some procedural concerns. i support the expansion so that it's not just serving market streets but the commuters taking tell train and the people who live in the area going to cal train and those who work at city hall and the state buildings in this general area have better access beyond the market street corridor. i still think we need a better process for proposing and evaluating changed services. the staff report i saw did not totally route costs and claims the part-time operators will pay for it. my understanding is part time operators and other savings were to reduce the budget deficit and not to expand service.

it's a bit of a mixed message. i would suggest the board asked for a report on this service combine back to see how it is doing and as recently as last night, there's a run that was not filled. i would argue that it is at the expense of existing services and i'm wondering if there is more of a priority that's going to be given to this service as opposed to existing services. i would ask that you follow bonds of these points. >> thank you. anyone else? >> i do have one concern on this. as we look on the map where it

makes its one turned a round of vision, i would ask that -- so that people can actually get on and off at that point -- the first leg of the journey is about 0.75 miles if my math is correct. it seems to me like that is going to add to some ridership there. i'm wondering if we can amend this to add a stop there and that look at it in awhile. it becomes a self elimination. >> i think the recommendation to

come back and report on this service is a good one and will be monitoring the service and is meeting the expectations closely. with regard to the addition of a stop, i would like to request rather than giving it on the fly here that you would give us authorization to go back to what the connection routes are and what the assumptions were. i know there is a lot of growth in that area as well so i see your point on that but rather than agree to it here -- i prefer the ability to look into an old war. >> i think we can go ahead and pass this and it will give the flexibility to go and do this

and look at adding us up on that. >> one thing that was not discussed and i guess that beast 60 some odd times during the year, we're going to of a baseball game there during the night time. it is a connector from civic center to the ballpark. have there been any considerations about what the scheduling of a ball game would to to capacity on line and are there traffic considerations at or near a ball game that would affect it that need to be taken into account? >> i don't think this would experience any different kinds of things that run around the area, particularly the 47 and i don't think we see a significant

impact on the bus routes. we have much more of a surge -- things like that or we have -- is going right down to the station and it seems like we are able to manage that pretty well. >> it is designed to attract employers and businesses and i think that is a laudable goal. i am happy to move the item. >> i have a motion and a second. any opposed? the motion passes. >> item 13, authorizing two enter into an agreement for a parking meter collection for

five years and to extend into a mound -- into a amount. there is no member of the public and has expressed an interest in addressing this matter. >> we do have a brief presentation if you are interested. >> with any board members like to hear the presentation? >> i think that because of the size of the contract -- it's just the information in the staff report but for the benefit of the public, just a few slides to do the context. -- to defuse the context. >> very quickly, this is rfp you

approved in december 2011. i'm going to start on slide #3. we have eight potential vendors show up. unfortunately, only one vendor responded to the rfp. we reached out to the other vendors to find out why they didn't respond and they give a several reasons. the main reason was they felt the contract had such a significant amount of work and they have other things in the hopper and they did not want to take this on. the contract is very specific on what we asked for from the vendor and he had a lot of specific san francisco-related issues that required a lot of programming and things like that and that's why we didn't get any of the vendors responding. we also did break up the service. it has historically been a combination of coin collecting as well as processing the

meters. we have broken it up now and to coin collection because we're going to be getting new meters and we did not want to combine these two. the main schley want to talk about is no. 5 which brings out the dollars for the contract of. the current contract, we pay about $5.4 million and we're projecting that will increase to a little over $9 million. the majority is an increase in technology we will be making on communications and credit card fees. that is the majority of increases. this is all little over $40 million a year in parking revenue and we expect to see that go up as we enhance our parking meters. the cost of the contract is about one year of the revenues and we get over $200 million

plus over the five years. with that, we are asking for your support on this item. >> i have one question. thank you for explaining why none of the other folks submitted bids. do you have concerns about agreeing to a five-year contract as opposed to a shorter contract when we only received one bid or is this the nature of the contract and the economies are such that doing it for shorter times does make sense? >> i would imagine because of the level of specificity that we need that doing a term short and five would be significantly less viable and we would get a significantly higher price. the core service pricing is actually down a little bit from what it was in the previous contract. had that been moving in a significantly in another

direction, we might have wanted to pause and rebid but since we were able to get the core pricing in line with what we had before, we thought it was reasonable. >> we are generally satisfied with the experience we have had so far. i am prepared to move the item. >> any other questions? i have a motion, to have a second? all in favor? the motion passes. item 14 is whether to conduct a close session. >> motion to conduct a closed session? all in favor. it will take a moment to put the room into closed session and we will take a break.

>> a motion to disclose or not disclose what we discussed in closed session. all in favor? >> that concludes your business today. >> thank you. we are adjourned. thank you very much.

>> the next time you take a muni bus or train, there could be new technology that could make it easier to get to your destination. many are taking a position of next bus technology now in use around the city. updated at regular intervals from the comfort of their home or workplace. next bus uses satellite technology and advanced computer modeling to track buses and trains, estimating are bought stocks with a high degree of accuracy. the bus and train our arrival information can be accessed from your computer and even on your cellular phone or personal digital assistant. knowing their arrival time of the bus allows riders the choice of waiting for it or perhaps doing some shopping locally or getting a cup of coffee. it also gives a greater sense that they can count on you to get to their destination on

time. the next bus our arrival information is also transmitted to bus shelters around the city equipped with the next bus sign. riders are updated strictly about arrival times. to make this information available, muni has tested push to talk buttons at trial shelters. rider when pushes the button, the text is displayed -- when a rider pushes the button. >> the success of these tests led to the expansion of the program to all stations on the light rail and is part of the new shelter contract, push to talk will be installed. check out the new technology making your right easier every day

>> good afternoon, everyone. this is the monday, at the 14th, 2012, a meeting of the land use and economic development committee. my name is eric mar. please give us the announcement. >> please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices. items act upon will appear on the may 22 board of supervisors agenda. supervisor mar: we have three

items on the agenda today. please call item number 1. >> item number one, st. encroachment for an outdoor child play area on redwood street. >> good afternoon. this request came to us from project management on behalf of puc in conjunction with the construction of a new building at 525 golden gate bridge as mandated, -- golden gate bridge as mandated, a licensed child care facility provide a minimum of 7500 square feet of outdoor space per child. since the child care standard was built into the property line, they will be using the sidewalk, a portion of the

sidewalk will be fenced in for this child care area. in order to maintain a safe path of travel around it, sidewalks will be bold out. this was approved in conformity with the general plan, and also by a mta. there were no objections. dpw held a hearing on this item. we received no objections. we respectfully request that you move this forward. thank you. supervisor mar: let's open this up for public comment. public comment is closed. can we move this forward with a positive recommendation? >> we have three amendments on the item.

the city attorney has admitted three minor changes. the first one, you have copies. supervisor mar: so -- >> would you like me to read them? supervisor mar: it would be good if you could read them into the record. >> the first one is on page 2. >> if it is ok, i can read them into the record as well. i have them also. supervisor mar: that would be great. >> the first one is on page two, lines 4 and 5. recognizes pc needs to sign and a knowledge the encroachment permit and the agreement. before the permit will be effective. page two, line 5 and 6, identifies the only in the encroachment agreement is in the clerk's file. dpw practice is only to forward

the agreement. page two, line 15 clarifies that the puc, given its charter a 40, only to obtain those permits that are legally -- authority, only to obtain those permits that are legally required. supervisor mar: i see a nod from our city attorney. we have close public comment. colleagues, can we move these amendments without objection? can we adopt this resolution with a positive recommendation? thank you. thank you, everyone. we now have items two and three. should we call them together? we are joined by president chiu. >> item 2 -- ordinance amending

the san francisco transportation code. supervisor mar: we are joined by the sponsor. president chiu: a couple of weeks ago, we had a lengthy hearing on the situation involving to airbus's -- tour buses in many of our residential neighborhoods. this is an issue that has been longstanding. many neighborhoods and constituents have complained about noise, parking issues, and other quality of life concerns. i want to thank the mta and staff for working to put forth a draft tour bus policy to govern how our cities tour buses would operate on our city streets. item number two, the number of

transportation code amendments to move that forward. i do have a couple of amendments to take out mention of a permiting structure that we had initially discussed. at this point, we will not be moving that forward. but i would like to do is invite up jerry robbins to walk through to talk about what the mta is currently doing. >> thank you. we prepared a draft management plan in february of 2011. in the last 16 months, we have implemented many aspects of that plan. i have a summary -- it indicates which items are ongoing, which items have been completed, and which items we have dropped.

so, in august 2010, we began increasing enforcement of two airbus -- tour bus loading zones. in september, we implemented 16 short-term zones in the fisherman morris -- fisherman's wharf areas. where they would not be blocking other bosses. that has been completed. in march through may of 2010, we met with. 39 pier 30 to improve -- pier 39 to improve tour bus

operations. we have reviewed locations am union square, and that is an ongoing effort. we meet every two months to discuss the situation there and tried to work out problems. supervisor mar: can you explain why pier 39 does not support that? >> we suggested that the taxis zones and bus zones be swapped. they felt it was not necessary. they felt it was working adequately the way it was. they did agree to step up their internal management of the zone to make it work better. we did not make any legislative changes. i think we have helped the situation somewhat.

we have been working very closely with sf travel to approve the information that operators receive on how to operate in san francisco. we have a publication called the "motor coach update." it goes into quite a bit of detail. but streets they're allowed to operate on, which treats that are not allowed to operate on. we gave them the opportunity to contact me if they have suggestions on how that publication could be improved, or how the regulations could be improved. in august 2010, it discusses this permit system that we had envisioned for all tour bus operators in san francisco. every private operator would need to work with our department

to obtain a permit if they wanted to part in any of these specially designated parking zones about the city. we asked for feedback on that idea. we got some resistance from operators and we also thought it was going to be quite a difficult administrative task to outreach to companies across the country, explain this permit system, collect their fees, at issue a permit, updated every year. we are not currently proposing to pursue that at this point. that is a summary of what we have done so far. supervisor mar: when you expect the mta board to finalize this plan? >> i think we have implemented the things that are feasible.

i do not think there is -- most things were approved by the mta board as they were implemented. i do not think there is a need for them to come back and take a look at the entire plan. supervisor mar: you do not think there other things your agency can do to move things forward? >> enforcement is key. supervisor mar: to speak on the topic of enforcement, which is the topic that came up at the last meeting, i would like to invite -- >> i have been transferred over to traffic. i am working at mta. i will be coordinating the plan to enforce any of the violations

as they occur, targeting whatever locations are identified and whatever the plan is. we will be working very closely with them. i will be coordinating the activities from the district stations along with the traffic company enforcement. supervisor mar: no enforcement efforts has wrapped up within your division? >> correct. the boat ramp up as the legislation is rolled out -- we will ramp up as the legislation is rolled out. we understand the problems in the target areas and we will be dedicating our resources. supervisor mar: will you be able to track the number of citations? >> rouble issued the citations and violations -- we will issued the citations and the violations and then we will submit a full report. we have about 23 officers at mta and we have 24 motorcycle

officers that are assigned to mta now. supervisor mar: one thing that would be helpful is to understand month by month what kind of citations have been issued. many of our local tour bus operators will understand what they need to do pretty quickly. i anticipate it will be our out- of-town companies that will have more trouble getting into compliance. >> that is what we intend to do. we want to track it and see where everything is going. supervisor mar: in three months, if we could give a status report. and maybe every quarter for the first year just to understand how implementation is going? thank you. colleagues? the last person i would like to invite up is to talk about -- is tom here?

i did not see you. he is from the department of public health. he is responsible for the enforcement of noise issues. he has been working closely with my office and the operators are around legislative item number three. it gets at this issue of open- air tour bus loudspeakers. it was proposed in all these conversations of the department of public help set up a regulatory structure that his office is responsible for enforcing to ensure that our bosuses are in compliance with noise ordinances. >> good afternoon, supervisors. we have been able to meet with the operators and do some fields evaluations of their equipment and they're in a seat -- annunciation systems. we believe that