folks who worked so hard and so long on this process, we urge your approval of these items. thank you. president chiu: thank you. and let me ask our deputy city attorney, if you can, describe for us given what's in front of us what is appropriate to amend. >> deputy city attorney cheryl adams. the approvals are before the board largely in approval up or downloads. the board doesn't have the board to unilaterally line item out or make amendments to the documents. if changes are what the board wants to achieve, then the appropriate approach would be to say to the department or to make a motion that the board will not approve various aspects of the project until the board is assured that other changes are made. those changes may be simple enough that the department, the

agency and the project sponsor may be able to have side-bar and simply a degree to those. they could come into the file and be in the file and ready for you by the time you vote on this at second read. the changes could be of the nature that there's so integral to the project that they simply couldn't be approved at the board today or the next few weeks that they would have to go through the departmental process, be reevaluated, perhaps go through planning so there's a spectrum of what can be done here today. we are all here and with everyone familiar with the project and i think that what we'll do is take your proposed changes as they come and try to advise you as best we can to the way to proceed and whether it's something you can do today or would need to try to do it in the future. i would also encourage you to speak with the department about some of the practical realities of the things that you may ask for. while we may be able to say

that technically it's doable, we're obviously not involved -- we're not, you know, breaking ground on the project. they are. president chiu: that. and colleagues, given that what i would like to do, i know there are a number of amendments coming. as we take those amendments in order, obviously have a discussion on them and vote as we go through so there's no confusion on the various motions out there. why don't we go to supervisor ross mirkarimi. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you, mr. president. colleagues, i know that this is the last stop after what has been well over a decade long process. and i know those stake holders do have worked diligently to try to get it here, are anxious for it to get passed us. i want to first thank supervisor maxwell for her leadership in trying to and

helping marshal this to this particular stage. i want to thank all stake holders who have worked from the city, both from the community and from the business community to help make this, in their minds, the best project possible and i want to thank all the stake holders who are opposed or who have been apprehensive about this project, who have worked so hard to make this the best project as possible as well. the supervisor from the fillmore, i represent the fifth district and that should not be at all from this discussion. the first largest -- [inaudible] took place in our district known as the fillmore. for years as i was leading up to elected office which is one of the reasons why i did because i think of the wayward and misguided steps with urban

renewal and redevelopment blessed by the city had allowed in japan town. i vowed it would never happen again. i made that clear because it was important for people to realize in the community itself with the fillmore and the western division as well as citiwide, just what a fine distinction it is to live under redevelopment law. you ask many san franciscoans as the a2 project area or people even outside and they would not be able to explain to you very well that they're actually parallel governments that exist in san francisco as it applies to land use considerations. and because of those planned use considerations, there were consequences that i think provided both for positive and negative experience in the

fillmore. it would demean anybody in japan town or anybody who has gone through it one time or another redevelopment in history and not share any of the lessons learned in this particular project that's before us. what i found pretty amazing was that over the few years leading up to this particular stage when people would say to me, don't worry, ross. don't worry, supervisor ross. don't worry. this is not what happened in the fillmore. we're not going to use eminent domain in bay view hunters point. what a great consolation. you're not going to use eminent domain. on top of that, try to institutionalize agreements so it attempts to lift all vote. when i hear that's trying to allay concerns or multiply my concerns, that's not enough. and it doesn't satisfy them well enough. i think it's important that we

try to, i think, navigate what is obviously a very complex process that the city attorney has outlined for us. knowing very well that redevelopment law supercedes municipal law and that there's been examples that have come before us that even when we have exercised our legislative influence on this process and when we've given our blessing for projects on bay view hunters point or elsewhere, they unilaterally change after they have left the decision making authority of the board of supervisors because the way that redevelopment law operates allows for that superceding authority to take place. so i don't see why we cannot advance a proposal and advance it with the kind of considerations and conditions that make that proposal so the best of what the fillmore and

japan town is for the future prospects of what this plan is and that we do our best institutionally to make sure that the worst of what happens in the largest area which created that kind of negativity that we're still trying to, i think, correct is somewhat mitigated as best as we possibly can. for example, supervisor daly talked about affordable housing. when i look at the plan and when any of us looked at the plan, i think that it's important we see that there's no delineation of what is the percentage of the home owned unit -- units? we don't know that. it's important we have a more precise understanding. i think there should be commitments maiden forcable so that when the decisions are made, if there's any material

changes to the plan itself, it comes back to the board of supervisors. nobody is saying the plan shouldn't go forward. what we're saying is after the experiences a few years ago when phase one came before us, phase one came before us as an entire rental unit housing project. it survived the board of supervisors. it went forward. then unilaterally, and i said two weeks ago at 2:00 a.m. the appeals were put to bed, i said no one should we allow that phase one to come again. it was unilaterally hinged to condo without any recourse to the board of supervisors. that completely suggests a con descending role that this process may be if there's not at least some recourse that allows us the response when we spent that level of time and energy, when stake holders from

all sides spend that kind of level and energy and then they're just be able to go to recommission agency and commission and have a plan unilaterally changed. i've submitted a number of amendments before i. i believe that there's one that speaks to the example that i just expressed concern over. it's on the second page and this would be amendment where the phone language is added to section 11.2c and this would be to the i.c.a. and all it does, all it does is it gives us a role on the material changes only. if there are no material changes, then it simply puts the clock at 60 days. meaning if the board doesn't respond, there's no reason for it to come back. but at least this was handed out by the clerk, i believe. it looks like there's some

saying they don't have it, but i believe you do. all it does is not withstanding in the planned documents to the contrary, any materials changed to the buy low market change housing plan, the infrastructure plan, open space plan, the transportation plan or the design or development for the project shall be subject to the prior review of the board, city board of supervisors which the board of supervisors may give -- [inaudible] sole discretion. it should deem approved by the board have supervisors unless the board takes action to reject the proposed change within 60 days following the date that it was submitted to the board. we allow them to move forward completely. if plans substantially change, we ask for recourse of us at least having some response. it's that simple. and if phase one that occurred in this body several years ago

does not teach us in order to understand just how empowered this government is, then we'll never learn. just so we know, we're only one of several counties statewide where the board of supervisors is not the redevelopment agency -- or does not have some proxy power. most counties in the state of california have development agency power and i understand that was a decision made many decades ago and i think it's potentially worth revisiting so we at least have, i think, some equalizing level of engagement that could be considered later on. mr. president, i can keep going on amendments now but i thought that was relevant to the discussion that the supervisor daly had started. president chiu: what i would like to do, because i think there's going to be rapid amendments is consider each amendment, have a discussion

and then vote on the amendment and then proceed to the next. otherwise we'll have 12, 14 amendments and there will be a lot of confusion when we get to the end unless there's some objection to that. supervisor mirkarimi: some of mine are just very benign. others require explanation. president chiu: what i would like to do at this time, if we can go back to that and supervisor daly, vote on the material changes. supervisor daly: i was just going to reword my resolution. president chiu: why don't we go back to supervisor daly's motion and then to supervisor ross mirkarimi's first amendment. >> i still have questions on what we can or cannot do. supervisor mirkarimi: my understanding on my motion is that what we can do is condition our approval of plan

on certain changes. so my motion would be to condition the approval of the plan on amendments to -- [inaudible] and affordability levels that i outlined. >> i'm fine with that. at what point do i ask my questions about the overall scope of what we can do? now or after the motion? president chiu: ask at this time. although just to clarify supervisor daly's motion, it's items 12 to 14? if i can ask the deputy city attorney. if i could ask miss adams. if i could ask the deputy city attorney, would supervisor daly's motion be a motion with regards to specific items that we have on the calendar? i think we need to do that. >> let me make one clarification here. we have a redevelopment plan that is being adopted potentially by you today.

we also have a bunch of plans and when people use the term plan, they need to be careful what they're talking about. a bunch of plans attacked to a disposition and development agree many. -- agreement. we also have a contract between the city and the agency called the interagency cooperation agreement and that has the ability, when you approve some of the implementing contracts, the interagency cooperation agreement, you have the ability to approve the contract on some changes being made to those other plans that are attachments to the d.b.a. about the it is a contract so it requires approval of the developer and the agency in order to affectuate those. but we do not have the ability to condition approval of the redevelopment plans themselves. that is an up or down vote and if you don't like it, you vote it down and send it back to the redevelopment agency and the planning commission.

is that clear? president chiu: supervisor david campos. >> you can condition your approval of contact like the i.c.a. on conditions to the housing plan or the -- you know, the housing plan or the community benefits plan and those are attachments to the d.b.a. that's the agreement between the development and the agency, not the city. nonetheless, you have an interagency cooperation agreement between the agency and the city that says the city can help and do certain things to implement this project and in connection with your approval of that agreement, you can request changes to those other documents. supervisor mirkarimi: so with the item 12. >> but they would have to be approved by the developer and the agency. president chiu: do you have any questions? supervisor mirkarimi: da*irk supervisor campos: with all do

respect to the city attorney's office, with respect to this project and the advice that has been given either on this page or with respect to the environmental impact report, i will respectfully submit that the advice has been somewhat of a moving target. we have at different times been presented information about what we thought we could do and then it turns out that we actually cannot do what we understood that we could do with this item. a number of us raised a number of questions around the e.i.r. and were told that we couldn't make amendments to the e.i.r., that we could make -- that we could make the changes in the

complexity plan but it depends on the amendments and as an attorney, i'm having a hard time trying to understand what it is that is feasible and what isn't and quite frankly, trying to understand what the standard for determining the feasibility of an amendment actually is. we all have been handed copies of amendments made by president chiu and i guess the first question that i have for the city attorney is, why is it that some of these amendments can be made and yet there are amendments that also touch on some of the same issues that we understand now from the city attorney, those amendments cannot be made? so what is the reasoning that guides the legal advice?

>> sort of reiterate what cheryl has said earlier. we have, you know, these project documents in front of you that include zoning, redevelopment plan amendments, transactional documents. many of the transactional documents are not before you. they were agency documents. nonetheless, there's nothing that stops this board from essentially asking us what changes are permited and we can give you specific advice on that. what i think you're struggling with is there are certain changes that members of the board may want that are so sentimental to the project, that are already listed and included about many of these documents that may require that it's not a simple stroke of the pen. we remove it but requires things to go back to the planning department to determine whether or not there's environmental review to support the change and whether or not the sequel findings need

to be changed. if those things need to be changed based on your motion of what it is that we want to change, then we would advise at that point, your next step is to send it all back. it's not that you can't do it but you would have to send it back. there are some changes that you want to make that are consistent with the project that has been brought before you and those changes by incorporating sort of requirements of what authority has generally included in the project or creating enforcement recommendations that you can change but then they have to be approved by the other parties for those contracts. supervisor campos: i have no problem understanding that. the problem i have is the advice you just presented is different from the advice that has been presented before and that's what i'm struggling with. let's take an example. if you can please use this example as the way about finding the reasoning, you have an amendment you have along

this bridge which has been talked about repeatedly throughout the process. in this amendment, there is a substantive change that points to a scaled down version of the bridge. why is it that you can make that amendment but as i understand it, you cannot make an amendment that eliminates the bridge altogether? what's the distinction and what is the legal reason for that distinction? >> just to be correct here, you can make a motion to eliminate the bridge. if that was one of the board to eliminate the bridge, the proper action would be not to approve the action before you and send it all back. my understanding of the amendments was take the project before you, which includes a narrow bridge and wide bridge, depending whether or not there's a stadium built as part of the project and it then goes on to provide that if we are going to go forward with this larger, wider bridge that allows vehicular traffic on certain days, that that wider

bridge would need to come first to the board for approval of the conceptual design. it's not eliminating the bridge. it basically is consistent with the project that's been brought forward to you but it is creating the conditional process. again, that process, if it's agreed to, is something that we can do now without sending the entire project back to the redevelopment agency and the planning condition. eliminating the bridge is not something that you can do without sending it back first. supervisor supervisor campos: the change has to be already in the project. >> or not. the objection of what's been forward to you as an amended part of project. correct. supervisor campos: thank you. president chiu: going back to supervisor daly's motion, could you restate it with the -- regarding the specific items that you want to -- supervisor daly: it would be to amend items 12 and 14 to make

our approval of the inner agency cooperation agreement within those items contingent on an amendment to the development and disposition agreement to reflect new affordability levels which would be for 50% of the total number of housing units created in the development plans to be affordable up to 100% of the san francisco median income -- i'm trying to get the -- to include the -- [inaudible] 30% of household income. it would be 1,388. this is assuming 10,500 units.

1,388 affordable rental units up to 60% of the median income. it will be 892 work force units, up to 100% of san francisco median income and then the remainder of units inclusionary affordable housing units between 60 and 80% of the san francisco median income. president chiu: supervisor daly has made a motion. is there a second to the motion? seconded. colleagues, any discussion with regards to the motion? if not, take a roll call vote on supervisor daly's motion, please. (roll call vote was taken.)

>> there are five aye and six nos. president chiu: motion fails. ross mirkarimi, i think your proposal around material changes, i wanted to see if -- i just want to ask, this is language being added to section 11.2c so that is relevant to that item on the counter? >> i don't have the language in front of me. supervisor mirkarimi: item 3.8 -- sorry. i apologize. material changes, not withstanding anything in the i.c.a. or in the planned documents to the contrary --

[inaudible] below market rate housing plan, open space plan or the design or redevelopment subject to the prior review and approval of the city, the board, the supervisors, board of supervisors may differ with the -- [inaudible] it's an enforcement commitment. that's all. quite frankly, any amendment that i think is considered in advance by this body, it requires this level of air cover so it is maiden forcable. that's it. president chiu: given what supervisor ross mirkarimi has just asked, could you tell us which item we would be amending with the changes to the i.c.a. >> this is a change to item 12 and 14. it would be to approve the i.c.a. subject to certain

changes being made. i think that this is a matter that could be approved by the board without sending the whole project back and continue to move on with the project approvals. however, i caution you this is a change that needs to be agreed to by the city and the agency. so you can approve this but we don't have a done deal until and if the development agency agrees to it. president chiu: and this, it seems understandable why some of our colleagues would not want to see material changes that don't come back to the board. could you respond to this, please? >> yes. for the record, the office of economic and workforce development. i'm reading it as we speak.

one observation is that it is unusual as a general manner when the board of supervisors approves redevelopment plans, it approves the broad sturkt of the plan and obviously any documents that come to the board of supervisors that are subsequently changed would require the approval of the board of supervisors. in this instance, that would include the redevelopment plans, the tax allocations agreements, inner agency cooperative agreement and the like. in looking at the language, you know, one of the things that i'm just struggling with but again, just in fairness i'm processing this while we're looking at it. it's not clear what a material change would be. if we're going to entertain anything, i would recommend that it would be a material

amendment to those various documents. one of the things to understand about the project documents that we've created for this project is because it's 15 to 20-year buildout, there's a very broad structure that is created and so many of the documents are quite program attic so this may be changes that occur within the project that are actually contemplated in those documents, meaning there's a range of potential opportunities. so i think if we were going to consider this, i would recommend changing material things to the material amendment but i will note that it is atypical that usually in the oversight of development plans, it's approval of the plan itself and the key documents. president chiu: is there further discussion on this, colleagues? >> just a question. supervisor chu: this is a

question to mr. sullivan, the city attorney. with regard to all of the proponents that are talked about in this material change amendment, the material changed to the infrastructure plan, the open space and the transportation plan, et cetera, currently as these all have come before the board of supervisors and we've approved it currently and broad stroke it in i see general form, if there were any changes to that or amendments to that, what would have to happen anyway? >> charles sullivan, just to be correct again, these various plans that are referenced in that paragraph are attachments to the d.d.a., disposition and development agree many. that is an agreement between an agency and the developer so the city is not really technically approving these documents as an initial matter which is what i think mr. cohen is referring to, that there's things that you've seen them, they're all before you. we're not hiding them. nobody is