last quarter, proportionally, was a bit of an aberration, out as we did not produce any operators, so we had more than we would typically have for the level scheduled. we have to really close look at that order. going forward it is a bit difficult sometimes, doing that fourth quarter of 2009 and 2010. that is why you see the service level in terms of service hours delivered being much higher, because of the operators available and the things we have done in terms of vehicle maintenance. >> thank you. >> anyone else? >> two questions, again, the online numbers are down throughout, not weighted by customers. >> i think it is weighted by customer because there is more

observation done on heavier lines. >> ok, so we have a process of waiting by customers? explain that. >> based on the number of runs, if we were comparing 38 to the 26, the 38 would get much more observations because of the number of trips for runs to get to the statistically valid number for sampling that route. if you did 15% sampling on the 38, it would be much higher number of observations as opposed to the 15% of the 26. it took me a while to get comfortable with that. >> has always been the way that we did it? >> that is my understanding. and we basically do two samples to the beach each year with a

fixed -- not fixed, but a formal number of observations to be to that number. >> that makes it reserved more, but if you find an underused line not on time, but a heavily used line on time more, the percentage is still going to translate into runs on time as opposed to online performance for customers. >> exactly, is not customer performance. >> we have talked about getting customer performance, and i did not want someone to look at this and think that if they are a customer they have a 20% chance that the run will not be on time, i do not think that is right up. but i will again raise the question, is it possible to have it waited by customer? i think that would be helpful,

but i would not want to create work just for the sake of work. the variability in the service hours delivered seems to be much greater for lrv than the other modes of transportation, what is the reason? >> what page are you on? >> just look at page 2. you can see that the brown line, which is for light rail, has a greater variability. i wondered why there was more variability in the service hours for the light rail as opposed to other modes. and >> let me see this again. the short answer is that it is the current availability.

further also in the transfer of the other key variables in on- time performance, being both the availability and reliability. one of the things that you will hear later on is that some of the programs in place to provide some relief, if you will, in terms of overhauls, a key components over the last several months there have been challenges to meet in the car account. with the restoration of service through september, we agreed to schedule 114 cars. we would have liked to schedule more, but we had to balance out the competence level that we

had. and the variability, if you will, there are several things that we are doing to try to vote stabilize and increase the car account, including the things that i mentioned like overhaul and programs that also change the maintenance practice, including shift changes of various staff. the way that we organize the work, there is a new focus on making sure that the right materials and parts are available with emphasis on further analysis on particular components, seeing which ones and which systems are driving some of this period of principal reason that i would use to explain that are the fluctuations in the car

account, focusing only? is that the only? it is the same thing, to some degree, but on lrv in particular. >> earlier on i did mention the project as it related to the three components that we were focusing on papp's, representing 60% of our failures, including the connecting cables between each car in terms of communications. when will we start seeing the first of those coming back? >> the first delivery will be in september or october. in march they will start about every four months. >> we are on our way to dealing with these reliability issues,

but a good deal of it is age in that quarter, as well as a maintenance effort in terms of overtime and how we are trying to manage overtime and parts, dealing with our financial situation there was a bit of a hold in terms of over -- ordering parts and things of that nature. hopefully we are on the other side of that fence in the long term and rehabilitation projects will bear fruit in the upcoming years. >> thank you very much, mr. marshall. members of the public? >> no members of the public. wait, there he is. >> before he speaks, i would ask that any of the board members, as you go through all of these charts and statistics, any questions that you have, we can come back with more in-depth analysis. once we receive these numbers and present them to you at the end of the year, we are working on getting to the bottom of some

of the trends. the positive trends and the not so positive trends. >> it should be something like this rather than seven of the jewels. >> i agree. >> good afternoon. >> first of all, my name is rob by el cabrera. it bothers me that looking at quarterly reports without copies available for the public to look at so that we can understand what you're doing. and this is especially great tool. to make sure that all of the communities and neighborhoods had reliable service, we were changing the reported standards

of service, without the document in front of you, it is hard when someone talks about on-time performance, do you add it up? is there a running time in those lines? health and safety comes into play. there are many variables here. let me give you a history about regular hours in particular cases. a lot of times you have to wait to go around a blocked because the service is not there. the other point is talking about, policy guidelines, it is hard to capture what is being said when you have the document in front of you.

i can hear about the outlines of the absenteeism, but how do we measure that? you might know that there is a lot of discipline out there. is that what you call absenteeism? like i said at the beginning. [tone] >> the action of the board, too, the action of the board is simply to receive this. >> there are current existing time limits in the of 700 parking meters covering the spaces at 37th streets segment at various locations throughout san francisco. i will not read them all for the sake of my throat. >> we are disappointed. [laughter] >> no member of the public wishes to address you on this matter and i do not see anyone

rising. >> in that case, is there a motion? so moved. >> seconded. >> one question, are there additional parking meters? a new wave of parking meters? a mixture of technology? what we have? >> adding it is a combination of both. >> i see. >> mr. chairman, members of the board, these will be part of the new wave of parking meters of it will except credit cards as well as coins. >> all 1100? >> correct. [laughter] >> is there a second? any further discussion? those in favora? inye -- >> aye. >> #13, planning and

development. >> i will call upon [unintelligible] to give you a presentation on the park project, just informational at this time. we have been working on this project for many years and in conjunction with the mayor's office of economic workforce development, the public utilities commission, office of housing, department of environment and project sponsor on the proposed redevelopment of the partner in the southwest sector of the city, the plan is to increase and go to a higher housing density in the neighborhood to create a community that is more walkable, environmentally sustainable, and transit oriented. this project is near a major milestone, currently under environmental review analysis with a draft environmental impact report for probable certification by the planning district this fall.

we are pleased to take this opportunity to provide you with an overview of the project and we anticipate bringing it to you later this fall after the planning commission certification to adopt and authorize the mta to enter into an injured-agency cooperation agreement. gong gi is going to introduce the presentation and speakers. >> that afternoon, i would like to introduce michael york from the office of economic development to give you an overview and create points on the mural project design. finally, peter alvarez, with staff of mta on transportation elements. we will also mention the successful mellon of solar management, a project sponsor that is also here to answer questions that you have.

>> speakers, mr. yi? second speaker? [laughter] is anyone here? ok. >> i do not think that they anticipated you getting so far along. [laughter] >> would you like to move on to item number 14? >> we can do that. >> member's consent? >> authorizing the executive director to execute a contract #six to 6.02 -- 626.02. >> questions from the board? director hannity?

>> who are we asking, you? >> you can ask me. i will work hard. >> $32 million to rebuild seven lrv's over six years. what does anyone cost? >> it depends on how many you are buying at the time. >> like a blue light discount? >> you got it. >> what about seven new ones at one time? >> over 5 million apiece. recently a contract was awarded in minneapolis for roughly 41 vehicles and some extra, coming out to just that, 4 million vehicles. it goes to your comparison, seven vehicles were needed for repair. three of them were getting repairs under this contract. staff was left with taking a look at the four remaining vehicles, trying to figure out

if it would be worth a competitive approach, plus the value that we owe the fda, as we did not advertise for a fully. staff came to the conclusion that there was no way we could put a contract out for such a small number of vehicles, changing of price and value. >> i am comforted to hear that this was all a lot of and does not surprise me, but i always had it in my head that seven of them would prepare for 32 million. but by that variable it would not matter if you use the lower 4 million, but the additional thing that concerns me is six years, up to six years that seven of our 107 are so vehicles

could fall into disrepair, whereas if you purchase new ones -- i realize you don't just go down to a lot to get them, but my question is, how long does it take them to get there? >> it could take that long and longer. the design and engineering, going through the competitive process. >> i can go to that question. the contracts is negotiated for seven vehicles. there are three that we think will take a short to medium term repairs. within the first 20 months we should see those vehicles returning. the remaining four vehicles are just piles of rubble. >> what is the age of those four vehicles we are talking about? >> 17 years.

>> these cars were damaged early on when they first arrived in have been sitting and cannibalized for parts. >> sorry to unravel, but it is $32 million. these vehicles, once repaired over the course of six years, will not be as good as would be a new vehicle. >> they will be pre-built to that standard, in better condition than the rest of the fleet. >> i do not doubt that, but listen, is there a comparative value? it is a huge and sophisticated thing and at the end of the day i will defer, but i want to make sure that we are asking the question, getting to the point that the chairman is surely thinking of. the question is, $32 million for

seven cars rebuilds over six years, are you sure that we would not be better off just taking the money? >> i do not think that we could buy more cars without money. in terms of time, costs, going through the process, what we would be looking at as a vehicle manufacturer, what we would be looking at is asking a major manufacturer to to lot to build seven cars. we are in a difficult situation where it comes to these vehicles. carter made a good point, some of them can be returned quickly, but the others are merely shells and over the years they have sat around without being

utilized. we have the time line as related to the central subway in time for 2018. at the same time we have the other rehabilitation program with a 8-10 cars these days, we are at the point with fleet management that asking these difficult questions of ourselves, i would think absolutely. >> correct me if i am wrong, but we are not rebuilding in kind. this is the opportunity to look at the next fleet of vehicles for the system. there is also that piece of this

program, looking at the new design in terms of piloting these for the future. >> correct. two of the vehicles, the main reason propulsion system of the parts are no longer available and that makes it difficult to restore something and put it back when you know that a product is no longer in line and being turned up. >> thank-you. i wanted to add, these seven cars have to be able to couple and a train line with an existing fleet. you could not do that with new cars at an economical pace. hall, as you know, i have always avoided the sole source contracts but i think that is the way to go in this case. fro>> remember, i am one of thee

people, if push comes to shove, i would rather purchase something new, you know? any time anyone tells me that we're going to davis for more money, i know when the cars are going to be weaker when they come back. given the economic climate, i did not realize that it took so long to get these vehicles. otherwise i would say spend the money to get new fixing it in the future if we do not. >> i think that a lot of these

questions could have been answered on the analysis. we had a statement saying that this is what it would have cost and how long it would have taken if we have had that information. >> good point in terms of board resolution, and more comparative analysis would have helped. these are questions that we ask ourselves as staff. >> i will move the item. >> second. >> for the discussion? are all of the people from the park here now? [laughter] would you like to try that all over again, mr. gi?

>> good afternoon, commissioners. i apologize about the confusion earlier. peter and i were sitting at our desk and we heard that you were calling our names, so we are here. we have a power point presentation today and i will briefly give you an overview of the park project generally, and then peter will speak briefly on the involvement of mta and significant transportation infrastructure projects, speaking at length about substantive components of the project, one of the largest projects approved located in the

southwest corner of the city it would be incredible for san francisco in the sense that very few housing units have been added in decades, this would add more than 2.5 times the existing number of units in addition to having significant retail space, making it a truly self sustaining community. the project sponsor has voluntarily put forward a groundbreaking sustainability program, the project sponsor getting going in more detail, allowing sentences good to add thousands of units with no new energy consumption while subic and the improving water quality and recreational facilities in one quarter of the city that has not seen new investment in

years. we are calling this a public- private partnership. unlike treasure island or candlestick, where the city is a partner in owning the land, here we have no such thing. we have a public right of way, but we are not the real estate developers. however, the city does play an important role, which is why we are before you today. and it is why we will be back before this body again. we do play an important role in terms of guiding this project through environmental review and public benefits that we will seek from the project sponsor where peter will prevent -- present detail on that. developing agreements are essentially a contract between the city and the private

developer, expressing things on normal entitlements that normally we cannot. in addition to the development agreement that is almost a small constitution for the planning and development of this area, there will be a general plan amendments related to the planning code that will create a special is zoned the district. those are the items that are ultimately moving through the planning commission. briefly, the acting project manager, we anticipate a speedy

process that is rare in south san francisco. we had substantial input closed on june 28, bar receiving first draft and second draft comments that have been completed, so we are on track is a city for october by the planning commission, looking at october 21 for the first hearing of the planning commission. following the approval of those items, the entire package should move to the board of supervisors and would require approval by the board of supervisors.

coming back to approve the final package we hope to have the entire package before the mayor in december. as i mentioned earlier, if you have any questions, this is the primary reason we wanted to negotiate the benefits that would not normally be able to be negotiated under conventional land use laws with security and flexibility in which we were able to offer the developer approval the loot -- that allows for large-scale infrastructure. the extension of th