the plan derived is not appropriate. in less than one week we have 250 signatures of mine. we want to help. give us more time. >> anywhere else on that one? any other speakers, please? under public comment? >> read -- [reads names] >> good afternoon. my name is lea. i begin my public comment and a story. i know you have heard a few times, as i have spoken in public comment, so i will not go into that too much. i would like to remind you of the families and young people who have spoken throughout the city, in public comment and on the steps of this building. the families that right muni every single day.

i stand here representing the thousands of youth throughout the city, who have many needs, access to public transportation being one of them. in fact, in the face of all of these fiscal cuts affecting the many aspects of youth life, providing clean muni for all youth in san francisco will greatly and positively affect the lives of youth in our city. i urge each member of this board to vote in support of the movement coming on february 27. we will be playing seven public comments of the young people that were not able to be here today, for school and other reasons. thank you. >> glad you are here. >> good afternoon. in the coordinator of the youth development administration at the san francisco you the administration --.

i am here to play the comments for the members. >> ok. >> it is a medium player. >> can you may be summarized what they said deborah >> sorry about that. basically we had public comments

for two of the commissioners -- said? >> sorry about that. basically, we had public comments for two of the commissioners. they very much wanted to a talent -- wanted to attend. >> at 4:30 p.m.? >> yes. >> do you have a calendar put together yet for the seventh? >> not yet, but the supervisor handles those requests and i told him that we would accommodate where possible. >> members, let's schedule this to begin no later than 4:30. is that how that works? thank you. our director recently received a great deal of communication about this parking area. can you tell us where we are? can we talk about that?

am or is that just asking about -- >> you are welcome to ask a question, but there cannot be discussion beyond questions that receive clarification. >> there was a proposal put out quite some time ago last year. there was quite a bit of community outreach through dozens of community group meetings. individual telephone in e-mail response is done by staff. the plan was thereby revised. a revised plan was subjected to an mta hearing this past friday. here in city hall. the outcome of that hearing resulted in the recommendation that i would bring in its form, or revised form, to the mta board on the seventh. that process has happened. i think that there are more

community meetings scheduled between now and the seventh. our current plan is to bring to the board a proposal low some sort of the seventh, to advance the parking proposals. >> the people who are writing, they are where? -- they are aware? >> of the dates? >> yes, do they know that this is when it is going to happen? >> i think so. quite a few do, that i have spoken with. >> any other public comment? >ok. >> directors, you are moving on to your consent calendar. i might note that 10.1 is $46,000, rather than $75,000. with that, you have only two

items on the consent calendar agenda. >> motion to approve? >> second. >> so ordered. >> directors, you are on to the regular agenda. regarding item number 11, the people's plan, they are asking that the item not be heard before 2:00. mr. chairman, if you would like to move item 12 and 13, because they would like to hear item number 11 at 2:00 as the presenter is are engaged in another meeting at the moment. without objection? item 12. >> ok. >> approving a transit shelter removal policy. >> who is doing this? >> and dale stein is here to present to you what we are proposing -- >> gale stein is here to present to you what we are proposing. >> ok. >> my presentation is not big.

it is mostly in front of you. this is something that staff has been dealing with for a while. every six months or so, i would say that i get some requests from members of the public to ask to have transit shelters taken out. it tends to be a real clash. we have been working on this for a couple of years at this point and felt it was something we wanted to bring to the board to make a strong statement, that it is the mta policy to keep in shelters. we do have a procedure where we would consider problems to try to resolve that, but we think this is a good balance on where it should be. >> based on hazards or problems for the disabled? >> exactly. we always work on that. >> ok. questions or comments? >> bob is the only person who has turned in a card. >> good afternoon.

>> my name is bob. i am going to ask you to continue to think about amending or continuing this. the wording is vague in terms of how it might be looked at from the october hearing. another question, why are you dealing with a shelter removal policy? it is almost a bass ackwards approach. this specific scenario, this is a transfer point between two lines. apparently there is no specific priority for shelters with transfer prices. so, that is something that i say is missing. even with regards to this policy, i pointed out at the access meeting that none of the language in the text was cited as a reason for the removal of the 39 and 91 bus stops.

people said that there were shouting, drinking, and cursing. but nothing in the language here would have justified that removal. in addition, the hearing officer then made a recommendation that i verified as impossible to fulfill. he said that because there was a communication facility for the blind at these shelters, there should be a kiosk put up so that the blind could know when the buses coming. there is not any kind of technology or facility like that. no vendor at a bus shelter would pay for it. it is irrelevant and not able to be fulfilled. you should not pass this. it is incomplete and it is bass ackwards. a transfer point where there ought not to be one is just wrong. >> would anyone else like to address the board at this time?

welcome back. >> two points on this. sorry i have not read the proposed policy, but some of that bus shelters in particular do not have the next bus schedule. i would be interested in of what exceptions to the rule might be appropriate. that all of those shelters ought to have the best information in them. as to this proposed policy itself, i do not know if it has been reviewed by the citizens advisory council. were there comments incorporated into it? -- their comments incorporated into it? >> [inaudible] >> i think that it is important to do that, when they come up. >> any other questions or

comments? is there a motion? >> move to approve. >> second. >> those in favor? >> aye. >> those opposed? >> no. >> 5-1 democrats five-one. >> next item? >> authorizing the director of transportation to execute an agreement with parsons brinkerhoof to develop the sf -- sfmta real-estate and facilities vision for the 21st century and provide as needed services, at a cost not to exceed $1,060,000 in for a term of five years. >> good morning. i am with the financing information technology division. the mta has significant needs to upgrade its operation in order to meet the growth in demand

that transportation will receive in the growing decade. given the wide range of functions under the mta's jurisdiction, the agency must address the current and future needs of these various areas, including transit vehicles, enforcement vehicles, maintenance shops, operations centers, and administrative offices. this information is critical for internal purposes and communicating to our various stakeholders what is required for the agency to provide services now and into the future for the next decade. our current facilities are spread out all over san francisco, ranging in age from more than one century, such as the overhead, 1893 lines for the muni, to a few years old, like the muni metro yard, which was built in 2008.

after 24 years of land acquisition, planning, design, and funding challenges. under the jurisdiction of mta and under least prostitute -- properties, including transit enforcement for shops and accessible plans with non- revenue vehicles and towed cars. we have consolidated our administrative offices into six floors on one avenue. in review of our supply and demand, we estimated that it might take up to 40 acres to accommodate all of these needs, of which approximately 31.35 acres still need to be identified. the major drivers, now and in the future, are the transit needs for approximately 17.3 acres, 43% of the new demand,

and for towed and impounded vehicles, which is about 14 acres or 35% of the demand. it is located under the five- year mou support plan as the developer for the future of this property. mta needs to move off of it. we continue to seek and actively pursue opportunities to improve facilities. including this creek facility. the central subway project, we are proud to report, on -- as of january 10, we are now the owner of the chinatown transportation site. we are under a leasing option to purchase bancroft avenue.

our transportation management center is across the street from our administrative headquarters, the agency determined its need a professional services on this side, for real estate, in the 21st century. we issued an rfp in 2011. three of the more qualified. of the agreement was not to exceed a set amount in five years -- qualified. the agreement was not to exceed a set amount for five years i would be happy to enter any questions -- five years. i would be happy to answer any questions. >> any questions? >> we have heard significant

input from the key -- from the community, where you are. -- community on where you are. i would like to emphasize that it is urgent that there are some members of the community that view this as urgent, the findings in this report. i understand that whatever the recommendation comes from, it will probably be based on what is sounded out entirely throughout the system. you can perform, or begin have this performed. i want to reiterate the sense of urgency. i get calls on this every month about where the report is, and just coming to this contract now is a little disappointing. i assume that you did everything you needed to do. i do want to emphasize that

there are people who are barely anxious to see some kind of change, or at least some findings and an opportunity to take action, one way or the other, on that particular site. if there is any way to expedite that, i wanted to reiterate the conveyance of what i hear regularly from the constituents that we represent on that plan. needless to say, speaking on behalf of those constituents, we are anxious to see this movement along and grateful that we have come this far. -- moved along and grateful that we have come this far. >> i will echoed that the upper yard has been discussed for quite some time. as well as the need --

>> my question is really examining the overall benefit or detriment of those barrages to our financial and operational success. i know that providing parking is important. it is a part of what we do. but we cannot assume that a parking garage is the right spate -- the right use for a space that we have. i think it would be interesting to see an overall cost-benefit analysis. maybe they are not in the right occasion to be turned into leases for vehicles, but they could partially returned into -- be turned into an overall

analysis on the garages --that e serve. thank you. >> anyone else? >> i just wanted to express opposition to this proposed contract. we have a significant number of staff in the real-estate unit and have traffic and parking under one roof. they should have and should be looking throughout the agency for real estate needs. this is work that existing or augmented that it do. i am sure that the proposed contractor rates are significant on an hourly basis

and would be less if done by city employees. >> anyone else care to reverse the award? >> is there a second? >> all in favor. we are unanimous. we need to move to a closed session now? >> while waiting for the people's plan people to a work -- to arrive, looks like you could go into closed session. let's look like they are here. >> oh, they are here now. all right. >> ok. we will go to item number 11. presentation and discussion regarding what the people's plan for the america's cup.

>> i will quickly handle as a member of a three-person executive steering committee. it has been an incredible effort. a lot of different city and outside staff have gotten to this point of where we are in the process. i know that where we are, from my vantage point and there is, the work, coming into the mta, and the people's plan has been phenomenal. there is no way that this will work without good transportation and affecting of that plan.

working closely with a whole lot of other folks. we are in a good position to showcase what we can do in this event that is important for the city. with that, we have another speaker. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentleman. let's i am just checking to make sure that we have the slides. >> -- >> i am just checking to make sure that we have the slides. >> [inaudible]

>> i can do another one. i should probably introduce myself. my name is mike martin. this plan has been greatly supported amidst many ends -- instances. my piece is going to be starting out with an informational overview of where we are in the process. this is a very determinative time in terms of how we move forward and what events will look like in san francisco. we have completed it. this slide shows us the schedule of the america's cup events.

basically, we're looking at the main events of the 2013 but to then select the challenger, that would be september 7 to, but that is a 509 match series. leading up to 2013 with a series of regtattas around the world, with at the same team, but smaller vessels. in 2015 they will all be in 72 foot vessels. i think that the america's cup world series is giving ourselves a chance to get a snapshot of what this new brand of close to

shore, fixed brand, a multimult pricing on how we will manage this exciting event in 2012 and 2013. these programs are slated for august 27, through september 2. those will be focused on the northern waterfront. the port facilities will still be under construction. the center of activity will be the marina green. so? >> to help to give some contacts? >> yes. all these sort of it -- organizations have america's cup in their name, which can be confusing.

racing and management are basically sister organizations who are together. the event's sponsor put on the unit, the authority handles the commercialization. they are, rarely focused with on the water logistics'. -- primarily focused and bringing into focus there event plans and bringing them together with our of and planning, so hopefully we have a successful strategy. lastly, the locally formed committee that is locally formed with san francisco citizens, who are leading the way, and are a key pillar of the agreement, relating to fund-raising to defer a portion of the public

costs. they are also going to help to convene not much of our stability. we are very grateful for that presentation. however, raise management being intricately involved in the planning is part of a better partner as well. >> next slide, please. >> we issue our environmental impact report on july 11 of last year. august 5 was the freezing of the public comment period. we had a thorough and exhaustive effort to respond to those comments. the planning commission heard the item and certify that it is clean and the appeal has now

been calendar for the full board of supervisors next tuesday, january 24. i hope we will come back to the mta board of directors to adopt ceqa findings and take appropriate findings -- action. at the bottom of the slide we referenced the process under nepa. that includes the regulation for the coast guard to manage traffic along the bay as well as these permits to use park lands and that process is moving forward. it will take longer to publish their documentary different departments. you'll see that later this spring in may 2012 and

hopefully a final findings in june 2012. a quick few points on the economic benefits. the economic study commission prior to signing the host agreement looked at the full range of economic potential impacts to san francisco and the bay area and called out over $1 billion of impact and over 8000 jobs created by the events. these impacts and jobs are spread across a number of sectors as listed here. construction, transportation, and general events. hospitality and that sort of thing. something we have pointed out to people as we talked about these economic impact is they are not coming from a single point. these impacts are from diffuse points and different spectators and people interested in the events come to san francisco. our strategy is not if you build it they will come, but