competition, that's been a huge focus of this project all the way along. so previously, we would issue an r.p.f. and say, please tell us where alcatraz debarkation can be. it previously with blue and gold was 41. we moved to 31 1/2. we're trying to provide a stable home for anyone that would wish to bid so they don't have to have a place at the port before they can bid. so it does increase competition. >> all the people that are bidding, do they have large boats or is it a finite group of people that have it? >> i know the marketplace has such vessels. i can't speak to how many and

exactly who has such vessels. >> because for me, that's part of the competitive. you draw up a contract that is going to be -- you specific phi the size. theirst thing i would do, i go out to the private sector and see how many companies are in the business now with those size of vessels that can bid it. and if my requirement for the size was very limited to the supply, i'm restricting competition by the mere fact of the size of the boat. so i would lower the size of my boats. i can increase it, or i would have a way to compensate letting everyone have a fair shot for the boat or telling them, your boat has to arrive 24 months latr yan build them because there's a lead time to them. that's how i would approach it. >> there definitely is a phase-in period that's allowed

in the contract, so we've certainly considered that. we don't expect every offerer would have those on day one. >> i'm just going to jump around since it's my turn. a member o the public spoke. hername, i believe, correct me if i'm wrong, marina. in your comments, you said that the prevailing wage was not right yet. and when i read the packet it suggests that it's right. would you be kind enough to let me know what you think is wrong about it? and then to our team, when we get the answer, let me know, whether you agree or disagree. so i want to see if this prevailing wage is accurate or not. >> the prevailing wage comes from the blue and gold agreement. so the previous comments about relationship was a mistake, i

think, in the labor agreement. june 1, there's 1.5% increase. so it was right may 30, but june 1, it's now gone up. >> okay. great. thank you. ith it's self-explanatory for me. for me, i think it will be comments to commissioners. i think we should inkorp rcorpo regional transportation issues up front to the best of our ability. if we cannot and we want to create an impasse on those regional transportation concerns, let it be an impasse, but we're not doing the best job if it just exists and we go forward with the contract.

on this competitive bidding part, i have a large concern over the park services going into competition with the cruise business. and let me tell you why. we're going to give the park service, who is the number one draw the first phone call because they want to go on the island. when they book and they cap out on the island, they will say, we'll give you the cruise. we'll strangel the other operators by that fact. and i'm going to ask all of us why we have to give them that part of the business and not just leave it out from this contract. how it will benefit us the most?

i think it gives the park service a huge advantage. >> when the park service has their cap on how many people can good to the island, what happens if that cap changes over the 50-year period of this lease? >> i can start the answer. if that cap changes, we'll continue to get our percentage rent from a larger number of tickets. at year 30, we would do a reappraisal and reassess each of our economic benefits from the project. >> why 30 and not every 10?

>> 30 years, my recollection going back a couple of years to when we set up the term sheet, we anticipated two ferry contracts during that time period and it would be the moment in time when the improvements of the first ferry concessioner would need refreshment, reappraisal. so my recollection is that that was one of the bases. if others have a recollection, please share it. sea level rise was another consideration. how many years do we want the improvements in place before we figure out the next move on the waterfront properties. >> but it's a rent adjustment. traditionally, the longer you go out, the advance is to the tenant, that's my experience. so let me ask itht the port's experience? >> yes, i think that's the port's experience. that the market is moving and the lease is determined. >> so why would we enter this

real long thing if our track record says we're always running a little bit short and trying to play catch up and not have it renew every 10 years? >> if others want to opine, i think i gave the answer for what was in the sheet and what we were negotiating at the time of those approvals. we thought a 30-year period for improvements would be the appropriate time period. >> colleagues, i will argue i'm not sure that the catch-up time would serve us best at 30 years. we have two 10-year options in their own belief. they're looking at having to catch up every 10 years. it's good on the back end, but not the front end. i would argue the logic of rent catch up would apply throughout the term of the year. >> i just want to make a couple of comments.

some of the questions you are asking has been studied and opined on in ceqa. and some of them are futuristic issues relative to optional expansion services to sausalito. i think there are some things that came up today and work we can do to answer and clarify questions. there are some things that are fundamental to the agreement that we have struck and worked on including the ceqa analysis. i want to point that out to the commissioners. >> commissioner makras: i respect that and that's ground zero on my request for continuance and ground zero that i have 24 hours to read this and i said up front that an offline discussion is beneficial, but if we're going to proceed and vote on this, i'm going to ask the questions. if they're uncomfortable, that's

the benefit. if it's a good, solid package, should be able to defend it. and i will vote short it may go against me. i will leave it at that for now. >> i have an additional question. i didn't know we were allowed to ask questions of people that gave public comment. >> we can ask clarifying questions, but brown and sunshine act is to give everyone the same amount of time, so we encourage you not to engage in dialogue. >> mr. murphy, you made a comment about the additional -- they started doing the fort baker park service portion that it would unfairly hurt people who are currently providing services. i would like you to clarify that

statement and what you meant by that. >> sorry if i wasn't clear. we were talking about the parks cruises, departure from pier 31. the sausalito and fort baker sites are a different project. >> thank you. >> commissioner woo ho: i think we've heard from our new commissioners and i think it's good questions. i think that -- i don't think we're ready to vote today. i do think that in terms of the wage difference, if we're just talking about because there was another wage increase that happens between may 31 and june 1 we need to get that agreement with the parks service and how they will handle that, whether they -- how they want to address that issue.

it's an open question. i think that sausalito has asked us to consider some things that they're concerned with and that's something that i think that has to be discussed. i don't think we sort of ram rod that and make sure that everybody is clear in agreement inthat. and i think as far as the competitive nature of this bid, it's a very difficult question in terms of whether it's intentional to narrow it down to only the existing bidder or existing operator or not or the park service feels they have their need to have certain sized vessels. we can continue to talk about that, but i'm not sure whether we're going to come to -- somebody is not going to be happy at the end of that discussion. so i think we just have it live with what is more discussion on it. but that is not one we're going to come to a happy conclusion one way or another. somebody will feel like it's not right. i don't know the right answer right now. but i think that's what we -- to me, those are some of the issues that we need to discover and as

far as the extra cruises, i hear the point in terms of -- and that's something we need to ask the park service to y, if you didn't get those cruises, are we -- can we proceed without it? i think we're interested in getting alcatraz resolved one way or another. i don't think we're going to put them on the spot to respond to that. it seems to me, those are the issues we have. elaine, would you categorize that as what we haven't resolved? >> i think everything is perfectly resolved, but i understand there are open issues and questions. i think many of these things are outside of the port's domaine, in that it's the national park service that prepared the prospectus and we've had these concepts new for many years, but with doing the due diligence that the port's done and always does for the commission, we'll come back and discuss further. i agree that many of these with not be able to be resolved

issues, but we will check in more on these parks cruises and explain more of our point of view and i think we're a balancing, competing priorities here. it's been the port's desire to bring more people on the water. now that we have prevailing wages, we feel there is open competition. a local could win the contract, but someone out of town could win the contract. we're talking about new opportunities for the public to get on the water and that's why we've consistently recommended that expansion. it's also revenue to the port. we will do our very best to answer these questions, but i do want to alert you that things are things we've been chewing on, working on for some time and i don't know that there will be resolution. >> can you briefly describe, you know, what has been going on, what has been going on for years that is not in our purview to

resolve and what can be resolved? >> the selection of the concessioner has been always in the parks services domaine. it is heavily regulated through federal contract for fair and competitive competitions. the federal government does not have the rules that san francisco deploys in terms of l.b.e.s. they have completely different brick. we have no legal standing or authority over that process and it's theirs to select their concessioner. we worked very hard on the wage issue. the unions are right, the folks that spoke up today. we did engage in that process and we didn't think that the wages were correct and we leaned heavily into that negotiate. we feel very positive about that result. it's the first time ever that a prospectus has determined a wage determination. it's not how it was the last time this contract went out.

in terms of other issues -- am i missing any? >> what is the issue with the city of sausalito? it's not been in front of us before. >> okay. so they of sausalito, there are expansion services to rosie the riveter in richmond and in sausalito. it's a small number, compared to alcatraz, but the idea is to bring people to other park service locations when they can't get a ticket to alcatraz. we always hear complaints from the public that they can't get to alcatraz. the city of sausalito is concerned. they have concerns about how traffic will move as a result of the passengers coming in, how bike parking will work, things of that nature. park service has been working with them and meeting monthly and going into an agreement with them that they will work together to endeavor to resolve the issues at the park service at this point doesn't have funding for the improvements at

fort baker. it's an optional expansion. so there is much analysis to do. it's not right yet to make decisions about how traffic and passengers move because there is so much more analysis ahead for park service in sausalito to make the determinations about how to best manage traffic flow and bikes. >> is it within the purview of our lease? >> i don't think so. it's not only not right, but it's not our decision to make. >> but it's part of this? >> it is -- the only thing that's part of this is the option to expand the services to fort baker and a cap on how many -- a cap on the number of visitors that can good to fort baker from our pier. is there anything else that's n enumerated and related to fort

baker? >> no. i think you captured it well. did we cover everything? >> i think so. the other issue i would like to say is we honor our legacy businesses and, of course, we're very supportive of our ferry operators. my staff convened a conversation with the ferry operators to discuss expansion services. and we heard the issues and we also understand that we're to bring people on to the bay and expand the opportunities for actions and there will be a fair and competitive competition under which everyone can compete. >> thank you. i guess we're going to continue this item. i'm not quite sure what we can do in one month versus two versus three. so at this point, i would like to continue it until the july meeting unless there is some reason we need to continue it

further. but i do encourage port staff to meet with our two new commissioners and try to bring them up to date on the project all of the issues. thank you, everyone. >> clerk: item 12c, informational presentation on the proposed transaction documents related to seawall lot 322-1. >> good evening, commissioners. mike martin, real estate and development. in view of the extended meeting so far, we're going to try to be brief, but in keeping with some of the comments made on the last item, this is an information item about seawall lot 322-1, also known as 88 broadway and

affordable housing projects that port staff has been working on with the mayor's office of community development. ricky dejani will carry forward the discussion. we want to set the stage for approval in july. we are hopeful that we can answer your questions and tee up for being responsive today and at the next meeting. with that, i will hand it over to ricky. >> good evening, commissioners. we're excited -- i'm very excited to be here and i assume the rest of my team is excited to be here. this is a project that's been in the parkland for a long time and nearing completion. we just have a few tasks to be

completed to break ground, but before i get into the details, i just want to go over the highlight of my presentation. i will provide brief background on this project, the m.o.u. that was approved back in 2014, telling us to move forward and work with the mayor's office of housing to see if we can come up with the physical project. and the few remaining tasks that we need to complete. and the documents that we'll bring back to you in july. and analysis of the proposed time and the dommestics. the site is located in the northeast waterfront historic district. it's at the corner of broadway and front street. not far from pier 9. next to it on your slide is the

city pass through. the site itself is approximately 38,000 square feet and currently being run as a parking lot and generating roughly $465,000 a year to the port. it's a great location. it's near chinatown and the financial district and easily accessible by all transportation. here's a view of the site. in times of legislative background, it faces a number of challenges. among the key challenges is the

high historic building costs and complex regulatory compliance requirements, to name a few. staff work with states and local legislators to defies a number of strategies. one of the strategies is to lease the property no longer needed because they're cut off from the bay for other uses. the legislators that i pointed out is noted in the slides. and basically they provide for the lifting of the truss restrictions, subject to a number of conditions including the fair market value as well as the state land commission agreeing with that determination

with the legislation. to implement the state and local minist, yon approved for memoranda of understanding between the port and mayor's office of housing for us to explore this opportunity to see the project. that m.o.u., we list a number of things that need to be done including delegating the process with the mayor's office of housing. they issued a comparative r.f.p. and a new business at 88 broadway. in that process and that m.o.u., to make sure that we reach out

to the community support and explain what the process is about. way did that for over a three-year period, so there was extensive community outreach. there was a consensus form. and in the end, we have the current proposal that we'll bring to you. that current proposal is as indicated in the slide. 125 family rental units. during the community outreach, there was concern to say, we need to reach out to the city and ask about housing for members of the community. originally looking at this site and cash flow, we're looking to

generate revenue for the port. we've wanted to include a public parking garage. we fund out that it is not financially sustainable. next steps is -- as we said, we'll come back in july to get your approval. it will document the current terms and conditions that we've negotiated with housing office and the developer will start looking for funding and close escrow. here are the basic terms of the m.o.u. i will not go through them in detail, but the m.o.u. is going to be for the same term, 57

years. this will allow us to do a number of things for the port, including review and documents that will be coming to us, because they've provided the major funding for the project. there must be an agreement for the mayor's office to pay us for the fair market value. we're hoping that it will be paid out with the first three years. but they will have an option to extend another two years. and we've identified a parcel in pier 70 that we'll use for m.o.u. to pay us, for the mayor's housing to pay that fair market value the option to lease is basically an agreement between the port and the developer.

we don't currently have an agreement with the developer. unlike the property that we issue an r.p.f., there is no such thing. so we need to provide an instrument that will be used to demonstrate that they do have an opportunity from us as they apply for funding. so that will be roughly for two years and then replaced by two weeks. we have some conditions on the slides, but i will not go through all of them. the lease itself, it's 57 years. we've proposed 57 years for a number of reasons. the regulatory requirement for low income tax credit require that long period of time. on the other hand, we want to

make sure that we have opportunity to address climate conditions and sea level rights. so we propose that that will be for seven years. there's going to be -- they will be providing us $20,000 a year. that was something that we're negotiating, but they say we cannot negotiate in the upside. number three, we will be looking at the nonresidential portion of the project. that means during operation, you get to participate in some level. at the end of the lease, that project and development will be coming back to the port. and, of course, any other transaction like subleases will

require prior consent. analysis is provided in the staff report. we think this is a great opportunity and with the affordable housing objective, so the next step is to come back to you in july. i will quickly go through the slides. at the july 10 commission meeting, we'll have an opportunity to go over design. here are images of the site laid out. this is a view of the project. there you are looking at the design at the corner of broadway and embarcadero. that's the image from another

angle. and here's a view of the village to broadway. so that concludeso presentation. representatives and staff of the developer and architects are here. that's erin back there. oh. there you go. [laughter] and that's -- >> we can't hear you. you are too far away. sorry. >> sorry. i'm too excited. [laughter] that's marie, project manager. and that's julana dutton, another project manager, i believe. anybody i'm leaving out? they will be here to assistanany questions that you may have regarding this project. >> president brandon: thank you. thank you so much.

is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, commissioner gilman. >> commissioner gilman: i have one question. i was curious and i know i wasn't on the commission at the time, but was the port staff part of the scoring panel with the mayor's office of housing for the award of this project? >> is the port staff -- >> commissioner gilman: going back to the theme of our last em, i wanted to foe, were we at the table with the mayor's office of housing and other folks scoring the application for the award and being part of the decision making on the part of this parcel? >> yes. we have representatives from the port. we have representatives from, i believe, one of the city departments. we have representatives from the community as well. >> commissioner gilman: that's great. i think it's really important --

i think the community doesn't understand what our jurisdiction is and other department jurisdicnds the parks service and we have an obligation to listen to our community. so that makes me feel great that we were part of the production. >> yeah. that is a requirement of the port commission. we had a working group from the community that helped to identify the objectives and requirements in the r.f.p. before it went out. >> commissioner gilman: i'm happy to hear that. thank you. >> president brandon: commissioner makras. >> commissioner makras: because there's a purchase price, it indicates $1 a year? >> what you saw there was the rental rate because it's a lease they need to pay a rate. so we have a nominal there of

$1, which has changed. now it's $20,000. >> commissioner makras: tell me why it changed and where that money is coming from. >> first of all, they're paying fair market value. for lease purposes, we have to indicate what the rent is. so for the residential portion, they will be paying us $20,000 a year. how we came about that was because they said we could not participate in the refi and sales of the residential because of other requirements. so being able to not participate, we settled on 20k a year, escalated every five years. >> commissioner makras: okay. i'm going to read this in as a comment in the recommendation. on page 12, the reversion interest. i'm going to make some changes

to it, which i think will be helpful for the purpose that we all want. tenant will own the improvements during the lease term. at the end of the term -- i'm inserting -- at the port's sole discretion, tenant must remove or the port can repurpose the property and improvements per the legislation. i would like to recommend that it move solely to the port's jurisdiction and control. that's my recommendation. >> sou wou say that tenant must remove at the discretion of the port. >> sole discretion of the port. >> commissioner makras: and i would encourage as you shape up

the lease, that at the end, there are two mainngs we want it do. l tenant security deposits should be transferred to whoever takes it over so we can make sure that the tenants will get their money at the end. and then we should have soe vision on what we're going to do with leans on the property. for instance, conventional wisdom would say with the 57-year lease, they will get a 30-year loan. at the end of 30 years, the property is free and clear. that doesn't mean it will be free and clear. they can refinance it. they can pull new loans out. they can extend. most banks will cap out on the term of the lease. but we would be smart to contract them not to be able to have a loan on the lease term. so we won't end up having to clean up a problem or a mistake.

>> without much ado, let's start order of business. >> for the record this is june 13th, 2018, treasure island commission meeting. [roll call] we do have a quorum. >> thank you. next item. >> item 2, general public comment. to allow members of the public to address the treasure island development authority board on

items that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the authority board and that do not appear on the agenda. in addition to general public comment public comment will be held after each item on the agenda. please state your name and any organization you are representing, if any, for the record. >> president fei tsen: any members of the public who would like to addrs the authority, come up please. >> hi, directors. i'm hunter cutting and i'm representing save clipper cove today. as you may know, on april 30th, the land use committee of the board of supervisors passed a resolution preemptively rejecting the marina expansion proposal you approved october 30th last year. the supervisors who approved included supervisor tang, supervisor safai and supervisor kim. as a result of that action, treasure island enterprises

approached the offices of supervisor kim to suggest more discussion which his office conducted over the following four weeks. as a result of those discussions, the final round of which included your staff director bob beck. an agreement was reached to reduce the scale of the marina down to 18% of the cove. this is a reduction from the proposal you approved to expand the marina over 32% of the cove. on tuesday june 5th, the board of supervisors approved an amended resolution calling upon tida to take several actions and taking note of the smaller footprint, the 18% footprint is consistent with the vision of marina expansion, as put forward, in the original reuse plan for treasure island. the board of directors made several calls upon the treasure

island development authority and i encourage you to take a close look so we can resolve these issues now and not have a similar dynamic going forward the next time this goes to the board of supervisors. among issues i would flag are one, the board calls upon you to provide consideration for current berth holders with small and medium sized boats. also calls on tida to take responsibility to address and mitigate saltation that may occur in the cove, that poses a risk of salting up the cove and reducing public access. the city is currently paying $500,000 a year to address unexpected saltation at the san francisco marina. we hoped we wouldn't see that scale of saltation with this project as it's now been down sized but nevertheless remains a threat and tida is responsible for addressing that threat. we have an environmental

analysis set up, according to the e.i.r. the environmental impacts won't be addressed until it gets to the permitting stage for dredging. that is a backwards way of putting things. the city of san francisco shouldn't approve any marina project until the environmental analysis is done up front less we end up with a unexpected surprise at e.c.d.c. we are encouraged to approve a much smaller footprint marina, we think it's more appropriate but there are additional details to deal with and i have a letter i would like to submit for the record. thank you. >> president fei tsen: thank you. are there any other members of the public, please come forward. >> hello, commissioners, my name is jay wallace. nice to be here. thank you, hunter. i basically wanted to reiterate what hunter cutting just mentioned.

we agreed to reduce the size of the marina. we are standing here on a positive note looking at completing the project and completing part of the master development as its been considered. bob beck did a great job of helping us get to this solution. i also want to thank the office of supervisor jane kim and her aid bobby lopez who worked very hard on getting us to a solution we think works. basically what hunter said, i agree with. i think there is one tiny little nuance we had envisioned that the board could, of course, this board, tida board could of course review the revisions to the lease that will be necessary based upon the new plan. the lease that was approved before needs to be updated. and when we had conversations, we fully intend, we still have to get permits through joint

aquatic permitting agency and host of other agencies, it's that point in time, my understanding we will be doing the further environmental review. tida, of course, doesn't do that work. that work is left for the appropriate regulatory bodies and we will, of course, as hunter said, be addressing the dredging issue and other environmental review issues in front of the appropriate governmental bodies. but all in all, we are excited. we want to thank hunter who worked tireless in his efforts and behalf of all the organizations he is representing, we will have a marina. smaller. not quite as large and robust as we had hoped but it will still be an important part of the future of treasure island and thank you very much, and we look forward to building a marina treasure island. if you have any questions, i'm happy to answer. >> president fei tsen: thank you. i have a question of mr. beck. what next are the steps? when will it be coming back to

the board? and will it go to b.c.d.c. before or after? >> we are in the process of reviewing the original lease with t.i.e. and making changes reflecting the change and scope of the marina. we anticipate bringing that back to the board of supervisors before it goes to b.c.d.c. >> president fei tsen: okay, great. thank you very much. anybody else? hearing none, next item, please. >> item three, report by treasure island director. >> thank you, directors. i was going to lead with the marina discussion but we just touched on that through public comment. the may treasure fest flee

market on treasure island drew big crowds being a holiday weekend. but the traffic was well managed and there weren't significant traffic impacts despite the many detours and roadway closures we have on the island. last week, last friday, deloitte consulting hosted a stewardship day on y.b.i. working with peter summerville from our staff and peter brastow and other members of the department of environment. on the night of june 21st into the morning of june 22nd caltrans will be closing the westbound on and offramps. the newly constructed on and off ramps on the east side for maintenance. the westbound onramp on the west side of treasure island

will still be available. over the last month, we had a suggestion box at the ship shape and an online survey we circulated to residents through next door to get suggestions m resints about possible improvements we would like to see in the residential neighborhood and we are evaluating some of those for implementation over the next year or two. we also will be having a project poll intern this summer. they start next week. and we will bring them to the july board meeting to introduce them to the board. in the field with construction, the improvements to the forest road detour alignment have been slowed by encountering of the utilities but that detour is expected to be completed so the

mccullough road closure could occur in august. the contractors are also boxing some of the specimn oak trees on buena island that woulbe impacted by construction of mccullough road for relocation to treasure island while side work goes on, on y.b.i. and then they will be replanted on yerba buena island in the future. all the buildings have been converted from natural gas to propane. including the residents on the coastguard campus and natural gasser advice to yerba buena island next week. the first step in the geotechnical work is under way, with a second rig arriving on the site today and two more

scheduled to mobilize in july. with that, the compaction is scheduled for july. inlate july, early august, the contractor, developer will be modifying the southern shoulder of 9th street to provide a lane for transport of surcharge materials from the stock pile on the east side of job corps campus to the sub phase one area without going into roadway traffic. t.i.c.d. is also preparing the demolition package for the site of the new wastewater treatment plan with the expectation that will be advertised in august. sorry, will be advertised in july. and take bids in august. on utilities, tida, the public utilities commission,

department of emergency management met with the u.s. coastguard earlier this month to discuss coastguards programs on the island and concerns about the recent problems with the electrical cable beneath clipper cove. partially in response to that, we will be relocating one of our two existing generators. they are capable of pulling the entire electrical loads on both islands and by relocating one of them on yerba buena island there will be back up in the event of failure by the other cable. at&t long distance has a line that cuts across treasure island but does not serve the island and they are in the process of relocating that to the rip rap with the perimeter

of the island to avoid conflicts with construction, after the completion of clipper cove they will go into a more permanent alignment along clipper cove boulevard. we are also -- betty is working to plan for the relocation of commercial tenants to clear sites for the installation of the future gas main regulation station, as well as new electrical switch gear on the east side of the island. the final map for treasure island is scheduled for a director of public works hearing on june 27th, for consideration of the board of supervisors on july 31st. we are working with the navy, fourth land transfer which includes the child care site in july. we are also continue working with department of labor on permanent construction easements along california and avenue d.

as well as potential long-term plans for the job corps center site. in conjunction with relocation of entrance of fourth street onto avenue h, job corps requested we install additional lighting on fourth street, as well as some speed humps to slow traffic on fourth street and we are in the process with d.p.w. and the public utilities commission. we believe we will have an i.t.c. meeting next week as well as a july board meeting but don't currently anticipate the need for an august board meeting, or july and august infrastructure and transportation committee meeting. that concludes my report. >> thank you. directors, any questions? >> thank you, robert. bob. just wanted to ask where are we with transportation since the last time? >> i'll be at the i.t.c. next

week. i will be having, doing a presentation with kind of an overview of the timing of transportation services. and anticipate having the tima present on the plning for autonomous vehicle shuttle at the july board meeting and a discussion of ferry service at the september board meeting. >> thank you. secondly, i know for the ongoing housing, were there any meetings since the last time? >> on the housing discussion? >> yeah. >> there were workshops, a couplshops at our prior may board meeting for people interested in homeownership opportunities and there will be a spanish presentation on homeownership opportunities at the end of this month.

and we have been working with the relocation consultant on getting letters out to residents and i'll be updating that further in one of my presentations today. >> thank you. >> thank you. any other questions? next item, please. >> item 4, communications from and received by tida. there were several residential advisories, newsletters and publications among others. >> any comments by the board on communications? >> i had a question. i saw in one of the communications the island museum raised this issue about restoring a fountain. something about it being in a particular location on the island. i'm unclear of what the situation is, is that an existing fountain that is currently on the island and is

part of the regriding work. would that be affecting it? >> so that fountain is a, it's a glazed terra cotta fountain made up of many component pieces. the pieces of that fountain are in storage on the island. and it's been in storage since before the navy closed the base in '97. so it's been in storage and one of the things we will be evaluating is if there's a way to, a location where we might restore it and install it in future develop m. -- development. but that belongs to tida and it's in storage. >> would that be part of the landscape improvements? >> yeah, it could potentially be incorporated into the landscape on the island. we haven't kind of found the right location for it yet but

that's one of the opportunities, either in the landscaping or one of the plazas. there's also neighborhood pocket parks throughout the residential area. so there's a number of potential opportunities. >> yeah, i would think we have a lot of great opportunities for something like a fountain and we seem to have space for it, it would be nice to take it out of storage and put it back in use. >> there was one element of the fountain which has, not quite certain at what point it disappeared but it originally had two whales that were at the center of the fountain. the fountain itself is a map of the pacific. it has a topographical type of texture to it, so it indicates the islands and so forth. and in the center of the island, there were two, i

believe brass whales that spouted water and what the fate of those was is unknown. but we have all of the terra cotta pieces. >> let me say i had the pleasure of meeting the admiral john bittoff who happened to be the commander of this region and before he left his office, he did find the pieces of the fountain and so it has been packedy. and what has to happen next is for us to see whether it's feasib to put the fountain back together and where there's a location for it and i would like in a future meeting to ask admiral john bittoff to come and talk about treasure island and his years here and particularly about this fountain which was there during the world fair.

thank you. and then the other thing, bob, i would like to ask you about the memo which came about tetra tech's work. which is just a series, a listing of different links to their work but i'm hoping that the staff will give us a summary of the work that has been done, not just the lengths but actually an assessment and analysis. i think the board, plus the public needs to make sure that, in fact the work that's been done on treasure island is going to be sufficient and will create all of the health hazards there might be. >> yeah, we have been working on a write-up on that with our environmental consultant langan and associates and expect to

have that finalized before the july board meeting. >> i would like to note for the board and the public, the y.b.i. stewardship, the habitat restorations which are happening every third wednesday afternoon and we have a communication from them. every month they go out. [off mic] the other thing i wolike to note is the treasure island news. there's a newsletter put together by a working group of residents and it has a lot of information about what's happening on treasure island. it's absolutely great. it has a calendar. it also talks about the summer camp for treasure island children which will happen at the tenderloin community school and various other happenings on treasure island. so those are interesting things

of note. are there any other questions? if not, next item, please. >> item 5, ongoing business by board of directors. >> are there any items the directors would like to note? hearing none, next item. >> item number 6, consent agenda, 6a approving minutes of the april 11th 2018 special meeting. 6b resolution approving and authorizing the execution of a professional services agreement between tida and toolworks inc to provide janitorial services for a month to month term commencing july 1st 2018 and ending june 30th, 2019 in an a mamt not to exceed $255,000. item 6c resolution approving and authorizing the execution of a professional