i would like to see that addressed. also, two other things. you know, i really want to see the accessibility of the seniors and disabled to bosses -- buses. it is creating a hardship. an internal communication in the mta referred to this hardship as a challenge. but you are treating the seniors and elderly as though this was sealed boot camp training -- seal boot camp training. this is not the olympic games. this is accessibility to public transportation. i do not think that it is fair to people. second -- the third thing is that i would like to see a situation where bikers do not crash the red light and in the -- endanger people in the

intersection. it is -- the model should be shared the intersection. -- share the intersection. thank you. >> next speaker, please? >> i made an error. the last person is mr. caldwell. >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon. i do not like to be up here by myself. [laughter] >> welcome, everyone. we are glad to hear it -- you're here today. >> congratulations, vice chair. this will change everything. [laughter] director lee, oka, okreiskin,

ramos, my name is claire, a retired muni operator and former secretary and treasurer. cooin here with my colleagues, e of whom are retired and are no longer employed by muni, but we were all new drivers in 1984. -- mimi -- muni drivers in 1984. remember this, as i give you this summary. we were all muni drivers in 1984. all of us have been aggrieved by the actions of the trust fund trustees. a joint board made up of mta officials and of local 258

officials. their actions resulted in a group of workers being singled out and left out. therefore, we were each denied a monetary payment of $1,880. it was paid out last december 23, 2011. there was a total of 155 operators who received $1,880 each. they were actively working as transit operators in 1984. some of whom were still working in december of 2011. and some who retired in 2009 through a 2011. this group also received $1,880. this $1,880 that was received by

some operators was the result of a 1984 cost of living adjustment that was placed into the trust fund, and has earned interest for the past 28 years. that totals approximately $292,000. as i stated in my opening comments, we were all muni drivers in 1984. this is the key to our agreements. where are our checks? we want our money, too. we are not looking for a handout. we all worked hard for this money. it was in the 250 a mou. why were we left out? i was told by a trusty that it was logistically impossible to locate those still in the property. we do not agree. most of us are retired drivers

receiving city benefits. therefore, the city has our contact information. notice to these retired operators should be sent by certified mail. the truth is that no such efforts were attended by these trusties. no one even tried to get in contact with us. we know that there is still money in the trust fund. use this money to pay out our $1,880 each, which is fair and equitable. if you think we are too old and senile to understand that we have been bamboozled, this is our first step in trying to right this wrong. we hope that it can be resolved at this level. if not, we are prepared to the gate and file appropriate criminal charges.

are there any questions? >> thank you very much. >> thank you for your time. >> members of the board, any questions or comments? we cannot take action on the calendar today, but we definitely appreciate your showing up here today and we appreciate your testimony. we will be considering this in the weeks and months ahead. >> do not take too long. i understand that those trust fund benefits expire in april. >> thank you very much. you are most welcome to stay for the rest of the meeting, if you like. not so much? >> that is the last person that has turned in a speaker cards. moving on, on the consent calendar -- >> looks like we have a speaker. >> on public comment? matters not on the agenda? ok. let's ok.

>> do i need to fill out a card? >> just go ahead and state your name. >> go ahead. >> i will let them leave. >> thank you. >> go ahead. >> ok. hello, my name is -- >> hang on just a second. ladies and gentlemen, the meeting will be continuing. just take a moment here. we will not charge this against you. >> if anyone else would like to speak, they should come to the front of the room with a speaker card. [room noise] >> i guess we are ok now.

thank you. welcome. >> thank you for allowing me to speak. my name is hannah. i lived in an artist community of long standing at mayor oppose that and alabama. as you can guess, i am speaking to the parking meter issue. it is a very serious concern to many of us too, have, for a long time, lived and worked in that area. the feeling is that the plan came to us at the end of november and i did not have a clue that it was actually going on until i got back to town in early january. the matter was supposed to be decided in the first week of february. i believe that there has not been enough time to consider the

mixed use quality of this neighborhood. it is very mixed use. it is not a commercial area or a transit hub. those of us with cars, there are 35 people in my building. currently in the plan there is no parking meters scheduled for the front of my building, but everywhere else around. the impact on those spaces that we all use as artists, many of us daily. myself, i need a car because i personally load in and out every day a full load of circuits equipment. i teach at five elementary schools. you probably know that as our providers, we are now paid a big salary. so, i have to use my car daily. if i have to pay half of the day for me during, it feels to me like a regressive tax.

it is where i live and work. i want to say that we need more time to consider the matter, please. thank you. >> caroline? >> i am also here to talk about the proposed parking plan. we received little to no outreach. most of us found out a few days before christmas through posters and fliers put out by a community organization. we did not get anything until the first week of january. there were two different maps posted above the neighborhood in the plan. so far i am in san francisco and i own two different retail clothing stores. i've worked solely out of developing environments on alabama street. i deliver stuff to different neighborhoods. probably about three trips per week.

this program is right, where it is applicable. in this neighborhood, it is not applicable. it is a mixed use area. it will cause a lot of businesses to leave. the city has been working. they were like -- please, do not undo the work we have been doing. this is a straight up thing. we have to leave because our employees will not have a place to park. we had a community meeting and i ask everyone if they really needed a car. come on. we walked year. yes, we do. i might come to the meeting next weekend i will try to do it on your knee. you will see me sweating, carrying bags and boxes. it is just not doable. so far in two years there were

167 surveys gathered from the parking lot by summer interns. my background is as a master of arts and physical therapy sciences. this is not statistically significant data collection. the conclusions that are drawn from it are not appropriate. 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. --