We will of course continue to evaluate one way car share for a future facilitation or pilot. Again one way will not be in this pilot. We are not facilitating one way car share right now but were interested and will continue to look for ways to bring it forward and in summary were here to propose this to are for your consideration. If it pleases the board and you approve it at the end of the month we will have a call for qualifications and invite interested car share organizations to present their credentials, sign on their commitment to participate in the pilot and finalize the group of the car share organizations and turn them lose on the neighborhoods. Tell them to go forth. Make up a list of spaces theyre interested in. Its going to be quite a shopping spree. They will go across the city and bring back to the agency a list, a electronic spreadsheets with latitude longitude information and so forth and we will begin complying a list of spaces and begin bringing that through outreach and clearance so thats the presentation. If you have any questions i am happy to answer them. Thank you very much. Very fine presentation, comprehensive. Any members of the public to speak. Yes chairman there are members of the public. Okay. [calling speaker names] okay. Good afternoon. Hello. My name is doory ellis and i manage the marketing for San Francisco bay area zip car. Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here this afternoon and demonstrate our support for the on streetcar sharing pilot and thank you to the mta staff for your hard work and delcasion to this pilot. As mentioned the on streetcar sharing Pilot Program has many advantages for communities. It provides alternate forms of transportation to residents who live in communities that are under served by buses and trains, and the extension of Transportation Options will reduce Household Budgets and increase economic reinvestment into those communities, and also a reduction in Greenhouse Gas and other emissions through fuel efficient vehicles with low emission profiles. We are excited to participate in the on Street Program and funding from private funders is barrier to entry in partings of the city and now zip car can place cars in those communities that were otherwise under served and thank you very much again for the opportunity to be here. Next speaker please. [calling speaker names] howard straussner. See everything is connected to parking and i want to speak in support of this and point out there are other locations with my earlier testimony. These modes or pods or whatever should be located through the brt and these people see the transit the soon scpeft get rid of their cars first and located at transit points where transit comes together so people can get to some of the places by transit, and i am sure when zip car and car share look they will find those kinds of places. I want to now show you parking today. This is my enemy but also i became a subscriber to this by one of the parking directors way back before you were formed and they have an article here about the future of parking and theyre talking well, dont build so many garages because young people arent choosing to own cars and you are seeing this and all kinds of things and one statistic in boston the population went up 15 and the amount of cars went up 5 so that kind of thing is happening. This is very timely youre looking at this kind of thing and of course you have the right to do all this stuff. Im a little afraid though and you throw out the big numbers. The natives get upset. Theyre already threatening to go to the balet. Go careful and very slow and the other thing i have to say if youre going to change these people, the car share people 200 a month or so how come youre giving parking places a way for 100 a year and we will talk about that in my future leg lectures. This is craziness. You can fill the car share things. And the brts. They work both ways and reverse the death spiral we had for years and make the improvements. I am excited about this. Thank you. Alex clemmons followed by rich hutchinson. I am Alex Clemmons and representing car share around the country and we have been working with staff and bring you uptodate what the valley this brings. In. San francisco we are mature and we know that the availability of car sharing reduce car ownership. My understanding that the reduction in car ownership is one of the biggest things we can do. On Street Parking is complex. Weve heard that people dont like spaces going away and andy discussed the fact that a broad base of support is necessary to look at these 900 spaces that maybe reserved for cars. With one way car sharing you dont need to go through that process and the broad base for political support. Spaces are used by everyone. Theyre not segregated for car sharing or private vehicles only. One way it increases the availability of cars because the round trip requirement to put the car back is eliminated so they go put the car away and later on when heading back or to a new location take a new car out. One way doesnt require mandating geographic equity and we want city wide car sharing because of density differences in San Francisco isnt what we have today. With one way car sharing there is no fixed signage, Parking Enforcement. There is flexibility for mta. No costs on signs and no enforcement on the fixed locations. We are priced like the other organizations and willing to pay fees to the city to use the citys rightofway and provide the data mta wants and ready to go within six months. You wont have 900 fights over 900 spaces. You have one option to make care sharing available to all San Franciscos. If you have questions i am happy to answer them. Thank you. Rick hutchinson and hes the last person that turned in a speaker card. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Rick hutchinson and the ceo at car share. I to thank the board and the staff for this opportunity and many did tremendous work over the last couple of years actually. Overall we think this is a good and thoughtful policy and i would like to talk about what we think is fantastic in it but i only have three minutes so i will talk about some concerns. Let me give you some background. We did the initial pilot and established it and funded it. We provided learning and information over time. We tried to meet to the initial pilot several goals. The goal was to determine what worked and what didnt with on Street Parking. The second goal was more of a medical. The idea of improving the environment, reducing the dependence on car and helping the city to reach its objectives to the bills and we believe some of the policy aspects dont help reach those goals and the first issue is the 75 monthly availability requirement. The second is the zone ratio mandate requirement, and the third is parking tickets and Parking Enforcement policy. So let me jump into it. The 75 monthly availability requirement is unclear to us why the city requires cars 75 of the time. Around the world, worldwide car sharing 24 by seven. Here were giving away the public rightofway for 75 of the use but 25 for private use. Unclear why thats something we want to do. Zone ratio mandate. This requires 15 of all cars to be zone three and zone four to get the high demand spots in zone one. We think this is a bad solution the time is up but you can quickly tell us the third point. Okay. Third point is parking tickets and Parking Enforcement. Effectively during the initial pilot we spend over 20,000 in parking tickets and parking and towing charges. Thank you very much. Next speaker . Thats the last speaker. Thats one there. First name mr. Gill or ms. Gill. Okay. Good afternoon. Hi good afternoon everyone. I am deb gill. I am representing Herz Corporation and i like the idea and if a customer is picking up from one place and returning to another you know that zone three will get the cars and a big factor andy came up with the idea of round trip versus one way. Another thing that was pointed out to my attention is the 15 requirement because obviously end of the day we are in the business, all of the Car Sharing Companies so everyone is looking to get more spaces in zone three sorry [inaudible] [inaudible] yeah, the most populated, the highly demanded location are the zone so its a good idea of requires cars in all of the zones and were trying to bring the idea in front of the public in all the zones. Okay. Lets get the cars and now you have the option to use the Car Sharing Companies so i am 100 into the agreement with andys presentation here and yes we are here to bring the car sharing idea, reduce the Carbon Footprint and reduce car owning expense per household here. Everything is expensive so anything to minimize the expense will be a great idea. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else care to address the board . If not what is the pleasure of the board . Is there discussion on this. One question and that is 75 availability number. How quickly quickly how did we get to that . And since its a Pilot Project we can change it in the future. Yeah. I will admit that number is not completely arbitrarily but its our best guess on a fair a percentage and why were doing a pilot and to mr. Hutchinsons point and how we put that 75 across 24 hours it could go different ways so we are watching that closely and standing nearby to the peer to peer groups that come in and theyre truly sharing the cars and again that 75 is our best professional guess. There are ways to argue that in either direction and we will definitely reconsider that as we go. One last point and the one way car share i would like to develop a pilot for that and funny how something is familiar and cashare and that parking spot is familiar and i totally understands how that works and i can see one way share do well and a group not doing the traditional car share and i would like to develop a pilot this year to get something going for that and i really think its going to work and be popular. Director reiskin, do you have a comment on that . Yeah. Maybe a few general ments and speak a little bit to the vice chairs question or comments. First of all there was a lot of work thats gone into this by the sf park team so i want to thank them for that. There are a lot of policy calls that were making and developing in this proposal and you certainly have the ability to change, adjust, reject such as that the 75 number. Honestly its somewhat arbitrarily. One of the big policy calls was whether to include the peer to peer car Share Companies. The traditional car Share Companies come with a body of independent Academic Research that supports them, their model as achieving the goals that are consistent with our Strategic Plan of mode shift and reducing vehicle miles traveled, reducing auto use. The peer to peer models dont have that. However, there are certain versions of the peer to peer models that basically act the same as a traditional car share model, so we were willing given that to the extent that any of them can meet those conditions such as theyre open to everybody, there is not a physical key exchange required, some of the technology that the traditional car share firms have had for some time. We felt it reasonable to include them. The big concern that was mentioned was basically allowing somebody to purchase a parking permit for their private automobile; hence the requirement for a percentage. I think thats a reasonable argument that maybe 75 is too low if were going to confer this benefit to specialized use of the public rightofway that maybe it should be higher than 75 so thats something the board could consider in approving this and possibly amending that. The other problem and a number of other calls in terms of the geographic equity requirements, both the hard requirements as well as the pricing requirements is something while we want this this to be Market Driven as possible but we need to generate the markets and one of the big pieces of feedback we got from the pilot was the lack of geographical equity and we were arguably heavy handed trying to force the equity but its important to San Francisco and i think there are folks in the outer neighborhoods that could benefit from the car sharing and outside of the traditional demographic that we really want to work with any participating companies to really outreach to and bring into the fold and give them the benefits of reduced car use that those in the denser areas of town have. Probably the biggest policy discussion that we had was about the one way car sharing. I guess a few things to say about that. One is that the model were talking about here as mr. Clemmons referenced and Parking Spaces and different structure than the one ways would use so they wouldnt really fit in this pilot. The question for them what they need for their, model to work is they need exemptions to parking regulations such as Residential Permit parking and parking meter time limits. As he indicated we met with him and the firm he reports and the other firm. Theyre willing to pay. Its not a matter of free use of the public rightofway, and without those requiring those specialized privileges theyre welcome today to come and use the city streets. They just would have to abide by parking regulations which i think frankly doesnt really work with their Business Model, so i dont think it was appropriate to include in this pilot because its a different thing, but the reason why were not bringing to you at this point a pilot with regard to them is a few reasons. One as far as we know its not independent research to validate the benefits that result from traditional sharing would result with one way car sharing. One could argue intuitively that one way sharing could increase auto use. I think they make strong compelling arguments like traditional car sharing it would decrease auto use, auto ownership but we dont know that and we felt before we grant special privilegeos the public rightofway we would like to see more independent evidence that it would achieve those benefits. We also have some concerns about what is happening in the kind of unregulated one way transportation space right now in the city; how its impacting the taxi industry, and if this would be yet another substitute for taxi service which is a gap that we are working to fill in terms of one way transportation in an automobile, so as andy said in the report we absolutely want to continue evaluating. We have been talking to the representatives from these companies. We would love to see some independent research. I believe at least one of the firms is working with some academics to do research on a pilot in san diego. We await those results. There is the other drive now is currently in San Francisco. Theyre using an off street model. We welcome any research they could provide, independent research, and i guess finally for their Business Model to work i believe that they really need a Critical Mass of vehicles, so there is not really an easy way to do a small scale pilot with the first phase with traditional car shares spaces. This is hundreds of additional vehicles coming into the city so that is another factor were weighing, so i guess in short we want to continue gathering information from them, particularly independent research, but would be more comfortable bringing the recommendation on the one way once we have dat it to support its going to work with the citys policy and the goals and i feel we just dont have that yet. Other members of the board . I have one little thing. Okay. Thanks. This is a great presentation. I am super excited about this pilot. I have to ask. I am wondering as we move forward and engage the car share organizations there has been any headway in terms of getting accessible vehicles for car share so not necessary i realize a van is far off for me but for other people that need a lift or Something Like that and something simple to make it accessible to a bigger part of the community here so as we move forward. I understand its not part of this project yet. Director, an excellent point and we will take that and inform the pilot as we go forward. I am sure some of the organizations are offering that and we will look at that going forward. Anyone else . Motion to adopt. Second. Motion to adopt . Director ramos; right . Yes. Is there a second . All in favor say aye. Opposed . Thank you very much. Item 14 and the executive to execute an agreement with alstrom transportation to provide supplies for option of two years and up to three additional threes and not to exceed 39,158,000. There chairman there are no members of the public to address you. What is your favor . Motion to approve. Moved and seconded. Item 15 is whether to conduct closed session. Motion to go to closed session. All in favor say aye. All right. Mr. Chairman thank you. It will take me a moment to if everyone is behaving themselves. Mr. Chair were back in open session. Item 16 the mta board to discuss the theodore glaza matter and to settle the matter and authorized a payment for the total compensation in the non movable fixtures and equipment resulting in the condemnation of property on stockton street. Directors appropriate for a motion to disclose or not the information in closed session. Motion. May have a motion . Motion and a second. The ayes have it. Okay. We are adjourned. That concludes the business before you. Thank you. Test, test, test, test, test, test, test, test test good afternoon. Welcome to the San Francisco board of supervisors meeting of tuesdays july 16th. Madam clerk please call the role calling names mr. President , theres a guy named mary over here. My apologizes laughter mr. President , all members are present. Thank you. Im glad all of us are here and laij can you join us in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Colleagues we have our june 11th Board Meeting can you have a motion to approve those minutes arrest without objection. Madam clerk any communications i have none items one through 11 are routine. Colleagues would any one like to sever any of those items. On items 1 through 11. Supervisor yee calling names there are 11 yes, sir, is. Madam clerk call our proposed budget for f y neo 13 to fourteen and fourteen to 15 this is prostrate all the budget items and this is the annual budget and a appropriation ordinance. Item 14 is a resolution approving the treasury Border Authority and this is for the office of community and sfoo san in a principle amount not to exceed 26. 13 million and the next item is the certification that the projects can be performed by Similar Services from contractors if lower and madam clerk why dont you call the other items 20 through 37. Item 20 is the ordinance praufrl and authorizing a lease between the city and the boo tangible gardens in Golden Gate Park in a two terms admissions and waving the fee for certainty entities. Item 21 is an ordinance amending the code revising the city administrators fund for a Memorial Fund in cultural endowment fund. Item 22 is the ordinance amendment the videodisk fees and scanning the reproduction foists for the city purposes. And this is to delegate certain decision of shutter bonds and this is to modify when the controller is to conduct varies budget. Item 25 is the ordinance amendment the Administration Code for the public Payee Services to 39. More and this is to amend the code to adjust document fees and adding a fee for new services. Item 27 amending the code to create a Library Gift Fund and item 28 is an ordinance to remove certain allocations of the hotel tax. Item 29 is an ordinance to amend the fire code for certain Fire Departments fees and the next is to set the rate