focuses on adult classes. and saturday workshops expose youth and adults to photography classes. >> good morning, everyone.

welcome to the board of supervisors san francisco budget & finance sub-committee for wednesday, april 9, 2014. my name is march farrell i'm joined by vice chair supervisor mar and supervisor avalos i want to thank the staff for covering this meeting and clerk linda wong and madam clerk, any announcements? phones, pagers and similar sound-producing electronic devices are prohibited at this meeting. please be advised that the chair may order the removal from the meeting room and this agenda will appear on the next meeting. >> item one is a resolution that's needed for the agencies to a participate in the 2014 annual joint fundraising for the joint city and county of san francisco. i believe we have joan her >> good morning. i'm joan the

applicants made their applications to the board of supervisors our office reviewed them and found them in compliance that the codes. >> noblas report is there any further public comment seeing none, public comment is closed. can i have a motion to move this item forward we'll take that without objection. madam clerk, item 2 >> it is authorizing the option to extend the d c p u for the employment of this program for approximately 9 thousand anyone else four a term of 3 years. >> okay. thank you very much we have joan updyke her to speak on this item unless connor you want to come and speak as well.

>> good morning. i'm john updyke director of real estate. i'll give you the highlight which is an extension of a lease for continued use as a job training center it's been successful since 2008 that we renewed that lease in 2011 for 3 years and up for subsequent renewal this will take us from september 2014 to 2007. the western neighborhood access point ask an employment program that is collective impact, it was selected under a 3 year contract for june 2013 that the office and economic workforce development executed its estimated we have about 14 hundred and 50 people that are

served with a job search location annually pr the space is 39 hundred square feet and the reluctant rent is 9 thousand one-hundred and $42 a month that's about 28 plus a square feet a year you recall the numbers i've gevenl you is 1ku7b8 r significantly below the rate that includes $2,000 a month for janitorial services and other. future year increases that pegged to a c pi that's lower than 2 percent per year but not greater than 5 percent we retained our lease with no

penalty just in case why this location will not work in the future we wanted to have flexibility. if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them perhaps connor has additional input for you >> good morning. i'm the aide to supervisor breed she sponsored this because she's a supporter of the western access point not only as supervisor but when she was a director she's been involved with the center it does fantastic work throughout the city find employment and asks for your supporting today. >> colleagues, any questions. okay mr. rose our report, please >> yes. mr. chairman and members of the committee on page 4 on cable 2 on page 5 lists the

anyone else rent the total annual costs by o e w d to w c pi for the proposed 3 year leases pats 1440 webster street the extension of 9 thousand plus presidential 2 there's plus per square feet and the square feet is a 3 percent increase from the pretty sure years rent. we also report on the bottom of page 4 the estimated costs for the lease extension will range from between 4 hundred and plus to 9 plus 44 depending on the operating costs on table 2 page 5 of the report. we recommend you approve the proposed resolution >> thank you very much

colleagues, any questions. >> i have a quick question for mr. updike you know you said the lease is below the market rate is there any concerns about the lease it seems like the commercial spaces are doubling and perhaps as organizations are being displaced from other districts maybe looking the other districts could you talk about how he negotiated such a good lease and it didn't go up in the next few years based on c pi. >> that's correct supervisor mar the stable lease is about relationship building we have an excellent relationship with the owner and property management i

think that is reflected in this this is a community serving purpose that the owner believes in. sometimes you get luke that comes to get at the same time and the benefits of the area that they have property in they'll benefit as well if the economic impact is felt throughout the area so it's kind of a classic win-win. not always the case in other areas we have ownership and it takes time to build that. you see that reflected in better deals coming forward >> supervisor avalos. >> just a quick question on the structure between the office of workforce development and the landlord and the nonprofit what's the actual arrangement is

this a city run, you know, access points or how does that all work? >> so the city is the attempt and there's an operating agreement for services that operating agreement has changed over the years through an rfp. and currently we're rolling into a timing for collective impact to the be the service provider in the space >> and the others city staff works there as well. >> no city staff son the premises. >> so the lease is in the city's name and they provide the impact and the city pays for it. >> not terribly usual the third space provider they're the majority out of respect.

>> colleagues, any future questions are there any members of the public who wish to speak. >> we have a second we'll take that we'll take that without objection. >> madam clerk, any other business before this commission? >> no mr. chair. >> okay. we're >> >> good afternoon, everyone. welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors budget and finance committee meeting

for wednesday april 9, 2014. my name is mark farrell, i will be chairing this meeting along can supervise mar and wiener and breed. i would like to thank sfgtv. >> do we have any announcements? >> yes, please fill out a speaker card. items acted upon today will appear on the april agenda unless otherwise stated. >> madam clerk, call item 1 and 2. city clerk: item 140213: agenda[hearing - municipal transportation agency budget update for fys 2014-2015 and 2015-2016]1402131.sponsor: farrellhearing to receive an update on the municipal transportation agency's budget for fys sf 11234 item 130873: [hearing - funding the municipal transportation agency's bicycle sf 21234 >> okay. thank you very much.

i know we have a number of people including ed riskin here to speak on this item. mr. riskin, do you want to come up and get going? >> yes. i would be happy to. ed riskin director of transportation. i'm joined by our chief financial officer and a number of our staff here to answer the hard questions. i have got two presentations. one for the first item on the overall budget and a second one specifically on the bike strategy. and responding to some of the recommendations or updating on some of the recommendations from the budget legislative analyst report. i will walk us through this presentation and you can tell me if you want me to go through both of them first or pause. just to remind you, the mta

board a couple years now established, adopted a new strategic plan. it was for 6 years fiscal year 13-18. we are ending that first cycle of that 6-year plan and establishing that plan and identifying san francisco as this great city and excellent transportation choices and identified four specific goals that we needed to achieve in order to realize that vision and the goals, the no. 1 goal is to make sure that the transportation system is safe and everybody that uses it can do so safely. the second goal is really achieving our charter mandate that is in the transit first policies adopted by the board of supervisors in 1973 and third to improve the quality of life recognizing the role that transportation

playing in that realm and the workplace that would allow us to deliver on those three goals. the values that are identified in the strategic plan are the transit first policy, the drive towards complete and green streets consistent with the better streets policy. also adopted by the board of supervisors and social equity and access and make sure that everybody has access to those who are at a disadvantage and greater need. i start with this as we go into developing and executing our budget and any other policy or operational or spending decisions that we make are being guided by these visions and goals and values. just a snapshot of what we are responsible for in the mta. you know we are somewhat of a unique organization relative to other transportation

departments around the country and that we both serve as the city's transportation department. we are a very large transit provider and we regulate taxis. these stats show some of the services we are delivering and what we are charged with maintaining and these responsibilities drive the budget development that we go through. then, wanted to point out that we recently undertook a n is you survey of mini riders on mini vehicles. that gave us data that we did not previously had about who specifically rides muni. there were some interesting findings that we got from this survey that i think we are a little bit different than the assumptions that we have been making. one of which is that more than half of our customers are low income and

depending on how you look at it very low income. a quarter of the people interviewed reported household incomes of less than $15,000, which as you know in san francisco is virtually nothing. so we are a big part of the people that we are serving, the population we are serving are very low income. a large percentage of the people we are serving are low income. so while muni i would argue a service of 100 percent, we are serving a very significant amount of the city's low income populations. we do have quite a few of people 55 and older. quite a bit of folks who don't own a vehicle. so for them muni, they are largely dependent on muni and use it a lot. other status, i don't know if we have it on here include the

fact that most people reported riding 5 or more days a week and the majority of trips were not work trips to get to work. the plurality of 42 percent are people getting to work and the others for a lot of other reasons. they use it not just for work but to get around. a lot of people don't have a car. >>supervisor scott weiner: mr. riskin, thank you, this is a really amazing statistic. i think it's helpful. we have a lot of policy discussions and they don't have all this data. this is really helpful. i didn't reiterate how critical it is to have a great transit system in the city. i think we've alanon and there is a that low income people ride

this system and they likely probably have no other option. so when muni isn't performing at the level we want or doesn't have the capacity that we want it has a dramatic effect on those that are low income because they don't have another option. equally is the number of people who are middle and upper income who are using the system because we know in a lot of parts of the country, i know where i grew up, people, it was only low income people who were taking the bus. it's not a good thing. it should be economic diversity. it looks like 20 percent of the riders make $100,000 a year or more and 42 percent make $50,000 a year or more. a lot of those people are people who if muni isn't doing what we need,

maybe do have cars so they can drive more or have the ability to buy a car and park it if they need to. for those folks, if they vote with their feet and don't ride transit, we are going to see a ton of congestion. this is great data for both those reasons. >> i agree. it's great to have it. previously we relied on census data as a proxy for who was riding muni. obviously that was not a very good proxy. i think your point is extremely well-taken. i think it provides a lot of information that muni provides for the city. >>supervisor eric mar: i think the data is useful. i'm really appreciative that one of the key values is equity and really having a transit system that serves the people in most need. i think the slide on

low income people being over half of those riding muni is really important. i'm not down playing what supervise wiener is saying about middle and upper income people, but those that are low income i think in my opinion need much more support to become lifelong riders. i appreciate the work that you have done to implement the free muni for low income youth. 20 percent of the riders who are 55 and older, i'm also trying to think about the equity that is there and the need how we can support the older riders as well. i know that's coming up in the slides. thank you. >> sure. i think again the point that muni is really disproportionately serving a lot of people who really need it and rely on it. as you are both saying, if muni isn't operating well, then it's disproportionately impacting folks who rely on it more and

it's a part of your life in san francisco especially if you are low income. i think that's something we should be proud of given the system that we have and it makes investing in the system that it can support those people all the more important. i mentioned that people are pretty, many of the people responded that they are very frequent users. also happily, 52 percent rated the service as excellent or good . i know we all have our stories of a bad muni ride here or there. i hear from you directly on occasion, but by and large, when you think that we are carrying more than 700 thousand trips on an average weekday, the great majority of them get to where they are going without incident. while we hear about the times when it doesn't, it's a little reassuring that at least the majority rate the services that are good. that doesn't

mean there are still folks who don't rate it that way and we would like to continue to drive that 52 percent up. this was reassuring as well. that said, muni is not without it's challenges. this is from a recent benchmarking report that the controller did and perhaps not surprising to anybody who uses muni. but we are a very slow system. these are miles per hour. you can see we are around 8 miles per hour is the average system speed. which compares unfavorably to the other peer cities that the controllers office evaluated. it's in part or largely in part to the fact that we are largely a surface system, largely not running in dedicated rights of way and we are the second densest city in the country and our streets are very crowded. so our ability to deliver service

and get people to where they are going is challenged by the fact that we are doing at an average speed of eight 8 miles an hour. the resources that we have to maintain the muni system and in particular our facilities where all of our buses are trained in service, they were not built for the type and vintage and volume of fleet that we have today. what that results in is the fact that we don't have good quality efficient facilities that we can keep our vehicles on the streets as opposed to in the shop. a lot of these facilities and i welcome any of you to come take a tour of them, were built for a different era. in this case, the photo shows that we have to crawl down

underneath the bus in a pit to work on a bus. it takes us longer to do. the facilities that don't have all the modern and seismic and other benefits that we would like to have. ultimately manifest itself in the amount of service and the quality of service that we are putting out on the streets. that's compounded by the fact that not only are we one of the slowest fleets in the nation, we are one of the oldest fleets in the nation. that's starting to change with the new buses. that will change significantly as we go forward. right now our vehicles breakdown considerably more frequently from the report from some benchmark facilities that we

are working with. the number of maintenance mechanics those we have increased that a lot in the years. the age of the buses is part of the issue. but all of this manifest itself in poor service or less service delivered than our service plan calls for because the vehicles rather than being out on the street are being towed back to the facility. >>supervisor scott weiner: i love this presentation because it's presenting information in ways that are helpful and focusing on what the issues are. this graphic particularly on the late rail vehicles showing the extreme discrepancy between failures of light rail vehicles versus our peer cities. when you look at the discrepancy between

bus failures, there is a discrepancy our buses fail more often but it's at least somewhat close. the fact that our light rail vehicles fail every 854 miles whereas our average of our peer cities is every 6,000 miles. that's a dramatic difference. while certainly mta needs to do more and i think has been doing more in terms of maintenance, i think we have to actually look at the fundamental flaws in our light rail vehicles. i have been out spoken about this and you have heard me say this before that these light rail vehicles are incredibly problematic. i used to think they were better than the boeings in the last

generation, but i'm increasingly not so sure. the impacts that these defective light rail vehicles cause on subway above ground every day are just extraordinary. i know that mta is going through its lrv procurement process and i know that beretta was qualified to bid which was surprising to me. i don't expect you to comment on that process now in terms of different candidates, but can you just let us know when is that process going to end and when is the contract going to be awarded. does past performance take into account in that process? >> yes. through the chair, we issued a request for qualifications at some point

last year. we qualified i think 4 or 5-car builders. we did a lot of industry outreach. we had a number of informational sessions to generate interest and to help folks understand what some of our unique constraints are which contributed here. we have sharper corners and steeper hills, higher usage and low floor and high board floor. we have prequalifying 4 and 5 and we have two proposals. both of them we think are good proposals. we are in the process now of reviewing those proposals. i believe what we should be getting to award, probably in the summer. we expect through that process to have the first test vehicles sometime in

2016 or 17 with the first vehicles delivered in 2018. those are part of the expansion of the fleet. the 24 would be an expansion that would put us to 175. those original 151 start aging out and their economic life is 25 years as they start aging out then we would replace them following that first 24. we should have new cars here the first new cars here in 2018. >>supervisor scott weiner: i'm assuming that the durability and reliability of the vehicles is really going to be a significant factor. we can't have another generation of fragile vehicles. >> absolutely. so it's not just about muni. one of the other challenges we have and i know the board has expressed a lot of interest

and concern about this is the safety of our streets for all the users particularly for the most vulnerable people on foot, people on a bicycle, the ones that aren't protected by a shield of metal. as you well know, we've been doing a lot of work in this area, not just the mta but working across the city family, public health department, public works, transportation authority and others. i think a really good point to start moving the dial on this to work towards achieving the mayor's goals as issued in his pedestrian strategy and then further the vision zero goals was adopted by my board and your board. we found through this very rigorous analysis process is that 60 percent of the severe and fatal