Enter their motion to excuse supervisor tang from attending todays meeting bs thank you. Width i will go ahead to make a motion to excuse supervisor tang that motion is taken without objection [gavel] item 1 except unexpended grant two under 30,000 from the California Department of Resources Recycling and recovery for the public purpose of increasing used motor Oil Recycling and household Hazardous Waste management for the period of april 1 20 3010 through june 30, 2018 thank you we have piero radius from the department of environment to present today good morning before you is a except unexpended for approximately 20 33,003 and 79. To support the departments Award Winning outreach effort to educate consumers around proper disposal of used motor oil in San Francisco. I just want to share with you just a couple of statistics in terms of our program that we have been running since several years now, since 1993. In 2015 San Francisco collected a total 42,000 103 counts of used oil from va
February 7 minutes. Motion. There is a motion for acceptance. Second. And a second. Are there any further corrections beyond those that have been made to the draft minutes that were sent out. And i will note there are no Public Comment requests for this item. And there are no Public Comment for this item. The major revisions are on the first page and page seven we gave dr. Patting the credit for his comments under section 11. If not there is a motion and a second. All those in favor of february 7 minutes please say aye. Aye. All those opposed . Those have been passed. A motion is in order for the meeting with the Planning Commission on february 9. So moved. Second. We have a motion and a second, and further discussion . Any edits . If not then the vote shall be taken. All those in favor of the minutes of february 9 please say aye. Aye. All those opposed . Those minutes are accepted. Through the chair just a question i wondered if the Planning Commission gets a copy of our minutes and d
Affordable housing is solely used for Affordable Housing needs. Recently here in San Francisco a developer refinanced an Affordable Housing development which was funded with a mix of Public Resources made millions off the transaction and spent the money on dark campaigns here in town and well over 100,000 to candidates and ballot measures and committees over the years. To my this activity is outrageous. There should be never a perception that resources are used for political purposes and thats why i introduced this ordinance. When Affordable Housing Developers Get funds the funds should go to Affordable Housing period. I have no desire to take money back from the developers in San Francisco and i dont want to burden the processes. This ordinance is simple and straightforward and cottifies policy at the Mayors Office of Community Development. Affordable Housing Developers using fund for federal and state sources to fund Affordable Housing and as they repay off or refinance the loans and
Tax increment for this tax purpose so weve built approximately close to 1,000 today, but about 6,000 still exist, so its the obligation and funding stream. If the city were to accept the obligation, it would have to identify a funding stream so it would be unwise for the city to accept the obligation without a source of funds to do it. Okay. I think i have some more thoughts on that, but thats not part of this resolution so well move on to other questions. Can you just also explain again sort of the separation of the income stream from mixed use property that is are being transferred . What does that mean . So disillusion laws provides for an ability for the Oversight Board to make a determination that if you had a mixed use as sets bra Oversight Board believed it was not a benefit to the community and it was a benefit to the taxing entities to separate that out in order to keep the revenue from the non housing youth, it could take those actions. In our particular case, the as setses t
Additional head room in that tax increment for this tax purpose so weve built approximately close to 1,000 today, but about 6,000 still exist, so its the obligation and funding stream. If the city were to accept the obligation, it would have to identify a funding stream so it would be unwise for the city to accept the obligation without a source of funds to do it. Okay. I think i have some more thoughts on that, but thats not part of this resolution so well move on to other questions. Can you just also explain again sort of the separation of the income stream from mixed use property that is are being transferred . What does that mean . So disillusion laws provides for an ability for the Oversight Board to make a determination that if you had a mixed use as sets bra Oversight Board believed it was not a benefit to the community and it was a benefit to the taxing entities to separate that out in order to keep the revenue from the non housing youth, it could take those actions. In our par