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 hiding them. 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,