>> good morning. welcome to the budget and

finance committee. i am supervisor chu. i am joined by supervisor avalos and supervisor kim. we have bill and nona from sfgtv. and our clerk is victor young. do we have announcements? >> please turn off cell phones. if you wish to speak during public comment, fill out a speaker card and turn the money and if you have documents, provide -- provide a copy to the court. items acted upon will appear on the board of supervisors agenda on january 24, 2012 unless otherwise stated. supervisor chu: thank you very much. would you call one through seven? >> item number one, appropriating $192 million of 2012a earthquake, safety, a general obligation bond proceeds to the department of public works in fiscal year 2011-2012 for necessary paris and seismic

improvement in order to better prepare for san francisco for a major earthquake or natural disasters. number two, authorizing the sale of not to exceed $192 million of general obligation bonds, earthquake safety and emergency response bonds, 2010. item three, appropriating $75,009,139 of 2008 clean and safe park bond sale proceeds for the apartment and restrictions -- construction at various recreation and park facilities. $61,185,271 in the recreation and park department. and $10,394,975 in the port commission fiscal year 2011- 2012. item four, resolution authorizing and directing the sale of not to exceed $75,009,139 aggregate principal amount of city and county of san francisco general obligation bonds, clean and safe neighborhood park bonds, to doubt it.

number 5, appropriating $76,500,000 of 2012c series road repaving and street safety generable -- general obligation bond proceeds including $71,587,375 to the department of public works and $4,912,625 to the municipal transportation agency for street resurfacing, sidewalk, ramp, structure permits, and the redesigned streetscapes to include pedestrian bustos 50 improvements. number 6, resolution providing for the issuance of not to exceed $248,000,000 aggregate principal amount of city and county of san francisco general obligation bonds, repaving industry said the bonds, 2011. number seven, not to exceed $76,500,000 aggregate principal amount of city and county of sentences with general obligation bonds for repaving industry safety bonds, 2011. supervisor chu: thank you very much. as this committee met last week, these are items that we did

continue from that meeting because of a few amendments that were made. they are relating to the issuance of bonds from three different challenges, from earthquake safety and emergency response bonds, the clean and safe neighborhood parks bonds, and the road repaving industry safety general bonds. we have a bright and strong from the cpc for presentation on the project. if we could, let's go one bond buying one bond, and then we will stop and see if the committee has any questions. and we will see the budget analyst as any additional comments to make on each of those bonds. >> good morning, members of the committee. brian strong, director of the capital planning program. thank you for having us here. we appreciate the opportunity to present on these three bond sales. it is actually somewhat historic to us because, well we have had

general-obligation bonds combined together, i do not think we have had a situation where we have three that we are combining to make one sale at one time. it sort of speaks to the fact that we have actually been very fortunate. i think san francisco, the voters, the citizens, have recognized the importance of capital improvements and have supported four general obligation bonds since 2008. they total about $1.7 billion. a lot of that is the san francisco general hospital rebuild, which is not coming before you today, but it also includes the other three bonds, the clean and safe neighborhood parks bond, or we're asking for sale of about $73 million, the earthquake safety and emergency response on, $183 million there, their second issuance, and the first issuance of the roadway safety, wrote resurfacing in streets of the bond measure, which is for $74 million, just

passed in november. >> do you want to put the presentation on the overhead? it should be coming through. there it is. thank you. you have got the numbers there. i mean, the other important aspect about this is that the city has a lot of capital needs. we are an older city. we are aware of that. we have seismic concerns. the $331 million in total really moves us forward. you'll see as we go through it, are you if you have read the report, you'll see that we're doing significant and important work. it also has a local economic stimulus effect, which we know is especially important in these economic times. i mean, using some of the estimates that were put together by the office of economic adviser to the controller, it is about 2100 jobs expected just

from these issuances. this would be san francisco and jobs, and those would be direct construction and indirect jobs created by those construction jobs. then i would again highlight that we are putting three bonds together. by combining them for one large sale, everyone saves money in the sense that we're reducing it issuance costs, and that is a good thing for us to be able to do. real quickly, this map here provides an overview of where some of the projects are going to be taking place. these are going to be receiving funding from this measure. there are some additional projects that are not showing up on here that have already received funding. they will be completing construction. but i think this map gives you a sense of some of the proposed streets that we're talking about. again, they're not final, but

they are proposed streets, and you can get a sense of the distribution. this will be affecting almost all the neighborhoods across the city. finally, i will talk about the first bond. i have them in a slightly different order. these are in the order of when there were passed by voters. in february 2008, we had to clean and safe neighborhood parks bond. to date, one park was recently completed, but we have several that are in construction and design and planning. in the next two years, we're going to be seeing quite a bit of new park work going on. and that includes -- will mention some of the more detailed parks in the next slide. restoration program has also been moving forward. trails and forests, 3 trails completed, 59 design and planning. then you have the waterfront and

we have representatives -- representatives from rec and park in the port here. we're going to be moving toward implementation of these other parks including mission bay. those are under way. pier 43 trail link is also in construction. the next slide shows with this issuance for rec park is going to be funding, approximately $73 million, and $63 million going to parks and about 10 million or so going to port property. here are the parts that will be either reconstructed or enhanced, including chinese recreation center, mission playground, delores, sunset -- you can see the photographs on the right that shows the current state for one of the parks and

in the diagram of what we expect the accepted designed to be and what it will look like in the future. 20 restaurants will be restored. we're talking but repairing 15 trails. some of the forest and the golden gate park, the growth. we're also restored -- restoring several play fields. and maybe some improvements that the waterfront mansion, the pier 43 trail link. that is the clean and safe parks' bond. i do not know if you wanted to entertain questions now on that measure before we go forward? supervisor chu: that would be great. supervisor avalos? supervisor avalos: thank you. are there going to be any further sales for the clean and safe parks' bond? is this the last one that is part of the bond? >> no, there are actually going to be -- to the recreation park opponents, this will be their

last issuance. that is the intent. this is the last issuance for recreation and park bonds. the board has $9 million or $10 million that they will be seeking another issuance for. this is the third issuance. the port will look for one more, but rec park should be done. supervisor avalos: ok, is there a breakdown of the play fields for $8.5 million, as i have seen on the budget analyst report in the appendix? $8.5 million for playing fields around the city. is that item broken-down further into which played fields and how much per plate field? >> i would refer to a member of rec park to answer the question. >> sorry, supervisor. i cannot hear the entire question. supervisor avalos: the question is about the section in the bond, $8.5 million being

appropriated or could be appropriated for play fields. is there a plate -- is there a breakdown for that item, how that will be spent, allocated, what parts will be covered? >> no, not at this time. the recreation and park commission has not made a final determination of which projects will be fully funded through the plate field program. we have expended around $600,000 around environmental review costs associated with two fields. outside of that, no other additional decisions have been made. >supervisor avalos: that $8.5 million-, you said, $700,000 -- >> roughly around there. supervisor avalos: is that allocation going for building gate -- for golden gate and this other one? >> we do not know that completely, it is pending

completion appeared before we could appropriate funds for the construction of those projects, we need to complete the ceqa analysis associated with those specific projects. that is kind of a separate process in decision making from the 2008 bond, which sets aside the $8.5 million for the play fields program. we received a categorical exemption 19,007 for that program. in the bond report, it specifies, i believe, around 15 potential sites which could be funded with the playing fields money. this mirrors the same structure we set up for the restrooms program and the trails program, in particular. supervisor avalos: so it does not necessarily apply to golden gate park? >> it is not. it applies to the plate field portion of the bond. that is why we can issue a bond dollars for the playing fields program before having fully

completed the ceqa for those two parks. supervisor avalos: what do you see -- do you expect this $8.5 million will go to those two parks or reduce see it going to other play fields as well? >> potentially, those are two of the parts we would like to find with the playing field program. there are a number of philanthropic partnerships and the split of funds between us and them and what portion is carried for those projects between the city and the plate field foundation i do not think has been settled. and also depending on the rec park commission to determine the extent to which they would like to spend those funds on those two projects are whether if a third priority emerged in the next year, then we would have to make this trade-off decisions. supervisor avalos: thank you. what types of review is each park going through? i know they are different for

many, including the rec center and different from golden gate park. >> within the bond, we have had almost every level of environmental review used at one point or another for one project or another. but we are pursuing a mitigated negative declaration, and for the other, a full eir. supervisor avalos: what is it about beach chalet, why it requires deeper analysis? >> it is located within golden gate park, which is a historic resourced. hetrocyclic, we had an earlier cadex issued by the planning department which was then withdrawn when it was identified that there would be a potential impact to a historic resourced. as such, the categorical exemption that was issued for the beach chalet many years ago needed to be withdrawn and replaced with either a man get it negative declaration or an

eir, so we decided to pursue a full eir. supervisor avalos: any legal prohibitions or processes that would prevent us from making an appropriation prior to the approval of an eir? >> i am the deputy city attorney. the committee could certainly appropriate money, even for a project for ceqa review is pending. it is a policy called for you if you decided to hold that money back and keep on reserve until you saw the outcome of the ceqa approval appeared with respect for projects that have not yet been in the fine, so there is a large appropriation, but the department cannot articulate all the different projects that they will program that money toward. the board can appropriate the

money, but understanding that the department is going to have to go through ceqa review and whatever level is appropriate if that is something that you want to be able stay in the loop on in terms of their decision, you can ask them to report to you. or you can pool -- you can appropriate the money but hold it in reserve until you're satisfied that ceqa review has been completed. supervisor avalos: and if we did not appropriate the full amount, what would be the portion that is been programmed to cover the costs for improvements at beach chalet, could that be appropriated at a later date? >> it do you mean if you do not appropriate the funds now, do you lose the opportunity to appropriate the money in the future? i am not a controller, but i would assume that that money just remains someplace in the

budget and can be appropriated at a later time. it still has to be used for the purpose for which the bond was issued. supervisor avalos: ok, thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. a quick question. it sounds like in this situation, because we have beach chalet eir pending, and the other one going through the mitigated negative process as well, there is nothing in actions before us that we cannot take because of the pending action. we continue to authorize the sale of the bonds, but in any case, it the department cannot spend money on either one of those projects and the environment to process is completed -- >> that is right. the department is bound to wait until the ceqa process is complete, whether your appropriate the funds are hold them in reserve. supervisor chu: ok, so we could take the action, but it would

still have to go through the board process. with beach shelley, the will probably be an appeal that will come to the board. we would have to dispense with that before the department could do anything with the funds, right? >> that is right. the department will be bound and advised. i am sure many people there simply cannot take any steps without ceqa being complete. supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor avalos: just a question about, are there any part of these funds that would go towards any design work or planning work? if we make this appropriation today, the rec and park department will be using a portion for some of the pre- construction work, correct? >> again, there is some uncertainty around that. yes, that is a push into use of

these funds. we're definitely using the funds are not to fund the environmental review work itself. as i mentioned, we are currently in discussion with our philanthropic partners to determine the split in design and construction funds, split between city funds and philanthropic funds. i do not know that precise split at this time. but those funds would ordinarily absolutely be used as they have been in many other cases within this bond, for design and environmental review. supervisors, for context around this, this has been very consistent with the process that we have gone through for all of our neighborhood park projects, as well as each of the other city what programs. we used our wecadex for the 2008 bond to issue bonds funds inappropriate them to the program. then as we complete and design each project, we go back and have it redone environmental review and not issued contracts

for any of those projects until that revisited environmental review was completed. we have now played out this process in easily over 15 to 20 projects. each time, we have not started our contracts, issued contracts come or gone to the rec park commission and we had our environmental review in hand. i want to put that important context out to say this is pretty consistent with how we deliver the bond due date, and we have not heard from the city attorney's office or city planning, any critique of that message. if there was a problem there, that would be important to surface, and i would defer to the city office that this is consistent with how we have delivered the bond to date. so that environmental review has been completed in each case, and we have reviewed bond funds for design. to pay for that environmental review along the way, as well. supervisor avalos: ok. supervisor chu: thank you.

i want to ask of the budget analyst has anything to add to that presentation. >> good morning, members of the committee. i am from the budget legislative analyst's office. i will reiterate what our report has said, which is that the resolution would authorize the safe neighborhood the ordinance would appropriate those funds in which 62 million would go to the recreation and parks department. the balance will go to the port commission. there will be a forced sale plan which would go for the remaining project. and terms of property tax impact, this would add approximately $14.13 a year