many of the question -- supervisor campos: that's not what i asked. are there items that you have not completed that were identified by the mta that are not completed? >> with all due respect, there are items that have been submitted and there are items that can't be completed until the fta performs subsequent tasks like a secondary risk assessment and risk analysis of the project. the agency is on track and on schedule to receive the full fund and grant agreement in 2011. it is doing everything to meet that goal and many of the items that have been listed in the letter are what needs to be completed and that completion time is phased and addressed by

the fta and the agency so that the team can remain on track. supervisor campos: and you have that in writing you're going to get that money? >> what i have in writing is the full fund and grant agreement, the full fund and grant agreement road map that addresses all of the items and the schedule and the responsible party and when each activity will be completed by the agency and ultimately approved by the federal transit administration and there's also elements in there like when the federal transit administration will review documents, when they will review the full fund and grant agreement and when they anticipate the scheduled approval of the full fund and grabt agreement.

i will respectfully disagree with you on that and my point is simply this, that those of us who are supportive of this project, i think we also need to push forward addressing some of the issues that were identified by the fta and i think that those issues are very specific and i think that they're required deliverables that have not been attained. and i think it requires some of the additional reforms that many of us have talked about and as someone who is supportive of this project, i think it's important for us that we go on parallel tracks, that pushs this forward but also pushes comprehensive reform of the mta so this project can be done on time. thank you. president chiu: any additional questions to the representatives of the mta? thank you for your presentation. let me ask if there are members of the public that are

supporting the mta's resolutions to move forward to this. are you here for public comments in support of the mta? please step up and each speaker shall have up to two minutes. >> good evening. supervisors, my name is jackie sachs. i'm a member of the transportation authority citizens advisory committee. i've also been working on the fourth streetlight rail project inception that was put on the books in 1989 and i helped -- [inaudible] we authorized under problem k sales tax package years later so i'm behind this project a thousand percent. you've gone this far. there's no reason to step back now and worry about the funding for the simple reason that this

third straight light rail project is a sales tax project that gets matching funds from the federal and the state and i've been behind this project from the very beginning and i'm behind what the mta wants to do today. i hope you pass it. thank you very much. president chiu: are there any other members of the public that wish to speak in support of this resolution? okay. at this time if i could ask if there are representatives of the property owners, the five property owners who oppose this resolution? if you could step up, each representative of the property owner shall have up to 10 minutes for your presentation. if you could identify yourself for the record. >> good evening, supervisors. my name is dan engler. i'm an attorney and we

represent jamestown which is the owner of 801 market street. i'll keep my remarks short because i know there's a lot on the agenda. we just wanted to let you know that we are in negotiations with the city and with sfmta. we feel encouraged by the negotiations. they're in good faith. most recently, we submitted comments on the purchase agreement and other transfer documents and we're waiting to hear back from the city attorney and we do not believe at this point since we are proceeding in good faith, we don't see this resolution as necessary and we would prefer the board wait until we finish with negotiations. thank you. president chiu: thank you. are there any other representatives of the property owners who are here that wish to speak today?

going once, going twice. okay. let me ask if there are any members of the public that oppose any or all of these resolutions, if you wish to speak please step up to the microphone. seeing none, let me invite back the mta staff. if you have any final rebuttals. >> thank you. >> thank you very much and yes, we're continuing to work with the property owners and their representatives and we look forward to successful negotiations. thank you. president chiu: thank you. colleagues, any final questions to the mta or any of the property representatives? okay. at this time these hearings have been held and closed. items 44, 46, 48, 50 and 52 are hereby filed. items 45, 47 and 49, 51, 53 are

the resolutions of necessity to acquire the three easements and the two parcels by eminent domain. these items are now in the hands of the board. colleagues, before we proceed, i understand from the city attorney's office that that they are asking us to make some technical amend manies. they have been provided to the members and first can i ask, is there a motion to accept these technical amendments? is there a second? second to the technical amendments? any objection to look moving forward? those amendments are made. is there a motion to adopt the resolutions?

(roll call vote was taken.) (roll call vote was taken.) president chiu: these resolutions are adopted. i would like to make a motion to amendment 42 and 43.

>> on items 42 and 43, supervisor -- >> not debatable. out of order. point of order is out of order. president chiu: if we could take a roll call vote on the motion to terminate debate. (roll call vote was taken.) president chiu: motion to terminate debate passes. it does not pass. given that the motion to terminate debate requires eight votes, it does not pass.

supervisor michela alioto-pier. supervisor sean elsbernd. okay. are the representatives of the city here with regard to the hunter point shipyard project? okay. i understand that representatives of the city have had a chance to take a look at these amendments. i would like to ask mr. cohen

if you have questions or comments on the amendments as they were presented to you. >> i'll be happy to. i apologize it took us so long. it's a lot of language for us to go through in a relatively quick period and a lot of city departments that we needed to confer with. the way i've tried to organize this, which i hope will be helpful for you is which amend manies we think were perfectly comfortable with as they're written, which amendments we think we would be comfortable with if they were modiñ modifie. which amendment we will be recommending. if you're comfortable with that, will proceed in that fashion. oalso be the amendment that woud

make it clear that there would be no -- on the bridge. moving to the amendments which

we would support with certain modifications, this is one word from change to amendments. these are highly problematic documents which have to live and breed 415-20 years. this is anything that a sufficiently material that is coming into the board of supervisors. there are citywide changes to the mandatory policies. if those changes were made and the redevelopment agency commission elected.

>> can you read that amendment exactly where it would go? >> you would add a new sentence to the end of the proposed amendment. that would say nothing here and would require the agency or developers to make a change which would violate an existing project agreement? -- agreement.

we would support the idea that we would take out the waiver of punitive damages in large part to make these documents consistent with other comparable project documents. if you look at mission bay and the treasure island documents which this board recently endorsed, they did include waivers of consequential and special damages that were included and did not include a waiver of tenant to damages. we are willing to fix that to conform to those other agreements. we would also support the amendment regarding heating and cooling. there are a key changes.

one, on the advice of the city attorney, these should not be in the findings. these should not be with the interagency agreement. fossil fuels heating and cooling systems would effectively bar electric and gas heat the way people get it in most homes in san francisco. if that were amended to delete the two references in that amendment to the heating and cooling systems but retained a prohibition against power plants, we would be comfortable with that amendment.

in terms of items that we are recommending against approval that, both of the amendments regarding studies for the day lighting of the watershed and air quality, we don't have a problem with either of these issues as a matter of public policy but we did discuss this quite a bit with other departments and the city attorney's office. we don't think that they fit in the project's findings. we believe that these would be better addressed an entirely separate resolutions so they would not cause any solution with the findings themselves.

>> there's nothing stopping this board from introducing resolutions related to having additional studies. i think the point that is being made is that the studies presented are not related to the project as they relate to some bigger areas and it is a portrait for the board to take this up as something as any time in the future. >> this could be introduced at roll call today as a resolution? >> i am not sure the proper way to do this -- >> could this be done as a roll call resolution? >> you can ask for us to

prepare our resolution and this will not be voted on today. >> thank you. >> we are recommending approval of both supervisor mirkarimi's supposed amendments regarding the bridge. we have agreed to the one on water usage. the amendment that would have no bridge whatsoever in the project for that would require the more narrow. we are comfortable with the idea that there's sufficient uncertainty around the forty- niners. if and when they decide to come back, we'll have the opportunity to have a full debate with the board of supervisors about what is the best -- of public

benefits. in this scenario which is the only -- that we can count on right now, the existence of that bridge for transit purposes is fundamental to both the land use and financial underpinnings of the project. if we have to deal with the uncertainty about whether those fundamental underpinnings were reliable, it would frankly make it impossible for us to move forward with the early phases of the project.

the amendment applies no institutional controls that are factually inaccurate. we have talked about the fact that many here in the land use committee, we will be utilizing the remedy is on the site and institutional controls. the epa has provided an added layer of construction. it would prohibit housing on the shipyard and that is obviously inconsistent with some of the basic land use elements. this would use fuel standards

and these are inconsistent with the convenience agreement. this would be unprecedented anywhere in the city, the state, or the country. that is our response. >> i want to clarify for process that while it is critical that we get the feedback, the thank from the sponsors and development, it is clear that what we decide it is not hinge on the feedback that is provided. is that correct? >> absolutely, we can vote on these as we wish. it is up to see whether you want to incorporate this.

this is whatever version you would like us to vote on. you would like us to vote on an amended version as suggested and we can do that as well. >> while i appreciate the reports back to us, what works, what may work, it doesn't work, this house to structure the discussion. with regard to material changes, that is a more hefty amendment and i'm glad that we see some meeting of the minds. i will accept the recommendation on the question of the amended as the recommendation has been made, it does not at all alter the intent and i think it does exactly what i suggested we do two weeks ago and that is provide for enforceable commitments so the board of supervisors is involved and we are part of the stops.

on the question of the bridge, and why not bring us back to since you had suggested against the idea of the 41 footbridge coming to us and only allowing the bridge come to us, what about the ability to evaluate? >> i apologize, i was probably not articulate. in order for us to move forward in a meaningful way, the existence of that least is so fundamental to the financial underpinnings of the project that having that come back to

the board for a later decision would create an acceptable level of uncertainty. what we have heard was a larger bridge. they have some traffic. this brings transit into the site which supports this project and it is so fundamental that it creates a level of uncertainty. >> if the bridge is not returned back to us, you abide by at least that one portion that i thought i heard you say. what about deleting the use of

private automobiles? >> we are in agreement. >> what is the stadium is not built, this is the design of the bridge. in the event that there is no stadium and we are going ahead with the 41 foot bridge. that was so fundamental to the financial and land use underpinnings, we need to have that cleared as a matter of rights. >> regard to the two studies,

what if the transference, in regards to any recognition of helping subsidize those studies or helping to recognize the administration of those studies. >> in part, one of the reasons that we were recommending that these resolutions be separately, it was not clear that there was a request for the developers to fund these studies. in fact, for the watershed studies, this recommended that the puc move ahead with those studies.

while we support the idea that both of those are worthwhile, it is not clear that this project is the appropriate vehicle for acknowledging the fact that these studies are important. >> thank you. >> you like to look at the amendments regarding mandatory local hiring have clarified questions on this. >> do you want to do the

proposed modifications. >> nothing here in would require the agency or other to make a change. basically, what they're saying, i believe this is true as a matter of law, we will get this existing peace in place. the obligations need to be addressed. my understanding is that there is one of these in place for the hunters point shipyard. i don't believe there's one for candlestick point. part of why we think that is important, i don't know why it broader simmons