important. it is support from your family to get you through school. one of those isi think losing tf is losing the life of the college. those who want to pursue a career in life, they have their morals that they fall back on from learning about life during the college years. kusf has a strong importance in the community not only for college kids, but for the adults and the members of the community and the world population. at thank you. >> are there any other members of the public who wish to speak? general public comment is

closed. if we can move to the adoption calendar. >> items 18-22 are being considered for immediate and unanimous adoption. these will be enacted upon by a single roll call vote. >> would anyone like to sever any of these items? >> 21. >> unless there are any other items to be severed. >> i would like to sever item 22. >> can we take a roll-call vote? >> supervisors chu? aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye.

aye. there are 11 ayes. >> these resolutions are adopted. item 21. >> item 21 is a resolution expressing opposing the sale of kusf and requesting the board of regents to reinstate the programming. >> supervisor mirkarimi. >> thank you, mr. president. i want to take the community and members of the public for speaking for their good work and drawing attention to this issue. i realize it might be easier for some if we continue this discussion. i would ask for a continuance. one week. >> supervisor mirkarimi has asked it to continue this discussion for a week.

sentiment by supervisor elsbernd. item 22. >> item 22 is a resolution with the proposed changes to the fiscal year 2012 to eliminate the redevelopment agency. >> thank you. this has been an awesome beginning of the fourth weekend. beginning today, it has been widely advertised, at least on january 10, the budget includes the elimination of the redevelopment agency's ability to reduce tax increment financing. while details are emerging about how the governor would implement this proposal, i feel we should send a strong message to the state capitol that the wholesale

elimination of redevelopment as a tool is unacceptable. the redevelopment authority is a tool. it is a tool for creating jobs and affordable housing. now, we must acknowledge that the redevelopment agencies have made poor decisions in the past. the development by urban renewal programs in the 1950's and '60's is evidence of that. this is not your father's redevelopment agency. we have used the tool of redevelopment to refocus public and private investment in ways that neither the public or private market could have accomplished on their own. over 1400 units of affordable housing and free development this year alone. 3000 construction jobs last year stemming from almost $300

million in construction activity. millions in biotech space. perhaps, most unattainable, without the use of tax increment financing is our ability to transform neglected and polluted tracts of land into healthy and productive neighborhoods. we have plans to revitalize hunters point and on treasure island. we have far too many important projects under way. far too many years of public dialogue and far too many commitments have been made to the community partners to suddenly change the rules in the game. i ask that you join me in opposing this misguided idea.

>> i want to thank supervisor: for bringing this resolution forward. as many of you know, we have many redevelopment projects in the pipeline that are in jeopardy if this proposal goes through. i want to thank governor brown for bringing up the risky ideas in terms of how we can close the budget gap. i really do understand the importance of looking for funding were ever weekend to fund our public schools. many of our other public services that the state provides. i think that this resolution is important because it does not state that we are completely against the proposal. we want to be at the table to discuss the compromise is to work around the budget process so we can still fund public

health services. we are keeping in mind some key projects so that many people in san francisco can find affordable housing. at least here in the county and san francisco is the future of affordable housing projects here in san francisco. i want to thank the supervisor for bringing this forward. i hope the governor will work with our city at finding a proposal that will allow us to continue forward with these projects. >> unless there is any further discussion, can we take this item? without objection, this resolution is adopted. are there any in memorials for today? >> today's meeting will be adjourned in memory of the following individuals. for the late mr. stewart everett. on behalf of supervisor

mirkarimi, for the late dr. mildred mr. james howard. on behalf of president chiu, chang. >> is there any more business in front of this board? >> that concludes our business for today. >> ladies and gentlemen, we are a juror for today. -- adjourned for today.

the >> welcome to the board of supervisors meeting of tuesday, february 1st, 2011.

>> all members are present. >> can you please join me in the pledge of allegiance? >> are there any communications? >> i have no communications. >> items 133 comprise the

consent agenda. they will be acted upon by a single roll call vote. >> would anyone like to sever any of the items? seeing and nonnone, please calle roll. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> talked aye. >> item four. >> this is a resolution authorizing the recreation and parks department to enter into a

lease with stpw ; -- stow lake. >> i would like to thank those that have been coming down to speak about the boat house whether it has been to the reparations and parks commission but almost and the budget and finance committee. i am enthusiastic about the contract before us regarding stowe lake and the efforts to improve and restore the boathouse. as a neighbor and a frequent user of the lake and the boathouse and other treasures at golden gate park, i follow this process very closely. one of the things i heard very consistently from the testimony and those calling and visiting our office is that it is the desire of the committee to preserve boathouse for generations to come and i

approve. i support the goal and this is why i am proud to sponsor this issue. i think the city has found a great contractor in ortega enterprises. for the wildlife and the beauty of the area as well as important. while most national park concessions feature junk food, the concession stand in muir woods has fresh sandwiches and soups made from local items. this has been a long public process to get to this point. i know that some of this very

well in the recreation and parks department. i am thankful to those who have expressed their opinion and improved the project. i also like to thank the budget analyst. i am also thankful that the recreation and parks department and look at the budget analysis. but i am looking forward to having the boat house for the future as well. >> thank you, mr. president. i would like to send my compliments to supervisor mar for his leadership on this issue. this issue has been chronic with regards to the improvements at still lake. -- on stillstow lake.

there are some issues that are unresolved and this particular contract. i do not disagree with the idea that there needs to be a significant having of the area. the objective that is before us is to make sure that if we will privatize this particular area or try to upgrade and that, i want to make sure that the city gets the best deal that possibly can. based on the analysis of the budget analyst, it leads me to want to know a couple of more variables that i think were not well covered. for example, for i am still concerned that in the minimal guarantee, it was an

afterthought. it raises questions about what was our cities' ability to be able to procter -- procure it the top dollar contractor. i am unclear as to why it was not the case and that speaks to a question of process. we are not meeting and any of the utilities and we have no idea how much electricity and water we are using. the city is paying for all of the utilities. i would ask potentially of the recreation and parks department for a consideration that we ask that when the capital work is being done that they actually meter the facility. if in fact we are insisting on

municipal government to do its best in greening the city. i would ask that we know how much electricity and water we are using. by all records and the recreation and parks department, we have no idea. there is an approximation of the utilities that use and that translates into a certain amount of money in to that contract guarantee with or take up. we want to start right. let's start by owning up to the idea of what the mayor used to champion and that is that we lived to the standard of making sure that the city government is setting an example. recreation and parks needs to go

back to the vendor, why don't we ask of the gender war the city to go ahead and set up a meter facility that tracks our energy uses. how is it that we can accurately profess what we are saving? >> we have a number of residents from parks and recreation. >> we can absolutely install a meter that monitors the usage but we cannot isolate the meter. the electrical at the site is separately metered about a quarter of a mile away from the boat house and the cost of approximately $250,000 to run a separate line from the meter to

the boathouse. >> what about water? >> we could do the same. >> this is the $1,000 a month for the utilities at the site. this is something we have negotiated. >> do we have any idea of what goals there are in terms of conservation.

>> we would develop deficiencies. one abou>> and the capital imprt plans would require the improvement of our recreation and parks commission. >> i asked this question must read and i am not sure if the opportunity has been given.

but whose cost is seismic? >> for any improvements that are treated by a the --, those will be the -- responsibility as is common in leases of this sort for the city. any improvements that are triggered by enhancements of the ada law, those are the city's responsibility. that is in a committee standard and city leases that apply across any number of departments. >> the concern about the -- not being in the rfq. >> i don't think that it is that we did that think of this and then we corrected it afterwards. the department has put this out to bid on four separate occasions. we asked