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 stem 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 terminal. transbay terminal construction hasn't even started yet, and it is hard to say when that is going to happen. i believe that m.t.a. has made a prude and intelligent choice in terms of procuring space. i think a 10-year term is reasonable because even under the best of scenarios, we are not going to see it in six years. after that, m.t.a. would be able to move the operation in. i have confidence that m.t.a.

will release space if and when it is appropriate to release the space. fitch muni's budget wes, i don't see m.t.a. hoarding office space unnecessarily and paying unnecessary rent. it would make sense they hold it and release it as it becomes appropriate to do so. this is a very, very important project. i will be supporting it, and i hope that others will as well. supervisor chiu: supervisor kim? supervisor kim: thank you. i also sit on the budget committee and had an opportunity to hear this item. first of all i want to say i agree with supervisor wiener. i am very excited we are moving forward with finally putting together a transportation management center. riding the underground a lot. i know how much delays actually impact people on a weekly basis. this is an important next step towards getting towards time efficiency and making sure that

our trains and buses are running on time. with central subway coming, we have a great need to move this forward. i under that transbay is not going to be a reality for at least the first or six years. but to say we will never be able to put in transbay terminal is inaccurate. i hope we do it inthat conversation in the long-term. my concerns were these. it was not the center itself. i wasn't convinced by the process -- although it could have been we found the best space possible, but i wasn't convinced that we necessarily found the best space given the price of the building we will be doing the lease in. currently we spent from there are 3,2,000 a year up to $78 ,000 a year on current real estate. this is going to had another

$1.4 million annually towards what we spend on real estate. on howard street, i think that is a positive step forward. i am worried about the additional cost. i wonder if we could have negotiated a better deal. i am also curious as to why, and i brought this up as budget committee, when we looked at around 10 other sites, all of which were owned by the city, there were at least three hours that did not score that much lower than 1455 market that were a lot cheaper that i felt like we could have put our space in. i know there was an argument that maybe those spaces weren't the most appropriate. i brought this up with the data consolidation center that we approved earlier this year. i really think we need to put city programs in city property. we have a lot of surplus property, a lot of under ute louis are liesed property that

over the long-term would cost us less money and have a lower impact on the budget. if there is ale larger up front cost for the work we need to do, i think we absolutely have to invest and put things on city property in order for the long-term of our budget to be spending less for city operations. trying to be very consistent in terms of how i would like to see our centers move, i was happy that the data consultation center is looking in the long-term to be at the airport and is waiting for. that i wanted to see that with this as well. that is why i will always not be supporting this. if i had maybe additional time, i could be convinced otherwise, but at this time item not prepared to support this. supervisor chiu: supervisor chu? supervisor chu: thank you, president chiu. i will be supporting this item. i think the main component in particular is how this project

really would help to create a better environment for the business to operate. there is nothing that is more critical aside from making sure that our equipment is running than to make sure we have a central control system that works and is integrated. we are talking about the sbegrailings of the operations control, line management, parking and traffic management center. during the conversation at the committee, one of the concerns i raised was whether we had looked at different options at city-owned properties and whether or not these were appropriate places for renovation. through and through what we had heard was a concerted effort by our real estate department to vet those locations. i felt satisfied that we had come up with the best solution possible. the other thing to note is with regards to the concern that supervisor campos had mentioned on the cons takes and the space that they have taken, that is also a concern that we did

raise at the committee. that is why we did make an amendment to require the m.t.a. and the real estate department to come back to us in three months to share with us a consolidation plan and to let us know what it means operationally to consolidate the space they are in. there is no denying it is a complicated issue because there are potentially operational impacts, but general fund and non-general fund impacts. some of the facilities in which the department is currently residing is actually city facilities, and to the extent that they are no longer paying rent and give them up, it would be an impact to us. that is why we wanted a plan in three months. i hope that folks will be able to support this merchandise. >> president chiu? supervisor chiu: for years we have all had our criticisms of the m.t.a., and i think many of us have had real issues with

transportation management in san francisco. that being said, i am going to be supporting this measure today. this is a lease that is about the future of transportation management in our city. this is something that definitely needs to move forward. this is an issue we have supported with funding decisions at the transportation authority. it is a very important project for reasons that our colleagues, supervisor wiener and chu have pointed out. that is why i will be supporting it. >> role volley. campos, no. chiu aye. chu aye. cohen aye. elsbernd aye. farrell aye. kim no. mar, know. mirkarimi no. wiener, aye. avalos, aye. we have seven eyes and four

nos. supervisor chiu: this resolution is adopted item 29. >> a resolution adopting the city's five-year financial plan. supervisor chiu: any discussion? role call vote. >> 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 ayes. supervisor chiu: this resolution is adepositted. item 30. >> resolution determining that the public interest demand various improvements and the estimated costs of $248 million for such improvement is and too

great to be paid out of the ordinary revenues, that the project is not under sequa and waiving the time limits set forth. supervisor chiu: supervisor wiener? supervisor wiener: thank you, mr. president. i am proud to be a co-sponsor of this bond, union i am strongly supporting it. this is a key part of our capital plan, and it will play a key role in keeping the infrastructure of our city intact. i think it's important to note where we are, that we have hundreds of millions of dollars of defer maintenance on our roads. this is not a situation where we can just pay to bring our roads up to par out of our general fund. as much as we may want to do that, it is not possible given the 30 years we have neglected our road and allowed them to

fall into this state of disrepair. in addition, i wanted to address to points that some who are skeptical of the bond have raised. the first is that this is not an atypical way of funding road reconstruction and resurfacing. the department of public works surveyed other cities, and it actually is a common practice to use bonding to do that capital work. the other issue i do want to take head-on is the notion that road work such as resurfacing or road reconstruction is simply an ongoing operating expense, therefore making it inappropriate for bonding. that is not the case. in terms of filling pot holes, yes, it would be inappropriate to use bonds to pay for filling pot holes. when we are talking about