flood plain ends. most of is 11 feet and above. geour sketch, coming back with e waves do and the tides do, the sketch shows the perimeter is approximately 12 feet around treasurer arlin. -- treasure island. as it exists at about 17 or 18 feet. at a 100-year tied of about 9 feet, the allowance is needed for waves, answed when the waves

exceed a certain-answered, that is not as coastal flooding common -- mapped as coastal flooding, which is periodic flooding that occurs. there is a procedure specified by fema itself during good -- in the of. -- itself. it happens to be approximately 1 foot below the existing and who elevation. it has succeeded. what is assessed, and fema would

not not set as a flood plain. -- map that as a flood plain. one of the first thing we have to do it is look at existing agencies, and none of those had any sort of guidance. they have elected to local agencies to assess the risk. the independent science panel

recognized it. given the inability to meet future sea level rise, they suggest local agencies use between twenty and fifty feet increase, and in the plan itself, though a strategy that would address higher sea levels. they took it a step further unspecified -- m specified projects should be built by the year 2015 so there would be no work and needed region by the year 2015 so there would be work needed until the year 2015 --

who should be built by the year 2050, so there would be no work needed until the year 2050. >> i want to see if there is a way -- if there are specific questions, maybe we can address the pieces that were not in the binder, and so if there are pieces in here that are not in here, you could present the spirit of that would be great. -- you could present that. that would be great. >> [unintelligible] >> they are all in the report we received? >> they are all in the report.

>> maybe if we have questions, because i do, but i would like to turn it to other commissioners first. i will start with a couple things. one has to do with this is what led to peace, and i did not see much -- what lent peace -- wetlands piece, and i did not see much. i think something has been missing in this project. >> i could point to these slides, to spirit -- too. along the west edge, is the urban open space and the park, so the opportunities that existed for bringing in wetlands

are a long scenarios shown -- along areas shown. thank you. those areas have the potential for laying back the perimeter of the beginning of the project, and those areas could be temporarily inundated, which is what what lent function at -- puebloans -- wetlands function as, and how it would function is on this particular side, this is the northern shore line. this is us constructed along the edge, which is 3 feet or so, of

to the year -- so of to the year -- so up to the year 2050, this would not need changes. a more simple approach would be to raise the perimeter. it includes grain down to the perimeter, removing hamas -- the rock and building of speech or a wetland. the northwest corner is most exposed to waves, is about would

work as. -- so that would work best. those areas can be converted into a wetland. the final extreme is to go back even further. i will end with one slide here. this is from travis. he was there at almost every

meeting. there are a number of supplies on tsunamis -- slides on tsunamis. >> back to the requirements to fund these improvements, the plan is on page 24, third

brought a -- sub paragraph a. it is subparagraph e. it is the last paragraph on page 24, and that is the sentence immediately after the bold words, "future sea level improvements."

>> right. >> is required to be installed by the pursuant authorities, the city agrees to finance future improvements through the bonds and those becoming available to the city. we then go on to say, the notwithstanding the discretion , for each cfd, if prior to the conversion date, sea levels rise by 15 inches, the future sea

level improvements will be authorized to be financed. >> no wonder i didn't find it. no wonder i did not recognize it to be that. >> we did not deliberately bury it. >> i will put aside who they are. it is triggered by some regulatory agency saying you have to act. >> it is not triggered by anyone other than the city

itself. if the local community does not find it acceptable, they would build along the perimeter. it is purely a decision of the local community. >> if sea level rise increases by 16 inches, there is a method and an obligation to fix that. >> [inaudible] apologies. i am not intimately familiar

with the language he just read. i think it certainly makes it clear what the priority is, but keep in mind, there will be discretionary decisions made by the city in issuing debt as required, so if what you are looking for is a completed obligation to fund at this point that some third party could pint to, i don't know that's legally possible. the city is going to have to exercise that right.

when i say the city, it could be a governmental entity that will have to exercise that. if that is what you are trying to identify, so feel free to clarify. i am not your attorney, so i do not know the details. >> we are willing to make it stronger. we should work on that language with you. >> part of it is to make sure we don't take actions to make that money go away. they also have to control

themselves so there is money left when that date comes. th clerk'sis lin -- >> this is exactly what my concerns were, an i would feel much more comfortable if there was something clearer. i have to go, and i am going to hand over the chair. we are suggesting we continue to the next meeting or the following month. it would be up to him to see if they are ready to come to vote. >> was it your intent to have

the vote? >> it was on the agenda, but i think there are a lot of outstanding questions, so i did not necessarily think we should call a vote until the questions can be answered. it is very specific, and i know the hour is getting late, and it gets harder to make good decisions. >> is there an issue if we carry this over? burke'swe -- >> we are ready to

address any issues. we have >> we have the technical questions. >> yes, but i think that the issue is that it's getting late and that we have a lot more questions as it relates to utilities and that perhaps it would make more sense if there's no reason not to carry the item over. >> the next meeting, it can be a month from now. obviously, to continue, that's your right to do that. i think that there is an issue. one assumes this might be appealed, and if it appealed, it will restrict your ability to make decisions for a period of time. it will depend on what that period of time is in terms of the appeal and what happens with that. >> what would the timing be? >> i would go on to say this is one of the mayor's priority projects. we've been working at the staff

level to resolve all of these issues over the past five years. we feel that we have done so. we feel that delaying an action tonight creates entitlement uncertainty both for tita as well as the developer and our ability to move forward pursuing the project. again, if there is an appeal, you would not be able to act until the board of supervisors heard that appeal, which would be in the middle of june. this has been on the calendar before. it has already been delayed. we're into the trying too accelerate the schedule. we think the information that's been provided to the commission is sufficient for you all to take action tonight. >> and just to be clear, i totally understand that reasoning. i don't believe that it's a legal requirement as such for you to take action. it certainly is a strong preference. >> i do have additional questions.

they go to basically my role as due diligence to make sure our interests are protected. i'm prepared and have the time to go through this. >> proceed. >> tonight, on the other hand, if we'd like to -- if people would rather not do that, i'm fine withholding it over and we could meet and talk about what my issues are and have better answers to that when we come back. so -- >> i agree. i'm uncomfortable moving this item to the next meeting. if we have to stay till midnight, let's stay till midnight. because the problem is, a lot of people have questions and we'll never build it. so let's do our due diligence and make that happen, and it's my hope that we'll vote. >> so as i started, i'm happy to hand over the chair and, you know, my main concern is really this issue about the financing mechanism to the adaptive

management strategies and to make sure that those are clearly defined and in place and that there's very clear language around that, because that's been my real concern. and i just want to go on record saying that. and then i will leave it to the chair to then figure out if his answers and the rest of the commission's questions can be answered in order for there to be a vote. >> is there a provision on this commission for a call to be placed and a vote? in other words, if i have to leave by 6:30, which i have to, will there be a quorum left? and if not, is there a way -- because i'm prepared to vote tonight. i'm prepared to vote right now. but i don't want to preshrewd any discussion or questions that are sincere dnd preclude any discussion or questions that are sincere. but members may have to leave and a motion is made and a call is put on the vote until people are prepared to vote and i don't know whether that applies here tonight procedurally. >> programs the city attorney

can help us. >> nor arena ambrose, city attorney's office. you have to be present in the room to vote. it requires an affirmative vote of a majority of the commission. so -- >> i'm not talking about not being present. i'm talking about i move this action for approval. you take the roll. i vote aye then i have to leave, but there still remains a quorum. that's being here present and voting. >> i think, as i understand it, we have a quorum. >> i have to leave. >> you have to leave as well. >> you have to leave, so -- >> ok. so that was the question. i didn't hear about your time limit. >> i have to leave at 6:00, but i could make it till 6:15, but, you know -- >> ok. >> i just feel that we have not even touched on the role of p.u.c. and this project on treasure island. we haven't even talked about it yet. so i have questions in that regard. >> how many other items do we

still have to consider besides this? >> several. well, you know, my suggestion would be that we continue the other agenda items as it gets later and later. >> this doesn't preclude us from holding a special meeting next week, if we have to. >> right, a special meeting. >> correct. >> you can have a special meeting on this particular item. i believe the deadline for an appeal to be filed is tomorrow. 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