been very supportive of this and this is a very excellent point. commissioner? >> for the 2012 fund, i wanted to ask, i wanted to ask when you will be putting together a well- publicized for that bond, what is the time line for this. >> the deadline is the same as the ballot proposal, so that by this spring, we have to know what the projects will be. my approach is that we're not here to announce that this will be in the bond but we will begin the process of working with many community groups like last time and so in november, it is hard to get people's attention right now, so we will wait until after the election in november.

but as an overall framework, you can expect to see continued support for the right -- priorities embraced in the last bond. i don't expect for these projects to go away. and we did have a list with the neighborhoods -- and a policy decision to make about how far down this list that we can go and whether or not this is strictly or weekly interpreted. and we will work with the stakeholders for those decisions. >> you do have a list that you are working with? >> when you look at the 2008 bonn report, you can see the next 10 or 20 things on the project. things have changed since 2008. we have other community priorities that have come to the table and they were gone

striking a balance. >> the initial dialogue with different part stakeholders, there is a lot of interest in making investments in the environmental infrastructure and irrigation in lakes and these projects -- we will see this as an additional fame as we work with the different neighborhood and community representatives. and mrs. commissioner lis. , priorities change. >> so you will take a second look? i think the only thing i would say is that between now and when we have to decide in 2012, we will confer with savvier minds than mine about taxpayer fatigue and if it is prudent to go with this bond.

hopefully after this economic recession we have had, hopefully this will be a good time for us but we should also be mindful of the odds. >> working to the capital planning committee, bonds are scheduled so as not to increase property taxes. >> just in terms of perception. obviously, this election cycle is going to be important as an indicator of where people's heads are, and hopefully by next year they will be much more generous. >> timing is very critical because it helped us tremendously in the 2008 bond and this is driving the focus on the 2012 election as a good opportunity. >> that was outstanding. >> this item was discussion

only. this was on the open space elements of the general plan updates. >> i am from the parks and recreation planning committee. as the planning department is the lead agency on the recreation and open space element of the general plan. this is informational only. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i will pull up my presentation. we'll be discussing the recreation elements of date, this is the guiding policy for the city's open space with all

of the city's agencies. it was last developed in 1986. the goal is to update this every eight years so we are a little bit behind. >> if you what we can use the microphone. >> we began the process in november, 2007. we produced a first draft in may 2009, and then we found the finding, and started a review in july 2010. then we had a revised draft of the element, and we are expecting adoption in october or november of this year. so we began the community process with the open space task force of 80 individuals, interested community members,

and city agencies. everyone talked about the vision for open space. we wanted to think long term. this led to a lot of the ideas that you see here. and we also went out with a neighborhood parks council, with over 22 neighborhood space community meetings. this is a long-term policy and change in the city for open space. we had a number of focus groups, with a bicycle advocates, youth groups and chinatown -- we have the natural and nature and natural areas groups come together. we attended prozac and we were there in august. when we started the process -- we released the document and we

met with the committee and the capital committee in august. and finally, the planning commission. those information hearings will continue and i will tell you what those days are. to get into the substance of the documents, we developed the guiding principles for open space and recreation. the first is integrated and multi-functional. this is in the case of many different purposes. the open space should build on the great qualities of a natural and cultural qualities of the city. they should be equitably distributed throughout the city. and they should be connected. all these other processes are enter-connected.

this will be a safe and healthy place to live and work with ecological function, and san francisco should be actively engaged in partnership to maintain the park system's. you will see them echoed throughout the elements. first, a reminder, you are probably familiar with these numbers but we have more on where we stand with the park areas, we just behind new york and washington with this city.

we will highlight the objectives and the policies. they have not changed significantly so they probably will seem familiar to many of you. the first objective, this is a fancy term with how to make the most of what we have. we have an amazing open space system. this does not mean that every area of every park inns to be active. to make certain that this is a pleasant space to be. making the most of what we have and every inch of every space. we want to be cognizant of everything that we are doing.

and one of the major policies under this is open space. the first is nothing new to you, with no new non recreation buildings for this and it francisco -- for the san francisco charter. this is the expanded serving buildings that may have an analysis to show that they're limited in size. the alternative sites are assessed. and every project that is there -- we would like that one more layer of analysis. and any situation where there is a public building and people think that they want to expand a little bit in the open space, and it goes through the analysis

-- you still want to make certain that they have the early -- thoroughly gone through the idea of the of the expansion for the space because this is so limited. and you could pay a fee into the acquisition fund, will provide additional open space. we are still working on the details. we are still flashing out exactly how to meet these criteria but this is the overall goal of what we want to achieve and make certain that this is clear in the element. one thing i heard a lot about is the standard of how much open space we need in san francisco. it was 10 acres of the 1000 people. this is not even listed on the national associations website.

we have about 7 acres per 1000 people, which is an increase from the previous element in 1986. we have actually increased this significantly. we have parks and recreation and additionally opened one of the new parks is the presidio. we only county open space and all of the developed land. we wanted to make certain that we get away from the standard and think about how we make certain that this is really usable. this example is one corner of the city and this is a great open space resources getting the numbers very high, but this is not necessarily a space that a lot of people use, so what we have developed is, falling on

the existing road analysis -- where do we prioritize the acquisitions and renovation dollars? you have worked extensively on this so i think that this will be very familiar to you. the first is population density. what are the most dense neighborhoods? you see those with these colors here. where is the lowest income level throughout the city? and then concentration of youth, one second, this is not working.

>> sometimes it takes a mantle of the graphics can you do the overhead? >> there you go. i don't know if you can see this too well. this is the concentration of the seniors and next, we looked at access. this is within a half mile, to active or passive spaces. that people will go live father to a ball field, or if they want

to set in a quiet, natural space. but if they want to go to a playground, this should be within a quarter of a mile. and finally, where are the future areas of growth? this will be a 20-year document, so where do we expect to see the population density increase in the future? if you add all this up, yet the priority acquisition areas. one of the big changes that we have made from the previous element is that this is no longer of black and white -- this is where we need this and this is where we don't. this shows that there is really a spectrum of need. the darkest areas are the areas of high snead, the next to

this, they are just a shade lighter, showing the whole range of need throughout the city. and the third objective is about improving access and connectivity. and the next element is about thinking how we use the streets with open space and how we think about connecting the existing open space, having a space you may use on your street as an open space. we are engaging in a couple of projects right now, with this grant that we just got and we are just guarding this process. how do we develop the areas in highest need? it is exciting that one benefit of having this is that we can work on some of the things that we have mentioned in these elements.

and we talk about protecting the biodiversity of the open spaces, thinking about restoring the native habitats throughout the city, educating and making people aware about the habitats of the city, and environmental, sustainable design for the parks. objectify focuses on the community and engaging the community in giving it tools and methods to be involved in their parks, with how they maintain the parks and how they actively stay engaged. we have heard a lot from the community that this partnership is critical to the success of open space, to make certain that the community is involved in the planning process and to what the life of the open space.

objective 6 is -- there was a lot of emphasis throughout the task force and the focus groups, thinking about how we find all of this stuff that we want to find. we're working on how this exactly will work because this is a new objective but thinking about the different tools and different objectives that we may be able to implement, with all the things we want to do throughout the element. and as i mentioned, we will have this series of hearings, working in august and september with getting public comment and different groups to make certain that everything is right, in the last round. and we will be excepting any written public comments until

september 30, with an informational hearing on october 6. i will be certain to send this along. let me know if you have any questions or comments. >> no time like the present to get this going. and is there any public comment? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> does the commission have any comments? if not, we will move this along. >> this is item 15. not commenting -- will not want to think that this is any sign. we look forward to moving this along. >> i want to thank the planning director and the planning department staff. we worked very closely with planned apartment on numerous issues and we have good

communication and collaboration and appreciate the efforts. >> there is a nice energy going on right now with planning for another bond or the open space acquisition plan, and now, what you put before us today, there are a lot of comments and we can look forward to some consistency in the committee. thank you. >> we are on item 15, general public comment, continued. this is where the public may address the commission on items that are within the commission but did not appear on the agenda. if there is anyone who would like to put additional public comment for items not on the agenda. we are on item 16, commissioners matters. >> i would be very curious to

hear what he has to say about the open space acquisition. >> i want to thank you. we appreciate everything that you did on this. commissioners, anything? and is there any public comment under commissioners matters? item 17 is the new business agenda setting. and is there any public comment? the public comment is closed. commissioners? public comment? public comment is closed. item 19 is adjournment. >> all of those in favor? we are adjourned. >> thank you.

>> you can see that it is amazing. you can hear that it is refreshing. you reach for it because it is irresistible. and the taste. simply delicious. san francisco tap water. it engages the senses. 311 is an important resource for all san franciscans. should

>> 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