payments, rent, mortgages, medical bills, they are out of work. the flip side of affordable housing is that if people are not working you will need that much more. we want you to take it into consideration. i know the other members of the board of supervisors understand the severe unemployment problem we have. we need to put people to work in this city and we urge you to support the project. >> thank you. >> supervisors, i wanted to reiterate the alliance for jobs and sustainable growth. this project means a lot of work for a lot of people. the alliance represents many unions as well as many businesses. it is truly unique. we urge you to support the

project. thank you very much. >> good evening supervisors. i am representing san francisco green party and our city. hopefully you got my email and have read it about the tsunami danger. i want to pring this issue to the core problem. over the last four weeks the financing and the governance structure of this project have changed dramatically in ways that are threatening, not to mention threatening to make worse all of the problems already been mentioned in the e.i.r. in the last 4-5 hearings i watched staff was given four strategies, separate strategies for solving the affordable housing problem. this is being flown blind and it is in danger of hitting a

wall. it is crucial that you knock this back to the fact, do not approve this until we get a handle on what is going on with all of this craziness over the last few weeks. >> thank you. >> you know as a lot of these environmental issues played out over the last several weeks and months we waited to see the resolution following a workforce development guarantee around a local hiring commitment to the project. the shift towards a different source of financing does not mean there is not much more of a good faith effort to connect local workers with this workforce. i understand it might be ongoing, developing. i would like to learn more as soon as possible.

a lot of us were made to believe one of the things that would be done is to, you know, we are losing affordable housing and so many environmental issues on this project but that there would be a guarantee around local workers with these jobs being significant. the project allows that language before it goes to the board. thanks. >> thank you. mr. whitaker. >> thanks for your sticking around. there are a lot of things to love about the treasure island plan, but the one thing that scares me is the parking plan. my neighborhood, we share the same look, if you will. we are close to the highway, entrance ramps. our parking ratio is one parking space for every two

dwellings. that is what i hope everyone will have. one car for two dwelling spaces. the e.i.r. spells why we should kick it back. do we really want to slow down muni metro service, cars being backed up on westbound 80 to berkeley, they will be backed up to richmond. a $5 congestion fee or even $10. 5,000 per year. or is $2,500 per year go to stop someone from driving? thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. i am a member of and the chair of the citizens treasure island

-yerba buena island advisory board since their inception in 2,000. this is the 12th year of meeting. i wish i kept count of all of the meetings we had for the public to have their opportunity to let us hear what they had to say. i haven't kept track but i know we have had 12 meeting this is year and 40 since the beginning of last year. tuesday, april 19th, meeting our cab voted, took action on approval for the final transaction document of the 24 cab members who sit now, 21 were present. the vote was taken. it was 20-1. of the three who were unable to be present who wrote letters of strong and heart felt support. so, i really hope that you will

forward this with your approval. the staff has done an excellent job and thinking quickly on their feet to transfer it to an -- >> you said within the c.a.c. you voted 20-1 to support the project? >> that is correct. yes. and actually because we can't vote by proxy those that were not present were not able to but i do know that two other members also wrote letters in strong support which i read into the record at our meeting. so, everything that you have heard has gone over and over again. i know you hear opinions from a lot of members of the public and people who has been elected that may have things to say against this project but i have not seen them at any of our public meetings during our 12 years.

>> thank you for sticking to the time. public comments are closed. we should ask if staff wanted to respond to any of the comments made by the audience. >> i will raise one raised by a couple of the sierra club advocates and a couple of others. there are those questioning the transportation plan, will congestion be unmanageable and how is it being outweighed by the environmental and transportation improvements. >> sure. obviously having the bridge as the only vehicle connection to the city or the east bay should

be a concern that is ongo to the project as it was ongoing. but over the years you always come up with a very creative program to actually discourage car travel. it is made of a couple of key elements. there will bea i toll that will be set by the treasure island transportation management authority. so the board will have to ultimately designate who is the titma. what they do is set the congestion pricing and determine how transit is subsidized and use revenues from parking on the island. as well as congestion pricing we worked over the years, there

will be metering lights on the ramp to control traffic to and from the island. there is unbundled residential parking. each housing unit is required to buy a pass equal to a fast pass amount. we think it is somewhat groundbreaking. and to be flexible to the extent that bus service needs to be enhanced and ferry service less so or vice versa. we have built in the tools and financing vehicles to fund this as well as an agency to implement it. >> i think the main point that came out of the planning commission discussion is that we are underestimating the amount of congestion that will be created by 8,000 or more new people with the one to one cars and will these improvements in transit upset that congestion that will come with the on and

off ramp to the golden gate bridge. >> we think we overestimated the amount of automobile use in the e.i.r. we think we overestimated the impact to the bay bridge. given the ferry option that there will be more residents and visitors taking transits. but cal tran has been supportive of us moving forward and the mechanisms that we have put in place. >> another question that came up, i know a number of labor reps strongly supported the project. one question is on local hiring. i thought that there was an answer that the project would abide by the local hiring policies in the city. and joshua mentioned it is not in the d.a. but where is that

language built in and how are we assuring we are abiding by the local hiring policies in the city? >> maybe i wasn't clear at the last hearing but there is a job program in commitments attached to the d.d.a. we are happy to sit down and walk through what the commitments are in that document. but it basically shows vertical and horizontal development within the project commits to a goal of 50% local hiring through the tidi job local program. local hire will only apply to city sponsored projects so we have projects that we are actually constructing. for the horizontal development where the developer is fronting the money and entering into

contracts, tidi will come along to buy that back and our jobs program applies. local hire does not apply to that. we are not considering that a possible works. that is infrastructure being built by the developer and purchased back by the city which could be years later which tax increment bonds are issued and able to purchase that back. we are buying back infrastructure and not contracting for that infrastructure. >> i know ruth from the c.a.c. and others raised issues of the water management system and what role and at what point do they get involved in the water management plans that are going to be on the island? >> they have been involved over the years, so the entire storm water plan has been approved or will be before they are

commissioned. we have worked with staff. it will insure that the infrastructure is built according to the plan and it basically has helped us. that is part of the d.d.a. >> i know a number of the a nue planning commissioners that voted in support, they questioned the phasing in the infrastructure phasing plan that it was not described in detail. if you could just explain more about the phasing of the infrastructure to protect the residents from potential seismic or other natural disasters? >> have a the schedule of performances. they have the terminal infrastructure. the transfer the land to to

block trucks. they are obligated to build the infrastructure associated with the development as was the adjacent parks. as the infrastructure is there, they are also constructed at the same time. the rest of that is primarily borne by the developers. they will have to front the money to build the infrastructure tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. they don't get reimbursed for

that until we issue the infrastructure financing bonds start when that is starting. we can issue bonds. it could be years between the time the developer from some of the funding. supervisor mar: i will raise the questions i have indeed discussions. they have raised serious questions about the government structure and whether it is an accountable body had whether they have the capacity to properly manage in the way that the redevelopment agency did in the past. did you respond to those questions? >> it was created by the city, a

nonprofit public benefit corporation. legislation was passed to enable the board of supervisors to give them a redevelopment authority. it was back in 1999 or 1997. it exists not just as the redevelopment agency, but a non- profit public benefit corporation. the board has authority to approve or disapprove of the appointments. it is subject to the contract in budget authority of the board. it comes to you to approve if it were to amend these agreements. that act, in essence, like an agency of the city. he will have to gear up and change some of its role.

the development, it could do that in various ways. right now, how it works is, the contract basically to provide the development expertise. we can rely on the redevelopment agency or the planning agency department. any agency that has that expertise. we do that in the infrastructure development and those agencies that are involved in doing the same work. supervisor mar: this is my last point. we provide quite a bit of transparency. all of the numerous hearings you have done, he raises this as he supports the project, still kind of doing his best. i tell -- know jane kim keep

raising the issue. you'll get above the base affordable housing. any local maneuvers, is that going to be specifically written in a way that we can see what we argue in fact a 30% or higher? but i could talk about the mayor of's commitment. the elimination of redevelopment, it is a robust tool. these economic projects as well as affordable housing, we saw the governor come very close to 11 a redevelopment. it is a bill that is still up at this stage. they put forward a compromise bill that will diminish the amount of tax increment

available to our redevelopment agency to carry out these projects. let's and francisco, it is unique in the way that it can generate or capture 65 cents of the dollar to put back into these development projects. the bayer shares all of our concern that we have to change the law to make housing available use. and also put it a requirement. the redevelopment has to look at affordable housing. the mayor is definitely committed to that. the board is also talking to our state representatives to figure of the best way to introduce that to the various stages of legislation that are before the state. i could just assure you that the

mayor is committed to making those changes. >> my understanding is that there is a controller report and a budget analyst report that should be coming? i think it is eight, nine, 10, and 11. >> and we anticipate a report. it will be issued later this week. >> let me think that the black about and to stay this long. it is several hours of this hearing as well. the key for your endurance and perseverance as well. the key for their great presentation as well. >> there will be evident to some of these. >> if they could just explained a little bit of the dodd substantive amendments that you prepared for today?

>> from the city attorney's office. i think each piece of legislation before you today does have an amendment that makes technical corrections to various references. some bill legislation has reference to the redevelopment plan which is a logger part of the approval structure. there are technical amendments to a call the legislation to address the same issues that have changed in terms of the project approval process. there were pieces of legislation that you have amendments. they are not substantive, but i will bring them to the attention of the committee. there are changes to the special use district. the first what is on page 42.

that is why the -- it was previously a process for submission that an applicant would make and it was discretionary to submit the documentation to the planning department. the change now would require a submission application to go as well as the planning department. >> a couple of the changes are just changing the word "plan" to "agreement." >> those are some of the technical changes that were made to reference the correct documents. to drop the references to redevelopment plan and instead use "project."

the other change to the special use district that i wanted to bring to your attention is on line 49. beginning on line 10, he used by the planning commission, the legislation before you have to show the the both of them and the applicant could appeal the decision. this change in the light knowledge merely indicates that they could do that independently without having to go through the ownership secure requirements that would apply for other conditional use elsewhere in the city. it was just to clarify the intent. that is page 49, 11 and 12. >> the other amendments are for the subdivision code item.

one of them is primarily along the lines that you had just mentioned. beginning on page 11, there is a reference here indeed hot definitional to plan documents, but now that there is not a redeveloped plan, will modify that definition to refer to the project had project documents. those changes you will see on page 11 beginning line 23. and going to page 12 through lines 5 sx. there are amendments throughout. the other changes would bring to your attention is the definition of transportation infrastructure. this is the infrastructure that will be required that will be public infrastructure. we're just in the fighting the kinds of scenes that would be done in terms of the mta type

infrastructure of the islands. the one item that was added to that list of items was operator restrooms. supervisor mar: any other questions? is there a motion? supervisor cohen: we do items 2- 12 to the full board. supervisor mar: any objection? >> mr. chair, the items 8-11 lead to be referred to the budget and finance committee. supervisor mar: i see that. with the exception of items 8- 11, also without recommendation. >> of the of that does need to

be approved. >> can we accept the bid without objection? supervisor wiener: i will be supporting the motion. that motion, at least speaking personally, should not be interpreted in the project. i do support this project. i remember moving to san francisco in may to 97, in reading about the treasure island development and following it closely over the years. well before i was on the board of supervisors. i of the the process has been extraordinary and evolving every level of government between toyota and the halls of washington d.c.. i cannot think of a project that has been more thoroughly thought through or more thoroughly designed.

when you look at the seismic precautions in the transportation plan, and everything else, the changes that have been made in response to different concerns whether it is hall reservation or affordable housing. we're disappointed by the governor's decision to live in a redevelopment. it has been a flexible process throughout, i think this process is very strong. nothing is certain in life. there will always be uncertainties about the future. i am quite supportive of this project. >> without objection, thank you. is there anything else before us this evening? >> there are no further items. hong >> of the meeting is adjourned, thank you.

president vietor: good afternoon, everybody. one second. ready?

i like to call the meeting of the san francisco public utility commission to order. first item please. >> roll call. [roll call] i might note vice president moran is excused. he's out of the state. president vietor: he's in oregon. next item. >> approval of the minutes of march 22. if there are any corrections, additions, or changes to make, we can entertain a motion to approve. president vietor: comments, questions? holland favor? it is passed. -- all in favor? >>