do it from your phone? >> i would like to be mailed [inaudible] -- e-mail [inaudible] supervisor chiu: supervisor avalos had asked if there were other projects like this related to the america's cup that we had not accounted for. as far as i am aware of in my district, there are several that border america's cup boundaries. this is one in district 3 that we are looking to move forward with as a part of the america's cup plans that the budget analyst analyzed. i certainly want to understand it equitable funding issues. something be have to keep working on. i agree that with what we passed in november, the idea is equitable distribution makes sense. i will, again, i need to reiterate that this particular

street and this particular project is truly iconic in special. a street where 10 million tourists go. there are very few corridors in the city that can match that. also, in addition, this is a street that we know a little bit of investment, $5 million or $8 million, is going to result in future city revenues coming in with conservative assumptions. making this assessment, we will be able to see a future revenue stream that we can use for future streetscape project around the city. this makes it different and a different type of project from others. i do appreciate the point of the fisherman's wharf and the work they have done. frankly, there were a lot of questions about this project and i want to thank cbd for the work they did. everyone understands how

important this will be. not just for the fisherman's wharf, but for the entire city. neil, could you show the multiplier effects on the screen again, so that we can see those numbers? up if we could get with sfgovtv? again, if you see the numbers at the bottom, there is simply a 5% increase in tourism that leads to an additional $3 million per year of city funds that come into this. it is possible that we will see much higher benefits, in which case we did see an additional $13 million per year in revenues coming in. i think that that is a pretty compelling reason that sets us apart from other projects. supervisor chu: thank you very much for your comments. in response, i think that we have many noteworthy faces across the city that deserved attention as well.

great highway in the ocean brings two million visitors each year. i think that there are opportunities to be more equitable and do this process across the city, perhaps changing the way the infrastructure looks. clearly, we are not fisherman's wharf, but we have opportunities there as well. before we take public comment, let's go to the budget analyst report. >> madam chair, members of the committee, on page 5 we have no. 3, the general expenditures made from this $962,000 for design related costs. the funding source is strictly interest earnings from state bond funds that were allocated to san francisco. the interest earnings, this appropriation includes a controllers reserve of 52,600.

that portion of the interest has not yet been received. on page 6 of our report, as has been referenced, we notice that the budget that they provided, then that budget is 255,000 by hundred $38 less than needed. -- $255,000 less than needed. that is why we made a recommendation to reserve the $255,000.500 -- $255,538. we said that we would consider the approval of the supplemental appropriation to be a policy matter for supervisors, because the city's capital planning commission has not yet recommended funding for construction of a phase one of the jefferson redesign project. we are simply pointing out to the board that, as has been very

clearly stated at this meeting today, there are still construction funds of up to, at least in the data, up to $8.7 million that will be needed in the first phase. supervisor chu: thank you. a question, do we have any numbers about what phase two could look like? was that available? >> chairman, the budget legislative analyst's office. there was a rough estimate of $15 million for both states. it was thought that that was the best number that we have. supervisor chu: $50 million? >> yes. supervisor chu: thank you. let's open this item up for public comment. are there members of the public that which to speak on item number two? >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am with the san francisco

bicycle collision. we are very supportive of the public realm plan and the jefferson street project in particular. you have heard all of our reasons. basically, there was a gap in the bay trail. right now, you can rent a bicycle at one of the many rental facilities that are there, but you cannot bring it back to the bicycle rental company. which is frustrating. it is probably the densest bicycle rental market per square foot in the western hemisphere. more are being rented -- rented there that i know of. by itself, it is an enormous economic engine as a tourism industry aspect. based on that area of the business, this is an important investment. it will be important for the america's cup, important for all sorts of reasons that we move people through their.

i totally agree with all the points on equity. we have streets that are in bad condition that need investment. on behalf of a coalition, i have been persuaded by the economic multiplier argument. we like to thank, and we believe that it is true, that bicycle business is going to be a giant piece of that economic multiplier. we hope that you will support this, and we look forward to having visitors and locals in joining a better jefferson street. -- and joining -- in joining -- enjoying a better jefferson street. supervisor chu: thank you. next speaker, please. >> ♪ i am just trying to be friendly budget committee glad we did meet and i hope you get all the money all the money you seek hey, hey, you are the

budget, never know where you will be found and i know you are going to help this roadwork in this city taliban -- city town ♪ supervisor chu: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is douglas ya. listening to the discussion on this item, it seems like we are spending close to $1 million or two city blocks. seems a bit rich, given the current conditions. the supervisor makes a good point that other parts of san francisco had been neglected, financially. just by the fact that they even considered granite, why not go for gold?

why just settle for granite? let's go for gold. especially when we have read china to support us. what is a few million dollars? they can just give it to us. it is kind of like chump change for them. number two, if this project were so important, i would like to ask whether the board president tesjukin considered this project in his time. seems like everyone is in a hurry to spend this money for two blocks. are we going to repeat the same mistakes on the central subway? if i remember correctly, that is a lot of money for such a short distance. i do not have the time to figure out the cost per block on that fiasco. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you.

are there other members of the public that wish to speak on this item? seeing no one, public comment is closed. supervisor avalos: thank you, everyone, for your presentation to and work on this. i am comfortable moving this forward, but without recommendation. my not wanting to but recommendations behind this is that while i see a value to putting infrastructure in this area of some of -- of san francisco, it is not the type of development that i see being put in place in different places of san francisco that needed as well. i think that seeing a statement about moving forward with our recommendation could help to temper that argument.

there is not an overall budget yet and i would like to strip out the budget construction costs. this could come forward at a later time. it seems the cleanest way to move forward. i want to ask a question of the mayor's office, and other departments, about your -- supervisor chu: thank you. i want to ask a question of the mayor's office about the equity around projects around the city. this is something we have expressed over and over again, and we never seem to get any traction moving forward.

would neighborhoods suffer and not get projects moving forward? would they not be on the same pipeline? i think that that is likely what happened. i'd like to hear from both departments about your commitment on these resources. >> thank you, chair chu. not only is the city bound by the bond language to be equitable in distribution of the money, but the mayor is also committed above and beyond that to hear from all 11 districts on what their own priorities are. there are different needs and challenges, as well as opportunities, in every part of the city. this is a dense and highly trafficked, dangerous place for bicycles and pedestrians, because of the nature of what it is. there are different challenges

in balboa park, different from noriega and others. they are committed to working with the communities on the chosen districts. this is not a one-size-fits-all approach for street paving or sidewalks. it is about what the community feels like it needs. supervisor chu: end of the department? >> the department of public works is committed to geographic equity in all of our projects. and we stated that before we brought this to you. supervisor, i think that you inserted into the legislation making geographic location a requirement as a geographic equity a requirement as a bond. -- geographic equity a requirement as a bond. we will be bringing that money

to the capital planning committee soon. the board of supervisors will be hearing about that as well. i want to add that we are committed to geographic equity over a period of periods of years. a lot of these projects, we do not get funds to do 11 major projects every year. it is kind of an issue of rolling equity. i just want to remind you that every time that we have funding or a project is ready to go, we do not necessarily come with every project lined up. we are committed to making sure that projects throughout the city or in the line that we are working on getting delivered. that utility clearances necessary, we are working and doing that. we believe that the city requires the vitality of all neighborhoods, not just a

commercial, downtown core, but the entire city. >> i wanted to say that in terms of planning -- supervisor chu: i wanted to say that in terms of planning and equity, many of us understand the constraints that are there. but we often see in many of those districts that are well organized, with fewer resources, you tend to never get in the pipeline, never having studies that are done at a time, but sets you up to take advantage of the next step. that is something that often happens in locations like sunset, like the supervisor avalos or supervisor kim it districts. many folks are not as able to be acknowledged in order to put themselves in a position to advocate for a project. it is incumbent upon this city

to say that in areas where we do not have that kind of support. other organizations that can help to advocate in have the financial wherewithal, it is easier for other places that are struggling. it is such a heavy lift. that is my big point. in terms of the costs overall, i am not comfortable with what i have seen in the budget. streets, absolutely not. granite sidewalks? absolutely not. in terms of putting that money forward on reserve, i would not support that. in terms of the motion to strip out and reduce the supplemental, i would absolutely support that. given that you are planning to come forward any way with an additional allocation of the

budget, and you have a better budget, and that would encourage one without the bells and whistles, i think it be can really consider it. supervisor kim? supervisor kim: thank you for sending us printed versions of the presentation. i have two follow-up questions and i will make comments on the actual item. given that the actual pedestrian volume is from taylor to mason, and not from high taylor, why is it that phase one addresses the two blocks of less pedestrian volume? >> two reasons. one, to make sure that we can go forward with a phase that can be completed on a timeline. any time it cuts the rail, it doubles or triples the time.

so, the last two blocks have tremendous potential, with half of a dozen different restaurants along the north side that create this unique experience, a very convivial pedestrian experience that activates the public realm. for both of those reasons, we thought that it was best to move forward with blocks between jones and hide, really linking major landmarks within san francisco as well. within jefferson street and the maritime museum, bringing those into the fold would be a great benefit to those institutions. supervisor chu: i ask, only because i know that part of being in the schedule and prioritizing this as an improvement, it is to ease the traffic or ingestion concerns that we have with the america's cup coming.

so, why would we take the two blocs that do not have as large of an impact for the event? i get what you're saying. it is expensive and more time involved. will these blocks make a difference in terms of congestion, prioritizing the project for the event? >> as a part of that process, we would two-way the street in its entirety. supervisor kim: what do you mean by that? two way vehicles? >> right now it is only moving one way, in which you cannot come back. it is a key concern for cyclists. even though we are only constructing two blocks, the entire street will be reconnected. supervisor chu: this is the current designed supervisor kim: -- this is the current -- supervisor kim: this is the

current design. now there will be westbound, eastbound, and bicycle lanes as well? are those bike lanes going to be together? or next to the sidewalk? >> part of the larger package is to reduce the volume on the streets for the pri, so we are a one block closure westbound to reduce the number of vehicles, to create conditions that are safe and slow for pedestrians to cross. this would be a pedestrian and bicycle priority street. supervisor chu: in terms of the item itself, i had a number of questions. i do plan on supporting us moving forward, at least with

the appropriation for the design portion. if the motion is to sever out the rest of the appropriation, i am comfortable with doing that. i actually represent a district of them out ofcbd's and we probably do get a lot of prioritization. i am a beneficiary of that. i do want to acknowledge that the need to figure out a way to support neighborhoods in the excelsior, sunset, in our ranks of san francisco. if we know that already, the city has to have a plan now in terms of making sure that that infrastructure happens. not that every time a high priority project comes up in our district, i want to support the other supervisors on that point. supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor avalos? supervisor kim: before we vote

supervisor avalos: -- before the vote -- supervisor avalos: before we vote, i would like to have a discussion on semantics. i hope it will be confusing. we are equating equivalency with equity. it means all things are equal. divided up in many parts, equity is about dealing with this -- dealing with the disparity. it can be equal in certain aspects, but if that is not addressing other aspects, we are not distributing dollars in an equitable way. i want to think about how we can move forward and think about equity in terms of where the greatest ones are in san francisco. the ones with a great deal of traffic, tourism, and pedestrians, how can we serve other areas where the residents are not getting what they truly

desert? that is something that be a phase that goes from here to eternity for me, as i move through elected office in truly looking at equity of around the alleviation of disparities in this city. supervisor chu: thank you. i absolutely agree encourage working together on that. so, we have a motion in terms of the actual piece before us in terms of removing 538 from the appropriation, which reflects the amount above and beyond the design components. colleagues, can we do that without objection? without objection. to the item as amended, can we send it out but that recommendation? we will do that without objection. thank you. colleagues, can be rescinded the

vote, quickly, and item number three? i realize that we did not take the budget analysts recommendation to require a report. we have a motion to rescind the boat on item number three, done without objection. with regards to accepting the but to analysts recommendation to requiring that the port come forward with an update to the budget committee with regard to the update of $5.3 million, i will also like to request that the court comes to us over an update that is supposed to be part of the general fund as well. taken without objection? be will do that. we will send the item out without recommendation? we will do that. thank you. are there any items to report? >> that includes the agenda. supervisor chu: thank you. we are adjourned.