so one might imagine you would not be able to make a decision next week, but you could have a meeting and you could continue the discussion of questions. >> always the issue of a quorum. >> so i think what's happening is we're going to continue on and see how far you can get. >> ok. >> and leave it to the call to the chair whether he wants to call the vote or whether a special meeting will be called for next week or whether the item will be continued. >> although i would also assume that if any member of the commission wants to call a vote, that they can do that. >> they can. you must have public comment. but other than that, you can call it. >> ok. so for how we should proceed, i take it, commissioner caen, you have questions. >> yes. i have specific questions in

the resolution. >> ok. >> i just want to make sure that our bases are covered in that regard. >> when i talked with michael yesterday, i guess it was, i talked about infrastructure. cronk. he said that everything -- correct me if i'm wrong. he said that everything is done to accepted specifications. and i bring up the issue because i think that we at p.u.c. should be the one that dictates how things are done. not just a general specification. and i want to make sure that that is in this resolution. absolutely. we can do that. just as a reminder. the infrastructure -- that

would come before the p.u.c. for their approval and then the subphase applications and ultimately the improvement plans prior to construction permits. so everything that -- before it' approved has to meet with the p.u.c.'s specifications, and p.u.c. staff has signed off on the technical memoranda that are attached and, again, form the basis for awful the design criteria going forward -- for all of the design criteria going forward. >> so what you'd like ig confirmation of that from mr. carlin, that he's comfortable? >> there is a procedure for us to provide very detailed specifications and then to follow up with the developer on following those specifications.

zg i see it for -- i see it for waste water. >> i see it third to the last, "further resolved," where it talks about -- give me a second. let me back up, fourth to the last resolve. actually covers negotiating the elements concerning the quality and it talks about p.u.c.-related infrastructure and all of that has to be -- it's in the second one and it says that meets the requirements for construction warranties and guarantees, operations and maintenance manuals, testing and training that are consistent. >> i'm sorry, are you on page 14? >> yes, i am. >> it's number two. number two. on that page. there's number one and number two. and actually, number two is very specific that it has to meet our current practices.

>> i have no other qu like to m point that we have had many reviews about this project. we've had 265 meetings. maybe some of the newer commissioners have never had a review of treasure island, but i think a lot of these questions that we're bringing up now have really been discussed in the past. and if the questions are really pressing, that that's necessary. but i would like to move ahead and get this resolved. >> so you're moving to move. >> i'm making a motion. >> second. >> ok. we have a motion and a second

to approve basically everything that's on the agenda item? >> correct. so now you can open it up for discussion. >> and i will do that. >> before we have public comment, just want to explain my second -- >> go right ahead. >> because i'm aware of the fact that we have had 265, 274 meetings on this item already, because i and many members of the public have read in the paper today that we're talking about an additional revenue stream of approximately $80 million, because we've talked about 2,000 jobs for construction workers, especially for men and women in the community who need those job opportunities, not to mention the other permanent jobs that are available. in addition to that we've talked about the afortable housing that's going to be available -- affordable housing that's going to be available on the island. 25% is the number we're talking about now. but my understanding is that supervisor caen is going to be

on the steps talking to legislation to increase that backup to the 30% threshold that was in excess of what the minimum was going to be. not to mention we talked at length about the hope and the goal of hiring 25% at risk people, whether they're at risk as a result of some kind of criminal conduct or being rehabilitated or they're living in a particular zip code or whatever it is. and my understanding also is that the public is going to have another opportunity and continuing opportunities to vet this entire project, not including all of the opportunities they'll have to do so before the san francisco board of supervisors. so i'm reluctant to hold this project up here, but with all due respect, especially for my colleagues, i'm somebody who hasn't been here for a very long time. but i can assure you i see the benefits of this project. i think it's a state-of-the-art project and i think it's

something that -- i certainly don't want to be a part of prohibiting it from moving forward. >> commissioner caen has the wisdom that, as you members do not have, in terms of some of these reviews. but we certainly have read the material. but i also want to, again, congratulate you and the mayor's staff and the mayor, because this is a gargantuan project. the fact that you've had 274 hearings, i don't think i've ever been involved with an issue and legislation that's had more than five hearings. so i think the questions that i had regarding seawalls, regarding climate change issues affecting the bay and clearly the tsunamis were answered appropriately for me. so i would think this is an incredible project and we need to move forward.

>> let me ask a point of procedure. you were indicating that you were willing to work on language that tightened up that requirement. if we actually adopt this stuff tonight, what is the opportunity to make those kinds of changes? or does that basically close the door and say p.u.c. has acted and we'll move on? >> if i may, commissioners, can i just read from one of the further resolve clause in the resolution? that this commission authorizes the mayor, the city administrator and the director of public works or any successor city officer designated by law to enter into and approve any additions, amendments or other modifications to the interagency cooperative agreement, including, without limitation in the exhibit, that they determine in consultation with the city attorney and any effective city agencies are in the best interest of the city, provided that any such additions, amendments or modifications do not materially increase the cost or liabilities of the city and are

necessary or advisable to effectuate the implementation of the development plan -- the plan documents -- >> materially increases the issue. >> so as long as the additional amendments or thoughts that you would want to have in there don't materially increase the cost, it would seem that it would be available to make those kind of adjustment. >> again, that's what was intended with the language in the financing plan. the language is authorized. so what we would submit is -- i'll just read the sentence again. however, notwithstanding the discretion the developer has in funding additional community facilities from c.f.d. bonds prior to the conversion date in subsection 2.8 c for each c.f.d., if prior to the c.f.d. conversion date sea levels and the water surrounding the project area rise by more than

16 inches from the levels in existence on the reference date, as defined in the infrastructure plan -- this is what we would propose to add -- the city agrees to finance the future sea level rise improvements from first c.f.d. bonds of such c.f.d. >> do i have the commitment of your office that if the commission does act tonight that you will work with me to address remaining issues that we haven't even talked about yet? >> absolutely. >> and that would involve both -- as i read it, it's the development agreement and the infrastructure -- or the interagency cooperation agreement as well as the financing plan. did i miss one? those are the three. ok. let's open it up to public comment, then. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> mr. brooks.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. eric brooks representing san francisco green party and the local grass-roots organization of our city. i would strongly urge you to continue this item. even though there have been years of planning on this, even though there has been a lot of hearings on it, there's been a recent development within the last month that completely changes the game on this issue. you've received some communications about sea level rise and tsunami dangers. keep in mind that tsunamis 10 feet and above are not accounted for in this project plan, and that could happen from alaska. also, the new estimates of worst-case sea level rise are 78 inches, not 55. the bcdc is relying on more conservative data from a couple of years ago from the ipcc. the scientist that is have come up with the new 78-inch figure

are ipc scientists. so the most recent date is not being included and the 7 -inch figure is -- the 78-inch figure is nowhere in the response. the thing that's changed is because redevelopment was threatened by the governor, the funding mechanism to this project was changed to infrastructure financing districts. the amount that we can capture from that is 65% instead of 80% from redevelopment. that cu for this project nearly 20%. and so this gets to the heart of what you were asking, commissioner more ann, is that the sea level -- more ran, is that the sea level rise and reactions to sea level rise are dependent to this project working out properly. and repeated hearings about funding, especially in relation to affordable housing, staff was asked whether they can guarantee that they're going to get up to that 80% with

legislation in sacramento, and they repeatedly said, no, we can't guarantee that. so we're in a situation where if we don't get a better mitigation for sea level rise or better funding mechanism to ensure mitigation of sea level rise, if frankly we don't get a better mitigation for tsunami that's not even in the plan yet . also, i have also heard from bright line defense project that the local hiring guarantees in this project are also threatened by the unstable situation with regard to the funding mechanisms of this project. i heard from independent parties that they were going to file an appeal today, so the city attorney should check and see if they have filed that appeal, whether you can vote. but the nailed-down funding to make sure these mitigations happen is not necessarily there. and i believe there is going to be an appeal. and i strongly urge you to wait

until that appeal is completed and then make these decisions before you commit your enterprise agencies to something that could ends up costing you a lot of money, no matter who's liable. because if you get hit with a flood it doesn't matter whether somebody else is liable. if your infrastructure goes down in a big way, it's on the agency. >> thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. i'm karen knowles pierce and i not only have been the chair of the c.a.b., i've been the chair of the c.a.b. for 11 years. michael is a bit of a new bee, but we have -- newbie, but we've appreciated his help. over the 11 years as a c.a.b., as michael said, we have held hundreds of public meetings. i wish i had kept count. i will tell you that since 2010 we've had 40 meetings, and through the middle of april of

this year, the c.a.b. has held eight, as we have reviewed all the entitlement documents. the vetting process has been extensive and has included, among other issues, community benefits, transportation, open space, bike and pedestrians paths, wetlands, sea level rise, global warming, native plants, housing and jobs. as michael also mentioned, this project has been designated as a priority development area by abag. the c.a.b. asks for your authorization of the documents before you today and we appreciate. also, if i may, ruth had to leave. i see i have a little more time and she left me a note and asked if i would read this, for which i need my glasses. ruth wants to convey her

support for the execution of the i.c.a. as the storm water management details are decided in the future negotiations, she hopes that you will seek to maximize the multiple benefit of the water quality improvement wild life habitat environmental education and aesthetic enjoifment and i thank you from both of us. >> thank you. next. ms. jackson. >> good afternoon, espinola jackson. i really didn't come t to speak on this issue, but since it came up while i'm here, i did not hear any mention of local hiring. and i had heard some disturbing news, i any a week or two ago when two of your committees met together, stating that they did not have to do local hiring. i would like to make sure that

you understand that local hiring has been approved in 1968 by h.u.d. and it's section three. and i really hope that your staff reads section three of the h.u.d. guidelines concerning local hiring. also, there's been discussion and concern for daily wages and whether it's private or whether it's union, there has to be -- there must be prevailing wages that are paid to the employees. what needs to be done, what we don't have, is to make sure that we have certified compliance officers to make sure that the work that should be done in this city is done because heads have been turned the other way and people are frightened that they're going to be losing. and you, like someone stated a few minutes ago, whatever your decision is, you are ultimately

responsible to number one, when you agree to something, although it goes down to a contractor, to a prime and to the subs. you are number one. that also, when persons want to make complaints, they can file a complaint against you, the city, as well. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> yes, i'm from bright line defense. good evening. and i wanted to just highlight that we did learn at the board of supervisors that when the financing mechanism shifted from being redevelopment to being the infrastructure financing district that we did lose the ability to have a local hiring policy. that's been confirmed at the board of supervisors. i think they kinds of teased that out. not to say that there was -- the city's new local hiring ordinance would not have applied to the vertical

>> we got the opinion and gained some comfortablibility around the fact that there was a policy in place for the horizontal infrastructure work. now the development agreement says that specifically for the horizontal infrastructure work. i think folks are willing to say that there is challenges around doing the vertical construction with local hire. but the development agreement and maybe a commissioner can tease it out from the staff, it says specifically that there is section 6 of the administrative code which is where the local hire ordinance lies, specifically does not apply to this. we don't have the good faith policy that the redevelopment agency had and we don't have the local hire law now that it

is an infrastructure deal. i know that there is an interest in certainly a majority of the supervisors to fix it. the commissioners or general manager with a strong supporter of local hiring, we think it is a nice balance. we had strong partners in labor to get it to work. if we could take time to fix it, it could be a start. certainly there is enough environmental questions and other questions to put it out on the table to work it out while other things get worked out. i would appreciate it if the commission addresses what you are building out as an agency. thanks. >> combrg public comment? ok. any other comment from staff?

>> i want to make one correction into the resolution, where it talks about the cable come to the island in the second to last sentence on the first paragraph on page 11 it says if the exercise the option the obligation insert the words will be determined according to the m.o.a. and strike the words is forgiven. >> ok. that is an amendment to the resolution. >> to the resolution. >> do i have a motion on that? >> so moved. >> second. >> got a second. any discussion? those in favor. opposed. and on the main action, let me make a comment. i think that there are a lot of

unresolved issues as far as protecting their ability to protect its interest in its assets. and i appreciate the mayor's office willingness to try to resolve those in the documents after today and 50 some years ago i learned to count to 3. i think that we are probably ready for a vote. but i don't think that we have completed our due diligence, and i don't think frankly that we have -- and i will be voting no. >> some speakers haven't learned to count to three. >> i don't know if earlier in response to the question about the obligation of the city to issue debt or reserve enough room there was wording at the microphone, i am not sure if that amended one of our resolutions that you need to add into this. it is unclear to me.

>> there are a couple of modifications that were floating around. >> this was actually in the financing plan where they would actually change it on the financing plan for sea level rise that the city and developer agreed to finance the future improvements. >> can the resolution refer to that this is contingent upon this change in the financing plan? >> we don't have it in the resolution. the financing plan would be changed to reflect this. >> there is also the -- what is it called? there was a draft. i think those have been amended. >> those we have copies for you. >> those should be amended into

the resolution to reflect that those are changes that you would like to see. and i can briefly see that those were things that were actually reflected in the relugse one way, shape or form but they are clarifics in the documents and we created edits in the documents. >> do i have a motion to that effect? >> so moved. >> just for the record those edits are available to you because you need to get them to the commissioner. those are the written ones. >> it is the technical amendments and also adding in the language that would make this contingent upon making the other adjustment. >> that is correct. >> whichever one it is. >> basically reference the document. >> ok. >> thank you.

so, i have a motion and a second to make the amending resolution suggested that incorporates the changes in the modified version of the mayor's office of economic development edit document that has been provided to the commissioner. any discussion on that amendment? ok. calling for a vote, all those in favor. refer aye. >> ok. it carries. and on the action as a whole, the resolution in front of the commission as amended. all those in favor? >> aye. >> and i will vote opposed. the motion carries. ok. thank you. >> commissioners, if i may make a suggestion, i think 16, 17

and 19 are non-controversial. >> they can be taken together. >> if we can have a minute or two i think we can answer questions but they are non-controversial. 16, 17 and 19. >> ok. mr. secretary if you would call those items please. >> discussion of possible action on behalf of the city ask county of san francisco to allocate and manage costs until the federal energy regulatory commission issues a new license for the don pedro project and further to authorize the general manager of the sfpuc to allocate an amount to not exceed $750,000 for the duration of this five-year agreement between 2011 and 2016.

18, discussion -- 19 discussion and possible tooks approve the terms and conditions and authorize the general manager of the san francisco public utilities commission to convey at no cost to the city of santa clara acting through its electric utility company known as silicon valley power a non-exclusive electrical utility easement to provide the electrical power service needed to operate the bay division pipeline number 3 and crossover facility at the guadalupe a site in the city of santa clara. >> do i have a motion? i have a question on item 19. whose power is actually being

provided to run our facilities? >> we have access to silicon valley power agency. >> wait. i take that back. we will have to look into that. >> yeah. >> mr. kelly, do you know? >> we can resolve this later. but i am interested in being able to provide our own power to our own facility and if we have a path to provide power to them they may be a customer. >> right. >> yeah. we can look into it. it is silicon valley power. >> ok. let's pursue that separately. on the motion is there any public comment? seeing none we have a motion. second. all those in favor. >> aye. >> all right. ok those opposed. none. the motion carries. >> since i see you voting with

your feet does it make sense to continue the rest of the items to the next meeting? >> i am fine with that. item 18 to be continued to the call of the chair. >> and the closed session. >> closed session also continued to the next meeting. >> well done. >> ok. do we have a motion to adjourn? >> so moved. >> thank you. this meeting is adjourned.