tv [untitled] January 19, 2012 9:01am-9:31am PST
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, but this is as part of the
budget. that does not list any projects regarding the playing field for the board of supervisors review. a listing all of the bond sale projects in the report, this is because the playing fields are not ceqa-approved. the proposition bond specifically requires that all funded projects be ceq-approved. the money required for the playing fields are not approved and should not be approved by the law should not be funded by the bond sale. -- the money required for the playing fields are not approved and should not be funded by the bond sale. it is clear that the port respect these requirements as they postponed the sale of $10 million because they realize the
project is included in the same bond does not have ceq compliance. please postpone to the bond to 8 future bond sale. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good morning, supervisors. i am addressing the 2008 parked bond funding and request that it be held out into the next sale. what is this project and why are we so concerned about it? so many people in san francisco do not know about this project which involves the western end of golden gate park, the moving over 7 acres of living meadow and replacing it with artificial turf. this has been described as
installing a 7 acre parking lot in the middle of prime habitat. the draft eir was deeply flawed. there were only 65 people testified to this and i recommend people going to sfgtv on demand and hearing the testimony. we went through two categorical exemptions. we tried and tried to get this changed. it was approved anyway. the only reason that we have a eir is because we filed an appeal. i'm telling you this because i want you to understand that the department has been adamant about this project. we would love to work the department. we have a compromise alternative that we think will make everyone happy and that is what we want to see happen. we're willing to pursue this as far as we have to pursue it to protect golden gate park.
the construction will not even start until the summer of 2013. i suggest that you put off selling the bonds. you can still sell these at the next sale. at this point, we hope to have a compromise that everyone can get on and. >> i am a taxpayer and a homeowner in san francisco. i am one of those shoe bleeding heart liberals that are very fiscally conservative. i'm really concerned on two issues. i am hearing for the first time that 8.4 million is going to be sold for playgrounds or play fields that have not been fully identified. i don't know where the money is
going. you have made a legal compliance. this is sketchy, this is full of ifs, ands, buts, what-ifs. we don't of the playground, we don't know the compliance of all. this really needs to be put off the agenda today and put back on when you have specific information that you can give to me as a taxpayer, fiscally conservative, about exactly where this money is going and is it legal for you to do this or are you participating in something that you promised me and you were taking back the promise? i urge you to take this bond money off of the agenda now. i think it is important to be
honest and fair to people like me who will be paying for these bonds for years to come. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> i have read all of the cards that have been submitted. are there any other members of the public that wish to speak on these items? >> good morning, supervisors. i'm a member of the 2010, 2010 grand jury. in my service on the jury, we examine several functions of the office. i became familiar with the general bond oversight committee. today i wish to call your attention to page 19. you'll notice that $2,112 has
been allocated to the comptroller internal audit. the description of this cost is for city services. 0.1% for the general bond oversight on it. first, 200018 $412 does not represent 1% of the park bond to be sold. that amount would approximately be $75,900. second, the oversight committee has its own fund and the fees it collects from bonds and this money must not be appropriate to the city service auditor. the the minister of code section 5.31 provide clear direction on this and its state. to the extent permitted by law, each measure shall provide one- tenth of 1 percent of the gross proceeds from the proposed bonds to be deposited in a fund established by the comptroller's
office and appropriated by the board at the direction of the committee. this is to cover the cost of the committee. the city services audit is suspended from receiving appropriations based on bond proceeds. attendance of the city charter that rate this unit, states that the mayor and the board of supervisors shall be required to budget an amount equal to at least 2/10 of 1% of the city's overall budget. this is apportioned by the fund and is putting the bond-related debt. therefore, 143,403 is erroneously appropriate to the city services on it and should be reallocated to pay for park projects. the money should be correctly up reported to the funds established for the oversight committee as the law prescribes. thank you forthank you for makie
corrections. supervisor chu: thank you. any others who wish to comment? a seat none, public comment is closed. a quick question to the comptroller's office with regards to the last speaker. are the numbers accurate? >> i do not have the calculations. i would like to get back to the committee afterwards. supervisor chu: ok, do you think you might be able to provide the information to the full board before it gets to us on tuesday? >> yes, absolutely. supervisor chu: thank you. colleagues, we have heard public comment and heard from the departments. are there further comments or questions? supervisor avalos? supervisor avalos: thank you, a chair. i appreciate the public comment. a question for the mta on the discussion of around complete
streets and how we are ensuring that we are incorporating our policies at around complete streets into the road resurfacing/repaving bond? >> i would ask that john thomas, the project manager for the bond, start with that. he may be able to get the best context. >> thank you. project manager for the road safety improvement fund. supervisor avalos: there was a member of the public, actually the bart director, talked about how we are moving forward on issuing the bonds and appropriating, and we're not quite clear how we're integrating on complete streets in better streets program into the bond. what steps can we make to ensure that we're doing that? >> there are several facets to the bond program, one of which is the capital renovation
portion, and that is our pavement segment of the bond proceeds. overall, we will spend about $145 million over the next three or four years doing pavement renovation. we have $50 million with in this bond for streetscape improvements, which includes pedestrian safety improvements, bicycle safety, and bicycle routes. that process has begun. obviously, we just had the body approved in november, but we have reached out already to the bike coalition and walk san francisco. the process will continue over the next three to six months as we perform some outreach and develop criteria for both the streetscape and for the ped and bike safety improvements geared to the extent that is possible, those will be integrated with pavement projects and that is feasible. to meet the constraints of the bond, we have an obligation to move forward with paving
projects as soon as possible. we have allied with in the bond those streets that are intended to be paved with in the first year. so it is likely we will move forward with those as their listed so that we can move forward with raising our pavement condition index to the 70 score we're ultimately targeting here. supervisor avalos: we can proceed with understanding that there will be a dynamic process, making sure we hear from committee members to insure that our policies are and complete streets are being carried out as the bard is being carried out, so we can have an off line conversation about that. i want to make sure we're working with our committee partners as well as our park directors to ensure we are fulfilling obligations in the city. >> absolutely. supervisor chu: thank you, supervisor avalos. if there are no other questions, then this item is before us,
colleagues. supervisor avalos? supervisor avalos: just a question about the park bond and our concerns around, you know, the play builds program environmental review going on, and we do not have a clear indication of all the different parts of the play play fields program. we had a recommendation from the public around about appropriating the money. i feel it makes sense to appropriate the money, because the appropriations for play fields as part of a larger appropriation for the rec and park departments. i feel comfortable with moving the forward, but i feel we should proceed with caution about what is still left at the table in terms of the program and how the money will be spent on our different play fields in
san francisco. it seems like a bolt of the money will be going towards minnie lovie rec center and the beach chalet soccer fields. it is important to see if there are other possibilities that funding around san francisco as well. since we do not have a real line-item appropriations or line-item sense of how that $7.7 million will be appropriated between those two projects as well as potentially other projects in the city, i feel most comfortable putting part of that money on research, pending a report from the rec and park department about how the money will be spent and pending any environmental review process happening around those play fields. if we get a real sense of how that money will be allocated, we can make that decision as a committee to release those funds. that is my recommendation.
part of it goes into reserve. i am trying to figure out how much should. i was told that some of the funds are going to be needed for doing environmental review, and i am not sure the amount. i think i heard $600,000 or $700,000. that could be part of the portion that i may allow to go forward or feel most comfortable with support from colleagues. wondering what your thoughts are. >supervisor chu: thank you. i will ask the department to respond to this question. >> i will start with your question, and i would like to meet two other points. in terms of the appropriate amount of funds to place on reserve, i, myself, am unclear about that at this moment. while i know it will take about $700,000 to complete the environmental review process, we're not sure yet what the split between philanthropic partners and ourselves would be
in the funding design and the advent -- even for construction work. to place a reserve, i think at this point in time, i think it will impact those conversations and in a potentially negative way to the passage of project. and we need to be able to freely decide what information we do not have at this moment on how much money we will need to put on the city side into the completion of the design of these products, assuming that environmental review goes forward. because we do need to spend some of that money to complete and refighting, i think, the projects. supervisor avalos: actually, i understand your concern, but we're making a decision about providing a lump sum for the rec and park department to go into negotiations. i feel it is probably best that you can go into negotiations about what portion of rec and
park bank well paid for the play fields and for philanthropic partners, you go into negotiations knowing you have this full amount of money. but you come back to us knowing what you're going to need, you ask for the from the committee, and we will make a decision on releasing that at that time. but your overall parameters of working with them in terms of what you have available for play fields is what is here in the bond. and you have that discretion to work with in terms of how you are going to do your analysis, negotiations, how you're going to work with what mix of funds you're going to use to cover these play fields. when you come back to us -- that is my recommendation, you come back to us and sit with your actual costs are going to become and we will make a determination -- ok, that is great, and we can approve the funds to go out at that time. if that is what i feel most comfortable doing. >> i am sorry.
i think they misunderstood. i thought you're asking about what additional funds on top of environmental review would need to be available to the department in the appropriate amount of reserves. if you're working position is we should have the amount of funds that have already been appropriated by the board -- already allocated for environmental review, then we can easily come up with that figure with the controller's office. that has been well-documented, and i think it is around $700,000, but i will need to check. my concern here is that it seems to me we're taking a pretty separate direction from how we have implemented every other program in the rest of the 2008 clean and safe parks' bond. it is a direction that i think, while it might seem like an animal step to come back to the board of supervisors to to just request the release of reserve, we have been under significant pressure and scrutiny to continue to deliver these projects in a timely fashion, and we're being watched on a
that by the broader public and by the general obligation bond oversight committee, who is asking me for a memo on delays right now and the delay in spending funds. so this is creating an additional, and i think somewhat unnecessary, administrative step that, in contrast to the other programs that have been successfully delivered or in process, that is going to result in delays to the program. supervisor avalos: i hear your concern, but it is actually a process that we set up multiple times in any given year about how we appropriate funds. even much larger amounts of money. that is how we actually release funds from this committee or have done so based on reporting about how those funds would be allocated and project be carried forward. i feel it ipr