>> next speaker, please? >> hi, i'm here to support the ne venture for bicyclists. we have each of those companies, blazing saddles, bay city bikes, and bike and rosm they've been our advertisers for the last several years or so. i can't tell you how much our readers love them. very popular. there's never been any problems with them, no safety concerns. they're all thriving right now. so it is very popular. our business headquarters is at union square at st. francis. so i'm around there all the time. and right now, mason street, there is blazing saddles. that's a couple years old now. and so i see the bicyclists

there, which seems no problem. they have their maps, they know where to go. they don't stay in union square. they use the bikes to explore the city. i commend them for coming together and bringing this so our tourists. it's going to be a great thing. it's very congested with cars and the public walking around, but these are bicyclists. so they can get on the bikes and go and explore other parts of the city. i hope you do support them in this and i thank you. president buell: thank you. >> craig, suzanne, brian, january -- janet, christian. >> i am with classic cable cars and ride the ducks in san francisco. both in fisherman's wharf. i approve as well. i echo the statements.

these guys have been great community leaders, and our business has been involved in san francisco for over 50 years. and i am in support of having them be a part of the union square piece here. and our ride the ducks business has been a part of san francisco for about three years now, and i'm in support of it, so i don't want to take too much of your time. but we are definitely in support of it. thank you. president buell: thank you. >> next speaker. >> hi, i'm susanna. thanks for giving me this opportunity. i stand here in full support of all three bike rental companies, whom i've known now for 10 years. i've worked on fisherman's wharf for 10 years, with impeccable track records for safety for all three companies, and for blazing saddles, i've witnessed on mason street, that location there for

the last couple years has run so smoothly. there are no problems at all. with the construction project coming up, that would just make them tighten in their reigns even more. -- raines even more. i am absolutely confident with their track record that these three bike companies will run a fabulous go green san francisco city. i'm here for support. president buell: thank you. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am here to speak in support of this operation, and obviously, i've heard many conversations -- i've been to four of these meetings about safety for the bike groups. i've heard a lot of your comments and a lot of other public commepts on this.

one thing to remember is we have 12 million visitors in fisherman's wharf, 12 million people. we have very, very small sidewalks at fisherman's wharf and a high congestion problem down there now. we just got our first bike lane on north point about three months ago. so these guys have been operating without the benefit of good bike lanes in fisherman's wharf safely. when you hear about the safety issues, we've been putting people up and down jefferson street through the national park, through the marina, these guys have been 25 years with one company and have done this safely with no bike lanes. so when you get down to the union square area where there are ample bike lanes and they're well-marked, i think that there will be safe access for people to go. and i do want to remark on the remarks, is that the typical rental bike person tends to follow directions pretty well.

the folks that know the shortcuts through san francisco may be the ones speeding along and not reflecting well on the rest of the bike-going public. so we have a wide mix of views. i think the idea of going from park to park and using this as basically a mini version of a bike-sharing program is an excellent idea. i can tell you i think that's going to gain a lot of traction. having that in the union square area is a real big part of this. so i'm in support of this. thank you. >> janet, christian, walter paulson, bob. >> hi, good afternoon. i am janet. i am with tower tours. also in fisherman's wharf, we operate tours throughout the city and have been coexisting with the bike companies and working together to ensure the safety. as we train our own drivers, what they need to do for the safety for pedestrians and the exunety. it's part of ensuring being the

good comedic support. i want to say i support the business and hope you make a good decision today. thank you. >> christian? >> i'm with city sightseeing. we own a fleet of double decker bus vehicles. we've been here before. i'm here to support the project. i've known quite a few of these guys, all three companies, for about 12, 15 years on fisherman's wharf. to reiterate their track record, i think they're all three great companies. safety is the one concern of all of them. what brian just said, i used on the a bike messenger. i was probably the worst bike rider in the city. the tourists, generally, they've got the map in front of them, they follow the rules. there's very few issues down at

fisherman's wharf. i'd like to support them all. the major concern for me is as i operate city square, the lane we all use to go around the square. so i've had some concerns. i've seen the plan. we primarily use gary street. we do turn up stockton. they're usually down post. so we do three, sometimes four streets of union square. i do like the current plan where they'll exit on post. i think that's the only place where we really need to be cooperative. i believe that we can be and work together and see through any safety issues. i don't believe the bikes will be on geary street, and geary street is where the buses are pulling out. i believe they'll be pulling into the square and walking across the street at union square. i believe that other bus companies down there will fully cooperate to make sure there are no safety concerns. thank you.

president buell: thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is neil. i'm with the san francisco bicycle coalition. and on behalf of the 12,000 members of the san francisco bike coalition, i do fully support this proposal. in my mind, really this just means more people visiting the golden gate park, visiting union square. we're giving them another option on how to travel. and already, without this park-wide bike system, i'm seeing so many more tourists biking on market street, biking to go shopping to all the different restaurants in all the different neighborhoods. it's already happening. and i think this program will help to even push that further. we see a lot of companies and businesses and restaurants requesting bike racks to place in front of their business because they see that people are more and more traveling by bicycle in san francisco. seven in 10 san franciscans ride a bike. so even the local people that

don't ride very often but want to have a fun experience with their parents who are visiting will now be able to do so. we have worked with bike and park with the san francisco transportation municipal agency. we'll be interested in working with the bike system of how to encourage good biking behavior and ensure that the customers are safe. as i said in the committee hearing, you know, really i see san francisco moving toward a more multi-modal city, where a family can take bart in from the east bay, walk over to union square, get some bikes, and bike over to golden gate park, hop over to get bart back to the city. if we can provide that option, which the park-wide bike system will help do so, i think we can move forward. lastly, to talk about the traffic hazards that will be coming from the central subway. you know, that's going to be there whether this parkway bike system is or not.

i think it's the job of the m.t.a. and the central subway project team to ensure safety for every mode of transportation that's going to be traveling in this area. and i think -- i would hope that the park-wide bike system would modify their routing systems based on my diversion that would happen for for a one, two, 10-month period. based on what i've seen of their track record, they have a great safety record and really, truly do want their customers to travel safely by bike. so thank you very much. president buell: thank you. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon, park and rec. i'm walter paulson. ♪ ain't no mountain bike place low ain't no valley bike place low ain't no parkway wide enough can stop me if you want advice on the item you don't need to worry

i'll be there in a hurry ain't no bike place mountain high enough ain't no bike place valley low enough to stop me from talking to park and rec and you remember the day i bike rode so free you know you can always count on me from that day bike riding on i made a vow i'll be there when you want me some way some how ain't no bike place mountain high enough ain't no valley low enough ain't no parkway wide enough to keep me from talking to you ♪ >> thanks. [applause] >> bob armstrong. >> good afternoon, commissioners.

my name is bob armstrong. i'm here representing the artist guild of san francisco. the artist guild has been exhibiting in the public parks and squares of the city now for 50 years. as it happens, we do show marina green and golden gate park and union square. i come here to express safety concerns only about union square. just because it's such a congested area. we come at 7:00 in the morning, starting at 7:00 until about 8:00, unload our artwork on the powell side of the square, we set up in the square and we start to break down around 5:00 generally speaking turg our shows. between our art group and the two other art groups that show, there's about between six and nine instances a month when we're there. so we're concerned that the addition of bicycles to union square would be a negative safety hazard for our artist members and for the general

public. and that's what i wanted to add to this discussion. as a bicycle rider myself, i regard that as a hazardous place to ride in the city, and having suffered a broken leg and a couple broken vertebra in the last couple months from a bicycle accident, i would hate to see that happen to anybody else in that congested area. the other thing i've noticed showing in that area in the holidays, is that it can be very, very congested, much worse than average. i would ask you to take that into consideration, too. thank you. >> is there any other public comment on this item? if there is, could you please come forward? >> good afternoon, commissioners. members of the public. i'm here representing golden gate park's interest and interest of all the small parks in the city.

i think bicycles are a good thing. but we haven't done an e.i.r. impact report regarding this concession in any of the parks, which to me seems like kind of a backward way of doing things to award a contract and then do an e.i.r. seems a little bit backward. secondly, we spent years getting rid of those cars -- the carriage concourse. we put them underground, and it seeps to me that a concession aboveground with bicycles would be going in the opposite direction there. and again, no environmental impact report done on what this concession in golden gate park would cause to the rest of the park users. specifically, equestrian.

unfortunately not in the picture right now, but hopefully will be in the picture in the future. and they will have to share these areas together. union square is a very congested square. i've driven a horse and carriage around there and i wouldn't recommend it to anybody that wasn't a full-time equestrian professional like myself. that's what i do. i handle horses, either from underneath or from behind driving them. and my whole aspect on this is that we need to reduce the amount of motorized congestion in union square, not the bicycles or the pedestrians. which are really the key groups that make san francisco where we want to go, which is non-motorized and non-vehicle. so i see putting the bicycles in there at union square and

reducing the amount of motorized buses, cars, whatever, and reduce that whole congestion thing to where it's more cyclists, more pedestrians, and more of an oasis away from congestion, because we want to remember that we go to our parks to get away from this city. the city is full of consumerism, things we want to get away from in our parks, and open spaces. those two are not running in the same direction. so when you have a business, it does take away from people's quiet time. thank you. >> would anyone else like to comment? if you do, could you please come forward now? thank you. >> hi, good afternoon, commissioners.

i'm darrell lloyd, one of the principals of park. -- of park-wide. first thing, i'd like to talk about -- who was implicated. the customer stepped on him while he was sleeping. he was immediately demoated from assistant general manager to security guard across the street at my apartment. so we've solved that dilemma. i just wanted to address commissioner harrison in regards to the potential of discussing and reducing the scope of the lease. and i didn't come prepared with all the data, but i did a rough sketch on the back on our capital expenses and it looks like we cross at about the latter part of year four where we're actually turning into a profit mode for the partners.

so, you know, reducing it to two years relative to the capital expense would have a significant impact on the contract. i also wanted to briefly touch on the container issue brought up by a couple of the commissioners. i also have operations in new york city. we have 11 locations under contract with various park conservancies. and today we have used the containers due to lack of space and various facilities on park grounds that are available. and the aesthetics are, in fact, a concern. i think you have to look at everything from the standpoint of the capital expense, in terms of actually building a facility. there are companies now -- there's actually one company that we recently looked at that actually takes containers and

converts it into a more pleasurable-looking facility, although they are very, very expensive. one of the strategies we used was to convert the containers to signage. and we spent some dollars to do that, to make them look professional. so that works. one idea that just came to me as i was sitting back there, you know, in these times when everyone is a bit tight, maybe you engage some things from the art community and you go to work making these containers look better. you've got something that engages the community. i think we can be creative on that level and make that work. and i'm available, of course, later for questions. thank you. president buell: thank you. >> is there anyone else who would like to speak on this item? ok, being none, public comment is closed. president buell: thank you.

mr. ginsburg, you have your hand up, did you have something you wanted to say? >> i wanted to give a couple comments and then i had a suggestion. >> a couple things, i loved the fact that we have people in the city who are riding bikes. believe it or not, i ride a bike quite a bit, just not in the city. i ride -- i do a lot of bike trips in other countries, and i have to say a lot of those folks come to our city and they are great bike riders because they live in cities around the world where there are so many bikers. so i'd love to see these tourists drive their cars as well as they ride their bikes. i think that's the biggest issue is have tourists drive cars. but the point is, this bike operator, my concern is not with the bike operator. my concern is with the drivers who are downtown and the bus drivers and the safety for those

who are renting these bicycles. that's my concern that comes out of this. and i would suspect that's the concern of the union square merchants because that's not something you want people to have to worry about when you are attracting them to your stores and hotels and restaurants. and so that's it. i have a couple questions about liability, because even though it's the bicycle company that is concerned about the liket as a business concern, it's our concern, too. it needs to be our concern. so nick or virginia -- go ahead, nick. a couple questions. i want to know -- i mean, i read the lease and frankly i didn't do very well in law school in contracts, so there's no way i can possibly know. but you want to know how much coverage is there so if something, god forbid, were to happen, i want to make sure that we are held harmless in a situation like that, and then also then, i want to know about

the insurance that this bicycle provider has. i want to make sure that his coverage is sufficient, that we're ok. >> while i look for the exact answer -- commissioner levitan: don't read me the language, though. so my question is what's the coverage and what is the protection that we have. >> exactly. the way this process works is when we have a contract, any contract, staff works with the city attorney to develop all of the language in that contract, except for the language about indemnity insurance requirements. those actually go to the city's risk manager, and for every contract, including this one, we get that language directly from the city's risk manager. and we are told what that level has to be in order to get their signoff on the lease. in turn, if the city's risk

manager doesn't sign off on the lease, our city attorney won't sign off on the lease either. so i assure you that did happen in this instant. in evaluating the levels of insurance, i obviously look at the -- they obviously look at the nature of the business, and the risk that it presents, and so -- excuse me, we're looking for the exact answer. do you have another question? commissioner levitan: not really. >> are you look for section 18 in the lease? that's the insurance requirements. commissioner levitan: i haven't read it. >> it's $1 million per occurrence, $3 million aggregate. commissioner levitan: so i appreciate that our risk manager obviously signed off on that, assuming that is the process, virginia. so if it comes to us, it has

passed must we are the risk manager? >> nick is correcting the process. when we see something like this, you talk to risk manager and ensure that these insurance levels are appropriate for the activity because under the code, -- i looked and the way the indemnification works, is if something were to happen and the city were to be sued, which is logical, the indemnification language requires that the contract, or in this case the lessee, insurance company takes it. happy to look at this again. pinpoint that and talk to the trial team and see if there's any other language to that, given this is a bicycle operation. this is a standard

indemnification language that's been imbedded and used over and over again, but i'd be happy to follow up on your question and focus specifically on somebody renting bicycles from our property. commissioner levitan: and maybe take a harder look at it. i appreciate if there was a standard review of this, but i don't know that this is necessarily something that rises to just a standard. >> the good news is this was reviewed by one of our real estate lawyers in terms of the lease. i'd be happy to look at that and also look at the -- i assume that the provider, the lessee, has waivers that they ask. commissioner levitan: ok. so if you could do that. so i'm satisfied that virginia will do that. if there's anything that is cause for -- that we need to do to discuss further, we can do that. what i'm going to propose is approving this, but with contingent on making sure that everything passes with risk

management and your team, ok? but the last part of this is you would propose a six-month review, and i would propose that we do a nine-month review of this so that we get through the high season of tourist season. and that, in fact, margaret, if we could put that on the calendar for a september meeting. i originally was thinking october 20. i don't know what the third week of september is. and make this irrevocable permit. if there are problems or issues, we will not only revisit this, but we will revoke it. if there are problems that rise to that level. but i want to make sure that we are sensitive to the concerns of the neighbors in that area and also for the well-being of the bike renters as well as the company. >> i want to amend that briefly. it doesn't change the sense of it. i think the nine months is correct. if we could get a report to the commission in nine months, and

then if there's a problem recognized in that report, then we schedule it on the calendar to deal with the permit. >> this is a lease, right? >> it's a contract. a lease contract. >> what's that? >> still has to be approved by the board. president buell: the board of supervisors. i guess i would simply say that after nine months, we see what it looks like as a report. if there's a problem, we need to deal with the board and the venn dors, but it seems like they'll be interested as well. >> can i chime in for a second? >> please do. >> i was going to say given all the lingering questions, whether this is something -- this is exactly why we set up a committee structure to handle

all these issues and operations. perhaps operations can revisit this and iron out all this out before it gets to us. commissioner levitan: the reason we pushed this over to the full commission is because we don't know what the full impact will be of having bikes if union square. i don't think there's anything else they can do. i think it would behoove all of us to let it go and see what happens. maybe it's great, maybe it's not. >> very tentative about it. that's why we ask that it be brought to the full commission. >> it had to do really with the union square issue, and from my standpoint, to be able to go down there and look at it. i'm persuaded by the idea that fisherman's wharf is equally congested and that you have equally irresponsible drivers in all these places and they haven't even had bike paths down on jefferson or in fisherman's wharf. the key issue for me is that you

can take these bike riders and you can guide them physically half a block and put them on a bike path. and then they're on their own. but one would assume that it's not an unusual situation. you're just really putting them in a safe place, at least as safe as it can be. the congestion is a timing issue. and my thought on that is that they're going to have to deal with the geary and post street traffic crossing over those trucks areas, and that's going to have to accommodate pedestrians, and if it's accommodating cars and pedestrians, then bicyclists can manage it as well. mr. ginsburg? >> i'd like to make a comment or two, and then i have a more specific suggestion in line with your concerns and comments.