>> good afternoon and welcome to the board of supervisors meeting for tuesday, december 5, 2017. madame clerk please call the roll. >> the clerk: thank you madame president, supervisor breed, present. supervisor farrell present. supervisor kim. fot present. supervisor peskin present. supervisor safai, present. supervisor sheehy, present. supervisor tang, tang present. supervisor yee, present. madame clerk mad

madame president you have a quorum. >> please join us in the pledge of allegiance. >> thank you madame clerk. are there any communication. >> the clerk: none to report, madame president. >> is there a motion to approve the meeting minutes of october 31, 2017. moved by supervisor sheehy, seconded by supervisor ronen. without objection they'll be approved after public comment. madame clerk let's go to the consent agenda. >> the clerk: items one through three are considered to be routine. a member may object by severing an item and having it considered separately. >> seeing no names on the roster, madame clerk please call the roll. >> the clerk: on item one

through three, supervisor cohen, aye. supervisor peskin, aye. supervisor ronen, aye. supervisor safai, aye. supervisor sheehy, aye. supervisor tang, aye. supervisor breed, aye. >> commissioner: those items are adopted unanimously. read four through eight together. >> the clerk: comprised of reports the infrastructure of financing district and the infrastructure revitalization financing direct at the ho down yard the resolution of intention by the city to form three sub project area g2, 3 and sd4 into

the ports financing district or the ifd. item five is the intention to issue the bonds in the amount not to exceed approximately $274 million for the subproject areas. item six is the resolution of intention to establish city infrastructure and revitalization district or the irfd. number two, to finance the construction of affordable housing within pier 70, parcel k south and annexation and a public hearing january 9, 2018 to provide public notice and item seven is the resolution to authorize and direct the director of the port to prepare a financing plan for the ifd number 2 and item eight is a resolution of intention to issue bonds for the irfd, number 2. >> supervisor cohen.

>> supervisor cohen: thank you for hearings items four through eight and we want the ifd and the infrastructure and revitalization known as an irfd for a pier 70 project. i have circulated amendments for each items. i won't go into details about each file but these amendments add technical and clarifying language -- about each the ifds and irfds including the findings and fixing the date of the election. we have the city attorney and port and mayor's office have representatives here available to answer questions about the required amendments. with that i'd like to make a motion to adopt the amendments. it's also any understanding the items will have to be

re-referred to the finance committee. >> supervisor cohen has a motion to amend. supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: through the chair and through supervisor cohen insofar as they both have to go to committee. near the long nor short titles tell any member of the public or members of the board exactly what we all know and it's no secret this is related to pier 70. when it comes back if we can amend the short and long titles so any members of the public cath realize the letters and dashes refer to a particular plate. >> no problem. thank you. >> and for clarity, item four through eight, all of them will need to go back to committee because of these amendments. okay. so supervisor cohen has a motion

to amend and without objection the motion passes unanimously and supervisor cohen you want it to go back to the committee. without objection the item will go back to the budget committee. madame clerk, please call items nine and ten together. >> the clerk: item nine is an ordinance to amend the planning code to allow medical cannabis dispenries in additional districts and the converse of existing medical cannabis dispensaries to establishments and operating conditions repeal ordinance number 186-17 to create a limited number and uses in the combination in the excelsior neighborhood and exceed planning code provisions and item tem is an ordinance to

amend the business and tax regulations health and police codes to comprehensively regulate commercial activities relating to the cultivation and manufacture, distribution, sale and testing of medicinal and adult use cannabis and both make the appropriate findings. >> okay. seeing no names on the roster, colleagues, i wanted to thank each and every one of you for work you've done to make this legislation solid legislation. i also wanted to express there's been a number of concerns about the legislation and other and there are other files in committee now that could possibly be amended to address those concerns. but in the meantime, it is time to make sure that we have this policy on the books so that when january hits we can move forward and we can, if necessary, go

back and make the appropriate changes at that time. seeing no other names on the roster, madame clerk on this item please call the roll. >> the clerk: items nine and ten. [calling roll]>> the clerk: thes and one no with supervisor safai in the dissent. >> commissioner: madame clerk please call items 11 through 13 together. >> the clerk: three ordinances that pertain to 1629 market street item 11 amends the general plan to revise maps one and three and policy 7.2.5 of

the market and octavia plan to reflect the 1629 special use direct. item 12 adds the 1629 market straight special use district. also with the determination and item 13 is an ordinance to approve a development agreement between the city and strata brady llc for the development project site located at market 12th stevens and chase court and brady street and make the appropriate findings and item 14 -- madame president as well? pardon me. >> items 11 and 13. >> the clerk: i have called that president. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you, i want to acknowledge strata and community housing partnership for spending the last couple years working with the neighborhood to move

forward with the project that our community is truly excited about. it will replace a hotel i think is one of the worst conditions i've visit and rehabilitating the site and using it for step-up housing for many residents who live in single-occupancy hotels in the city but eligible and able to move up to other affordable housing with less supportive services. this along with the market rate project plan and neighborhood park is the type of development we need in the market street and the hub and greatly enhance and activate this part of our city. so congratulations to all involved and the tremendous outreach and getting unanimous

support from neighbors and finally, thank you for being a navigation center during this time as we went through the entitlement process to get them into permanent housing eventually. colleagues, i ask for your support. >> supervisor breed: madame clerk, please call roll. >> the clerk: on items 11 through 13. [reading roll. cohe >> the clerk: there are 11 ayes.

>> madame clerk, item 14. >> the clerk: to receive and approve the report dated may 12, 2014 by planning code 103. >> the resolution is adopted unanimously. next item. >> the clerk: a resolution to urge the mayor to support bill 1506 repeal the hawkins act. >> supervisor fewer. >> supervisor farrell: we have been struggling to maintain affordability in our housing stock. if anything we're clearly heading in the other direction. our city is clearly becoming one only for the wealthy. one of the biggest reasons is it the costa-hawkins act. it's a law enacted in 1995 which places limits on municipal rent control ordinances.

costa-hawkins municipal rent control laws in major ways. it prohibits municipalities to establish rent control over certain units such as single-family units and second it prohibits municipal vacancy control. in san francisco costa-hawkins has tied our hand to address housing crisis. and assembly members introduced 18ab1506 a proposed bill to repeal the costa-hawkins act and get sacramento out of their way when it comes to making our communities more affordable. by repealing costa-hawkins we will not be immediately changing the rent control laws but rather it gives us the opportunity to have a discussion with the

tenant and communities on what makes since for san francisco going forward. i hope my colleagues will join me for ab1506. when passed, we'll be joining cities such as santa monica and berkeley in seeing now is it the time to repeal costa-hawkins. many thanks to the housing rates community and council of community housing organizations for fighting the good fight in sacramento and san francisco. >> seeing no another names, madame clerk, can you add me as a co-sponsor to this resolution. >> the clerk: thank you, madame president. >> colleagues can we take the same house and call. without objection the resolution is adopted unanimously. >> the clerk: item 16 is an ordinance to amend police codes for autonomous vehicles on the right of ways and make appropriate findings.

>> supervisor yee. >> supervisor yee: many of you have heard me over and over again with regards to this particular item. it's something i introduced six months ago at three committee meetings to talk about this and have amended in fact we had the largest amendments two committee meetings ago. people had basically last month to look at the amendments. when i first started on this, it was brought to my attention there were delivery robots roaming around the streets and there wasn't a process to provide a permit for them or anybody restricting it.

it seemed to me like a déjà vu where let's just let it happen. maybe five years from now when we have 20,000 robots roaming around the streets and people have to walk on the streets with the cars then maybe we'll do something. that seems to be a pattern we've had in san francisco. i don't think we should let things get out of hand again. so the original piece of legislation was about keeping our sidewalks for pedestrians and that we should keep it safe for them to use as a public right of way. the issue then became wait a minute, isn't this about innovation and i said well, wait a minute. innovation goes two ways. it's not just about making -- creating something and saying that's innovation and nothing

else matters. if you want to be innovative try using your innovations that are good to mankind, that doesn't take away jobs or privacy when you're recording everything on camera and people that are blind and handicap and seniors and toddlers are not going to be able to get out of the way. we've seen collisions with people and the latest was in washington, d.c. i was ready to pass its and when we started making amendments to this, many of the advocates

starting saying, why don't we just forget it and not do legislation. let's put it on the ballot and have people vote on it. and i kept saying, wait, i think we're almost there. let's hold off a little bit. though i do have language ready to go if i need to put it on the ballot if this doesn't pass muster. so in the meantime what happened from six months ago is we sat down because as much as we value our sidewalks or pedestrians, as you know, we don't allow bicycles to ride on the sidewalk and thank you for that piece of legislation many years ago and to keep basically our sidewalks safer for pedestrians.

and i said, no, another value we do have which is that if it's a home grown business in san francisco we'd like to support them as much as possible. i was able to sit down with them and ask for what are your parameters -- >> supervisor breed: excuse me, supervisor yee i want to ask if any members of the public's phone goes off escort them off and to members of the public, police silence your cell phones. we're trying to conduct business and when the cell phones go off they're a distraction thank you. supervisor yee. >> supervisor yee: thank you, supervisor breed. so sitting down and talking to companies about what language makes sense and protecting our sidewalks for pedestrians, one thing we wanted to do was if

anybody wanted to develop these innovative things for the future, i was willing to back off a little bit to allow for that. but at the same time when we talk about that, one thing we didn't want to do is just say it's just do research and development to whatever you want. if you want to put out 100 robots at the same time that's fine. no, that's not fine. so we made limitations and at the same time we made concessions to people that want to do this so the process would be allowing some r&d and nine robots at anytime on our streets in san francisco and the r&d would take place in not

commercial corridors but pdr areas where there's less pedestrians and for these devices to bump into. the -- since then since we've had these amendments, i'm glad to say several of the entities and in chamber said thank you very much. the companies at the last committee meeting, none of them came up to say they were against it anymore. we're able to forge the language that will in many ways provide us for what we wanted which is to keep our sidewalks safer for pedestrians. and at the same time trying to

support those companies that want to do business in san francisco. there's also one-worders the city attorney said we should amend and we have a copy of that. i won't go through it to save time. i ask my colleagues support this. it's a common sense approach. i understand this particular legislation doesn't solve all the problems in the future and all i'm trying to do is again get ahead of the curve and understand there's new things coming up we need to address.

that's why a few weeks ago, probably a month ago, i introduced legislation to look at create task force to see how we could as a city have staffing that will look at the new issues that will come up again and again and look at the principles that will guide us in determining how to approach new technology as it's coming up faster than we can actually blink an eye. and i'm hoping that that piece will come back to the board. i have spoken -- and the person or the department i'm asking to head up the task force would be the city administrator and i've sat down with her already and she's fully on board with that.

so i'm looking forward to companying that piece of investigation earlier next year. but today it's about keeping our sidewalks for people. i hope i have your support. >> supervisor breed: thank you, supervisor yee. supervisor cohen. >> >> supervisor cohen: for bringing this to our attention. the spirit with which you're looking at the issue is noteworthy and we should be focussing our attention on artificial intelligence and robots and what that means for our pedestrians. and thank you for always giving voice to the issue. in the last several months for the engagement with the stakeholders and taking seriously the concerns i brought up earlier in the process. it's evident the new innovations they question and require observation and require regulation as we as city will

benefit greatly from data collection from the description and i appreciate the hard work on the amendments. your efforts bring forward a compromise and spirit of the legislation. i have a couple questions that i'd like to pose towards you or perhaps even bpw i'm not sure -- >> rishaw is supposed to be here. >> are you here >> supervisor breed: supervisor cohen, if you want to get your questions answered we can continue with our agenda until he gets here and come back to this particular issue. >> supervisor cohen: thank you, i think supervisor yee is actually able to answer my question so i think we can continue >> supervisor breed: supervisor yee. >> supervisor cohen: so i understand the devices will be tested in the overlapping zoning of pdr and we know it's in district ten. the testing area with the zoning

of pdr with no high injury network corridors and affected sidewalk with over six feet, those are all, i think, reasonable limitations. has the bpd been able to determine -- consecutive, and i use that from the legislation, for the miles it allows for in testing? >> supervisor yee: the bpw could carve out an area. the perimeter doesn't allow the whole area of pdr. >> supervisor cohen: so is the hearing in the appeal process not sufficient for permitting

the area rather than dictating it in advance? >> supervisor yee: i'm sorry, ask that again. >> supervisor cohen: is the hearing and appeal process sufficient or insufficient for identifying the appropriate number of permittees? >> supervisor yee: the hearing purpose to allow for to make sure that a new or second. can come in and apply for the permit and that they make sure there's the opportunity to allow that. is that the question you're asking? >> supervisor cohen: kind of. basically we're currently only limit to three companies. i just wanted to know how did you get to that number -- >> supervisor yee: sure. >> supervisor cohen: you also have a hearing in that process.

>> supervisor yee: basically, there's only one company in san francisco doing this type of work. so the original approach was when a company wanted to do r&d and build their company to eventually manufacture the items in san francisco, which is a good thing. it was easy to fall for one company as they were the only one. what i said was, well, let's not close the door on just the one company. just in case we want to encourage and allow for a new company to start up in san francisco. that's the intent of that. also, it provides them an opportunity -- one company applying for a full permit can apply for a second permit if

none of the other two are applied for. >> supervisor cohen: so i understand that. so it limits and the hearing i'm curious why we're going to have both a hearing and permitting process particularly, do we as a board, need to hear what may end up being a non-threatening issue on non-pedestrian corridors? >> supervisor yee: the hearing was to allow for people to give us objection to if they have any through the particular permit. >> supervisor cohen: and appeal

to the board. that's the question i'm raising because it sounds like the permitting process will be fairly routine and straightforward and it's a non-threatening issue and we'll also look at non-pedestrian corridors. but i want to move on regarding the other types of robots that are also out there. i've received -- and i'm sure all of you have received e-mails about not just the delivery robots but security robot and other devices on the sidewalk. it deals with delivery devices but has no direction for other devices is that right? >> supervisor yee: right. so you're absolutely correct. when we first started the only ones roaming around were the potential delivery robots.

a a and the spca is using one and kaiser. so they're beginning to pop up a little bit. when it started popping up more recently than not, i didn't want to all of a sudden go back and address the piece when it's been six months. >> supervisor cohen: great, it's an opportunity for us to work together on the legislation. question, why are we focussed on just the delivery robots specifically?

>> supervisor yee: why focus on that? >> supervisor cohen: yeah. >> supervisor yee: what was spotted on the streets and reported in different places were the particular robots and the companies announced it as the companies that came to us and said we're star ship and this is what we're doing and i said that's fine, what else are you doing. so no other robot companies i guess came to us and said well, this is an issue. >> supervisor cohen: so what's the plan for those that graduate from this permitting scheme. those that achieve a viable commercial product and those who choose to pivot but run out of

time. how do we address those and i'm calling it graduate but there's a permitted time limit when they need more time or run out of time. how does that process then manifest? >> >> supervisor yee: for instance, one company in san francisco would get a permit in six months and extend it for another six months basically. at the year's time the permit is no longer valid and have to reapply. the purpose is to have a check-in all the time to make sure there's no instances -- they're supposed to report if there are any instances, any collisions, any of that stuff and also the other thing we ask for which is important for many people because of privacy issues is that while they're collecting

data and testing the devices, then they would also share the data with dpw, department of public work. and go as far as to finalize what we do with the data. i felt it was important we have this and instead of waiting like we have for other issues and like airbnb won't give us their data, this way -- and the companies were actually pretty accepting of that notion to share and work together how the data could be used. one reason i didn't want to go too far with what we're doing today is as i mentioned, the second piece of legislation that's coming through, hopefully

whatever's set up can do it with more expertise. >> supervisor cohen: so the point i'm making is that i think the legislation we're debating here will be creating a piecemeal approach to a policy i think needs to be more thoughtful and broader and comprehensive. i noticed in your talking point you talked about four signatures going to the ballot. i don't want to advocate out of responsibility of supervisors. this is something we can legislate and do. i don't think we need to rush to go to voters. i just want to say i think it requires more work. supervisor yee. >> rishaw will have more. >> supervisor cohen: thank you, mr. shaw. i know you have been working

with supervisor yee in a diligent way. thank you for that. has dpw been able to determine how many blocks or miles this legislation would allow for? >> though we have not taken a look at the consecutive blocks we have mapped out the total number of streets within the pdr districts. we have the total number of streets here and a total number of blocked segments if you need that information. >> supervisor cohen: mr. shaw, my colleague is asking if you have a map. do you have a map for the overhead? >> i do not have a map, currently, no. >> supervisor cohen: so what are the number of blocks that are dealing with testing. >> the total number of streets is approximately 236 streets and that encompasses 236 blocks.

>> supervisor cohen: how many? >> 1,448 blocks the number of streets in the pdr district. if we take away the high impact corridors the ones of safety concerns, then we end up with 130 usable streets and that equates to 761 total blocks. >> supervisor cohen: okay, so when we take out the high impact corridors it leaves seven hundred and what? >> 736 blocks. >> supervisor cohen: available for testing. okay. are you able to demonstrate what the average testing area might look like for these companies? >> could elaborate? >> supervisor cohen: do we have a standard or how many blocks

are needed to test the vehicles? >> public works hasn't done that sort of assessment. in terms of what is needed, we have given comments, however, on the minimum accessibility requirements on the streets. >> supervisor cohen: okay. we don't know very much, right? >> correct. that is not in the legislation currently as written. the understanding is that they would -- our understanding is they would take the same sidewalks pathways a pedestrian would take therefore they'd be using the same functions of transportation meaning the sidewalks and crosswalks. >> supervisor cohen: thank you, mr. shaw. i appreciate you coming down to

share your expert opinion. what concerns me most is the piecemeal manner with which we're trying to put together the policy. i do agree we need to prioritize pedestrian safety. i don't have doubt on that and that's unquestionable. but we need to definitely be thinking about regulations and i think we need to be thinking about this holistically and think about emerging technology. i don't know if that's exactly what this legislation is able to accomplish. i wonder if we can have more of an over arching inclusive approach to emerging technology rather than voting on a specific business model or application of a company at the earliest stage and running the risk of picking winners, particularly based in the city, sanctioned first on a

more advantage rather than on merits. so colleagues, what i'm trying to express is in august i opened up a drafting express with the city concern to explore the permitting process and have not moved on it. i wanted to allow and ensure that supervisor yee thoughts have an opportunity to be presented and discussed. my hope is to encourage early start-ups particularly those with small scale manufacturing that incorporate labor and want to be a good actor and engage with their communities and allow san francisco to continue to be a beacon of innovation. i also don't want this blank check that we could possibly be signing off a blank check for technology companies to act with impunity and in the absence of

clear guidelines we have laid out from the city. so we an office of innovation and office of economic development. there should be something we can pull together thoughtfully those thought leaders. while i can definitely understand the taste for a burrito delivery bought -- bot going up and down i wonder if there's maybe not other uses like maybe a robot that pick up needles on the street. for example, that's a problem we have. to sum this all up i'd like to say i'd like to work on this and focus exclusively on early research and development stage technologies that are here in the city. i think it's very clear that we need to think about how we will permit these companies moving forward. how we decide who is worthy of a permit and on what basis and

commercial basis and what that will look like. we definitely want this to be a high-level discussion that's data driven with multiple and imaginative stakeholders at the table. it's not obvious what this should look like at this time and obvious what it will look like in the future but i think we need to continue chipping away at it. supervisor yee, regardless of the outcome i hope you and i will be able to work together for broader legislation without limiting creativity. and also without jeopardizing the safs -- safety of the city. thank you, madame chair. >> supervisor breed: supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, i rise to offer support to the

measure before us. and i want to say let us not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. supervisor yee referenced the segway ban and this legislation started with the meeting at the transportation authority at the vision zero committee i believe of the transition authority. i expressed i think our sidewalks i think are sacred spaces for people, for pedestrians. i don't think it's a place for robots. and i think the segway ban the previous board decide to enact has proven right over time. having said that, supervisor yee

has compromised quite a bit working with the teamsters and others to work with a permitting scheme that is not unique and we teamed up for stationless bicycles. wouldn't it be nice if we can do this comprehensive as emerging, sometimes disrupting technologies are upon us but thus far we have not found that piece of legislation. albeit, earlier today at the transportation authority our executive director, ms. chang, was talking about how they're trying to get their hand around a comprehensive, how we deal with emerging technologies set of policies. and up until now as supervisor yee said, we have tried to regulate too little too late.

that's the case with the so-called google busses and with what we now call transportation network companies. so let us not have the perfect be the enemy of the good. this can be modified over time but it's better to have some amount of resolution so we're not chasing this thing later when it's out of control but -- and i don't think the parties are very far part but i urge you colleagues to vote for this. i think it is a good common sense and compromise legislation the result of compromise. >> supervisor breed: thank you, supervisor peskin. supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: i have a couple questions for sponsor, through the chair, supervisor yee, what is the thinking behind keeping the tested limit to pdr space in the sense that this is something that eventually might become a usable service when you want to allow it to be tested in

both non pedestrian and occupied less pedestrian-occupied spaces. in effect, if you want to see a work in a commercial corridor wouldn't it make sense to work in that manner. i just want to know your thoughts. >> supervisor yee: my thoughts are straightforward. it was outright not allowing robots on the sidewalk, period. that was the original thought. so part is when they're testing they're testing to see what it means to go up a hill, down a hill and there's a lot of things you can test and you can hire people. that's what we're supposed to be doing making shoe we can hire

more people. i think the problem we saw was the first few robots that we did see were on commercial corridors and causing issues with people and that's where the complaints came from. i don't know about you but i can't imagine in my business corridors like west portal, for instance, and other places where i can and even around ocean for a few blocks where it's really busy, to have these things going up and down the street while people are trying to get around other people walking slower or whatever. that's the think behind it. okay, some companies can work around these things but when we spoke to them, they were in agreement it was okay. they didn't say we need to be on commercial corridors. when we tried to look at legislation where if somebody

you, as a supervisor want them in your commercial corridors and think people in your residence is okay with that but talk to the city attorneys and you'll know we can't do that. we looked into that. >> supervisor safai: so this is setting the framework for testing, is that correct? because if ultimately it becomes something someone wants to apply for and use does this permit allow for that? >> it does not allow for that. >> supervisor safai: it's only to for the testing phase? they'd have to come back later and we'd have to create the authority for any of these businesses to utilize this? >> supervisor yee: right now there's no regulations on this at all. again, there's no perfect solution. i actually when i started looking at regulations, that's

where i started thinking, okay, what can we do to allow for this. and every solution that when i had a meeting, everything that came up was the apartments including -- departments including police said it's not enforceable. it wasn't that i didn't go in that direction and the conclusion was it didn't work. i also didn't say it today but i've said it in the past where we didn't allow bicyclists to go on our sidewalk. they didn't stop bicycling. they created an advocacy group that said here's something we need. here's additional infrastructure so that this is going to be safer for pedestrians. so in the future, maybe there's

going to be other infrastructure improvements in the city that would allow for that. but right now, today, i don't think it's there yet and i'd rather have regulations now. and we have time in a few years from now to rethink this. >> supervisor safai: thank you. one more question, my question for clarification for my own understanding where you're at but it sounds to me like what supervisor cohen is asking for and what you're asking for are not in conflict. you're is phase one governing the testing phase. supervisor cohen can still have a comprehensive approach that once someone wants to be permitted it could be a separate piece of legislation because yours is really only governing testing and there could be a piece of legislation to talk about the implementation and pulling a permit once it's an authorized use. >> supervisor yee: i don't see

it as the end of the legislation that's why i mentioned the follow-up legislation we have to create this entity and staffing that can look at these issues in a much deeper way. >> supervisor safai: thank you. madame chair. >> supervisor breed: seeing no other names on the roster, supervisor yee you made a proposal for amendments. >> supervisor yee: yeah, they're one-liners according to she city attorney i don't have to talk about it. unless you want me to. >> supervisor breed: so the amendments you passed around to members of the board already. >> supervisor yee: can i say one more thing, i always forget to do this, i want to thank my staff who worked on this particular legislation for six months tirelessly and she'll be glad when this passes.

>> supervisor breed: thank you. supervisor yee has made a motion to amend. is there a second. seconded by supervisor peskin. colleagues, can we take the amendment without objection. the amendment passes. madame clerk on the item, please call the roll. >> the clerk: as mended, supervisor cohen. aye. supervisor farrell, aye. supervisor fewer, aye. supervisor kim, aye. supervisor ronen, aye. supervisor safai, aye. supervisor sheehy, aye. supervisor tang. aye. supervisor yee, aye. supervisor breed aye. >> commissioner: the ordinance passes unanimously on the first reading. all right, madame clerk, let's skip over to as it not quite 3:00 yet so can we go to

committee reports. >> the clerk: yes, items 39 and 40 were considered by the budget and finance committee. november 30 and submitted 39 is a resolution to declare december 4, 2017 through december 8 -- >> commissioner: i'm >> >> supervisor breed: i'm sorry, it starts at item under 30. >> the clerk: item 30 is an ordinance to amend the business and tax resolutions in tax codes to require the director of the office of cannabis to collect permit application fees of $2,000 and annual fees of $5,000 to authorize the department of public health to impose fees relating to the inspection and

establish annual permits and require the office of the director of cannabis and the department of public health to waive certain fees for certain applicants. should i continue or do one at a time. >> supervisor breed: we'll start with item number 30. >> the clerk: okay. roll call vote, madam president? >> supervisor breed: yes. >> the clerk: supervisor cohen, item 30. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. >> the clerk: supervisor farrell, aye. supervisor fewer, aye. supervisor kim, aye. supervisor peskin, aye. supervisor ronen, aye. supervisor safai, aye. supervisor sheehy, aye. supervisor tang, aye. supervisor yee, aye. supervisor br