Transcripts For SFGTV Government Access Programming 20180207

Heartedly believe in this bill. Its a wonderful intersection of gender and class, which always go together. You know, it has been you know, the fight has been a long one and even now as the fight still goes on. I dont think we should think that, you know, that Lgbt Community members have, you know, have perfect safety everywhere they go. Just, you know, like just what happened in los angeles, you know, someone killed a transgender woman. So, i think its really great that were doing this bill and i think its great that people are being paid attention to. I think this is also a great start politically because it tells s. R. O. Owners that legislators are paying attention to whats going on in those buildings and theyre being regulated. So, i think its a great start around, so i thank you for supporting this. Thank you. Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is kylie hoffmann. Im the coordinator of Youth Development and administration for the San Francisco Youth Commission. Im here on behalf of our Youth Commissioners and want you to know that on december 18, at a full Youth Commission meeting, they voted unanimously in support of all gender restrooms in residential hotels. The Youth Commissioners would like to thank supervisors ronan, sheehy, peskin and recognize tang to cosponsor this legislation or at the very least to support it. Thank you. Good afternoon, supervise source. My name is honey mahogany. I am the cofounder of the transgender cultural district. I want to say congratulations to supervisor tang or chairperson tang in this situation. I am thrilled to be here and to see so much upstanding support for an effort put on by jordan davis and hillary ronans office. As a gendered, nonconforming person, i can speak personally to the dangers and discomfort of having to choose between a mens and womens bathroom. I think this is an Incredible Opportunity to address the days period of time theys that face gender nonconforming folks and transpeople when accessing services. They are most critical and at risk population and anything that we can do to support their abilities to access services, i believe, should be fully supported by the entire bore. I hope for those of you who have not signed on as cosponsors that youll consider cosponsoring or at the very least vote in support of this very important legislation. Thank you. Hi. Tommy mecca from the housing rights committee. We are fully in support of this legislation and hope that you will pass it. Personally, as a gay man whos been involved in the Queer Community since the early 1970s, im extremely happy that its happening. It is long overdue. As, it is jordan said, historic and gives me pride in San Francisco that often we are on the cutting edge in pushing things like this. And we should be. Safety is an extremely safety of tenants is an extremely important issue for us at housing rights committee. So, its logical that we would be here in support because all tenants must be safe and that means all. No exceptions. Despite the progress that the Lgbt Community has made in the past 40something years, the reality is that there is still antilgbt violence in this country. And especially against transgendered women of colour. So, thank you for what youre doing here. And for helping to protect transgender tenants in San Francisco. Hello, supervisors. Thank you for taking this time. My name is pablo. We are almost a 40year organization here in the city, providing services to supervisors of domestic violence, hate violence, sexual assault, police violence, who identify as lesbian, gay bisexual, transgender, queer and questioning. This legislation is imperative. Its long overdue. And i want to double and triple what people have already said. This in some instances is a matter of safety, its a matter of life and death. It can be a matter of continuity of a good quality of life for a lot of folks, particularly in the transcommunity. And what we have continued to track is the feeling of lack of safety in some of these s. R. O. S and in particular because of the shared bathrooms and needing to for lack of a better term have a Good Relationship with your neighbours. You may not be family, but in some instances, you get thrown into circumstances where, you know, youre living in a communal situation because of how things are set up. Having genderneutral bathrooms is a very, you know, common sense, essential, simple things that can be done that will go a tremendous way to providing more sense of safety and community for folks who are living in these buildings. And as legislation has already been done in the past here about genderneutral bathrooms and, you know, businesses and other kinds of facilities, any and all, you know, businesses and hotels that have a relationship with the city regardless of whether its twitter or burger king or mcdonalds or an s. R. O. , i think it is imperative that genderneutral bathrooms exist. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is rosario cevantes and im here to support this legislation for genderneutral and genderforming bath room facilities in the s. R. O. I actually have a son whos a counselor and he works with Homeless People in s. R. O. S. So, im here to support this legislation. I hope it passes. And thank you jordan davis for all your work and thank you for all of the supervisors that are sponsoring it. Thank you. Good afternoon to the chair and supervisors of the committee. My name is rebecca leaven. Im in support of the genderforming bathrooms here in San Francisco. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Luis Camarillo and im in support of the legislation toward genderneutral and genderconforming bathroom facilities in the s. R. O. Here in San Francisco. Thank you. Good afternoon, supervisors. Im from chinatown c. D. C. Sheer to support this legislation in the name of the Chinatown Community Development Centre but our s. R. O. Families collaborative who was excited and supportive of this legislation. Thank you, jordan, for all of your leadership and everybody who came in to fight today. Hello, supervisors. Thank you so much for considering this important legislation today. My name is jessica layman with senior and disabilities action and were in strong support of this legislation. First, of course, because we support the rights and dignity of all people, including those who are transgender, gender nonconforming. This is a huge issue for the senior and Disabilities Community and we had a work group looking at seniors and people with disabilitieses and s. R. O. S. There is a huge proportion of seniors and people with disabilitieses living in s. R. O. S and all gender bathrooms can also be an issue for somebody who has a care attendant who goes into the bathroom with them who may be of a different gender. Ive experienced that myself being in a wheelchair having an attendant who is male. The looks, the comments, its obviously very uncomfortable. And i know i only know the half of it as a transgendered woman. And so by making bathrooms all gender, were really allowing people to not have to worry about their safety anytime they use the restroom. This is also we think it is really an important Culture Shift to really look at how are we valuing all bodies, whether they are transgender, gender nonconforming bodies, aged body, that were all valued. Thank you. Thank you very much. Any other members of the public who wish to comments on item four . If not, thank you, everyone, for coming. Public comment is closed. And, again, thank you to supervisor ronan for bringing this up. I thought it was a complete oversight when we had passed legislation around all gender bathrooms. I didnt realise that s. R. O. S were not included so im glad that it is being addressed here. Colleagues, any other questions, comments . If not, then maybe a motion. I would be honoured to forward this to the full board with positive recommendation. Sorry. Supervisor . Yes. And i support this as well. Just want to say congratulations to jordan on his leadership. I know we just appointed him to the s. R. O. Task force just recently. Her. Im sorry, her. Excuse me. Her to the s. R. O. Task force and her aggressive leadership on this issue has been wonderful for this community and id like to be added as a cosponsor. Thank you. And i apologize for. That im sorry. I was distracted. And supervisor cohen has joined us. Supervisor cohen . Sorry, was your name on the roster for this item . Different item. There was a motion and we can do so without motion to the full board with full recommendation. Thank you. Mr. Clerk, item five. Item number five. Hearing on the coordination between the San Francisco municipal transportation agency. Technical and implementation teams. Thank you. And this hearing is sponsored by supervisor cohen and she has joined us here on land use. Good afternoon, madame khaifrment appreciate it. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Colleagues, thank you for the opportunity to have the discussion here, forgive me. But i have long comments because i have real comments that i want to make sure that im able to articulate here today. What we have here, this afternoon, is an opportunity to discuss a process used by the bike Share Department and the executive director of the sfmta which was used to determine that social bikes, also better known as jump bikes, was the best dockless bike share operator for San Francisco. So in particular, im looking to understand the criteria that was used to decide that jump bike was most complementary to motivate ford go bikes, also the citys Bike Share Programme and truly the best option to use bike share as a mode of transportation. My office has received numerous emails and feedback from a number of Bike Share Companies that were in the application and permit queue with m. T. O. And dont forget they feel two things. One, they didnt feel the communication about the process was adequate and, two, that the offerings of the organisations were understand and considered by m. T. A. So, these are serious concerns that have been leveled against the m. T. A. And im concerned by the suggestion that m. T. A. Didnt conduct a thorough and competitive process before bestowing jump bikes with the sole pilot dockless bike share permit for the next 18 months. So the reason why i called todays hearing is because this matter is, frankly not only a matter of fairness, transparency and due process for the Companies Interested in providing the service, but its also about transportation and transportation access, healthy opportunities, competitive pricing, the safety of our constituents across the entire city and and just just to name a few. So, i come to talk a little bit about bike share. So what is this all about . The goal of an expanded bike share spram to achieve 20 of trips traveled by bike. Weve seen the ford go bikes on the streets. It was launched in june of 2017. And currently has 120 stations in San Francisco. The network of the bike stations are ultimately to expand to over 300 stations and approximately 4500 bikes in San Francisco by the end of 2018. Now because of the design of the Bike Share Programme, the bike share Rollout Programme in my district and other communities on what some consider to be the outskirts of San Francisco, we wont get bike stations until the fall of this year. Despite the programme beginning in june of 2017. So, im sure you can see why im a little personally frustrated about this. And this is why jump bikes came into the picture. They saw an opportunity to provide service communitis that were not being efficiently served by the citys programme. I cant necessarily speak to the transportation access and parts of district four or district 11 that will be getting ford go bike stations at the end of this year, but as this year as my district will. But if you know anything about the southeastern neighbourhoods, you know that historically theres been an unquantifiable, disinvestment in decent transportation access. And this has been going on for far too long. So, its for this reason that i want to say that i see bike share as the next best thing. There is a net benefit here. Bike share gives users an additional travel option and also provides them a social experience. Its a flexible system that helps keep people active which i understand the value of. But bike share is not exclusively about travelsings and reducing the miles traveled by single occupancy vehicles. Bike Share Companies are not unlike ride Share Companies in that their bottom line is to collect data. These Companies Want to know where the traveler is going, how often they are going there, and the proximity of the destination to ones home, work and frequented places. They want to capture data and im hopeful that this data will be shared with our city to assist us in urban Planning Decisions from congestion management to, frankly, street design. Ridership data can be a real tool to support the land use and infrastructure decisions both in the near and longterm future. However, if our experiences with the ride Share Companies who are notorious for obstructing or simply refusing to share their user data, are any indication of the potential obstacles, i want to be sure that were taking every possible precaution to ensure that the companies we choose to do business with, and companies that we choose to allow to operate on our streets, are, indeed, coming to the table with a sense of partnership and so to back up my original statement, i wanted to understand why it is why it was the informed opinion of multiple parties within the San Francisco metropolitan Transportation Authority agency that jump bikes was the best option for San Francisco. Now i understand that motivate ford go bikes has an exclusive right to operate a Bike Share Programme and im not interested in ro hashing the terms of the contract we signed with motivate or necessarily the public Settlement Agreement. What is in question is the nature of the process used to proceed jump bikes services. Now while section 909f6s of the transportation code states that the sfmta director has the singular authority to approve these bike share permits, we still have a permiting process structure that exists. I wont read that process, but these processes exist so that, as so not to give the appearance of preferential treatment to any company which seeks to do business in San Francisco and to communicate with the public that we are making decisions that are centred in their best interest. Im not comfortable and i dont know that i see value in having the only approval go through. The director of transportation as opposed to coming through the m. T. A. Board or the board of supervisors. I will admit that i have a series of questions that i will ask the representatives from m. T. A. With that, i want to recognize director ed riskin and jamie parks from the Bike Share Programme. They are here with us in this chamber and madame chair, i would turn the rest of the hearing over to you. Ok. And supervisor cohen, who would you like to call up first . Director riskin. Welcome. Thank you. Good afternoon, chair tang. Members of the committee. Supervisor cohen, thank you for giving us an opportunity. Yes. I appreciate the opening remarks to help or cents us here. That was a good overview and clear questions that well endeavour to answer to our best ability. I want to add as overview that, as you know, bicycling is an important mode of transportation in San Francisco. Its the Fastest Growing mode of transportation in San Francisco. Both the m. T. A. Board and board of supervise sources has set very ambitious mode share targets for bicycling in the city. And we as an agency with the board of supervisors have been work on a number of different fronts to make bicycling a better option. From everything from infrastructure that were putting in the ground to Safety Education that we support. There is a number of things were doing to try to meet those mode shift goals that both you and the m. T. A. Bore have established and that are part of our overall Climate Change strategy as well. We see bike share as an important part of the overall move to increase bicycling in San Francisco. Something weve been engaged with for up to five years now. Like every other aspect of transportation in San Francisco and generally, bike share is a very dynamic industry at the moment. And like pretty much everything that has to do with nrption San Francisco, there is a lot of different opinions about how to do this the right way. And there is controversy over decisions about how much of this, how little of this, how broad, how narrow. Weve been working to try to strike the right balance so that we can optimize the emergence of this relatively new way for people to access bicycles. But do it in a way that is responsible that is going to ultimately advance our overall city transportation goals. So, we will try our best to answer the questions in the presentation. Of course, well be here for any followup questions and Public Comments and we have others here as well as mr. Parks to try to walk you through this. If i could, ill turn it over to jamie parks, the manager in our liberal Streets Division who will give you an overview and answer the questions that were posed by supervisor cohen. Thank you. Although i havent posed all my questions. But i put enough out there to get us started. Mr. Parks . [please stand by] [please stand by] and part of the legislation and saying its an exciting time for bike sharing and the mta is excite with the interest in bike sharing. Um ultimately we see it as a good thing and helps make our Transportation System safer and more equitable and accessible which are the goals underlying all of our decisions and we support it and theres questions regarding the bike share in San Francisco and so we want to proceed with caution as well as optimism. That issued a per mitd permit bringing the ebikes to san franciscans and providing the time and data ill proi p p context. It began in 2013 with the bay area Bike Share Program. It was a small system with approximately 350 bikes around it began as a pilot program. The good news with the pilot system is it worked. People liked it and used it. The bad news was cost. Expanding the system to meet demand would cost tens of millions of dollars. Money that was not available through public sources at the time. As a result we the mt cr and other several bay area cities developed a Public Private partnership by waiving fees and allowing private sponsorship wed be able to get the bike share system we need at a cost we could afford. Under that model a contract was approved in 2015 to provide a privately funded Bike Share Program and the system officially launched in june 2017 and replaced the original area bike share and currently 120 stations and 420 ford go bikes increased over 300 station and over 4,000 bikes by the end of the year. At the same time the ford go bike was being planned and launched the new model was emerging. The stationless model expanded in 2016 and in the United States and china and stationless bike share refers to bike that dont require dedicated docking stations like the ford go bikes. Some stationless bikes are Free Standing and the bikes themselves have integrated gps units and internal lockal mechanism and accessed by smartphone apps. Theres half a dozen or more in circulation alone. This creates significant issues for maintaining safe and orderly bicycle lines as you see in the sidewalk but has shown to be a promising tool and goal of the mta. The first stationless operator in San Francisco was blue go go in early 2017 rather than watch what happens and respond later which is often the case with technologies we developed San Francisco specific regulations for stationless bike share to ensure it would serve the Public Interest and worked with the board of supervisors and with the board of directors to pass the division 1 and division 2 transportation code legislation. It passed in 2017 and established the stationless bike share in San Francisco and accompanying violations and fines. It has gone bankrupt since taking millions of user deposits with itsome issues we observed as the right of way obstruction in maintenance and other cities with stationless bike share we wanted stationless bike share to promote Public Health and safety. Theres a lot of details but a key things for your attention. First is equity. The member shot blocker membership must be affordable for people of low income and allow stationless bike share bicycles to create a nuisance or make the sidewalk inaccessible. And in responding to a comment we do require data sharing to ensure the operators are meeting their responsibilities and the data that comes from the Bike Share Program is available to the public. Other key component include approved maintenance and outreach plans and insurance plans. And theyre issued by the department of transportation and allow for impact to the bike Share Network as a whole in making the decision whether to grant a permit. Following implementation of the program they met with six ride share operators. They reviewed each manication independently in accordance with the legislation that created the program. During this time they entered into a Settlement Agreement regarding stationless bike stations. It ensures stationless bike share complies and furthering innovation in the bike share field that wasnt anticipated when the original contract was find and finalized november 28 and has key terms the permit would be for pedal bikes. The Settlement Agreement entered into as of november 27, 2017 was the settlement of what . The settlement over how the motivate contract with the mta and city of San Francisco applied the stationless bike share bikes and how it applied to stationless bike share right. Was it a settlement of a claim or provision or an original agreement. What exactly were you settling . There was no litigation. Just a clause to prevent litigation perfect happening before they got to that point. And the solicitation with six potential potential stationless Bike Companies proceeded that november 27th date . Much of it preceded that and the discussion with the operators continued during the discussions during october and november. And in the Settlement Agreement with the onetime exception in its exclusivity in that ebikes were not part of the motivate contract, what does the Settlement Agreement, which appears to be silent, contemplate after 18 months. Do you go and invoke the dispute resolution because the Settlement Agreement seems to be silent on that . What happens after 18 months is dependent on the result of the pilot evaluation and happy it talk more and have more discussion in the presentation about what well be evaluating but in terms of what will happen after 18 months, we really dont know until we see how the program performs here in San Francisco and stationless programs perform in peer cities around the city. And the Settlement Agreement advances our policy goals around stationless bike share as well and were particularly excite ford the potential of ebikes. And theres different operators. Jump was the first operator that was eligible for a permit under our program. Jump submitted its initial application in july of 201 prior to any other company. It developed as the first and only company to fulfill all the permit requirements with the november 2017 submittals. One requirement was the data sharing requirement. Thats something we heard a lot of reluctance from from other companies and jump was the first to operate ebike. Was there a set of criteria about what the sfmta was looking for . Did it say in october when these got ahead of Transportation Technologies did you say to the potential world of stationless bike sharing companies, we are looking for e bikes. That is a criteria. Were looking for data sharing as a criteria. If you do not have these youll be considered incomplete. Yes. We developed permit application materials based on the legislation that were very detailed in what we were requiring from the operators including detailed data sharing provisions and making sure they had a plan for us that made sense to us about how theyd maintain the public right of way. One of the things were happy that jump provided is the bicycles have integrated e locks which are shown on the slide there. They lock right to the bike rack so they dont take up the sidewalk. It looked like the agreement i have a question, supervisor cohen theres communication to all the companies and were they notified, all the other applicants . Was there only one Ebike Company . We didnt promise anything about number of permits it could be zero or any number. We never made any promises. Did this go to all the companies or Just One Company or no companies . We provided the same information at the same time to all the different operators. Do you have more to your presentation . I have one more slide i think. The main thing i wanted to end with is the pilot evaluation. Theres an important piece of this. We are really hopeful to use the 18 month period to learn how stationless bike shares fits into the San Francisco context and how it can play an Important Role in our Transportation System and make amendments to the program as required. The pilot evaluation really falls on two different axis. First is what kind of Transportation Service is really be provided. Is the demand high and whos in the system and where are they going. Fundamentally its stationless bike share is it filling a gap in successful travel options and the second is whether theres secondary impact including blocked sidewalks, broken bikes, proliferation of graffiti and additional costs for city crews and if theres any other impacts compared to transportation benefits. Ill stop so we can get into details i wasnt able to cover but my summary is were eager to promote bike sharing information and were confident our approach is starting with a similar pilot with bike sharing and commuter shut als to ensure were putting the Public Interest of people of San Francisco first in the process. That concludes my presentation. Thank you. Thank you for the presentation, mr. Parks. Thank you. I have about three and a half questions and has to do with my original question. Im under the impression and heard no one was advised of the terms of the settlement and the other companies were not advised it would be a onepermit ebike only and quite frankly applicants only became aware in january when mta issued a memo. It came out saying the permit was awarded to jump only. How do you explain the discrepancy. How do you substantiate the claim . The terms of the Settlement Agreement were not shared until january 8, 2018. That process was a confidential process was not discussed with any other companies while underway. Okay. My next question. The bike share universe is very different than the ones assigned between mta and mtc and the ford go bikes. At the time there was quite frankly fewer bike share operators interested in the space and now there are a number of companies and i understand mta recently signed an agreement that wed consider all ebike applicants. Following the execution of that Settlement Agreement why didnt you advise the industry youd only consider ebikes or put out a Public Statement at a minimum of this new position . Again, my issues are with the process. We shared the results of the Settlement Agreement as soon as we could and it take weeks to finalize the process and brief the Mayors Office and with the sudden death of the mayor there were a couple weeks delay in there in terms of getting the unsportsmanlike getting the information out there and at the Settlement Agreement we felt comfortable moving forward with the jump company and they were the only company that offered the settlement and fulfilled the term of our requirements after six months of discussions. And so we were eager to get start with the pilot and put something out in the street and get something going forward. In an email dated january 8 from director you state the vection for jump was quote, based on the thorough review of the permit application documenting it meets or seeds all San Francisco stationless bike share permit requirements, end quote. If you could describe for me this thorough review, i would appreciate it. Was this a comparative review that included other companies or just a review on the individual application itself . It was not a comparative view just based on our legislation and thats how we reviewed all the applications and reviewed independently from each other. The specifics of the application itself theres a lot of detail in there. Several of the key things that were looking for that were i think challenging for some of the operators to come up were detailed lab testing documenting the safety of the vehicles used and insurance requirements and data sharing requirements shared and not let some data be withheld. Affordable membership for lowincome members. The jump system offers a 5 annual pass that offered one hour of reuse for the day. That met our affordable membership requirement. And to a broad geographic area. Those were some of the key things we looked for and happy to provide more detail on that or the application submittal itself if thats of interest. How did you know jump was the best company for San Francisco . They were the First Company to meet our requirements and we wanted to proceed cautiously with the program and not issue a large number of permits. You didnt do a comparative analysis with the other companies so how can you discern one is better than the other when you dont take into consideration the others . The other Companies Application materials were also reviewed. But they didnt know the criteria. The requirements meeting all 47 permit requirements or whatever was in there those were shared with all companies and they were all aware of those requirements. I think my point is they didnt know youd only approve ebikes. Its a little bit flawed and unfair. I just want to get on the record or clarify, were other companies notified, yes or no there was a requirement to have ebikes . At the same time . They were all given the same requirement at the same time and would not dispute the ebike permit we were grant. I oversee jamies work in the Bicycle Safety and since this is such a key point nor for the committee i want to clarify. There was policy discussion at we reviewed the applications from what other peer cities were experiencing. Sorry, whats your name . Luis montoya. And your role is . I oversee jamies work and hes our Bicycle Program major and i oversee his work as well. Based on what we were seeing in the industry we were prepared to make a recommendation that as jamie described this was the best fit for San Francisco. However the decision hasnt been made to issue jump a permit until january. As jamie mentioned there were intentional discussions about that and motivate indicated they may have a problem with issuing permits for a stationless bicycle. Thats why they initiated the settlement negotiations per the contract. So we had to clarify with them what San Franciscos intentions might be and then we had to confirm what San Francisco intentions were and it wasnt until january the policy call was made to give jump the permit. We were steadying it up to that point and once the decision was made the permit was issued, we offered the same information to all the applicants at that time. If i can hop in and i have the same memorandum i received twice, as far as i can tell just paging through it, it speaks to everything youre talking about. The is dated december 11. And the second is dated january 8. The december 11th one seems to come to the conclusion you came to not in january but in december that there was only one company that you recommended which is jump. Are you referring to the email from jamie to ed. From ed through tom mcgwire, luis montoya to jamie parks and the staff and interested parties. As far as i can tell the exact same memo. It seems to me you call came to the come conclusion. We had done the natianalysish the recommendation but hasnt issued the permit. Im trying to get to the point of the permit issued and we shared the information more broadly. If i can from a highlevel policy standpoint as the author of the legislation and thank you to all my colleagues who voted to have a permitting scheme for stationless bicycle in the onslaught and i think we wanted to get ahead of the technology and you promulgated your own internal legislation in the code we oversee. I realize i was not on the board at the time we have this exclusivity arrangement with motivate. What i think im hearing from supervisor cohen and what all members of the panel share, is that whatever went down was done fairly. I think the concern is if you have other parties that didnt know the rules of the game or until the Settlement Agreement that the primary criteria was electric assisted bikes in addition to data and safety and other provisions. I dont want to put words in my colleagues mouths but i think thats the source of concern youre hearing and maybe the right thing is what youve done which is whoever won it fair and square gets 18 months of stationless rights exclusivelity. Im not pushing back on that. Im pushing back on the one criteria, ebikes had to be apart of their application. If other folks didnt know that, that might be a problem in terms of a fair playing field. Okay. So supervisor peskin is somewhat correct. Its important to note you came to the decision in november and thats the same day the settlement was signed. Its almost like a cya move. In the same january 8 email it states jump was recommended for approval and i can show you i have a table to share with you on the same day the Settlement Agreement with reached with motivate. When did you and the team decide jump would receive the exclusive contract . And again, were talking about a memo the decision wasnt made on 11 27 and dated on january 8 and get approval for a jump. If i may let me try i feel like were getting the same questions and getting answer arent quite meeting the mark. So i want to reemphasize after the board of supervisors adopted the legislation to authorize the permit program the directors then approved legislation that laid out the requirement of the and this was all at the same time and i think up to six different applications one of which the first one in was the first one complete and the only one complete and then it was in the intervening time that because of the dispute resolution mechanism that was invoked with the contract the board of supervisors authorized the city to enter into with motivate and then dc that we arrived at the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement essentially what it says is that motivate will not object on the basis of their information of the excusivity provision in the contract exclusivity provision issuing a permit for ebikes for the others there. Our signing the agreement did not preclude us from issuing our permits legally. Its just an agreement acknowledging our ability to issue this oneebike permit not specifying who the provider would be without compromising the exclusivity clause. That was the resolution of the dispute resolution process that was invoked i dont remember fit was invoked by motivate or ntc. Throughout the process we were communicating closely with folks in the Mayors Office because the whole contract came about through the Mayors Office and approved by the board of supervisors. We wanted to make sure we were keeping in line with the policy intent of the motivate contact to be the regions bike share provider recognizing the industry had significantly change from 2015 to where we were in 2017. So the time lag from the signing and the authorization of the single permit and the notification to the rest of the providers that that was our intent to finalize our deliberations whether we wanted to issue just one permit or more and we were engage the mayor office and undergoing changes of this administration and thats the lag between the Settlement Agreement was approved and notified all the providers at the same time this was our intent. We did not have a requirement for ebikes at the start but after we approved the Settlement Agreement we decided the best panel with you to start slowly and modestly and it was the one permit application that was complete it was ebikes that distinguished themselves and the bikes locked to an existing bike rack and that was the basis and we notified the industry of that information all at the same time. Director, are you saying you did notify or communicate the decision to the people analyst in the queue. To everybody in the beginning of january. I actually now compared the december 11 and january 8 memoranda together. Do i have permission to do that . Yes. Theres one line thats different and the one line is so this is table one on page 3, summary of stationless bike share permit applications and theres a list of the six operators where they have an ebike, yes or no and locking mechanism, yes or no and the status and the one thing thats different is for the second one line bike it indicates on december 26, 2017, advise application was received. Was that substantially different than their original application from july . In other words, did they get a memo to be competitive they need to have ebikes . They made a number of changes to their application with the december 26, 2017 submittal. The data sharing they were suggesting a different way that wouldnt allow us to access the data. They were some of the lab testings related to the safety of the bicycles and insurance requirements they did not submit as well. It was revived substantially but still did not meet all requirements. Supervisor safai waiting patiently. Its been good to listen and have the Settlement Agreement in front of me. The real problem i have with all of this is it seems like it start started with an outcome you tried to back your way into it. This is the problem when have you an exclusive monopoly for one group and thats fine, that was negotiated 2015. But here we are very with one company with technology with removing from private spaces and since then the technology has changed rapidly and theres multiple companies doing this around the world not only in the public right of way but sidewalk. One question i have is how many of the other companies doing stationless bikes are electric . Currently zero. So theyve expressed an interest. According to the says settlements were made to theyll be competitive in the 18 month period. It doesnt seem to me, who i represent, which is the public, which is the people who put us in this seat. It doesnt seem like a good deal for the public but ford go bike and maybe the msnts but not the general public trying to gain access to bicycles. What i dont understand is if you had an intended outcome and wanted to choose one group why not have everyone apply and have a certain date and choose the company on the parameters you set but what i heard from colleagues based on information and other information provided to us you continued to adjust until you finally got to where you wanted to be. That does not seem fair to anyone, the public, other companies, other organizations, and then that gets me to my last point. Supervisor peskin and i put forward a Charter Amendment to put forward a way to deal with things exactly like this. It seems to me this was being driven by one branch of government to appease a contract before i was even on the board and now were faced with choosing and jump might be the right company. They might be the best one. They may be the one the public deserves to have and have access to but the process by which you got to this point does not seem defensible. Ive listened for 35 minutes, the same question was asked by all of us and all the answers should have been was no. Thats what the answer should have been instead we have different explanations to get to the point where you started at the conclusion you wanted to back into is what it seems like to me. And i understand have you an exclusive agreement with one company youre trying to avoid litigation but the sidewalks are the sidewalks. Maybe you need to litigate that and we need more competition and choice for the general public. We put forward a piece of