about financing for the construction and all the other elements that will have to go into developing this proposal. as to the involvement of yellow cab, again, when these were separate grant proposals, better place went to the largest taxi companies in both san jose, which is also a partner to the better place grant because this will be a regional project for their switch stations both in san jose and in san francisco, so at that time, before we all got to know each other, better place went to yellow cab san jose and the yellow cab san francisco asked if there would be willing to partner with the project and be part of the local match and the the people who help them identify the drivers, help them operate the vehicle because better placed itself is a technology company, not a taxi company. better place has some history globally. in april of this year, it opened a temporary batteries which station in tokyo to see how that would operate, and apparently,

it has been a great success. the team is going to tokyo next week to follow up. they are also looking at installing facilities in israel, denmark, and australia. so this is a new technology. i do believe that it has good potential here in san francisco because these batteries which stations have a lifetime of potentially around 10 years -- these battery switch stations. the better place is going to go to vehicle manufacturers now and find out which vehicle manufacturer they want to work with to fill these special vehicles that would be able to be accommodated. yes, there are quite a lot of details to work out. once we became partners in this project, we talked about the best way to operate these vehicles, and i discussed with better placement going straight to one company is not necessarily the best answer. so the way that we are looking

at it, i have what may be a little bit difficult to read, kind of a tree of the anticipated contract structure at this point, but essentially, we already have an existing master agreement with caltrans. i think that will only require program supplements in this case. then, we will have operating agreements between the cities of san jose, but replacement corporation, and the sfmta, which is recognized as the lead agency, so we are the ones that are most visible in this project. in addition, but a place will have their own operating agreement as to where the battery switch stations would be located in the city of san jose and how those taxi vehicles would be operated within the city of san jose's system. that really has very little to do with us other than again, we are the single point of contact

for the whole grant program. we spoke with a better place. we have ongoing meetings now about how to go about operating these. we have identified at least two different potential scenarios, and i look very much to the model of the participants service program where they acquire vehicles and lease them out to paying subcontractors based on vehicles that were acquired through grant funds. i do not know if we will be able to get revenue out of the program, but we're working with folks in the industry to try to identify those opportunities. the two options are to either have a vehicle least directly to companies -- how we select those companies is yet to be determined. there is no reason to exclusively lock them into a yellow cab. the other opportunities,

standing in the shoes of better place to lease them directly to drivers who would operate them just as least taxi drivers operate vehicles today. the $900,000 local match -- keep in mind, again, we are the point of contact. that just means we disburse all of the grant funding available. so only about $130,000 a year is attributable to the element of the program that was based on our grant application, and about $700,000 a year is attributable to better place, so much of that local much money is coming from better place specifically, and the part we anticipate that treating is really based on staff time to administer the program. >> you do not anticipate anticipate -- you did not anticipate that sfmta will spend

hard cash on the program? >> that is correct. i do anticipate that i may need additional staff to monitor this, but we are talking about staff dollars as our local match. >> so if staff dollars are only local match, and we are going to be in a situation where these cars will be leased out to the company because they are not being paid for by the company's, are we in a position to recoup any of that staff money through leasing revenue on the car? >> i hope that that is a possibility, yes, but we are looking very closely at the economics of the situation, about the cost of operating the vehicles, the potential revenue. that is the discussion we are in right now with a better place. i would say that the issues that are really hot right now as far as decisions that need to be made are -- what site would we be locating these veterans with stations on within the city and county of san francisco?

and there is a very wide-based effort between the mayor's office, dpw, department of environment, the city administrator's office, and the sfmta to talk about what the possibilities are for a two or three battery switch stations. i hope to attract three of the four possible stations to san francisco. one of them to san jose because i think it would be a good working solution for us. as i said, these stations may have a 10-year life. even a battery technology goes in a completely different direction than this battery switch model, these stations can remain viable over a long time. >> ok, the final question is on a yellow cab. i believe i heard you say that while yellow cab is assisting

and is identified as an assistant entity by better place, that when we actually get into the process of deploying, there is no reason or anything in this resolution that would say yellow cab is the only company that could receive these calves, and its germination as to who can receive these cabs will be made at a later date? >> correct. director oka: would we be able to see these vehicles? >> the first element of the program is the niece on leased vehicles, and you can even test drive those vehicles at the san francisco auto show. the second half is the battery switch vehicles, and better place is still in negotiations with manufacturers, and they do not know what model will be ultimately use. however, i have encouraged them to look at the mv1 vehicle, and

they are meeting with manufacturers to see if that is a compatible model. director nolan: anything else on this? director beach: no, she clarified -- director lee: no, she clarified my questions. director beach: i still have concerns. the explanation is evidently that mostly labor, but with some cash, but still, the resolution commits us to spending $906,000. >> it is none of our cash. unless i miss understanding this. director nolan: they will provide $900,000 in non-federal funds -- director lee: i realize you have 1 million things on your plate in writing this, but it may just be wording. as i understand it understandsfmta -- as i understand it, sfmta is

basically the bank account. the pass through for $750,000 for a better place and $150,000 of our staff time. director nolan: exactly, so maybe if we modify it to reflect that. director nolan: ok, with that understanding, any other questions, members of the board? >> it is my understanding that there will be a modification to the resolution that stipulates -- and that at approximately $774,000 of the $906,000 local match will be coming from bright line -- better place. i'm mixing my company's up. and the remaining will come from ministry of staff support programs. director nolan: is there a

motion? >> you close public comment. it would be appropriate for a motion to amend. director nolan: is there a motion to amend the resolution as just stated? is there discussion? >> are there any problems with the amendment? director nolan: we have a motion and second to amend. all in favor? ok, on the amended resolution. >> sorry for the confusion. director nolan: we have a motion. no further discussion. all in favor? thank you. >> directors, that concludes your consent calendar. director nolan: 11 and 12 are fairly related items. we could conceivably take them together. why don't we call a 11 and 12 together. >> item 11, recommending that the board of supervisors of men transportation code division won by amending various sections to

establish a one-hour parking time limit for all broken or an operable parking meters under the jurisdiction of the sfmta. item 12, approving the amendment to division ii of the san francisco transportation code to set the parking meter rate range in parking meters on five between 25 cents and $6. you do have members of the public who wish to speak on this item. director nolan: mr. toronto? >> i would like to comment on item 12 -- >> hold on. barry toronto has already turned in a speaker card. >> good afternoon. as someone said, i guess i have a doppelganger tonight. what i would like to point out is i heard about this.

usually the time limit you have is the time limit on the meter, and a lot of the meters in the city are two hours. i think the issue is the center for one hour for all of them, it does not make sense because you are going to confuse the public, and if you are going to have protests because people are not going to know. if you adopt one hour, you should at least have a signed up at every meter, and a lot of them do not even have meters. you have to go to a station to put your money in, but that is broken, you should be told in big letters so you did not have to get reading glasses out to read that you only have one hour if the meter's broken. i think that it is only fair to actually go by the maximum amount of time and you can put money in for that particular meter. that is what makes sense. also, enforcement. i'm asking you today to do what makes sense rather than to

suddenly generate a lot of complaints later on. i'm surprised people are not here. it was not really well publicized. i believe i did hear a report on ktvs this morning. but does that mean warning the public that they only have one hour if the meter is broken? director nolan: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. we certainly want to support this. it is silly to give up this little bit of spare change, but it seems to us there is so much more to be done with parking meters, and you are working on it, and we will be helping you more in that area, but barry is probably right. this is going to be an enforcement issue, and it will only be nichols you will make on this. i also want to speak to 12. it is good to set the limit that speaks closely to set high

enough meter rates on the streets so people will go right into the parking garages, but i would like to speak a moment about the low side, the 25 cents. when you have muni buses, the adult rate is $2, and lord knows you will be raising it soon, why should the one hour rate be anything less than at least half of that? we have been talking for years about you keeping the one hour rate for downtown garages two fares, but may be out in some of the neighborhoods, one would be ok. $1 or $2 should be the minimum, not 25 cents. it is hard to imagine that this is going to save some business districts that do not have a lot of traffic, so do not even bother with it. >> herbert weiner is the last

person to turn in speaker card. >> i'm really concerned about the jacking up of the parking rates for the meters. normally, what i do is i take public transportation and use my car very sparingly. normally, it is for traveling out of town. when you start charging $6 for parking meters, you are really shaking down motorists, and they are not represented at this meeting at all. i really feel that this is very unfair to drivers. i also feel that this board is trying to get money wherever they can find it. basically, what we have is a pattern here. this board tries to extort as much money as possible and also

give less service. there has been a dramatic reduction in service since mr. ford came on board. there has also been a raising of parking fees. this resembles basically pg&e in a public body, and we have to remember, pg&e stands for predatory, greedy, and evil, so i'm categorically against the raising of these parking fees. i think lower income people will find it very inconvenient, and it is forcing people onto a public transportation system that is highly unworkable. get a good public transportation system in place first before you start jacking up the parking fees and penalizing motorists whose only crime is driving a car. director nolan: 11 and 12, can we take them together?

director heinicke: i just wanted to address those, and i wanted to go through this quick. on the broken meter issue, first of all, we have heard comments that there is no need to give notice on this meeting. we gave our usual notice. there were newspaper articles. i did not know what else we are supposed to do. second, there was concern that we have to let people know on the meters. as i read this proposal, there will be a decal on every meter telling of this policy. finally, there is concern that we are trying to raise money. the purpose of this is not to raise money. the money will be incremental. the purpose is to discourage vandalism to the meters. and my understanding this correctly? >> disgorgement of vandalism on the meters is one item because that is something that drives expenditure costs in terms of the thousands of meters that are vandalized on a daily basis. so there is an offset in terms of costs. secondly, there is an opportunity for greater revenue

because that spot will be turned over, less meters being damaged so we will be able to pick up incremental revenue, but that was not our original plan. >> right, and the one hour will only be from the time in which someone is chocked, so it will practically be longer. i understood that. i wanted to make sure members of the public understood as well. >> i have some concerns with 11. when you look at some of these two-hour meters, there are certain areas of the city that we have them, and i do not know whether it is more businesses and restaurants, and have we even look at the impact it will have in those areas? have looked at where the bulk of these broken meters are happening? we're just going to broad -- at any place that has a two-hour -- which is going to broad b rush it at any place that has a

two-hour limit. i'm going out there as -- let's say it is a restaurant, and i parked there, and i think it is a two-hour meter, an hour later, i get a citation, right? have we really looked at the impact of who we are impacting when we do this? part of it was i understand it would be consistent with enforcement, but that two-block radius is a two-hour area, so i do not see why it would be an enforcement issue then. director beach: i want to echo director lee's concerns on this issue. if someone drives to a doctor's appointment, and they figure is going to be an hour-and-a-half, they know there are two-hour meters on the street, after they get park, they say that the meter is broken, their doctors

appointment might not be over, so they go back into traffic and search for hopefully another broken meter. i will not be able to determine whether or not it is broken until i get into the part -- the parking place. i do not think it is an equitable solution. >> your solution would be that in the broken leader, someone gets the maximum length of the parking spot. >> that is correct. >> one of the challenges our parking control officers are facing is this different limits for different areas, and they are looking for some sense of consistency, and as we started doing some benchmarking around the country, we found that, at least in los angeles, there is no grace period at all had a broken meter. we are not going to the far extreme in terms of what some municipalities are doing in terms of parking at a broken leader. >> what about just having the decals that the meter is broken, the maximum time is the maximum

time for the meter? >> right. we looked at that, but the challenge with that structure is now the pco has the double back. in some cases, talking about two hours or more. they have to double back just for that one broken meter, so there are some inefficiencies in that. >> but they would have to do that anyway. director brinkman: i think the issue is adequately address with a decal on the meter. i think the current situation where a broken meter is a free pass for as long as the person wants to state is only impacting the business is because that is less turnover. even as we go to variable time frames for meters, it is - standing at the time limit will

extend in the evenings so that you are doing drinks, or dates, you will get to buy three or four hours on the meter, so i can see that being a problem with allowing you to at the broken meter because the time limit for the meter is not going to be static. >> that is one of the challenges going forward, that this policy is trying to reflect where we are heading in terms of utilization of parking spaces based on demand. director brinkman: i can actually see in a funny world of business realizing that a broken meter were someone only stays for an hour is a benefit for them because they get more turnover. >> i think mr. ford is correct. just a reminder that the area we

are heading towards is to vary the rates. that is why the second item, we set the floor and the ceiling so it is variable, to meet the market and demand conditions at the time. one other thing that we are getting away from is static time limits. in an ideal world, we would live -- remove all time limits and discharged by the hour based on demand. if that is -- and just charge by the hour based on demand. if that is the case, the uniform time in some areas may not exist anymore, so it is going to be difficult to convey with any sense of clarity to the public when the meter is broken that the limit applies because there may not be a limit at that time, or it could be a four-hour limit during certain times of the day. by having a uniform limit that applies when the meter is broken, i think that is a pretty

good compromise. the concern about some of those spaces not being available for certain types of usage -- it is kind of blend it in because those bases will turn over a little quicker, and that benefits the other spaces that are nearby, so there is other opportunities for the longer- term partners. director nolan: 12 is not very controversial. i think there is consensus on that one. though the house may be divided on 11. 11, is there a motion? is there a second? >> i have a question. to summarize the answer, the answer is you guys have to look at director beach pose a

proposal, and this is not one where you think we would benefit from further study. it is a decision where we are making a decision on what the fall that time for a broken meter is. director nolan: exactly. i think that a roll call would be appropriate. director beach: know. director brinkman: aye. director heinicke: aye. director oka: no. directors, the motion fails. director nolan: ok, item 12. >> should we have a discussion? if i'm getting the sense of the room, while the six of us do not agree on how to do it, i think the six of us agree that a broken meter should not be free parking until you land on marvin gardens or however it works. director nolan: could we bring

this back for revision? >> we will give a little more work and a little more rationale. director nolan: for both members of the board and a couple of members of public as well. [inaudible] [laughter] we just want everyone to be open-minded to the new information. >> mr. chairman, i think at this point, you to take a break and go into closed session. director nolan: ok, so we need 10 minutes. we will be back at quarter till. >> actually, it would be a corporate to invoke the -- vote to invoke the attorney-client privilege. director nolan: ok, we will

reconvene at quarter till. >> discussed labor negotiations -- the board took no action. there was discussion of a corporate action. do we motion to disclose or not disclose suspects -- to and not disclose? chairperson nolan: into for waiting. we had some significant conversations. >> item 13, authorizing it

executive director to execute the contract with the construction company, not to exceed [unintelligible] there is no member of the public who has indicated an interest. >> i will move the item. chairperson nolan: is there a second -- is there any further discussion? all done. good job. >> item 14, a warning a contract at union square market street relocation and authorizing the exhibit director to execute the contract with synergy management in an amount not to exceed $16.8 million and a term not to exceed 480 calendar days. no member of the public has indicated an interest in addressing you. chairperson nolan: there is a report on local hiring, right?

>> part of the presentation -- of was planning on giving the board our latest check-in on the local hiring legislation. i believe you are all aware you received packages on our communication with those, that we are putting legislation together and stating what our agency position was with the local hiring ordinance says it was moving at that time. we fully supported opportunities for the hiring local and small businesses. however, we conditioned our support with the federal and state laws that we are bound by with the founding partners we have. since then, we have gotten the draft legislation and had a chance to take a look at it, and were extremely pleased to see that we were heard, our voices were heard. they put language in the legislation