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 they're interested in. it's 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 that's 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 they're talking -- well, don't build so many garages because young people aren't 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 you're looking at this kind of thing and of course you have the right to do all this stuff. i'm a little afraid though and you throw out the big numbers. the natives get upset. they're already threatening to go to the balet. go careful and very

slow and the other thing i have to say if you're going to change these people, the car share people $200 a month or so how come you're 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 brt's. 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 up-to-date 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. we've heard that people don't 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 don't need to go through that process and the broad base for political support. spaces are used by everyone. they're 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 doesn't require mandating geographic equity and

we want city wide car sharing because of density differences in san francisco isn't 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 city's right-of-way and provide the data mta wants and ready to go within six months. you won't 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 he's 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 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. mr. chair we're 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 aye's have it. okay. we are adjourned. >> that concludes the business before you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon and welcome

to the san francisco board of supervisors land use and economic development committee. i'm scott wiener, the chairman of the committee. to my right is supervisor jane kim, and to my left is supervisor david chiu, a member of the committee. our clerk today is alisa miller and i want to thank sfgtv, specifically jennifer low and jesse larsen for broadcasting today's hearing. madam clerk, are there any announcements? >> yes. please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices. completed speaker cards and copies of any documents to be included as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will appear on the july 23rd board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> thank you. will you please call item number 1? >> item number 1 is an ordinance amending the police code to prohibit the use of aircraft, self-propelled, or buoyant objects to display any sign or advertising device in the airspace over the 34th america's cup course area; and making environmental findings. ~ area >> and mr. martin is here to speak. >> good afternoon, supervisors.

mike martin, office of economic can work force development. the item before you is a piece of my office's work in coordinating approvals for the america's cup. as noted in the recitals, the host agreement calls for the city to pursue with relevant governmental authorities a number of different authorizations for things like, for example, the use of the course area. so, we work with the coast guard on that. also pursuing permits to use the various spectator venues along the waterfront. the agreement also calls for appropriate flight restrictions over the race area. as noted in the ordinance itself, we have been working with the federal aviation administration on whether a temporary flight restriction could be put in place that would sort of fully de-conflict the race course congestion as the race courses increase over the summer. thus far the federal agencies

we've been working with have been cooperative, but they say that type of instrument is not available. in doing further research, we noted that the city of honolulu had banned all advertising aircraft from its air space and that was upheld by the 9th circuit. so, in consultation with the event authority, we -- america's cup event authority, we proposed this ordinance as a way to at least de-conflict some measure of potential congestion over the race air i can't tellv we tried to keep it narrowly tailored to the course area so that it's not overly restrictive and it specifically references the potential for the faa to issue a temporary flight restriction later. so, our goal would be to continue our dialogue with them. and if safety concerns due to spectators or for other sort of intelligence information indicates a safety or security risk, if a temporary flight restriction was due at that time, then this ordinance by its terms would expire. so, again, we're trying to do

this in sort of -- in keeping with the host agreement and sort of fostering safety over the race course. >> okay, thank you. supervisor kim. >> thank you, mr. martin. and i do actually appreciate this coming to us. we actually -- our office fields a number of complaints regarding aerial commercial planes that fly over the neighborhood, particularly around the giants game. and it's actually great to hear that honolulu has already done an overall ban that's been upheld by the 9th circuit but because i think this is something of incredible interest to the large r community and city. so, i'm curious if you've done any more work in terms whatv that ban would look like city-wide. >> we haven't. we've really tried to keep our focus on the events. i would say, though, that the case itself for the honolulu case, i have reviewed that. and while i'm not a practicing lawyer in this field, i think it was pretty clear that the compelling interest of honolulu

in safeguardingits natural views for its tourism industry was something that was sufficient to justify a content neutral ban, so, one that doesn't favor one content over another, but says no types of advertising being pulled behind aircraft. so, clearly that would be, i think, a direction to sort of research further with the relevant experts before we pursue the city-wide ban, but it does seem like something worthy of discussion. >> is it possible that we could make this a city-wide ban until september 30th? so, not just aerial -- i mean, america's cup is one event, but we have multiple events here in the city. it would seem [speaker not understood] too kind of uphold one event over many others. so for me, i would be interested in a city-wide ban. >> the item is in your hands, supervisors. certainly, if that were something you wish to pursue, i think you could. i think you'd want to consult with your attorneys as well. certainly for our limited purposes it seems like

something that would be upheld in the court and it seems worthy of further investigation if that is of interest. >> thank you. and i do want to thank supervisor john avalos's office because he was actually thinking the same thing over the weekend as well, and, so, they did actually give copies of an amended ordinance to our office to pass out. and i just would be interested in that consideration at the committee meeting. it would be a city-wide ban on aircraft, self-propelled objects to display any signs or advertising in the city and county of san francisco. so, i will just -- i'm giving copies to our community members. i will give one to our city attorney and to mr. martin, and maybe during that time we can open up for public comment. >> thank you. as i read the amendment supervisor avalos produced, it eliminates the september 30th sunset date. am i right, supervisor kim? >> yes. and actually this is where i want to get guidance from our city attorney. i'm open to making it just a

trial through september 30th since this is what it's been suggested by the port and the mayor's office of economic development while we pursue a longer term. ~ policy. but yes, in the version that supervisor avalos has given to our office, it does take out the sunset clause. >> [speaker not understood]. >> deputy city attorney jon givner. i'm just seeing this, but one quick thought is timing wise, if the committee were to make this amendment today, the ordinance would require an additional public hearing. i understand that the ordinance as currently proposed by oewd needs to be adopted by the board on july 30th in order to be signed by the mayor and go into effect by the en