tv Government Access Programming SFGTV July 22, 2018 10:00am-11:01am PDT
underneath, which is owned by the m.t.a. and operated by a nonprofit, but because of some missteps of the contract, the membrane was poorly installed. so it just continued to erode. and because of that, it's a hazard. it's an electrical hazard in the garage. there's been some mediocre attempts to try to repair it over the last 25 years under willie brown's administration. he allocated some money back then. when thought $1 million would do the trick. increased costs are prohibitive and very much up there. so i could see some of your costs increasing on something that could be remediated decades ago. please be mindful with your responsibility to oversee the contracts and make sure that it gets done correctly this time
around. thank you. >> president buell: thank you. >> clerk: next speaker, please. >> good morning, everyone. my name is alice kothatsu. i'm a long-time resident of japantown. i'm one of the few that's been there for over 30 years and raised my family there. my husband also has a church on bush and laguna. so our family and myself have been very active in the japanese community. the peace plaza is, as you heard, a very big part of our community. it's the hub of our community. when i say that, festivals are enjoyed there. we have a lot of children that come after school, before school, and we have a huge
community of seniors. i go there daily in that area and i observe and i also participate in a lot of events. and i see seniors that are tripping on the cracked tiles. i see children who have to play on railings, because there is no playground, no safe area. we have skateboarders that are on the peace pagoda trying to go up and down the stairs because there is just nothing for them to access. i implore all of you to think about japantown and put it near the top of the list for this bond. thank you so much. >> president buell: thank you. >> clerk: next speaker. >> good afternoon, commissioners. thank you for this opportunity to speak. i'm judy hamiguchi, board of the
japantown task force and san francisco japanese-american citizens league. i'm here to support the bond measure and inclusion of the peace plaza. majority of times i'm in city hall, i'm speaking of behalf of something in japantown. i lived on buchanan and post when redevelopment forced the removal of hundreds of families and businesses. from my window, i watched the demolition of japantown and i was there long enough to watch it be rebuilt. so i saw buchanan mall and japantown center malls being built. my family had a restaurant on buchanan street as well. they were not able to return. so japantown means a lot to me. so i'm always here speaking on their behalf.
the peace plaza, it is the cultural heart of japantown and it's in serious disrepair. and i do feel concerned for the little kids and people who run around at the base of the peace plaza that spend a lot of their summers in that area as well. so our community has continued to be vigilant and hopeful and optimistic over many, many years in preserving one of the three remaining japantowns in the country. and this japantown and the peace plaza is integral to the history and the story of all the generations of japanese who have come through japantown. i'm hoping that we can keep our peace plaza a safe place and beautiful place for generations, as i have three grandchildren that are enjoying that plaza right now. thank you very much. and i just wanted to say that
the community has come together at that peace plaza. we did it in 2017. and we will be doing it again on august 9 this year to have a united for compassion vigil. the last one in 2017 drew 500 people who came in peace and prayer about the muslim ban and this year about immigration and family separation and all that. i thank you, all, very much. >> president buell: thank you. >> clerk: i'm going to call a few more names. i have jacqueline, david, phillip and bonny and then that is it. go ahead. >> hi. i'm jinko tamiguchi. i'm a sophomore in college. i represent the younger generation's voice in this matter. i grew up around japantown. i spent summer camps in peace
plaza, just playing around. and i wouldn't have been able to do that without the support of the people that spoke before me in preserving japantown and i feel like it's my responsibility to pay it forward and also voice my support of this project. thank you. >> president buell: thank you very much. >> clerk: next speaker, please. >> president buell, commissioners, general manager ginsburg, good morning. people know me know i like to wear hats and the hat i'm wearing today is as a member of the san francisco-osaka board of directors. the peace plaza represents an important tie between san francisco and osaka. many of you have seen the coverage of londoners protesting our president. in 1960, tokyo was the scene of picketing, tear gas and riot police of japanese, normally
courteous japanese people, protesting the u.s.-japan treaty and forcing president eisenhower to cancel a state visit from the u.s. to japan, which is a problem when one of your greatest allies is not welcoming. that trip cancellation prompted a call from the white house to mayor george christopher, directing them to improve people-to-people relations between japan and the u.s. and that was really the background. it's the oldest that san francisco has with a sister city. the peace pagoda was a gift of the people of osaka. cord -- the one that developed
the japan center, envisions the peace pagoda as a gift not unlike the statue of liberty. so the statue of liberty was a gift from france to the people of the united states. he wanted the peace pagoda to represent the goodwill of the people of japan to san francisco. so as many of you know, this year marks the 50th anniversary of the peace process in japan center mall. they're not aging well. even though it's 50 years, they're crumbling. many of you have been in the japan center garage. in the rain, it's leaky and it's embarrassing to have buckets in that garage. it's a cultural asset. it's where we honor the dead in our upcoming festival. we have cherry blossom festival.
september 29, our newest festival is the osaka festival. so i want to urge full funding for the renovation of the peace plaza. in that way, we honor and celebrate generosity, optimism and a commitment to a future of peace. thank you. >> president buell: thank you. >> clerk: next speaker, please. >> hello, commissioners. g.m. phil ginsburg. i'm david burke, resident of the buena vista neighborhood. i represent and help lead the buena vista neighborhood association. i'm here with a neighbor and member to let you know how much we support the obligation, general obligation bond, and are committed to doing all we can to get it to the size that meets the needs of the city as park system and its passage.
we're also here to let you know how neighbors understand the importance of buena vista parking included in the bond. as many of you know, our fourth largest park in the city, one of our oldest, and really considered a wonderland, a gem, but also recognize that it has needs, significant investment, in our capital. we work closely with rec and parks over the last five years to raise money to support some small- to medium-sized projects, as well as to complete some updated capital improvement planning. so from those plans, it's recognized that the needs are in the tens of millions. we will continue to work with
tokes and stacy in part of the assessment in supporting that and help towards the planning. and in addition to the bond, we certainly are doing what we can to look for our sources including as an example working at the state level to apply to grants. they're just completed a $280,000 grant application for the forest and we'll continue to work at that, in addition to helping with the bond's passage. appreciate your support. we look forward it keeping you updated as we get further and more detailed assessment. >> president buell: thank you. >> clerk: next speaker. >> speaking for the california plant society. we've been very pleased with the past bond issues that have
helped our parks. we have been working every wednesday ever since the natural resources division was formed in 1997 and actually 10 years before that, we've been working for 30 years out there helping to restore the areas which up until establishment of the natural resources division, there was no working done other than hazard work. maybe picking up dead bodies and wrecked autos. so there was a tremendous backlog of needs and the staff is inadequate to keep up with that and make any progress. but i'm very proud of the staff
because the morale -- they managed to keep up their morale and use their head a lot in setting priorities, which is really, really difficult in this situation. severe erosion problems like mclaren park, anyway, they are using their heads to help create the discipline of restoration, ecological restoration, which is an evolving process. anyway, i hope we get more bond money in 2019. thank you. >> president buell: thank you. >> clerk: next speaker and then one last card and that's jude. >> good afternoon, commissioners. good to see you again, director ginsburg. i'm jackie flynn, phillip randolph institute here in san francisco.
as many of you know, we work with families across the city. over the years, our organization has volunteered to help connect low-income families and at-risk youth to san francisco rec and park activities like the green ages program. we've worked with supervisor cohen's office, build inc., to create a genuine community engagement program that allows our families to provide input on changes happening in the neighborhood. to many families in our neighborhood, every penny counts. oftentimes when folks get worried about hearing about bond measures that may impact their income and gentrify the
neighborhood. it's been providing opportunity for residents to communicate concerns and also express their desires. we encourage all residents to participate in their civic duty and vote in every election. as we've heard from parents, youth and elders that use or want to use open spaces and parks, they've said they need more. the ones they have need updated or improvements. and at the epitome of it all, kids need beautiful spaces to grow. i'm here in support of the 2019 general obligation bond. current plans include india basin waterfront park. those images are developed from the extensive community input and it was a rough, you know, process. of course, folks had a lot to say, but those are a result of true input and the bayview community, as with many others that are potentially impacted by
the 2019 general obligation bond, they've left out of transportation and park improvements. this is a huge opportunity to improve what we refer to as the last frontier. india basin is a large, historic open space that's been neglected and abandon. improvements there are long overdue and i'm in support of clean and beautiful open spaces and parks in bayview. thank you, guys, so much. >> president buell: thank you. >> clerk: next speaker. >> good afternoon, commissioners. good afternoon, phil ginsburg. i'm here from san francisco parks alliance. i'm the area manager for the north. i'm here to speak on behalf of combining the 2019/2025 parks bond. i'm also representing 200 partners that we work with who are also behind expansion of
this bond to serve all of our different partners in various ways that we interact with them. i'm going to talk on behalf of gene friend rec center. it is one of the five that was mentioned today. we fiscally sponsor one of the projects that launches programs there, which is united players, friends of gene friend park. youth feed into this rec center from surrounding neighborhood, betsy carmichael school. there are teenagers that feed into that rec center. there are teenagers that feed into that rec center. i took a trip over there yesterday because i wanted to see how the program was going. and it's -- it was pretty amazing. i walked in and elementary schoolkids were playing red light-green light, but playing it on skateboards. they had helmets on and gloves and knee pads and having a ball. and another section, there were
elementary kids playing kickball. and they were surrounded by about four groups of adults that had their eyes on them. one of the things i also noticed about the center is the pact that it's a diamond in the rough the surrounding area is rough. the rec center is rough. it needs it be improved, but it's a safe space for the community to come together and gather and recreate and play. there's nothing more joyful than watching kids being about the business of truly playing in a safe spot. and this center provides that. it's too small. it needs to grow. it needs to expand to encompass the surrounding area as it grows. and there's also a great need from a lot of the seniors. they come in and they access food and companionship there and connect with other friends so i'm speaking strongly in support of that being one of the
priority projects. i also want to say as a resident of 40 years, i have a different hat on, who lives on portero hill, it's crucial for the bond measure because it's about health and well-being and accessing open green space and recreation. thank you. >> president buell: thank you. >> clerk: i've called all the names of people who have handed in cards. if you want to speak, come on up. >> this is phillip vitale, trust for public land. we're a national organization dedicated to creating parks and preserving open space. we're headquartered in san francisco and have been here 45 years. we've worked with you on many projects, hilltop park, and civic center playgrounds. we work with communities to
understand the needs and that the space reflects what they want. over the years, the 45 years, we've helped -- we've been part of 527 bonds and initiatives and we brought in over $681 billion towards parks, conservation and recreation. we see the importance of this bond. of the five named projects, gene friend and india basin, we worked with them to be sure that it reflects the needs of the community and understand how expensive it is. escalation has been a huge hit. this bond is important to be sure that those projects happen. we're working with buchanan mall and it could benefit from some other funding with this bond. we understand the need in san francisco. san francisco may have reached 100% park score, which is a national ranking, but they're able to focus now on quality and
equity and this bond is really doing that by the selection of these projects. and just a great work of rec and park. so we're really supportive of this and want to see this happen. so the vision that the community has developed for gene friend and india basin and potentially buchanan mall can come to live. thank you. >> president buell: thank you. >> clerk: next speaker. hold up. she was -- yeah. >> i will be short, sweet. good afternoon, commissioners. good evening, phil. i'm here with two hats, three, i guess. one, friends of jackson park. two, executive board for potrero hill boosters club. and long-term resident. i would like to support increasing the size of the bond for the five named projects you saw today but the other projects that phil mentioned, for example, jackson park's project. this is what we would like to say. we fall into many of the categories.
we've been raising money privately. it's been leveraged with some bond money. we will not get bond money unless this bond is passed. we look forward to working with you all to increase the bond. thank you so much. >> president buell: thank you. >> clerk: next speaker. >> good afternoon, commissioners. drew becker, c.e.o. of san francisco parks alliance. apologies for my tardiness, coming from the south bay and i'm suburb-illiterate and not sure how long it takes to get back sometimes. apologies. i want to speak on behalf of the 2019 bond. i'm going to speak in sort of a bigger picture. i represent 230 friends of parks groups in the city and all of them have needs. a parks bond in its current state that has been said is not enough in order to make -- in order to make it one of the top
five best park departments in the country sustain that ranking and we need investment year-round and sustained. and it needs to be -- and things are getting so expensive here and it's something that we can't overlook, that $150 million does not do it anymore. as you hear from all of our partners and all of our friends in the audience, each of these are specific needs and some are massive and the projects are big. and we're not talking $3 million -- i even hate to say this -- but $40 million for this and $40 million for that. it's a huge, huge need, but small projects are just as important as the big projects to our community and something we can't forget. and i want to close saying that parks are not niceties. parks are necessities. they're necessities, especially in a growing city. over the last couple of years, we have grown by 100,000 people in the city of san francisco.
and it's something that, you know, we had about the same amount of open space that we've had basically 10 years ago. where are the people going to recreate? where will they play soccer? we need new facilities and we need to be on-trend and current with our recreation programs. under phil's leadership and your leadership, this department has transformed itself and why want to ever see it fall back to where it was before. it would be a shame to not move this forward and really invest in these amazing assets that we have in the city that not only for our residents, but tourists and probably the most insta-gramable pieces of the city are because of our wonderful parks and rec people that make our gardens beautiful, our scenes amazing and manage and maintain the wonderful properties. i want to thank you, all, for putting money into the rec and park department, capital division, planning division, and all of our partners for coming together and we will be here to
help you push this forward and make this happen. it's a big need. remember, it's not niceties. it's necessities in the city. thanks so much. >> president buell: thank you. >> clerk: is there anyone else that wants to make public comment on this item? richard, come on up. >> thank you. i've been here when there wasn't park bonds. and now that there's another park bond, i usually don't tell people how i will vote, but i will be voting again for park bonds, as i have been throughout the years. i was looking at it different ways, looking at how the city itself, san francisco will do
its own financing and savings from the financings. how does that fit into the overall cost of each unit. so whatever the financing is, there was that person that was here that spoke on that type of issue on some of the other parks. so of fundings, that's fine, but why is it increasing so much? i couldn't help but look at that 40%. that's a big increase. i don't think it's just inflation. is it the public?
is it the public demands on the demands of the commission here to look after the public's interest? so as you do look at this issue of different facilities, i, myself, look over each and every one of the equity units. so when i look at that, i kind of say, it's good that you do this, but why is it dependent upon whether or not the bond passes? so if the bond fails, that means these projects are essentially put on hold. so myself, i would rather be an optimist than pessimistically looking at this. so i, myself, hope there's a better integrated management approach that's more cost efficient. these are just idealisms that i don't think will necessarily reflect very much what changes
do happen. so i do hope that phil ginsburg and his staff, team of people, can try to get it down a little bit, so i don't have to hear it from my own brother. he always saying, screwed this and screwed that. i would rather not talk about my brother, but talk about phil. good luck, phil. thank you. >> president buell: thank you. >> clerk: anyone else that would like to make public comment on this item? being none, public comment is closed. >> president buell: commissioner low. >> vice-president low: tokes, stacy? so there's actually -- the bond has been publicly introduced, hasn't it? >> it has not, no. >> vice-president low: i will read you an article in "the san
francisco chronicle," it was on june 1. "several major projects at san francisco recreation all areas could receive funding earlier than anticipated thanks to some inventive financial manuevering by city officials." this is dated june 1. "on friday, mayor mark farrell is expected to issue a letter to direct city administrator to create a $545 million bond for park projects that could go before san francisco voters on the november, 2019, ballot." so has this already been introduced? >> i will take this, commissioner. the answer is, no. what we had was, then-mayor farrell's desire to work with
the city administrator, capital community and board of supervisors to implement what we're proposing, which is to try to merge the '19 and '25 bonds to one and then we're requesting some cost of living escalation to reflect that the bond has essentially been the same since 2008. >> vice-president low: to make this public announcement, the mayor had some sort of briefing that the bond, what the bond number is, including the bond projects. >> the mayor was aware of what was in the 10-year capital plan for 2019 and what was in the 10-year capital plan for 2025. and what some of the escalation pressures were on the bond. really how much we end up with
>> it's expected to come before the capital planning committee in the fall, but, you know, there's been another big event that's happened since that -- since, you know, then-mayor farrell issued that release or did that story, which is that we have, you know, a new mayor. and you know, ultimately, mayor breed is going to, you know, identify what her sort of capital planning priorities are and how it's all going to work. >> well, my information is this is going before the capital planning committee in sept this year. >> well, $545 million. >> some requests will probably end up before the capital planning committee. the composition of the capital -- we have a new mayor and a new president of the board of supervisors. we've been, you know, working closely with the city administrator, the controller, the members of the capital
planning committee to share with them, you know, frankly, what the likely cost of some of this commission's stated priorities have been, and the fact that they're going to be -- we're going to have some challenges accomplishing them during the current bond allocation. >> but is the current ask $545 million. >> mayor farrell will take $545 million. >> no. did the department ask for $545 million. >> of whom? >> through the general obligation bond? is that the bond that's going before you in september? >> no. what we have said -- >> the chronicle's wrong? >> mayor farrell asked in his letter that he sent to administrator kelly and to me was to work with you to try to get to that level. and that level probably allows us to do more of the things -- it was really based on what the available cap room is in the
bond itself in the ten year capital planning committee than a specific amount for a specific list of projects. that amount allows us to tackle these core projects and then as the slide that stacey bradley discussed, allow us to discuss other community needs that come forward and our programs. when we put together a bond, commissioner, as you know, we have to do -- you know, we focus on -- on data, which -- which, you know, parks and facilities are in the worst condition, we focus on equity, we focus on growth, but we also put together a bond, try to focus on specific projects and programs such as the community opportunity fund or such as natural resources or such as whatever. and so this -- what we have been asking for is some escalation to account for the fact that the amount has
remained very stagnant since 2008. >> so that nothing's going before the capital planning committee in september? >> no. our hope is that we are before the capital planning committee in september -- >> so does the letter go from mayor farrell to the capital planning -- >> i'm not sure i understand the question. >> i'm just trying to figure out where we are in this process because i'm concerned that you have moved forward with this bond without commission approval. >> i couldn't -- quite to the contrary, commissioner. as we always do and always will do, the bond -- the actual bond which comes -- the actual bond proposal which occurs after a community process -- stacey, can you put up that community planning bond, of course it comes to you, and then, it goes to the capital planning committee. this is really a question of what is the -- what would be the size of the bond?
and -- >> powerpoint. >> -- and that's information -- the size of the bond is currently $185 million. that is in the current capital plan that has been approved by the capital planning committee and that will end up -- and that was approved by the board of supervisors and supported by the mayor? >> in 2012. >> no, that's what's slated by 2019 already. >> 2019. >> so the city issues a ten-year tap cal plan, and it updates it every two years. in that plan are already specific -- it gives a time when we go, which is we're next up in 2019, and it gives an amount. and those get updated in all city departments, in all capital programs, they're constantly iterated based on need, based on shifting mayor and board of supervisors and capital planning committee priorities. what has happened -- what typically happened in both the o.a. bond and the 12 bond is we
can and should and will continue to keep this commission up to date on the community planning and on what's happening, and frankly, we welcome the commission's involvement in any community meetings as we put together the bond. but we need to start with -- the amount that we have now, it will be a challenging amount to accomplish some of this commission's stated goals. and so we have been working with the capital planning committee, briefing them, and requesting that our next bond actually be increased so that we can accomplish not just some of these core projects but some of the other community projects which have been articulated. no policy decision has been made. the capital plan is next updated in the fall. mayor farrell issued that story and that story was obviously then mayor farrell offering his support and merging the bonds and offering us some additional cap space, more room, because the city has a policy of only
issuing new debt when old debt expires. >> to $545 million? >> to -- yeah. that's what he asked us to work on, yes. >> but the challenge here is we just had a whole presentation on lessons learned from the 2012 bond, and it seems that a lot of this is premature. you're still have not completed the community engagement on some of these projects. portsmouth square. you had the fifth -- the number five workshop, but still, the committee is debating between the $90 million project versus the $65 million project -- >> commissioner -- >> let me finish before you ask the question. gene friend, there's still projects being considered. that project isn't completed. peace plaza, the first community meeting isn't until
july 31 on community visioning and planning. part of the problem with coming out with the press release which you're quoted in that, $545 million, is is that enough money? do we have a plan that can be costed out and a path towards project readiness which includes getting through ceqa. we -- we're -- all of our projects, we're ceqa challenged -- or a lot of them are ceqa challenged, and can we present to the projects that these bond are intended to cover are project ready? >> commissioner, we are thrilled that mayor farrell -- you know, mayor farrell was there for a period of time, and mayor farrell understood that we're going to have some challenges implementing some of these terrific projects that are already in the works under the current amount. the capital plan, we are currently in the plan for 185
million, 155 for parks, 30 million for the port and waterfront open space. that is what is in the capital plan. you're right. we don't have precise cost estimates, but we know enough to know that we're going to be really challenged at 150, so our proposal has been very consistently to rather than having two bonds, six years apart, that each are inadequate in their own right, so put together a robust bond program to merge them, and then, we are requesting, and it is not -- you know, this is a decision of the mayor, the board president and the capital planning committee and ultimately to be approved by the board of supervisors, whatever escalation is available under the capital planning committee policy, which is that the -- the city's bond program never -- we only issue new debt as old debt expires so that there are new property taxes for san francisco voters. so every now and then, the
controller actually assesses what available cap room is available, right? so -- so there is nothing that is specific and hard. we would certainly take -- we would welcome amount and frankly think that is a healthy amount to accomplish all of these priorities. >> i'm going to yield -- >> but that is a policy decision to be determined. >> i'm going to yield to my fellow commissioners, and this is a discussion-only item, but when i read this article, it came out pretty clear -- it -- my impression was the ask of the city is a $545 million bond. the number's already set, the project's already selected, and this decision was made before commission approval. >> it's -- >> that -- that -- let me just finish my thought. we -- as commissioners, we are not fulfilling our responsibility for commission governance if that's the case. and if you're telling me that's not the case, then, we need to
do a better job of exercising the governance of the projects, the amounts, the entitlement pass for each of these projects that are included in the bond. >> yeah. i'm going to -- i just -- i need to respond to that, commissioner. all of -- the five core projects have all been at this commission and have been discussed on multiple occasions and frankly come from your direction. this commission voted to acquire 900 n.f.'s for the purpose of building a park. this commission has directed us on numerous occasions and accepted a very significant philanthropic gift to begin revitalizing the gene friend rec center. you directed and approved project life cycle which is our facility condition index which measures the seismic safety and the health of our building structures. you've asked for hearings on the japantown peace plaza and
made it clear that was an important project. and what else -- and what else -- you fact that you've asked us deferred maintenance facility condition index. so this is very, very early in the process. we have no idea whether -- what the capital planning committee will do, what the mayor's policy direction will be, what the board of supervisors will ultimately do. we are just beginning, but i think what you heard today is that there's a lot of need in a lot of neighborhoods. i don't -- you know, and, you know, we will -- we feel like we can deliver as much park and as much project as we have funding to do. other than saying that these five projects that we're focused on them for the reasons that have been described, right now, our current bond doesn't fund these five projects. then, what else, such as a jackson square or a buena vista park, there's a lot of desire and a lot of great community
groups that are working on park renovation projects. what else we can do ultimately is dependant on the amount and we can't start really having a legitimate community discussion, community planning process until we have some sense of what the amount is. so that's -- that's the process that's -- that's starting. i think -- i think to the good, you know, the capital planning committee members and the city administrator and some folks understand the dilemma, but as always, there are lots of priorities, whether it's housing or transportation or streets. and we understand that, too, but we've just -- we've got these wonderful opportunities here. these are opportunities that you've directed us to pursue, so we're working on a strategy to try to do that. >> commissioner mcdonald? >> so i apologize because i informed president buell earlier that i needed to leave by 12:30 for a meeting that started at 12:30, so the optics
on this will be -- it'll look like a mic drop. it's not. i need to leave, but i wanted my comments before i left. so please down perceive this as a mic drop moment. when i looked in our packet at the -- what i believe might be the final slide which kind of chronicles the milestones -- so not in your deck, but the deck we had in our packet, we assessed the life cycle in january . we said we would conduct condition assessment january through july. we then said we would report on said findings. we would then engage in a public process around prioritization, we would develop, then, a proposal for bond, and i'll say this feels premature, out of order. i'm not saying these are the
right priorities, the wrong priori priorities. it also feels like we have -- 'cause we're here now, that we have created expectations by even these early declarations. we now have five core programs that if we decide to shift them, and we might, and we might not, we now have five core projects with five core constituent groups who are -- as they've very ably done so, spoke to each one of them. and what i would have preferred, a process whereby we let the life cycle complete its process, and then, a report in the fall where we're then looking at a set of assessments, could establish some commission priorities in partnership with staff and then engage in a public discourse around where the priorities might land that would then
inform a proposal for the bond. and so now i'm concerned that we -- again, the narrative has begun, and i feel, as a commissioner in somewhat of a defensive posture because i either -- i'm exaggerating because i want to make the point. i have to be for or against these five core. i have to defend not only my position, but the position of the department, either speak for or against it, neither of which i am a fan of. i appreciate we're early in the process, more to come, but i did want to register my concern, again, that this feels just a little bit premature, if not wholly -- not out of order, as in wrong, but in terms of the sequencing of things, i would have preferred a different sequence. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner anderson? >> thank you. i was wondering, could we return that 2019 parks bond
planning deck to the screen, please. >> powerpoint. >> i was really appreciative of this, and it's a beautiful thing. and i was wondering, when did this first get drafted? >> this -- this schedule? >> this deck that you presented today. >> this deck has been iterating for months. as we have been putting together information, we've been showing different versions, but this particular version, in two days' time presentation. >> and this version is consistent with an update that we were provided late last year but the previous director. >> okay. so i had asked for it. it wasn't put in our packet. i just wanted to comment on that. i think that it might have been helpful based on some of the comments that i've heard from commissioners lowe and mcdonnell is i don't know if
this was presented to maybe then-mayor mark farrell at the time, but if we had been given a heads up when he came up with his formulation and then a press release, it might have been a good thing if we were given a heads up during the press release. i'm wondering, has this deck been shared with mayor breed's administration? >> commissioners, yes. we always do that before we come to the commission. so we shared it with mayor breed's office yesterday. there is nothing that is new in here, commissioner. as for not having a heads up about a story that was in the paper. >> in june. >> yeah, understood. fair enough. we've had some communication about the policy issue with all of you, obviously. but the actual content of the presentation is quite consistent. and i think i need to reiterate
these are core projects essentially because we've been asked to work on them, and whether by this commission or by the board, we've been asked to work on them. with response to project life cycle and commissioner mcdonnell's point, it's a fair point except he's on the capital planning committee and d.b.i. and some of the other city departments issue seismic planning ratings, and this building has had the highest hazard rating for sometime, and so not even that is new. project life cycle, when we get the sum total of data, and depending on what the budget is, that will continue to influence policy choices. we are happy to come back. you've asked us to focus on equity and health and life safety, so we will obviously continue to work with the commission and the neighborhood groups and, you know, the board and certainly the mayor on everybody's priorities, but these were -- these projects
that are in this list have all been sort of on the radar for sometimes. what the ultimate list is, i don't know. >> okay. that helps me because -- >> yeah. >> -- one of my questions is, and i realize you may not have an answer today because i'm a little bit newer than some of the other commissioners, i wasn't sure how these pipeline projects then become a core project. so it was kind of interesting to me how did these five rise to the top. i know we've talked about some of them and i know that some of them have more urgent needs than others, but it's not clear to me how they made it into the list and how they made it into the newspaper. >> let's go back to india basin. you approved the acquisition of india basin of 900 innis back in 2014, and there has been planning -- public planning, and it's come before this commission on numerous occasions about the india basin project on many times, it will -- it was here today, it
will come back next week for e.i.r., so there's been, like, 30 or 40 community meetings. some of you have been at them, on india basin. the mayor and supervisor cohen chaired the india basin task force. we've received grants that this commission has accepted on india basin, so this has been in the planning hopper for sometime. same with gene friend, portsmouth, same with japantown. the condition of the plaza does present some challenges. this commission, commissioner lowe, i think, has specifically asked us to work on japantown. mayor breed has asked us to work on japantown. so we're moving forward with that planning, and keys are for how many years, keizer has had
the worst rating. >> i just don't understand how the five got picked. like, i'm curious, for example, what would be number six and seven? what's coming up next. >> so this gets us to the point, this is the beginning of a process, right? so these are the ones that have already had some advanced planning for the reasons that we've described, but as we move into our community bond planning process, it will ultimately depend on what the capacity is to do the work, and then, using a mix of -- as stacey noted, of data, both qualitative -- quantitative data and qualitative interest, values, desires, we culled together a list through a community process, through the input of, you know, just about everybody, and then, we come back here, and it doesn't go forward until this commission approves it. it will also have the input and recommendations of prsc.
from here, it goes to the capital planning committee, and ultimately it goes to the board of supervisors before anything gets put on the ballot. so this is the beginning, but the -- the -- what is different is that we're struggling with our current allocation and how we accomplish some of these key priorities that both this commission, the board, and mayoral administrations have actually asked us to work on. and many of these are -- are well down the road of community planning. they're not done. concept designs come back here, cost estimations, r.f.p.'s. you know, none of this is done, and it is not a certainty that any of those projects end up in the bond yet, but these are the ones that are, for a variety of both qualitative, quantitative planning reasons, are further
along. >> okay. if we do, down the road, accomplish this desire of combining or merging -- i think it was said a 2019 bond and a 2025 bond, is that right? >> right. >> does that mean we're pretty much limited to addressing those five core projects during that ten-year period? >> i -- i don't believe so. >> i'm sorry. it wasn't ten years, but close to ten-year period. >> yeah. i don't believe so. i think we still sort of need to go through a deliberate sort of analysis of those costs first, but we'll come back to you as to those findings before we can make a determination as to what makes that -- >> i would say that even merging those bonds, the community will have some tough choices given the cost of the project and the types of projects. the '12 pobond and the '08 bon,
we were lucky in knocking off some of the smaller projects when construction wasn't so expensive. some of these portsmouth, gene friend, plaza square, these are big projects. so you know where we are in the process is simply and only trying to kind of work with those responsible decisions to try to have as big of a bond as possible. >> okay. i'm going to stop for a while. i see my president coming at me there. >> commissioner mazzola, thank you. >> in listening to all of this, it seems to me that the gist of this discussion is a dropoff of information somewhere along the line, whether it's the mayor's office or your office, phil, or a combination of both, but there was a dropoff of information. and something of this magnitude, maybe we should have
known more about it is what is coming out from this discussion. and this -- to read an article in the paper, you know, i didn't get any calls or questions, but maybe some of my commissioners did, but it could be embarrassing or frustrating to not have answers when an article like this comes out, and they question us about it, and we say i don't know. so i think that needs to be understood, and why that happened with mayor farrell, i don't know. is it a good thing that they're trying to give you more money? yet, but we need to figure out a better line of communication to get it to us before it goes out is my opinion. >> very good. >> commissioner bonilla? >> i think the problem that has arisen from the article that came out in the newspaper and from the scheduling of this
time with very specific information is getting the sense that it is a fa fait accompli. and actually, knowing what i know about the different planning processes that are going on within -- within these different communities and the community engagement, based on that -- those observations, i, myself, believe that we are just beginning the process, that we are just beginning to engage the communities because there are, as commissioner low
mentioned, there's still a robust process that has to take place. i think what's really confusing or i think muddying the waters is that there are already five -- these five are already in the works. that may be a good thing, but as long as i've been on the commission, and that's 14 years, we have been discussing these projects for a long, long time. i personally have been involved in going to numerous visits to the peace plaza, to portsmouth square,