supervisor chiu: good afternoon, welcome to the sprn board of supervisors meeting. mr. clerk, would you call the role? >> avalos present, campos present, chiu present. chu, cohen present. elsbernd, farrell present. kim present. mar present. mirkarimi presently.

wiener present. all members are present. supervisor chiu: thank you. ladies and gentlemen before we do the ledge of allegiance, i would like to take a moment to recognize the tragedy from last week. supervisor wiener will be offering an inmemory of the firefighters. if we could take a moment to recognize them. all of san francisco mourns their loss.

supervisor chiu: thank you very much. if you could all join me in the pledge of allegiance? supervisor chiu: colleagues, you should have copies of the april 26th, 2011 board meeting mention. could i have a motion to approve? >> motioned by farrell, seconded by campos. minutes approved. >> supervisors we are in receipt after letter from the mayor dated june 1, 2011 indicating the mayor's notice to the board of supervisors of

a transfer of function between departments in the executive branch. there are no other communications. >> and if you could please call the consent agenda. >> items 1 through 7 will be acted upon by a single roll call vote unless a member requests discussion of a matter. then it should be removed. >> colleagues, would anyone like to receiver any of these items? >> mr. clerk, call the roll on items one through certified? >> campos aye, president chiu, eye, chu aye, cohen, aye, elsbernd, aye, farrell aye, kim absent. supervisor mar aye, mirkarimi aye, wiener aye. avalos aye.

mr. president, we have 10 ayes. >> supervisor chiu: order andses adopted. let's skip over items 8-17 related to treasure island until that special order in our agenda. let's go to 18-21, the items regarding park merced. >> items 18-21 are without recommendation from the land use committee. item 19 is an order nascar amending the planning code to include the park merced planning district. item 20 is an ordinance mend amending the planning code. item 21 is an ordinance amending the height map with respect to park merced. >> thank you.

supervisor chiu: colleagues, i wanted to let you know that in the two weeks since the first vote on this project, i did sit down with several tenant leaders. as a result of the meetings, we negotiated, and the developer has agreed to a number of technical amendments as well as several additional tenant protections. first, that there not be any operation or maintenance pass-throughs for the relocating tenants for the rest of the life of park merced. and then secondly we have added additional restrictions on the city's existing prohibition on converting the rental units in the tower units into condominiums. i fully appreciate the concerns raised by some tenant leaders. i before never support thd project if i did not feel comfortable that tenant rights have been protected. i say this as one of the few

tenants on this board of supervisors, as someone who has been a staunch advocate for tenants before i was elect and with my vote on this board. if there anything else we could have put into this agreement to address the concerns, i would have supported that. that being said, after years of planning, meeting and discussion, i think it is time to move forward. this is the right decision for our tenants, for the west side and for the future of san francisco, and i ask that we move these forward. thank you. >> the president has made a motion. is there a second for that motion? >> colleagues, can we take that without objection? supervisor chiu: that should be the case. any further discussion? if we could take a role call vote on items 18-21. >> on items 18-21 as amended.

campos, no. chiu, aye, chu aye, cohen aye. elsbernd aye, farrell aye, kim, no, mar, no, mirkarimi, no. supervisor wiener, aye. avalos, no. mr. president, we have six ayes and five nos. supervisor chiu: these ordinances are passed. item 22. actually let's call 22 and 23. >> items 23 and 23, ordinance reconvening the ordinance task force and amending the city's conflict of interest to include it. >> i want to remind members of the public that the application for restricting of the task

force is online. it is going to be approaching quickly. people should start to submit in the next week or so. supervisor chiu: roll call vote on 22 and 23? >> campos, aye. chiu, aye. chu, aye. cohen, aye. elsbernd, aye. farrell, aye, kim, aye, mar, aye, mirkarimi, aye, wiener, aye. avalos, aye. mr. president, we have 11 eyes. supervisor chiu: these ordinances are finally passed. items 24 and 25? >> 24 approving the issuance of water bonds and refunding bonds, and 25 is an ordinance to sell bonds to finance

improvements to the water system and the treasure island project. >> can we say theeks items same call? supervisor chiu: without objection the resolution adopted. item 27. >> amending the administrative code to -- for the water. supervisor chiu: this ordinance is passed on the first reading. can we take a role call vote on this item?

>> i have a couple of questions i wanted to ask the m.t.a. >> through the chair, one of the things i am trying to understand is why the length of the lease is 10 years. my understanding is there is at least a possibility that before the end of that term, you could end up moving out of this proposed location. i am trying to understand why it is that we have a 10-year term for a lease? >> my name is carter ohan, deputy director of the sfmta.

two issues. one is the trance bay objection, which i will let him speak to more in depth. but that opportunity does not avail itself at the earliest until perhaps year eight of the lease. but more importantly from the ownership's perspective, because they are providing significant improvement to the building, they need an amount of time to amortize those improvements. really the other thanship is the one driving the 10-year request for release. they have a .1.7 million investment, and they need a return. supervisor chiu: i understand why they want the lease as long as possible, but the question is what the need of the city. if well in fact not need the property for that amount of time, i am trying to understand the rationale for the term of

the lease. i know that this has been amended, but i thought it was troubling that you had two additional 10-year extensions, which is a very unusual thing to see. i am trying to understand why 10 years? >> supervisor campos, the two additional 10-year extensions i believe we are not moving on, correct? correct. that was part of the initial plan when we thought trance bay would be a viable option for an ultimate transportation management center. we are not moving in that direction. trance bay is not a viable option for us. supervisor campos: another question if i may through the chair. you are requesting an additional 39,000 square feet of new lease space, and yet you are only given up about 3,800. i am trying to understand if we have managed to function to this point without thatch

space, what is the justification for the difference, through the chair? >> that is correct. the current facility houses all of our control center operations, and it is about 16,000 square feet. it is over capacity. with the fact that we are going to be adding footprint of control for center subway when it is implemented as well as the functions created by the radio system, we need a greater amount of square footage. now the square footage that we are vacating -- offense, initially lennox, that is about 8,000 square feet, that has to remain intact interest we are fully operational and commissioned with the transportation management center. there will be a point as to whether we will give that space up. one of the decentralized areas

we are giving up. three of those areas were used as part of our planning for business efficiency. we heard the budget committee and your body very loud and clear last week that we need to take a hard look at creating efficiency in processing to see if we can give up other space as well. we started looking at what other opportunities we have, and we have come up with one viable option. 821 howard is a potential for consolidating in the near future. and we are not going to stop there. we are going to try to move as quickly as we can to get the amount of square footage that we are moving on for the facility, which is about 16,000 square feet. if we move on the 821 howard lease to consolidate and move those folks into the areas that we have currently, i think we are at about 69% of the square

footage give-back. supervisor campos: if i may through the chair, what does that do if you -- if you actually move into the howard property, what does that do to the need of this particular lease? >> it is totally outside of this. it is an overall reduction for the agency. it is not a one for one for this space. the decentralized area being combined right now are actually functions within, near or adjoining other muni service functions. to make our business processes more efficient, there are opportunities for those areas to grow as well. so hearing the message that we need to get a little more efficient with our business processes, we have looked universally across the agency to see if there is other square footage to give up. supervisor campos: from my perspective, i am all for making sure that you have the latest facilities in terms of

the control center and making sure that we can provide the best service possible. i don't think that anyone questions that, which is one of the reasons why the traps takes authority has approved the fund s to be used in this way. the question is whether or not this is the best way of actually implementing that strategy, and i have to say that i don't know that it is. you are talking about $16 million that we are talking about spending here over a 10-year period. that is a lot of money to invest, and we have to make sure we do our due diligence as much as possible before this kind of expenditure can be approved. for that reason, i will not be supporting this item tied. challenge you. supervisor chiu: supervisor wiener.

supervisor wiener: i will be voting for this item today. i think it is important to acknowledge that this is not just an important or valuable expenditure, or an important project. this is, in my view, a mission critical project for muni. we have had many problems in our subway system in terms of some of the meltdowns we have experienced, an inability to regulate the movement of the vehicles so that everything is properly spaced, problems getting the vehicles in and out of the subway. this improvement or revamping of the central control system is a huge step in terms of effectively managing our subway system. i know that ideally we will place this in the trance bay place this in the trance bay terminal.