it exists not just as the redevelopment agency, but a non- profit public benefit corporation. the board has authority to approve or disapprove of the appointments. it is subject to the contract in budget authority of the board. it comes to you to approve if it were to amend these agreements. that act, in essence, like an agency of the city. he will have to gear up and change some of its role. the development, it could do that in various ways. right now, how it works is, the contract basically to provide the development expertise. we can rely on the redevelopment agency or the planning agency department. any agency that has that expertise. we do that in the infrastructure development and those agencies that are involved in doing the same work. supervisor mar: this is my last point. we provide quite a bit of transparency. all of the numerous hearings you have done, he raises this as he supports the project, still kind of doing his best. i tell -- know jane kim keep raising the issue. you'll get above the base affordable housing. any local maneuvers, is that going to be specifically written in a way tha

san francisco and the transportation authority as the management agency for san francisco received just over $1 million for the funds. in july of 2010, resolution 1108, the authority board programmed $500,000 of those funds, so half of those funds to the san francisco safe routes school and education and outreach program which seeks to provide pedestrian, bike safety classes at 15 public elementary schools throughout the city, along with several encouragement and outreach activities. i won't go into the details of that program. so that's the first half of these funds. this is the second half of the funds that are before you here today. the second half we reserve for capital project. we release the call for projects on january 20, by the march 8 deadline, received one application. from the sunset elementary and a.p.giannini school. a walking audit, when engineers and other staff go out with the principals and teachers and do a walk around the school and identify the issues around the school. so the project before you today, as i said, is in front of sunset elementary and a.p. giannini middle school between 37th avenue and 41st avenue. you'll see in the packet a design of

and then utilized the authority's regular board process. what we heard from members of the public was pretty expected. it was great support for transit, pedestrian, bicycling projects. received 200 ideas from the public. these are on page 80 or attachment 3 of the packet. we also heard demand for a roadway capacity reduction project. and not one request for roadway extension project for members of the public. what we heard from the public agencies were almost 100 ideas. these were on page 97 of your packet or attachment 4. heard a lot of projects that were currently in the r.t.p. were proposed for inclusion in this one as well. also a number of new projects, which is not surprising giving the number of planning processes that have happened since the last r.t.p., things like the transit effectiveness project, various development plans. and then many projects that can be bundled into programmatic categories so there's no two projects can be in the r.t.p. first the individual or named project. these are projects that enhanced capacity and need

to award each series of bonds to the highest bidder, authorizing the general manager to submit a resolution to the board of supervisors authorizing the issuance not to accede $700 million aggregate principal amount of water revenue bonds, and with this resolution serving as an inducement resolution with the california debt limit allocation committee, authorizing the general manager to submit an application requesting volume capacity to authorize the use of lower-cost on capacity for a portion of private use activity, and of rising general manager to request the board of supervisors to consider an ordinance approving the issuance and sale of additional water revenue bonds not to exceed $49,100,000 by the commission pursuant to proposition e and associated financing costs in adopting findings pursuant to the california environmental quality act. >> i feel more comfortable knowing the chair of the bond oversight revenue committee is here. would you like to go ahead? >> yes. i of four slides. this is a very unique item. you look at half a million dollars in bonds every quarter or so. we are here requesting

. >> one of the conditions is the same schedule and cost funding plan adopted by the authority board. is that an action that needs to be taken by the board? >> that action will be taken this afternoon. supervisor campos: rate. thank you very much. supervisor chu: i was surprised to see in camp -- condition no. 2 the delegation of staff. again, i want to understand, did management not understand who was responsible for these management pieces? is there a reason that needs to be called out here? >> the agency has resources that have been edified and have been working on the program, dealing with everything from grant applications to collaborations with authority. while i cannot speak to why it was placed on to read, i can assure this body that we will work in collaboration with transportation authority to provide it by weekly briefings with a more active outreach. stepping back, this program has been managed in compliance with the process that provides a very structured program in dealing with risk management. the transportation authority is a part of that process. that umbrella also in

we will form the transportation authority, which the board has authorized to run or subsidize the ferry service. they will get parking revenue from the island. meter revenue as well as parking revenue to subsidize the service, as well as the $30 million subsidy from the developer to subsidize weta and ac transit to provide transit service, so we are confident we will have robust transit service on the island. supervisor mirkarimi: be i hope that is the case, but in a case that is not, i'd like to move forward with a contingency potentially so that we all rise to the standard of what it means to be a transit first city, especially in a population that is isolated, for lack of a better characterization, in that we were trying to make sure that the principles of transit first our extended into a population that will be challenged in their own mobility and ability, so that it is not always defaulting back to private automobiles. i do not know if the project team sponsors would like to come up, but based on language that i have vetted with you all, under the section of existing development f

project has changed substantially since it was initially approved by the treasure island development authority and the san francisco board of supervisors in 2006 and then updated in 2010, and then changed also earlier this year. to the sierra club finds that the amount of allowable parking is far too high. residential parking should be no more than one space for every two units. and in fact, caltrans wrote a letter to the planning department yesterday noting that the san francisco-oakland bay bridge is already at capacity and no funds have been identified to undertake the multi-use project that would say lao people coming and going from the -- allow people coming and going to and from the island. the transit agency to the planning department dated august 20, 2010, notes that the project will create significant and unavoidable queuing at the approach to the bay bridge in san francisco. and the sierra club also poses a governance structure which gives the treasure island development authority and/or the developers complete civil authority over a piece of san francisco land. for example, money that is gathered from parking

the board had approved of this project, last year. they were setting up the improvement for $45 million. this is a project with part of the funding for the entire program. and we have the authority by the board for $150 million, to help fund the project. >> just so we get a sense of this, we are delaying issuing the cops. being in construction, we have relatively historic interest rates. does this translate into the interest rates on the cops. it is a very cheap time compared to the traditiona ltime to issue debt. >> we have noticed this. it makes it a lot cheaper. we are getting .20 basis points on the variable rate, weekly. we do this analysis each time. the next slide is part of the 10-year growth plan. we do have the commitments of using certificates of participation to improve the were more -- war memorial, for all 130 million. the board has not seen the process of these documents, and the plant also proposing using this for $128.2 million. and again, when the board approved this proposal -- the next slide shows when you take into consideration, the proposals on the private -- prior page, it takes us over a threshold, and this requires 3.25% of the general fund revenues. th

times when public officials went against the tide, sometimes the tide means those people who apparently are in authority. members of the school board and student delegates chosen either by the citizens, the adults of san francisco, or their student peers to represent the best interests of the students in this district and the families and the people who do the work. there is $18 million available to rescind these layoffs. they're unnecessary and they're wrong. it's time to say no. each one of you can vote no. let's get the people back, there are lots of young teachers out there and there's a lot of paraprofessionals out there who don't know if they're going to have work come next school year. and there are thousands of students as we heard tonight who are going to suffer the ultimate betrayal of what's happening in the state of california and what you could do tonight is at least put a small band-aid on it and stop the pain. you've got the money, rescind the layoffs. thank you. president mendoza: thank you. comments from the board? commissioner wynns? commissioner wynns: i just want to clarify or ask the superintendent to clarify t

presenting our co-lead agency, the treasure island development authority, following michael's presentation, our team can respond to any questions that the commission or board members may have. thank you. >> the treasure island development authority board of directors. item three. public hearing closed. 3 a resolution certifying the report, the treasure island, buena island project. good evening presidents olague and cheng, commissioners in and directors. as rick mentioned, the item before you is a resolution to certify the final environmental impact report for the treasure island, buena island development project by adopting this resolution, you will be certifying that the final e.i.r. is accurate and adequate and that the procedures by which it was prepared are consistent with the ceqa guidelines and the city's code. i defer my remarks to rick cooper to and staff is here to answer any questions that you may have or address any of the issues that were raised earlier during public comment. >> thank you. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i agree that it is quat and consistent. i would like to answer -- is adequate and consistent. i think mr. coop

in essence it allows the board to amend or repeal measures in a number of cases and while we recognize that the intent of the measure is to give the board the authority to make technical changes, correct inadvertent errors and general lean-up, which we are certainly sympathetic to, we believe the measure opens the door to much more than that. there's very little that would preclude a future board from amending or repealing measures that may have been popular -- that may be popular with the voters but not with the board. we believe the measure could result in significant litigation over the interpretation of whether amended language furthers the goal of the ballot measure. or worse, we could see controversial measures being modified one way by one group of board members and another way by another group of board members when they come in. we think this undermines the right of voters to enact legislation without fear it could be changed or repealed. we are very willing to work with the author, but we request that you not bring this to the full board at this time. thank you. supervisor kim: thank you. >> good afternoon. i urge you not to bring this amend

no, on item two, as i understand it, what the department is requesting -- the board of supervisors previously authorized the puc to issue commercial paper for water system improvement projects. as i understand this legislation, it would give them additional authority on an as- needed basis to issue, additional commercial paper -- to issue additional commercial paper for non-water system improvement projects, but this would not directly impact the rates. this is, as i understand it, considered temporary or bridge financing. ultimately, is the bonds -- it is the bonds in item one that would have the impact on the water rates of both commercial and residential users. supervisor chu: if i could ask the puc to clarify. >> certainly. the larger projects we are talking about, the wsip project, we said the rates would go up dramatically to have a reliable water system. we suggested rates would go from about $40 a month for the regular water bill to about $41 for the wsip program -- from about $14 a month. that is that part of it. $49 million is somewhat in addition to that with the commercial paper. the commerc

this was going to be approved by tida, the treasure island vellum authority, the city board of supervisors, all other relevant agencies. there is a signature page in the documents we have provided to you that you would delegate to the general manager to sign on behalf of the public utilities commission, to execute that document and all the infrastructure plan associated with that document. of course, the developer has the right as a third-party beneficiary, to enforce if you do not comply with your requirements that are included in the infrastructure cooperation agreement against the city, but it also fixes the city's regulations and procedures for how develop naturally occurs on the island. there is a design review board, which we will be part of, so when infrastructure is proposed to be put in place by the developer, we would sit on the design review board, provide our criteria to the developer saying, but with this is what we want you to design and build, and we would have the right then to have inspections of those infrastructure that the developer is providing to the city. there are b