>> so maybe then what that

leaves us with is a request to the executive director for staff to really take a look at phase two in terms of closing off the entire block face and then also, it would be great to look at, as people have asked for an opportunity to more pedestrians on the street, more pedestrian features on the block. >> well, i'd be amenable before the director leaves. >> get on that. >> staff do that. >> i have a quick question. that park, is that still a program that we do? i mean, is that still acting? >> what? >> the app where we can search the parking and stuff like that? in terms of whether the app is

active? i don't think so. once we decommission the sensors, the only info is whether the meter is active or not. >> i think if the curb management team is out there, looking at this and looking at r.p.p. and looking at changes, then yet, that does go to my parking management request. thank you. thank you for asking. great. all right. >> so with that, we have a motion and a second -- >> can you restate the motion and second? i'm not clear -- >> just so staff is clear, it sounds like it's a resolution to explore closing octavia street from fell to linden, which would be phase two. >> and explore whatever management -- overall traffic management, i guess -- >> do you want to add that -- yeah. >> and i don't know if we need to amend this --

>> yeah -- >> -- to add that or just have this be the direct to staff, whatever would be easier. >> i would prefer that comment be part of a motion because then, it's clear that it's yes, director, or no director, you have to look at this. >> okay. so does somebody want to state a motion specific? >> a motion to amend the resolution to explore close willing. you don't really -- closing. >> you don't really need to amend the resolution. >> okay. so the motion to approve which includes direct asking the executive director to ask staff to -- safety improvements on linden, the curb management program, which is sounds like work -- it sounds like work is already underway, and then further pedestrianizing octavia and around the corner on hayes

street if possible. >> one question. i was confused about -- so sf park is no longer operational? >> so the one element -- so the core of sf park was the demand-based pricing, and that is not only operational but citywide, so we went from a pilot to citywide, but one element that was in the original pilot was we had sensors in the ground at every parking space that gave real-time parking info to see if a space was available, and that, we no longer have. but the core -- but what we found is that if you set the price right, that you can generally set it so that will will be an available parking space. >> so maybe the city attorney can just -- is it unanimous -- is it fine to amend the motion or can we just add that extra language, so to speak?

>> you can do either -- excuse me. deputy city attorney susan cleveland. you can do either. i just think you want to make sure that the direction to staff in whatever form it is is clear, and i think whatever the commission -- the board secretary was just clarifying with director brinkman about the motion. so as long as we have that, we can amend the resolution or you can just add that in an undocumented motion. >> madam chair, what i have right now is a motion to ask staff to explore closing octavia street from fell to linden street and explore additional parking management on that street. >> continue to explore additional parking management in the area, not just on octavia street. >> so in the project area. >> yes. i don't even want to call it in the project area necessarily

because it sounds like the project is only buffering patricia's green, where it's the surrounding blocks. >> okay. in the hayes valley neighborhood. >> yeah. >> okay. so the motion that i have right now is a motion asking staff to explore closing octavia street from fell to linden and explore additional parking management in the hayes valley neighborhood. >> and let's also -- i'm sorry -- include looking at closing additional blocks of hayes street and making them transit only -- >> okay. slow down. >> i'm sorry. >> i think that's -- i don't that's -- was there an agreement from everybody -- >> to look into that. i mean, that's not -- to explore additional transit only streets on hayes. >> okay. so the motion would be to explore closing octavia streets

from fell to linden, additional parking management in hayes valley, and closing additional blocks of hayes street and making them transit-only lanes. >> transit and taxi only. okay. so i think that sounds like an amended motion -- an amended proposal. well, i mean in terms of what was noticed to the public, it's a little bit different. >> it may. given the scope of what the board sounds like it's action, it may just be best to have this be direction to staff. it sounds like you're in general agreement and have you all just focus on the motion -- the resolution that's in your packet. i think if you're all on the same page, staff can take that. >> and i think that was definitely my intent was this part is a direction to staff. >> all right. so what i have then is the board provided -- the minutes would then reflect that the board provided additional direction to staff to explore closing octavia street from

fell to linden street, additional parking management in the hayes valley neighborhood and closing transit street and making them deck transit only street. >> okay. board as an appetite today. >> okay. let me just -- one more time, so, the direction to staff is to explore closing octavia street from fell to linden, additional parking management in hayes valley neighborhood, closing additional blocks of hayes street and making them transit and taxi only lanes and additional pedestrians measures, safety measures on linden. >> that's right. >> okay. >> thank you. >> great. all right. so we had a motion and second on the original motion.

if everyone is fine, we'll take a vote. all in favor? any opposition? motion passes. we're going to move on to item 12. >> item 12 -- >> thank you to the staff. did a great job on that. [agenda item read]. >> good morning -- or good afternoon, i should say. almost good evening, directors. sean kennedy, transit planning manager. and before i go through this, i just want to take a moment to thank ed.

i arrived at m.t.a. bright eyed and bushy tailed seven years ago with the directive to implement the transit effectiveness project. in the first week, i was in ed's office updating the controller's office on the impact of the project. and he told them what a great project it was going to be. and i've taken that with me since that day, and i just want to thank you for the leadership you've shown. as director borden was saying, it's proved very true. we are the envy of many of our transit peers.

thank you so much for your service, and we will watch to see where you go next and what city benefits from your service there. so that said, i want to talk about 12 folsom.

[please stand by]. >> -- and that's really five major neighborhoods, the 12 serves those five major neighbors, all the way from the north to the south. this slide just kind of shows some examples of who we talked to and what we did in chinatown specifically. but essentially, like any new project, we met stakeholders and community members where they are. we did open houses at the stops and on the sidewalk. we want to communities, we went to back-to-school nights. we want to service providers in the area and talked through the options, what we saw as the benefits as well as the negative aspects of it, and

collected over 1200 surveys throughout this process. we did on board process, as well. majority people on was 57% chose option a, and 37% or so when the other option or remaining group was undecided or didn't really have an opinion. so from a staff perspective, we really had two goals we were trying to achieve. obviously, the first was to improve transit service to rincon hill and then to the

entire line. we are recommending what you see before you today, that is taking advantage only of transit only lanes on sacramento and clay and also takes advantage of the folsom streetscape project on folsom that will be including things like turn restrictions, and we put all those things together, and although it looks like a longer route, we actually think it's going to be a little bit quicker and save some time because we're not only using our transit authority improvements but taking them out of where we have some congestion problems on 2nd street. there are things around that

legislation that involve stop changes, also a few yellow metered spots and turn restrictions. but with these changes, we're hoping to make vast improvements, like i said, not only to o.t.p., but for the entire line. we're super excited how this came out. implementation as we work with folsom streetscape, there's going to be a lot of construction on there. we're looking at winter 2020 before we get the route change, and that will kind of ebb and flow depending on the construction schedule, but that's a rough timeline as of now. so super quick. i know it's been a long meeting, so i wanted to go fairly fast, but i'm glad to take any questions or answer any issues you all have. >> just one quick question.

this is a big route change for the people using that bus, and it sounds like the outreach you did in advance of it has been really good, and that's great. i would just ask that we make sure the week or two before we actually change that route that we do some really good outreach for those stops that are going to be removed because i can see a future where somebody only takes the bus every couple weeks or so would walk out there and be complete disoriented out there and not know where the bus is. other than that, i think it's great because it's going to not only serve more people in a growing area, but speeding it up. >> great. are there any other comments? okay. public comment. is there any public comment? barry and michael. >> good afternoon. i just need a clarification.

it does -- i don't want to -- i don't like complaining because allowing us to be able to make the turns, as well, is a great thing, but it's a little confusing. under f, is says no right turn other than muni. i think it's on the east side, so there's two sides of essex. there's the west side and the east side, and i think the west side goes straight to the freeway. so if we go on the west side, then, we can make the right turn on to harrison from essex, so i don't -- so i'm -- i'm a little confused here as to why we're -- we're -- why we're not getting some of these other exemptions, too. but i appreciate you still continuing to let us make the -- the left turn from folsom to essex. so i just need clarification

why under f, we can't do the same thing unless it creates too much conflict there, that would be too dangerous. that would be great to find out why we don't have that exception. >> staff can address that at the end. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hi. my name is roman catau. i voted in the outreach myself, so i'm glad it was chosen. in the presentation, i think staff mentioned 7,000 or 10,000 new residents that live in the area? i would also like to point out that there's several big tech offices in that area, as well, and in particular, we're now going to -- with this project, we're going to have a 12 folsom stop right outside the google sf office, so i hope that google will be willing to do

some outreach to workers and let them know they can ride muni to work. >> any additional public comment? >> vice chair borden and members, alita dupris for the record. i feel i should speak on this. i prafl in the eastern soma rincon sill area a lot, and this will give me a few more options to get through that area because i generally commute across either by b.a.r.t. or by a.c. transit bus to the temporary transbay terminal. so with this, instead of trying to navigate through all that

traffic on 2nd street, which i've done on a bike. it's very difficult. there's a lot of construction down there -- this will allow me to get down to embarcadero and then down to harrison street or it's a short walk for me from the transbay terminal parking lot and also from the new transbay terminal, and we can get that open. so this is something that will help me to navigate moreasily. i think it is worthy of your passage. thank you. >> thank you. >> herbert wiener. one question. i realize you are going to remove the bus stop to 2nd street, but how is that going to affect the passengers on that corridor?

on the corridor that you remove this bus route, how is it going to affect them? will they be rudely inconvenienced? what will be the impact of these changes? >> any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment's closed. directors? >> go ahead. >> motion to approve? >> second. >> if there are no other questions. is there a second? director torres, did you have a comment? >> i just wanted to go back to what the last speaker said about the impacts, and do we know what all the impacts are going to be? >> hi. yes, sir. so the 10 line will continue to serve 2nd street, so there'll still be a service line on 2nd. >> personally, i'm happy. i used to take the 10, and from samsung and bush, it was like,

no. okay. any other comments from directors? there was a motion to approve and second. all in favor? opposed? that motion carries. we're moving on to -- >> clerk: madam director -- [agenda item read]. >> directors, following distribution of the final calendar item, staff discovered that one part of the code is mentioned twice in the

transportation code, so they request an amendment to delete a section of the code -- that section of the code that is duplicated. it is a section of the code that discusses the evaluation of a permit application. it's just listed twice. >> so we'll make that -- want to make that notation when we make the motion? >> okay. govern, directors. tom mcguire. i'm joined by jason hyde who's managed the scooter share program since the beginning. it's hard to believe that it's been more than a year since scooters first launched with that authorization last spring, and it seems that we've been back before you many times talking about the pilot program, and the six-month report on the pilot program, and now we're making the move with shared scooters and

motorized bikes. i want to remind us of the journey that we've been on since the scooters launched back in april 2018 when we had one of the largest unauthorized launches in the u.s., and we moved very quickly to a regulatory pilot program that is the model for other big cities in the u.s. and now we've got an opportunity to make that permanent without losing the accountability that we have to scooter operators. with that, i'll turn it over to jason. >> thank you, tom. good afternoon, directors. i'm a senior planner in movable sfmta, here to talk about the next phase of the scooter permit program. so just a little bit of background. the program actually launched in april 2018 as a two-month pilot with two permittees, scoot and skip. each at the outset were

authorized to operate up to 625 scooters each and with the possibility to double their number at the midpoint. so this was framed by the guiding principle for emerging services and technologies? these transportation code changes are also framed by that policy framework, specifically focusing on safety, accessibility, accountability, equity, and sustainability. [please stand by].

>> with that in mind, we still plan to give preference to operators who propose innovative solutions to owners who make helmets mandatory for rental. questi we acknowledge there's still room for improvement and continued education needs to happen. so with that in mind, in the next round of applications, we'll be committing to companies with robust education

programs and incentives for improper riding, like sidewalk riding in particular. and while we think that this is a beautiful thing, we being national it create -- acknowledge it creates additional demand for bike parking, and so we are proposing a rack fee for the permittees that is commensurate with the number of scooters that would be permitted. so the proposed transportation code amendments also seek to address several issues that were identified in the pilot around user and operator accountability. so in particular we are aski

asking -- from receipt through resolution. we think that this'll improve rider accountability. and additionally, we're proposing an alignment of the fines and fees with stationless bike share? and finally, we're also requiring more robust education on safety reporting procedures, particularly if users are involved in a collision so that we can have more accurate crash data associated with the program? so we definitely learned from our experience with the pilot that we need to be more prescriptive about our service areas, the availability of scooters, as well as the distribution? and so the proposed transportation code amendments before you would allow the sfmta to establish the service area rather than the permittees as was the case in the pilot? and we hope that this will prevent a clustering of devices

downtown and encourage them to be more available in parts of the city that have more availability options. we're we're -- less availability options. we'll also consider using what's called a dynamic cap which looks at the demand for scooters and the usage, so the trips per scooter per day, and we'll have a target for that. and if the permittees are meeting all the terms and conditions of the permit and also exhibiting demand for the scooters, we will consider a commensurate increase in their permitted fleet size. so equity was definitely -- was definitely identified as a key area for improvement in the midpilot evaluation, and especially when it came to outreaching key communities of concern as well as low-income planned participation, and so

to address some of these concerns, we plan to ask permittees to release a cull right lanely sensitive outreach plan that's really tailored to each neighborhood that takes languages, consideration, and needs into account. we're also asking them how they plan to promote their low-income plan in their company as well as other plans, and additionally we are asking the companies to consider how they'll encourage local hiring opportunities and as well as hiring for disadvantaged individuals such as formerly incarcerated people and immigrant communities. in terms of our user capability, showed that scooters may reduce vehicle and

private t.n.c. use, but some were switching from more sustainable modes, like walking and biking. at the same time, around a third of the scooter riders used transit on their most recent trip? however, we want to continue stressing this mobility option as a last-mile solution, and so we're asking applicants to pair trips with transit. and one of my favorites is tracking miles travelled associated with tracking, rebuilding and main nance. and there's a whole operation going on behind the scenes that a lot of people don't really realize, but we've seen fairly substantial non-e.m.t. reported during this pilot, and we want

to drill down on that so we can understand the full impact of this on the transportation system? and so we've actually worked with the department of the environment to did you right lane op sustainability guidelines for the program, and those would be a requirement of the permit. we've also worked with the department to make sure our program aligns with our city's zero waste and alignment policies, particularly when it comes to disposable of hazardous things like batteries. next, we're requiring that companies ensure that their data is live so that we're collecting data on day one of operations. so in the coming weeks, we plan to finalize and realize our new permit application? and we're targeting a selection and announcement of the

permittees in september in time to issue new permits before the current pilot expires on october 15. and as mentioned earlier by roberta boomer, finally, we would like to correct an inadvertent language in the legislation. and we plan to remove the duplication in section 916-e-3 upon approval. there should be language in your board packet that will show the language being removed. thank you. >> thank you. at this time, directors, do you have any questions or would you -- >> i have a question. the map you show on page 5 of the handout, is that actually -- the scooters can be anywhere in the city? they don't have a narrowed down

area? >> yeah, sorry. so the -- that map actually shows a snapshot of the average device distribution at 8:00 a.m.? and so it doesn't have the service area on there, but -- >> oh, okay. >> -- inevitably, some scooters make their ways outside of the service areas? generally, scoot and skip, they're concentrated in the southeast quadrant of the city, but they do expand into the bayview, as well. >> and are they going to be eventually available in all areas of the city. >> there are. i think another toppography, there's no reason we shouldn't be able to serve the entire city. >> thank you. i go over to oakland with some regularity, and the scooter

litter around some of the b.a.r.t. stations is breath taking, so i think we've done a very good job, and i had just a moment listening in there, thinking oh, if we could have done the same thing with t.n.c.s, what a different world we would have. thank you. >> are there any additional questions for directors before -- go ahead. >> so how many permits will be issued in the next -- >> so the number of permits will be issued is at the discretion of the director of transportation? we plan to issue a limited number because just -- [inaudible] >> i can't comment on the exact number? we haven't determined that? but i would -- yeah sure. >> so -- jason's right, the legislation doesn't specify like last time there would be a maximum of five permits. we would like to, number one,

put in play the principle during the pilot. so we have two operators in the pi pilot program. there are cities that have four and five pilot programs and are having the problems that were described. and then having some really high standards in that application so we want to put the bar really high and only accept the operators that are going to meet our standard to operate in san francisco. we're steering this program in the direction of a limited number. >> so what criteria will you use to expand? >> well, i think -- >> when you say all these adjectives, what does that mean? >> we want to challenge the scooter operators who want a

permit with us to balance opportunities, so they don't cluster downtown, and continue to innovate, and don't cluster them on the sidewalks. >> that will determine the number? >> ultimately, that will determine the number. >> now, what are we doing to keep these people off the sidewalks because that's all i've heard is complaints, especially from senior citizens who are ill at ease walking at pedestrians, and all of a sudden, scooters come behind them. >> we want to encourage the permittees to innovate in terms of educating their users as well as create incentives and penalty structures. the one that we're really proud of is a shared database for complaints so we can track all of these from receipt to

resolution and that way, we'll have a better sense of how many complaints are actually receiving them and how they're addressing them? >> so one of the suggestions that i received is perhaps these scooters should have an i.d. numbers to identify them more easily? >> yeah, that is one of the requirements of the program, to require two identifiers on each of the scooters. >> what about lights to signify turning? >> that's not something we considered. we generally go along with the requirements that are specified in the california vehicle code. >> so just hand signals for scooters. >> correct. >> thank you for providing an incentive for these operators

to provide helmets. i'm so angry that the legislature amended my law that allows people 18 and over to get out of wearing helmets. i really appreciate you doing that because it's a real important public safety issue with respect to the riders. the last point is sustainability. miss brinkman talked about that earlier, and i agree with her because i work in oakland at an agency, and i've seen those b.a.r.t. steps when i get out, and they're not pleasant. but what are we doing with the backlog of old scooters? who's picking them up? are they just being put at salvage yards or are they being

recycled to repair these vehicles. >> yeah, so we have pretty robust sustainability guidelines this go around? so we're going to be requiring a life cycle for the entire scooter as well as life requirements for each part of the scooter? so that's something that each permittee will be required to submit to us? with regard to disposal of hazardous batteries, we're going to have sort of a one-day workshop where the permittees come and they learn about the site, where it's this is why it's important to disclose of the hazardous material? we look at the current metrics around the number of scooters that are disclosed each month, the number that are recycled or reused, so we're just sort of

beefing up the current sustainability requirements in the new program. >> i've also reviewed it last week -- thank you, madam chair. [please stand by]

. >> are there any other -- >> afraid so? i guess i have a confession to make on this because i'm a bit of a skeptic on thoese scooter period. they seem to be a solution in search of a program. i think the best description i've heard is they're a last effort. i share the concern that director torres has. these vehicles, they're motor vehicles, don't belong on a sidewalk, but you throw them into the street without pel mets, and -- helmets, and they're hard to see, and i

think you're just creating an environment where accidents are going to happen. now they're a fact of life, they're staring us in the face, so what do we do? you know, one thing would be staying in some kind of pilot phase and not going prime time. at the very least, i wouldn't support removing the cap on the total number of these vehicles that we've got. and as i understand it, that's what the proposal does. the second point i wanted to make -- and this is a bit of a funny story on me, but since i retired in march, i've been playing some golf, right? if you go to a golf course these days, they've put gps on the golf course, and if you go off the golf course, the engine kicks off. even if you go on parts of the fairway they don't want you to, the engine kicks off.

could they put something in there like that, some kind of geofence that prevents these guys have using them on sidewalks. >> so my understanding of gps technology is it's not accurate enough especially in the downtown where there's buildings that might be blocking the signal with the satellite? you'll see trips sometimes that go out to the bay, which clearly isn't happening, but it's a misfunction of the gps, however, that isn't to say that it won't be prevented from proposing those innovative solution if there is a proponent that has that sort of technology? we will certainly look favorably upon that. >> if we don't have that technology near term, we've got

to figure out a better enforcement strategy. i was working in the middle of that zone where they were dumped, and those things were buzzing along the sidewalks constantly. so if we don't have a technical or a technological solution, it seems we have to commit resources to get these off the sidewalk if they don't have helmets. i just think we're creating an unsafe condition for these folks, and i'm not sure we're getting enough mobility benefit to outweigh that.

>> just wanted to share that with you because i know that you weren't here for that. >> and i will just say in summary, i agree. when i was in paris and when i was in mexico city, i could not believe the number of scooters -- i mean, it's like a global -- it's not just here. people are really using them as a form of transportation, and while it completely freaks me out, i respect that if it's a great last mile solution for a lot of people who are less inclined to -- to -- to -- you know, to -- to walk otherwise, then i think we ought to support it and encourage it. in terms of limiting the numbers, i'd be too concerned about competition. at the end of the day, i think people are benefiting from it.

at the end of the day, when companies compete, people win. that's the power over a lot of things when there's no competition. >> none of these companies have a path to profitability, so the likelihood is in a couple of years, a bunch of people who really like the scooters will have bought their own, and the rest of them, unfortunately, will be laying in a landfill. i think what i see around an oakland b.a.r.t. station versus what i see around a san francisco b.a.r.t. station is working. you know, we don't have the problems here except for the sidewalk riding problem, which i'm not sure how we're going to solve that one. so i think that one is working. i think we're looking at peak scooter. i'm not sure many of these are

going to be around renting these things. [please stand by]

this six one of your two operators. about nine months into the

cities scooters are part of the program, skip continues to see success improved education, and the solution for parking. skip lies empty's dedication to the success of this program. their work along with skip promises to comply with regulations has built a foundation for micro micro- debility in san francisco. the demand for scooters and san francisco. skip's dedication to the community and to equity has earned us that privilege. we continue to form strong community partnerships and advertise low income program particularly in communities of concern and in the southeast. skip also renews its dedication to sustainable operations by repairing rather than replacing our scooters. skip vows to continue local

organizations that help advocate for or protected bike lanes and other important infrastructure. @ we support more transparent data to help mta make decisions about infrastructure. the proposal moments are great, we do see an opportunity to strengthen them further. in april, san francisco in the form of a monthly subscription program. this was put in place to undercut the rules and regulations established by the mta. without a framework to regulate monthly subscription programs for scooters. a slew of unregulated scooters throughout the city with no promises to follow the rules. to mitigate this we would suggest mta create a ratio up system. operators that wish to have a monthly subscription service they can do so but only through a portion of their allotted scooters under the current. this will give mta the opportunity to effectively regulate all rentable scooters in the public right-of-way in our application.

>> herbert weiner, actually i am concerned about safety on the sidewalk. that is from all vehicles, except for electric wheelchairs which are certainly necessary for the disabled. i really want to see people protected. for that matter, these standards should be extended to bicyclists as well. they ride on the what -- sidewalk, they strike people. you know, we need to have the uniform policy from