reasons, including, you know, we think being responsible about how we manage our capital program. looking forward, you know, there are a number of challenges that we still have to face and i think this gets to the earlier discussion about mta and muni needs and so forth and how we balance those needs, how we balance it, the existing buildings and older areas with the new growth. we've had a pretty aggressive schedule for this geo respond so it's going to be tight to move that forward. we're really going to be looking for your leadership and support on those measures to decide what's in the package to get the public education out there and to move forward with these. the other issue is while it's been great, the economy is moving forward, the big climate is becoming more challenging as well. so, that's going to put further pressure on some of the budgets around capital improvements.

and with that, i concluded with the presentation. if you have any other questions, me or actually any of the staff here who care to join me, would be happy to answer them. ~ who came to join me. >> okay, commissioner breed. >> thank you. thank you so much for the presentation. first of all, i want to start by asking you to please change your photograph of station 5. that's an incorrect photo that you have on your presentation. >> okay. >> so, thanks so much -- >> that's one i think we're going to rebuild, right? >> yeah, that's not the right fire station. >> got it. >> that's actually the station that i spent most of my life going to as a kid to get toys for christmas. so, i know that station very well. it's also the station that's in district 5. really proud of that station and the members there. so, just want to make sure they were represented well here today. >> thank you.

>> i'm really glad that we're looking at this issue and taking a really hard look at what's necessary in order to maintain our city infrastructure as well as especially our facilities. not just building, building, building new facilities. but more importantly, we have some amazing assets and i think it's really important to maintain as much of the character of these assets, but also look toward the future and how we do that so that these buildings are safe, they're accessible to those with disabilities, and able to provide the services that they do for the public in the most efficient way. i really appreciate this report and the work that went into it, including some of the details around what's needed moving forward in terms of deferred

projects and things of that nature. and it brings me to something that financially is really tiny in the bigger picture, but it's continuing to be on the deferred list, and that is our city's cultural center. not just because i am a former director of one of the most incredible arts cultural center in the city, but more importantly, the city owns four community cultural centers that play a vital role in preserving the arts and providing a space for affordable community arts, and they are in a really tough situation. and i know that they -- in this particular capital plan -- are on the deferred maintenance list yet again. and i just wanted -- i realize there are some additional funding, creative funding from the mayor's office on

disability for a-d-a improvements, to the mission latino cultural center, as well as soma. and i think one of the things that may not have been mentioned in this report is the additional puc money that's coming on board to support these cultural centers, and also not clear about the specific plans around the bayview opera house. and, so, i know we're being asked to approve this report today, but i think there are some small adjustments that i'd like to see made, and i'd like to see some prioritizing of these cultural centers rather than there being in the deferred maintenance or deferred project category. >> one response. the deferred projects are to do an absolute full renovation, almost completely where you would completely get them and

rebuild them which we recognize is needed for nearly all of them. not for all of them. there is funding and it's considerable amount of funding in a pay as you go program to address roofs, hvac and some of those things, and those would be -- those are really captured under the pay as you go or under the renewal line item in the capital plan. so, it's not the full amount that you would have to redo the building, but we are investing money in those buildings. that's what i'm trying to say. we are in planning to invest money in those buildings, continue to invest money in those buildings, but we have not found a way to do the blip type program that i think we're talking about for the cultural centers. and it is something that we know was actually on the ballot. it was one of those measures that was on the ballot along

with the veterans bill that did not pass. it was something we talked to the art commission staff about. for the past six years since we've been doing the capital plan and trying to develop solutions that will work, and i believe the bayview opera is one example where a number of different organizations that have got together and were able to put together a plan which i believe is pretty much fully funded now to do a lot of the -- they've already done some work, but to finish up some of the significant improvements there. >> and i would just say my biggest concern is that this is like no other example anywhere that i'm familiar with in any part of the united states which is why san francisco is so amazing because we're so unique in providing thai opportunity of critical, and if we lose these facilities, i'm not sure how we can recover from that. so, i just want to make sure that they're prioritized. and again, i know there's a lot

of need here, but in the bigger picture, you know, just really some of -- especially i know we're putting a new roof on the latino cultural center, but it was definitely in need of some additional tlc in order to bring it up to par. so, just wanted to mention that and let you know that i got my eye on making sure it gets done for all these amazing assets. the other thing i wanted to ask about specifically was the yerba buena under the successor agency. >> um-hm. >> the yerba buena gardens renewal program where there is expressed 5.4 million in facility renewal needs for yerba buena gardens over the next 10 years, and about 4.6

million in reserve. and i'm just curious as to the lease -- the leases that exist between the former redevelopment agency and the marriott and other locations in that particular area was revenue generated to provide the funding support for the gardens in addition to the maintenance. and i'm just curious as to what's going on in this particular component to put the gardens in a situation like this. >> right, and i don't know i can give you detail on that, fully answer the question. and i'm not sure we have anyone here from the successor agency who is sort of helping to manage the transition of that asset. and we've been in discussion with them. we know that -- because my understanding was that they did have some redevelopment money that was able to support their capital program, but now -- and that's what part of the gap is

that may not be there now. and, so, how -- >> there may not be enough of it? because it's consistent in terms of the revenue that is generating so -- >> right. they've expressed concerns to us that the revenue is generated and they do plan to keep those agreements going and discuss maybe trying to revisit some of those agreements to bring in potentially more revenue to address the renewal -- just the renewal needs. >> okay. >> so, we're working with them. and, again, my understanding is that they're looking at a lot of different solutions that could potentially work for them. ~ around -- and a lot of it is working with the business community in that area to make sure we keep that asset vital and well maintained, you know. >> in that particular case, and i realize it is a city asset, but we have numerous hotels, a number of museums and the ability to make that parted

area more self-sufficient, more reliant on not just the dollars that are generated from the lease agreements with some of the properties, but more importantly some of the businesses around there. so, i'd prefer to see that head in that direction and not a direction of being supported by the general fund. so, just wanted to mention that. >> okay. >> okay. market octavia area plan, i was wondering what is the role that the department of children youth and families have to play in terms of supporting that plan? i don't understand that. >> you know, i was just looking because we did have our representative from the planning department who did step out or was able to stick around. i think the children youth and family in these area plans, it relates mostly to child care facilities and fees that -- development fees that are

specified in the plan that will go towards enhancing or enlarging child care centers or developing child care centers. >> in the octavia -- >> in the area plan itself. >> okay. >> yeah. so, it would be -- >> although that's not happened just yet? >> well, that's right. and there is a group that we work with in our agency planning implementation committee called the [speaker not understood] report annually on the activities and part of it is i think where we are as far as collecting the fees and is there enough fee collected to be able to do a project. i'd be happy to follow-up with you or your office or have someone from planning follow-up with you who can -- >> that would be helpful. thank you. >> happy to. >> so, under the san francisco -- well, san francisco housing initiative, i was curious as to why a property which is owned

by the city, midtown, is not necessarily listed in any capital planning for the city. it's under the mayor's office of housing. >> it's under the mayor's office of housing. you know, i'm not familiar with that particular property. the housing -- you know, this is the first year we do have a more robust chapter on housing than we have had in the past because of that -- they were not owned by the city. they were owned by nonprofits. >> in this case this is one particular asset which is owned by the city which is a very unheard of unique situation which is where whether housing section existed or not should continue to be part of the capital plan. >> right, right. and again, that's one i would need to follow-up with you on because i don't have someone from the mayor's office of housing or someone from real estate -- i recall some discussions of that, but i don't know all the details or enough details. >> okay.

i wanted to also express my concern about the ability -- i know that many may think that san francisco is made of money, but i think part of what we're charged to do is make sure that we're spending money in the appropriate places. and i think when we're looking at things that we're building specifically in the octavia boulevard area, there will be a new market rate -- a number of new market rate housing as well as affordable housing. and, so, we are talking about, based on what you have in your plan, clearly about another 10,000 residents. and, so, we are continuing to deal with issues around getting people around in san francisco and what that means for the future. so, we need to make sure that

the -- that we're balancing the needs of our transportation issues with the needs of what's to come with the new population of people. i think we're not keeping up with the demand and, so, that's definitely important moving forward in the future, i'd like to see those two things kind of catch up to one another as you move forward with this plan. and also, i'd also like to -- i know that, again, you mentioned there's been a more robust housing section in the capital plan because what i appreciated that the mayor has taken the leadership on making sure that we make housing authority a priority for san francisco, it's been neglected for so many years. and clearly the capital need -- the need for maintenance and

repair is -- will be and is, from my understanding -- i'm a little confused. maybe this is a question. but according to this document, the need over the next 10 years will be 235 million. it's my understanding that currently, for example, in this current fiscal year, there is an anticipated, although because of sequestration there may not -- it may not be received. but in this fiscal year there is anticipated 10 million to support capital needs in the development and the current need is over 200 million. so, i'm trying to reconcile what's actually the case so that i can understand exactly what we as a city should maybe plan for as it relates to

public housing in particular. >> right. and i think this is referring to the hope sf project. >> i'm actually referring to the overall capital budget for the housing authority provided to me by the interim director barbara smith. >> right. and i believe -- again, you know, i believe what we have with them is that there's -- i know we've been moving forward with the hope sf project and there is a lot of infrastructure [speaker not understood] with them. [speaker not understood]. they still haven't completely prioritized them, but that's going to be a challenge in the next capital plan and going forward. how do we come up with the money to help do the infrastructure for those -- for the final two hope sf projects.

>> so, in terms of my understanding, it had more to do with repair and maintenance that was needed in terms of the need and not necessarily any of the developments in terms of -- >> for the housing authority -- >> specifically, yes. >> yeah. again, you know, i mean, the housing authority is an area where in the capital plan we've been listing since this is an agency we don't have direct control over. we've been trying to work with them around what are some of the ways you can increase the amount that you have for renewing your assets, but they've really been dependent on the federal government for them and i think it's the state and the federal government to do that, which has not been working out. they're not getting enough money to maintain the assets in the condition that they need to be. so, that's a discussion, you know, again, it would be

another sort of renewal need, the needs we put into the mix. it needs to be put into the mix and we need to figure out again how we take the money that we have and begin to address them. >> so, i think that what i'd like to do or i guess what i don't want to do is by passing this today, i don't want to put us in a box where we're limited to following the scope of what this capital plan is proposing because i'd like to see [speaker not understood] into the enhancement program t. was removed, i know. i don't know whose decision -- even though this is more under housing authority and the mayor's office of housing, it was removed from a priority list that's one of the oldest developments and it's completely falling apart. and i prefer that it's under the enhancement program.

i'd also prefer that there is more information about midtown in this capital plan report, and these are things that i know will take center stage hopefully in the near future. so, we're passing this plan today. i guess i would ask whether or not there is room for amendments or changes based on things that or priorities that need to be redirected. >> right. yes, and i would sort of reiterate what the controller was saying before. it's a resolution, it's a planning document. it does not mean we cannot make adjustments to it and doesn't mean that we can -- that we don't have to make -- that we cannot make changes to it. so, certainly during the budget process there are changes and discussions that can be had about these. and we also, you know, this is

the first real two-year capital plan that we've committed to in the fall or next winter, you know. if there are significant changes, being able to do a supplemental. so, we would be open, you know, to doing that if we need to. or if the capital planning committee, you know, so desires. >> and my last question is in terms of the -- i'm trying to understand exactly how the affordable housing trust funds somehow support how these projects under the housing initiative get done, is that -- i mean, in terms of how did you it match up. >> yeah, it's a new -- again, it's a new source that we have and we noted it is one of the new revenue sources we're excited about that can go toward -- toward housing and toward capital for housing. and i should say that prior to

this capital plan where we're owning some of this housing, the focus has always been to the owned assets and we've never owned housing prior to this. >> actually -- [multiple voices] >> maybe that funky one, right. but as far as i know, never really been an owner of housing so i think those are some of the issues we still need to work through. you know, we own it, what are we responsible for, what is the lease for a nonprofit responsible for, and how do we manage that to make sure that, like you're saying, i think our interests are the same, to make shura sets that we own are well taken care of and that they're not forgotten about. >> thanks again for your presentation. i'm really looking forward to just getting some of these projects done. i really appreciate the work that's already been done in the district 5 community, places like hamilton rec center, kimball park. there's been just some amazing

-- the library, western addition library. i mean, we are just really fortunate to have the ability to do what's necessary. and even with the african-american art and culture complex and the renovations that have taken there, an old building, repurposed it for the purpose of maintaining it for generations to come and, so, i'm really looking forward to what's to come. and also making sure that transportation is definitely made more of a priority to keep up with the increase in housing developments that we will continue to build. so, thank you so much. >> you're welcome. >> anything left to continue? mr. strong, anything more in your presentation? >> oh, no. i'm sorry, no, the presentation is done. so, i'm just taking questions. >> okay. supervisor wiener. >> thank you. so, i have a question for the

controller. as you probably can surmise from my comments before, i don't think the bond for muni is adequate. and, so, my question to the controller is -- and in addition to that, we have this transportation task force that the mayor and president chiu have convened and which will result in recommendations around transit funding. i imagine they'll take a few more months so it's a little bit unsink row miled with this plan. i'm not suggesting we delay an option of the capital plan. ~ unsynchronized i'm wondering with the controller, are there any possibilities -- is there any possibility of increasing the size of the transit bond without violating our commitment not to raise taxes above 2006 levels? >> supervisor, so, the general

obligation bonds contained in the plan are built out based upon work with our office on what we expect the property tax base to look like in the future. so, it's based upon our projections what we think property taxes will look like in the city. so, you have in the plan our best estimate today of what would be available given our estimates of what property tax break we expect to occur in the city. however, we do periodically and throughout the year update our projections of property tax revenue. we have found in the past at times that new information leads to a higher rope which leads to a greater property tax base which does create additional authorization for general obligation bonds. i'm not certain that will happen, but it's certainly something we can update you on periodically as we do often on other revenues. and that would be to the extent that property taxes [speaker not understood] expect, that would create additional authority within the tax rate for additional jeb obligation bonds.

>> thank you. ~ general in term of the current projections and the current bond plan proposal in this document, it puts us -- everything becomes in a way zero sum game and it puts those of us advocating for greater transit funding and support in an awkward position because, to make any adjustments, that means you're taking money from the department of public health buildings or from seismic safety. whatever. the committee has set a baseline and it makes any changes challenging because we're talking from one area to give to another area. ~ so, what i'd like to do, given that we're going to be coming forward with recommendations from the transit task force and given that there -- that it is possible that there will be some leeway to increase size of the transit bond would be to make an amendment to the

adopting resolution to take into account that possibility. and it would be an additional resolved clause, which i'll read. may not be the most artful language, but hopefully it's close enough. resolved that the capital planning committee will submit transit related amendments to this plan to the board of supervisors to action following the issuance of the final recommendations by the transportation task force with an increase to the prov proposed transit reliability bond if that increase will not increase property taxes above 2006 levels. ~ i hope that made sense. and i think that will allow us to do a reevaluation once the task force recommendations come out. it may or may not be possible, depending on what the tax role look like, if it is possible, it will increase the size of that investment.

so, that's my motion, is to make that amendment to the resolution. >> president chiu. >> thank you, mr. chair. and obviously why i don't serve on the budget committee, but i am here representative to capital planning. i want to support from the side the amendment that supervisor wiener has just laid out and point out as we look at the general obligation bond program that is outlined in this policy document to supervisor wiener's point, i think none of us want to begrudge any of the various specific debt issuance that have been proposed for these various levels, but we know that, one, there is certainly the possibility of an increase that we can hopefully tap on and secondly we do know from the conversation at the transportation task force that we will likely be coming out with some fairly robust recommendations that hopefully will fit within the confines of what the capital planning committee is doing. so, i think this amendment gives us the ability in a few months, six months or so to

both get information from our controller and give the capital planning committee an opportunity to give us some revised recommendations back based on all that work so we can hopefully get to a place where i think many of us on the board do agree that funding for transportation needs to be increased and hopefully we might have a path to do that. >> okay. colleague, any further comments? supervisor avalos. >> just a question for the controller. the language that supervisor wiener has suggested, is that descriptive enough to be able to say what we want to say in terms of debt issuance and debt retirement? >> i think it's pretty clear the intent. so, yeah, we would understand that language to mean take the most recent updated property tax projections, rerun the modeling exercises we do with general obligation bond authority that allows, and then any increments could potentially come forward

through the train pour thaition working task group to the board to increase this bond. that's how i understand the resolution. >> okay. i could go along with that language. actually, i would be okay with not having any reference to 2006, but to say that we actually, you know, issue a more flexible way of issuing bonds for our transportation and transit based on what comes out of the transportation task force. but if you insist on that, i probably can go along. >> you know, i understand your point. i think it's a reasonable one, but i also -- i think one of the reasons why -- and as president chiu referred to mr. north, one of the reasons why for a long time the voter had no appetite for general obligation bonds and then in the last number of years the