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.

>> welcome to a special joint meeting with the san francisco public utilities commission and the local agency. i am joined the to my right by a president.

we're joined by carolyn and john. a lot of them for their service. madame clerk, can you get the role. [roll call] we do have a quorum. >> we now turn over to the puc secretary for carolco -- their roll call. thank you, mr. secretary. i want to welcome everyone to

this joint special meeting. i want to thank the commissioners for making their very busy schedules available to be here today. if i may, unless there is any objection, hollywood like to quickly go forward and get that out of the way as we are waiting for staff to make their presentation. >> approval of the minutes for the april 18, 2011 meeting. >> these are the minutes. is there any member of the audience that wishes to speak? we have a motion by commissioner schmeltzer: -- supervisor mirkarimi.

>> approval of the budget for fiscal year 2011-2012. >> this is the second and final vote on the budget. there are no changes to the draft budget. we are asking for the full amount that we are obligated to ask for under state statute which is $334,000. that is back at the general fund, but be allowed to use it. we have enough in the reserve fund to operate for another year. >> any commissioners have questions on item 9? any member of the public that would like to speak on item nine? public comment is closed. this is the second vote if we

could have a motion by supervisor mirkarimi, seconded by commissioner pimentel. without objection. we now have the joint regular business for these advances go public utilities commission. o item #3. >> opening remarks in discussion for the joint meeting. >> and i don't know if you would like to say a few words at this point. president vietor: i particularly want to welcome and thank supervisor campos for assuming the chair of the lafco. we really look forward to moving the process forward as quickly

as possible. i think it is quite interesting that there is a new climate change study that has really put us all, giving us a wake-up call saying that we can do whatever we can to combat sea level rise. and we can really reduce our contribution and greenhouse gas emissions. >> let me thank everyone for being here today. not only the members of both commissions, but members of the public and the advocates that have been working on community choice aggregation for quite some time. one of the things that i have said is that we are at a very unique position to finally implement this program. i know there is a commitment on everyone involved. not only the members, but the

public utilities commission. it is an exciting opportunity. our job is to get this done and to do so as expeditiously as possible and make sure is done in a way the remains as faithful to not only the letter, but the spirit of the law that was passed that got us to where we are. that is what this is about today, getting an update for where we are so we can move forward quickly. and like any kind of presentation, we also want to hear from members of the public. there are things that we can be to learn from each other. the one thing that cannot be questioned is the commitment to make this happen and get this done. and with that, i don't know if there is any member of the public that like to speak on the item number three.