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 didn't 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 don't

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 we're giving away the public right-of-way for 75% of the use but 25% for private use. unclear why that's 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? >> that's the last speaker. >> that's 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 it's a good idea of requires cars in all of the zones and we're trying to bring the idea in front of the public in all the zones. okay. let's get the cars and now you have the option to use the car sharing companies so i am 100% into the agreement with andy's 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 it's a pilot project we can change it in the future. >> yeah. i will admit that number is not completely arbitrarily but it's our best guess on a fair a percentage and why we're doing a pilot and to mr. hutchinson's 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 they're 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 car share 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 it's 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 chair's question or comments. first of all there was a lot of work that's gone

into this by the sf park team so i want to thank them for that. there are a lot of policy calls that we're making and developing in this proposal and you certainly have the ability to change, adjust, reject such as that the 75% number. honestly it's 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 don't 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 they're 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 that's a reasonable argument that maybe 75% is too low if we're going to confer this benefit to specialized use of the public right-of-way that maybe it should be higher than 75 so that's 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 it's 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 we're talking about here as mr. clemmons referenced and parking spaces and different structure than the one ways would use so they wouldn't 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. they're willing to pay. it's not a matter of free use of the public right-of-way, and without those -- requiring those specialized privileges they're welcome today to come

and use the city streets. they just would have to abide by parking regulations which i think frankly doesn't really work with their business model, so i don't think it was appropriate to include in this pilot because it's a different thing, but the reason why we're not bringing to you at this point a pilot with regard to them is a few reasons. one as far as we know it's 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 don't know that and we felt before we grant

special privilegeos the public right-of-way 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 it's 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. they're 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 we're 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

it's going to work with the city's policy and the goals and i feel we just don't 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 it's 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. (closed session).