>> 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 hetrocyclic, we had an earlier cadex issued by the planning department which was then withdrawn when it was identified that there would be a potential impact to a historic resourced. as such, the categorical exemption that was issued for the beach chalet many years ago needed to be withdrawn and replaced with either a man get it negative declaration or an eir, so we decided to pursue a full eir.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. we do recommend reducing the appropriation by 908 had a 61,000 in the contingency fund. -- 961,000 in the contingency fund.

with that reduction, we would recommend amending the sale amount by that amount to 75,009,539 and in preparation to the same amount. >> for my understanding >> we actually did take those recommendations already. can we continue? -- >> from my understanding, we actually did take those recommendations already. can we continue? >> we will be selling proceeds from the emergency response voters that passed in 2010. this focuses around a number of different areas around first responders, primarily the public safety building which is moving forward. i have a photo on the next slide. the design development phase has been completed and we will be moving into some of the

construction but these proceeds. that process starts the decanting of the hall of justice. this is the first time that we are locating in the same building a police station and a fire station. the police station in mission bay as part of the agreement is being constructed in that building. there are a number of fire could stations moving forward. there are four roof replacements that have occurred as part of our focus program. there have been designed going forward with the seismic enhancement of the various stations and comprehensive health safety enhancements. there is the auxiliary water supply system, which is the city's back up. this provides a high pressure hydrant throughout the city.

you can see there is a photograph of twin peaks reservoir, including adding additional flow valves so that we can move one water from that reservoir into this reservoir very quickly. if something does not happen -- of something happens to it, there will be a work on the lining of that reservoir. the bond proceeds stated specifically is the steel frame and the foundation for the public safety building will be under way. you can see in the photograph there, you can see the new york structure which is surrounding the current fire station which is located there which will be kept, refurbished, and brought up to seismic code standards and will be serving as a conference room, community center, and some functions of the fire

department. there are also several fire stations. you can see the layout of the map. the layout are the focus scope ones where we will be going in and doing roof, an exterior work, plumbing, those types of things that are desperately needed in these stations. the orange color are the ones where we are doing some comprehensive work to it. it needs several different types of improvement to those buildings. it is $183 million total for this aspect of the bond sale. i will mention that the project manager is here for the

improvement program if you have any questions. and do you want to continue this or do you want to take questions on the earthquake safety bond? >> does the committee have any questions for the earthquake safety and emergency response time. >> this is the series being sold for the earthquake safety and emergency response bonds. it would pay for the public safety building and mission bay

and some fire station repairs that to not include the awsf project at this time. in terms of the property tax impact, it would add an estimated $29.90 per year to the tax bell of a single-family residence -- tax bill of a single-family residence. we do recommend approval. >> if there are no recommendations, why don't you continue on to the roads? >> this is a little bit shorter presentation on the road repaving and safety bond because this is the first issuance which was passed by voters just this past november. the upcoming issuance is really to get started on a number of different projects but also to get a lot of the paving work under way.

the expectation of the $74 million that will be sold will be 424 blocks that will be paved and about 620 constructed. there will be 800 programs that will be constructed as part of the curved wrap program -- there will be 800 curb ramps that will be constructed as part of the curb ramp program. there is a similar program for sidewalks. sidewalks where we have ada concerns will be constructed. approximately 8400 square feet will be done. then there will be street structures that we be addressed with this first issuance and that is focused on fourth street bridges where there are various

deficiencies that need to be addressed. finally, we will be doing some street signal infrastructure work. we will be working for designe for those and so forth. we expect to see the tikrit their projects coming back to you in the future. of a dimension that john thomas from the department of public works is the department manager for this and he is here to answer any question and we also have a representative from the mta. -- we expect to see the projects coming back to you in the future. >> do have any information on the additional projects that

were amended in the legislation? >> we are asking for this funding to basically coordinate our scheduling and timing with dpw's work. there will be work in upgrading certain traffic signals for signal priority which includes adding pedestrian signals as well as wiring under the pavement. it makes sense to determine where they are paving and to stay ahead said that we can lay the conduit's down in the pavement. the money that we are asking

for, these are three different categories. the first one is to first upgrade what we would call the brains of the intersection witches' signal control and the cabinet. by upgrading those, this provides the architecture and allows us to implement traffic signal priorities. the second part is to install the five new traffic signals along the rapid transit corridors. the pound at one and fault is the california street. -- the pertinent ones involved is that california street. this is currently controlled by an always stop signal. it is important to operate the cable cars efficiently and safely. and the last five years, there were 30 reported collisions at the intersection and 23 of them

involve cable cars. we're proposing to upgrade that intersection control to a signal and there are four other locations that are currently controlled by stops at a major traffic corridors that we are proposing to upgrade to signals to provide signal priorities. i would be glad to answer any questions that you may have. >> are there any additional comments that you would have? >> this is from the other two measures and this would be the issuance which would be 220 million in rhode repayment and save the bonds. the resolution would approve the sale of 6.5 million in appropriation of 76.5 million. approximately 70 million goes to dpw for sidewalk improvement projects and about 6 million

goes to the mta for traffic tunnel project. if the board approves this ordinance and resolution, this would add $14.30 a year to the property taxes for a single- family residence with the assessed value of five had a thousand dollars. we recommend approval both of the resolution and the ordinance. >> thank you for the resolution. the apartments are available to answer any questions. -- the department's are availabe to answer any questions. are there members of the public that have any comments on items 1-7? >> good afternoon, supervisor. my concern is that in particular about the road repaving bond, the way in which the city is continuing to ignore some

important ordinances that past, particularly the better streets ordinance. this was passed by this board of supervisors and it basically spoke to the idea that we should have complete streets in the city that work for all modes of transportation. it should also fulfil other functions, ecological functions and so on. then we passed the complete streets ordinance, you should rebuild them as complete streets. devise a set of standards for the streets and rebuild those in accordance with those standards. the city has been ignoring those. this is one of the 7% of streets that kill and maim 55% of the people who were killed and maimed on the streets. this would be a prime candidate for the improvements. the city rebuild street corners

to put in curb ramps and they rebuilt the storm drains and the entire street corner. those are standard equipment, that every street should have this. we are concerned that the city is continuing to spend money to rebuild streets that are unsafe and dangerous to pedestrians. we need to make sure that the city is accountable to its own laws and standards said that we are spending money in a way that does the public good. there was a mission street scape planning effort, burrow was never discussed. >> i have four speaker cards that i want to call the names for.

>> that was for item 9 but i did want to speak on this item. i represent san francisco green party and the local grass-roots organization in our city. this is incredibly controversial. how the project will end up as it ends up as a project. will be way up in the air right now and even if it is approved, it might be radically changed. i would second the idea of just holding those funds back until we know exactly what the disposition will be because otherwise we get into this situation and other development projects that we have had before. we make funds available for something and that accelerates the project when we should

probably wait and see what will happen with the eir before we appropriate the funds. thank you. >> good morning. on friday, i delivered to your offices my letter describing the reasons why the bond sale authorizing and appropriating legislation should not include the $7.7 million identified in the project because this is premature to do so. the bonds authorizing resolution will certify that all conditions have been met and that the city is authorized to occurred indebtedness. the clearance must be approved for all to be funded by the bond. the port knows this.

it is important to understand that there is a lot of controversy about this and that the coastal commission, in their later dated march 3rd, 2011, to the planning department, has weighed in with their concerns about the project in golden gate park. compliance with the post the commission's recommendations is another unresolved part of the whole environment the process, the golden gate project is subject to. the board cannot sell bonds as currently constituted that include the deal. a project that does not qualify as per the measure. you cannot certify the language of section two of your resolution regarding the conditions if there is no clearance. you can proceed with the sale after you deduct the amount that represents the funding for the project. if this amount is not known

today, then you must postpone your decision to sell the bonds until this figure is known and remove from both pieces of the legislation authorizing and appropriating the bond. i want to make sure that you understand -- i'm very upset that there is a categorical exception that is lead for this entire project and that is not true. the project was taken out data and therefore it stands alone and you cannot go back in time and pretend like it did not happen. i urge you to apply the lock. thank you. -- i urge you to apply the law. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning, not board of supervisors. my name is a.c. washington. i am introducing myself for the

first time in the capacity of the african american migration. i guess you could call it the person who will be looking at these department heads and making sure that you were here. i know that this is really unorthodox but i am doing this for a purpose. you have one of the redevelopment agency's today. therefore, i am convinced without a doubt that the city needs to adhere to the african- american migration report on all levels. there is a 10 year capital plan that mr. ed lee that he has going on. ainley has met with the department heads or he was supposed to -- ed lee has met with the department heads or he

was supposed to. that report is three years behind. you are liable to see me and others that look like me and everyone of these board meetings or every one of these meetings and we will be paving the african american it out migration. without a doubt, the african- americans are in a state of emergency and if no one would like to do it, i will be here at city hall to tell you. i am a great grandfather, i have three generations under me. i would be damned if i go down without at least attempting to make sure that the black presence is here in san francisco. my name is ace and i will be on the case. >> thank you. i have one more card, catherine howard.

>> good morning, supervisors. i am with the twin peaks central council. i am talking about the beach field. please postpone the $7.7 million bond issuance for the playing field component. the board of supervisors must ensure that folbaum sales are legal, ballot, and binding obligations. valid authorization of that is one of the most important functions in managing dead. the opinion of the board of supervisors is a form of insurance in theory for the issuers and investors that all legal requirements are met by the board. the clean and safe neighborhoods park bond accountability report,