(roll call vote was taken.) president chiu: these resolutions are adopted. i would like to make a motion to amendment 42 and 43. >> on items 42 and 43, supervisor -- >> not debatable. out of order. point of order is out of order. president chiu: if we could

take a roll call vote on the motion to terminate debate. (roll call vote was taken.) president chiu: motion to terminate debate passes. it does not pass. given that the motion to terminate debate requires eight votes, it does not pass. supervisor michela alioto-pier. supervisor sean elsbernd.

okay. are the representatives of the city here with regard to the hunter point shipyard project? okay. i understand that representatives of the city have had a chance to take a look at these amendments. i would like to ask mr. cohen if you have questions or comments on the amendments as they were presented to you. >> i'll be happy to.

i apologize it took us so long. it's a lot of language for us to go through in a relatively quick period and a lot of city departments that we needed to confer with. the way i've tried to organize this, which i hope will be helpful for you is which amend manies we think were perfectly comfortable with as they're written, which amendments we think we would be comfortable with if they were modiñ modifie. which amendment we will be recommending. if you're comfortable with that, will proceed in that fashion. oalso be the amendment that woud

make it clear that there would be no -- on the bridge. moving to the amendments which we would support with certain modifications, this is one word

from change to amendments. these are highly problematic documents which have to live and breed 415-20 years. this is anything that a sufficiently material that is coming into the board of supervisors. there are citywide changes to the mandatory policies. if those changes were made and the redevelopment agency commission elected.

>> can you read that amendment exactly where it would go? >> you would add a new sentence to the end of the proposed amendment. that would say nothing here and would require the agency or developers to make a change which would violate an existing project agreement? -- agreement. we would support the idea that we would take out the waiver of

punitive damages in large part to make these documents consistent with other comparable project documents. if you look at mission bay and the treasure island documents which this board recently endorsed, they did include waivers of consequential and special damages that were included and did not include a waiver of tenant to damages. we are willing to fix that to conform to those other agreements. we would also support the amendment regarding heating and cooling. there are a key changes. one, on the advice of the city attorney, these should not be in the findings. these should not be with the

interagency agreement. fossil fuels heating and cooling systems would effectively bar electric and gas heat the way people get it in most homes in san francisco. if that were amended to delete the two references in that amendment to the heating and cooling systems but retained a prohibition against power plants, we would be comfortable with that amendment. in terms of items that we are recommending against approval that, both of the amendments

regarding studies for the day lighting of the watershed and air quality, we don't have a problem with either of these issues as a matter of public policy but we did discuss this quite a bit with other departments and the city attorney's office. we don't think that they fit in the project's findings. we believe that these would be better addressed an entirely separate resolutions so they would not cause any solution with the findings themselves.

>> there's nothing stopping this board from introducing resolutions related to having additional studies. i think the point that is being made is that the studies presented are not related to the project as they relate to some bigger areas and it is a portrait for the board to take this up as something as any time in the future. >> this could be introduced at roll call today as a resolution? >> i am not sure the proper way to do this -- >> could this be done as a roll call resolution? >> you can ask for us to prepare our resolution and this will not be voted on today. >> thank you. >> we are recommending approval

of both supervisor mirkarimi's supposed amendments regarding the bridge. we have agreed to the one on water usage. the amendment that would have no bridge whatsoever in the project for that would require the more narrow. we are comfortable with the idea that there's sufficient uncertainty around the forty- niners. if and when they decide to come back, we'll have the opportunity to have a full debate with the board of supervisors about what is the best -- of public benefits. in this scenario which is the only -- that we can count on

right now, the existence of that bridge for transit purposes is fundamental to both the land use and financial underpinnings of the project. if we have to deal with the uncertainty about whether those fundamental underpinnings were reliable, it would frankly make it impossible for us to move forward with the early phases of the project. the amendment applies no

institutional controls that are factually inaccurate. we have talked about the fact that many here in the land use committee, we will be utilizing the remedy is on the site and institutional controls. the epa has provided an added layer of construction. it would prohibit housing on the shipyard and that is obviously inconsistent with some of the basic land use elements. this would use fuel standards and these are inconsistent with the convenience agreement. this would be unprecedented

anywhere in the city, the state, or the country. that is our response. >> i want to clarify for process that while it is critical that we get the feedback, the thank from the sponsors and development, it is clear that what we decide it is not hinge on the feedback that is provided. is that correct? >> absolutely, we can vote on these as we wish. it is up to see whether you want to incorporate this. this is whatever version you would like us to vote on. you would like us to vote on an amended version as suggested and we can do that as well.

>> while i appreciate the reports back to us, what works, what may work, it doesn't work, this house to structure the discussion. with regard to material changes, that is a more hefty amendment and i'm glad that we see some meeting of the minds. i will accept the recommendation on the question of the amended as the recommendation has been made, it does not at all alter the intent and i think it does exactly what i suggested we do two weeks ago and that is provide for enforceable commitments so the board of supervisors is involved and we are part of the stops. on the question of the bridge,

and why not bring us back to since you had suggested against the idea of the 41 footbridge coming to us and only allowing the bridge come to us, what about the ability to evaluate? >> i apologize, i was probably not articulate. in order for us to move forward in a meaningful way, the existence of that least is so fundamental to the financial underpinnings of the project that having that come back to the board for a later decision would create an acceptable level of uncertainty.

what we have heard was a larger bridge. they have some traffic. this brings transit into the site which supports this project and it is so fundamental that it creates a level of uncertainty. >> if the bridge is not returned back to us, you abide by at least that one portion that i thought i heard you say. what about deleting the use of private automobiles? >> we are in agreement. >> what is the stadium is not built, this is the design of the

bridge. in the event that there is no stadium and we are going ahead with the 41 foot bridge. that was so fundamental to the financial and land use underpinnings, we need to have that cleared as a matter of rights. >> regard to the two studies, what if the transference, in

regards to any recognition of helping subsidize those studies or helping to recognize the administration of those studies. >> in part, one of the reasons that we were recommending that these resolutions be separately, it was not clear that there was a request for the developers to fund these studies. in fact, for the watershed studies, this recommended that the puc move ahead with those studies.

while we support the idea that both of those are worthwhile, it is not clear that this project is the appropriate vehicle for acknowledging the fact that these studies are important. >> thank you. >> you like to look at the amendments regarding mandatory local hiring have clarified questions on this. >> do you want to do the proposed modifications. >> nothing here in would require

the agency or other to make a change. basically, what they're saying, i believe this is true as a matter of law, we will get this existing peace in place. the obligations need to be addressed. my understanding is that there is one of these in place for the hunters point shipyard. i don't believe there's one for candlestick point. part of why we think that is important, i don't know why it broader simmons. >> what about the shipyard? >> i believe the project developer covers the entirety of

the shipyard. we understand and i know that miss simmons has been working with many of you on this, but ultimately a solution has been crafted around to be workable. we believe there will be opportunities for getting changes. this would be a compromise with labor.

if we were to do mandatory local hiring, that would be a compromise with labor? >> to the extent that whatever was adopted by this board inconsistent with the currently in place numbers that cover the shipyard, we could not legally compelled the developer or the agency to do something. this would not be the case with candlestick point. i think as a practical matter to the extent that there are some global compromises worked out, we would be very willing to work with you and the developers and the staff by making any necessary amendment to conform. you cannot legally compelled

them. >> who cure can speak about the actual extent for phase 1. what does this cover exactly? >> this is active on phase one because that is the only portion on the construction. >> if there are the is on existence of poa and that would take precedence over any amendment, why is there a need for your proposed language? >> we are looking for clarity.

what we don't want is a situation where the board comes back to us and says you did not do what you told us you're going to do or someone feels compelled to bring in lawsuits that say that we have a problem. >> i can understand your point but i am not necessary -- i am not sure if this is a necessary issued that would interact with an existing -- and they would come up fairly frequently. these would not necessarily be important to that. i understand this.

thank you. >> first, on the issue with fossil fuel, new fossil fuel sources, first of all i am fine with this not being an amendment of the findings. instead, this would be attached to the system of the plan adoption and not various agreements. othe gas water heaters, also.

they're not the target. i am not specifically exempting that. i would go ahead and move to amend the motion to reflect those changes. it is electricity, this comes in like most of us get, through the grid. >> there is a motion to amend the motion with regards to the parks language. >> in terms of the cleanup, i think i was working with some

groups in the last minute to put the language in it together. what our main intent there is is to make sure other parcels have the same process for the proposal. i would find a way to strike references to housing. >> there were a number of problems with language. i chose to highlight the three

that were most direct. any who may be able to speak to this more directly, but it turns out the process is unique. there is a separate process going on, and that is why the language previously proposed made sense. in the vast majority, the remedies that were going to be transferred. we need to be able to provide a relative amount of certainty going forward with some basic principles with this project. the agreement sets forward