>> hello, welcome to a regular meeting of the budget and finance committee. my name is current two. i am joined by supervisor kim. supervisor mirkarimi will not be joining us today. the clerk today is victor young. we have mark and bill from sfgtv. >> please turn off all cell phones. if you wish to speak during public comment, please provide a speaker card and turn them in to myself. if you present any documents, please include a copy to the clark. items acted upon today will appear on the board of supervisors agenda on center 20,

2011 unless otherwise stated. supervisor chu: thank you very much. supervisor mirkarimi has requested that we recusing. we can take that without objection. call item number 1. >> resolution authorizing an increase in the assessor- recorder's base recording fee for recording and indexing the first page of every instrument, paper, or notice from $3.10 dollars pursuant to california government code section -- section 27361(a). supervisor chu: thank you. this is brought to us by supervisor kim, and the ss r is here. >> good morning, supervisors. i would like to thank supervisor kim for carrying this legislation. it is fairly simple. pursuant to senate bill 676 in 2009, it allows us to increase the fees for the first page that we file on various documents up

to $10. that fee, which is currently $4, would be proposed to be increased to $10. this would allow us to cover greater costs. we estimate currently that the fee, the cost to process these papers is about $24. at this point, with this new fee, we would be recovering about $10 for that. so it would still be about a $14 subsidy. this puts us in line with other counties. alameda county charges $18. after we add in all the other fees in terms of access, indexing, social security feet, and the fraud protection fee, the fee goes up from $11 to $70. this is in line with alameda county, which is $11 -- $18. santa clara is $18. san mateo is $15, but they do not charge a frothy.

i would be happy to take any questions or to walk you through any concerns you might have. supervisor chu: thank you. the clarification is that we have an amendment of the hole that would change the basic record number from $3 to $4 -- that was just a simple typo? >> madam chair, it was just a change in reference to the existing fee. so it is not a change at all in the fee and does not require any kind of continuance. supervisor chu: in terms of the cost recovery, it costs us about $24. even if we increase it to the $10 rate, we still would not be the full cost recovery? >> correct. supervisor chu: thank you. if we do not have comments, why don't i go to the budget analyst report. >> madam chair, supervisor kim, the assessor estimates that this

proposed base increase $6 to generate approximately $1.2 million, resulting in a total estimated annual base fee revenue of a little over $2 million for reporting documents. -- fort recording documents. supervisor chu: thank you. it's up in this up for public comment. do any members of the public was to speak on this item? aca none, public comment is closed. colleagues, can we take the amendment as a whole? >> yes. >> we will do that without objection. supervisor ken, did you have any comments? supervisor kim: no, just that i was glad we brought this up. i am glad we could raise some of our fees closer to what it costs us to put this together. supervisor chu: thank you. the item has been an amendment, or an amendment of the whole has

been accepted. to the new document, there is no continuance required, and we can take that without objection. thank you. item number two, please. >> item number two, resolution approving and authorizing the execution of modification number one of lease and use agreements l-10-0081 with cathay pacific airways and evicted for lounged in the international terminal of san francisco international airport. supervisor chu: thank you. we have a member of sfo. >> the airport is seeking every approval to our existing lease with cathay pacific airways. the airlines wishes to expand its current square footage to include any additional exclusive space in the international terminal so that they can build a passenger lounge. cathay pacific airways currently leases 2,616 square feet of the exclusive use space and 631,000

square feet of a joint use common use space in the international terminal. the proposed modification would allow for an additional 5664 square feet of exclusive space so that the airline can build a passenger lounge at their sole expense. improvements associated are estimated to be approximately $2 million to be paid for by the airline. this carries an additional annual rent to the airport of $917,000. the budget analyst has recommended the approval, and i would be happy to answer any questions that you have. supervisor chu: thank you very much. let's go to the budget analyst report on this item. >> madam chair, supervisor kim, as shown on table two, page four of our report, the total annual

rent proposed under the lease, which is payable by cathay pacific airways to the airport, is a little over $6 million. that is $917,000 or $2 more than the $5.1 million currently being paid by cathay pacific airways to the airport. however, because cathay pacific airways has already been paying this additional rent for the added 5006 injured 64 square feet of space under a permit that the airport reworded to cathay pacific airways, the airport would continue to receive the same annual rent for the duration of the lease. there is no additional rent here. it is just going from rent being paid under the permit to rent being paid under this proposed modified lease if you approve this modification. under the airport's breakeven policy, this release modification would not have a

direct physical impact on the airport. we do recommend that you approve this resolution. supervisor chu: thank you. let's open this up for public comment. any members of the public wish to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. given that we do not have any other questions, can we take this item without objection? ok, we will move this item forward with recommendations. item three, please. >> hearing to consider release of reserved funds, port commission, the amount of $17,907,635 to fund the pier 27 mixed use cruise terminal project. supervisor chu: thank you very much. we have a member of the court with us. >> good morning. the port of san francisco is asking for release of the reserve are in the amount of $17,907,635. by way of background, these were originally appropriated in 2003 by ordinance, which acted as a

supplemental appropriation with the intended use being the wharf project and the cruise terminal project. the source of funds are from the sale of seawell lot 330 and deferred land sale proceeds from the water mark. since that time in 2003, the land lease proposal for the mixed use cruise terminal project is no longer being pursued, and a blue ribbon crewuise terminal proposed pier 27. as you know, the america's cup event is a link to this pier 27 at project, and those projects are under environmental review. if approved, the cruise terminal building will be used as a special event for the america's cup for races, a team basis, and the pier will be the starting an

end point of the match. this relationship requires a two-phased project. phase one is estimated to begin march 1 through january 2013. the development of the shell. phase two will be done after the event for interior improvements, border and customs offices, and maritime expert men. we were here in may with the committee reviewing fiscal feasibility. we provided much more detail at that time. the subject release of reserves would be for phase one. design and project management. the structural steel order and other construction costs which would be pursued following project approval, should the project be approved. ceqa is now underway on the cruise terminal project and the america's cup event. we have more than 1400 meaningful public, and speed of the city's working hard to develop legally meaningful responses to those comments. the port commission and the city are pursuing this project because the cruise industry

brings two hundred thousand passengers to the city. it brings jobs and benefits to the city. the project will enhance the city as a destination for tourists. they're also the northern waterfront improvements. it will be part of the 34th america's cup to the week at -- it will be part of the 34th america's cup. supervisor chu: thank you. let's go to the budget analyst report. >> madam chair in supervisor kim, she has provided us with budget data, shown on page four of our report. all of this $17.9 million would be expended for phase one of the project. as we note on pages five and six of our report, the port provided us with attachments showing the entire project.

so this $17.9 million becomes a portion of the phase one costs, shown on page 5 of our report. the phase one costs are $60.1 million. the estimated completion date of this project, which is shown on page four at the bottom, is january 2013, not april 2012, which was listed in the report. we recommend that you approve the requested least -- release of the $17.9 million. these are funds that were previously appropriated but reserved by the board of supervisors. supervisor chu: thank you very much. why don't we open this up for public comment? are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this item? have only one speaker card. >> yes, a good morning. my name is terry shore.

i am with turtle in the last hurdle island restoration network. we have been following the development of a cruise ship terminal for quite a number of years. as proposed, i must say that we oppose the proposed appropriation of $17.9 million for the cruise ship terminal project as written. for these reasons -- there are three key reasons for this. one is the document refers to the relocation of shoreside power, which was revealed last year and unveiled in october 2010, which allows cruise ships to turn off their huge diesel engines and plug into the clean air electrical grid. this was a $5 million project, publicly funded by the city of san francisco and a number of agencies. that was projected to save about 97 tons of air pollution

per year. what this document does not point out is that in relocating the shoreside power for a number of years from 2012, 2013, and now it looks like until the end of 2014, the port has not proposed any air quality medications that would offset the loss of these emissions benefits. our organization and another -- a number of other stockholders recently sent a letter to the city on this issue, and we believe it is premature to appropriate the funds to the city of san francisco for the pier 27 project. the eir has not been approved. no mitigation seven proposed, allied or adopted. bcdc and other agencies still need to take action on approval of this project. there many health risks that will occur due to the loss of the air quality benefits. i would urge the supervisors to take the following actions.

one, consider delaying this item until the port and the city of san francisco provide a written commitments to mitigating the loss of these air emissions. b, direct the port as a condition of his appropriation to provide an updated progress report on the mitigation to stakeholders specifically. and/or, 3, hold a public briefing, a public hearing, in this committee or the fault supervisors, within two weeks so that the port may provide a look at what it is looking at. the port says they are looking at the issues and are concerned and working on it. but unfortunately, stakeholders have not been engaged, and we're not clear where, when, and why. we think this is a very important issue and really important issue and really appreciate your consideration.