mr. ginsburg. >> commissioners i was wondering if our city attorney could come up and talk about the process from here on out. i understand that the way this agreement was originally framed, there are still some approvals and some process with relation to the transfer of the park. >> deputy city attorney marlina byrne. yes, i think dawn did a great job, but for 350 bush the tall building that will be shadowing st. mary's square and 500 pine with the new st. mary's expansion on top of it. both of those contained conditions of approval that are sort of separate in addition to under the planning commission's authority, separate from the rec and park's authority under this program. and that was because the open space on the roof of st. mary's of the 500 pine building which will be the now st. mary's square expansion meets not only -- is not only going to be a new part of st. mary's square to address the shadow concerns, but is also designed to meet the planning code requirements for open space under planning code section 138. so i wouldn't go through all the details of those entitlements, but re

mr. president. members of the commission. director ginsburg. my name is emilio cruz, the assistant general manager of infrastructure for the puc and associated with this endeavor being on the committee. i will say that i love working at the puc not only because of all the work that we do that is important for the environment, but the focus that we have on community and the work that we do. i'm responsible for the $9 billion capital program, $7 billion of which will be spent right here in san francisco on our wastewater program. it would not only be a failure, but a complete shame if in investing $7 billion in san francisco that we don't create opportunities and jobs for our local residents to support our local communities. so that end, it doesn't happen by itself. i often in the circles here, the expression that a rising tide floats all boats, that doesn't work if your boat has a hole in it or if you are anchored down. the reality is that a good economy does float boats, but we have to make sure that everybody's boat is sail-ready. we have to m

mr. bursch: no. justice ginsburg: to cling to marriage the way it once was? mr. bursch: no. absolutely not, because there the state didn't have a legitimate interest in making anyone subservient to anyone else. but here the state's entire interest springs out of the fact that we want to forever link children with their biological mom and dad when that's possible. and, you know, i want to get back to this point of line drawing, and the marriage definition that the plaintiffs and the federal government proposed. you know, and how, no matter where you draw the lines they're going to leave someone out, too. and what they are asking you to do is to take an institution which was never intended to be dignitary bestowing, and make it dignitary bestowing. that's their whole argument. and when you do that, tens of thousands of other children who don't meet their definition will likewise be left out and suffer those exact same dignitary harms. when you're talking about a spectrum of marriage definitions, different places to draw the line, and potential harms on both sides, that is the

justice ginsburg warned us all. were you surprised? mr. smith: we all thought the court would grant a petition on the seventh circuit and fourth circuit. i was on the phone sunday with a reporter. hopefully not someone in the room. [laughter] they might hold it for a week, but it just seemed like all of the federal courts were holding state laws unconstitutional, which is almost always at prescription for up brand of -- for a grant of cert. it seems to us like they would have to weigh in. and for whatever reason, they decided they would wait. it turned out, we did not have to wait long. but it was an interesting moment. we thought it was absolutely in the bag. ms. howe: but it happened eventually. so there are two questions. mr. sanders: when the court granted cert, it raised a few eyebrows when it rewrote questions presented and asked two questions -- does the 14th amendment requires states to license same-sex marriages. and another issue that has often been forgotten or underplayed in this issue. second question, does the 14th amendment