>> good morning everyone, welcome to the san francisco budget and finance subcommittee meeting for wednesday may 15th, 2012, i'm mark ferrill also joined by kim and london breed. and mr. clerk do you have any announcements >> silence all cell phones and devices. please include all of the documents to be part of the file should be submitted to the

clerk, and they will appear on the may 21st agenda unless otherwise stated. >> i want to thank the members of sf tv, we are not going to be having the regular one clock and we have most of the items here. >> mr. clerk, could you call items 9, 10, 11 first. >> nine, ordinance amending the park code to designate portions of the property leased by staoet and county of san francisco under and adjacent to the portions of the central freeway located between otis and stevenson street and between valencia and stevenson street and partially bounded by the duboce avenue and referred to as the south of market and west state park and dog park as a park within the meaning of

the park code and to authorize the recreation and parks department to control these portions. >> ten, resolution approving the execution of air space lease known as block number 3513, lot number 071, and located along doboce street between otis and stevenson street and by and between the city and county of san francisco and the state of california, acting by and through the department of transportation for the initial term of 20 years and rent of $10,000. number eleven resolution approving for the execution of the air poser lease known as 3513 lot number 074 and located under the highway 101 here duboce street and between valencia street and stevenson street by and between the city and county of san francisco actleing through the department of transportation for term of 20 years and $2,335,343. >> thank you, mr. clerk, and

these items are sponsored by supervisor kim. >> thank you, chair farrell. >> today really a combination of 13 years of organizing work that has been occurring in this part of district six. we are calling it the south of market west, state and dog parks, which will be built on the right-of-way parcels located under the central freeway between valnecia and otis street and in order to maintain the sites and facilities the office has been partnering with the mayor's office of economic development and the community to negotiate a final lease agreement with cal transand it is a lengthy process and it is something that we have been working on since we came into the office two and a half years ago. and to that end, i really want to acknowledge the very hard work of john updike and his

department and carroll wong from the city attorney's office and our staff at the mayor's office of economic development and former and current, ken rich and kelley, and camson and also a resident of this part of our district who have been logging very long hours to try to reach an agreement with cal trans, and fully funded development of this park, the city has done a tremendous job reaching an agreement for a lengthy process for a blended park model that prioritizes recreational usage for the dogs and use and? ing that we have heard over the years when we are serving the community. and i know that i say this over and over again, but district six, as well as district three has the least amount of open space per capita per resident and the opening of two new parks is a big deal for our community and so we are excited to be able to put this forward

today. i do want to bring upjohn updike to present these leases to the committee, thank you mr. updike. >> thank you. >> supervisor kim, good morning members, director of real estate and i am going to speak to the real estate aspects of this and we will have additional details to follow me and we will bring to you as the supervisor said two 20 year leases of cal transproperties and ordinance to amend the park code. and so the geniusis a comenysing of proposition i and for cal trans2000. and those address the fate of the former freeway damaged from the 1989 quake. and so prop i and the agreement related in a transfer of many cal transassets to the city, including direction on how to use the proceeds of leasing and sales revenues of those parcels

by the city. and so in addition to delivering transportation improvements, octavia as we know it today and new developments with the sales of the robust elements and there are in the similar projects that were to be developed and that is why we are here with this item and the input of the supervisor mentioned has led us to the day where we can secure these two properties initially for a term of 20 years, longer with extensions. and for the uses that the dog park and skate park and some activists. spaoes first to 130384, that is primarily for the skate park and initial of $1,000 per month and increases steadily each year and there is a schedule in the lease and the budget analyst report. and the final year is at $14,859 per month. and we have one option for renewal and that is ten-year and that will be at fair market

rent. the other file, 130385, is also a lease of 20 years. and it is for the dog park and adjacent new parking lot. that lease is what we call a capitalized lease. so the payments there are made up front for the term and by doing this, the city saves some funds due to the discount rate that is applied by paying all at once that payment is $2,335,343 and on this one we also have a one oping for ten years at fair market rent, these options are at the city's discretion we. would like to pursue one as a capalized lease that they do provide sufficient cash to allow us that opportunity. so we took emergency of cal transability to deliver that kind of lease. this is out of the order for cal trans. additionally a portion of the dog park is set aside for

parking that is parking will be secure and it will serve primarily city fleet needs and provide modest income from the department that parks the vehicles there which is the human services agency, they currently sublease existing parking spaces. so, this is a replication of what already goes on but in a more secure environment and will be used to offset the leasing forward and so i would like to bring them up who will give you more detail about the over all park effort in these lots. and thank you, john, and good morning, supervisors, and with the office of economic and workforce development and i am going to bring up a quick presentation if i could have the screen.

just a quick reminder that you have three items in front of you the two leased and the park code ordinance that extends the park code on to the new park portions of the two parcels. but, not on the real estate managed parking area. and just to recap as supervisor kim mentioned, parts of the products are a ten-year community planning process which i would just like to take a moment to recognize as so many of the folks in the community have helped us and as you know the voters have passed proposition i which approved the freeway north of market street in 2000, and the city opened up into a agreement. in exchange for this land we are obligated to sell the parcel to construct the boulevard as well as create other projects to mitigate the impact of the freeway on the

surrounding neighborhood and just quickly to date, the projects that have been complete are in front of you in this chart, and these projects were performed and prioritized by the transportation khor which conducted a process with the central freeway committee which began in 2004, and in 2006, they prioritized these projects in front of you and the cal transright-of-way improvements. which are the dog play area and skate park are among the remaining projects to be complete. through the process of 16 meetings in 2007 to 2013, the community with the city staff and these cal transright-of-way improvements in to the proposed dog run and skate park uses. to orient you to the area, market street is running along the top left corner of the map.

and the middle lot is the west is soma dog play area and the skate park is in the lower right corner. so on the left of the screen, you have the dog park improvements. half of the lot will be operated by the department of real estate to park the city cars and the other half of the lot, the green portion is the dog park and it is a pilot program project for the use of synthetic turf, the subject will be divided into two years, one for large dogs and small and a green wall will be planted with jasmin, the state park desin fuses the state elements requested by the workshop participants and a city wide gap in the elements mainly the low, street style skating opportunities i don't know already reviewed the lease

terms with you, they entered into a maintenance use of these, and under this agreement, the maintenance and security for the city, parking areas on the cal transparcel, located between valencia and stevenson street. rec park will maintain the uses on both parcels and also in front of you is the ordinance, and this is needed to provide clear authority to the rec parks department to enforce the code on each of the park areas, this amendment is necessary because the parcels must be leased and cannot be purchased from cal transand effective through and including rec park ownership of the space and however in other aspects these spaces will look and feel like a public park, the ordinance is needed to create a uniform set

of expectations. and from the rec recreation and parks department is here and can answer the questions that you have about the ordinance i want to highlight the sources of funds used for not only leasing the parcels but the funds will be used for capitol improvement and maintenance all of which come from the sale of the central freeway parcels and the octavia boulevard fund. >> and just to give you the highlights of what we can expect moving forward t will start in july and it will be open in the pring of 2014. thank you. is that it, i am sorry.

this is such a big project for us i am expecting more. so i don't have any further comments on this item so we can go to the bob evansing and legislative analyst report. >> mr. chairman, supervisor, breed, and kim. on page 33 of our report, in the fiscal impact section, we are pointing out that the estimated cost to construct the skate park is 1.7 million and the cost to construct the dog park is 1.1 million and so that is a total cost of 2.8 million in construction costs. and we also report that the further skate park, the city, and as mr. updike has already stated, city will pay $10 per

month from july, 2013, to 14, and that increased two percent annually and on page 33 of our report and that will be over a 20 year period and so that will be a total course over that period. and on page 34, supervisors, and as he stated it is on table one on page 3 of our report, for the dog park, the city will pay cal transfor a one time total of $2 million, 335,343, that will be up front for the initial term of the lease. we recommend that you approve the resolutions and the ordinance and i would be happy to respond to any questions. >> thank you, are there any questions from the committee

members? >> supervisor breed. >> specifically one of the things that was in our last committee meeting was the fact that rec and park has limited park patrol officers to patrol the existing parks and in the resolution that is introduced it is changing the code to it add yet another area that park patrol has to add now to their large scope of places that they need to patrol. and i am just trying to understand, exactly, why are we adding more parks? and we don't necessarily have not only the capacity, to patrol the existing park land, and the capacity to even maintain our existing portfolio

or parks throughout san francisco. >> the property for the records and parks department. and the... those are two separate questions on the maintenance, we do have a dedicated funding source for the ongoing maintenance of the two parks. >> where is that coming from? >> from the octavia funds and we estimate those to be $85,000 a year and there is as part of the departmental mlu which is attached to your packet there is a funding for a shortfall, given the fact that the department will not be paying the ongoing costs, of leasing the space as well as the up front cost of construction. regarding park control, it is not as healthy as we hope it to be and then our resources are

stretched very thin but these two park leases are at the top of our priority list and not only in terms of geographically where we need the park space but also for activities. and the department has conducted recreational assessments and skateboarding came as one of the top activities that were not enough resources for the boarders in san francisco, as well as dog parks as well. and so for the community processes were the two, identified uses that the community wanted to see come out of the central freeway project. but the department does feel that while we are always taking a careful eye when acquiring new properties that given these two parcels fulfill a two strong needs within our department. and we are going to use our

existing resources to manage. >> so there was no park land that was identified that could have accommodated these uses? not as part of the central freeway process, no. >> the central freeway process and replace the project identified projects that are community benefiting projects that could be developed with what would become the surplus cal transproperty. and we have throughout the park system, we are looking at where we can always, we are always looking at where we can add, desire and recreational activities and we have added a new skate park and balboa park in your district, supervisor breed we do have the popular skate area, which is just proven to be, and we think is tremendously successful. and it is temporary and so we are looking at where we are add these and in this particular

previous particular community process, we were the two activities that were identified. >> okay. i just want to say for the record, i just think that it is really irresponsible to continue to take on additional property, without the capacity to manage it, and adding existing resources through park patrols, takes away from other parks throughout the city. and so i have a real concern about that, because i get a lot of complaints from people in my district about the lack of visibility of park patrol. and the challenges that happen within, you know, even my district, i am sure that there are other challenges in other districts, but as a city we continue to kind of take on things because of the ability to take on things and we don't look at long range planning and there is a lot of folks that are involved in this and people are excited about this, but we look at who maintains it and what other resources get taken away to take care of it, and i

have a concerned about that. so, i just don't think that the answer that making it a priority is satisfactory. >> well,... >> i will just respond to that really quickly. because it actually came up in the beginning of the presentation. but in exchange for getting the parcels from the state, for free, to the city in exchange have to construct the octavia boulevard and had to make for mitigations to the neighborhoods that are surrounding the freeway as well. in many ways this is part of an exchange that we have with the state and so we are responsible now for making mitigations and one is of course the pedestrian safety, and some of the projects that were brought up in the slide presentation and additional trees in the neighborhood and some of the,

sorry i am pulling up, the street skate improvements and the traffic calming and the bike lanes are some of the concerns that we have made and one of the last pieces was for increasing open space in these dense neighborhoods. also, 66,000 dollars of rpv's maintenance class will be provided by this octavia fund which is from the sales of the parcels of the freeway. so there are additional revenues come ng that will not fully cover all of the maintenance costs which i believe was an estimate of $80,000. but 66,000 of that will come from the octavia boulevard project fund and so there are increasing dollars and i think that i agree with supervisor breed and there is a long time discussion in terms of what park maintenance believes and we cannot maintain the parks that we have, but they have a particular and unique problem is that we have less open space

in any other part of the city. while other parks are in the portfolio, getting the maintenance that it gets, we have less and as we grow the density and we approve the developments and the south of market we have to think about infrastructure and you can't get the parks because your neighborhood came later and we are not going to provide you the infrastructure that we need because we are overloaded in terms of what we have. i think that it does have to be a greater conversation about what it means to provide appropriate infrastructure for the neighborhoods where we are focusing the density and the growth and the expansion is having. i wanted to address the points about these two parks. in terms of that, it was part of an over all plan and we are providing additional funding for maintenance. >> thank you. i wanted to ask another question about the additional trees and the responsibility of who is to maintain those trees?

>> the trees that have been placed prior are specific to this project? >> i am not clear when i talk about specific to this project? >> i was mentioning that the trees were part of previous completed anxillary projects. >> i think that is what you are referring to. >> yes. >> that part of the mitigation for the freeway was that we had put in palm trees on valencia and we had done pedestrian scale and we had put in a bike lane and there was five-block ada improvement and some of the improvements. >> who is responsibility is it to maintain that also where does the money come from? >> supervisors kim i am from

dwd and i am working with the folks on the project and so the street scraping was an earlier phase of the set of west soma projects and the money to build those which are completed came from the same source of this money and the sales of the parcels and i am not completely sure that i believe that most of the street trees are property owner responsibility. >> i think that the ones released on the alley, i have to admit that i am not sure that if they are dpw or property owner. and they may be dpw and may be property owner, i honestly don't know and i could get you

that information. >> so, doug las could shed some light on that. >> i missed the beginning of the question, but i know that we planted a lot of medium trees along octavia boulevard that do not directly front any properties, all medium trees are maintained by the city and the department. >> okay. >> i believe that the trees that were planted we are establishing them but the intention is to transfer long term maintenance and responsibility to property owners. >> and that was taken care of prior to planting those trees? >> i don't know all of the details about... i am not sure exactly where the trees were planted and what was done. but that is our intention. >> okay. >> i had one more question about and i think that some bits and pieces of it were

answered. but specifically, i'm familiar with what happened, you know, there is a long history of what happened with octavia boulevard and what the city was required to do and how they acquired the parcels and i mean, you know, i don't necessarily need a history of that, but more importantly, i was of the understanding that the open space and the support of what happens with octavia post, boulevard, proceeds, were to basically, you know, be used within that particular area primarily, other than, you know, some of the other traffic mitigation and calming measure and things of that nature and clearly, transportation, was more of a priority in terms of the use of the funds. and just the fact that you know, this money, although small in comparison to the larger amount of money that we

are collecting, it is small in comparison, and i am not understanding exactly, why. this money is not necessarily being used to deal with some of the continual issues around transportation in the area. where there is still truly a need for it. >> development. >> the octavia boulevard projects is dictated through two agreements, not an agreement but a proposition i that was passed by the voters in 1999 and that layed off the process for how the funds remaining after we constructed octavia boulevard were to be spent and it laid out pretty clearly that we were supposed to go through the transportation authority kho was to create a freeway, and through a process that they went through and they created the priorities for the remaining funds. so that was kind of our first

set of anxillary projects that were listed on page 4 of the hand out that i gave you, and so while, i think that kind of shorthand in the city's dialogue in discussing the projects, we talk about the use of funds for transportation. and it is broader than that and it does include mitigation for, close to the central freeway and that is where these specific park uses come from and you are correct from that it requires transportation improvements and within that broad umbrella includes mitigation for transportation, and specifically these parks. >> okay. >> thank you. i vaguely recall that, but i thought it was primarily for the park, within the octavia boulevard and the plans for the kind of open space that was required to be in that area. >> yes, so it includes the area north of market, and

specifically octavia boulevard but it also does include this area just where we brought the freeway down and as an off-ramp to mitigate the creation of this off-ramp into the soma west community. >> got it, thank you. that really helps to clear things up. >> do you have a map of the octavia plan? >> we will provide it because my district is included in the market octavia plan as well. >> yeah, and i just want to add that i know that there has been a number of active participants and developing this plan there has been a lot of work that has gone into the plan which is why i am planning on supporting it. but i do