da captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- supervisor avalos: good morning,

welcome to the budget and finance committee. we do not have supervisor mirkarimi today, we have a motion to excuse and it has been seconded. the clerk of the committee is mr. baker young. and the announcements? >> please turn off all cell phones and pagers. if you wish to speak during public comment, please turn out in the card to myself. please provide copies of all documents to the file. pocket -- documents of hearing today will appear in the october 10 meeting unless otherwise stated. supervisor avalos: item number one, please. >> item number one, resolution authorizing the department of emergency management to enter into a contract with the state of california office of administrative hearings to provide administrative law

judges to serve as hearing officers on administrative appeals from certification actions by the san francisco emergency medical services agency. supervisor avalos: very good. welcome. >> good morning. this item has to do with the emergency medical services agency, a division of the medical services management. one of the functions is to certify people that want to become an emergency medical technicians in san francisco. we do many checks to make sure that they're the right people to perform services. if someone is rejected, they are entitled to an appeal. all county esa's must use a state law judge to hear the appeal. as administering this process, the resolution before you authorizes them to enter into an

agreement as required by state law. we anticipate wanted to state rules for year for the certification process. $80 per hour plus the filing fee and the state of california has set up a fund to pay for it. we do not anticipate new costs to the city. the reason this is before you had all because it is different from our contract language and our city attorney recommended that we bring it before you. the contract files are relatively straightforward, we encourage you to pass the resolution. we are happy to answer any questions you have. supervisor avalos: great, thank you for presenting today. it is straightforward, led move

on to public comment. any members of the public? we will close public comment. motion to approve with recommendation. without objection. thank you very much. please call item no. 2. >> item #2, resolution approving and authorizing the execution of modification no. 1 to lease no. l01-0297 with japan airlines company limited to reduce the demised premises and the annual rent at building 944 on plot 50b-1 at san francisco international airport. supervisor avalos: thank you very much. i am beginning to think you should have an office here at city hall. we could get some of that airport money. >> we will see what we can work out. [laughter] the airport is here today to

secure approval of a lease modification on our existing lease with japan airlines to reduce square footage and decrease the annual rent amount. airport currently have been in place since october of 2001, it will terminate in october of 2011. the reason this modification is before you today, the proposed modifications reduces the amount of weast cargo and office space, releasing airport employee parking spaces. they currently pay s a brand of approximately 1.9. the modification before you today would bring it to $1.6 million. this proposed modification

allows japan airlines to address its current financial challenge while continuing passenger service. it only has to do with cargo and freight leases with the airport. i would be happy to answer any specific questions you might have. supervisor avalos: the grounds service lease is not affected? >> sorry? therefore staff believes that when this lease extends it will not be renewed, but japan airlines is one of the signatory airlines that flies on lease agreements approved by the board in may, which is a good indication that they continue to feel strongly in their passenger service. supervisor avalos: mr. rose? >> mr. chairman, members of the committee, as indicated, this

would be a reduction in rent to the airport of some $320,000. however, there would be no fiscal impact of the budget itself. as you know, the airport operates under a break even policy. the cost would be spread to another 10 airlines if it were not found for this space. we recommend approval of this resolution. supervisor avalos: very good, thank you. we will open this up for public comment. would any member of the public like to comment on item number two? we will close public comment. motion to move forward without recommendation. that will go forward to the full board with recommendation. item number three, please. >> item #3, ordinance appropriating $2,200,000 of general fund reserve to fund indigent defense expenses associated with increased felony

caseloads in the superior court for fy2009-2010, requiring a two-thirds affirmative vote of all members of the board of supervisors per san francisco charter section 9.113. >> good morning, supervisors. we are here before you today to sound like a broken record and request $2.2 million from supplemental appropriation. the broken record part is due to increased caseload. supervisor avalos: just before you go, we had anticipated your coming here earlier this year. i believe that 2.2 million was what was discussed early in the summer. pretty consistent. so, not to cast your request as a broken record, but the system itself needs to be address and

this is a part of getting balanced. >> understood. supervisor elsbernd: to be cleared, this is a supplemental for last year? >> correct, this is retrospective. the chart i have handed out and dammed showing on the projected overhead and is basically the chart i have been showing you for the last year. last year we had 7000 cases for $8.8 million handle the the end of the fiscal year, 10,500 cases for almost $12.9 million, which creates a need for the supplemental. a 49% increase in cases and a 46% increase in costs. looking at it by type of case in

more detail, last year we had 4700 record felonies for the fiscal year. this year we have -- for the year that just ended, 4800. this is a 30% increase in felonies-and a 120% increase in misdemeanors. felonies, by far, are the most expensive types of cases that we handle. supervisor elsbernd: the big increase in misdemeanors, is that tied to the cjc? >> some of it. most of it, however, are in regular trial departments. supervisor avalos: even this increase from 2008-2009 to 2009-2010, does it take into

consideration the many cases were thrown out because of a crime lab? >> yes, if the creek -- if they were work done prior to being dismissed, they do count because that is the longtime for the attorneys. the time they spent working on the case before it became dismissed. so, we need just under $2.2 million. we are in agreement with the budget analysts office. i am here to answer any questions that you have. supervisor avalos: let's hear from the budget analyst and go on to questions. >> based on the data submitted, you can reduce this request, it 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.