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 statements. i would like for him to address the technical issues for you. >> i would take the reference and say all parcels. >> they would also utilize the

process. >> fundamentally, the amendment is about having a public hearing and urging the agencies to attend the hearing to discuss the proposed remedy. as stated, the proposed remedies for this landfill, meaning a garbage dump, are very unique to the shipyard. we already know the range which was presented in the draft feasibility study, which includes making no land left, tapping it in place, and some things in between. a lot of concern has been expressed.

we understand there is a huge public interest in that. those remedies have already been reached have already gone through the process -- those have already gone through the public process, public hearings about the proposed remedies before they were selected, selection of the remedies and approval by regulatory agencies, so all of those have been vetted. those are going to be the same as indicated through the document for the next parcels that have not had the remedies selected yet. there are only four or five and then the landfill which i discussed. the need for having these extra

public hearings does not seem as compelling. >> it is good for us. we are not in the process. we are the board of supervisors. >> do you know in terms of affordable housing, are those mostly in the shipyard? >> they are both. one thing is that formal geography has to be spread, so they come at the same time as the rest of development. >> there is the same percentage of affordable housing in the shipyard and candlesticks side?

>> we can try to get that information. some of it is inclusionary, which goes with the vertical development. >> i want to go ahead to move to amend this. it is not going to completely solve all the concerns. this will basically apply the process with a public hearing for each parcel. >> that motion is seconded. >> i am happy to respond to more

questions. there is so much text in this amendment that it causes quite a bit of concern. it also says the board shall conduct a separate hearing prior to any transfer in the redevelopment. >> i withdrew everything except the process. the amendment is the process applies to each. >> it requires two elements. what you are saying is that you are asking for a hearing before selection? >> correct. >> thank you for that clarification. >> there is also advisory as good as they can.