coordination committee. so colleagues these are technical amendments, but i do think very reflective of a number of community conversations that have gone on and something that i would certainly like to support. so entertain a motion to accept those. >> so moved. >> motion by supervisor mar without objection [ gavel ] and the budget and legislative analyst has talked about two specific recommendations. i will just make my comments and open up for a conversation, particular around the second one around on-site versus on-site. i appreciate the commentary very much in the analysis from the board's perspective. you know, from my perspective, from a policy-level i do come out thinking that it might not be as accurate as on-site, we can definitely attribute revenue to off-site behavior as well, just as someone who was born and raised in the marina, and my parents still live there.

we have for instance blue angels come every year and the bars and restaurants they love it every single years because of the massive influx of people. residents might not like it from a parking perspective or the noise, but i have seen firsthand the ancillary effects of the revenue and looking at it and talking to folks i believe it's on the conservative side and would be comfortable supporting and therefore, >> supervisor tang. >> i would agree with supervisor farrell's recommendation regarding the second item and it was good to distinguish between the on-site and off-site, but the analysis was done thoroughly and we

based it on the conservative-level. so i would feel comfortable without taking that second recommendation from the budget and legislative analyst report. as the controller mentioned there will be some fine tuning of the numbers going forward. and so, i know that we'll be engaging in a transparent process when that opportunity arises. and so again at this point, i'm okay with taking the recommendation, the first one, even though it is redundant in terms of the other documents. but i don't see harm in including it in item no. 2, but not recommendation no. 2. >> okay. so is that a motion? >> okay. so i will make had a motion then to adopt budget analyst recommendation no. 1, which is that the ordinance should specify that the annual cap of the 90% of the general fund if it's insufficient to cover sfmta's expenditures for transportation services to the warrior's project, then the warriors will be responsibility

to comply with eir mitigations t-r2b and t-18. >> motion by supervisor tang without objection. colleagues we have the underlying item no. 2 as amended by both amendments. motion to accept the item with full recommendation to the december 8th board of supervisors meet. >> ing so moved. >> motion by both supervisor tang and supervisor mar, we'll take it without objection. as to item 3 we have some technical amendments, discussed. can i have a motion to accept the technical amendments. >> so moved. >> motion by supervisor mar this time.we'll take that out objection and to move item 3 to the full board to the december 8th board meeting. motion to that effect? >> so moved >> motion by supervisor tang, take that without objection. [ gavel ] . colleagues all right all all

item no. 4, take those without objection and underlying to separate send it forward with full recommendation to the board for the december 8th meeting. >> so moved. >> motion by supervisor tang. >> mr. malamut. >> city attorney's office, i prepared language to address the budget analyst's recommendation. i could read that into the record. >> item no. 1? >> i'm sorry, all item no. 2. >> recommendation no. 1 in regard to agenda item no. 2, i could read into the record a proposal, but it would require rescinding that vote on item 2 and rehearing it if you think

the item is acceptable. >> sure, i just want to make sure it's something had that we're voting on today. >> yes. >> happy to do so, colleagues motion to rescind the moment so moved. >> thank you. >> this is again your agenda item no. 2. at the end of the existing language this is entitled "environmental findings." we would add the language, "in that action, and this referring to the ceqa findings -- the first item on your agenda. that action the board recognized that the commission on community investment and infrastructure ocii on november 3, 2015 approved resolution

70-2015 which adopted california environment quality act findings. and including a statement of overriding considerations, and mp research and planning program as required by law. as part of the ocii approval of the resolution and other proval actions related to the golden state warriors event center and mixed-use district c pretty sured as conditions of approval, those aspects of mitigation measures and concerning transportation impacts in the mp research and p mitigation monitoring and reporting plan and this

essentially recognizes the two mitigation measures and indicates that they have been imposed as conditions on the project by the commission on community investment and infrastructure. >> thank you, >> i just wanted to clarify the reason we put this recommendation in and i'm willing to ask what the city attorney says is that none of the documents we saw did it explicitly say that if there wasn't sufficient money for the mta to implement all of the transit measures that are being considered by this legislation, it never explicitly that the warriors are responsible for the list of measures. we understand it was in ceqa and we understand it was in the mitigation measures and in the ocii, but it was never stated

explicitly that if the revenues fall short that that is what the warriors are going to be doing. so i will defer to the city attorney on this one, but i think it's a really key point on why we made the recommendation. >> thank you. i think you will find agreement on this entire panel and the full board. assuming that your language satisfis that concern, i think that is something i would certainly support. so at this point, colleagues unless questions, entertain a motion to accept that language into item no. 2. >> so moved. >> motion by supervisor mar, take without objection [ gavel ] colleagues we have to revote on item 2 as amended to forward in item to the full board for recommendation to thedecember 8th board of supervisors meeting. >> so moved. >> motion by supervisor tang without objection. madame clerk, do we have any other action. >> item 4 was also amended --

it was also recommended to the full board to thedecember 8th 8th meeting. >> there is no other action. >> thank you everybody we're adjourned.ñ??ñ÷oó

>> hearing for thursday, november 5, 2015, disruptions of any kind. please silence any devices that may sound off during the proceedings. if you don't know how please turn them off and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. i will repeat what i said earlier we do not have an overflow room roirpgd if you

can't find a seat in the room please wait outside if you care to speak submit a speaker card to make sure you're aware your name has been called for a particular item okay. >> as soon as an overflow room is made available i'll let you all know where that is i'd like to call roll at this time. commissioner president fong commissioner wu commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore and commissioner richards thank you, commissioners commissioners, the first item on your agenda is item for continuance item one the go affordable unit general plan amendment and