Commissioner singh is absent and all other members are present. A the next regularly scheduled meeting is on february announcement for the Electronic Devices please advised that the Electronic Devices are prohibited at this meeting and the chair may order the removal of people who use Electronic Devices p. C announcement of the time for the announcement a member may make up to 3 minutes announcement. It is strong low recommended that members of the public who wish to address the Commission Submit a card to the commission secretary. The next item of business is the previous closed session meeting if any. The next order of business is the Unfinished Business we have no items. The next item 5 the matters of new business content and regular agenda. Item 5 a approval of minutes december 17, 2013, thank you, very much all the members should have the minutes in their packet. Id like to entertain Public Comments i have no speaker cards. Are there any comments if not id like to entertain a moti
Approved by the commission were here today it detective this adapted inform challenge the eir in San Francisco subject. As part of the court orders the city has set aside the 2009 eir and its approval of the 2009 Housing Element in response to the court ruling the Environmental Division has atom it. The Commission Held a hearing to receive comments on january 2wurgsd 2014 and the Environmental Planning is currently responding to the revised alternatives and expects to present to an april 24th, 2014. The department continues to recommend the adaptation of the Housing Element. The 2009 Housing Element was developed in cooperation with did you Mayors Office of housing and a you round table of other community stakeholder. The Department Building that the 2009 Housing Elements includes the permanent housing and the recognition of integration of jobs and transportation and infrastructure and our cities role as a sustainable development. We recommend the housing lemon adaptation. A timely ada
Boats area theyre playing for the grant because the functionality of the new boat for explodes the old boats thats the basic of our recommendation regarding the grant we certainly recommend approval of on page 3 of our report on the bottom of page 3 the fire boat in the amount of 11 thousand polluting plus on the same page we note as show that in table 3 on page 5 of our report in order to fully pay for the fire boat they anticipate 2 hundred 77 thousand thats not secured so we points out on page 6 supervisors just to make this very clear this could result in a request and again, were recommending approval we want the board to know the facts this can result in the request for the board of supervisors to appropriate in general fund be money in the 20142015 money and fallout if the Fire Department doesnt talk about the grants for a balance to pay for the fire boat this could result in the board of supervisors giving more money in the general monies in the Fire Departments 2015 2016 budge
Be obtained by the Fire Department 2015 2016 and the Mayors Office has pledged to fund the balance in the Fire Departments 2015 2016 budget but again that is subject to the board of supervisors you approval and this will be in fiscal year 2015 2016 so is the language appropriate based on the fund not being yet approved . Mr. City attorney correct me if i am wrong but were voting on to accept this amount. Correct. Right. And so the question from supervisor breed is whether the whereas clause in the contract approval correct me if i am wrong supervisor is appropriate. It that right is it appropriate to apply we will be providing the additional matching fund necessary because im not familiar with the request i dont know the details of whats required of us we dont have a budget and budget Analyst Report report for the Fire Department i dont want to put the board on the hook for the fiscal year until the fund are actually persuade to the whereas clauses is not doing that. I suggest you amen
Of under utilized parking garages on sundays like 13 . I think the december report shows that good benefits of the policy, and i feel that reversing it and rolling it back is not a step towards the transit first city. I feel like its a step towards car dominant city and thats the total opposite direction i want to go as a supervisor on this board. All just say that the appellants have raised some good issues and i hear the legal arguments from some of my colleagues, but i do feel that framing categorical exemption or statutory exemption is really the legalese of what youve done, which is tucking important issue that needed much more environmental analysis. So, thats why ill be supporting the appeal. Colleagues, lets take a roll call vote. Madam clerk . Supervisor campos . Can we have a motion . Supervisor wieners motion to affirm the statutory exemption. Aye. Campos aye. Supervisor chiu . Chiu aye. Supervisor cohen . Cohen aye. Supervisor farrell . Farrell aye. Supervisor kim . Kim aye