that the city and this event has to be in full ceqa compliance. there can be no mess up in timeline. there can be no mess up in teaching the process so the net effect is san francisco and america's cup is in full compliance. it is a big role of the dice, one that i co-sponsored and am willing to make happen, but i want to hear more about the fact that we're not just gambling on this idea that san francisco along the way, because we sold- sourced, somehow we decide we have to cut corners. i want to hear more on that. >> sure. i think that our recommendation to the committee -- and i thank you for your cosponsor ship on this ordinance -- is that getting the city ceqa and permiting team on board now, we will be able to do robust analysis that i know that you and others have been looking to make sure that the city is thinking through all of the potential impacts. as edgar mentioned, we did go through this competitive selection process. we found esa of the respondents the most qualified because they have done analysis of the waterfront land use plan. t

standards would be and then holding to the standard that will be completely ceqa compliant. i think this is worth pursuing on this end but it doubles the responsibility on the back. president chiu: thank you, colleagues. any additional discussion? could we take a roll call vote on this item? madam clerk: on item four [roll call vote taken] there are 11 aye's. president chiu: this ordinance is passed on the first reading. madam clerk: item five is an ordinance authorizing the office of economic and workforce development to accept a grant of approximately $238,000 from the department of labor employment and training administration to fund the green jobs workforce development training project. president chiu: can we do the same call? this ordinance is passed on the same reading. item 6? angela merkel resolution approving and authorizing the agreement for the sale and conveyance of property rights and fee interest for two nonexclusive easements and two temporary easements under the jurisdiction of the san francisco public utilities commission to the california department of tran

starting off on the ceqas. they require public agencies to identify environmental impacts to propose actions. identifies ways to avoid and reduce environmental damage. it has -- the public process. who may file is any person or entity that has appeal or prelim tear negative deck to the planning commission that has been upheld by the commission for any person or entity that can provide proof that the planning department or other department has issued an exemption. the following deadline currently with interim procedures, we don't have anything specific in the municipal codes on ceqas. so there's no deadline on ceqa appeals, and what happens is we do submit all of the information over to the city attorney's office for timely filing. which takes about three days for them to get back to us so that we can notify the appellant on whether or not their appeal is timely. there's a $500 fee to the planning department for section 31.22 or administration code. we schedule those within 35 days of the date it was filed. the

are not historic resources under ceqa. nowhere did the secretaries standards require reconstruction of something that is missing, like the front yard, or something altered, like the house. president chiu: next speaker. >> i am the project architect and structural engineer. our firm was retained almost four years ago after the other architects tried to find a design to replace the blight you now see at 1269 lombard street. we have design new buildings on contextualize sensitive sites -- we have designed new buildings on contextually sensitive sites. we made the additions to the historic building at 1 kearney. this was an equally difficult puzzle to solve. our goal was to bounce the objectives of all stakeholders. we were sensitive to the historic nature of the site, working closely with mr. knapp and city preservation. i am here primarily to answer any questions you might have. the building is an environmental challenge, due to the existing concrete retaining walls. our new design lands right on top of these walls, and no s

the ceqa analysis and public participation process have not yet begun for pier 27. >> correct. supervisor kim: all of this is going to be done blended together. there is no separate processes. >> correct. supervisor kim: ok. thank you very much. supervisor chu: thank you. why don't we open this up for public comment? are there members of the public who wish to comment on item number 7? >> thank you. i'm dennis mackenzie. i am in support of this waiver. the environment is pretty critical at this stage. i provided this body with my proposal for a number of years. i want to take this opportunity to share that this is a good example of why my proposal for the marine science academy as a part of this project -- this entire entitlement process is an inherent educational opportunity for kids. i teach high schoolers and have a consulting practice. kids in the schools have a separate reality in classrooms. their understanding of the real world and what the classroom work means to them is very abstract. i am asking this body once again to consider working together to create a marine scie

group tone sure that it does receive the proper level of review under ceqa. president o'brien: ok, that's helpful, thank you. commissioner mar: commissioner walker. commissioner walker: thank you. thank you for coming and starting this discussion. we as the building commission have been discussing our own process, especially those issues that involved planning. one of the things, especially from small business that we have heard is that it would be helpful when someone applies for permits to know how long the process is going to take. so we have a little bit more to say about it as it relates to our department, but once we let go of the project and the application and it goes to planning, there is no way to know. so when you come back and discuss this, i think that would be an important point to try and encapsulate in your presentation how long it might take, how long people might expect, especially when small businesses are opening for the first time, it may help them decide whether to do it in one location or another if they know the process is going to tak

when ceqa is divulging what is on this on the review, so much is more at stake. i want to make sure we'll load up on that expectation in this conversation now. >> we hear that message loud and clear. we appreciate being able to work with you during the drafting of the hosting venue agreement on coming up with additional specific plans that are going to ride along with ceqa, the transportation plan, how are we going to handle up to 500,000 people, getting them to and from the locations they are going to? it can't be cars. the embarcadero does not have the capacity to move people by that load. it will have to be pedestrian activity and transit service. the waste management plan that you called for in the agreement is going to get to, how was the city trying to meet its natural diversion goals. when people are congregating in sensitive areas like the parks, how are we not impacting habitat? we do have a good way of handling the waste that crowds would generate through those activities. we understand the expectations are high. if we are seeking flexibility now on the

to convey any historical significance and therefore is not historic resources for the purposes of ceqa. in order to qualify for the historic resource as defined by the california register, a building must have integrity and a series of concrete retaining walls this no longer possesses the following aspects of integrity -- design, workmanship, setting, materials, to be assisted with the original building. the department does agree with the palette that the subject property is located in a historic district. the district was prepared in 2006 and adopted by the stark preservation commission in 2009. as discussed, the proposed project a demolished existing of historic, nanking to begin building and construct two new buildings, one of the front, one at the rear, is compatible with an appropriate to the historic district. based upon the adopted statement, the significance for this district is the residential architecture which is represented by a wide range of times, structural types that predate the earthquake. the proposed project as designed would have a building at the front and at the r

the vote is to include the ceqa requirements. and then we will reflect a change in the underlying contract. and finally, the minimum annual guarantee has been increased. on the amendment, without objection? now on the entire piece of legislation as amended. i appreciate the conmentments made by committee members. we have read it very intensely. i think a lot of the questions and issues were raised. overall, taking a look at the financial aspect of this, i think the components are solid. we will be seeing contributions. and we would be potentially avoiding a $1.7 million replacement cost. i think it is a very important goal to speak to. the recreation and parks department has had a long struggle with making sure that the capital improvements are maintained. the other departments that have been maintained over time, i am thankful that the emphasis on capital is there in the contract negotiation. the other thing in regard to the process, the issue about the annual guaranteed given the fact that there was an objection that was provid

ceqa is meant to be for facilities. we certainly research this completely to see whether there was a need for any kind of environmental review, and there is not. there is no facility being built. existing infrastructure is in place. the rail is already there. rail lines are already running. we're just utilizing one system instead of another. we did the analysis of the environmental benefits of rail and trucks. from that perspective, we did our due diligence on the environmental impact of the choice. >> -- supervisor mirkarimi: there is no rail infrastructure that is to be built at all? >> there is a spur at the landfill. supervisor mirkarimi: does that not qualify as potentially being a candidate for environmental review? >> they are going through the permitting process for that. supervisor mirkarimi: ok. if they go through the permitting process for that, does that also mean -- what, based on ceqa review for or permitting process that speaks to environmental analysis? >> i missed the past couple of questions, but did r

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. it would allow the city through the port to enter into a contract with esa, environmental sciences associates, to conduct this work. the reasons for that request to raid the competitive bidding requirement do have to do wi

the ceqa process will begin in earnest. there is no guarantee with ceqa, but we are about as close as we can with some certainty to get that done. >> just for clarification, the least versus ownership? >> it is an issue on see what 30 -- seawall lot 30. we will be working with what the board provided us. we believe confidently that we can get that approved through the state agencies. we think it was an important thing for the event authority and advantageous from the city's perspective. >> mr. alliellison, there is a t of attention between city negotiators and your group. just wondering how you can work past that to make sure that this is a successful event? >> we are very excited about being in san francisco. we have a high degree of confidence we can get the village done by 2013. the relationship and morale with our team is high and we are excited to be here. our relationship with the city is positive. this is the beginning, not an end. we have to work closely together with a number of people in the city. i think both sid

. >> ceqa -- there is no facility being built. no facility, nothing to be reviewed. supervisor mirkarimi: then you might want to qualify your answer a little bit more. as i read, there is a question of organic and inorganic, how that might be part of the parcel that is moving forward, but i am still thinking that when we are transporting, hauling, delivering, that at some point, i would think that ceqa would have kicked in, and i want to get in the record what that does not speak to our transportation, because, most often, ceqa does apply to these kinds of conditions. >> i can answer a previous question you had. supervisor mirkarimi: police. >> the transfer station that -- please. >> the transfer station that is operated, they have a 5,000 ton capacity, so assuming there was a spike in garbage, that would be part of what stays in the pit until it is loaded and transferred, so there will not be that much variance in the rail cars, because the pit has enough capacity to deal with spikes overtime. supervisor mirkarimi: i appreciate that answer, but since we have you up