tv [untitled] October 6, 2011 3:30pm-4:00pm PDT
terms of all hands on deck and marsh marshalling all the resources to have the environmental review done on a very aggressive schedule in a way that shows community engagement. those that are on deck is really a testimony to the city family's dedication to the effort. it is that type of performance that gives our donors the confidence it will be done in the san francisco way. >> [inaudible]. >> mike martin with the city office of economic and workforce development. good morning, thanks for coming in today. i want to follow up sort of the prior two speakers by saying a lot of our focus today was on taking a step outside of any specific step forward or announcement to give a preview
of what is coming this fall. from our perspective i think we've started to see the pictures of what this event is coming together on the water and i think it really sort of symbolizes what we are feeling at the city in terms of putting together the rest of the want picture. when we say the rest of the event picture i think it goes beyond what is happening on the day of the events. but it is things like how we are going to approach the economic benefits, secure those for san francisco in a way people really wanted to see them. how aware going to move ahead involving the youth of san francisco and bay area. how are we going to approach putting on an event of this scale in a way that is in the san francisco way. we have heard clearly over the course of this year what it means to sort of bring this event to this very beautiful natural resource in san francisco bay. so, i think that from my perspective what we have been coordinating at the city is a
lot of environmental review processes in the development of the implementation plan around the event. i want to give some sense of the process going forward. on our website we have had an inter te interactive p.d.f. file of summaries of the implementation plans that are called for under the agreement. there are 11 of them. they range from things to do with waste management and management of the park events but also things like water and air traffic plan, youth involvement and workforce development plan. what we will see going forward the tphebnext i would say eights is although most of the plans are not due until after the ceqa process we will try to give them visibility ahead so people can understand as this picture comes together what is it looking like in more dill. i think these plans will -- detail. i think they will have more to do with performance strategies of how we will deliver on things like addressing the park land in
a way that safeguards those resources, that deals with the challenges of water traffic for the events. i think we have had a great set of dialogues with the national park service for their land and coast guard. this week on that website will be posted what is a very sort of high-level time line of the types of public communication and processes that will come forward the next several months, which would include, i think, the backbone of this year being the environmental review process. we issued a draft environmental impact report in july and received over 1,300 comments to that e.i.r., 2,000-plus pages of commentary. we appreciate that and we have been working hard to develop our comprehensive responses and integrate those responses into the implementation plans as
well. that comment and response period will be published the full compendium of responses in november and that will be sort of the next step in the environmental review process. following that, the publication of that document the planning commission would have a hearing to review those responses, to hear public comment and to decide whether or not to certify the e.i.r. as complete. surrounding that sort of srae process oriented time line we are working hard to develop not only the direct picture of how we will put on the events but how well bring the benefit to these events to san francisco as i described earlier. i think kerry hit it on the head the things that resonate about making this a san francisco event have to do with really focusing on things like
environmental sustainability, focussing on where we can integrating potential legacy benefits for environmental issues such as finding ways to use the spotlight of the events to improve practices around the bay in terms of how people manage marinas and boat yards and use their boats in the bay. making sure there are ways to involve the youth of san francisco in terms of intern ship, education, other ways to get people on the water with sailing. then also i think to do our best to capitalize not only on the direct economic impact of the teams and event authority but indirect impacts. how we make sort of heightened benefits of having it in san francisco, bringing spectators to see what a great place this is to come. i think we saw last weekend a picture postcard weekend where you could imagine someone coming to san francisco and having a
fantastic experience in experience the events but also experience the neighborhoods of san francisco, the different things that make the city great. i think that is the picture aware going to be working hard this autumn to pull together. along with the hard work of our partners at the event authority and cup organizing committee we will put together that mosaic of what it is to bring america's cup events in 2012 and 2013. one last, i guess, strategic note is by seeing these events -- and i think the two questions about how many people have come to them, i think that is helping us form our initial strategies for the 2012 events. and i think that has always been part of our strategy to use the 2012 events as really a testing ground for a lot of the things such as the transportation strategies and people plan or the management of the parks. i think that we want to learn
from day to day and week to week how that is to do this size of event so it comes out without a hitch in 2013 so aware excited about not only having the opportunity in 2012 to see this new concept of america's cup racing but to see what it means to have this type of want in san francisco and what we can do to make it better in 2013. i guess the last piece is coming forward over the course of the fall will be more defined plans as to the actual real estate aspects of the transaction, to do with where the venues will be, spectator venues. i think we heard plenty of comments on those fronts so we are working to develop the appropriate set of answers to make that the whole picture come together. >> do you have an idea how much has been spent on this so far? >> how much the city has spent?
under this year's budget there was an proposition of $12 million to match the incoming $12 million. we have spent i would say approximately $3 million to $4 million thus far. that is from a wide range of activities including staff time and environmental review and another consultant related to that. that is where we're at this point. we foresee that over the course of the full set of planning activities we would likely use th that, use a larger amount of that in this fiscal year but it is not clear until we have gone through those processes further. >> you said you had $12 million to match kerry's? >> it is not a match. >> it is eventually adjust set. >> exactly. >> [inaudible] continue with the event but use public funds? >> the decision is to terminate
and that decision with carry with it a decision of how we are going to proceed if there is more expected fund-raising or more time is needed. i don't want to necessarily speculate -- >> it is not necessarily the public funds are going tb us --o be used unless there is another decision to be made. >> the defeinite understanding s the $12 million would be the source of the funds. >> you said you have spent $3 it r million to $4 million and you will spend $20 million? >> it is 12, not 20. i don't expect to spend $12 million. i think we will be within that amount for the planning process we are looking at at this point. >> you had a couple of weeks to review the public comments that came in to the draft e.i.r. i wonder what your take is. is it doable to answer all those questions? >> i think so. we are pretty confident. what has been helpful is people have been willing to engage with
us as we have moved forward learning more about what we need to do. i think we have had good dialogue with interested stakeholders, leading up to the comment and response period and even since the time the draft e.i.r. went out we had a number of productive meetings with people that raised a lot of issues because we need to understand what it is that really drives their concerns and trying to see where we can find solutions. i think that i would say across the broad range of things we saw in the comments and hearing we feel confident we will have a good set of answers. >> [inaudible] a lot has been talked about the arena. how is that going? >> it is a suppressive discussion. we have heard the concerns that have been raised and i think they have been helpful with us helping us understand their point of view. i think that it is one of those things that it has a lot of different facets because it is
not just the specific location, i think people have focused on but how does this event work along the waterfront where there is a focus of public access. we are continuing to work to understand how we can approach that and come to a solution we think all sides will be happy with. >> i would note it also was a commenter on the draft environmental impact report and they detailed these concerns in their letter as well as some potential solutions. and they also talked about public access that would be additional legacy benefits to san francisco. >> i think something we have been continuing to talk about throughout is a thread throughout all the plans is what is the legacy to san francisco. it really has for us it steps beyond the legacy of the high
profile event that is coming but what people with take away and say you know because of the attention and resources and interest in this event that things got better in san francisco. times that is brick and mortar for public access but sometimes just a pwbetter operating platfm or better communication or different ways to involve people and educating themselves about our waterfront which is one of the most exciting parts of this process for me is learning what a fantastic place the northern waterfront is when you are able to focus on it like we have. it is an exciting part of this and we are going to be talking about that a lot this fall. >> one part of the legacy is a lot of the waterfront is turned over to larry ellison and over 75 to 100 years. have you -- are you working on any plans or what san francisco, what will happen with all of
that property that they will wind up with? >> i think to reset that a little bit, in the first place the transaction really relates to the development rights arise from the dollars they put in for the infrastructure that is needed for the events. primarily the real estate transaction centers around piers 32, 30 and c-30. only additional funds are expended beyond the $55 million in the host venue agreement that will would be potentially other sites. >> do you know if there have been discussions about whether that will happen or will we have to wait and see how much money we spend to see how much property we wind up [inaudible]? >> it is not a wait and see. that is a lot of the conversations we are having now. i will defer to brad benson but before i did, the scope of work is a key part of the project
description. so we need to understand what is going to happen not only for purposes of the real estate deal but the permits from the different permitting agencies, for responding to comments on the e.i.r. so we will be proceed skip at this point -- prescriptive on that. >> i think the concern is that because this is a gamble that a big crowd will show up at yachting event in the united states, which would be unprecedent unprecedented, that the commitment that is being made is being backed up by city funds and you are saying the city has the ability to withdraw. but if you are fairly deep into it what is the likelihood the city would say we are not going to spend $30 million of public money on this and we were unable to raise it in a recession and
everything comes to naught? it seems to me you are in for a anyone any, in for $30 million. >> i disagree because it was not this long ago this was approved by the city and policy make erlgs. specifically they called out for there to be $32 million of fund-raising from the organizing committee. similarly, the $12 million that needed to be handed in on ceqa is a key checkpoint. i think it is very viable for the city to take a clear eye and look at where things are at that point to say is this event that we have put together both the terms of specifics of the event of the e.i.r. and financial aspects something we can move forward with in this claimant. i think that is the case we will try to put together so people can understand what it is we're trying to do and i think that getting back to the unprecedented nature of the event, it is unprecedented to bring it at this point of event this close to shore.
so we are looking forward to trying to make that picture more clear to people so that it is understood this is what aware bringing. i dong we are trying to hide the facts but we're saying this is what this means to san francisco and we think it is a good decision to make. >> and you think it is going to be a big benefit to the city down the road. how likely would you pull out if you didn't get the first $12 million in fund-raising? >> that is the question for the people that have the ability to vote on it. by the same token i don't want to minimize anything to do with the challenging economic times we are in. it means a lot to go through with an event like there but i think there are benefits from this kind of benefit to bring it to san francisco. that will go on with the people that have the authority to do that and we are going to support them in giving them the information they need to make the decision. >> are there any issues from the comments that you didn't necessarily think about before,
you are looking into more? >> i think we are looking into all the comments. we have definitely tried to cast as wide a net as we could with the draft e.i.r. we have a compressed amount of time and we have been actively engaged throughout the year trying to understand what are the issues, what are the good strategies to address them. i don't think there is anything in the e.i.r. that took us by surprise. it is just the challenge of doing the hard work of putting together solutions that people can understand and say that is appropriate for what we want to bring here. >> after the $12 million bench mark, is there another opportunity for the city it back out or is that kind of the last chance?t back out or is that kind of the last chanc back out or is that kind of the last chance?t back out or is that kind of the last chance?o back out or is that kind of the last chance? >> there are several different termination rights. for purposes of environment under the california environmental quality act it is only after the environmental review the city can bind itself to say we are moving ahead so
that is a key checkpoint. we have looked at the e.i.r. and seen the initial fund-raising and we are moving ahead based on that information. >> it is not like if he this don't raise $20 million or $30 million there is not another trigger that automatically makes you rethink? >> that is the one sort of key check point. >> they could basically stop at 12 and after that the next 20 million we could wind up holding the bag on? >> no, i think the commitment under the agreement -- their commitment is to raise -- >> if they don't we are taking them on their word they are going to do that and they can do this. >> well, i don't think -- the consequences have to do with putting on the events. it is not necessarily punishing them for not having raised the funds. i guess i don't understand. >> there aren't any consequences
in terms of being able to say no to the event. if they don't raise the $32 million, the city still winds up paying for that. there is no consequence to anybody except the city if they don't raise that money. >> that is the structure of the agreement. there is the fund-raising to defray up to $32 million of city costs. if the costs come in higher or lower it doesn't change how much is coming in. >> one more question about the implementation plan. you said there is a 11 and i know there is various ted lines for those and -- various deadlines of those and self have already been committed and several others that seem important that won't actually be in until aftof the ceqa. so team bases, operation plan, parks design. are those going to be reviewed
publicly or what is the plan for those? >> broadly speaking, i think all of the plans that you are talking about, all 11 except team based operations plan which is more related to the port pier sites and how they are managing different sort of -- i can describe that better -- parks plan. we are trying to put all of them out ahead of when they are due so people have the visibility. that would be over the course of oblt and basically people can review those and we will get the feedback going into the board process to consider whether to move forward. so it won't be after all that happens. there will be visibility on those. all right?
is directly, the right to vote has not always gone to women. 100 years ago, the battle for women's suffrage was not an easy one. it took more than 70 years. it all began in 1840 during an anti-slavery convention in europe. >> lucretia mott and elizabeth cady stanton got together. basically, it was a proclamation that was a declaration of independence for women. we rightly mark and women in nine states from this point. >> at the time, women are
prohibited from voting. >> feminist leaders dedicated their lives to reform and campaign vigorously for women's rights. >> suffrage in the middle of the 19th century was not a governmental forced to organize an accomplished a goal. it was diametrically opposed to the ethic of the age. we were supposed to have won a role in society and women were supposed to have another role. >> many argued it was not their place. >> women in the 19th century had to convince male voters that having the vote would not keen to anything peeping that women would still be devoted to home and the family. that having the vote would not corrupt them. >> in spite of opposition,
reformers gradually performed at the state and local laws in california was amongst the trailblazers. >> they had private meetings. the call them parliament meetings. the afternoon tea. they spoke of these meetings as though they were social calls and not political activism. they did everything they could to grounded their campaign in femininity and domesticity. >> despite their efforts, the link between suffrage and prohibition made it difficult to win over voters in big cities. >> the problem in san francisco, women's suffrage as an idea was associated with temperance. susan b. anthony made that
connection as well in the 1880's when she abandoned the republican party and joined the prohibition party. prohibition was a deadly idea in san francisco. it was the foundation of the local economy. it was the center of masculine public life. anything that touched on the possibility of prohibition was deeply unpopular. >> the first campaign in california was a great effort, but not a success. in a 1896, male voters rejected a ballot, but the war was not over. less than a decade later, the protests had new life. >> the women's equal suffrage late march on the republican convention in oakland. this time, they had a suffrage march with about 300 women who marched down the streets of brooklyn to the convention
center, carrying a banner. it was a very public demonstration and a signal that women now considered the public's fear properly theirs. >> these elements in 1910 -- the opened a club in downtown san francisco on sadr street. she offers lunch every day to the shop girls and the working women. and her idea is if the shop girls come in and have lunch, then she can interest them in the lunchroom. >> it had to be a transformation in the way people thought about women's rights. what happened some with women's clubs -- they began to go to
that social transformation. it pushed the boundaries of what was possible, and they began to engage in civic and public work. >> what followed were parades and pageants, reaching every voter in the state from san diego to sacramento. >> male voters flocked to the polls and approve the vote by a narrow margin. it was the sixth and largest state in the nation to approve women's suffrage. a decade later, women received a full voting rights after the passage of the 19th amendment and to help newly enfranchised women exercise the responsibility, a new women's club was founded. >> really, it was a movement that was created out of all the suffragettes moving forward with
the right to vote. all the suffragette's were not interested in educating the new 20 million new voters. >> today the lead has chapters in all 50 states. it is non-partisan and does not endorse candidates. is very much political. >> 100 years ago, our voices were not heard. they were not going to give us the right to vote. i really hope people vote. it is the one way to have our voice and heard. >> to celebrate, the events and exhibits are taking place throughout the state. >> uc berkeley is having an exhibit that highlights the suffrage movement. and highlights -- how long has the exhibit been going on? >> since the week of august 20.
a lot of people do not realize that california actually allow women to vote before the rest of the nation did in the 1920's. all these materials were pulled from these collections. we have a huge amount of manuscript and raw material. >> 837 annual parade honoring the women suffragists will march today in commemoration of 100 years of voting in california. 100 years ago this year, we won the right to vote. here we are, dressed as they would have dressed.