but they are attachments to a disposition and development agreement that the city is not a party to. so if without this language i think the interagency cooperation agreement requires that significant or material amendments, and i would propose that we do use amendment rather than change, they currently are supposed to go back for the agency commission and to affected city departments for approval and it would not require they come back to the board. and again, there are certain things that are approving right now as part of the redevelopment plan amendments. there's the redevelopment plan that's a constitution. if there's anything that's going to affect the rechange the redevelopment plan itself, that only comes back to the board for approval. supervisor chu: okay. so the items that supervisor ross mirkarimi, that you are amending are the underlined documents of 12 and 13? supervisor mirkarimi: thank you.

that is correct. and as i stipulated in consultation with the city attorney, it is simply a backstop to make sure the board of supervisors is able to be, i think that umpire potentially if need be because everything else is slated to completely bypass us and go directly to redevelopment. phase one as well as other examples are crystal clear poster children as to why we should have at least some reach in how this project could be unilaterally changed. president chiu: supervisor david campos. supervisor campos: i think this amendment is a good thing for all of the parties that this project moves forward if there's a material change. i think it assures that there's

a proper communication between all of the stake holders. i think this is something that would be beneficial not only to the city but also the project sponsor and various city agencies that are involved. president chiu: i would like to discuss a different process for today because many of us are reading these amounted for the first time right at this moment. why don't i suggest that various makers of these amendments, if you could explain your amendments and what i would like to ask is there are a number of city departments here that need to understand why these amendments would make sense in the broader scheme of the plan. for example, for this particular amendment, i think i agree with the spirit of what the maker of the motion is

attempting to do but i still have some questions as to some of the language and i want to make sure the lawyers get it. what i would propose is that various makers of amendments, again, go through the explanation and then perhaps at the end, i know we have a number of 3:30 commendations that we can go to that we take those speaker commendations to give folks a little time to understand what we're voting on and then go through these amendments. otherwise, my guess is there's many colleagues with questions that will be difficult to answer. so supervisor ross mirkarimi has made his first motion with regard to the material changes language. let me make sure there's a second to that. all right. ross mirkarimi, do you want to walk through the rest of your amendments? supervisor mirkarimi: some of these will be familiar. we mentioned this two weeks ago and president chiu also attempted to touch on a few of these issues as well. i would like to go a little

deeper. the next amendment is regarding power 3.6. we had legislated four years ago this area, when it's transferring from federal back to san francisco, city government, that the energy infrastructure be administered by public power. i'm proud of that. i think it's great that the board of supervisors united around this and i think it seriously elevates our ability for something that the city should have done for nearly a century. in case it does not succeed for whatever reasons, the amendment contingency here is that if the f upc does not provide electricity or natural gas to the site as set forth above in the community office -- city office community agricultural city in the area, then the tca

service would include the party's site. future owners within the project site have the ability to participate in any such tca service available to citythere p contingency. i think what president chiu had endeavour to state as part of what. -- part of law. that is the motion. president chiu: we now have two motions. supervisor mirkarimi. supervisor mirkarimi: this is a complement to the security agreement to the korea develop the agency in the city for making what i think is a very impressive effort -- to the

redevelopment agency. it is hoping that they are lifted and making sure the population in this area has been historically to stress and disadvantaged, be able to really benefit from the process, and i want to make sure that the work force marketing of this really is the rubber that meets the road. it is a simple amendment. this requires that they prepare an annual report regarding the status of the development related to the project created in accordance with the bayview hunters point contract policy.

it would not be required to come to us. it would bypass and go straight to redevelopment. president chiu: supervisor mirkarimi has made a motion. the next one. supervisor mirkarimi: this is where i have concerns about work force language, where it says, " one " -- quote-unquote, a gap in what good faith effort could mean. i think this loophole was not intended. notwithstanding anything in the planned documents to the contrary, city-wide to require a local-higher mandate, then the

parties agreed and the agencies have the right to make performing changes to the bayview hunters point project. such changes -- should not be subject to the redevelopment plans regarding the city regulations. they agree to make changes to make it consistent with this section 4.2. as everybody knows here, this board of supervisors, many of you, colleagues, are making great leaps in leadership in fortifying the work force roles, with supervisors campos, mar,

and others. i think we should also be very careful lining of the law and the conditions with what we are hoping is advanced and implemented by and development. in truth, the redo a lemon law, as is required by project labor agreements, -- in truth, the redevelopment law, as is required by a project laboring agreements. what i am worried about is in the private sector. what i am worried about it is.in this job industry, what are we going to do in order to usher in as many people as we possibly can and may not want the construction jobs, which is pretty much been a company strategy of redevelopment over years, and because this is having an ebb and flow, reports

of 2 million square foot commercial development, i am hoping that the people there get the jobs, and i think that is the intention of the people here, but there are some loopholes but i hope are opened up. president chiu: supervisor mirkarimi has made another motion. is there a second? supervisor mirkarimi: this is also an easy one, and ending knee ceqa findings -- amending them. it is further resolved to add that the project is entirely within the yosemite creek watershed, whose headwaters are on the north side, but the.

known as the south side -- the area known as the south side. we won a wetlands and watershed study. that is all. we're asking for opportunities for this extremely important ecological area note be enhanced by this project. restoration or relocation, as the next issue, the bridge, may require. the possibility of restoring the shoreline. the production and the establishment of criteria for this purpose. the study could be provided by the board of supervisors and made available for the public comment, so we are just asking for a study on this. and as a footnote, we have not had a discussion on the bridge yet. doing stuff like this will actually help in that process.

i think this is a good move for the proponents of that project. that is my motion. president chiu: supervisor mirkarimi has made a motion for the watershed. is there a second? seconded by supervisor campos. supervisor mirkarimi: the next one is about removing the bridge completely. whether there is a stadium or not a stadium, the project should go forward. there should be, i think, additional evaluation of the project bridge, because it is such a clear-cut substantial feature of this development plan. there has been a great in attention and energy to it. i think it is unresolved on so many levels, and i agree that ultimately, a bridge may

prevail, but i see that this does not handicap this plan. that may not be agreed upon strenuously by project opponents, but the net this bridge is essentials as a collective unit. i would like us to move forward without the bridge in holding back that the bridge be removed from the eir. i have a motion for this. president chiu: supervisor mirkarimi, circulated an amendment certifying that the bridge stay. >> -- supervisor mirkarimi: the following amendment is before you. president chiu: supervisor mirkarimi is motioning that the bridge be removed. is there a second to that? seconded by supervisor daly.

supervisor mirkarimi note: it may be used for bicycles, buses, emergency vehicles only and should not be used for private automobiles. i understand, based on the city attorney's legal advisor, it is also a possibility here. i have great concerns about this. hawpe a stadium conducted -- a stadium conducted on the shipyards, it opens it up for private automobiles. this would have to go back to the board of supervisors. .that is all this amendment does. president chiu: supervisor mirkarimi has made a motion. is there a second? seconded by supervisor mar. supervisor campos? supervisor campos: i appreciate

some of the amendments that he will be talking about. i have two amendments. the first has to do with the issue of minimum wage, to the extent at the pump that a living wage would apply to those jobs, in my understanding is that there is actually language that has been developed by our friends from labor and the project sponsor, that i would like to make a motion to incorporate that language, and i guess i have a question actually for the city attorney. my understanding is, is that living wage provision, is that something that would amend the dda, which, as i understand it, we cannot amend today? >> i think the appropriate place for these living wage amendment

would be in living notedda, but you can condition -- would be in the dda, but you can condition it. the other option is just to stick in the ica. supervisor campos: so i would -- that is correct, so i would make that motion. president chiu: supervisor campos is making a motion for the living wage, seconded by supervisor mirkarimi, and, supervisor campos, we would like to see that before we vote on it. supervisor campos: under the

current dda, there is a provision, section 16.3 0.2, which limits damages -- 16.3.2, and i would simply make a motion that we condition approval of the ica on a non waiver of damages, including a non waiver of special damages, punitive damages, or any other claim that the city could have.vis a vis the developer. if i may simply add something to that motion? i think if you asked staff, they would tell you that if there is a correlation between the actions of the developer in

terms of its failure to do or not do something related to this project that liability would exist. i think that having that language in their confuses the issue. i do not think that in the and, -- end, the practical consequence of the language changes anything with respect to the developer, but i think it just clarify as that the city -- clarifies that the city would enforce all of its legal rights under the common law, and that is why i am making that motion, that the approval is contingent upon a non waiver of monetary damages, special damages, punitive damages, or any other claim that the city may have vis a vis the developer. president chiu: supervisor

campos has made a motion with regard to the damages. do you have language? i think that would be great. i think there are some questions around punitive damages versus incremental damages. we want to be korea wrote -- clear on those. i have a couple of amendments to make. thank you, colleagues. i want to thank you for the many, many meetings we have had on this. as i have said before, i have probably were totter on this project than anything else here at city hall, and i also want to thank the many members of the public for the many years that you've worked on this. you have worked on this far, far longer than many of us on the board, with the exception of

supervisor maxwell, and, supervisor maxwell, want to thank you for your leadership. i made a number of amendments. from my perspective, we have a solid thing in front of us, in my intention was to make it better. it dealt with a number of areas, including the clean-up, requiring the city to take a much more active role in enforcing federal government cleanup. secondly, i had the amendments dealing with the bridge over yosemite sleuths, focusing attention on a bridge that was half the size originally proposed, and third, i had amendments regarding the need to ensure health-care access for residents and the southeast part of the city, and in particular, articulating a plan to move forward with expanding the health center. fourthly, i had some amendments with regard to work force development, to ensure that not just those residents but the employable, low-income residents from throughout the city would

be able to benefit from what we are doing here. during the hearing, two weeks ago, i believe, on june 13, there were a number of issues raised by a number of our colleagues, but chetry supervisor mirkarimi and supervisor campos, and i wanted to address those issues with the proposed amendments i have made, so, colleagues, i have circulated the language, first of all with the amendments i made for parcel pit e2. there was a discussion about whether to ask them to not expect profit 8 vote or the was a distinction koran language that supervisor campos raised, and i am confident that we have the strongest language there, which says that the redevelopment agency shall not accept, i.e., the parcel e2,

unless the highest level of cleanup is provided, as stated in the cooperative agreement between the region of an agency and the city, so that is my first amendment. -- between the korea develop an agency. -- the redevelopment agency. the second language i have concerns the southeast health center. it was raised during the debate to the release ago. we have done numerous studies for the need of an expanded health center in those neighborhoods in our city, so i want to amend the language to essentially eliminate the need to do a need assessments study. this language provided that the developer would contribute accordingly to do pre- development expenses associated with the expansion of the southeast health center, and i want to clarify we do not need that study, but we do need

programmatic needs for the center so that we ensure that what we are doing dovetails with other resources better in that part of the city, assuming we move forward with that. it is conflict -- contemplated in the language from a few weeks ago that the capital costs would be funded through increments generated by the redevelopment project. but a portion of the $2 million contribution provided by the developer, and, thirdly, through the city's ability to finance savings that our department of public health would accrue by moving from leased space to owned space, so my amendment specifically fis that money that the developer is going to be contributing would go to prevent and expenses. supervisor campos: we have the amendment by a supervisor chiu

and seconded by supervisor mar. president chiu: that concludes my remarks. supervisor dailly? supervisor cook daly: -- supervisor daily: -- supervisor daly: this is about the proposed capping of e2 2 other parcels within the project. purchased -- proposed be it resolved laws to amend the findings, item 27 on the calendar, page 5, lines 9

through 25, the following, which would be for the result to be concerned about the navy's final cleanup strategy for the project, workers, visitors, and wildlife, the board of supervisors -- it hit show not in any way imply support for a cap for parcel e2 4 and 850 uses for housing to be built -- or any final uses for housing to be built. adopted by the voters in 2000, wrote the informal code -- in 2000, the informal code.

the san francisco board of supervisors, legally binding regarding the clean yard -- clean up to transfer the shipyard. proposition p. the epa, the california protection agency, and the navy shoppers to the highest level of cleanup. organic food growing standards. a shot except such property unless it be satisfied. -- except such property be satisfied. the dangers posed by the sea level rise of one to four meters. by the national academy of

sciences, haute potential complex interactions between sea level rise hazards in urges that the epa and the navy -- regarding potential cleanup strategies before final remedies are selected. there shall be a separate hearing prior. the san francisco region of an agency. president chiu: supervise daly has made a motion, seconded by supervisor mirkarimi. e2 and all of the other parcels. supervisor daly, i would also ask if you could soon -- circulate that information to us. >> yes, my staff, copies.

one other amendment to item 27, adding an additional further resolved clause, page 5, but before the resolve for a fossil fuel -- be it further resolved for fossil fuel. achieving things at comparable costs. no such fossil fuel power plant, district heating and cooling system should be included. i believe that is one reflected in the document. president chiu: so supervise daly has made a motion dealing with keating including in fossil fuels. seconded by supervisor mirkarimi

-- dealing with keynote and cooling and fossil fuels. supervisor mirkarimi: colleagues, i have an amendment which i think is rather benign. it is on for the result that the board of supervisors recommends that the eir study -- it is further resolved. air quality impacts, the city of san francisco would like to be further studied. this is only asking, the report would be complete by 2013, as it begins the early stages of implementation of this project in the eastern area of san francisco. in the line of questioning,