i understand in your presentation you said this is actually not the appropriate tool to address the question of seniors and people with disabilities and i'm sorry did you say which one is the correct tool and i missed it? or is that something we approach on a granduear level. >> exactly. through our service standards so for stops for example and one of the things the standards speaks to is go to a shorter stop spacing with grades or considering the adjacent land uses. it's part of the information that staff will prepare for you as you make decisions about service changes and it's also built into the outreach process, so for example we are looking to do a pilot of service improvements on fulton as part of the transit effectiveness project and one of the things we're doing is working closely with the senior center that's on fulton and 38th to make sure that our stop proposals work for their needs so we try to address a number of levels, both through your lens as you make policy decisions, but also through outreach and technical length as well. >> thank you. that's the only question i had. >> can i ask given the concerns that has been raised i see this as an exercise in community engagement and awareness building. you know one of the other things that was articulated in the letter from the bcdc they see stop consolidation as a way to speed up service or i can't remember -- reduce run times and i don't know that's necessarily the intent of the stop consolidation. from what i understand the intent is really make the system more efficient and to conserve resources so we can protect service that is threatened because of the current cost of operations, and i'm concerned that there's a lot of hype that's out there on the part of people that are blyoncerned about bus stops being removed but they're exploiting the idea with the intent of stopping it, but not being all together fully informed of what the purpose of things like this are for and/or other reasons, so i am concerned that a lot of folks don't understand title six. you're right. it's very complicated, but i'm also very concerned about an organization like the bcdc which is a pretty amazing organization with respect to their capacity to organize seniors, people -- particularly minority populations. i wish other communities had such an organization like the bcdc advocating for them, so the letter this morning that we got this morning raised a few concerns for me that i am wondering if we have the time to address -- if nothing else to do the due diligence of a conversation to help them understand what is at stake so they're not making statements like they said in that letter. like i said earlier i have a lot of respect for that organization because nobody organizing that demographic better but if they have concerns what about the other communities we haven't reached out to and a level they can reach and a little misinformed or uninformed, so can i ask specifically what is the price or the problem with bringing this back after you've had more due diligence of a conversation with the c cdc to make sure this conversation has been resolved? >> i don't see any immediate concern with continuing the item. the vulnerability is that we are not going to be able to make major service changes or fare changes until you as a board adopt these policies because the previous circular requirements are no longer applicable after last april so we're in kind of a transition period where we don't have these policies on the books, but i also don't anticipate in the next several weeks any fare service changes coming up, so there would be a concern with sort of a longer term continuance of the item, but there is nothing in the short term that requires immediate action. >> yeah, and the reason i am particularly concerned about this with the tep and the -- what we're going to need to do to increase efficiency and really make our system work to keep the service where it needs to be it has to be a very sensitive conversation and this title six work is the place for that, or at least initiating that conversation and i think it's important that people understand fully what we're trying to do when we do service changes and i would error on the side of being more conservative with a situation like this. the title six work particularly with my understanding is expressly work out with communities under represented and typically don't have a voice and while seniors are vulnerable most seniors are more active than the majority of us and they have more time and can get engaged but there are non english speaking communities and people aren't inclined to participate in processes like this that you know they're harder to reach, and so it might take a little more time, so if we have the time i would ask that we continue it unless there is some reason to expressly move this thing forward in a way that can't take into consideration the things that have been raised. >> members, thoughts? >> honestly so i disagree respectfully. i think those points are -- obviously we want to be careful and sensitive when we make service changes. i think you have done a tremendous job with the policy and well thought out. i am the first person to have persons with disability it is represented with the service change but i think you're right. this isn't the tool for it. this sigh specific tool to comply with this. >> >> federal law and specific to what population its encompasses and i am comfortable with it the way it is and we continue to work on the other mechanisms to make sure the other populations are included at the table with policy changes but i don't see this as part of this tool but i am comfortable moving forward. >> i have a lot of respect for director ramos and he has a lot of experience doing outreach in the communities and i take your concerns very seriously. do you feel that we can address those concerns? are you confident? i mean you have done a lot of work on this. are you confident going forward we can address the concerns of the community and we can make this clear and we can really get the input and the message out that we need to? >> we had initially reached out to c cdc. i speak to cindy wu personally about four weeks ago to engage them in the process so i am really glad they provided feedback. it's unfortunate we weren't able to sit down with them in advance. i do think that some of their questions about wanting to make sure there is clear language around the disparate impact disproportionate burden policies we could easily address it and it's prescriptive in the circular. there are other things they're recommending like -- for example, expanding the analysis that i think we could try to do our due diligence to explain but i don't think that the calendar item that we are bring being back to you would be substantially different. for example, one of the things that they request is that rather than having 25% definition for a route change that we reduce it down to 10% that. is on the order of going from a nine minute headway to eight minute headway which i again would strongly argue is incremental schedule change to address crowding on a route or address where we don't see crowding on a route, so i reviewed these comments carefully this morning and i think there are important issues that we need to proactively engage with c cdc and others like stop consolidation but i don't think that the staff recommendation would be substantially different coming back to you. >> okay. >> well, given this afternoon we only have four members here and takes four votes to do something. the question to you director ramos and can you go along with this and outreach continue after this or you want it back and not the support for it we have to do that. >> well, i think there could be changes to the resolution that have been thought about or to the language that could be added to address some of the concerns that i raised if staff would feel it's appropriate, and i'm sorry i don't have copies, but it's a couple of whereas phrases they would add to the language that -- not whereas phrases, but phrases that would be added to the disparate impact policy clause, package of major changes along routes and cumulatively and service changes collectively and negative evaluated collectively as well, so there are things to tighten up that i could submit for review or to be adopted as well. i don't know what the specific process would be if i have to make copies of it right now and get everybody looking at it, or do i have to articulate it? >> i think when we do any kind of amendments we do need to have language prepared for; right? >> i think there needs to be clarity exactly what would be different. >> okay. so if folks can bear with me i am happy to read that off what i think is good for the policy to be included, and it would be on the -- let's see on the first -- i'm sorry, on page two under the first set of bullets and sfmta staff recommends that the disparate impact policy be adopted by the sfmta board of directors -- >> where are you? >> page two. the second whereas on the page. >> thank you. disparate impact policy specifically. >> i'm sorry? page two of the staff report? >> no. of the resolution. >> of the resolution? okay. >> disparate impact policy a fare change or package of changes or major service change or package of changes deemed to have disparate impact on minority populations if the percentage of the difference between the population impacted by the changes and the percentage of the minority population system wide is 8% points or more and so the specific language for the board to consider adding packages of service changes across multiple route it's. >> could you speak slower? >> of course. i apologize. package of major service changes across multiple route will be evaluated cumulatively -- >> hold on. >> will be evaluate cumulatively with poz service changes evaluated collectively and negative service changes -- >> hold on. >> sorry. >> positive service changes evaluateed collectively. >> yeah. and negative service changes evaluated collectively -- >> hold on. i can't type that fast. >> packages of fare increases will be -- >> packages of fare increases. >> across multiple fare instruments. >> yes. >> will be evaluated cumulative ly with fare increases evaluated collectively and fare -- >> evaluated -- >> collectively and fare decreases evaluated collectively. >> i think this is getting a little too involved doing it like this. if we have a motion to approve this as the staff recommendation and a second then we can go forward and come back to it, or we can postpone it for a couple of weeks or something. what's the pleasure of the board? >> i will move to approve. >> is there a second? >> yes. >> okay. we have a motion and a a second to approve as is, right? >> i am supportive of director ramos' comments -- >> this is really -- >> understood. >> we have a motion and a second on the floor. all in favor say aye. opposed? >> no. >> the motion fails. next item. >> mr. chairman at this point you may wish to revoke the point and continuing the entire matter to the next meeting so issues can be addressed and returned to the board. >> another public hearing about it. is that the idea? is that what you're saying? >> yes. flrd to bring it back you need to bring back because you technically vote today down and more appropriately to rescind the vote and continue the matter to the next meeting. >> okay. is there a motion to rescind the vote? >> motion to rescind. >> all in favor say aye? okay. we will take a 10 minute break and be back in two weeks to continue this item. >> item -- >> we're taking a break. >> okay. 13. [inaudible] adopting the car sharing policy and car sharing program and amend the definition of car sharing policy and for the permit program, establish that the applicable fee is based on a location, the parking space within one of the car share permit fee zones to define the boundary of the fee zones require that vehicles must be available for rental at least 75% of the time in the month and car share vehicles and amend the section for vehicle permits. >> thank you. good afternoon. >> good afternoon chair nolan and directors, mr. reiskin. i've lot a very brief presentation for you this afternoon. there are copies for the public if you would like to see them. i will move quickly but please interject if you have questions and i am available for questions afterwards. what is before you this afternoon is this, the adoption of a car sharing policy and consolidate and clarify the policy that we have in a lot of place frs car share. to expand the two year pilot of on streetcar sharing and amend the transportation code to support the expanded on street pilot program. you probably know pretty well the proven benefits to traditional car sharing. academic research has repeatedly shown the benefits on this slide and reducing ownership rates by some estimate a car share vehicle takes as many as 15 cars off the road and reducing greenhouse gas emissions and people driving less, reducing transportation budgets and it's expensive to have a car and it's good for household economies and it's been shown over and over again folks who are care share members walk and bike and take transit more so these are all pretty good things for this agency and the city. we these days have more than one sort of car share. there is the traditional car share and we know about zip share and operating in the city and we have peer to peer and an individual has a car, doesn't use it much and has facilitated using that car share and rely road is one of the companies in that category. we have a share program and they drop it off wherever and you don't have to drop it off where you picked it up and we have two organizes in that category. the sfmta has established off streetcar share program. the agency has offered spaces at lots and garages for 10 years now. about 80 spaces in 19 of the agencies lots. pretty good relationship. we're actively meeting with car share organizations and they're actively pursuing expansion of other services in the off street program. on street offers some benefits that off street doesn't have. the off street spaces are not in the best location. depending where you live you maybe blocks away from the car or pod is. off street locations are disappearing as development takes place in the city. this is mostly a good thing. as surface lots become housing and retail and commercial those car share sites go away. there are approximately 281,000 on street spaces in san francisco so there is a big supply of on street parking if you go by that measure in any event and by utilizing these spaces we can expand car sharing and increase visibility and distribution and increase the total number of spaces and ensuring the number of available parking spaces in the long-term. the mta did an initial pilot. members of the board will remember that and beginning in fall 2011 working with this board and the board of supervisors. changes to the transportation code were made to facilitate that pilot and the city administrator's office, city car share and supervisor offices were all engaged with that and select the spaces. here is what one of the pods looks like. it's valencia at 17th and it's still there and you can share out of it and reserve it. pods are locate audio these are out there in 12 locations in the city. in the initial pilot these came forward in three waves but ended up with 12 locations. the lessons that we learn friday the first pilot first. >> >> on street pods are feasible and utilized if they're in high demand areas. enforcement is an issue. as you imagine once we take a space and dedicate it to car share it doesn't mean someone else won't park there and like the pod i showed you on valencia street and attractive parking there and it was a bit of a challenge so enforcement is critical. marking the spaces is important. making them very evident as car share. official areas are very visible, successful but again the enforcement challenge. a broad base of political support is necessary for spaces to be approved. we're talking about on street parking and arizona i haveuous. >> >> and support this is we're having conversations so that support is essential and outreach is key. so we're coming to you today with a proposal for an enlarged expanded on street pilot which will involve and you've seen in your packets refining the permit requirements and fees that are memorized in the transportation code. this is proposed to be a two year pilot starting, if this board is so pleased, more or less immediately we will begin to move in on this and go on the next couple of years with the pilot. we're going to go in a rules based fashion. this isn't a competitive rfp type of thing but by defining what a car share organization is and the terms of participation we are inviting any car share organization present their credentials, make their case. if they qualify they are permitted to participate but they also have to commit to some other conditions. we will come to those in a moment. i have to correct the slide. it says up to 150 spaces per year. what we're proposing is up to 900 spaces and 450 the first year and 450 the next year and depending how many car share organizations join us we will take that and a lot that up. if we have five organizations doing it there are less spaces but there are more spaces overall. we will look at the outreach efforts and won't wait until two years to make adjustments to the outreach that we're asking the car share organizations to conduct. here are the car share organization requirements in summary. participating car share organizations will have to make their vehicles available at hourly or less increments only. this is not car rental. we don't want folks representing out cars for a week or a month from the on street pods. these have to be an hour or less increment. can you take it for three hours. >> >> but not the weekend. vehicles must be available at least 75% of the time. this is in response to the fact that we are facilitating or inviting peer to peer operators to operate and there is an understandable apprehension that -- again let me explain the peer to peer notion. i own a car. i drive it a little bit. why not let people drive it when i am not using it? it's a great idea. maybe 10, 12, 20 families can use my car. many might get rid of their car but we're sensitive to the notion these spaces are valuable and important asset for the city and this agency is a custodian of that trust and we don't want someone to rent their private space and share their car a little bit. we want to make sure if they're participating as a car share vehicle their car is truly shared so we put that floor remains to be seen and why we're doing the pilot whether 75% is the right number. we will watch that very closely. all participating car share organizations have to have an outreach plan to reach new members. they're going to have to report back to the agency regularly on activity and that outreach work. we will watch closely and after nine months we will advise on adjusting that outreach. car share organizations are going to have to provide a lot of data to agency and the length of the trips and time of day and really want to know how this works and we're surveying members to find out do they intend to buy another car? do they intend to sell a car? do they walk more or less? that kinds of stuff. geographic equity is a big concern. in the first pilot initially sort of in the northeast quadrant of the city our districts wanted access to this service so more pods were established. this time around we're trying to establish to this need to distribute car share service across the city in two ways. first we divided the city into three pieces and on the map there is northeast and downtown and middle tier and outer belt and sunset and richmond and southern and eastern neighborhoods and bay view and hunter's point. car share organizations that want to participate will ask us for spaces. actually they will prepare a list of spaces they would like. i don't bore you with the process but car share organizations are going to be present in all three of the zones and we set floors for the outer zones to make sure there is a presence in the middle and outer partings of the neighborhoods in the city. we we have inventivizing with the permits and the permit fee in zone one is $225 and the monthly permit in the middle zone is 150 and in the outer zone it's 50 so can you get many more permits out in the sunset per month than you can on russian hill and we're hoping between the presence and the incentivize price we draw car share to all neighborhoods in san francisco. designating on streetcar spaces -- needs not to read through every step. this is like anytime we red curb and we will bring it to your board for approval. that is a challenging process. with 900 spaces over two years our intent is to come forward with a small batch, initially perhaps 100. i say small but it's still quite a few and not do 450 spaces all at once and nevertheless we will be del gent and thorough and bring the spaces forward as quickly as we can. evaluation of the pilot. at the conclusion we will of course look over what we collected for data with special attention to mode shift, ownership, perceived by the customers. is it beneficial and served the goals of the agency and the city? we will consider a recommendation to make this into a permanent thing. it seems to us that this is a good idea but that's why we're doing a pilot and at the conclusion we will gather up the evidence and bring y

Related Keywords

Arizona , United States , Russian Hill , California , Bay View , Valencia , Carabobo , Venezuela , San Francisco , Cindy Wu ,