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,