>> 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.

>> welcome to "culturewire." on this episode, the director of cultural affairs takes us on a field trip to the mission district to check out odc's new 36,000 square foot campus, the largest in the region. >> for san franciscans, odc has a very significant significance. stands for a venerable performing arts organization celebrating its 40th anniversary of bringing fans and theaters to the bay area.

standing with me today on "culturewire" is the theater director of odc. thank you for joining us. i mention that this is the 40th anniversary. >> it is indeed. >> i'm standing with you in a fabulous theater that was completed six months ago in time for this anniversary. tell me about how it has been going for the last six months. >> absolutely. in terms of the anniversary, the dance company, which is our founding body, is celebrating its 40th anniversary, and it is the 30th anniversary, so it is historic for both sides, and the completion of the theater represents in some ways the completion of our entire campus that began in 2005. it has come to its fruition with the completion of the theater. the theater opening was remarkable. one of the things we wanted to

do was to make sure that our community really truly -- our san francisco bay area community understood that this theater was for them. we invited 31 bay area companies to do a day-long performance marathon, so we really launched with a feeling of this is for everyone in this community. it was a tremendous thing to bring everyone together around the opening of this building. >> you are part of our creative troika, including the founder, brenda wey and k.t. nelson. talk about what it is like to keep this campus going. >> it is a wonderful thing to be working with someone who is certainly your co-worker and also largely your mentor. i inherited the theater at a funny time in its life. it needed to make some decisions as an institution about what it wanted to be.

whether it wanted to be exclusively a rental facility, it is needed to be a rehearsal space with a really high ceilings -- whatever it was, having that level of leadership that my founding director is also my boss really made that possible. i really felt like i had great stewardship and we were able to make really innovative decisions for how the theater could grow over the decade. >> living with -- living with someone who is both your immediate boss and also a working artist is also a huge asset. that is one of the things that keeps the creativity flowing through odc. it is a campus about the creative process at all times. >> the theater was part of a second phase of capital fund raising and community support. the previous one had renovated the space where the rehearsal studios are and the school is, sell what does that sort of say about the importance of the odc

in the community? >> i think it's spoke to the two very different tracks of our organization. part of what we do is education and outreach. part of what we do is performance on the part of our company, odc dance, and a third part of what we do is this presenting an incubation stage. when we came to people to talk about the theater as a second investment after having built the dance commons, the distinct purpose of the theater really came through. what we were going to do with our venue was invest deeply in creativity, deeply in our regional artists, and we were going to do something that most mid-size san francisco venues have struggled to do. >> talk to me a little about the group other than odc that have used this space. >> one of the great pleasures in our opening season was to go back and invite two of our former resident