should be reduced from 2.2 million to 2,000,100 -- [unintelligible] 15 -- our recommendation on page 30 is to amend the ordinance by reducing the supplemental appropriation request and we recommend that you approve the ordinance as recommended. supervisor avalos: very good, thank you, mr. rose. ms. zamuda? >> to remind the committee, this appropriation reinstates money that was cut by the mayor and the board of supervisors in the budget process, requiring the appropriation to increase the account with two-thirds of the

vote from the board of supervisors. supervisor avalos: thank you. we can open this up for public comment. thank you and congratulations on your new position. any member of the public that would like to comment on item number three? we will close public comment. we can move forward with recommendation to the committee. right, we will accept the budget analysts recommendation to produce and take that, moving forward with recommendation without objection. supervisor avalos: item number four, please. >> item #4, resolution authorizing the mayor to cast petitions in the affirmative for

formation of the proposed civic center community benefit district, to sign on behalf of the city and county of san francisco as the owner of certain parcels of real property that would be subject to assessment in the proposed property and business improvement district to be named the civic center community benefit district. supervisor avalos: that was not going to work, go to the one on your right. >> good morning. lisa pagon with the office of economic and workforce development. i am here to give you a brief presentation about the proposed resolution and civics center. just a second. i will put this on.

>> please switchover to computer display. thank you. >> ok. the office of economic and workforce development has been working for the past two years with a group of stakeholders from the private and public sector on a proposed community benefit district. today the resolution in front of you is requesting board of supervisors approval for authorizing the mayor to cast affirmative petitions for the parcels under the jurisdiction of the board of supervisors. to understand what the physicians are actually four, i wanted to go through what the proposed district is aiming to do.

let's see. ok, try again. sorry about that. the community benefit district is a proposal. right now it is in the petition phase. the proposal was 35 lots around the civic center, including 664 parcels that would be a part of the district if approved. the first-year budget is $743,000. the three different zones in this district that represent different service levels, based on the input we have received over the last few years from stakeholders, the stakeholder group and system, they sent out

petitions to all of the property owners in the district. the committee has been meeting regularly for a long time now, including public and private sector participants, representation for the arts communities, and the city and county of san francisco, as well as the state. services differ bizonal in the district. in all of the zones there will be proposals for ambassador patrols, which i will go into more details about, but basically greeting folks that walk through the district, greet people, provide added security, support security services with police. in the second zone there will be an additional evening of

programs geared towards the patron of the arts in this district. housing is provided for the district by all zones. beautification program, public space activation of the sidewalks, and the civic center plaza and zones and cleaning and maintenance services proposed. this is a map of the district. the three zones are in three colors. number one is yellow. pink is no. 2. green is zone 3. three has more cleaning services because there are less services in the district around cleaning. no. 2 has more ambassador services with nighttime activity, which the stakeholders wanted. those are the proposed

boundaries. the civic center is broadly defined. on the east side, as the public library, and on the west side, which is franklin street. so, safety services for a huge priority for the committee. they decided that they wanted to propose ambassadors or community guides for this district, which would provide greetings, pedestrian escort services, residential property owners said that when folks come home from work, sometimes they want to feel safe without a lot of people around. when folks come to the different events that night, they want to have that kind of safety presence on the sidewalk. also during the day there are groups of people that come through the district that would

like to find out where to go and get information, as well of folks in need in the district that these ambassadors could help to provide. we want the police to coordinate between all of the departments and security properties. they do not always coordinate with each other around issues, bringing the stakeholders the other private and public. activation of public space and sidewalk is a big fire or the for this district, changing the perception on the sidewalk. one of the ideas was to create positive environments in public open spaces through performances, concerts', music,

a change in the environment and helping everyone to feel welcome and that this is a thriving arts district. cleanliness, again, there is the need for on call graffiti removal. all of the areas of the district required graffiti removal, sidewalks weeping, washing. in one of the zones, there are increased amounts of cleaning because there are less existing services on the sidewalk. beautification is part of the entire district. funding is set aside. staffing could provide for additional funding for capital improvements where it is necessary. supervisor avalos: just looking

at the last line, i found it interesting. one picture looks like you're up. other pictures, this looks like you're up four union square. bullet points as benches. one of the things i am often surprised by it are the people that visit the center, they ask where the benches are. the idea is to move them around, but not to keep them here. to me it makes sense that we will be doing a cd the in the area to change what the atmosphere is for people visiting. i think the benches are a key. >> i agree.

the idea is that there are some improvements that could be made, but that monitoring and management of those public instances need to happen. >> i am ok with it being used by the people in san francisco as well with nowhere to go during the day, sitting on a bench can be helpful. >> i agree. that is one of the concepts, yes, that could be employed with this district if they could raise funds and implements management and maintenance of those distillations. another purpose for this proposed district would be to advocate on behalf of the district, bringing together the sectors, raising funds on a project that affects the community, really building up the community as a whole. this district is not cohesive. everyone does not communicate with each other between the

private sector, amongst themselves, and the public and private sector. this is an opportunity for an organization to be a caretaker for the area as a whole and exclude -- include the stakeholders in the organization, helping to promote the district, really fostering neighborhood pride and ownership for those that use it, live here, residents, workers, and visitors. but does so, the budget proposed to do these services on an annual basis is $743,970. and we have a proposed timeline in the petition phase right now. if the petition comes back in support of the district, we would present a resolution to the board of supervisors to

establish the district, but we are not there yet. in the petition phase we have not got them back yet. >> but they are out in the street? >> yes, they have been mailed. supervisor avalos: yes is the 30% threshold? >> is up to you to decide, if there was 30% support, it is up to you to decide if he wanted to move a district forward with only 30%. you can move it forward with more support. supervisor avalos: we control the fate of whether or not there are 30%. every private property owner could vote no, but we have enough weight to make it happen anyway. >> yes, but then you have to vote for the resolution of intent to move forward in the would not have to. even with 30% support you would

not have to move the district to a ballot phase if you did not choose to. >> remind me, afterwards the results come to us and we must vote to a implement it? >> yes. after the ballots are mailed out and returned, even if there is majority support for the district, supervisors must fill the side on establishment. >> is that december 14 in your line? >> yes. at this point the petitions are out and have not been collected. we are hoping for them to be returned by october 8 so that they can be analyzed at that point. if it looks like there is strong, private-sector support for this district and we have close to 30% private sector support, we would introduce the resolution to establish the district. supervisor elsbernd: that is

different from what i understood. i thought that if we voted yes on the item, that would bring the necessary 30% for moving forward. you are telling me that public properties do not matter, that we need 30% of private property is? >> that is our goal as the steering committee. if we do not have private sector support for this combined with the city, it would not be able to be implemented properly. it would not be my recommendation to move forward exclusively with city support. supervisor avalos: i am trying to figure out why this is necessary. if we are looking out wanting to get a 30% threshold from the private sector, why not just do that? going forward to decide if we are going to pass the resolution

if the intention is not to and that -- establish cbd. it seems like the right process to go through, seems consistent with what we just did at ocean avenue, giving the private sector a way to weigh in. i look at this as a foregone conclusion. legally 30% as a threshold, we could vote for it today, authorizing the city to sign on the petition. then we have the threshold past mumbai denn this seems like that is putting the cart before the horse -- that we have a threshold past and this seems like this is putting the cart before the horse. we have such a big wave of ownership here in the civic center area that might not be the best way to assess the

temperature out there in the private sector. >> again, the board of supervisors controls when to introduce resolutions of intent to establish. it is a policy decision whether to vote for a petition or not. our office is asking for the city at this point because the private sector needs to know we are in partnership. i am not saying you need a resolution of intent with exclusive city support and no private sector support. what i am suggesting is that the private sector has asked for us in the decision making, they want to see that we are partners and they want to know that the -- that we will move forward together. this district is not like any other district, so we are handling it very differently as the city is a significant stake holder.

with state department's voting as well. we want to get literally private sector support in state private sector support, when we do have everyone's support. with the city voting on this petition, it does not require the process to move forward. there is no legal requirement that you have to move it forward. but the private sector wants to see that we are supportive of this bill, which is why we are bringing it to you earlier than normal. i can answer additional questions, but i wanted to finish this. the city particles, which are a

part of the petition, represent 24% of the weighted vote in the district. there are also parcels under exclusive jurisdiction and if the supervisors would not vote, their boards would vote for those parcels. including the performing arts garage, parking authority parcel, the war memorial parcels. each of those boards have their own. >> in the end they will teleport

-- they will. >> if i am not explaining this broccoli, i apologize. i understand that some apartments have jurisdiction over assessments that could be levied on the parcels, which is why they have brought to our office the right to vote for their own petitions. i do not know if there is further clarification needed. supervisor elsbernd: it seems strange, if they vote for it, when their budget comes to us and we wanted to strike it out, we would not be able to. >> are there any other

questions? i understand that this is a new policy request we are making. >> i am willing to go along with i will love boat if there's no majority support of private property owners. i do not want this to be the city or state imposing on any foreperson that happens to own private property there. it would not matter if it was 100% of the government owned properties, when it comes time to establish that the board, it just feels way too much like big brother imposing on the sucker that owns private property if you do not have majority

support. that will be important for this one vote to establish. i get the point that this in front of us kind of starts at, but be clear on the record, i will not be support of a lesser is that demonstrated majority private property support. supervisor avalos: i am confused by the argument that the private side would like to see the city passed this resolution to show that they would be supportive. it does not make sense that that would be a hoot that we need to go through with this. i also feel somewhat like supervisor elsbernd, the private sector needs to decide on the town. i could see supporting this cbd

knowing that there is that support on the other side. i would like to do that, there is even a great need to have that kind of service here. things that are lacking in the city that need to be here and there is support in the board to do that uneven playing field is hearing what the people outside of the city, that makes the most sense to me. we can open this up for public comment.

there is also a letter from supervisor daly that i am hoping that someone from his office could come read. i have a number of cards. unidentified speakers, [reads names] >> good morning, mr. chairman. thank you very much for this hearing today. it has been terribly useful. thank you for -- that is great. i represent 100 been nests because of the companies that

own and develop the 100 aaa headquarters. we have a significant interest in the area. we are very much behind the project. a lot of hard work has been done, as you have heard. a good result has already occurred, we feel that we have your support with the support of the private sector, which is a part of a gold today, staged interim hearings to get your view. we do not want to ramrod this through. we are handling it with kid gloves. there is a lot about reached to members of our community. results would be that it would benefit the residence of the entire san francisco area, visitors to san francisco, it

will make it and improve the situation for everyone. whereas the next level, we will come down and, hopefully, your support will be continued. supervisor avalos: thank you, next speaker, please. ka>> good morning. i am the supervising director of the public library. we are very excited for the potential of the benefit district. we intend to ask our commission for resolution in supporting it. as we know, the library is very much in favor of partnerships in things that work logistically to deliver to the citizens of the city. we feel fairly strongly that the cbd will be effective in that

manner. all of the other stakeholders, private and public. thank you for considering this. supervisor avalos: thank you. >> good morning, i am the assistant director for strategic partnerships at the recreation and parks department. i am here to say that we are excited about the civics center and we will be bringing it to the commission on october 7, recommending that they vote in favor of the resolution. thank you for your time. supervisor avalos: thank you. is that on? use the one to your right. >> i represent mgm management

company, we have been consultants to the neighbors on this process for the last year- and-a-half. my background actually goes back to 1995 when the first paper that i wrote recommended community benefit districts for the union square neighborhood. i have been involved in that district since its formation and was also involved in the [unintelligible] benefit district. i understand your concern about the relationship between the public sector and private sector in this, but i think that your concerns are not necessary. as you will see, there is no opposition here today from the private sector. this process, all of the way through, has been led by the private sector. actually, the only wild card is the city.

because, of course, supervisors have not had the opportunity to come to these community meetings. there is a great group of people out there that wants it. when i look at this, i think not about the board of supervisors making something happen, not that the board of supervisors could make something happen that the public does not want, but that they could not stop something that the public very much wants, which is why it is important to get your affirmative not. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you, next beaker, please. >> i am a former board member for cbd, there is no oversight or accountability of them.