanes in the city that are marked muni only or muni and taxi only. those lanes are only allowed to

be use the by the muni buses. so looking forward to the central soma implementation, we'll have the decision how we want to mark those lanes and make them compliant with the c.b.c. >> supervisor kim: and who has jurisdiction over that decision. >> ultimately, the decision how to mark the lanes would be done by the m.t.a. board. >> supervisor kim: okay. so in terms of the request from the community that we consider muni and cab only transit red lanes, that request would have to be done through the sfmta board of directors and not through this body? >> that's correct, although your opinion how we should manage the street is very important. >> supervisor kim: yes, i would like to hear some more about this. this is a new point of information for me, but i'm generally leaning toward that position that it should be muni and cabs only. i'm open to hearing arguments as to why we should have more than that, but i do hear that from

the community. and i do see members of the board here, cristina rubke, who is here, listening to the comments of the community. i do just want to quickly respond to the community. thank you so much. somcan did provide our office with a list of potential soft sites for 100% of -- a list of 100% affordable housing. we are actually visiting those lists personally and take photographs and contacting property owners. i also want to add that there is a multiuse park and a public rec center that is a part of the central soma plan, so we're not depending on anyone to provide open space for the entire community. whether that's enough or not is a different of question, but there is a public use and multirec center including a swimming pool. finally, there is already a yearly housing balance required

just for district six and the south of market. that's part of the biannual housing balance report, which my predecessor, april lang, helped to craft. it is done citywide and also by neighborhood, so that is being done. i know there are many requests that are being made. we're evaluating all of them, not just the green wall that the planning commission had introduced today. i do think we need to look at the jobs housing linkage fee, which is outdated, and based on the 1987 nexus study, i would like to look at how we can prohibit or restrict microunits or s.r.o.s. unfortunately we did explore language about preventing conversion to tech coops and there just isn't any different language that differentiates s.r.o.'s for homeless and

s.r.o.'s for tech workers. i'm happy to brainstorm that issue with you, but that issue doesn't exist currently. there are a number of issues that our advocates -- community advocates have brought up, and we will be working with you over the next couple of weeks to incould you repeat rate as much of this as we can. colleagues, i ask for your support on the amendments that i've introduced. >> supervisor tang: thank you, supervisor kim. i know a lot of time and thought have gone into this. i know there's some things that we would like to follow up further prior to the october 15 meeting, so i'll accept these amendments with that understanding. if we can get a motion -- or -- >> supervisor kim: i'll make the motion -- >> supervisor tang: supervisor satis safai, on this motion? okay. the earlier amendments proposed by supervisor kim, we can do that without objection.

[ gavel ]. >> supervisor kim: thank you. and a motion to continue to october 15. >> supervisor tang: okay. we'll do that without objection. okay. thanks so much. and thank you so much to the m.t.a. for their patience. item 18. >>clerk: item 18 is a hearing on the municipal transportation agency's permitting process for the scooter share piloting program specifically addressing the following, how the request for proposal and scoring rubrick were developed, who participated in the r.f.p., who were panelists trained to use the rubrick, a side by side comparison of each, and requesting the m.t.a. to report. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. i'm going to turn this hearing over to supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: thank you, chair tang. thank you for those that have

come out today for this discussion. wanted to have an opportunity to ask the m.t.a. to come and present this. we have received a lot of feedback and some inquiries about the process by which this scooter -- power scooter share program was put into place and wanted to allow for the community to come in and listen to that process. and then, we have a series of questions. i don't have many remarks in my opening statement. i have a lot of questions that i want to ask. other than just want to say one guiding principle that i care about is that we want to look at this process and see whether or not this process was put could get in a manner that was inclusive, that is fair, and that -- and then, ultimately, the best result for our transportation system in san francisco. so i'll just hand it over to the

m. m.t.a. i know you have a little powerpoint, and i'll get into my questions after the public comment. so i'd rather just start with the m.t.a., and we can go into public comment after that, and we can open it up to questions from this public body, because i know people have been waiting for a long time. supervisor kim? >> supervisor kim: i had mentioned that m.t.a. board of directors kristina rubke is here, but i also want to recognize the chair, cheryl brinkman, is here. i did have a question for our city attorney because i know there is an appeal pending the scooter permit program and that that is a quasi judicial decision, i just wanted an answer from the city attorney what members of the board of supervisors can discuss or how we should talk about this, given that there's an appeal pending? >> mr. givner: sure. deputy city attorney jon givner. as you mentioned, supervisor kim, there is an appeal or

appeals pending this program. hearing officer at the m.t.a. will decide those matters. i don't believe, although the staff can correct me if i'm wrong, that the hearing -- a hearing date has been scheduled, but a number of process issues are at issue in those appeals, and those -- those process issues may overlap some with the process questions that the m.t.a. will discuss today. the parties in those appeals, including the m.t.a., will have a chance to fully brief the issues before the hearing and hearing officer makes a decision. as you said, the hearing officer acts in a quasi judicial capacity. the board of supervisors has no authority over these permits, and the decision of the hearing

officer at the m.t.a. isn't appealable to the board of supervisors. the board of supervisors also doesn't have approval authority over the permit process generally. that's within the m.t.a. board's exclusive legislative authority. the board, also just -- by way of background doesn't supervise the m.t.a. hearing officer or really any of the employees of the m.t.a., including the director of transportation. so the committee today is acting in a separate role. the board, under our charter, has a power of inquiry and can ask departments to present on matters, even if the board of supervisors doesn't have the ul ultimate approval authority under those measures.

some of those issues that may come up in this m.t.a. hearing involve statements by members of the m.t.a. board of directors that that some parties argue demonstrate bias on behalf of the board of directors or on behalf of the director of transportation or staff, and i guess i'd recommend that this committee be mindful that some of the issues that you're going to talk about today will likely be the subject of this quasi adjudicatory hearing. >> thank you very much. there has to be some thoughtfulness that the staff of m.t.a. give us in response. if i have some questions that

may kind of crossover into appeal area, is there some way we can get some guidances on what questions may not be appropriate for today's hearing? >> mr. givner: it's -- it's hard to draw a bright line. it's fairly unusual for the board to hold an informational hearing at the same time as an board is holding an informational hearing. i'm not sure, and maybe the m.t.a. could say more specifically what issues exactly are likely to come up in what ways during the hearing. but certainly i think if this is the committee's goal, it's appropriate to ask how the decisions were made regarding the creation of this program. the -- the main focus of the

appeals will likely be the decisions to grant the permit or deny a permit to a particular applicant. >> thank you so much, mr. givner. >> supervisor safai: any other questions, supervisor? i mean -- >> i may have questions after the presentation, but i wanted to be careful or thoughtful about those questions because i don't want to put the staff in an uncomfortable decision when there is a quasi ad 1y -- adjudicatory decision in front of the board. >> supervisor safai: we constantly have and do have conversations about things that are on appeal. so i -- i appreciate the advice. i know we had conversations in advantage of that.

please continue, mr. mcguire, and i know the public wants to speak in public comment, and i know this body has a number of questions. >> tom mcguire, executive director of the sfmta. going to provide a history of the scooter program and just to get the issues on the table and provide a basis for this discussion. first of all, want to bring everybody back to march of 2018 where three operators shared electric scooters to the streets and sidewalks of san francisco. those scooters brought an interesting and exciting new mobility option to the city, but they also brought a number of challenges and concerns that we heard about directly from this board and from stakeholders throughout san francisco. if i could summarize the issues that we heard back in march and april, it was concern that shared scooters were being ridden on sidewalks, that they were causing serious concerns for accessibility and mobility

for persons with impairments because of the way they were parked on sidewalks and crosswalks or generally concerned that the public sidewalk were being used for private enterprise in a way that only served certain san franciscans. as a result this board on april 24 passed legislation making it a violation for scooter companies to operate shared scooter programs without a permit from the sfmta. our board moved very quickly after that and created what we are now referring to as the power shared scooter pilot program. the m.t.a. board of directors decided that that should be a one year pilot program that would govern the use of shared scooters and gave the director of kppgs, ttransportation and t executive director the --

[inaudible] >> -- using the streets and sidewalks, both scooter users and those who just want to get around on 2 feet, also promoting accessibility and equity in the transportation system. these principles build on some deeper work that the sfmta staff and s.f. county transportation staff have been doing over the last 1.5 years. both our board and other policy making bodies have passed these emerging mobility guiding principles to ensure that new provide investment are being invested in ways that meet the city's transportation goals. we were surprised, i guess you could say pleasantly surprised, that we received 12 applications, over 1200 pimas of

material on the deadline of june 7. these 12 operators who you see here applied to be part of the shared scooter pilot program, and the two operators that were rated strongest were scoot and skip. the evaluation process took -- it took almost three months for us to go through those 80 on pages of documents. we were looking at 12 different operators and all criteria in these principles that were adopted by the m.t.a. board and transportation authority. for each of these criteria, we were rating the operators on a scale of poor, fair, and strong. each individual operator received a detail application matrix. these were shared with the applicants. they were published in media and have been shared broadly, so there's a long paper trail and track record of how we made those decisions. i won't try to get in all the words on this page. this is just one page of

hundreds of pages of review material that we looked at. but it's summarized in this summary table, and you can see here the dark boxes are strong -- strong responses, and with scoot and skip, who really rose to the top in this application process, coming in with the highest ratings for the majority of criteria, and particularly for those, safety, equity, and accountability that were so important to the stakeholders who -- who got this board to pass legislation back on -- back in march, and started us down this journey of having a pilot program. and again, it's a one year pilot program, so no diagnosed have been made about the long -- -- decisions have been made about the long-term viability of this program. the two applicants that have been offered permits would have 625 scooters peroperator, and we're going to see how they do, if they remain safe and remain

accountable before we raise the cap and provide more scooters. the last thing we've done is provide a really thorough documented program, giving it the feedback, the cost and the terms of the permit before we make any recommendations about continuing with, revoking or modifying the program. to emphasize, this is a one year pilot program and we've invited these two to provide scooters, and have made no decisions. and that concludes my quick tour of the application process. >> supervisor safai: do you have anything else in your presentation? okay. so what i want to do is just open it up for public comment, and then, we can come back and the committee can ask questions so in case folks have to leave. i know a lot of folks have been waiting sometime. i have a series of cards here but if you'd like to lineup,

that's fine. james moore, doug block, bob walsh. whatever -- >> everybody, let's see. where'd my notes go? okay. i'm bob walsh. i am general manager of scoot products in san francisco. i'm going to read from my phone. we've been successfully providing transportation in san francisco for over six years, we hire full-time employees to maintain our vehicles and keep the fleet charged. our comprehensive jobs programs hires and internally trains workers to become mechanics. we offer opportunities for career advancement and generous benefits. to date, over 50,000 members, vast majority of whom live in san francisco, have ridden more

than 5 million miles of safe, affordable, reliable, and green transportation. scoot requires every rider to pass a training and safety program that's available for free in person or other line. in addition, each motor scooter comes with two helmets for the rider's use. scoot's got a proven record of working collaboratively with the city and m.t.a. in particular. together we created the first shared moped permit of its kind anywhere. we're grateful to be one of two companies chosen to participate in the kick scooter pilot program. as stated in our application, we intend to build on our success by offering another mode of transportation that's affordable, safe, clean, fun, accessibility, and it follows the rules. thanks very much. >> supervisor safai: doug, before you leave, i just want to ask a question. >> yep. >> supervisor safai: have you been in the scooter business? -- has scoot ever had

scootered -- >> the little kick scooters? we have not. we operate the electric scooters, the electric bicycles -- >> >> supervisor safai: no, i just want to know if you had done that. sure. >> supervisor safai: next speaker. >> good evening, speakers. i'm vice president of local 665 in san francisco. all along, we said that we think it's important that sfmta require labor harmony for the scooters just like it did for the high tech buses. i'm sure you've read the stories about workers chasing down scooters like some sort of bounty hunter and being paid for each one they collect. like most workers in the big economy, they are hired as independent contractors instead of employees. they have no legal right to organize a union, but some did hire workers as employees.

they said they were willing to partner with us to create good paying jobs in the un john industry. we're in discussions rights now with scoot and we've also reached out to skip. some of the discussions are promising. we will keep you posted. thank you. >> supervisor safai: thank you. next speaker. >> how you doing. my name's larry spiller in the western addition, fillmore district. in terms of working with the community lime is the only scooter company who came out to hutch and put people to work, these 40 people that i can think of in the western addition. they went to the bayview and put 20 more to work. during that process, they got more than just one item on the table here. they've got the e-bike that

they're not being able to put out on the road, and they have the regular bike they're not being able to put out on the record because they've been denied to operate. and these jobs they're taking away from the western addition are hurting households, seriously. and people need the income. and if you would support lime and let them operate, they could get their e-bikes back in, and there would be more jobs in the western addition that we've been forgotten about. lime's the only company that reached out to us. not scoot and the other companies, but lime. i'm through. have a good one. >> supervisor safai: thank you. next speaker. >> my name is sam did evore. we've been having meetings with lime, and they've introduced themselves and the scooters, and

the thing is is that the veterans are very excited about being able to get to work, to learn how to work and maintain these vehicles. they were were rehabilitated that were on drugs, homeless, and having mental issues, and they're getting back their lives. this is really helping them, and i'm just really hoping that you support lime. >> supervisor safai: thank you very much. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is dejeny davis, and i'm here to support lime for this reason. they're the only scooter company or any other company that has approached the two most disen franchised communities in this

city. they have approached these communities with jobs, and once they lost their permit, there was 65 jobs lost in these communities. most of those kids that lost jobs, it was the first job they ever had in their life. thank you. >> supervisor safai: next speaker. >> good afternoon. i'm the chief programs officer here at lime. prior to joining lime, i was the director of transportation in seattle, and before that, i was the managing deputy commissioner in chicago and d.c. so i have over 15 years of experience managing, running, overseeing public procurement processes? i led bike share procurements in d.c., chicago, and seattle? i developed -- or my deputy developed the nation's first flee floating bike share

regulations? when i was in d.c., we developed the first flee floating car share regulations? so i have a long history of examining public procurement processes. what i can tell you is that the process that m.t.a. followed was flawed and clearly biased. i think when you look at the ratings, some of them were inexplicable to me and some others. we were rated poor, while companies that had never operated scooters were rated strong. our service area covered the entire city, allowing people to pick up and drof off scooters wherever they wanted? we were rated poor. companies that limits their service area to limits parts of

the city were rated strong? we had the most robust community engagement. we had six letters of support from west side best side, young community developers, community collective impact. we reached out to lower polk c.b.d. to try to integrate into their 311 system, and we were rated poor. others were rated strong. one of out competitors was asked for 350 and was awarded 600. >> supervisor safai: thank you, sir. thank you. any other speakers want to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor safai: okay. tom, had a bunch of questions. hopefully, i won't cross the line, deputy city attorney jon givner. okay. so if you go back to your table

presented here, this is where a lot of the frustration begins for me. i' i'll just admit i'm frustrated because of the lack of coordination with this body. you came to us and asked us for a permit for unshared scooters. without an ordinance passed by this body, all of the continuing operators would be allowed to continue to operate in san francisco, is that correct? you needed legislation from the board of supervisors to halt what was, i guess, arguably a loophole in the system in san francisco, right? >> well, supervisor, my interpretation was this board asked how we could get what was deemed a scooter problem under control. >> supervisor safai: right. you would not be able to regulate the sidks