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 operation and providing the information to a new public information officer and coordinating the information we

put out to the public's and also to coordinate among our own divisions of the sfmta. one of the good examples that i heard of this when we were interviewing the various stakeholders was from the taxi division. right now, everything is done by phone, and a lot of information never gets to taxis. we have an incident such as a bart stoppage and people are pouring out onto the street at a location like 24th and mission, we do not have any way to alert the taxi fleet to go there and pick people up and take them. or if we had another event where we wanted the taxi fleet to stay away, we do not have that capacity in an organized way today to do that. this whole function would be helping us to perform those kinds of functions in an integrated and coordinated way. we are also going to have a separate room -- supervisor chu: if i could just

ask -- i know we have a ton of details, but in the interest of time because we have a number of other items also that may take some time. i wonder if you could concentrate on a few key issues that have been brought up, in particular with mr. rose's report. the one issue about transbay is important. i would like to understand a little bit more about the funding for the project. it says here that it is fully funded. i want to make sure that is the case. finally, one last piece about what an integrated facility would actually do for operation. those three areas. >> so i will skip over this. there is a slide on transbay i'm going to bring up. let me talk a little bit to this. sfmta's functions -- when you ask about the operational efficiencies we are going to realize, it is very hard to

quantify what the value of something like that is, being able to marshal the taxi fleet to address a specific incident, but those are the kind of things we will be able to do better. plus, in the facility, we will have much improved systems. video walls throughout the facility, and we will be able to display much more sophisticated blend of cctv images and other images of the overhead system, the train control system, and be able to change that as needed and bring up all of the information in an organized way that people need, depending on what is going on at the time. there are a number of other projects working with the transit management project. -- transit management center project. we have integrated systems replacement going forward. a lot of the systems that feed into central control also date from the 1970's and 1980's.

it will be replaced and the new at the central control. that is a separate project going forward in parallel. the radius system project is also a parallel projects, which is tightly coupled. there is an upgrade going forward, and our big project that we are coordinating with, of course, is the central subway, which will have its own systems that need to go in to central control, and we are building a central control system that will accommodate them. in fact, we have a contract that went into effect in 2010. the board approved it, and is an integrated design contract, which recognizes the integration necessary between central control and central subway. i'm going to -- well, i can go through this one. if we do not build at 1455

market now, we cannot keep up with demands. has been an urgent need for many years. it has been recognized by many administrations in parallel, so this is something we need to do at the earliest opportunity. we need to transition the new radio system, which is going to be much more difficult if we did it in place at clinics. we also need to put in new systems such as cctv. we have only three monitors. we will have a much more sophisticated operation at the new control center. the key point is we would centralized coordination and bring all those functions together into one facility. why not transbay? at this point, it is not a viable option. we have been in the communications with the project over several years.

the vision -- the coordination has evolved. right now, our long-term vision for the transbay facility would include a unified regional transportation center, which there has not been even in the planning stage right now. other agencies have not been brought on board with that. we would need a funding plan. the timeline must work to coordinate with central subway, radio, and our other projects. there was a recent policy decision between transbay and sfmta to have those projects go forward on a separate pacts, and transbay is no longer being pursued on our planning horizon. >> about the expenses -- supervisor chu: about the expenses you expect on transbay compared to the current proposal. >> we did not have a detailed

cost estimate for the transbay center. we did recognize when we took up the consulting contract last year, we included as an option a task to go into a conceptual design for transbay. supervisor chu: yes, but in your bullet point, you say it will be two or three times more expensive. >> yes, when we did the site survey in -- we have actually a capital project estimates about $129 million for transbay. the site survey had an estimate of $172 million, but that also included systems. it is difficult to partition the system's components from the facility component, but we are well over the $100 million range. supervisor chu: use it probably between $129 million to $172 million based on the current estimates? what is the current proposal? the current proposal we have is

for the facility project, $32,553,231, and that is fully funded. then, for the parallel systems projects that are going forward to replace systems and bring them into central control, which will also replace systems in the subways, is 82,000,567 $261, so the aggregate cost is $150 million. >> so if i were to compare between the current proposal compared to the transbay, the $129 million or $172 million you spoke about earlier -- is that for the capital component? >> yes. >> so the comparisons for 32 million -- >> compare that to the $129 million. supervisor kim: just a follow-up on that, when you look at that long term with rental payments, is it really more expensive? >> transbay woul