so, i'm supervisor katie tang, your new land use committee chair. >> vice chair for life. [laughter] >> all right. mr. clerk, do you have any announcements? >> yes. please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices. complete speaker cards and copies of any documents to be included as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. items asked upon today will appear on the february 18 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> all right. thank you, mr. clerk. can you please call the first item? >> item number one, establishing the gary masonic special use district in the area generally bounded by gary boulevard to the south, masonic avenue to the east and [inaudible] number 1071 lots numbers 1 and 4 to north and west. respectively. >> thank you. and i believe that you have assumed sponsorship of this item. >> thank you. i'm going to ask kaniska from mark ferrell's office -- sorry -- to say a few words and talk about continuing this item. >> on behalf of former supervisor mark ferrell. thank you for hearing this item today. we have been working with the neighbourhood and the sponsors of this project for over two years and we're looking forward to having it heard today. but we need to have amendments drafted to accept the planning commission's recommendations. unfortunately those aren't ready today so respectfully ask for a continue wants to next week's land use hearing. >> ok. thank you. and deputy city attorney, should we send you the language or would you like us to read into the record what we're asking for today? >> deputy city attorney, john gibner. it's really up to you. we're working with your office and the mayor's office on these amendments for next week. you can discuss them today. you don't have to and we will have something prepared for you next week to discuss and vote on. >> ok. let me just look at one quick thing. >> would you like me to go to public comment first? >> yes. why don't with do that. >> let's go to public comment on item one. seeing none, public comments closed. >> great. thank you. so, i'm just going to read what we like and then we can send it over to you. so we would essentially ask for increase of the required inclusionary housing requirement from 18% to 23% and broken down as follows. 10 pktz at 55% a.m.i., 4% at 40% a.m.i., 4% at 110% a.m.i. and 5% at 120% a.m.i. and then there's one last thing that i think we can talk about or that can be sent over regarding parking spaces. i think we were talking about four of the 16 off-street parking spaces be reserved for car share as long as car share service providers are able to provide services in those spaces. so we'll send you over the exact language. but the a.m.i.s, this is something that has been negotiated over the last number of months with the community and organized labour groups and the supervisor's office and staff and so this is the consensus agreement. so, we'll have that language for next week. so, when we do national convention amendment next week, it will be made for the first time and then we have to vote on it again or will we be introducing it for the first time in that form so we get an idea of the timing? >> you can vote on those amendments next week. the amendments will trigger a one-week continuance. so this item would be at land use next week and then the following week as well. >> ok. thank you. so i have nothing else. chair? >> all right. so i think there is a motion to continue, then, this item? >> yes. motion to continue this item. >> all right. we'll do that without objection. item two, please. >> that matter will be continued one week to february 5 is my understanding. >> yeah. next monday. >> february 5. thank you. >> item two, please. >> next on the agenda, item number two. removing the requirement that on-site is and off-site inclusionary units within a new development be ownership units rather than rental unit0'ser alternately that the sponsor project [inaudible] proposed off-site or on-site units are except from the costa hawkings rental housing act. >> thank you. supervisor peskin? >> thank you, chair tang. last year, the board passed a historic update to our inclusionary affordable housing programme as we all know and we worked on that and that set the highest affordable housing requirements in the country, including new levels for middle income housing. that local victory was followed in the last legislative session in sacramento by the passage of assembly bill 1505, also known as the palmer fix. which restores the city's ability to require on-site and off-site inclusionary affordable housing in rental housing projects without the need for the development to fit into an exception to costa hawkins in requiring a costa hawkins agreement. ab-1505 has been a long time in the making. i actually want to thank our assembly and senate delegation for supporting assembly member bloom's not only in this instance, but also in another critical housing measure. ab-1506. but ab-1505 rectified the loophole that has bound san francisco to a fee first requirement which has made the creation of on-site inclusionary, or for that matter off-site inclusionary housing a secondary option hindering what i think is all our policy goal, which is to encourage and incent as much on-site affordable housing in new developments as possible. with the passage of that bill, we now have the ability to condition development approval on the amount of affordable rental housing being built on site as long as developers are provided with additional options for complying with these affordable housing requirements make playing an in lieu fee or building the affordable housing off-site. given that ab-1505 went into effect 29 days ago on the first of this year, i introduced this legislation before you today which merely conforms our local inclusion nicer programme with these new palmer fix provisions. this went before the planning commission and mr. starr's memorandum which indicates that it was unanimously approved, albeit i did catch one typo where you referred to it as 1515 instead of 1505, i just want to let you know i read your memo, aaron. and we asked the commission also to consider minor technical amendments specifically to conform section 124. i would also like to make a motion to replace reference to the redevelopment agency in section 406. to ocii and departments of homelessness in support of housing which will be subsidizing 100% affordable housing in the future. the planning commission recommended approval and i'd like to make the following amendment as a result on page 13, section 124 sub 1, strike if any designated unit will be rental units, the project sponsor must follow the procedures in section 415.5 subg, sub2 as provided in that subsection, the planning director or director of mhocd may execute such an agreement under the terms specified in section 415g2 on line 16 is through 19. and then in section 406, 1b, and i have just put the language before you, is where -- is where the department of homelessness in support of housing and the office of community investment and infrastructure commonly referred to as ocii or any future successor agency to those listed herein. so subject to public comment, i would like to make those motions and help move our on-site, off-site affordable housing and rental property policy forward. >> any other comments? >> i'll ask my question. i'll ask my questions after. >> all right. let's open up item two to public comment. unless planning department staff would like the speak first? >> good afternoon, supervisors. carly grove, departments staff. nothing really to add, but to make myself available for questions. supervisor peskin gave a great overview. just want to reiterate that the commissioners unanimously approved the modifications to the inclusionary housing programme on january 11. so, i'm available for any questions. thank you so much. >> thank you very much. so at this time, we'll open up item two to public comment. all right. seeing no members of the public, then public comment is closed. supervisor? >> i just read through it further. i'm fine. thank you. >> all right. supervisor peskin? >> i would like to make a motion to send this item to the full board with recommendation. >> all right. and we'll do that without objection. item three, please. >> next on the agenda, item number three. ordinance including underground district 361 on second street from brian street to townsend street. thank you. >> thank you. and i don't see anyone from supervisor kim's office. but please proceed. >> all right. good afternoon, supervisors. my name is mike krieger, project manager, san francisco public works. i'm the project manager for the second street improvement project, which is in san francisco soma and financial school districts for markets to king street. i'm going to give a presentation about the project overall and then discussion about the reasons behind this undergrounding ordinance that we're proposing. second street improvement project has been a project since 2006 when it was identified as a priority in the san francisco bicycle plan. since then, san francisco public works and m.t.a. p.u.c., s.f. planning, cal-transand sfhwa have been working in partnership to get this project to move forward. we are currently in construction for the second street construction project. the major goals for the project are to improve safety along the corridor, provide a more attractive, pedestrian environment, provide a dedicated bicycle facility as identified in the san francisco bicycle plan and sa f.a.a. sill tate muni operations. -- facilitate muni operations. key elements include repaving second street from market to king street. curb ramp upgrades. pedestrian improvements, including widened sidewalks, traffic signal upgrade, raised crosswalks at all alleys, new bicycle facility, landscaping, streetscape amenities, including pedestrian lighting, trash ceptacles and utility undergrounding. the existing conditions of second street, this section that we're showing here shows the cross section from harrison to townsend streets where the undergrounding district is being proposed. the right of way 128 1/2-feet wide. so, part of the reason that we're proposing the undergrounding of the utilities on second sfraoet is due to the fact that in this segment, the sidewalks are 10 feet wide on both sides of the street. and we are going to be widening the sidewalks from harrison to townsend to 15 feet in order to match the existing cross section north of harrison. because we will be tearing up all of the existing sidewalks and much of the roadway -- i'm sorry. >> [inaudible]. >> sure. yeah. sure. sorry about that. because we are expanding the sidewalks to 15 feet on both sides from harrison to townsend street, we will be tearing up the right-of-way and part of the street to regrade the sleep slopes and the existing utilities from bryant to townsend, we found this would be a key opportunity to underground those utilities. and currently on second street, the eight-block stretch, there are only two blocks of overhead utilities existing. the rest of the overhead utilities on second street are already undergrounded. this section here shows the proposed final product of the street. you can see that the sidewalks would be widened to 15 feet on both sides. and we'll be putting in raised cycle tracks for bicycles that are buffered and then generally across second street, we'll be reducing the travel lanes from two traffic lanes northbound-southbound to one traffic lane northbound-southbound. in this rendering, you can see at second and south park, you can see there on the east side of the street, those existing overhead utilities. this is sort of an afterrendering and this was done prior to the utility undergrounding being identified as an improvement. the utilities are still there in that afterphoto. but you can see the sidewalks are widened, the cycle track and bus boarding goes to facilitate muni. this is another existing condition photo. here the sidewalks are 10 feet wide. this is near townsend street. and the after shows the widened sidewalk, the new cycle track. again, to implement this, we do need to tear up all the existing sidewalks and part of the roadway. so, it's an ideal opportunity to underground those utilities. so the ordinance that we're looking to pass encompasses the district between bryants and townsend street. this diagram shows the area going a little bit north of bryants street and that is because there's existing wires for the pg&e poles that go almost to stillman. and in this district, the overhead utilities service seven properties, six property owners, one property owner owns two buildings in this district. just going through the undergrounding process, from may of 2012 to may 2013, we held four major community outreach meetings. from that process, there was a request to underground these utilitis from the two blocks in question. in december of 2016, supervisor kim's office sent to affected property owners in the district. may 2017, public works held an undergrounding district hearing for this area. public comment received. there was only one property owner present to state that they were in favour of the district. in terms of responses from property owners that i've received personally, a lot have called with questions. however, they are generally supportive. i have not received comment from any property owners not in support. june 2017, the undergrounding district was approved by a public works director. in november of 2017, the undergrounding district ordinance was introduced at the board. in terms of project funding, the second street improvement project was approximately $20 million. we have a combination of funding source, including federal assistance from fwha to the 1 bay area grant which is processed by the escta. and we values prop-k matching dollars and eastern neighbourhood and district dpunlzing to fund the undergrounding costs we requested $2 million from the eastern neighbourhoods and received approved recommendation for those funds. and property owners would pay the cost for the conversion of overhead to underground service. i'll open it up to questions. >> thank you. i was just wondering, what is the timeline so it looks like per your funding slide that all the funding has been identified for the project. so, what is the timeline for actual construction beginning? >> so, as i mentioned, the project is under construction currently. we segmented the project into four segments. so right now, our contractor's working on second street from townsend to king which does not include any undergrounding as well as second from market to fullsome which also is already underground. so, the segment from bryants to townsend is not scheduled to begin until after the giant's season ends this october 2018. so we hope to begin the process of creating the new joint trench for underground utilities in october of 2018. >> so, what is the completion date for all of it? >> the entire project should be done approximately november 2019. >> ok. thank you. colleagues, any questions on this item? no? questions? >> i have a couple of questions. just from looking at your presentation, it -- this work is happening no matter what. so, the work is already happening. you are doing the improvements. is there any additional cost to the taxpayers for undergrounding or is it the adjacent property owners paying for this? >> there's no additional cost to taxpayers based on the undergrounding. again, the funding for the undergrounding and creating that joint trench is funded by those impact fees from eastern neighbourhoods. so, all costs outside of that would be provided by property owners for that connection. as i said, there's only seven properties. >> i get it. but my point is that if you chose not to underground, would you be saving $2 million of those impact fees and you could utilize them in another area? >> those impact fees would potentially be reprogrammed for some other use in the eastern neighbourhoods. >> right. so that is $2 million to do two blocks of undergrounding. >> correct. >> so, it is a cost to the taxpayers. >> yes. >> one way or another. $2 million. ok. >> thank you. undergrounding is very expensive. all right. so, with that, then, we'll go to public comments on item three. any members of the public who wish to speak? ok. seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, do we have a motion on item three? >> happy to send this to the full board with recommendation. >> can we take a roll call vote on that? >> ok. roll call vote. >> on the motion -- [roll call] the motion passes. >> all right. item three passes. thank you. item four, please. >> ordinance of the housing doed require that single stall bathroom facilities in hotels be made available for use of all residents, regardless of jenltszer and gender identity to require it be posted to indicate the same. >> thank you. >> hi. good afternoon. supervisor ronan couldn't be here today. but asked that i share her excitement about this legislation. which expands san francisco's all-gender restroom law to include hotels and most notably r.s.o. hotel. this comes out of the all-gender restroom law that supervisor david compost championed in 2016 requiring all public restrooms in san francisco become gender-neutral. since that law came to pass, we have seen it lead to all gender restrooms becoming the norm in restaurants, bars across the city. but in the past year, they have reached out the ask that the law be expanded to include [inaudible] as well. this change we're told could help community members feel safer and more comfortable in their homes. as you know, about 5% of san franciscans live in s.r.o. which are a critical source of our low-cost housing and many people share toilet and bathing facilities are other residents. . some s.r.o.s have started to use all-gender restrooms but there are a few who don't and this would make it a requirement across the board. people of all genders as well as disabled people with opposite gender care taenltzes and parents with chinser of other genders deserve to feel safe and comfortable in using a restroom so we ask for your support to create safer spaces. i wanded to thank our co-sponsors as well as mayor ferrell who just signed on as a co-sponsor and i wanted to thank everyone who's come out here today n particular a big thank you to jordan davies, a member of the s.r.o. task force and transgender disability housing advocate who has fought for this since day one. thank you very much. >> thank you for the presentation. and to supervisor ronan for bringing forth this legislation. colleagues, do you have any questions or comments before we go to public comment? supervisor peskin? >> i would like to thank jordan davis as well. >> great. and with that, perhaps we'll begin with public comments from jordan davis and any other members of the public who would like to speak on item four. >> i proudly serve on the city's s.r.o. task force where last year we voted to change in a housing code that would require single-use common restrooms to have gender-neutral signage. this is historic legislation before you today. although there are many s.r.o.s in san francisco and elsewhere in california and beyond. nothing like the was ever done before and this will set the standard for how future gender-neutral restroom laws are constructed as this is the first time it will cover residential setings as well as bathing facilities and i called for this after my own struggle with my hotel in the tenderloin as well as what i thought during outreach with the s.r.o. collaborative. and the department of building specs not being debate this under current laws. although my name is in the paper a lot in this, i want to thank you for bringing this to the public's attention. the and as well as all the transgender women of colour who inspire us to do better. thank you for all you do. in conclusion, i'm reminded of danica romm last month and how she talked about focusing on the boring stuff rather than her identity as a transgender woman. please pass this historic legislation. not only for women, the transgender, gender-varying intersect community and disabled community, but so i can focus on nuts and bolts issues for the health of s.r.o. tenants as part of my task force. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is claire. the mayor's co-sponsoring this bill and i'm here to share our support of this ordinance. and the support of all gender restrooms and s.r.o.s and hotels. as shared earlier, u.s. data has found that 59% of transgender respondents avoid bathrooms because they're afraid of harassment. every year, 14% of transgender people are harassed or assaulted when going to the restroom. all gender facilities address these concerns by being accessible to all people, regardless of gender or accessibility. in san francisco, we have begun implementing all t all-gender restrooms throughout the city, both for lease buildings, city-owned buildings, and public sector and public accommodations. and we know that this continues to be important for low-income housing as well. in conclusion, this is really a crucial for the community as well. as well as disabled residents who need easy access to the facilities. and we really want to share that in 2017, there's already been 19 bills introduced across the country to try to stop trans folks from using public accommodations so we're looing for san francisco to continue to be a model on these issues. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> [speaking in spanish]. >> interpreter: hello. my name is [inaudible] and i'm a volunteer at ms. rock. >> [speaking in spanish]. trep i am a transgender woman that lives in s.r.o. >> [speaking in spanish]. >> interpreter: the reason why i ask you to support this legislation for gender-neutral restrooms is because i have experienced harassment in the past. >> [speaking in spanish]. >> >> interpreter: and if i go to a men's restroom, i feel endangered and that's what happens there. >> [speaking in spanish]. >> interpreter: so i ask you to please pass this legislation so i can go to the bathroom in peace and just support our cause, please. >> muchas gracias. >> interpreter: thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> [speaking in spanish]. >> interpreter: hello. my name is [inaudible]. >> [speaking in spanish]. >> interpreter: and for being a transgendered woman, sometimes i'm criticized for using the women's bathroom. >> [speaking in spanish]. >> interpreter: but i also don't feel safe using the men's restroom. because i have breasts. >> [speaking in spanish]. >> interpreter: i feel like i can't use the men's restroom, either. >> [speaking in spanish]. >> interpreter: so a gender-neutral restroom -- >> [speaking in spanish]. >> interpreter: a gender-neutral bathroom would keep me from being harassed for using the woman's restroom and neutral-restroom would alleviate that problem. >> [speaking in spanish]. gracias. >> interpreter: that's why ask you to support this ordinance. thank you. >> hi, everyone. my name is tim. i work with the mission [inaudible] a programme and i'm here to support this ordinance. on behalf of the trans community and all, you know, blgts community, i whole heartedly believe in this bill. it's 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 don't 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 it's really great that we're doing this bill and i think it's 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 what's going on in those buildings and they're being regulated. so, i think it's a great start around, so i thank you for supporting this. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is kylie hoffmann. i'm the coordinator of youth development and administration for the san francisco youth commission. i'm 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 co-sponsor this legislation or at the very least to support it. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervise source. my name is honey mahogany. i am the co-founder 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 ronan's office. as a gendered, nonconforming person, i can speak personally to the dangers and discomfort of having to choose between a men's and women's bathroom. i think this is an incredible opportunity to address the days period of time theys that face gender nonconforming folks and trans-people 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 co-sponsors that you'll consider co-sponsoring 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 who's been involved in the queer community since the early 1970's, i'm extremely happy that it's 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, it's 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 40-something years, the reality is that there is still anti-lgbt violence in this country. and especially against transgendered women of colour. so, thank you for what you're 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 40-year 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. it's long overdue. and i want to double and triple what people have already said. this in some instances is a matter of safety, it's 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, you're living in a communal situation because of how things are set up. having gender-neutral 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 gender-neutral 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 it's twitter or burger king or mcdonald's or an s.r.o., i think it is imperative that gender-neutral bathrooms exist. thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is rosario cevantes and i'm here to support this legislation for gender-neutral and gender-forming bath room facilities in the s.r.o. i actually have a son who's a counselor and he works with homeless people in s.r.o.s. so, i'm 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. i'm in support of the gender-forming bathrooms here in san francisco. thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is luis camarillo and i'm in support of the legislation toward gender-neutral and gender-conforming bathroom facilities in the s.r.o. here in san francisco. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm 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 we're 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. i've experienced that myself being in a wheelchair having an attendant who is male. the looks, the comments, it's obviously very uncomfortable. and i know i only know the half of it as a transgendered woman. and so by making bathrooms all gender, we're 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 we're 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 didn't realise that s.r.o.s were not included so i'm 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. >> i'm 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 i'd like to be added as a co-sponsor. thank you. and i apologize for. that i'm 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 i'm 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, i'm looking to understand the criteria that was used to decide that jump bike was most complementary to motivate ford go bikes, also the city's bike share programme and truly the best option to use bike share as a mode of transportation. my office has received numerous e-mails and feedback from a number of bike share companies that were in the application and permit queue with m.t.o. and don't forget -- they feel two things. one, they didn't 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 i'm concerned by the suggestion that m.t.a. didn't 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 today's 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 it's 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. we've 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 roll-out programme in my district and other communities on what some consider to be the outskirts of san francisco, we won't get bike stations until the fall of this year. despite the programme beginning in june of 2017. so, i'm sure you can see why i'm 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 city's programme. i can't 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 there's been an unquantifiable, disinvestment in decent transportation access. and this has been going on for far too long. so, it's 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. it's 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 one's home, work and frequented places. they want to capture data and i'm 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 long-term 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 we're 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 i'm 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 won't 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. i'm not comfortable and i don't 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 we'll 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. it's 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 we're putting in the ground to safety education that we support. there is a number of things we're 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 we've 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. we've 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, we'll be here for any follow-up questions and public comments and we have others here as well as mr. parks to try to walk you through this. if i could, i'll 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 haven't 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 it's 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 there's 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 e-bikes to san franciscans and providing the time and data i'll 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 we'd 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 don't 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. there's 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. there's 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 they're 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 wasn't 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 one-time 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 we'll be evaluating but in terms of what will happen after 18 months, we really don't know until we see how the