supervisor kim: good afternoon. welcome to the special rules committee for july 14, 2011. my name is supervisor cam. i am joined by supervisor farrell and supervisor elsbernd and we are also joined by supervisor avalos. madam clerk, are there any announcements? >> no. supervisor kim: can you please call item no. 1? >> initiative to consider the proposed initiative ordinance to be submitted by four or more supervisors to the voters at

the november 8, 2011, election entitled ordinance amending the san francisco park code by adding section 12.49 to ensure equal public access to parks and recreation facilities and prevent privatization of our public parks and facilities. supervisor kim: i like to call supervisor at the los to speak about this. isupervisor avalos: thank you, chair kim, and thank you for being here today. we have the mandatory ballot measure going before the november ballot called parks for the public. it has caused a large amount of controversy, but this is not the first day we have had a controversy about our parks and will not be the last day, either.

this measure that i brought forward with my colleagues has come out of multiple your experiences that the public and many people concerned about our parks have had about how we make our public investments in our parks programs around the city. we have invested them with park bonds, general fund money, support for recreation directors, gardeners, management, staff. as we put these into our parks, we are finding that we're losing access to our parks in many different ways. the last park bond that we approved was in march, 2008. there was a large amount of controversy about what kind of facilities were going to be in that park bond, one in

particular in my district, a clubhouse, but a lot of effort to get that into the park bond. now, as that facility is getting renovated, we're not sure when it will be open, when it will truly be open to the public or whether it will be another clubhouse facility that will be leased out to private entities and the public that had expected that facility to be part of our general public access will be denied access into that facility. that is where the heart of this matter of this ordinance is coming from. that is about how we make our public investments and how we expect to have the access that we pay for delivered to us. we are seeing that more and more that is being taken away. i understand the need for trying to look at ways to find revenue

for the department. i understand we have a budget deficit. clearly it has affected all of our departments around the city, and as a supervisor who has chaired the budget committee, i have seen firsthand the choices before us. in that position as chair of the budget committee, two years in a row, have made a lot of effort to restore funding to the park facilities, both for open space and access. but if we're not going to provide greater general find support for the park and wreck department, we will be forced to look at ways to bring in revenue that correctly include privatizing some of our facilities, leasing out some of the facilities that have been closed down because the park staff has been laid off or fired. i don't think that is what we expected, and i think we could do better as a city if we are

ultimately going to be providing the great general fund support that our parks need. our parks require that greater general fund support because like muni, and probably to a greater extent, the parks are resources that all san francisco residents enjoy. regardless of your economic background, would neighborhood you are in, everybody who lives in san francisco -- what neighborhood you are in, everybody who lives in san francisco has experience is in our parks. and many of them on a daily basis, a great majority of folks on a daily basis. we need to make sure that the general fund and budget decisions really reflect that great affinity we have for our parks it in this city. i look at everyone who was in this room on both sides of the issue. clearly you are here because you care about our parks.

this measure comes out of people who truly care about our parks and what our parks to have greater general fund support and greater access to the public. this measure, more than any, does nothing more than to say we're going to draw a line to where we are going to lease out, we're going to currently at least clubhouses, the ones that have leases can continue with the lease, and even have them renewed, and clubhouses data not currently leased out on a long- term basis -- and clubhouses that are not currently leased out on a long-term basis will not be able to that in the future. it also looks at the fees for accessing parks. behind this measure, we are saying that we will have no new fees to access edgepark for

general access to a parked. it is not about a particular events, it is not about preventing people from holding birthday parties in our parks. i have done that quite frequently as a parent with kids who uses the parks on almost a weekly basis. we have had many parties in the park. we have paid for those parties, renting out the clubhouses for a couple hours at a time, and we have been too many parties that have happened like that over the years. birthday parties, the parks are a great place to celebrate our birthday parties. for that reason, i wanted to present a cake to light in the mood a bit. [laughter] supervisor avalos: and for everyone who is not having a birthday today, i want to

present you with a merry un- birthday cake, and i want to wish you a very merry and happy un-birthday cake. i think this represents the absurd notion that we're trying to ban activities and parks that currently happen all the time. that is not behind this. we're trying to be more expansive about what the language of this ordinance is about. if this ordinance passes, we are doing our department and the citizens of san francisco a great disservice. this is about the leasing of clubhouses on an ongoing basis, not about opening doors when a daily or hourly basis. this is about ongoing takeaways of our clubhouses, which should offer general public access, and it is about entry fees like the botanical garden feet that had come forward for non-residents

in san francisco. we would not be able to apply those access fees and the future if this ordinance were to pass. but if you want to extend the language of this and say it is about something much greater than that and it is about outside the land and not being able to have an event in the park or about not being able to have a vendor, and have a permit to sell in our park, it is not about that. it is not about that whatsoever. so to all, we will have this in my office. we will slice it up for all who are here. we have birthday hats. we have more to enjoy. we feel that our parks are places where you can wear funny hats and have delicious cake. athis cake happens to be from a union-owned store on mission,

and thank you very much. we can't open this up for public comment. bridget we can open this up for public comment. supervisor kim: thank you, supervisor at the los. i-- thank you, supervisor avalo. >> as the author of the charter amendment that allows us to have public hearings, one of the things i had in mind and having these public hearings is for this measure, as opposed to the others, which i think have separate readings, why is this on the ballot? supervisor kim's proposal emanating care not cash needs to be on the ballot because that was an initiative. this has not been rejected by the board, has not been vetoed by the mayor. the purpose of legislative initiative is to allow that backstop when the legislative

body fails to act. why does this measure attempt to ignore the board of supervisors and the legislative process that was created in our charter? supervisor avalos: it really comes out of the experience we have had, the whole effort that the rec and park department had it on the nonresident fees for the botanical gardens, which is something related to this ordinance, if you let me finish, and there is a belief we have already had the experience of bringing the concerns of privatization to the board of supervisors, and the board of supervisors had voted in a way to allow it to go forward. we wanted to have a way to let it work and let the board decide on the referendum. supervisor elsbernd: when i took fixed out muni to the ballot, i took it to the board of supervisors to be rejected,

being the legislative process, getting public input. there will be no public input on this. sure, we have this public hearing, but what you are assuming putting this on the ballot is 100% four-square perfect. i hear what you are saying, what your intent is. i do have some questions. the way you wrote this, i don't know that it fits your intent. supervisor avalos: there are many things that are written that he could say are not i would say this measure is ready to go. supervisor elsbernd: i hear this is coming out of the botanical gardens issue. are you to believe that if this measure were to pass that the city would be prohibited from creating a resident fee for the botanical gardens? supervisor avalos: that would have to come before the board of supervisors to establish a residency. supervisor elsbernd: but this will not restrict the city's

ability to impose a residency. thsupervisor avalos: i think there will be a push to see if it could happen. i am not sure that would actually denied residenc fee. it would come down to the board of supervisors. supervisor elsbernd: the point i am making, there is nothing in here that prohibits the city from imposing a fee, the way it is written. supervisor avalos: we're looking at access and other facilities around san francisco. supervisor elsbernd: fair enough, but please understand this measure that you were here to support does nothing whatsoever to perfect the imposition of a botanical garden feet for residents. supervisor avalos: except the department has already -- except the park the palm has already said they would not have one. people having a new feed to access a part of the park there were able to access part of a

part they were able to before, what to mature that does not happen in san francisco. supervisor elsbernd: fair enough. i heard some folks saying that the botanical garden fee would not be imposed, but the says -- this does nothing to prevent a new fee at the botanical gardens. the next point, we sat on the budget committee lot. there are very few people who understand budget as well as i do. what i need you to do to help me better understand this, you are saying something i think everyone in this room agrees with, we all agree it is a question of how we get there. we all agree with that. you are saying that we need that, but those things they're trying to restrict are off- limits. assuming that is the case -- supervisor avalos: can leases -- supervisor elsbernd: i am not

disputing that. i needed to complete this, specify for me what in the general fund would you cut to put into the general fund, and perhaps been the best for warning of some amendments that you offer to the budget next week to ensure this, or perhaps you could tell us what other revenue ideas with these off the table that you support? supervisor avalos: i actually worked last year and many people in the room worked on the realty transfer tax. that has brought in upwards of $50 million this year. supervisor elsbernd: and thank you for that. supervisor avalos: i believe we have to make those choices. there are lots of choices we have to make as a body, but i don't think the city has made the right choices when it comes to our parks. i have not shy away from trying to find money from departments that could share that. supervisor elsbernd: i agree,

john, you have gone after things. i am just cautious presenting to the voters a measure that, frankly, at this point is incomplete. if you are going to sell the store to the electorate that this type of revenue will be off the table and i want more revenue from the department, i would think a responsible way to sell this to the electorate and give the complete story is this is what that revenue would be for these are things currently funded by the general fund that i would cut and eliminate it to fund parks. because otherwise we are selling the notion of parks for the people, but we're not saying this program is being cut in the health department or the police department or whatever is going to go way to do that or this parcel tax will be passed or whatever it may be. if you were going to give the complete picture of the ballot measure, and frankly that is the benefit to the first question of the legislative process that is

missing in this, if this had been introduced as a typical piece of legislation, you would have the controller's report, the budget analysts report, all of this could be vetted through the public process. unfortunately, the electorate will not have the benefit of that education. i am concerned about that. supervisor avalos: i just want to reply that the electorate and the people of san francisco have had the experience of what it has been like using our parks and allowing the parts to change over the years. i am not here to bash the parks department, but i think under philip ginsburg they have done a lot of great work with limited funds. but even admire some of the work done around recreation and how it has been offered at. but the experience that people have about accessing parks is very different that this is trying to respond to.

we have those choices to make as a city all the time about our priorities. this is one where the voters can express on the ballot. supervisor elsbernd: okay, maybe you could help me understand the legislation in front of us. you happen to have a birthday hats and the cakes and all that because of lack of definition over the lease. what you meanl youease" in here? supervisor avalos: in our findings, we talk about the clubhouses and facilities that have been leased out on an ongoing basis. it is not unclear based on the findings with the intent is of this legislation. supervisor elsbernd: i assume that you know in the administrative code there is a definition of lease and that is

where the birthday had an analogy comes from, and the administrative code specifically defines least as permits. i think that is why we have this issue. again, getting back to my first point -- supervisor avalos: why would the park department want to go with that definition, knowing that is not what is about? if it does pass they're saying they cannot have birthday parties or these events in the parts anymore because we're going to be more expansive on our definition of a lease. based on those findings, we're talking about general facilities and clubhouses. supervisor elsbernd: i appreciate the desire to be more expensive in your intent as opposed to what you actually wrote, but we're going to have a very difficult issue if the measure passes. contrasting your intent, and it is good we're having this hearing so you can get that on

the legislative record, compared with what the administrative code actually says. let me reinforce my first question, this is why legislation goes through the board of supervisors. supervisor kim: supervisors, i know we have a long list of folks who want to speak in public comment. we still have this discussion cannot i know it is important for the public to hear, but many people -- we still can have this discussion, i know it is support for the public to hear, but many people took time out to come to this hearing. supervisor elsbernd: i have some questions that i don't think the author has fully explained what the impact of this could be on the department and i like to discuss with the department a few things before we do that. supervisor avalos: before you do that, there was one thing i wanted to mention. there was concern about the language of this measure about programming that is occurring. there is also programing done by rec and park directors.

i like to be cleared this measure has no intent to violate any collective bargaining agreements or functions of the city and county and park department staff will not be performed by any outside committee group. there is that language out wanted to say. supervisor elsbernd: again, what to say and will probably keep saying, intent is one thing. the language voters will be voting for is not clear. had this had the opportunity go through the legislative process, you would have had the opportunity to put your intent in words and make this a better piece of legislation. but because we are presenting to the voters a piece of legislation that has not been fed it, we will have to go through this process of what is the intent and what is the language, and that will lead to a very troublesome and implementation. i don't know if you get it -- i don't know if you look at everything that you intend.

supervisor avalos: it is not your birthday today, is it? >> no. supervisor avalos: un-birth date. -- happy un-birthday. >> thank you. how much of your total budget is occurred revenue? >> our operating budget is about $115 million. 37% of that is earned revenue in a variety of ways. i think we were at $43 million. supervisor elsbernd: and this year's budget, as opposed to the previous few years, what is the budget that will we will be voting on next week, layoffs,

service cuts? where are we at with that? >> supervisor, by way of context, there is one other thing we all agree with, that is birthday parties. our parks need more public investment. we have been saying that as loudly and as often as you will allow us. our parks need public investments. our general fund support has been cut dramatically. we have been asked to solve it $43 million in general fund reductions in the past seven years. we have a blast. we have lost over 100 staff. we have been faced with a really difficult choice. do we do with the state of california is doing, closing 72 parks? do we do with the city of detroit did when they closed 77 parks? do we do with seattle did when it closed at five brickfields

-- five rec services and stop all ball field maintenance? the amount of earned revenue that this department has generated is about $6 million, and that has saved real programs. i appreciate supervisor avalos speaking positively about our recreation programing. we have added 23,000 hours of programming in the past year. both the quantity and quality of the programming, we think, and we will hopefully hear from others who say the same, has never been better. but we have been able to do that by offsetting the general fund support that has been removed from us with our revenue. supervisor elsbernd: can you quantify that? how many workers, how many clubhouses? >> $6 million of additional earned revenue.

all of the revenue or department generates -- i think a said it 37? supervisor elsbernd: and we're not eliminating that money. it prohibits you from increasing that amount, is that fair? >> it does. i deferred to the city attorney on their interpretation. we have concerns about the breadth of the measure, but we think this could impact to the tune of $13 million over the next five years. supervisor avalos: what is that number based on? we're talking about leasing clubhouses. new fees like a botanical garden fee or a charge fee to enter report, which we don't do, so we're not saying we're taking things away or that you will not be able to do a lease at a clubhouse in the future. >> correct, it also says there

can be no new fees in our parks. supervisor avalos: no new entry fees. but this is not about outside land. >> correct, but it basically says no new leases, correct? it depends on how broadly defined a lease. supervisor avalos: we are defining as leasing a clubhouse. >> i am not sure, and i defer to the city attorney, i am not sure the measure says no new clubhouse leases. by the way, i would not mind spending a minute just to talk about our clubhouses, since that seems to be at the core of it. go ahead, supervisor? supervisor farrell: i have a concern about that, especially

in my district. integral to the plans of the event authority and the organizing committee, we have not entered into a lease yet. how would that impact our ability to do that going forward? >> again, that is something we have concerns about as well and it depends on your interpretation of the measure. mike martin is here from the america's cup staff to answer the specific question. supervisor farrell: mike, this is a huge concern for me in particular, but i think everyon>> good afternoon, super, mike martin, america's cup. with your question, you describe the situation exactly right, as shown in the arm of the impact report, there are a number of uses planned by the america's cup event authority former reno green, as a centerpiece of the 2012 event, or the america's cup village will be.

i share the concerns described by the general manager that the unintended consequences of the language of this measure, how we would be able to approach that in the draft eir. we have those concerns and will try to understand what the effects of this measure would be in relation to that. supervisor farrell: thank you for answering that, but let's take it to the extreme. we cannot use that, marine and greens. what happens to the draft eir, the timing, a whole of that authority, ceqa? taken to the extreme, you cannot use the least. >> i think we would have a series of uses described in the draft eir, but we would not be able to have the event at 40 perform those uses. managing the impact of the spectators i guess would be of the city or some other entity that would be allowed to take that lease on.