short deadline with a submission due on november 18. we look forward to your approval and resolution. i can answer any question that you might have about the grant or application process. supervisor avalos:

>> that they are classified as such. is it a non, or is it some other event maybe not one of

conflict, or is it iraq or afghanistan? it would be good to get some demographic if possible. >> sure. i think that specific question isn't asked, but we can make infernoses when we see their age possibly and their status of veteran, give you what war they are coming from. but i can work with our veteran providers to see if they capture that data. on our level we just ask if they have served in the military. we don't ask in what combat they participated in. >> is it inappropriate that we actually ask for a little more data? it would be helpful to get a base line understanding of what our home population is. >> i don't think it is inappropriate. we don't do it now, but i can definitely raise the question with the service providers. >> thank you. >> no problem. >> thank you. let's open this up for public comment.

>> you can slow clorely now you gotta house. you can see all urban development in your way. gone are the dark budget clouds that had you blind. it's gonna be a bright, sun-shiny day. here is your rainbow you have been waiting for. all of the pain of no shelter has disappeared. here is everything you have been waiting for. it's gonna be a bright, bright, bright city housing sun-shiny day. look straight ahead. look straight ahead, nothing but blue housing skies.

you can see clearly now. the budget housing rain has gone ♪ >> thank you very much. >> if there are no other members of the public to comment, we will close public comment. motion to move forward with recommendation. >> motion. >> without objection. >> mr. young, if we could hear our next item, which is item number 12? >> item number 12. resolution declaring the intention of the board of supervisors to establish a property-based district to be known as the risk center community district and identified parcels in the district, approval the district plan and proposed boundary plap for the district. ordering and setting a time, approving a form of notice, an assessment ballot.

>> mrs. pagan, welcome. >> thank you very much. thank you chair avalos and supervisors. thank you very much for considering this resolution of intention to form the civic center community benefit district. today we are submitting an amendment to the whole for your review. we are happy to announce that 30% petition support has been achieved. so at this point we have -- the mayor's office has introduced a resolution of intent to form the civic center community benefit district. if this is approved, the department of elections will be expected to mail ballots out to property owners in the proposed

district. a final hearing could be scheduled. we are suggesting january 4th, 2011. we have submitted for your review amendments to the management plan, engineer report and the resolution of intent to reflect some of the property. in the petition phase, they corrected the parcel data on their petitions, and they provided new information on their parcel data that was different than what the assessor's rolls had. we have updated their assessments based on the corrected parcel data they gave us. this results in a reduction, approximately 7,000, in the assessment budget. we've changed the numbers in the management plan and engineer's report to reflect that. we have update the time line to show where we are at of today,

and we've cleared up some administrative inconsistencies. so i would like to, if possible, introduce the representative of the steering committee. he she has been working with the c.b.d. steering committee for over a year, and she would like to go through what is being proposed in terms of what this district hopes to do, what the petition results are, the services that we would like to share with you that the district proposes to implement. with that, i would like to turn it over to karen. >> very good. thank you. >> great. thank you, lisa. good afternoon, supervisors, chairman avalos and supervisor elsbernd. my name is karen. i am with a property management coming here in san francisco.

we management several properties here in san francisco. i am hear representing the steering committee no the civic center, many of whom are here in the audience and will speak later. we are here to give you an overview about the civic snrt c.b.d. and ask you to support the resolution of intent to go ahead with the ballot vote. we have achieved the 30% threshold to allow the process to move forward for the actual vote. next what i would like to do is first give you a quick overview of the civic center c.b.d. many of you are family with c.b.d.'s. we are talking about assessment districts where by property owners agree to assess themselves for city services. this is above and beyond police and other services to enhance it and make a nicer

neighborhood. there are about a thousand business improvement districts across the country. this one is very unique. each district is unique. it is primarily city buildings here at the civic center. also the performing arts have a huge presence here in the commercial secretary tal represented. there are about 654 parcels. the first-year budget is $735,000. we have their just services. we have just complete our petition drive. 30% of the petitionles were received -- of the petitions were received. and many of them were received from a diverse constituency of property owners. the steering committee, who met for 18 months, had half private sector and half public sector

coming together. we have the former tripple a building, fox plaza and many of the performing arts, the conserve tore of music, the ballet, as well as many city departments such as the department of real estate, the war memorial and several parks. we achieved 30.27% supported petitions, which is impressive in these economic times. everybody says what am i getting for my money, but the property owners are excited about the services. across the board, about 15.86% are from the commercial sector. it is the largest sector in the neighborhood. 38% of the neighborhood is made up of commercial buildings. the arts organizations have submit petitions representing 28%. there are more and more residence in the area through

new condo developments. so we are at the 30%. this map shows you where the support is. the yellow is where the folks voted in favor of the district. you can say the performing arts, the asian arts, the symphony and the ballet. we also have the commercial buildings, the triple-a buildings, the performing arts. so across the board and across the map you can see a diverse group that has supported us. and the services. again, why are people voting for this and excited about it? it is services above and beyond what the city does. over the eight months that we met, we look at the needs in the district and what characterizes the district. we did a survey. we determined it is safe, but it doesn't feel safe.

it is dark at night. it would be nice if there was a safety presence, more things happening in civic center plaza to bring the place alive. there is cleanliness needed in the market street area. we looked at the area by zone, and the services are done by zone. the safety sftses are throughout the district, but we have extra safety at night in the middle zone in the pink zone for performing arts and what have you, and then additional cleaning in the mark area in the green zone. property owners if each of those zones only pay for what they receive. you have the pact in front of you, and you -- the packet in front of you and can walk through some of the services. the services that everyone is excited about are really the safety services. we are proposing to have public safety ambassadors. they are in union square, and they provide a welcoming

presence to be the eyes and years for police and connect all the different building securities in the area. there is a lot of security in the neighborhood because it is the civic center, but to have someone that is coordinating everybody together and communicating with them. so they are here welcoming people to the area. they are eyes and ears. they also do some homeless outreach to help folks in need and direct them to services. again, it is a coordination effort. this was a meeting we had in union square. we brought police, ambassadors, and property owners together to talk about how better to coordinate the safety in the area. but certainly all kinds of communication can be done. there can be alerts to all kinds of buildings, not just the public bullings, but also the private buildings. the group was very excited about doing more activation along the civic center plaza leading to some of the performing arts venues. there are some wonderful things

happening in the park right now, and it can be allmented across the district. again, cleanliness. coordination between the buildings, especially down toward the market street area. lighting is a big issue. the c.b.d. would do advocacy throughout the district to promote a clean and safe district. additional beautification, there is already so much around city hall in terms of the flower baskets and the greenery, but to do that throughout the zrisket. there is the budget of $736,000. here we are before you today. it is october 27th and we are asking you to support this resolution. the committee feels they have put together a good plan, and the community feels like it would be a difference in the civic center area. if you have questions, i am happy to answer any questions you may have.

>> supervisor elsbernd? supervisor elsbernd: thanks. the petition update. i came in under the impression that we were going to be noticed that 30% -- the 30% threshold had been met with private property owners, but not quite right if these numbers are correct in that it looks like of the 30% threshold, my ralph estimate is about 13% of that -- my rough estimate of that is about 13% public entities. 10% to 13% of that 30%? >> the war memorial building, h and r, the state building? >> that is correct. the lessees of the war memorial, especially the symphony and the ropra house,

they are one of the -- the opera house, they are one of the leaders. they also lease out buildings that the city owns to private entities. in that case, the war memorial leases out their space to non-governmental organizations in addition to some government offices. >> sure. they lease out the space, but they still have a budget that comes through us and still need appropriation dollars, right, the board of trustees? >> my understanding is that the opera, symphony and ballet have agreed to increase their rent to cover the assessment for the c.b.d. >> all right. that is all fine. it doesn't get to my vote here -- i am happy to vote.

so i can be clear on the standard i laid out for my vote, when the vote is cast out there, and we bring in the election results here, i'm only going to vote to establish the district if 50% of the private property owners vote yes. i am not interested in again seeing the public property owners imposing their will on the private property owners. to me, this will be one of 11 votes, when that day comes, i will just be looking at the private property owners. i want to be very clear that when i see state property, war memorial, that doesn't fall in my head as private property owners. >> so you are saying 50% of the people who vote? >> no. >> no. >> the threshold that needs to be met from the private sector

side, not government side. >> my threshold. that will be my threshold. >> all right. i'm not sure if i have the same threshold, but i have a similar concern. it is somewhat like the tail wagging the dog. the public side is still the minority of the property owners, but the vote could be a majority of people voting. to me that is not the best way to indicate an implementation of a community benefit district in my mind, bawsca you may have a number of property owners who would feel there was an unfair advantage in making that happen by the city government and a number of related institutions as well. i don't have an opposition in terms of a vote and determining what the will is going to be. >> supervisor mirkarimi?

supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. i'm more than fine to let them have the vote. i understood that as well. i agree with supervisor avalos and elsbernd for different reasons. the one c.b.d. in my district is one of the more rigidly construct. i put our c.b.d. on a very short lease because of the unique genesis of the former redevelopment era in the western edition and fillmore corridor. we put it on a pilot of approximately five years. and so a similar sentiment i would extend, not for the same reasons towards this. i would like to see the vote, but i am hoping that vote is representative of a significantly higher private population that is willing to pony up and be part of a process that clearly i don't

get the feeling it is very interested in right now. so we will see. >> i'm sure you are anticipating those concerns as it goes to a vote, which i believe we will foretoday. there is a lot of things that has to happen, and we are fully aware of that. >> right. absolutely, yes, we are. >> thank you. if there are no other questions or comments from the committee, any other things you want to present, we can go to public comment. >> all right. there are members of the steering committee that might like to say something as members of the public. >> all right. >> good afternoon, my name is mcclintock gallagher, i am a home owner in the district.

i received notice of property tax assessment this year dated july 26th stating that the assessed of my home, a condominium, had been increased to $620,000, a 5% increase over last year's assessment of $590,000. subsequently i received another notice from the saysor's office indicating that the assessed value, dated one day later, was $698,000. to make matters more confusing, i received another letter from the saysor's office, again, this letter dated july 27th, that the value would be $620,000. in last week's mail i received a notice -- >> mr. gallagher, i don't want to take away from your time, but is it related to the c.b.d.? >> yes, it is related. i received my secured property tax bill listing the higher of

the two bills at $698,000. i was told by the saysor's office that the lower value would be the value. i just want to say that before you create any new special districts with the power to levee new prod taxes, you should ensure the current tax collection system in san francisco is being administered competently. clearly today it is not. there are other owners in my building that have received conflicting notices, and recent being forced to float an interest-free loan to city hall we will remember this during the elections next week and next year. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please? >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is david harrison, and

i represent the ownership of the former triple-a buildings. i believe that we are one of the largest and maybe the largest private property owner within those districts, and we are here to express our support. we have at this time patrioted in the steering committee meetings, and we believe this is a good thing. there is a lot of support among the private propertier owners in the district. if i understand the results of the petition correctly, we have already got -- if you just look at the private property owners, just look at that portion of the petition drive, we've already got something like 30% at this stage, and that is a pretty high level as i understand it. the way these things work at the petition stage, it is unusual to get more than 30%. i do expect we will meet the

higher standards that you guys are looking for. i would also just like to say that it is a proven model. it is something that works elsewhere in the city and elsewhere in the country. karen said a couple of times that it's about the services, and it is about the services. that is why we have all come together to do this, to get these services. but i happen to sit on the board of another c.b.d., the fisherman's wharf c.b.d. in san francisco. one of the things i have learned through that is there are intangible benefits also. there is more of a sense of community, and people get to know each other. the private property owners get to know each other. i've seen in our steering committee meetings here, you know, it is unusual for private property owners and city government representatives and state government representatives to get to know one another and talk about

these things. it is a very good thing. i think it is going to continue, and i urge your support. >> thank you. next speaker please? >> chair and supervisors, i have been involved with the civic center for 25 years. one of the things i have learned is that there is no cohesion to the area. people who operate one building don't know the people across the street. in fact, the state emergency services plan called for all of its state employees to assemble on the stairs of city hall. in 2004 the more their authorized me to hold a shareholders meeting, and some 225 people came. people got to meet and know each other. the issue that was at the top of their list was security, real and perceived. it effects whether all the workers in the areas or visitors to the cultural organizations, et cetera. since that time i've organized

a number of meetings related to security with people in the area, with the various security it wases, the homeless team -- security services and the homeless team. but that is not enough. there has to be a a focus. in 2007 i went to the mayor and said there has to be more than me holding meetings, and i agreed. he asked history colleagues to begin this process. it has been a slow process because of getting the private property owners involved. we now have a high level of interest among the larger and more active property owners. there is a great deal more work to be done. we have somewhere in the neighborhood of close to 600 individual condo owners that have not been reached out to in a snifingt way. we have to find them and deal wth