do that under this document -- not a big bridge, that the board in fact could not do that under this document, that this would require the larger bridge remain a possibility and that any motion that would make the larger bridge not possible would require a rejection. >> that is essentially correct.

what you have is a project that includes a narrow bridge and a wide range that runs through a lot of documents, the general plan consistency funding, so if your desire is to say we would like only to have a narrow bridge, eliminate the bridge the project description provide as a necessary component of the stadium, you are not able to approve it as presented, and we would instruct staff to go back to the planning commission of the redevelopment agency and make changes to the documents before they are brought back to you. >> the reason i ask that question is i think part of the frustration i have had with respect to this proceeding is the limitations are placed on the board in terms of what we can or cannot do.

that is the nature of the law. you cannot control that. at the last hearing, i

can we take a roll-call vote on that motion? >> no. >> aye. >> no. >> aye. >> aye. >> no. >> no. >> aye. >> no. >>no. >> no. >> the motion fails.

>> on the back up motion, i understand that there is a portion -- that would be exempted. i am wondering if this should be taken as whole. you are making and in motion for your entire attachment. >> we can take a friendly amendment with regard to the consistency of the response of not allowing private automobile traffic on the bridge. that is fine. the rest of the amendments should go forward for

consideration by us. the bridge should return to us as the sec same kind of review. >> this is owned by the city, anyway. >> in regards to the portion of the amendment that this is only be used for pike, a pedestrian, and transit, why don't we give i doubt that peace? is there a second? second it. can we take this without objection? with regards to the rest of the amendment, can we take it roll call? >> no. >> aye. >> no. >>aye. >> aye. >> no. >> no. >> aye. >> no. >> no.

>> aye. >> the motion fails. >> can we move to the changes? i understand this has been amended. can we take this without objection? >> in forcible -- plain language, forcible commitments? >> can we take this as amended? >> yes. >> we can move to the next amendment regarding public power. is there any further discussion? a roll call vote. >> >> aye. >> aye. >> no. >> aye.

>> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> the motion passes. we can now move to the amendment regarding work force development and the report requirement. colleagues, adding further discussion? this amendment will be made. we can now move to the next amendment regarding local hiring. i understand there are questions as whether an amendment has been made. i understand that mr. cohen has proposed that this includes a clause that is subject to the terms of existing labor

agreement. >> i would like to move forward without mr. cullen's proposed recommendation. i believe that moving forward, this would be strongest if we were able to insert mandatory local hiring a new phase two language. it seems that there could be an openness between development and labor in order to address opening these up. >> the amendment has not been amended to include that this would be subject to the labor agreement. why don't we have this as it currently stands? >> no.

>> aye. >> no. >>aye. >> aye. >> no. >> no. >> aye. >> no. >> no. >> aye. >> the motion to amend sales. -- fails. would anyone like to make the motion that this would be subject to the motion with the language of the additional pla. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye.

>>aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> the motion to amend passes. on the final amendment related to the watershed restoration. to understand that you will introduce this during roll-call? >> i will introduce a resolution that will try to address this. the concern is that by doing it not attached to this process really becomes non binding in more than just academic terms. i will withdraw. and >> we now move to the proposed amendments.

the language shall be included the to have a living wage language. then, a second set of motions regarding the development agreement remedies. it would have cost punitive damages only. >> i have a key related to clear up language with regards to the southeast health center. is there any objection to that? without objection, those two items will be amended as proposed. then if we can move now to the amendment from supervisor daily first of all with regard to those having to do with fossil fuel references. so i can clarify, my understanding is that the amendment that was initially made has been remanded to be

put into this and review -- remove fossil fuel references. is that correct? >> it would be the amendment that i submitted except that it would specifically exempt electricity from the grid from outside of the redevelopment area. >> just to clarify, what we were proposing is that there are two places in the language where it says fossil fuel power districts, heating and cooling system. if we delete those two references and keep the rest of the text, then it works perfectly fine. the references occur in the first line and the second to the

last line of the further resolve the clause as was presented to. >> i would prefer the way i am doing it because i'm not following this. >> i think we were looking for a fairly direct way to make the point that this language would not prohibit the use of gas and electricity in holmes, the way it normally does. this would retain the prohibition against a power plant and fundamentally address that issue of including the prohibition against the fossil fuel power plants. >> i would rather go my way, specifically to keep this language but to exempt

electricity from the grid outside of the redevelopment area and gas and fire in home water heaters, whatever they're called. >> any further discussion? >> can you repeat that? many of these are from fossil

fuels, as we know. this is also from water heaters. >> on electric hot water heater would be powered from the lines coming in. >> i think we run the risk with a whole host of unintended consequences. obviously, we would need to provide for both a gas or heating and electricity, water, etc.. we would not want to create a disincentive or a barrier for the p c to provide public power to decide which often comes from a number of different sources. what we felt in the best of

intentions working with the amendment was if we took out those two references, we at least captured the fact that we will not build any fossil fuel power plants here. that has been an issue that people have raised and we want to be crystal clear on the record that that will not happen. i'm not exactly sure. >> i would just ask through the chair, what are the fossil fuel power systems in the plan that you are presenting to us? >> i think it is the fact that both electricity for homes, gas, the heating of water, whether it comes from pg&e, puc, or committee choice aggregation, this would come from a blending

of sources, hydro electric power but also all the power that comes to people's homes in san francisco across the network comes from a variety of sources, many of which includes the burning of fossil fuels. we do not power san francisco solely on renewable. >> i get it, this is why i agreed to the amendment to specifically exempt electricity coming in on the grid. if your intent is not to create some fossil fuel power to the system, then you will heat with heaters that are electric and there are other lines that come in. even if the origin of the

electricity is from natural gas- fired power plants and contra costa county, that is fine. >> the fear is that fossil fuel- powered districts and heating and cooling systems could be interpreted to mean that the district is the distribution network within the site. it just seems incredibly over brought. we were perfectly comfortable in clarifying no fossil fuel power plants. i would be happy to consider but i don't know how to articulate it.

if you describe this as a power plant but as a district based teaching system, that is possibly what we are getting at. >> that is hard to find out. i ask your support for this as it is currently amended. >> can we take a vote on the power plant language?

>> no. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> no. >> aye. >> no. >> aye. >> no. >> no. >> aye.

>> the motion passes. >> a motion to rescind. can we take a motion to rescind? courts without objection. -- >> without objection. >> no. >> aye. >> no. >> aye. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> aye. >> no. >> no. >> aye.

>> the motion fails. >> i have an alternate motion which basically would be the language would remove the references to fossil fuel- powered district heating and cooling system instead replace this with district steam loop. >> can we get where the patient of the impact? >> i have no idea. >> this would be a way around it -- i am trying to figure out how

we actually prohibit the power plants being cited in this project. a district steam loop would most likely be gas-fired heating system. it would basically have the same impact as a power plant in terms of fossil fuel burning. you would not call it that, you would call it something different. instead, the district steam would. >> the motion has been made. is there a second? >> it fails for a lack of a

second. is there any thing else in regards to power plants? >> i will move that we do what he did. that is a motion. >> the motion as a maid that the original language will be amended if it is included and removes fossil fuel references only to district heating and cooling systems. can we take that without objection? that passes. there's one final amendment regarding the additional standards with regard to to the project in of standards. will we take a roll-call vote on that? >> i can read for clarity what the languages which will be discussed.

one slight caveat added, to the extent that final remedies have not already been selected, the board of supervisors shall conduct hearings regarding the potential final strategies for each project parcel at the shipyard before any final remedies are selected and urges that the navy and to the epa and california epa participate in any of these hearings. >> which parcells has been selected? does that mean that we will get hearings on which parcels? >> they are the ones that the final remedy that has not been selected. i honestly believe that that is imminent within days. i don't know if you have time to have hearing.

>> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> that amendment is accepted. any final amendments.