the reason i say that is that if you look at the way in which the code is written, at that subsection it basically references two things. it says that while the appeal is pending, until the eir is recertified, the city shall not carry out -- and then it says "or consider" -- the subject of the eir on appeal. to me, that language suggests there is a difference between carrying out approval and considering approval. the way the city attorney's office is interpreting the word consider -- it applies that definition only to the instance when the approval is actually carried out. the text suggests there is a difference, that there are two possible scenarios. from my reading of this, the word consider is broader than just boating on something or carrying it out. -- voting on something or carrying it out. going forward, i think we should reconsider how we are approaching this issue. the dictionary definition of the word "consider" is broader than simply taking action, just looking online at the webster dictionaries. it talks about "give careful consideration to," "take into account," "think a

supervisor mar: i am reading subsection 8.3. it says that while the appeal is pending the city shall not carry out -- we did not carry out -- or consider approval of the project -- and we did not consider approval of the project because it was made clear at the beginning of the hearing. is that correct? >> that is correct. supervisor mar: i have follow-up questions for mr. cooper. it is very subjective whether this project eir -- appellants are climbing in reality it is a program eir. i need more specifics about how you would distinguish that what is being considered has adequate analysis, as supervisor mercury mentioned. the appellant highlights there was not sufficient analysis to constitute a project-level review. that is on page 11. they go on to mention it did not have the details necessary to assess, let alone mitigate, project-level impacts. that is on page 12. they conclude the plan was only conceptual, or could be changed in the future, and that the project level details for the development do not presently exists. they

this is under section four, subsection e. the director of planning is authorized to return any additional amendments and modifications to the d.a. i wondered if this was common and what the range was. he could give me some examples of what the parameters of this might be a substantive changes that could be made to the plan. >> they tend to be more technical, but they could be design changes. the earlier sections basically locked in the general entitlement. for example, building 8000 units. that is a maximum of 8000 units. or the parking ratios or locked in the dna in that entitlement being provided now, but to the extent there are modifications around design, for instance, those are the types of changes that could be made by planning. and planning has to interpret when someone comes forward, a developer comes forward with a project on treasure island. it will be planning's job for the housing, at least on treasure island, to interpret that it is consistent with the zoning. supervisor kim: the other question i had is i was won

we may have to define a new subsection of insanity and the like to think about that before we bring in some of these things through this proposal. we have presumed that therefore, that is the thing to refer to what you said about a planning process different than a user experience. that is what i want to try to analyze a little bit more even though it is not set. i hope to see some significant differences and it will allow us to assess whether or we will see that a different kind of behavior. as far as i can analyze his, i thank the staff of this work and i think it is much more accessible and it explains a lot more things. it also raises more questions, but in italy were presuming -- but we were presuming if we feed them to the school, those are the kids that will end up in the middle school. but if they are not choosing the elementary school, we have to change our presumptions about what the results might be. i would like to explore in the next few weeks so i can feel assurance about what we think might happen here. i want to raise the question about how -- again, i hope nobody think

what i would recommend is that you retain subsection m that appears on page 36, line 20. add to it the following language, which was from the deleted section. you would have a new sentence that would say the zoning administrator's decision shall be governed by section 307 sub i am sure require either the recommendation of the department of -- sub i, and require either the recommendation of the department for conformity to the plan. it combines those sections together. we will prepare this. supervisor kim: i am supportive of those amendments. chairperson mar: thank you. supervisor weiner: i would like to move the amendments that supervisor kim submitted earlier, including the amendment reticulated by the city attorney's office. chairperson mar: without objection. supervisor weiner: i would like to move the item with a positive recommendation. chairperson mar: without objection. is there any other business before us? thank you, everyone. meeting adjourned. >> thank you very much for coming this morning and welcome to the rededication of the reservoir. we are happy to be her

under that subsection b, it has a subsection 6, which has cost recovery. so there is a vehicle, a mechanism to recover costs for threat. then if we can skip c just for the moment that has to do with vulnerability and then you do he to d, which is called critical defense facilities. under critical defense facilities, there is a subsection on page 15 about cost recovery. i'm just curious back on the one i skipped over, b -- i'm sorry, yes, b, or c, that's the section that refers to grid security vulnerabilities. under vulnerabilities, there is no cost recovery by this particular piece of legislation. was that intentional? was vulnerabilities would not be able to recover the cost, the utility companies and anyone else would not be able to recover their costs? i'm sorry. i singled you out, but i don't care who it is that answers that question. >> i can take a shot at that. i believe you're correct. i believe threats are singled out for cost recovery. i believe under the 100 most critical facilities for the dod, the user is rured to pay for upgrades or enhanced

and you understand that subsection b, it has a subsection 6 which has cost recovery. so there is a vehicle, a mechanism, to recover cost for threat. then if we can skip c just for a moment, that has to do with vulnerability, and then you go to d, which is called critical defense facilities. under critical defense facilities there is a subsection on page 15 about cost recovery. i'm just curious back on the one i skipped over, b -- i'm sorry, yeah, b -- or c, that's the section that refers to grid security vulnerabilities. under vulnerabilities, there is no cost recovery by this particular piece of legislation. was that intentional? was vulnerabilities would not be able to recover the cost of the utility companies and anyone else who would not be able to recover their costs? i'm sorry. i singled you out but i don't care who it is answers that question. >> i can take a shot at that. i believe you're correct. i believe that threats are singled out for cost recovery. i believe that under the 100 most critical facilities for the dod, the user is required to pay for any upgr

under that subsection b, it has a subsection 6, which has cost recovery. so there is a vehicle, a mechanism to recover costs for threat. then if we can skip c just for the moment that has to do with vulnerability and then you do he to d, which is called critical defense facilies. under critical defense facilities, there is a subsection on page 15 about cost recovery. i'm just curious back on the one i skipped over, b -- i'm sorry, yes, b, or c, that's the section that refers to grid security vulnerabilities. under vulnerabilities, there is no cost recovery by this particular piece of legislation. was th intentional? was vulnerabilities would not be able to recover the cost, the utility companies and anyone else would not be able to recover their costs? i'm sorry. i singled you out, but i don't care who it is that answers that question. >> i can take a shot at that. i believe you're correct. i believe threats are singled out focost recovery. i believe under the 100 most critical facilities for the dod, the user is rured to pay for upgrades or enhanced measu

a and two, not subject to proceedings under subsection a. section 3, in the engrossment of h.r. 2055, the clerk shall conform title and section numbers and make related corrections to cross-references in the event a portion of the bill is not retained pursuant to section 2 of this resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida will be recognized for one hour. mr. webster: for the purpose of debate only i yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. during the consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for debate only. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks . the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. webster: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. this house resolution 288 provides for an open rule for consideration of house resolution 2055, the military construction and veterans

use the authority described in subsections h and j. section 716, clause ii of section 524b-4-b is amended. section 717. appropriations to the department made available in fiscal years 2005, 2006, and 2007 to carry out section 601 of the rural electrify case act of 1936 shall remain available until expended. section 718, none of the funds shall be used to carry out a program under subsection 32a of public law 110-246 in excess of $948 million. section 719, of the funds available not more than $1,800,000 shall be used to cover necessary expenses related to all advisory committees. section 720, none of the funds shall be available to pay indirect costs charged against any agricultural research or grant awards issued by the national institute of food and agriculture. section 721, none of the funds may be used to write or publish a final rule in furtherance of the proposed rule. section 722, the unobligated balances available for the natural resources conservation service forestry incentive programs, $5,500,000 are rescinded. section 723 of

after subsection b of section 3128 of the clean air act as proposed to be added by section 4 of the bill, insert the following, e, determination of lower gas prices at the pump. in conducting analysis relating to requirements for pollution controls pursuant to this section, the administrator shall determine whether the controls under review will result in lower gasoline prices in the united states, including the retail price charged at service stations. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes many support of his motion. mr. keating: mr. speaker, i rise to offer this final amendment that i believe will greatly increase economic and job safeguards for the american people. simply put, the underlying legislation -- the speaker pro tempore: the house is not in order. the gentleman deserves to be heard. the gentleman may continue. mr. keating: simply put, the underlying legislation is risk versus reward. we know what the reward is. trillions of dollars of profit over the last decade for oil companies and preferred stock buy

b, the chair of the committee on the budget shall adjust the allocations referred to in subsection a to accommodate the enactment of general or continuing appropriation acts for fiscal year 2011 after the adoption of house concurrent resolution 34 but before the adoption of this resolution. c, for provisions making appropriations for fiscal year 2011, section 3-c of house resolution 5 shall have force and effect through september 30, 2011. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? >> mr. speaker, i raise a point of order against h.res. 287 because it violates 426-a of the congressional budget act. mr. ellison: it waives all points of order against consideration of the bill which includes a waiver of section 425 of the congressional budget act which causes a violation of section 42-a. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota makes a point of order that the resolution violates section 426-a of the congressional budget act of 1974. the gentleman has met the threshold burden under the rule and the gentleman from minnesota and a member

initiatives or two in contravention of the agriculture and food research initiative specified in subsection b-2-f of the competitive special and research grant act 7 u.s.c. 450i. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. pingree: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, this would combat the misguided report language written to attack local and regional food systems. by passing this amendment, we will send an important message to farmers, consumers and community leaders around the -- around the country. helow call and regional food systems are critically important. they provide economic opportunities for rural communities and healthy food for consumers. local food systems are the back bone of economies across the country. in order to ensure local food systems work to their maximum potential, congress must support research, driving programs and devote more, not less funding to promote this work. no matter what group i'm talking to, whether it's members of credit unions or realtors or teachers, when i start talking about improving the quality of food we serve our kids, impro

i'm reading with the certification section 203, the certification required by the subsection is a certificationrection of the president to the appropriate congressional committees, and then in pertinent part that pakistan "has demonstrated a sustained commitment to and is making significant efforts towards combating terrorist groups. the second part in defining what that progress is the following can be taken into consideration -- number one, cease and supporting inning any element within the pakistani military or its intelligence agency to extremists or terrorist groups. that's pertinent part of number one. number two -- preventing al-qaeda, taliban, and sorted terrorist groups like let and others from operating in the territory of pakistan. that's the basis of the certification. can i just ask a fundamental question even though i know the next certification is not due yet, and you made one i goes as of the end of 2010, but is it your current assessment that pakistan, the government of pakistan has met these criteria outlined in section 203 for continued u.s. assistance? >> well, senator, you'