we have female operators ducking between coaches, urinating between two coaches. these are the conditions and you want to shove some ridiculous contract in front of the membership and expect them to abide by it. we all know what is the truth and what is behind this contract. you guys running this outfit as a corporation, instead of a public service. and you know that is illegal. instead of stepping up to the plate and tell newsome, you

know this prop g was -- all you guys want to do is fulfill your corporation's downtown, the corporations don't vote. people back here do. so in closing, we have to change the formula of how this board is being governed or appointed. so we do have a ballot initiative to put on the ballot, to change the formula, so the community can have a voice. >> anybody else who wishes to address the board. >> good afternoon. >> thank you, i didn't expect to comment on this hearing the testimony, i am a 37-year

driver at desoto and the experience he speaks of is real and i want to reiterate it's an extremely serious situation and formula for disaster. thank you. >> thank you, next item. >> the consent calendar all items are considered to be routine unless a member of the public or member of the board wishes to have the item severed and considered separately. we have received a request item 10.4 regarding the car share vehicles and 10.11 with regard to the development agreement between the city and county and visitacion valley department group be severed. >> 10.4, i'm sorry? >> 10.11. >> yes. >> i have received no indication that any other item would be severed. >> with the remaining items, all those in favor, say aye?

>> aye. >> 10.4. >> 10.4 establishes no stopping any time, et cetera. would you like to hear the public first or from staff? >> members of the board? >> i think maybe the public first. >> we have a number of speakers i trust. >> yes. [ reading speakers' names ] >> thank you for seeing me. i i'm a long time resident of the lower haight and for as along as i have been there 20 years it's impossible to park there. we are rife with bar, restaurants, shops, wiggle and google buss and we're already

inundated and on sundays we have the double parking for four block as round as well for the churches. down the way there is going to be some very large apartment units going in that will oasis also add to the parking problem. [speaker not understood] i drove around for 45 minutes last week and finally ended up in one of the spots that you people are talking about putting intothe pilot program. therefore it would have left me driving around more, using more emissions. i think you understand my point. it's putting more cars on the road, not less. what is the public's incentive to go for this program? the argument that people want to go out their door and have a car for them is the same argument for people who own their own cars

and pay for maintenance and pay for parking permits. it's also in direct conflict with an anti-obesity campaign that the board of supervisors is adopting and quite frankly, if you want people to walk to their cars, the people who own their cars should be able to walk to them and the people who don't own their own cars should have to walk to them. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. [ reading speakers' names ]. >> good afternoon. >> hi my name is haley and i'm a full-time nanny and graduate student studying to work with children with autism and the dedicated and sharing economy worldwide -- 275,000 people from san francisco residents and visitors signed my petition to support your car sharing parking program. they signed my petition because they want to get help to get these proposed parking spots approved and make the program a success. i graduated from college during the great recession, the

traditional jobs my parent's generation could rely on aren't there for me or my peers. so this will benefit not only ourselves, but our community. it has provided me with more time and resources for travel and education. i feel good rent mig car out to my neighbors, who use it to spend local money at businesss and make their own lives richer. as you know, car sharing vehicles remove 9-13 other cars from the road. city services allow us to use resources more especially. this project has the potential to remove up to 10,000 cars and 100 million pounds of co2. that is a big deal and i'm proud to be hart of it. i want to say thank you for your commitment to making this program a reality. i know you have many more hearings to approve of with the parking spaces in this first pilot of the car sharing program and a plaud your dedication and hard work. it is greatly appreciated by

the san franciscans like me, who want to know that we are supportive of your efforts and want to do whatever we can to ensure your success. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. [ reading speakers' names ] >> good afternoon. i'm a campaign director with peers the organization that hailey is a member of. we launched in july of last year and since then, almost 300,000 people around the world have taken action to support the sharing economy through initiatives like the sfmta car sharing parking program. hayey's online petition is just one of the initiatives we have worked on in past year. there is say diversity of issues relevant to the economy that enrich people's lives and people care about. when we heard about haley and how she wanted to support the car sharing program as a car owner and car sharer, we saw she wanted to take action not just for herself, but for real people in the community, which is why we choose to support her and help her get her petition

online to get signatures. get around the non-profit organization city car share and others have done tremendous work to get buy-in from the people who live the closest to the parking spaces that you are approving today and over the next several months, but none of it would have been possible without the foresight and leadership of this board and of the city of san francisco. so on behalf of our peers members around the world we extend our gratitude and thanks. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> patton murphy, george papadous. >> good afternoon, my name is patton murphy and representing get around. i wanted to thank chairman rolan and director reiskin and directors of the board. i won't reeight the benefits

that christine and hailey have mentioned. as was mentioned get around and instant car sharing allows people to instantly find rent and unlock a vehicle, so they don't have to own their own vehicle. so the benefits of car sharing are widely reported burb it's basically there is an environmental benefit, a transit benefit and entrepreneurial benefit in the case of get around. for the environmental benefit, susan from uc berkeley's data suggests that car sharing vehicles eliminate 9-13 cars from the road. over the course of the program, hailey mentioned an opportunity to eliminate 10,000 vehicles. for the transit piece, what that means ultimately, in fact, while one parking spot will be used there is the opportunity to free up 10,000 parking spots. but more than that, the research also shows that people who use car sharing us

elactually use public transportation more, walking more and, in fact it's totally in line with the transit first policy and should actually be beneficial to the transit agenda rather than in conflict with it. finally around get around's particular value here, what is really exciting because we're a peer-to-peer platform, these vehicles are actually owned by people who live in these neighborhoods so we're not injecting more cars that are there, but activating them and turning them into car sharing vehicles. people can offset those costs and spend locally. so we selected the locations based on demand and also public support. as christiana mentioned, we have hundreds and hundreds of signatures of support from front-facing businesses, homeowners, and residents who live exactly where the locations are. thank you. >> thank you. [ reading speakers' names ] >> hello, i'm george papadous

and i have been living in san francisco since 1981 and living on sanchez street since 1985. one of the areas that is earmarked for this program is on sanchez street. that area has been very congested all along. there is a lot of commercial activities. we have a school using up lots of parking spots during the daytime. there are a lot of yellow zones. and recently there have been at least three new buildings that are adding to the congestion in the area. so i'm a little bit with somewhat remorse that we'll lose some parking spots and it's not going to inconvenience me particularly because i have a garbage, but they are inconveniencing my neighbors and visitors and people of that sort. so i'm going on record as opposing the expansion of this program to the areas that are marked in this brochure and also others that i have seen posted around the city on the streets. thank you. >> thank you next speaker,

please. >> jude. ed scobel. >> good afternoon, jude faulkner and before i go into explaining why i think this pilot program is a bad idea i would like to voice another concern that might be more serious. after finding out so many san francisco citizens are not aware of this proposed pilot program, i am questioning this whole ordinance process. on the first page of the accessible meeting policy states "government's gut dutty to serve the you public, in full view of the public, commissions, boards, councils and other agencies of the city and county exist to conduct the people's business. this ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people, and that city operations are open to the people's review." in order for the decision to be in full view of the public, the public has to be made aware of these potential changes. again most people that i talked to about this are outraged and

angry that nobody has told them about this. the only reason i'm here that i read it in the neighborhood blog that happened to mention it a month ago. the lack of information in this day and age, with all the technology available is unforgivable. sfmta has reached out to the public by posting bill on telephone bills. this is not the 1900's and if they wanted to inform the public about the issue, they could have sent out literature to all san francisco residents by mail. other companies involved have reached out to their clients who would obviously support the program. we were notified of this evening via email friday evening, very little time to get folks organized -- this is taking place on a week day, in the middle of the day when people are working. none of our comments were taken into cannot, on-street pilot program share moving forward makes me request this ordinance process. a program such as this one, potentially affecting so many people in san francisco should be voted by its tax

paying citizens. dear mr. reis kin and board members. thank . >> kin and board members. >> your time is upb. everybody gets the same time. >> i live in the 800 block of page and i have live there had since 1980 and reviewing the list on the agenda, it appears that the page and pierce location has been eliminated. so my objections to that page and pierce were that it's on the wiggle, the bike path, that it's extremely heavily trafficked and that additional traffic is an unacceptable hazard to the bikes and that the church is double parking

blocks -- which block these spots for parking on sunday. unless i am mistaken they have already removed my block from this. so i guess i won. [laughter ] >> congratulations. next speaker, [ [ reading speakers' names ]. >> good afternoon board and thank you very much for legit me speak today. i am a resident of one of the previously proposed spots on golden gate and pierce, to take up 34' on the corner rite in front of my building, literally 15' in front of my front door would have been these two spots. i was only made aware of this because a flier sticking out of an unused mail slot in my building. again to reiterate how the city has handled letting the public know is very inefficient,

ineffective and almost what i feel is doing it secretly. the city car share pilot program does not treat everyone fairly. for those of us who do own a vehicle, parking in these areas is already difficult enough. i feel it punishes those of us who are irregular hours. i do bartend on the weekend and work at sf general in order to afford living in the city and getting to my car for work is important to me and those car share programs do not always provide a vehicle. it does not address the needs of every individual person, nor does it guarantee a vehicle will be there when it is needed. it does punish citizens that do own their vehicles, that do live here, that do have to travel. in the case of my wife who has to drive to berkeley to her job working graveyards at a hospital [th-rbs/] does not help her during peak traffic hours or at 8:00 in the morning when she comes home to find a parking spot this. does add

to traffic already on streets that are heavily congested in my case in the alamo school neighborhood, there are a charter school and three churches and among that, there is also construction constantly going on. i feel that the board should look into using empty lots if the city car share program is pushed through. >> next speaker, please. >> it's actually john and i'm here representing zip car and would like to thank the board for hearing this item and the sfmta for supporting the initiative thus far. there is a great need for additional car share access because of the nature of parking facilities, surface lots. just our neighborhoods do not have the access that other neighborhoods have and it's

really putting the residents of san francisco at a deficit. as more people move to the city, we're finding spots are redeveloped left and right and this is just going to keep happening. if there aren't better alternative options for mobility, we're going to see congestion increase and continue to see the parking problems on the streets worsen. you know, we understand that the residents don't want to lose their street parking. it's definitely a valid concern, and as we work with the neighborhoods, we are very much listening to their concerns and relocating spaces as we get their feedback. personally zip car has relocated at least 90% of the locations where we have received neighbor concerns, just because there are concern certain things that we don't necessarily see. we want to make this pilot successful and work for everybody, whether you are own a private car or looking to be a private car share member, et cetera.

again, i just want to thank you for hearing this and looking forward to seing it move forward. thank you. >> anyone else wish to address the board on this topic? seeing none, mr. reiskin, did you want to address this? >> let me ask andy thornley who has been managing this program. i think i heard only one specific location that is on the agenda here, being raised by a public speaker. i don't know if mr. thornley can speak to that. >> bjaranson, i'm andy thornley with your sustainable streets division and i'm the project manager on this project. very quickly, this board july 16th approved the car share policy all together and particularly this pilot program. made amendments to the transportation code, basically saidset the table to go ahead. since last july, which is embarrassingly almost a year ago we have been moving forward with due [tkhr-eubs/], but deliberation and some caution

and our eyes open to realize the project. we have three organizations that qualified and you heard from representatives, zip car, get around and city car share here and they could take questions on the particulars of this, but in short, once we qualify the participants we said please let us know where you think parking spaces could work for you? and we'll help you talk to the neighbors and bring them forward. that has been going on. today we have the first 25 locations for you. comprising i think 40 or 41 parking spaces. there are more to come. and the digestion of the review and the outreach and so forth is taking time and we are trying to have it take time. the car share organizations are talking to the neighbors and you heard representative from zip car tell you where there is an issue, they have been quite willing to look for alternatives. it pains me somewhat to watch the car share organizations move these space as rounds, but of course, that is very important, because the neighbors are the experts.

the car share organizations made their best guess and of course, we need to make it work for the neighborhoods. we're bringing you this list of locations today, the first bunch of spaces. there will be more. the policy questions about the fitness of this pilot were settled in effect last july. you are always welcome to reconsider them, but there is a commitment to move forward pilot and now we're in the messy, particular business of that parking spot and that parking spot. i want to briefly speak to the cost and equity. this is a reasonable understanding and concern that folks have raised. the city sounds like it's selling curb to private business. i understand that concern and i would be very resentful of that, but to remind you this is a pilot. the mta believes there is many public benefits to car sharing and in our strategic plan eh elevated the nurturing of car

sharing. we're done ducting this larger pilot to really test those premises and to find out if there are true public benefits to using curb for car share. we will be obliging the participating organizations to supply a great deal of data so we can review it very carefully and if at the end of the pilot we see there is substantiation to that notion, we'll bring back a proposal to this board to make it into a permanent program. again it's a pilot. we're very much about collecting data so here are your first 25 spaces for your consideration. >> director brinkman has a question or comment? >> i think my only question, mr. thornley would be there is no difference between the benefits that the research has shown and on-street spots versus spots that have been

located off-street in garages. i think somebody brought up the number of 9-13 vehicles are removeded for each car share vehicle that goes out and we expect that benefit is going to be the same, whether we have them on the garbage or in the streets. >> excellent question. there was research done in the bay area and across the world in the range of cars that are taken off the streets goes up to double-digits and i we think that is pretty m ambitious and probably european cities. that research has been done chiefly on off-site garbage parking lot/gas station kind of pods. the 12 locations are still out there and you may know about them and i will use the one on 4th avenue and clement from time to time and from that research we had indication thatip deed the same benefits were there.

here we are bringing you a pilot and we're going to test it and look at it and we may find there is a lesser benefit in one way or greater benefit in another. it's san francisco and we're going to try it and watch it and learn from it. >> i have no other questions. i'm willing to go ahead and move the item. >> i have a question. with a i am looking at is the length of space that you are looking for. what are we using as a guide in terms of that? >> in residential areas it's unstriped or unmarked depending on geometry, or some other driveway or opening, 17' can suffice. >> when i look at your list and see the average. it looks fine and then i come across gulf street, which is 63' up to 143', that is a lot of space taken up.

>> is that north of geary? >> yes. how many spaces(, that are currently marked -- there is a metered machine. this is in front of the cathedral hills tower apartments and that neighborhood has been working with the mta to refine the resident parking program in the area and in conversations with the neighbors, they said we would really prefer instead of the metered spaces we would rather have car share and we said we're piloting car share. so there are four currently metered spaces with the meter machine and will be converted for the sake of the pilot to car share spots. >> you are saying that is say residential parking permit area? >> i think the rpp has not yet come forward and mr. robins can tell you more about that. that particular block face does not meet our standards or criteria for residential permit.

there is a very tall boyding and those spaces would not likely be designated rpp. so as someone that we could agree on, to expert using those spaces as car share pods. >> okay. last question. why four, opposed to two? >> oh, that was effectee effectively a windfall. that we weren't permit more than two spaces per block and in it this case we have four on the block because there was this rather unusual circumstance and there was interest from the residents on that block face to actually convert all four of those spaces. we won't do that as a matter of routine. it was really a windfall. that curb had some movement afoot that we were taken advantage of. >> director heinicke. >> the only comment that we had from one of the spots that is on the list was the sanchez

street comment. sir, thank you for coming down and my understanding is that just one parking spot on sanchez street, and correct me if i am wrong or else i will keep going -- good operating principle for me. we heard from a few people talking about page and pierce streets that are not on the list, but i want to be clear, that doesn't mean that our friend the taxi cab drive has won and that will come back on another list in the future. >> thank you, director, excellent question. to the back-end of the question first. yes, we have been bringing all of the space requests through the standard internal mta review, our transit operations people, our pedestrian safety people and everyone is looking at these to make sure that they don't bump into other things and we have been bringing them through task, the interagency review board and onto public hearings. we have had three public hearings so far. at those public hearings we have heard from members of the public and took good points and car share organizations have

either relocated or going back to look. i don't recall distinctly the page street location and i would be happy to talk to the gentleman afterwards. that location won't be coming back in that precise spot, this those coordinates, but it's probably going to come back somewhere nearby and could be that the car share organization is looking around the corner, down the street or somewhere nearby. i can't emphasize enough that everyone is aware that the neighbors are the customers for these things and it doesn't make sense to alienate them, but we're asking folks to take a leap of faith by converting one or two parking spaces to a shared vehicle, in the not too distant future may certainly offer cheaper alternatives to outright car ownership. >> okay. i will just say that i appreciate the outreach you have done and how you are going about this, very professional as always with you. i would just say in the future,

the comment that would trouble me the most and we haven't really heard it today except for one gentleman to get his point across, we don't want to hear neighbors come in and say this is the first i heard of it. it sounds like the car sharing organizes are committed to the dialogue and just -- i mean, this is pretty simple, you know where the people affected by the spot live and that would be the comment that concerns me most going forward. >> indeed. >> it sounds like you have a good dialogue process setup. >> as someone who has come to to this body as a citizen, i too am upset hearing that and there is a practice effort to talking to everyone in the city and a sweet spot in the middle getting to the right people, so we'll continue to work with that. >> director brinkman, you have a motion? >> yes. >> second. >> i think it's a worthwhile pilot program and i think what was represented here earlier, makes a whole lot of sense and we'll take seriously whatever information we get from that.

because this is just the very beginning and my hope it's successful and works for everybody, for as many people as possible for the greater good of the city. the ayes have it, thank you, next item, mr. boomer. >> moving on to 10.11, consenting to the proposed development agreement between the city and county of san francisco and visitacion development and adopting the mp research and planning for the program. the member of the public who wishes to decrease the -- to address the board is fran martin. >> mr. martin has left.