in california. two skinny wheels are very vulnerable to for pavement. we have found in our surveys, folks to ride bicycles in the city are as bothered by and injured by bad pavement as they are by other hazards. we are proud of our work with public works and other agencies. we are participants in the street finance working group. we are keen on addressing this problem, so we urge you to give this your fullest consideration. we are also eager to continue working on finding those long- term sources of revenue. it is not right to pay for all of this with a bond, or even to try to get very far. we have to do something. of course, the bicycle coalition will continue to work with city agencies and you folks to find those longer-term sources of revenue. so again, we are taking this seriously and we hope that you will give it full consideration. thank you.

>> elizabeth stant. walk san francisco. you may have heard that yesterday at two pedestrians were hit in the city. one man was hit so badly, it was presumed that he was killed, but he is now on life-support. so pedestrian safety cannot wait. on tuesday, the national transportation for america released a report called " dangers by design." it highlighted the fact that in the last decade, 47,700 people were killed by being hit by cars, which the report points out, is the equivalent of a jumbo jet crashing every month but right now we are not seen the kind of public attention and

funding that would go to a catastrophe like that. the report also found a majority of deaths occurred on arterial streets, the wide, fast streets, like the ones south of market and elsewhere in the city, including lombard, where that young man was hit. here in california, the report also found seniors, people of color, low income communities are most at risk of pedestrian injury and death. this is true in san francisco and even more so, our pedestrian fatality rate -- the rate at which pedestrians are a percentage of all traffic fatalities. it is more than half year, which puts us at no. 3 in the country among counties. for all these reasons, this is an opportunity -- this bond

provides the opportunity to give funding to this issue that the report recommends and that we already know we need to create the complete and walkable streets. walk san francisco is supporting this bond. supervisor chu: thank you. >> you know those streets are older, older than the trees city roads, take me home take me home to the place i belong with those bonds, take me home city roads i hear the voice in the morning our call me the radio news reminds me the streets need to be paved writing down the road i see the

feeling that i should have had it fixed yesterday, yesterday city roads, fix it up in the place the city hears fix those pot holes today. supervisor chu: thank you. >> no vote exists on this bond measure. it is illegal. a no vote exists on it. it is a violation of the laws and ordinances, governing of bond measures. my name is james patrick carroll. i will not sing, i promise. supervisor chu: thank you. any other speakers that wish to comment on item 3? seeing none, public comment is closed.

supervisor wiener? supervisor wiener: thank you. i move that we forward this to the full board with recommendations. i know that this kind of bond is always controversial because of this debate we have been having today about whether road resurfacing or reconstruction is an operating expense, expense -- capital expense. it is a spectrum. there are splisignificant aspecf our rowe that our capital, and the presentation accurately pointed out that we are not an anomaly. throughout the country, bonds are used to finance our roads and it is not something that is typically paid out of ongoing

general fund. whether that is a good thing or not, that is a debate we could have, but we have to look at the reality of our situation. our roads have deteriorated substantially in the last several decades. in the last five years, thankfully, we have managed to stop the deterioration but we are now in danger of allowing additional deterioration, which will then snowballed over time, by turning needed resurfacing into needed research -- reconstruction in. this is a very sensible bond that will allow us to max out dpw possibility to work on our roads and resurfaced roads that need it. will also allow us to make some significant pedestrian safety improvements, capital improvements, and some

significant public transportation capital improvements. i completely agree we now have a three-year window to really figure out what a long-term sustainable source of funding for our roads is. i am committed to participating in that conversation, but this bond is extremely important, and that is why i am moving that we move it forward with recommendations. supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor chiu? supervisor chiu: i am happy to report that i want to support the spirit in 2009, we then convened a financing working group to propose a number of different ways to afford that.

unfortunately, again, the various options were very challenging. we have in front of us, this go bond is appropriate, strikes the right balance, and if we do not move forward with this bond this year, our cost, as we know, will continue to increase exponentially in the coming years. i certainly agree with a perspective that we need to figure out how to provide an operating fund basis, in order to capture the expenditures we need to move forward with on a yearly basis. that being said, we all know what our budget situation is this year. i think if we move forward with this go on, i am happy to figure out with other colleagues how we can ensure to provide for street repaving on a more regular basis. but this is a necessary first to doing that. supervisor chu: thank you, president to. i think we have a motion to send this item forward with

recommendations made by supervisor weiener, seconded by president chiu. with regards to the bonds, and an ideal world, if we were able to pay for street resurfacing through our operating funds, that would be the ideal situation. i am not willing to say that that is a possibility, to be frank. one of the things that i urge the capital planning group, in addition to my colleagues and i to work on, more permanent solutions that not only ask more voters to put more money out of their pockets to do with street resurfacing, but for us to take a look at with the general fund is and see where we can provide a bit of relief on resurfacing work. that is something that i am willing to work with the capital planning group to work on for the future. given the fact that we know we are going to be having

significant deferred maintenance capital expenses that are going to climb if we do not have any level of investment in street resurfacing at this moment, i am willing to support this reluctantly. i do still think we have a problem with it turn out what our long-term situation -- solution for this is. not only that, the piece that provide the cover -- comfort is known that the debt level will not be increasing for property- tax owners. so the same level that we are charging for all of our property taxes for many of our bonds will remain constant and will remain where it is because of the expiration of other bonds. that is a key component to the reason why i would be ok with this going forward. sounds like there is no objection to that motion. we will do that without objection. colleagues, if i could ask to rescind the vote on item one to allow our colleagues to vote on that item? without objection. and if we could take a roll call

on item one. supervisor chiu? supervisor chiu: we do our best not to schedule committee meeting that conflict during the regular part of the year, but given this is a budget season, we had to move the budget committee meeting up closer to a time that coincides with our gao committee, where supervisor mirkarimi and i were just that. i will be, unfortunately, running back and forth between the two committees, but i appreciate the opportunity to rescind the vote. supervisor chu: could we now take a vote on the actual item itself? supervisor wiener: did president chiu have any commentary on this? no. supervisor chu: ok, go ahead. >> roll call

the motion passes. supervisor chu: thank you. please call item two. >> resolution authorizing the lease of 39,573 sq. ft. at 1455 market street for ten years plus options to extend for the san francisco municipal transportation agency's transit management center. supervisor chu: thank you. we have a number of individuals who are here for this item. i believe mr. updike from the real estate division will be presenting. >> thank you, madam chair, members of the committee, john updike, acting director of the

division of real estate. we are seeking approval and lease for sfmta transportation management center. i am going to give you just a brief overview of the real- estate issues, followed by sfmta's staff presentation on the specifics of the center itself and the benefits of co locating a variety of existing functions at that center. first and foremost, this project is about improving the resiliency of our transportation system, particularly, the command and control of operations. it was in that spirit that a site the said the study was produced by jacobs engineering in early 2009. at a valley with nine potential properties against 12 different criteria. everything from size, consideration, location issues, to structural integrity, security, to safety matters. the best credit property from that study was 1455 market street. the details of that rating are

in attachment one to the budget analyst report. 1455 market, located across the street from van ness, built around 1976 is owned by hudson 1455 market llc. it houses the bank of america data processing and about operations and is an extremely resilient facility. it has power availability, seismic strength that is a program for this particular use, and 90,000 gallon diesel fuel tank to deliver a robust emergency power need, 200,000 water gallon storage, extraordinary air handling and chilling capacity for data- related uses. in other words, it is ideally suited for this particular venture. the police before you is 39,573

square feet, primarily on the seventh floor of the property, with some ancillary space on the lower levels for showers, lockers, bike room, and a rooftop present for the connectivity. i wanted to show the footprint of that floor. in the yellow is the area of the lease. in the blue, the area occupied by bank of america. given the layout of the floor, the uses -- bank of america has a strong foothold in the bank building may already own. this size is really not an item that could be adjusted. there had been discussion on whether the footprint could be smaller. unfortunately, it does not work with the configuration of the

floor and existing infrastructure. the lease is an initial term of 10 years with options to extend two years at fixed rates. by% increases upon renewal. base rent would be approximately $30 per square foot per year, increasing 3% per year. we feel that is competitive for the civic center, given that to beat of the building, which meet sfmta's specific needs. additional charges for power and operating expenses were added in. the rate is over $36 per square foot per year. we still feel that is a competitive rate for what is being received. the rent commencement date is approximately june 1, 2012 with two months' free rental provided by the landlord. in terms of improvements included in the lease is a landlord-delivered tenant- improvement package valued at $10 million. federal-state local, prop k

funding provides a total of $31 million. the budget analyst has recommended renewal options dissidents be subject to the board of supervisors approval, and real estate except that recommendation. at this point, i would like to turn the presentation over to sfmta staff who will address the particular as of this transportation management center. after that, happy to answer any questions you might have about the real-estate aspect in particular. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am the project manager with the mta. i have been working on various issues related to central control and communication

improvement since 1999. it had been an evolving program and we have finally come to a solution that we think is appropriate and cost-effective to meet the strategic vision of the agency. could you bring up the presentation? what you see before you is a snapshot of the existing transit control center, which is at 131 lennox. it is in a bart facility. the picture you see was taken from the doorway and encapsulates 60% of the total operating space we have in the current transit facility. you will see there are three cctv installations there, old equipment. in 1999, we determined this facility, just for current muni

operations, was 100% undersized. we have been seeking to improve that presence. in the interim, prop e came into effect and sfmta was formed, and as a result, we have a business objected to unite all of the functions of the sfmta, including command-and-control functionality as well. the key functions that we need to run mta on a daily basis are currently dispersed around five different locations around the city. there is the transit operation said 131 lennox, power control which controls the substation and overhead electrical power on division street, in an old building, and then there is onlyphone connectivity between power control and electrical. there was no room to add it to

lenox, so we built in a satellite facility at 1 south van ness, which only has bone connectivity back to the lenox control center. we have parking control dispatch 505 seventh street. again, only phone connectivity for all of them to coordinate. we have security monitoring that was at 875 stevenson that has recently moved to ban the spirit of traffic management center that is now part of sfmta is located at 25 van ness. again, phone, activity among the various functions. our goal is to bring them all as an integrated set of systems in an integrated business into a single transportation management center. supervisor chu: could i ask you to rundown -- transit control operation center is located where? >> 131 lenox. >supervisor chu: hour?

>> van ness. traffic management center is at 25 van ness. as john mentioned, in 2009, we did a study for what side would be most appropriate. we had a previous study in 2000 and that was done by booz allen hamilton under the offices of the river project which because of an operational content document which established key principles for our central control program. a couple of the key principle were one that we should unify our various functions into one location so that these activities could be co located and coordinated on a 24/7 basis. one of the other key concepts was that we should have both a primary and secondary -- in a

post-9/11 environment, there are a lot of issues that have evolved around redundancy and security. there were a number of other objectives including establishing maintenance desks. additional functions that central control to facilitate the smooth operation and integration of delivering the transportation services. some of those have been incorporated into our planning as well. so a side that was identified as our preferred site is at 1455 market. we are fortunate enough to be able to move into what was a control center previously. bank of america had used it for atm management, so we are actually retaining a lot of the infrastructure that is already there. that is basically cost we do not need to incur at this site. supervisor chu: when you look at the possibilities, was the real- estate department in contact with our inventory of city

facilities to say whether or not any of our facilities would have been a good option for retrofitting this purpose? >> there were nine sides evaluated. some of them were existing facilities. for example, we looked at metro east. supervisor chu: so we in valley with nine potential sites for this consolidated location. some of those -- >> i can less than if you like. we looked at the metro east. we loved1 south mendes, transbay, we looked at the overhead lines building at 1455 division street, we look at retrofitting lennox. we looked at using the central subway transit-oriented development, one of the sites they are acquiring. we looked at muni metro east on some of the new acreage that is undeveloped as of yet. and we look at a tbd green

field, acquiring new property, the costs there. supervisor kim: where is the greenfield? >> it is a tbd. if we were to go out and require new real-estate and develop a facility there. it was sort of a control that we were reusing in the study. supervisor chu: out of the nine sites, why would this one b preferred -- be preferred >>? there were 12 criteria that were traded against. this was the lowest capital cost. operating cost, security, proximity to the subway, operating cost. i do not have all of the criteria in front of me but they are in the study that is attached to the item. so in aggregate, this site was a valley with the highest of all of the sites we looked at.

the proximity to the headquarters is also a very attractive feature. there is actually a substrate, that goes from one south van ness and 1455 market that we will be utilizing for running communications and wiring. there are a lot of unique features to this site that make it attractive. supervisor supervisor chu: yes, and it currently is a city facility and is the headquarters of the mta. was it prohibitively expensive to retrofit the space? >> it was prohibitively expensive on the one hand. it was also specifically pointed out in the 2008 concept document that from a security perspective, it was not recommended to position the control center at the headquarters of publicly identified buildings. that was another criteria. there is a number of facility

issues that relate to one south van ness that would make it difficult to retrofit. supervisor chu: thank you. >> ok, so, the agreement basically is divided into tenant improvements that will be done by the landlord and other work. first, to talk about the tenant improvements. there will be the architectural elements. this is mostly on the seventh floor. we will also be adding antennas on the roof for radio and other communications. the bike rack will be on the ground floor and the shower and locker room on the lower floor. one of the key features we are adding is an area where folks who are working multiple shifts in case there is some sort of special event or emergency, can rest or change, take a nap. sort of a layover room, which is something that will also be added, and they can go down and take a shower if they need to. a lot of the architectural

elements are being retained. you will see in the latest slide, there is a very nice situation room that we will be developing based on the layout that is already there that will allow managers to come to the control center in any event such as an emergency or the america's cup or whatever is going to be required to provide specialized, integrated transportation services. a lot of amenities will be provided there to make that work for us. there is going to be some upgrades to electrical and mechanical. we had to run special wiring. a lot of these are things i would have to do in any case, whatever facility we were in. as john described, there is already emergency power and cooling. we will be taking existing server rooms and configuring them for our needs, and we're going to reuse a lot of the

furniture -- file cabinets -- that are already there. we will be buying specialized furniture for the control room, the operational consoles. beyond the work that the tenant improvements will provide us, we will do our own work either through city staff using work orders or through separate contracts. we have to bring in our own computers. we have to bring in -- we have to specialize the software to work in the new environment, and we have to provide all of the integration testing and management of the system as we go forward -- integration, testing, and management of the system as a go forward. looking at the layout itself, this is basically the same space you saw on the drawing that john showed. the part that was in yellow we have reconfigured to meet our needs.

you would come in off the existing elevators into a secure entryway. the operating theater is the center of the whole facility. we are going to have all of our operational managers in their managing the transit system, power control, traffic management, our new trouble desks that i talked about, and then we have expansion capacity if we want to bring in in the future staff, either on a full- time basis or an as needed basis, to manage specialized services for coordinating with taxi, the paratransit, and other sfmta functions. we have also added a room and some desks specifically for information analysis and public information. one of the key additional services we want to provide is an integrated real-time analysis of what is going on on all the different corners of the sfmta