we have relationships with taxis, not tncs. we have worked closely with the app developer to make it easy to use by riders in wheelchairs so they can access ramp taxis quickly. it is something they feel strongly about. we are always trying to improve that out. >> are they able to pay seamless? >> you would present your debit card to pay for the trip. >> do you have a sense of what premium is paid for a tax see as opposed to using it. >> those are your lifts and ubers. >> transportation network companies, tnc. actually the paratransit rainedder that uses the app did not have to pay. it is totally free to end user. they will not pay extra because they e-hailed a taxer. >> if one did, taxis are more expensive than tnc, correct. >> it depends. they don't have search pricing and so forth. it depends. i don't think a study is done on that yet. >> maybe since you have users who have access to technology you are working towards incorporating the payment module into the technology. >> that would be the next step. >> there are carpool op

when the peir was adopted we didn't know tncs would exist. who knew incomes of those coming into the city would be so vastly disproportionate or the high-income earners would opt to have everything they ever want delivered to their doors. the community asked for further study but were told our observations of environmental changes has no basis and ac ras data was being used. we now know that our daily observations of these harmful environmental changes were accurate and the data in recent studies including a joined analysis by uber and lyft shows how outdated the assessments were because tncs account for twice the amount of vehicle miles traveled than the sfcta estimated. and still it continues. there's no loading demand analysis in this cpe and assumptions in the trip generation studies vastly under state the number of delivery vehicles relying on outdated guidelines. environmental planners are saying only 7.68 deliveries a day will come to the 60 units of this building with five commercial units. seriously. 7.68 deliveries a day. it sits on

rips but given that tncs were already existing for passenger loading analysis we did assume that all other trips that were not automobile, walking or transit trips were tnc trips and we were conservatively accounting for those trips. >> so you added more trips than you needed? >> that's right. >> thank you. i'm prepared to support. >> is that a motion? >> yes. >> second. >> shall we call the question, commissioners. very good, commissioners. there's a motion that has been seconded to uphold the preliminary mitigated. [roll call] so moved that motion passes unanimously 5-0. i will remind you that in addition to considering the project the in-kind agreement regardless of whether or not it gets approved or otherwise needs to be continued. and we would propose december 12. >> i'll accept the motion for the in-kind agreement going to december 12. >> we can handle that with other -- you don't have to take that up separately. we can combine that with the project. >> there's no other speakers here. i just wanted to be sure to what pushed me over the edge on this one was the prioritizing of t

demonstrated there are large funding needs for all parts of our transportation system and we're including the tnc tax and downtown congestion pricing study. a rcmp nam measure would complement that work and recognising that maintaining our existing system in a state of good repair while enhancing it to meet the vision for the future requires funding support from all levels of government. and so, the two groups here today, the bay area and voices for public transportation have been planning and thinking about a transportation measure targeting the november 2020 ballot, which promises to be popular given the anticipated high voter turn-out. but nothing is set yet and we know there are many barriers to getting something on the ballot and it will be very hard to get something passed because it needs two-thirds voter support across the entire region. now so thithis is your chance tn on all matter of these measures and i know both groups will value your feedback. with that, we're start wig the h the voices from the public transportation group and then the bay area. >> ok. miss selby. >> i was going to

and this gn approach for estimating tnc trie already existing for passenger d assume that all other trips tha, walking or transit trips were te conservatively accounting for t. >> so you added more trips than? >> that's right. >> thank you. i'm prepared to s. >> is that a motion? >> yes. >> second. >> shall we call the question, , commissioners. there's a motiono uphold the preliminary mitigate. [roll call] so moved, that motii will remind you

shown here including fta, one bay area grant funds, regional measure 3 and possibly even the tnc tax. to review the board actions for today, this is a summary. you will be approving the better market street project, adopting the seek wha ceqa findings and e mitigation monitoring and reporting programme. you will be approving all of the parking and traffic changes that are proposed for market street from stewart to octavia and you will be amending the transportation code division to for transit-only lanes. thank you. >> thank you, very much. how much public comment do we have? >> 66 people have turned in speaker cards. >> of those 66 people, how many folks want to see this project approved quicker? [laughter] i can give you a rea really easy to have it approved. i would not have brought this tie vote if i didn't have four maybe more votes to approve this. this is everyone's hall so if you would like to speak, you may. you will have one minute each. when your name is called, please lineup over there by mr. gilberty or the camera so we can -- tom, raise your hand again. you can't block t