that would be helpful for members of the committee. i am also interested in hearing about -- a lot have folks have talked about the need for affordable housing. one thing we should take into context when deciding what to do with this money is, what the budget scenario looks like for the upcoming year, and second, the pot of money available to the redevelopment agency. i understand there is about $100 million available for affordable housing through the redevelopment agency that would be equally important to consider when allocating this fund. okay, without objection. do we have a motion to continue this item for a week? without objection. thank you. item six please. >> ordinance appropriating $477,732 of certificate of participation series 2011a proceeds to fund disability access improvements in the board of supervisors chambers for the mayor's office on disability in

the general services agency, administrative services, for fy2010-2011 and placing these funds on controller's reserve pending issuance of the certificate of participation. supervisor chu: thank you. we have susan from the office of the mayor -- from the mayor's office of disability. >> we do have a slide show to briefly present item. i will talk about the history and design, dpw director at risk in can talk about the finances and topline. to begin the history, i will just give you a brief history of this project. the key points are, in the city hall renovation of 1998, required access for improvements

throughout the building. this was an item that was not forgot or deemed exempt. it was simply that there was not a design found that was agreeable to historic preservation committee -- community and disability community. between 2004 and 2008, and larger array of boards, commissions, and experts that multiple designs. we got a consensus from the mayor's disability council, city of preservation commission, landmark preservation board, planning commission, an historic preservation commission on the final design that we are presenting to you in september of 2010. the bourse supervisors approved the certificate of appropriateness. the final design involves lowering the podium by three steps so that it is 12 inches

above the floor level and lowering the clerk's podium to the floor level and moving it 14 inches toward the center of the room so that we can have access between the court costs desk and the podium. and then a short ramp could be built to the president's podium on the right-hand side, as this rendering shows you. the design has both disability access and historic preservation benefits. the disability access benefits are that access is provided by a ramp, not a lift. the access is quick and direct because the ramp is short. both the president's podium and clerks area are made permanently accessible. from an historic preservation perspective, the recreates a small footprint within the chamber. it maintains the balance of the room. it preserves all of the historic

material in the president's desk and clark's desk and allows for but does not require the use of the historic function of the president's podium. why the current configuration is not sufficient -- it is not compliant. we have a temper iran that was placed on top of carpeting. we have, in fact, somewhat a risky area for someone in a wheelchair. the bottom line is this was required work when the building was renovated. i will now turn it over to director riskin for the cost. >> good morning. as is laid out in the budget analyst report, the cost for the

work moving forward is about $477,000. it is mostly city-labor. we took a lot of pain in the past few years to minimize the cost to the greatest extent possible. this is an absolute bare bones budget that we are committed to be able to complete the work within the breakdown before you and in that budget analysts report. the schedule for the report is broken into three phases. the first of which we already completed back during the last holiday break of december 2010. we used emergency hazardous materials money that was appropriated by the board and the dpw budget to remove hazardous materials in the work area. the next phase of work would start when you leave for recess

in august and would take roughly 48 working days, which would take us into mid-october, depending on your meeting schedule. during that time is when the bulk of the work would be done, lowering of the clerks podium, moving it forward, lowering of the president's podium, and all the work that needs to happen on the ground to replace the cabling that we will have to move as part of the relocation of the desks. the last phase of the work, the installation of the permit ramp and handrail, we would defer until the next holiday break, december 2011, so as to minimize the amount of time the board would have to spend out of the chamber. the source we are proposing to use for funding of parties to -- or their certificates of appropriation as approved by the

fiscal 10-11 budget. these are put into fund run away improvements. funds for the right away improvements were appropriated as part of the budget. cops were authorized in october of last year in an amount not to exceed $40 million. when cops were authorized in october, we had a hold of $600,000 up accessibility improvements in the chamber. so that $477,000 would come from that $600,000. what we are seeking today from the committee is a recommendation to the more for appropriation authority for that $477,000. i think that is it. happy to answer any questions. supervisor chu: the budget

analyst also has a report. >> madam chair, members of the committee, we point out on page six, general fund revenues would be paid for by debt services. that would be over a 20-year period. the estimated rate would be 6.5%. we also point out, as mr. riskin has stated, the board will be required to move from chambers somewhere between four to eight meetings that the board has. based on our discussions, analysis, the estimated cost for such a move would be betweebetwn

$44,000 for four weeks, about $51,000 for six weeks. therefore, the current -- total cost at the time of the riding of the report is -- that includes the request of 477,000 as well as the low -- relocation costs. i would also comment on the top of page 8 of the report that in 2008 there was a similar project that was considered by the board of supervisors which would have used general fund revenues. that project was not approved by the board. our recommendations on the bottom of page eight, we recommend that you amend the ordinance to appropriate 5 and

$20,000 using cop funds including the subject request of -- for the temporary location. given that the relocation costs are not precise at this point, we recommend also that you place that $51,042 on reserve to go back to the budget and finance committee for initial cost details. finally, we consider approval of the ordinance as amended to be a policy matter of the board of supervisors. supervisor chu: thank you. just a clarification on the budget. looks like there are $131,000 for audiovisual works. this is strictly for repairs to the underground wires, to capture the fact that we are tearing up the floors?

>> that is correct. in the course of tearing up the conduit that the wires currently run through, we will need to replace them. what that will do in the course of replacing them is, that will upgrade them and enable future upgrades to be of -- above ground equipment, such as the terminals on your desk, which allows that to happen. it would not be able to go on for the underground equipment. supervisor chu: this is a city attorney questioned. in terms of the relocation costs, is this an eligible expense for cops? ok. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? >> first and foremost, let me state that i work for the department of the interior. i have all the major

certifications, including the ada. all of your representatives, all of you working through this large budget, ask yourselves, what are the chances of another representative being elected in the city and county of san francisco, coming into this chamber in a wheelchair? having said that, there are about 12 points in this area that need changes, the heavy doors, [inaudible] i mentioned that before. you guys are just going with the

flow. do you think, today, with the dire economic budget that we face, that you can truly expand and over 4 order dollars is the right thing? if you do, that is fine. having known the person before you in the opposition, i do not feel at this time, with what the city is facing, that so much money should be expanded over the year. sincerely, i do not believe that is the right thing to do. thank you very much. supervisor chu: is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is

closed. supervisor mirkarimi? supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. maybe it would be best to refrain the discussion on the history and why we are motivated to do this now. the fact is, when this originally came to us, it was a surprise at $1.1 million, which added to the raised eyebrows. since then, we have reduced costs by 50%. maybe you could give some back trap? >> supervisors, mayor's office on disability. the legal setting the we are thy government, that renovation, if above a minimum threshold

trigger is access improvements. it is part of the americans with disabilities act, part of the california state access codes. as i stated in the introduction, the city hall innovation -- renovation was excellent. it was an historic building that is now considered one of the best examples of providing disability access in historic buildings. access to the president's podium and clark's area is not just a matter of whether there would be a supervisors member who uses a wheelchair. it is any supervisor and any employee of the clerk's office who might need access to the president's podium and clerk

area. we also have visiting dignitaries who had used the chamber to address the public and board. we have several other bodies that use this chamber. to answer a member of the public's question, the likelihood of having someone in a wheelchair is actually pretty high over the life of the building, really over the next 10, 20 years. as medicine improved and our lives extend, we have more and more people that use mobility devices and wheelchair's and more and more integration of the disability community, and more and more of us are taking positions in city government and taking elected positions. so i see it as a fundamental issue. it is also an important symbolic issue for the disability community to have the second most powerful seat in city

government be inaccessible is a strong and that message that we do not want to send to the disability community. i am happy to answer more questions. specifically, the doors are at five and half pounds of pressure. they are on old hinges that we have to adjust. that is not the primary gate where supervisors enter. this really is the last remaining access issue we have in city hall. supervisor chu: susan, just a question for you. there are folks who would argue, why would we spend this money here, as opposed to someone else? i know the city has aggressively been funding our ada improvements across the city. can component work.

the rest is mostly labor, construction labor associated with carpenters, electricians, carpenters, masons doing the hard work putting the facility together. that is something to note. supervisor kim: i had a couple of questions and comments. our costs estimated for the moving now -- of our meetings, the $800,000? >> those costs were based on data provided by mr. lane.

i will defer in terms of the exact back up as to how they got those costs to the city officials. we reported based on our m4 -- information that we obtained. supervisor kim: i think for the public, because i've done questions, one question i have gotten number of times is why, even with construction on going, we could not stop construction -- these are practical questions i get asked. why couldn't we stop it and do details of construction work? >> again, we made inquiries about this in the department. it was testified today that they felt that it could not be done, or would be extremely difficult

to do, without such a move. we were not aware of this until we started working on this item. we then presented -- we ask for the estimated cost, and that is the result of this report. mr. riskin or the department may be able to explain why it is necessary. supervisor kim: people understand it is an obstacle that maybe we could have meetings here, even if the room does not look its best, for the savings. that is what i got asked a couple of times. >> this whole area will be a construction site. it won't be safe for people to be entering and leaving. it won't be so -- won't be functional. desks will be moved aside. the desks would be unavailable. it would not work logistically. it would not be safe. the cost to have meetings

elsewhere will accrue to the city of verdun in place that is not already set up to have meetings, such as in rooms 400 or 416. while it is feasible, there are logistical challenges in terms of fitting me via and city staff. i think city hall management -- the light courts provide a better option, much better for the public, because they are not permanently set up in this room and the other hearing rooms are for the av for sfgtv, there is marginal cost for the setup for each meeting. supervisor kim: thank you very much. i know this has been somewhat of a controversial issue prior to me coming on to the board of supervisors. i am still not convinced this is

a highly prioritized project. i appreciate the commissioners' comments about how members of the public use these and other boards. i want to see the list of unfunded ada projects. it is not that i don't think this is important. i would like this to get funded at a certain point in the road. when i look at the time line, i would prioritize facilities that serve the larger public. if i could get a list of those projects that are public facilities in the city, that would be helpful for me when i make my final decision at the full board. supervisor chu: thank you. the item of is before us. there are a couple of recommendations year, one of which is to adopt the budget analyst recommendation to incorporate the the $51,042 into

the c.o.p.'s. i suggest we do put that on reserve. i am of the mindset of supervisor can, reducing the cost as much as possible. we can see what the plans are before approving it. supervisor mirkarimi: question. i agree with the recommendations. did i hear supervisor kim suggest that maybe we wait for that information so that then you can are arrive at a more effective decision? supervisor chu: would be possible for the department of mayors this ability to provide that information to supervisors? supervisor mirkarimi: or a continuance of one week or two.

no one spoke to the point of timeliness. >> if i may, as i mentioned, the funding for this will be the certificates of participation the board approved in november that were appropriated as part of the fiscal 2010-2011 budget. those bonds are part of this year's capital program for streets, curved ramps, and other improvements. it to scheduled for march. we are close to bumping up against a time when the delay and decision on this would potentially delay the sale of those, which then, in turn, would delay projects. there is somewhat of a timing issue associated with this. supervisor mirkarimi: with the

window closed in february or march? >> give me a minute. let me get an answer. >> this may inform your discussion. if the plan is to increase the amount of the appropriation to incorporate the relocation costs, this item would have to be continued again for additional notice. supervisor mirkarimi: that is self-explanatory. supervisor chu: why don't we have the department of public works tell us if there is a hindrance in terms of your timeline? >> a one-week delay would not be a problem. supervisor mirkarimi: i think it is self implied that we would allow that information from the office of this ability to share with the committee.

supervisor chu: why don't we take first the amendment of adding in the $15,000? there it is, and motion to accept the recommendation to add the additional amount to the item, and also to put that on budget and finance reserved. we have a motion to continue the item for one week. that will be without objection. [gavel] why don't we go to item seven now? >> item 7, ordinance approving a waiver of the competitive bidding and solicitation requirements of chapter 6 and chapter 21 of the administrative code for a contract with environmental science associates for california environmental quality act review of the 34th america's cup event and coordinating in developing some medals for associated federal and state permits. supervisor chu: thank you very much. there has been from supervisor

mirkarimi request to get additional information about the america's cup and the final financial conditions. it is not that item. we plan to hold a meeting later this month on that issue when the analyst has had time to review some of that information. today's peace is really dealing with the environmental study component of it, primarily one of the issues that we are facing on the quick timeline to complete our environmental report and analysis. i believe we have bred to present. -- we have brad to present. >> sure persons, brad benson. thank you for hearing this item. i am co-presenting with edgar lopez from the management bureau at the department of public

works. we will be splitting a brief presentation on this item. as you know, the hosting of the new agreement between the city and county of san francisco and the america's cup event authority, along with san francisco america's cup organizing committee, was signed in december 31. it set forth a number of time lines for being able to deliver the 34th america's cup in 2013. the key date we are here to talk about today is that we are on track to deliver compliance with the california environmental quality act in 2011. the ceqa study work that we envision over the course of the next year is going to look at the impacts associated with all of the visitors who would come

to san francisco to watch the events, and and all of the different locations where they will go to view the race on the bay, as well as construction activities for improving port property that are needed to be undertaken in 2012 in order to be ready for the 2013 event. it is quite a large amount of analysis. it is also a forum for public participation in the design of the event. we will talk about that a little later. the timeline to undertake a secret document like this in san francisco is 18 to 24 months. we are trying to accomplish a lot in about half the time. the proposal before you today would waive the competitive bidding requirements associated with professional services contract in to support the ceqa work.