folks are working on, to make the port space available to them, we have to move the other shop. we certainly would rather own it and as you heard, we negotiated that kind of first right of offer, it should have become available for purchase but that's how it fits into our master plan, so if i may, i would like to ask ms. mcgary and walk through the specifics of the other properties and the other questions you asked and i'll be here to answer any questions you have. >> thank you. >> good morning, supervisors, i'm senior manager of real estate and thank you for this opportunity to talk to you. would you like me to answer the questions or go through some of the visuals, what would your preference be?

>> what visuals? what visuals were you referring to? are you referring to the attachments? >> yes, would you like to see those on the screen? >> i thinkactually just going through the questions, although the first visual might be helpful just for members of the public to see. >> to see where the facilities are? >> yeah. rhaps you can speak while -- >> this gies you an overview of the current facies that we hav so there's a combination of light rai vehicle facilities, which are at mme, green and cameron beach so those are both what we call lrv, light rail vehicles as well as historic vehicles, there's also overhead which mr.

ris khan mentioned at the bryan street facility, there's the main bus facilities including at -- flynn is our articulated bus for diesels, [inaudible] is a new bus facility under construction, woods is one of our main bus facilities as well as kerk land, so these multiple arrows show the shifting around that would occur as part of the recommendations in the vision report. in addition, the vision report assume that is we'll be able to get the bayshore facility in order to move out of pier 70 and to move training in there as well as other mta uses. so, would you like me to go over that? i know it's very complicate and

had looks like an octopus but it's a complicated list of recommendations, again, to rebuild and better utilize our facilities. >> i think perhaps if i could provide some guidance to go through some of the point that is were covered in the memo because i know the mta will be back to us before december 31st to talk to us about the facilities master plan? >> yes. would you like me to move on to why we have to move out of pier 70 or have we covered that enough? >> i think just going over the other sites that you had considered. >> we'll talk about net present value. >> those were the two questions. >> so, the net present value for the lease, we've looked at different ways, if you look at it including the building expenses for a ten year lease, it would be 21 million and for a 20 year lease, it would be approximately 38 million.

if you look at it excluding the building expenses, which is reflecting the lease payment of 65 cents a square foot as opposed to 80 cents a square foot, the net present value of the lease for 10 years would be approximately 17.8 million, and for 20 years, 33 million, and for scenario 3, if you exclude the building expenses as well as what prologis, i'm sorry, what auto return pays for the mta for the lease, the net present value of the lease if ten years would be 2.9 million and 20 years, 16.2 million and i would like to point out there was a correction on that point for the net present value in that scenario, we will send you a corrected letter, so we've looked at a long list of alternatives in various locations but first we had to have a list of criteria, what do we need in terms of looking at a facility, so we need today have approximately 13 acres

just for the towing operations to fulfill its current location needs at pier 70, and we said it could be in san francisco or adjacent to the city in order to avoid additional transportation costs for towing as well as the public access, needed to be on or near a public transit for public access, it needed to have appropriate zoning such as m-1 or m2, and it needed to have an existing structure in good condition of about 200 thousand square feet for towing and storing of towed cars as well as for other uses and an appropriate neighborhood that would accept car towed movement and storage, as well as acceptable environmental conditions to avoid significant remediation, time and cost. so, looking out there in the real world and the properties that we've looked at, there are some properties where owners don't want to sell or are

reluctant to sell and it could take an imminent main process which would be very time consuming and costly, one example is a 12 to 13 acre property owned by the goodman family, they've verbally said, they might be interested in the 45 million dollar range for the land and that's quite expensive, in addition, we would need to build the warehouses, demolish the current warehouses xh have businesses, small businesses in them and then build new, so the whole project cost for that could be in the 75 million dollar range. another example is on michigan across the street from the metro east yard and that's a business that supports 120 families, it's been in business for about 75 years, the owners are not interested in retiring yet and they're not interested in selling, so that's another one that we've actually talked to the owners.

other properties have hazardous materials that need significant expensive and time consuming mitigation measures, one example is the petrol hill power plant, they put out requests for qualifications, it's requested that even though there are 22 acres plus 3 acres of submerged land under san francisco bay, that the time for the remediation plan could take until 2015 with the cleanup, it would take approximately 2 to 3 years so that doesn't fit with either the needs of the mta or the port in order to move out of pier 70 on a timely basis. we looked at properties that are zoned m-1 and they don't encourage industrial use, one is on carol avenue, that's

below hunter's point and although it's zoned m-1, it's in the fema flood zone, it has nothing there except for a [inaudible] scale, so it needs everything in materials of -- terms of being able to use it, the use of this property at carol avenue is not compatible with the hunter's point project, another one is a 3.7 acre property there's also other buildings which need demolition and construction, in addition, the property is across the street from residential homes. other properties that have been rezoned so they're no longer

industrial or light industrial such as mission bay, portions of the southeast waterfront and then the port properties which are as the port knows very challenging because they have state trust which allows commerce navigation, fisheries and open space, so in order for the mta to take over a port parcel for a long term use, we would need to find other property and exchange it with a port which requires not only city approvals but also the state's land commission, the state legislature and the governor, so we've looked at properties which we can -- if you would like, we can put up the visuals of the maps, would that be helpful to see where some of them are? >> just go ahead. >> okay. >> if you can hold on just one moment.

we can do the visual one, thank you very much. we'll start at the top. okay. so, these show you -- so, basically the industrial properties at the plant, the property across the street from the residential area, the carol avenue, the area that we're looking at here, le paul avenue, looking further south here, this is 2650 bayshore soit's on the border of san francisco and daly city, so here's the drive-in theatre, we understand daly city is not going to have those as

industrial parcels anymore, they'd rather have them rezoned to -- it's owned by syufi, enterprises, the planning and redevelopment process is an urban street scape. okay, do you want to continue south? >> that answers my question. thank you very much, i think that that information is adequate. i did just want to ask a quick question from the mta with regards to the tow fees. you break down what the tow fees come to and i just had a question because i know tow fees are generally very expensive, we see the contractor's towing fee of 200

dollars, the towing fee of 64 dollars a day and the administrative tow fee, the mta's administrative tow fee, can you explain the difference or what the administrative tow fee is, does that help you to recover lease expenses and if that's the case, then is the contractor storage fee sort of a duplicative item? >> we're governed by prop 218 in terms of the fees we can charge, we're more or less at 100% fee recovery, there's no duplication, there's the processing on our side that would be in the administrative fees and there's the contractor's cost and that's what we're recovering. >> and then just i guess a question about whether or not the mta has determined that there's any way to reduce the administrative tow fee, are

there ways to find efficiencies in that area to control it, can we get a better rate than 210? >> it's possible. it was something early on in my tenure that i got a question from the board of supervisors about how high our tow fees were, and as a result of my inquiry, i got at the time a more detailed breakdown, i asked to the extent folks had looked at ways of reducing the cost and basically the answer i got back was that this was as low as we could go and recover our cost, so with all of these things, particularly a fee that is so kind of painful to folks, we'll certainly look both with we bid the contract and as we move to the new facility for any efficiencies that we could find, we certainly would like to be able to bring down this fee, it is extraordinarily

high, it's adding insult to injury, not only did i get my car towed but i have to pay my parking ticket, we'd like to see this come down. we have not identified any specific ways of doing that at this time. >> okay, thank you. okay, colleagues, any other questions at this moment? why don't we open this item up for public comment. are there members of the public who wish to speak on this item, item number 1, seeing none, public comment is closed. colleague, we have the item before us. supervisor kim? >> i just wanted to thank mta for taking the additional time to really respond with a thoughtful memo on a lot of the questions and concerns that i had and other colleagues had regarding this lease. while i still think it's not a great lease for the city, i do believe that there was a thoughtful process and due diligence that took place which is my concern at the end of the day, if we could not find

something better, i think that that responded to my question and that was what i was searching for was the background information on that, i think the graphics were helpful as well, i do hope to see in the future that we are able to terminate some of our private leases as we move forward over the next couple of years, i wish we could have been more specific today on what they could -- they could be instead of what they could have been, a month ahead to when you're want tog share this with the board, for me, it was helpful to understanding your object t*ifr and is goals, the last comment i'll make is i hope we have some further conversation about the tow fee and why it's twice as high of that from income city, and i understand props may subsidize through the general fund but i think it's extraordinarily high and it's something that is incredibly frustrating for people, especially the parking

ticket, i'm not sure if that's a cost recovery -- hoping that may be a further conversation within mta. >> thank you, supervisor kim, did you make a motion? >> i'll make a motion to move without recommendation but i do plan on supporting this at the full board. >> thank you very much and i will echo the same comments on the tow fees, i think i was the supervisor who e-mailed you that question of how it was broken down when you first began your tenure there, so i would be interested to see what we could do to bring that down. supervisor avalos? >> thank you, chair chu. related to tow fees, i've heard from a lot of residents who have had their cars stolen, that they have to pay to take their car out of tow, i wonder if there's a way to have a waiver for people to have their cars stolen because that's something they had no control

over and i heard at least from three people who have had their car stolen and had to pay to pull it out of the lot and already there's a lot of financial strain on a household that loses a car, so just another thing to throw in there around tow fees. well, i want to thank the mta for coming forward and for their patience on this measure, last week, i expressed i would not be supporting this contract, i don't know where i'm at still, i do understand the mta is between a rock and a hard place in terms of trying to figure out how to find available land to do its functions, the car tow being one of them, i want to thank the budget analyst getting us all worked about this and figuring out the finances behind this lease. i think it's unclear how i'm going to vote yet on it but i understand the real need of supporting something like that and i don't want to hamstring the mta, i know you have a lot

of other work to do in terms of operations and we'll see what happens on tuesday, but i want to thank you for coming back this week. >> thank you, supervisor avalos, we have a motion to send the item forward without recommendation and i think we can do that without objection? >> [inaudible]. >> i think that we took them last week. >> [inaudible]. >> did we not? >> madam chair, members of the committee, to the best of my recollection, i don't think you did, the department, as i understand it has agreed with our recommendations so our suggestion is to still amend the legislation. >> okay. >> great, given that then, colleague, do swre a motion to adopt the amendment as a whole? we can do that without objection and to the item as amended, we have an amended motion to send the item forward without amendment and we can do that without objection.

final item, item number 6, this is a pretty straight forward item that allows the department of public health to submit an application for ryan white funding but do we have a speaker on this item? >> good morning. you see in front of you the request for an accept and expend or to apply for funding for ryan white, you see the amount, the total that we would request just to point out that that represents the largest amount that we received from the federal government from part i which is unfortunately about 8 or 10 years ago that we received this amount, so i think i'll be brief in my comments, i'm bill bloom, i'm the corrector of hiv health services for san francisco department of public health and see what questions you all have. >> did you say it was the largest amount that you received for part a? >> yes, about 8 or 10 years now. >> and is that reflective of

the shift of federal funding to that part as opposed to other parts because we've seen a reduction in ryan white funding? >> yes, it's a reflection of the total funding amount nationally versus the number of eligibility metropolitan areas that can apply, so the size of the pie did not grow at the same rate as the number of solicit taints. >> for this item, i believe we do not have a budget analyst report, i would like to open this item up for public comment, are there any members of the public who wish to speak on item 6. seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, do we have a motion to send this forward, and we can do that without objection. do we have any other items before us. >> that completes the agenda. >> thank you, we are adjourned. (meeting is adjourned).>> the rs

to vote for candidates or party and it is a significant way to have our voice heard. exactly 100 years ago, women were given the vote in california. the battle for women's suffrage

was not an easy one. it took more than 70 years. a woman could run for president in new york. >> organizing this conference, basically it modeled itself on a declaration of independence for women. it marked the beginning of the women's equality movement in the united states. >> at that time, women were banned from holding property and voting in elections. >> susan b. anthony dedicated her life to reform.

>> suffrage in the middle of the 19th century accomplished one goal, it was diametrically opposed to this idea. >> many feared it would be corrupted by politics. >> women in the 19th century had to convince male voters that having the vote would not change anything. that woman would still be devoted to the home, the family, that they would remain pure and innocent, that having the vote would not corrupt them. >> support gradually grew in state and local campaigns.

>> leaders like ellen clark sgt come repeatedly stopping these meetings -- , repeatedly stopping these meetings as a politically active figure. doing everything they could to ground the campaign in domesticity. >> despite their efforts, the link made it tough whenever voters were in the big city. a specialist in francisco. >> the problem with san francisco is that women's suffrage as an idea was associated. >> susan b. anthony joined the provision party. a deadly idea in san francisco. liquor was the foundation of the

economy. and >> anything that touched on the possibility of prohibition was greatly and popular. >> the first campaign was a great effort, but not a success. >> the war was not over. less than one decade later, a graphic protests brought new life to the movement. >> women's suffrage, the republican convention in oakland, this time it was the private sector response. 300 marched down the streets of the convention center. women were entitled to be here.

>> joining together for another campaign. >> women opened a club in san francisco. it was called the votes for women club. if she could get the shopkeepers to have lunch, she could get them to be heard literature. the lunch room was a tremendous success. >> it was the way that people thought about women willing to fight for a successful campaign. what happened was, the social transformation increase the boundary of what was possible, out word.

>> there were parades and rallies, door to door candidacies, reaching every voter in the state. >> the eyes of the nation were on california in 1911, when we all voted. it was the sixth and largest state in the nation to approve this. one decade later, we have full voting rights in the united states. helping newly enfranchised women, a new political movement was founded. >> starting in the 1920's, it was a movement created by the suffragettes moving forward to getting the right to vote. all of the suffragettes were interested in educating the new voters. >> non-partisan, not endorsing

candidates >> -- endorsing candidates, getting the right to vote and one they have their voice heard. >> the 100th anniversary of women's suffrage is taking place throughout the state. bancroft library is having an exhibit that highlights the women's suffrage movement, chronicling what happened in california, bringing women the right to vote. >> how long does this mean going on? >> the week of the 20th. people do not realize that women were allowed to vote as early as the 1920's. in the library collection we have a manuscript from the end

of december, possibly longer. >> in commemoration of 100 years of voting in california. 100 years ago this year, we won the right to vote. around 1911, this is how it would have addressed. and here we are, dressed the same.