of board meetings and to hold them in a manner that is appropriate. essentially they are in a converted conference room with nothing particularly different than any other meeting room. that will help them with just their proceedings. >> will it be recorded or televised? >> i don't believe we have gotten that are down the road in terms of design, but certainly we have the ability and the conduits within the building to connect to city fiber so lots of opportunities exist. supervisor john avalos: great, thank you. mr. uptike. i would like to visit the current site and have a discussion with the director of the retirement board and with chuck which will be helpful. i would like to continue this item to the 29th of january. i think it's the

next meeting. supervisor mark farrell: okay, we have a motion to continue this item to january 29th. chair make well thank you for being here as well. i look forward to talking to you about that in further detail. we'll accept that without opposition. madam clerk please go to item 1. the clerk: item 131193:agenda[sale of transferable development rights - war memorial complex - 301 and 401 van ness avenue]1311931.sponsors: mayor; chiu and wienerresolution authorizing the director of property to sell up to 1,100,000 gross square feet of transferable development rights tdrr from the war memorial complex, 301 and 401 van ness avenue, at fair market value; and to execute and record certificates of transfer and to take such additional actions as may be necessary to effectuate one or more tdr transfers in accordance with planning code, section 128 the clerk: sf 11234 >> supervisor mark farrell: okay, they very much, i believe mr. up dike is the speaker also on this item. >> thank you, chair, farrell. so we are returning after a brief discussion of this item

at the last meetings. we were asked to discuss with stake holders our concerns about historic preservation issues and just particulars of the legislation in front of you. so i'm here to give you a brief report on that and we have some staff on that to support me addressing other particular questions you might have. so, what occurred since the last meeting we had a very productive discussion with the representative of the sf heritage foundation, mr. bueller and the planning staff. just to go over some of the issues raised at the call for the audience last week. there i believe in your package should be a letter from sf heritage. i would like to address briefly that and then we can throw it open to questions and we have the technical staff to assist you through this. essentially three request were made in that letter. i will try to summarize

as best i can and perhaps mr. bueller can better articulate this. i will give it my best shot. one was to further describe the regulatory role of the planning department in this office in the legislation. our initial thinking on that is the regulatory role of planning is fairly well already described in the code and so we are not sure there is a lot of benefit putting in additional issues relative to regulations in what's essentially a proprietary decision the city is trying to make here in terms of being a seller of tdr, we have to be careful of mixing regulatory and proprietary role as a challenge. i'm happy to talk about how we might incorporate that or better incorporate that. then on a coordination question, in terms of the reporting requirements

in the legislation for me and the director of real estate reporting back to the capital planning committee and to this body during any quarter when there is a tdr transaction, the request was that we enhance our coordination on that with planning and we certainly have every intention to do that and in fact one of the reasons of capital planning was added to the list of reporting because the district court of planning sits on the voting member on that body and enforces the collaboration with the coordination of the planning department because he's right there taking in the information and providing us as staff guidance on these issues and of course that capital planning committee that is ability to forward recommendations your way for consideration. then the other major issue was relative to future authorization of t dr and again in this amended legislation now before you, we have pursuant to the

recommendation of the legislative budget analyst added in a milestone of 550,000 square foot of tdr wherein reauthorization will be required. certainly that opens the door to discuss any policy issues that are related to authorizing sale of tdr. we invite and welcome those comments and we would anticipate that process running through capital planning committee before reaching this body so we can take their concerns and issues and think them through and bring forward some recommendations to you. i think we are actually on the same page with the concerns noted by sf heritage but happy to continue that discussion here if there are particular maendz you would like to consider. >> thank you, supervisor mar? mar mar thank you, chair farrell and up dike. i also see

a third request and i want to emphasize the role. i think there is a recommendation that at minimum that any known new tdr that there will be through historic research. i think that is one suggestion and two, the work should be reviewed for the planning of the secretary interiors standards for rehabilitation and are those written into the amendments. >> here before you is one authorization to sell tdr from one various particular property. that property has gone through the regulatory process of review and any other bodies that would weigh in on any redevelopment of the veterans building. we feel we have already crossed over that bridge and accomplished those tasks. for that reason i

believe we didn't write that. any code modifications the code requires returns. i think that's already covered in the regulatory body of work that's out there, although perhaps planning can add to that, but i think we've covered that and completed the task and have their blessing. supervisor mark farrell: okay, no other questions. mr. rose can we go to your report, please. >> mr. chairman and committee i did summarize this report last week, i will go to the recommendation unless the committee has any questions. it is the same recommendation last week. page seven we recommend that you approve the recommendation and submit the legislation to the board of supervisors to reauthorize such

tdr sales immediately upon reaching sales of 550,000 square feet and tdr's as necessary and we recommend you approve this as amended. >> thank you. mr. uptike, you understand these recommendations? >> yes i am. >> all right. colleagues any other questions. we'll open this up to public comment. anyone wish to comment on this item. >> good afternoon members of the committee, mike bueller with san francisco heritage. i would like to thank the committee for continuing this item for a week to enable me, myself to meet with mr. up dike as well as staff from the planning department. it was a very productive meeting and helped to clarify a number of

issues that we had last week. i urge you to authorize the recommendations as noted earlier. this is a large influx of new tdr to the city's market of tdr and there are many competing proposals right now among private developers and non-profit developers to rezone or reclassify their buildings so as to access tdr and our over arching concern is to maintain the stability of the market. regarding the criteria for authorizing the second half of $1.1 million we think that's important in that our understanding for this project there is a $14.5 million shortfall, i believe. the first allocation before you today of 550 would raise that shortfall in funding and the point raised

by supervisor mar earlier to require that pros go to historic resource site is important when considered that this allocation alone will raise nearly double what is needed to complete the veterans project. thank you very much. >> supervisor mark farrell: thank you very much. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> supervisor mar? >> i was going to ask mr. gibner, our attorney is there any way to write in as simply as possible what mr. bueller just said for the consideration of the second half using the criteria that's within the letter that's been sent requiring that the funds be used for historic resource and no. 2 that it can't be approved until it follows the review of the commission under compliance of the secretary interior standards. >> deputy city attorney john gibner. i have a hard time just

doing that on the fly. what i would recommend to the committee is, i understand the recommendation, mr. bueller's recommendation is not just for the remaining 550 here but for all future city tdr. the board could accomplish that setting certain criteria by an ordinance. and that's probably the best way to approach it. then of course you can take any policies when the department of the war memorial come back to you for the 550,000 here. >> i will say i will work with your office to try to draft something that complies with that for the future. so that's very helpful. >> if i may, i would also like to note that if the intents

here is that we are able to sell all of our -- which is a current shortfall. the current intent that any proceeds could reduce the debt when we take out the program in two 2 years with a certificate of participation. that's an important to all the city's debt needs if we are able to reduce that level of cop that affords us to reduce that debt and we have many competing needs for that debt. just keep that in mind in terms if this is an overage it will still come to this project. supervisor mark farrell:

supervisor mar? >> that will ensure and that we are monitoring this very carefully and impact that the resources are going into preservation and i intend to work with stake holders on that and i would like to move the recommendation from the budget analyst. supervisor mark farrell: we have a motion to make amendments. and we can take that without opposition. madam clerk please call item no. 2. >> the clerk: item 2. item 131238: event fund - $400,000]1312382.resolution approving donations of $100,000 or greater, totaling $400,000, to the airport capital improvement promotion and event fund from the boeing company, hensel phelps construction co., and united airlines, inc., pursuant to administrative code, section 10.100-18. airport commissionn >> the clerk: item 2. item 131238: event fund - $400,000]1312382.resolution approving donations of $100,000 or greater, totaling $400,000, to the airport capital improvement promotion and event fund from the boeing company, hensel phelps construction co.,

and united airlines, inc., pursuant to administrative code, section 10.100-18. >> the clerk: item 2. item 131238: event fund - $400,000]1312382.resolution approving donations of $100,000 or greater, totaling $400,000, to the airport capital improvement promotion and event fund from the boeing company, hensel phelps construction co., and united airlines, inc., pursuant to administrative code, section 10.100-18. airport commissionn supervisor mark >> the clerk: item 2. item 131238: event fund - $400,000]1312382.resolution approving donations of $100,000 or greater, totaling $400,000, to the airport capital improvement promotion and event fund from the boeing company, hensel phelps construction co., and united airlines, inc., pursuant to administrative code, section 10.100-18. airport commissionn supervisor mark farrell: 1234 thank you very much. >> good afternoon, members of the committee. kathy with the san francisco airport. this committee an approved the establishment of the capital promotion and event fund and at that time accepted the budget analyst recommendation to include a provision that would require any donations to the fund in excess of $100,000 or greater to be approved by the board of supervisors. the establishment of this fund is allowed under the city's administrative code and gives the airport private donations to pay for events consistent with the specified purposes in the fund surrounding the opening of our capital projects over the next 10 years. our report and revenues and expenditures around all of these events and projects will be submitted to the board of supervisors as well as the budget analyst office on an annual basis. the item before

you would approve three donations from the from the boeing company and united airlines and -- for the opening surrounding terminal e. these events are designed to allow three partners to show case this new facility to their passengers, their various board of directors and clients and projects. promotional cost include from tours as well as a large community open house on january 25th where up to 10,000 members of the public are expected to attend. it also includes various printed materials, videos and advertising for the project. all of these events are very similar to what was done to promote both the new international terminal as well as terminal 2. this new provision to come to you for

the approval of donations in excess of $100,000 is what's before you today. i would be available to answer any questions you might have. there is no budget analyst report. >> supervisor mark farrell: colleagues, any questions. thank you very much. we'll open up to public comment. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. we have a motion to send this item for approval. we can take that without opposition. >> madam clerk please call items 3 and 4 together. >> the clerk: 131230: [real property lease - port - affordable self storage, inc. - $24,664.86 monthly]1312303.resolution approving port commission lease no. l-15690 with affordable self storage, inc. for paved vacant land located within seawall lot no. 349 in the southern waterfront with an initial monthly rent of $24,664.86 for a 58-month term

and possible extension terms of up to 60 months, to commence following board >> the clerk: 131230: [real property lease - port - affordable self storage, inc. - $24,664.86 monthly]1312303.resolution approving port commission lease no. l-15690 with affordable self storage, inc. for paved vacant land located within seawall lot no. 349 in the southern waterfront with an initial monthly rent of $24,664.86 for a 58-month term and possible extension terms of up to 60 months, to commence following board approval. portt 1234 item 131231:[real property lease - port - affordable self storage, inc. - $47,789.14 monthly] 4. 131231 resolution approving port commission lease no. l-15691 with affordable self storage, inc. for paved vacant land located within seawall lot no. 349 in the southern waterfront with an initial monthly rent of $47,789.14 for a 31-month term, to commence following 1234 item 131231:[real property lease - port - affordable self storage, inc. - $47,789.14 monthly] 4. 131231 resolution approving port commission lease no. l-15691 with affordable self storage, inc. for paved vacant land located within seawall lot no. 349 in the southern waterfront with an initial monthly rent of $47,789.14 for a 31-month term, to commence fapproval. portt >> # 1234 supervisor mark farrell: okay, thank you very much. madam clerk. mr. cruz. from our port real estate office to report on these items oovment thank you supervisor. members of the committee i'm nate cruise. we are here to request your approval for affordable self storage which is a current tenant. these two leases would relocate their operations within the 70-foot print to the northwest to the southwest corner. the combined area of the lease is approximately 220,000 square feet. which is a lease of approximately 50 percent. the elite rate is about $0.33 per square foot which is a lease rate combined with the standing foot print and the rent rate. the port would yield an 80 percent

increase in revenue. both the foot print is designed to do have tail with the anticipated with the development by the city and that's why these are separated and have staggered draegsz. -- duration. if you have any questions, i will be happy to answer and i'm an accompanied by my colleagues. supervisor mark farrell: colleagues, any questions on these items? okay. mr. rose, can we go to your report, please? >> mr. chairman, on page 15 of our report we display a table and that shows the annual rent payments from $2.9 million to the port based on the two leases. that's from least 65090 and from lease 601591. the port

is projected to receive an additional $1.8 million so there is a total payment to the port by the lessee of about $4.7 million. again that's shown in table four. on page 16 of our report, we note that it's shown on table three on page 14, in 2013, the port received total rent payments of 413,000. if the supervisors approve the two leases as shown in page four, the port would receive total rent payments of about $747, 584. that would be an 81 percent increase or about $241,000. we know there has not been any other bid because the

port felt this would be impractical and might have resulted in generating less revenue from the proposed. also pointed on the in the report, this was at the request that the port that this lessee is moving. not at the request of the lessee. we also note that the proposed annual rates is consistent with the ports's 15-16 market rates and in good standing. we recommend that you do approve both of these resolution. colleagues, any questions or comments? is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. we have a motion to move both items forward with recommendation. we can take that without opposition. madam clerk, please call item no. 6.

>> the clerk: item 130703: [agreement - new flyer of america inc. - purchase of trolley buses - not to exceed $94,950,444] 6. 130713 sponsor: wiener resolution approving a contract with new flyer of america inc., for the purchase of 60 articulated trolley buses, associated equipment and spare parts, for an amount not >> the clerk: sf 612341234 supervisor mark farrell: okay. thank you very much. we have a number of people from mta to speak on these items. whoever is your designee person. >> i'm john hailey, the director of transit. i have with me the technical team or program leader in the project manager for this and let me start by first confessing to bad timing to ask you to approve a contract with king county metro in seattle during the week of the nfc championship game. i assure you the endorsement will not be

contingent on the outcome of the game, although most of us believe who will win. the action before you today ask your approval to procure 60 electro trolley buses 60 feet long which are one of the main stays of our system in terms of carrying so 300 trips a day. the cost of this, the 60 coaches our total cost of $94.5 million. the method of procurement, again the timing maybe bad but the method is solid and is an arrangement between the city and king county metro in seattle with new flyer industries. it was a competitive procurement. on december 6, 2013, we signed a

bus options agreement between the three parties. and moved it forward for review. the option includes in addition to the 60 would be asking your approval for today additional options which we will come back as we move forward on those. this is part of our 5-year fleet replacement plan that we have worked with you on going forward. this particular project is local money $75 million and federal money, the schedule of these buses will replace our oldest and least reliable of our trolley buses of our fleet. they have long passed their useful life. the first bus to be delivered in early 2015. so about a year

from now. we are pleased to make this recommendation. we believe this arrangement provides us with the best vehicle at the best price. it leverages the engineering cost between the two agencies because trolleybus market is very small in only 5 cities. we appreciate the review that your budget analyst did and we are happy, we make this recommendation or happy to respond to any questions that you may have. supervisor mark farrell: okay. colleagues, any questions right now? >> supervisor mar? >> i just wanted to thank mr. hailey for his dry humor and really pointing out the cooperation with king county and seattle for this project but we'll see what happens this sunday. i wanted to ask about

the cost measure bus. i know that in the budget legislative analyst report it highlights with a couple of exhibits. how much more san francisco is paying for optional equipment. if you are just give a little bit of a rational for that additional cost for the optional equipment for our fleet? >> i'm actually going ask the mr. olson howl to respond to that. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is o'le son howl from the group of sf mta. our buses would cost about $100,000 more than king county. the reason for that is that we have a lot more optional equipment that we need for our services compared to king county. as shown in the budget analyst report, the attachment one, what we did there was to highlight all the

optional items that are more than $1,000 and we indicated why we are buying these options and the reasons we are buying these options the example one example is the dti camera system which cost about $25,000 per bus and the reason for this is mainly for safety so that we can have a camera system that has the capability to download wireless that we can be able to access inside the bus just in case there is a hostage situation we can see inside the bus what is happening. it has all of these special features that were not included in the seattle contract. >> if i can point to even like the first top of the items that

are $1,000 or more, if the charge for tires to have aluminum polished and it's $3,000 more. i'm wondering what the cost benefits of that are in maintenance in reducing maintenance cost. but if you can just give me some example of an item like that? >> okay, for example the aluminum polish, basically we want our buses to look nice. so the aluminum will have, there is less tendency for dirt and dust to attach to aluminum. it's easier to clean that and it's also lighter. so it saves on fuel. some other item here, like the apc, automatic passenger calendar is $12,000.

this is an operational requirement so all the lines that the buses serve, it will automatically count the patrons we have and will allow us to adjust services. >> that monitors the number of people on each bus? >> it monitors the number of boarding and alignment. so for a certain line, there are 10,000 boarding. so do we need more buses in this line or do we want to reduce the number of buses on this line. >> thank you for the explanation. i really appreciate it. any further questions, comments? supervisor avalos? supervisor john avalos: so this resolution will approve an agreement between the city and on behalf of the mta and new

flyer and with king county and over all the rfp that was joint between the city and king county was for 530? is that correct? >> that is correct. 530 buses. >> of that 530, maximum amount that we are getting from 530 buses is what? is it 93? >> we'll ge 93 and 243-footers. >> in terms of the $9 million for the 60 and to replace all of our trolleys, that still hasn't been done yet? >> that is correct. >> we recently had approaches of hybrid buses from new flyer that we were told i think here in committee, i think i asked the question because there had

been a story about how one of the buses were scene -- seen on the road in wyoming and manufactured before we approved them. i heard the rational that there's a gap in new flyers production line and they at their own risk can manufacture these buses. i just want to make sure that when it comes to future purchases that we follow a more linear track for how we make our purchases. it seems really, it makes me very uncomfortable that there are buses manufactured for san francisco painted with san francisco's logo on the way here before we have approved them. that to me is just makes me feel like, our role here isn't really that important. or that our role here isn't really necessary for the mta possibly to