i'm sorry was there public comment? >> [inaudible] >> please come on up. >> good morning chairman and members of the committee. i am rachel richmond, the policy director of professional engineers local 21 and this is kim carter who represents the people who work at the crime lab. we are in very, very strong support of this bond, particularly the portion that will build a new crime lab. most people think of the crime lab -- they think of the tv show csi but our crime lab doesn't look remotely like that. our members who work at the crime lab have been working in intolerable conditions for a decade waiting for a new lab.

it was supposed to be in a prior bond but at the last minute remove d. this bond and crime lab building will allow for full staffing and drug testing on site. it's currently contracted out and that will save the city money. i can't that a new building and staffing will mean like on csi that all crimes and dna and other things are solved in one hour but it will certainly happen faster and bring justice to people more quickly. kim is going to just mention quickly what we mean by intolerable conditions. >> good morning kim carter local 21. the current facility is over crowded. i don't know if you have been there but it's desolate outa the shipyards and hunter's point. there are pot holes that cause damage to vehicles. there's no potable water and people have to drink

bottled water. there are flooding and heating problems and it's next to a radioactive waste site. it's isolated and scary. we strongly support this bond because we believe that san francisco deserves a world class facility that can solve crime. thank you. >> okay. thank you very much. anybody else wish to publicly comment on this item? okay. public comment is now closed. [gavel] . okay. so we have the underlying items -- i think the discussion points around the budget analyst's recommendations that i believe now are recommendations for the ordinance, not the ballot simplification committee. i think there's a discussion to

be had around that. i don't know colleagues if you have questions or comments. president chiu? >> just one question to santa rosa. we considered many bond measures in the past and we know if you have a parks measure or another measure or likely have one in the future why did you decide to recommend for this one to include this language? >> mr. chairman as our office is always revolving i think we were remiss in prior issues where we knew there would be follow on bond measures. in this case it was very specific that there was -- when the 2010 ballot measure was submitted to the voters it was specific at that time there would be follow on measures and when we look at that ballot measure and then saw specifically there would be an anticipated $290 million additional bond measure in 2021

we felt that we should make the recommendation. we totally agree in your comment and thinking about it and what mr. gibner stated to me this morning that going to the ballot simplification committee is not appropriate. it's more appropriate to amend the ordinance and that's why we changed the recommendation here today but with respect to other ballot managers i would say our office was remiss in not making a recommendation if we knew at that time there would be similar follow on bond measures and i think for transparency purposes as supervisor mar has stated it would be good for the voters to have the information. >>i definitely appreciate the sentiment. i guess my concern is that voters will look at it and will it happen again and why is the emergency today? i am trying to understand it since we didn't have a chance before. >> the other thing which is i

think is what we should have done is what chair farrell said and let them know and consistent with policy and just because there are future measures it wouldn't increase the taxes on individual homeowners because of the policy of bonded and indebtedness that is retired that would off set any increases in taxes and i think that would complete the full disclosure which we should have put it in the report. >> and i certainly agree. i think that would be helpful to balance out the picture. if i could ask the controller -- i know this is unprecedented but thinking about the impact on this. do you have a opinion on this. >> mr. chairman and supervisors i am from the controller's office and the city's policy with bonds after others are

retired so it doesn't impact on the tax rate includes other factors in what the total valuation is, what the interest rate is when we sell and retire bonds so that language would need to be crafted carefully so that it's inclusive and doesn't -- so that it fully explain to the public what is happening to insure that the property tax rate is not going up result of the bonds. as you know the property tax rate goes up with cost of living and whether or not the school district or college board puts geo bondos the ballot so the language has to be crafted carefully. the committee looks at this on an annual basis and the department

of finance looks at it on a annual basis and only recommends what is consistent with our policy so perhaps we would say that in the language if it were crafted and again the city's future policies can change in terms of what your priorities are and when you're putting go's on the ballot or other finances that would replace that so again saying what we're doing in the future doesn't bind the board from actually doing that but it does set some expectations. >> just a follow up comment on that. i certainly appreciate the importance of crafting the language carefully to assure the voters and the public how we're using the dollars. colleagues i know this is headed to the board. it sounds unprecedented to put the language in and i suggest that we work out the language on future expectations

and we don't know the value down the line and in that the language we should explain to the voters the needs are imperative. we need to do this today. we could push this off a number of years but an earthquake could hit in a few years and balance it out with language as the controller pointed out how we're managing the property rates. >> a few questions. you talk about the ballot simplification and the ordinance. is there any other place this should go, this language and what are other options out there and forgive me for not knowing that off the top of my head. >> john gibner. the board has top placement in the official argument for the pamphlet after the board votes to place it on

it and you have a total of the measure, a question which the city attorney draft it's i'm sorry, which is in the ordinance in this case. the ballot simplification committee has the digest and any member of the board or the public can attend the meetings and advocate for language and the controller as an analysis and official argument in favor and against the bond, and under the municipal elections code the board may place an official argument in favor of the bond and that is also a place where you could make these points. >> okay. okay. you know again i don't per se mind this recommendation. i feel very strongly though as i talk to vote nerz my district a lot of people around the city at other

times may not in favor of voting for bonds on principle let alone the urgency that president chiu talked about which i agree with and the fact that we don't put them on until the old ones retire and doesn't affect the tax rate and 99% are on board because of that and it's important for myself in terms of a policy perspective. again i am mindful that we would -- and have a discussion here about the specific language on that and i agree that we need to get it done right and i am mindful we have to do it at today's meeting to finalize the language so let's keep the discussion going. mr. city attorney. >> just one thing. all of the information mentioned appears early in the voter information pamphlet. the ordinance itself that you're considering amending right now is at the end of the

voter information pamphlet so the language we're talking about would be in the finding section of the ordinance which is at the back of the voter pamphlet so we're clear on where you're making the changes. >> so if we put it in our official argument that would appear higher up if there is assumption that people trail off after a number of pages and it's further up and the bond. >> right, and you have the controller and the measures and described that way then the legal text. >> okay. one other question sorry before mr. strong. as it relates to future bonds, as it relates to our policy is it appropriate or not to reference a website or what have you that has the complete picture of it? i am also thinking -- whether

we're missing something here that doesn't describe the complete picture. we may put future bonds on and our intention and consistent with this policy. i don't know if there is something i am missing and does the website have the complete picture and can we reference it and consistent with the committee and the bonds we support through that. i want to raise that type of referencing question as well. >> deputy city attorney john gibner again. i don't think there is a problem adding something that says it's consistent with the 10 year capital plan as described in the website and including that link. >> if i can jump in, brian strong with the capital plan program. the current website we have -- and we have a website for the capital plan and it's clear and has a table that shows the bonds coming up in the next 10 years and see in phase one

and phase two and so forth. the other place that we have done and we instituted this i guess in the past five years we have websites specific to these bonds, so there's a specific website to eser and it's sf safety -- earthquake safety .org that has this information in it. talks about both bonds and talks about what we know which is not so much but talks about the 2021 bond so that information is already there and we do try to make sure when we go to talk to folks in the community we're also being clear that this is a program -- >> so let me ask you. the website -- i guess i could look at it right now. does it talk about tax policy surrounding that 10 year plan as well? does is it give a more holistic picture than just the two bullet points about that? >> yeah, i would have to look

at it in more detail to tell you but it's not hard to add that and in the bond report we have a modification and that will be to you tomorrow and we have a section that talks about the impacts and the rate and has a graph showing the debt as we retire -- so in the bond report we think we give a pretty clear picture and speaking to the controller's comment we talk these are under the control of the city and county of san francisco recognizing that yeah we can't control what bart does, or city college, or some of the entities. >> okay. colleagues any further comments? supervisor mar.

>> actually because it's coming up in a hearing tomorrow i just wanted to ask about -- i know within the broader public safety capital plan the retrofit and rebuilding of the jail is another issue that we have to grapple with and i would kind of like to ask on the splitting of the medical examiner and other capital improvements what's the thinking of the other part of the safetiy plan of the plan? >> so while the jail and medical examiner and crime lab are all in the hall of justice they are completely treated separately. their source of funding for the jail is separate from the crime lab and medical examiner and not part of a general obligation bond, so they're unrelated. they're not related aside from the fact they're in the same building and an objective of

the capital plan is it's not a safe building and we need to get one out but whether one moves forward of the other -- they're completely separate. >> and just asking about the safety of the jail as well. i know that's a critical strategic goal is to retrofit and repair the jail but if you could talk about that -- i know we're not discussing that right now, but what -- how important is that for the public safety capital plan as well, the rebuild of the jail? >> oh it's at the top -- we have a lot of top priorities in the capital plan, no doubt and you saw some of the needs numbers here today and it's a separate discussion but just like the other facilities if there's an earthquake those facilities will be unusable. we suspect the

building will be red tagged and we will have to find other places to place inmates, staff and so forth and the same would be true for the medical examiners office and the components of the forensic services division and the police department that are there. >> is there a reason why the jail project wasn't included in this bond? >> well, and again this goes back several years, but in the 1990's there were attempts -- when we were replacing san bruno jail it was placed on the ballot twice and failed so that's part of the consideration here is that it -- we have an obligation to take care of the jail and we know we have that obligation and why we're using the certificate of participation funds for that, but we would have to expend quite a bit of money -- at least four or 5% of the total project

to get through eir certification before the ballot and all of the expense and have it fail we don't think is a good use of the funds. >> thank you. >> thank you. thank you mr. strong so colleagues i think there are a number of options here. let me make a potential recommendation or let me ask our city attorney and controller as well if they have comments about this. i think there are two ways to approach this. that we talk about future bonds specifically or tax policy specifically and go to recess here and figure out language. alternatively i think there is an approach to reference the 10 year plan on the city's website that people can reference and evolving and to your point and evolving about what that is and reference it and i think there's a question of where within the

ballot simplifications proponents argument versus the ordinance. what about if we reference the 10 year capital plan -- i think one san francisco .org and within the ballot simplification committee up front? you had comments earlier -- sorry -- to the budget analyst's original recommendation with the ballot simplification committee. is that your opinion it's inconsistent and better in the proponent's ordinance and the ordinance. my concern like he said is nobody is going to read it. >> yeah, john gibner again. any directive to the committee about what should be in the digest coming from the board is inconsistent with past practice. the board legally has the authority to constrain the ballot simplification committee's digest by adopting

an ordinance but it's not consistent with any history. >> okay. so in terms of articulating this in the proponents argument is there anything that we should do to lock it in and action or something we're going to write together with a proponent as we agree upon later? >> there is nothing to do today. once the board places the measure on the ballot the clerk will agendize the proponents argument, discussion for a meeting. >> colleagues my suggestion is this i would like it to appear as high up as possible and my suggestion is to reference the 10 year capital plan but i don't want to be consistent or -- with the relationship with the ballot simplification committee and my recommendation pass it out and a public statement from me and

perhaps everyone here and as part of the proponents argument and president chiu we will agree on who the proponent is that writes it that we articulate the plan and the future bonds and impacts policy and the like so that is my recommendation, so if there are any comments or a motion to move this item forward with that commentary as well? okay. so we have a motion by supervisor mar to move items one and two forward with recommendation as currently stated, and then again a commitment -- a side commitment from all of us to include the reference to the 10 year capital plan in the argument. supervisor avalos, can we take that without objection? okay. so moved. thank you very much for that discussion. madam clerk do we have any other business in front of us?

>> no mr. chair. >> okay. we are adjourned. thank you. [gavel] >> san francisco parks, golden gate park transforms into one of the greatest music festivals of all time, let's journey, inside, outside land. ♪

>> to this, our 6th year doing the outside lands and our relationship with san francisco, rec and park. and we work very closely with them in the planning and working very closely with the neighborhood organizations and with the city supervisors and with the city organizations and with the local police department, and i think that the outside lands is one of the unique festivals in the world and we have san francisco and we have golden gate park and we have the greatest oasis, in the world. and it has the people hiking up hills and down hills and a lot of people between stages. >> i love that it is all outside, the fresh air is great. >> they have the providers out here that are 72 local restaurants out here.

>> celebrating, and that is really hot. >> 36 local winerries in northern california and 16 brewers out here. >> and you have seen a lot of people out here having a good time and we have no idea, how much work and planning has gone into this to make it the most sustainable festival in the united states. >> and literally, in the force, and yeah, unlike any other concept. and come and follow, and the field make-up the blueprint of the outside land here in golden gate park and in the future events and please visit sffresh parks.org. (music)

>> herb theatre,open rehearsal. listen to the rehearsal. i think it is fun for them, they see our work process, our discussions, the decisions we make. it is good for us. we kind of behavior little bit when we have people in the audience. msk (music) >> we are rehearsing for our most expensive tour; plus two concerts here. we are proud that the growth of the orchestra, and how it is expanded and it is being accepted. my ambition when i came on as music director here --

it was evident we needed absolutely excellent work. also evident to me that i thought everyone should know that. this was my purpose. and after we opened, which was a spectacular opening concert about five weeks after that the economy completely crashed. my plan -- and i'm absolutely dogmatic about my plans --were delayed slightly. i would say that in this very difficult timefor the arts and everyone, especially the arts, it's phenomenal how new century has grown where many unfortunate organizations have stopped. during this period we

got ourselves on national radio presence; we started touring, releasing cds, a dvd. we continue to tour. reputation grows and grows and grows and it has never stopped going forward. msk(music) >> the bay area knows the orchestra. you maybe take things for granted a little bit. that is simply not the case will go on the road. the audiences go crazy. they don't see vitality like this on stage. we are capable of conveying joy when we play. msk(music) >> any performance that we do, that a program, that will be something on the program that you haven't heard before. string orchestra repertoire is pretty small.

i used to be boxed into small repertoire. i kept constantly looking for new repertoire and commissioning new arrangements. if you look at the first of the program you have very early, young vibrant mendelson; fabulous opener and then you have this fabulous concerto written for us in the orchestra. is our gift. msk(music) >> and then you have strauss, extraordinary piece. the most challenging of all. string orchestra work. 23 solo instrument, no violin section, now viola section;

everybody is responsible for their part in this piece. the challenge is something that i felt not only that we could do , absolutely could do, but i wanted to show off. i can't tell you how aware i am of the audience. not only what i hear but their vibes, so strong. i have been doing this for a long time. i kind of make them feel what i want them to feel. there is nobody in that audience or anywhere that is not going to know that particular song by the fourth note.

and that is our encore on tour. by the way. i am proud to play it, we are from san francisco. we are going to play that piece no matter where we are. >> ladies and gentlemen, [inaudible]. >> yes. >> here it comes. good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the january 21st, 2014 meeting of the san francisco municipal transportation agency board of directors and parking authority commission. please read the roll. >> director brinkman? >> present. >> brinkman present. director heinicke is anticipated. director nolan? present. [speaker not understood]. rubke? rib keefe present. director lee will not be here today, but you do have a quorum. >> thank you. >> item 3, announcement of prohibition of sound producing devices during the meeting.