. 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 appreciate your consideration. i wish we could have done more for at work on this, but we just found about this item late yesterday afternoon. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. i have one other speaker card, diane bailey. >> good morning. my name is diane b. look at i am a scientist with the natural resources defense council. i share my colleagues' concern that she just discussed with you. i want to reiterate her recommendation to you. i think it is very important to take a step back and really consider the environmental impacts to the air quality and

health impact. we are concerned that these impacts are not being properly mitigated, and we have no assurances at this time that they will be mitigated, although we understand that discussions are underway. therefore, we respectfully request that a commitment be made as a part of the financial agreement for this project that any air quality impacts through discontinuation of the shore power facility at the cruise terminal be fully medicated before the project financing goes forward. and whether that requires taking a step back from making a commitment today, that might be difficult to do, so we think it is imperative to appalled that commitment. the eir has not been approved. through our review of the eir, we were disappointed to see that there was a lack of substantial litigation that was proposed to deal with this issue.

the issue was really somewhat ambiguous in the discussion in the eir. thankfully, there is a very long list of medications that could be implemented to address these air quality issues. -- a list of mitigations that could be implemented to address these air quality issues. there has been difficulty with the communication. we understand there are discussions under way with the air districts and other parties to consider mitigations. but we're concerned that there are no assurances that these air quality impacts will be a properly taken care of. so we urge your consideration. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. are there any their members of the public who wish to speak on this item? >> yes, i apologize. it might like. i am jennifer, president of san francisco tomorrow. the shoreside power that is currently hooked up at pier 27 is a publicly-funded asset that is used by cruise ships when they visit said they did not

have to turn on their engines. so it is a public benefit that is improving public health. it is going to be discontinued for about two to two and a half years. and this funding will allow the disassembly of that shoreside power, which is why we are asking that this particular item be tabled for approximately two weeks and that you use your influence, since we fill the port has been sluggish in sharing their information with us, we would like you to use your influence to tell the port that you like them to solve this problem before you approve the funding. thank you very much. supervisor chu: thank you. are there any other members of the public who wish to speak on item number three? seeing none, public comment is closed. first off, i do want to thank the members of the public for speaking on this item. for this item, this has long

been a project that has been part of the port, has had a long history, and is clearly not interrelated with the america's cup event that the city is looking to host or to complete. in terms of the environmental impact report, i think there is a good point, there is currently an environmental impact report that is being prepared both for the cruise ship terminal but also for america's cup. i know that there has been a large amount of public comment and public interest in this project, and rightly so. given that this is so important, i would feel more comfortable leaving on reserve those items and more associated with the construction on the project and continuing forward with the items that are the planning aspect of this. i have a question for the port. there is about $17.9 billion -- $17.9 million being requested. what portion is related to the construction?

>> of the $17.9 million, $9.456 million is needed now. and thank you for the question. i prepared an overhead for you. so $1.167 is for dpw. $2.239 are for services. we can continue the reserve for shoreside power. we appreciate the public comments. this issue is subject right now to the ceqa review. there are substantial comments related to this topic. the port is working with the districts and the epa. the appropriate mitigation jedd be reviewed in the eir document.

we can also continue the elevator and escalator, $800,000, and other construction costs, $5.67 million. we would need to pursue a structural steel and other preparation of other packages. let me just explain why we need to pursue structural steel now. the total cost of that is $6 million. if the america's cup project is approved, we have an extremely compressed schedule to deliver the project in time for the event. in order to meet the timing in the agreement, we need to begin the process for purchase of the steel, fabrication, and installation of the early work related to the still packages and other packages is about $3 million. this would take place prior to the ceqa decision, which we would anticipate in february. the port commission discussed this yesterday, the city may

disapprove the america's cup event or the cruise terminal above project. we had to place the order now prior to project approval, and we know that presents some risks, that did the best course of action for three reasons. now's a good time to purchase steel. prices are low and the market indicates that prices will rise over the next six months. in order to include the less we will include an option to terminate this purchase order, which means that the project is disapproved, we could cancel the installation and perhaps the fabrication. furthermore, we may continue to pursue this purchase because the lower cost steel may be reused, either with port projects are other projects. if we were to delay this package until march 1, we would encourage delays, obviously, but also seven months of cost escalations, which we anticipate to be about $150,000. just to summarize, we can move forward with the release of $9.4

million and continue a reserve of $8 million. supervisor chu: thank you for that information. i definitely would feel more comfortable leaving on reserve that portion, so i would be comfortable moving forward with the 94 $4 million but not the $8.4 million as the detailed. given that we had actually put this reserve on budget and finance committee reserve, it would be best to bring back those items that we are reserving and continue to reserve at a later time when we have the benefit of the completed eir. i would like to make a motion to release $9.4 million of the requested $17.9 million and leave the remaining on budget and finance committee reserve. if we do not have any further comments on this, can we take that motion without objection? ok, thank you. next item, please.

>> item four, ordinance amending the san francisco administrative code to create a recreation and parks gift fund, update the mayor's earthquake emergency relief fund to broaden its purpose is the general disaster recovery fund, and amend the mayors' fund for the homeless to change the administering agency. supervisor chu: thank you. i believe we have a number of representatives. we have monique some of the common will be providing a presentation. we also have representatives from the tax collector's office. >> good morning. yes eliminate from the controller's office. the treasured tax collector's office, the administrator's office, and the comptroller's office have been working together over the last couple of months to develop the administrative procedures to develop a donation portal on the city's website that will allow individuals to donate to the city to a number of causes.

as part of that effort, we did note that we have some existing funds within the city that needed to be either refreshed, updated, or amended. so what is before you this morning, supervisors, is an administrative code amendment that establishes a recreation and parks gift fund. it also refreshes what is currently named the mayor's earthquake release fund. that particular fund as it exists right now pertains only to the 1989 earthquake. what we're proposing is that this fund be updated to include any emergency that may occur in the future and would allow donations to be used to repair the infrastructure of this city and county. the third change that is before you this morning is the mayor's home for the homeless. that has existed for many years.

when the fund was originally created, the department of public health was named to administer the fund. the fund is better suited for the human services agency, since they run of the home -- since they run all of the homeless programs on behalf of the city. others agree with this change. what this will do is approved, by the board of supervisors, is that it will allow these three funds to be placed on the city's portal, along with a couple of other funds for the arts, funds for neighborhood beautification. those funds would be available to donate, and each of the departments in charge of those funds would be able to expend the funds for the purposes for which they were created. we're hoping that this will allow us to provide more opportunities for the public to

donate to these causes for the city and county. again, we have in the wreck -- we have a number of representatives from the department's here if you have questions. these funds, once approved, would go on the donation portal. supervisor chu: thank you. i understand there is a small amendment to be made that is not substantive. >> good morning. i am with the recreation and park department. yes, we would respectfully request that a minor amendment be made to the section of the ordinance that deals with the rec and park gift fund. on the first page of the ordinance on line at 17, where it says the city and county of san francisco to support recreation and park programs come at in facilities. and similarly, on line and 19th,

at the words and facilities after parks programs. supervisor chu: ok, thank you. i know that we do get donations, and their members of public who want to support programs and facilities improvements. >> absolutely. we regularly have people who are interested in supporting the parks and the programs that they love, and this will give them an easy way of doing that. we very much appreciate the help we got from the controllers and the treasurer's office are -- offices in establishing this new online portal. supervisor kim: i am curious on how previously people donated to the parks and recreation division? >> we now have a button online that uses paypal. it is very culberson for us.

it is relatively easy for the public, but not easy for us from an administrative standpoint. supervisor kim: thank you. i had a quick question for the controllers office. i was curious as to what the reason was for a changing the administration of the fun for the homeless from dph to hsa? >> the department of human services runs all the homeless programs in the city. the health department has some programs that provide health services to homeless individuals. but in the vast majority of instances, those homeless people are housed in provided social services by the human services agency. they are our designated hollis agency for the city. supervisor kim: why did we not previously designated with dph? >> i believe it was a decision made by the board of supervisors at the time. there is no money in the fund at

this point. supervisor kim: thank you. i know there are other departments here as well. would anybody else like to add anything? >> good morning. i am from the treasurer's office. i just wanted to state our support and our partnership in this program, and we look forward to rolling out the porthole in mid-october, along with the property tax bills, which since 1984 has been the time that folks can see the voluntary proposition to the program. that will be our big role in, and it will be able to go from the property tax payment website on to being able to donate for this. supervisor chu: all right, thank you. why don't we go to public comment. any members of the public wished to speak on this item? item number four. seeing none, public comment is closed. if we can take the amendment as articulated by the recreation

and parks department, simply to clarify programs and facilities in terms of the uses of funds. do that without objection? and then to the underlying legislation as amended, can we send that forward with a recommendation? without objections. thank you. ok, next item, number 5. >> number 5, or in its amending the san francisco administrative code sections 57.5 and 57.82 degrees filming fees for smaller-budget reductions, include documentary films, docudrama films, and reality program among eligible productions for the film rebate program, exempt productions by non-profit entities, public- service announcements, and qualifying stood a productions from film fees, and make internal findings. supervisor chu: thank you. this was brought up by supervisor farrell. it cannot be with us. he requested we continue this

item for one week. i would like to do that, but i would like to offer for any members of the public who wish to speak on this item to have the opportunity to do so today. we will do that next week as well. any members of the public who wish to speak? see if none, public comment is closed. to the item, and we continue the item for one week? we will do that without objection. item number 6. >> item number 5 was continued to september 21, 2011, budget and finance committee. item six, resolution approving an amendment of the lease between the city and county of proxy san francisco of development for property located at the northeast corner of octavia boulevard and fell street, commonly known as a portion of the assessor's block 0817 lautner 33 to extend

the lease term for four years to five years. item number 7, resolution approving an amendment of sublease between the city and county of san francisco and proxy development for property located at the southeast corner of octavia boulevard and hayes street, commonly known as a portion of the block 0817, lot 30, parcel k, to extend the sublease term from three years to five years. supervisor chu: thank you. we have a member of supervisor mirkarimi's office. >> supervisor mirkarimi regrets not being here this morning and ask me to give a brief introduction to these two resolutions items 6 and 7 are resolutions which would extend the lease terms for two city- owned parcels in the hayes valley neighborhood. they are commonly referred to at the corner of octavia and hayes street. the currently occupied by the proxy project.

there is the museum of craft and design and the soon-to-be opened beer garden there. the project has brought activity to these two blocks which were left vacant due to the demolition of the central bit -- freeway and construction of octavia boulevard. this would extend both leases to a term of five years, and the extension is necessary in the approvals and fabrication of the processes for the proxy project took longer than originally anticipated. the director of real-estate and a representative from proxy development will give you more information on these resolutions. thank you. >> good morning. john updike, acting director of real-estate. very briefly, we are retaining

the existing rate structure for the lease, so there's no change to that. this is just a term extension to the parcel k, and i have k and l on the map, the larger parcel is technically a sublease with the redevelopment agency and then passed through to proxy. we have done the background work necessary to allow this extension by extending our agreement with the redevelopment agency as well. that was included in your package. finally, a technical item i want to correct an error in both items. it is a typographical error of the day. for item 6, on page one, line 24, the reference to the director of planning letter, which states april 26, 2011, should be made 14, 2010.