challenging task which is to take the america's cup, the first time that it's going to be viewable from shore rather than a race out to sea and viewable from other floating vessels. to take a new integration of this race and to engage what i would call the most thorough review and analysis of any water side or on water event in the bay area's history and do it in a compressed time frame. the environmental impact report ed a giant step forward in achieving that. we ask do you move this forward. i want to run through some of the specifics of why we think that. as part of the challenge in working with this great group of entities trying to move this forward, we are deaf anyly aided through the -- we were definitely aided through the community. we saw a lot of people coming forward with great ideas.

first and foremost was a lot of the regulatory agencys that devoted their expertise. i wanted to thank the environmental council who helped us improve the project. we look forward to continuing to work with them delivering the promising they made in the venue agreement. a quick overview of the presentation, if we could have this back up, please. i want to start with planning and review process. >> sfgtv. >> some of the project improvements that we were able to review, a few key topic areas, transportation, water quality, air quality and i'll hand it off to mr. benson from the port to talk about how these same efforts also resulted in project improvements for port of san francisco facilities and for events that are happening on their lands. >> so to start were the planning process, obviously sequa is the backbone of our planning process but it's only one of a number of ideas that

are moving forward in a very fast time frame including for nine implementation plans. a number of these address a number of the issues that are called forth and have been discussed today in our discussion. the environmental issues have to do with the water. the zero waste plan talk about how waste management will occur. the people plan that we'll talk in more detail, talking about transportation. having those processes move forward allows us to refine plans quickly and allow some stakeholders in some productive conversations. we have regulatory water control board. the bay conservation and their approvals and many other regulators that we enjoy a relationship with. i wanted to highlight this because there is an ongoing federal environmental review process under the national

policy act. that's going to be the compliance basis for a number of federal actions that will bring these projectses forward include the spectator venues that are proposed for national park service plans. i wanted to highlight something there, a lot of the specificity where chrissy field and the maroon head lands are going to be defined through that process. we're going to use our sequa measure and move through that environmental policy act process and work towards those protection measures. we have special local regulation process that's being managed by the coast guard that will govern traffic. and we have inwater construction that mr. benson will talk in a little bit more detail. >> to start without transportation i want to talk about the people plan. i think we had a great amount of engagement with a lot of different community groups in

san francisco not just on the waterfront but away from the waterfront. what we heard loud and clear is that we needed a strategy that addressed the needs of residents an community thes in san francisco as well as people who are trying to get to the events. we're trying to build a plan in terms of moving people around which can be a very co jested area in the city but does so in an innovative way. so augustments the transit hubs. looking at park and ride services from outside the city. looking at really operationalizing things to do with bikes. we have a flat area in the city along the front. we want to encourage people to use bikes and encourage bike sharing. both m.c.a. has moved forward with these ideas. we think the event is a great opportunity to make that vision a reality for san francisco and

create a new point to point transportation system that has low emissions and enhances what's going to be a great america's cup event. in addition what we've heard is that we need an adopted strategy. we don't need a one size fits all for this very same considerations that we've been hearing today which is we don't want to overresource the day that depunt have that many people involved coming to the waterfront at the ex-tense of not having those resources when people are going to want to be here in that sunshine along the san francisco bay area. we're really part proud of the plan. the agency has worked hard to put it together. we're looking forward to using it to bring a lot of corporation from regional transit agencies including in communicating with potential visitors that want to come to the events to encourage them to use the clipper cards, to get clipper cards preloaded before they come to san francisco so they don't rent a car immediately and think that's

their way around but we want to encourage people to use different type of transports. >> madam clerk, if you could hold the clock. this matter is something we've been concerned about. i know there's been some conversation about neighborhood swat teams to make sure we adapt to what happens day-to-day. could you talk about what your thinking is on that regard. i think we all anticipate there could but a low number or a high number and it's just very difficult to anticipate what's going to happen. >> i'll be happy to address that. >> we've got the beginning seed of that strategy already in the people plan talking about additional parking control officers in the neighborhood so that we don't have people, you know, double parking in driveways or things that we see in other events like fourth of july, fleet week. i think we have the beginnings of a really productive, incident command strategy framework that can bring a lot of the city departments and the

other jurisdictions that are involved like the park service jursdirkses to look at a -- jurisdictions to look at a full range of adaptive or strike teams so that if we see a problem especially in the neighborhood area that are away from the planned spectator areas, we can have a systematic way in making sure we spot those problems early things like t.p.w. street cleanup, park rangers, things like that, we've established those relationships and are able to bring that forward. we'll be happy to bring that forward with a full illustration of the approvals. >> i appreciate that, particularly with my district. thank you. >> moving to water quality, i think a big portion of this slide is going to be covered in a little bit when we talk about the inwater construction mitigation. but i do want to come back to the voters. i think it was unfortunate in

the brochure. this is a really exciting opportunity and it represents one of the legacys that we would like to bring to the america's cup. many events were able to say what their controlled vessels and vehicles were going to do. what we're trying to do here is to influence behavior of vessels that aren't under our control and know where the places to purpose out their vessels are. we're going to incentivize to try to take on green practices but to highlight those things and reinforce the positive things that we want to see out of the america's cup. we have a great amount of support in the event authority who are made part of their vision fir their events a real commitment to get back to the ocean. we want to get back to the bay in the very same way. >> i don't want to move away from that without really

highlighting that, we see that as a legacy. it will not only make the events better but make more evens happen that are good for the bay and the future. as for air quality, i'm going defer to my quality to talk about these mitigations that i want to talk about in particular litigation nal mitigation. we're going to find ways to power into to use clean energy and we're going to use as clean as possible generators where it's not possible. we're looking very closely at air quality. obviously the other mitt gages are equally important. >> park protection is important. i'm not going to belabor the point. i just wanted to be clear that our focus is on maintaining and protecting the natural and cultural resources in the park lands that brought this event here in this sort of a one of a kind area here in san francisco. we see that as key.

we see a need to harmonize these with the marina green as one focus of attention. we also have national park service lands to something that we are preparing in addition to the plan called for a venue agreement that will allow us to really hopefully communicate at the end of this process and the end of the review process. what are the strategies and how we are managing things like this adaptive strategy across the parkland. so that's something that we are looking forward to continue to develop if and when we look forward with the project. so with that i'll hand it off to mr. benson. >> good evening, president chue. brad benson representing port director monique moyer and port staff. we appreciate the opportunity to present tonight. i think i'd like to start my presentation by acknowledging the entire planning team, the

consultant team and the city attorneys and the land use team. kate stacy, mar lena bird that this e.i.r. was an increl credible challenge to get completed in the amount available. it's a full seven volume e.i.r. i can not emphasize enough the professionalism and integrity with which your staff has developed this dock y. i -- this document. i want to thank everybody. it's been missed a little bit, the e.i.r. was focused on the america's cup. this e.i.r. also analyzes the james r. herman cruise terminal at peer 27. it's a long shot project for the port that can handle -- that will be able to handle crew ships of up to 4,000 meeting international standards.

it's going to be a lead silver project with energy efficient windows, natural lithe lighting throughout the terminal. state of the art storm water management techniques including water landscaping. we're very excited about this project to support. they mentioned some of the storm water improvements that are being made in consultation with the regional art quality control board. i think he participated in discussions with the regional board. we with the port were broad to design it, let storm water go into the bay. this project has represented an opportunity both at pier 27 and at pier 3032. and the property at marina green to really create some

sfate of the art systems that will treat stone water without it reaching the bay. on air quality, i know this has been a tomic of conversation. i think i should expect some follow-up questions on the air quality piece. but we're planning to install shortsided power at pier 70. this is an-offset measured to make up for the fact that ports shortpower system is going to be off line for two years. while the sight is used for the america's cup village, the event authority has permitted to purr tchass cleanest available boats with the best engines, certified engines. we look closely at other mitigation measures that we could don't to improve air quality associated with the event. and there's a port of l.a. which we had to struggle with

our air quality in that air bay sin. i'm not going to dwell on this live. >> i do have a question related to pier 70. >> the language that was in response to her district about the use of pier 70 was that if it was financial feasible. and wondering where we're at with that? it wasn't a certainty of that. pier 70 would offset the shutdown at pier 26 and 27. >> thank you for asking about that. the reason that mitigation measure was qualified in the final environmental impact report was because the pier 70

area is under there's a private shipyard operator, b.e.a. systems. they have control of the dry dock. and we needed to get an agreement with bemplet a. -- b.a.e. that they would install that. i'm happy to be able to report tonight that we've reached the terms of a proposed agreement with b.a.e. to install that short power system in the coming months that agreement will be reviewed and approval. we've identified a funding source that would be port funds that would initially fund the short powered program. but b.a.e. will pay a surcharge to repay the port and the p.u.c. will be supplying hydro

power to that facility and would supply an incentive payment. >> we plan as early as next tuesday. we believe that we can respect to you tonight that that project is feasible and will be implemented. >> so does that mean that we could remove the language that says if financial feasible? >> i would defer to the city attorney on that question. >> city attorney? >> kate stays ji in the city attorney's office. supervisor avalos, i'm not sure i understood your question. >> in response to the air district concern about the shutdown of pier 26, 27, shoreside power to the mitigation measure will it turn

on shoreside power at pier 70, it was qualified if it was financial feasible we would per sue that. i'd like to see if it's possible to reboot the language that conditions the imply mentation of shoreside power of pier 70 bi-removing that language. >> supervisor avalos in serfying the e.i.r. in front of you is whether or not the e.i.r. fully analyzes the significant environmental impacts. at the time the board considers approval of the project. and when the board then would don't the reporting program, the board would then have the opportunity to determine the feasibility of that mitigation measure. when the board approves the reporting program, you can find different things on the findings of that mitigation measure.

>> superveist -- supervisor campos? >> thank you. following up on that, mr. benson. and i appreciate supervisor avalos' thinking on this. and definitely i'm happy toer that there's been a change. there's a cost that comes with that. again you heard the earlier discussion about the extent to which, the ability to actually pay for mitigation could impact the environmental and says that we have to do here. and so how much is it going cost the port to deal with this -- with this mitigation -- with this issue? >> this is a big and important question. and it's something sma we've been struggling with to try and paint a big picture. the project itself would be $5.1 million. and that b.a. could not enter

into a contract that would exceed that amount. he could dispose some p.c.b. transformers that need to be replaced. and that's a port responsibility. we would use existing port revenue bonds, debt proceeds. the port commission and the board of supervisors authorize the commission as the initial funding source for the project. that would be subject to a reappropriation by the board of supervisors. we would likely pay that borrowing with a new depsh -- port commission approval. i think that the good thing is that the board is going to enjoy an opportunity to look at this project specifically before we come and ask for the approvals on the america's cup.

so you will have a chance to dig into the financial details of this project. so -- but the -- the general picture is that the port will come up with the money you front and the shipyard investigator will replay overtime by paying a sir jarge on what they pay for power. >> i appreciate that response. and i appreciate the effort and willingness as a port to do that. the problem that i have is that it rates as larger issue of what that dows the port's overall financial stability. and as noted in the appeal, there is reference to a march 2011 correspondence from the ratings in which i understand it they affirmed the port's credit rating as a but they

caution -- they raise some concern about additional costs that may come from this very project, the america's cup and just to quote what is said here. with these projections in place, the event should be credit neutral. however, should the event authority or city be unable to reimburse, the port's quality may be affected. and so that's the concern. do you have a concern about how this additional cost or any other additional costs could impact the port's credit rating? >> i would deferp the answer to that question to either the part of of the exex active director or or -- and they could address the sort of credit picture of the port. we did specifically roort on the cost of this project to the port commission at its december

16th meeting. so we identified for them. the total project cost. we looked at our available credit and recommend council member tatiana kostanian: the port commission that we could undertake this project with the other responsibilities that the port has. and i think that a big part of the budget analysis resthrue is fourth coming on this position and development agreement is going to look at the overall rever view impact on the america's cup on the port. and i think that we are ready to answer those questions. i know that she is here. and this is concern that i have, righting? that to the extent that there are these issues that remain unanswered in terms of the financial imfact that this could have on the port and to the extent that there is information that we're waiting to get from the analysis from

the legislative analysis. the move that i have in moving forward is do we have all the information we need? because again, we talked earlier about the connection between, the ability to be pay for these mitigations and the environmental impact that they may have. and so this kind of wording from a credit agency is, it's -- it's untial. i would like to hear directly from the port director to the chair. whether or not we're addressing one problem but in the process really impacting the different yeas. >> i am beaming because this is my dream come true that we're going to talk about the credit quality of the board of san

francisco. i tend to think that's very esoteric. so i thank you, thank you, thank you for that. you know i would also note that you have asked those questions over the course of this project and in large part many of you have supported the port as we work to knew traize the cost as best as possible. thank you for raising these issues. we were frankly not surprised to see that language because we couldn't really talk to them about the impact at that particular time that have evolved subsequently. we are doing our very best to make sure that our impacts in the near term are credit usual. with respect specifically to

the 70 project. right now what we envision is a process from the 2010 issuance. and that is a neutral impact of where we still have to pay the service set on that. we would like to redistribute those. we have gotten those am torized in a period of time. so the big picture answer to your question, supervisor is i do want to applaud the port, the city and the p.u.c. staff to figure out a way in this particular instance of keeping it neutral to the port. if that answers your question. >> thank you. i think i have about a minute and a half more. i pronal won't finish my slides

but hopefully i will have some follow-up. i just want to return to the presentation and note this slide shows some of the operational air quality impacts of the america es cups in the number of tons that would be admitted in each category. the short powered project has such air quality benefits that it will resolve in actually reducing air quality impacts in three of four criteria pollutant areas. and this is just applying the first two years of the short power project as mitigation. the project will have a useful life of up to 30 years. so it's an ongoing air quality benefit to the district 10 neighborhood. the port is going to be considering on february 14th zero waste policy sociated with large events. i really want to call the department of the environment

staff who helped staff develop this proposed policy. and in sense for large events the ports would be banning the use of plastic bottles for water, plastic bags requiring compostable food service and prohibiting the release of balloons on port property. mike martin mentioned the notice to boaters which is going to have boaters understand the importance of cleaning the hulls of their boats to avoid species spread throughout the bed. we have major access and removal associated with this project. and i might want to return to this because i think it underscores the fact that this event is going to improve environmental conditions on the waterfront and it's going to leave legacy benefits in the form of public access that the public will enjoy for many years to come. with that, i'll conclude. and i also want to call out

diane oshima which is the lead port staff person on the sequa document and did an amazing job. thank you. >> thank you. before i continue i want to just note that we have a stenographer who is transcribing. she needs a five-minute break to change out a break. i want to take a five-minute recess and this come back. i understand there been some questions an proceed to public comment in support of the project. if we coul>> good afternoon.

now like to call the january 24 meeting of the public utilities commission to order. secretary, would you call the roll? [calling roll] i expect vice-president torres to be joining us shortly. >> we will go into closed session at the beginning of the meeting. any public comment on the items listed in closed session? he none, can have a motion? >> so move. a-- seeing