deliberately bury it. >> i will put aside who they are. it is triggered by some regulatory agency saying you have to act. >> it is not triggered by anyone other than the city itself. if the local community does not find it acceptable, they would build along the perimeter. it is purely a decision of the local community.

>> if sea level rise increases by 16 inches, there is a method and an obligation to fix that. >> [inaudible] apologies. i am not intimately familiar with the language he just read. i think it certainly makes it clear what the priority is, but keep in mind, there will be discretionary decisions made by

the city in issuing debt as required, so if what you are looking for is a completed obligation to fund at this point that some third party could pint to, i don't know that's legally possible. the city is going to have to exercise that right. when i say the city, it could be a governmental entity that will have to exercise that. if that is what you are trying to identify, so feel free to clarify. i am not your attorney, so i do

not know the details. >> we are willing to make it stronger. we should work on that language with you. >> part of it is to make sure we don't take actions to make that money go away. they also have to control themselves so there is money left when that date comes. th clerk'sis lin -- >> this is exactly what my concerns were, an i would feel much more comfortable if there was

something clearer. i have to go, and i am going to hand over the chair. we are suggesting we continue to the next meeting or the following month. it would be up to him to see if they are ready to come to vote. >> was it your intent to have the vote? >> it was on the agenda, but i think there are a lot of outstanding questions, so i did not necessarily think we should call a vote until the questions can be answered.

it is very specific, and i know the hour is getting late, and it gets harder to make good decisions. >> is there an issue if we carry this over? burke'swe -- >> we are ready to address any issues. we have >> we have the technical questions. >> yes, but i think that the issue is that it's getting late and that we have a lot more questions as it relates to utilities and that perhaps it would make more sense if there's no reason not to carry the item over.

>> the next meeting, it can be a month from now. obviously, to continue, that's your right to do that. i think that there is an issue. one assumes this might be appealed, and if it appealed, it will restrict your ability to make decisions for a period of time. it will depend on what that period of time is in terms of the appeal and what happens with that. >> what would the timing be? >> i would go on to say this is one of the mayor's priority projects. we've been working at the staff level to resolve all of these issues over the past five years. we feel that we have done so. we feel that delaying an action tonight creates entitlement uncertainty both for tita as well as the developer and our ability to move forward pursuing the project. again, if there is an appeal, you would not be able to act until the board of supervisors heard that appeal, which would be in the middle of june.

this has been on the calendar before. it has already been delayed. we're into the trying too accelerate the schedule. we think the information that's been provided to the commission is sufficient for you all to take action tonight. >> and just to be clear, i totally understand that reasoning. i don't believe that it's a legal requirement as such for you to take action. it certainly is a strong preference. >> i do have additional questions. they go to basically my role as due diligence to make sure our interests are protected. i'm prepared and have the time to go through this. >> proceed. >> tonight, on the other hand, if we'd like to -- if people would rather not do that, i'm fine withholding it over and we could meet and talk about what my issues are and have better answers to that when we come

back. so -- >> i agree. i'm uncomfortable moving this item to the next meeting. if we have to stay till midnight, let's stay till midnight. because the problem is, a lot of people have questions and we'll never build it. so let's do our due diligence and make that happen, and it's my hope that we'll vote. >> so as i started, i'm happy to hand over the chair and, you know, my main concern is really this issue about the financing mechanism to the adaptive management strategies and to make sure that those are clearly defined and in place and that there's very clear language around that, because that's been my real concern. and i just want to go on record saying that. and then i will leave it to the chair to then figure out if his answers and the rest of the commission's questions can be answered in order for there to be a vote. >> is there a provision on this commission for a call to be

placed and a vote? in other words, if i have to leave by 6:30, which i have to, will there be a quorum left? and if not, is there a way -- because i'm prepared to vote tonight. i'm prepared to vote right now. but i don't want to preshrewd any discussion or questions that are sincere dnd preclude any discussion or questions that are sincere. but members may have to leave and a motion is made and a call is put on the vote until people are prepared to vote and i don't know whether that applies here tonight procedurally. >> programs the city attorney can help us. >> nor arena ambrose, city attorney's office. you have to be present in the room to vote. it requires an affirmative vote of a majority of the commission. so -- >> i'm not talking about not being present. i'm talking about i move this action for approval. you take the roll. i vote aye then i have to leave, but there still remains a quorum.

that's being here present and voting. >> i think, as i understand it, we have a quorum. >> i have to leave. >> you have to leave as well. >> you have to leave, so -- >> ok. so that was the question. i didn't hear about your time limit. >> i have to leave at 6:00, but i could make it till 6:15, but, you know -- >> ok. >> i just feel that we have not even touched on the role of p.u.c. and this project on treasure island. we haven't even talked about it yet. so i have questions in that regard. >> how many other items do we still have to consider besides this? >> several. well, you know, my suggestion would be that we continue the other agenda items as it gets later and later. >> this doesn't preclude us from holding a special meeting next week, if we have to. >> right, a special meeting. >> correct. >> you can have a special meeting on this particular item. i believe the deadline for an appeal to be filed is tomorrow. so one might imagine you would

not be able to make a decision next week, but you could have a meeting and you could continue the discussion of questions. >> always the issue of a quorum. >> so i think what's happening is we're going to continue on and see how far you can get. >> ok. >> and leave it to the call to the chair whether he wants to call the vote or whether a special meeting will be called for next week or whether the item will be continued. >> although i would also assume that if any member of the commission wants to call a vote, that they can do that. >> they can. you must have public comment. but other than that, you can call it. >> ok. so for how we should proceed, i take it, commissioner caen, you have questions. >> yes. i have specific questions in the resolution. >> ok.

>> i just want to make sure that our bases are covered in that regard. >> when i talked with michael yesterday, i guess it was, i talked about infrastructure. cronk. he said that everything -- correct me if i'm wrong. he said that everything is done to accepted specifications. and i bring up the issue because i think that we at p.u.c. should be the one that dictates how things are done. not just a general specification. and i want to make sure that that is in this resolution. absolutely. we can do that. just as a reminder. the infrastructure -- that

would come before the p.u.c. for their approval and then the subphase applications and ultimately the improvement plans prior to construction permits. so everything that -- before it' approved has to meet with the p.u.c.'s specifications, and p.u.c. staff has signed off on the technical memoranda that are attached and, again, form the basis for awful the design criteria going forward -- for all of the design criteria going forward. >> so what you'd like ig confirmation of that from mr. carlin, that he's comfortable? >> there is a procedure for us to provide very detailed specifications and then to follow up with the developer on following those specifications.

zg i see it for -- i see it for waste water. >> i see it third to the last, "further resolved," where it talks about -- give me a second. let me back up, fourth to the last resolve. actually covers negotiating the elements concerning the quality and it talks about p.u.c.-related infrastructure and all of that has to be -- it's in the second one and it says that meets the requirements for construction warranties and guarantees, operations and maintenance manuals, testing and training that are consistent. >> i'm sorry, are you on page 14? >> yes, i am. >> it's number two. number two. on that page. there's number one and number two. and actually, number two is very specific that it has to meet our current practices.

>> i have no other qu like to m point that we have had many reviews about this project. we've had 265 meetings. maybe some of the newer commissioners have never had a review of treasure island, but i think a lot of these questions that we're bringing up now have really been discussed in the past. and if the questions are really pressing, that that's necessary. but i would like to move ahead and get this resolved. >> so you're moving to move. >> i'm making a motion. >> second. >> ok. we have a motion and a second

to approve basically everything that's on the agenda item? >> correct. so now you can open it up for discussion. >> and i will do that. >> before we have public comment, just want to explain my second -- >> go right ahead. >> because i'm aware of the fact that we have had 265, 274 meetings on this item already, because i and many members of the public have read in the paper today that we're talking about an additional revenue stream of approximately $80 million, because we've talked about 2,000 jobs for construction workers, especially for men and women in the community who need those job opportunities, not to mention the other permanent jobs that are available. in addition to that we've talked about the afortable housing that's going to be available -- affordable housing that's going to be available on the island. 25% is the number we're talking about now. but my understanding is that supervisor caen is going to be on the steps talking to legislation to increase that

backup to the 30% threshold that was in excess of what the minimum was going to be. not to mention we talked at length about the hope and the goal of hiring 25% at risk people, whether they're at risk as a result of some kind of criminal conduct or being rehabilitated or they're living in a particular zip code or whatever it is. and my understanding also is that the public is going to have another opportunity and continuing opportunities to vet this entire project, not including all of the opportunities they'll have to do so before the san francisco board of supervisors. so i'm reluctant to hold this project up here, but with all due respect, especially for my colleagues, i'm somebody who hasn't been here for a very long time. but i can assure you i see the benefits of this project. i think it's a state-of-the-art project and i think it's something that -- i certainly don't want to be a part of

prohibiting it from moving forward. >> commissioner caen has the wisdom that, as you members do not have, in terms of some of these reviews. but we certainly have read the material. but i also want to, again, congratulate you and the mayor's staff and the mayor, because this is a gargantuan project. the fact that you've had 274 hearings, i don't think i've ever been involved with an issue and legislation that's had more than five hearings. so i think the questions that i had regarding seawalls, regarding climate change issues affecting the bay and clearly the tsunamis were answered appropriately for me. so i would think this is an incredible project and we need to move forward. >> let me ask a point of

procedure. you were indicating that you were willing to work on language that tightened up that requirement. if we actually adopt this stuff tonight, what is the opportunity to make those kinds of changes? or does that basically close the door and say p.u.c. has acted and we'll move on? >> if i may, commissioners, can i just read from one of the further resolve clause in the resolution? that this commission authorizes the mayor, the city administrator and the director of public works or any successor city officer designated by law to enter into and approve any additions, amendments or other modifications to the interagency cooperative agreement, including, without limitation in the exhibit, that they determine in consultation with the city attorney and any effective city agencies are in the best interest of the city, provided that any such additions, amendments or modifications do not materially increase the cost or liabilities of the city and are necessary or advisable to effectuate the implementation

of the development plan -- the plan documents -- >> materially increases the issue. >> so as long as the additional amendments or thoughts that you would want to have in there don't materially increase the cost, it would seem that it would be available to make those kind of adjustment. >> again, that's what was intended with the language in the financing plan. the language is authorized. so what we would submit is -- i'll just read the sentence again. however, notwithstanding the discretion the developer has in funding additional community facilities from c.f.d. bonds prior to the conversion date in subsection 2.8 c for each c.f.d., if prior to the c.f.d. conversion date sea levels and the water surrounding the project area rise by more than 16 inches from the levels in

existence on the reference date, as defined in the infrastructure plan -- this is what we would propose to add -- the city agrees to finance the future sea level rise improvements from first c.f.d. bonds of such c.f.d. >> do i have the commitment of your office that if the commission does act tonight that you will work with me to address remaining issues that we haven't even talked about yet? >> absolutely. >> and that would involve both -- as i read it, it's the development agreement and the infrastructure -- or the interagency cooperation agreement as well as the financing plan. did i miss one? those are the three. ok. let's open it up to public comment, then. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> mr. brooks. >> good afternoon, commissioners.

eric brooks representing san francisco green party and the local grass-roots organization of our city. i would strongly urge you to continue this item. even though there have been years of planning on this, even though there has been a lot of hearings on it, there's been a recent development within the last month that completely changes the game on this issue. you've received some communications about sea level rise and tsunami dangers. keep in mind that tsunamis 10 feet and above are not accounted for in this project plan, and that could happen from alaska. also, the new estimates of worst-case sea level rise are 78 inches, not 55. the bcdc is relying on more conservative data from a couple of years ago from the ipcc. the scientist that is have come up with the new 78-inch figure

are ipc scientists. so the most recent date is not being included and the 7 -inch figure is -- the 78-inch figure is nowhere in the response. the thing that's changed is because redevelopment was threatened by the governor, the funding mechanism to this project was changed to infrastructure financing districts. the amount that we can capture from that is 65% instead of 80% from redevelopment. that cu for this project nearly 20%. and so this gets to the heart of what you were asking, commissioner more ann, is that the sea level -- more ran, is that the sea level rise and reactions to sea level rise are dependent to this project working out properly. and repeated hearings about funding, especially in relation to affordable housing, staff was asked whether they can guarantee that they're going to get up to that 80% with legislation in sacramento, and

they repeatedly said, no, we can't guarantee that. so we're in a situation where if we don't get a better mitigation for sea level rise or better funding mechanism to ensure mitigation of sea level rise, if frankly we don't get a better mitigation for tsunami that's not even in the plan yet . also, i have also heard from bright line defense project that the local hiring guarantees in this project are also threatened by the unstable situation with regard to the funding mechanisms of this project. i heard from independent parties that they were going to file an appeal today, so the city attorney should check and see if they have filed that appeal, whether you can vote. but the nailed-down funding to make sure these mitigations happen is not necessarily there. and i believe there is going to be an appeal. and i strongly urge you to wait

until that appeal is completed and then make these decisions before you commit your enterprise agencies to something that could ends up costing you a lot of money, no matter who's liable. because if you get hit with a flood it doesn't matter whether somebody else is liable. if your infrastructure goes down in a big way, it's on the agency. >> thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. i'm karen knowles pierce and i not only have been the chair of the c.a.b., i've been the chair of the c.a.b. for 11 years. michael is a bit of a new bee, but we have -- newbie, but we've appreciated his help. over the 11 years as a c.a.b., as michael said, we have held hundreds of public meetings. i wish i had kept count. i will tell you that since 2010 we've had 40 meetings, and through the middle of april of this year, the c.a.b. has held

eight, as we have reviewed all the entitlement documents. the vetting process has been extensive and has included, among other issues, community benefits, transportation, open space, bike and pedestrians paths, wetlands, sea level rise, global warming, native plants, housing and jobs. as michael also mentioned, this project has been designated as a priority development area by abag. the c.a.b. asks for your authorization of the documents before you today and we appreciate. also, if i may, ruth had to leave. i see i have a little more time and she left me a note and asked if i would read this, for which i need my glasses. ruth wants to convey her support for the execution of

the i.c.a. as the storm water management details are decided in the future negotiations, she hopes that you will seek to maximize the multiple benefit of the water quality improvement wild life habitat environmental education and aesthetic enjoifment and i thank you from both of us. >> thank you. next. ms. jackson. >> good afternoon, espinola jackson. i really didn't come t to speak on this issue, but since it came up while i'm here, i did not hear any mention of local hiring. and i had heard some disturbing news, i any a week or two ago when two of your committees met together, stating that they did not have to do local hiring. i would like to make sure that you understand that local

hiring has been approved in 1968 by h.u.d. and it's section three. and i really hope that your staff reads section three of the h.u.d. guidelines concerning local hiring. also, there's been discussion and concern for daily wages and whether it's private or whether it's union, there has to be -- there must be prevailing wages that are paid to the employees. what needs to be done, what we don't have, is to make sure that we have certified compliance officers to make sure that the work that should be done in this city is done because heads have been turned the other way and people are frightened that they're going to be losing. and you, like someone stated a few minutes ago, whatever your decision is, you are ultimately

responsible to number one, when you agree to something, although it goes down to a contractor, to a prime and to the subs. you are number one. that also, when persons want to make complaints, they can file a complaint against you, the city, as well. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> yes, i'm from bright line defense. good evening. and i wanted to just highlight that we did learn at the board of supervisors that when the financing mechanism shifted from being redevelopment to being the infrastructure financing district that we did lose the ability to have a local hiring policy. that's been confirmed at the board of supervisors. i think they kinds of teased that out. not to say that there was -- the city's new local hiring ordinance would not have applied to the vertical