it is really an issue for vanilla -- for the alj. we are saying it should not be revoked. thank you 3 much. >> this thought they could never do anything to the policies -- this body could never do anything to the policies of the planning commission. in your brief, you indicated you felt the property owner should have gotten notice. can you elaborate on anathema -- on that? >> there are three elements of the notus arguments. the first is the planning department has agreed and it is their policy to notify if they consider a sign to be abandoned. apparently they first learned it was possible sign was abandoned over a year before they issued a notice of violation, so one of our issues was that it did not seem as though either if the request that the planning department was following its own policy, because no notice was issued when they thought it might be, and no notice was sent to the property owner. the other point is the planning department has made much of the fact of the fine was not in inventory, and in 2003, they sent letters to sign owners asking them to inventory the

i do think that there is language in here that is not just alj. given the combination of expertise that is indicated here, i believe it would cover the issues that would arise. do we have a motion for this item? supervisor mirkarimi: motion to accept. supervisor chu: motion, 2nd. without objection. could you call items 6 and 7. >> item 6. ordinance amending article 12-a of the san francisco business and tax regulations code by adding section 906.4 to establish a payroll expense tax exclusion for that portion of an eligible person's payroll expense that is attributable to stock compensation. item 7. ordinance amending the san francisco business and tax regulations code, article 12-a, by adding section 906.5 to establish a payroll expense tax exclusion for stock-based compensation and amending section 902.1 to exclude stock options from the definition of payroll expense. supervisor chu: thank you very much. these two items are brought to us by a number of individuals, primarily supervisor mirkarimi and supervisor farrell. from my understanding, supe

the first is that congress, in developing a comprehensive scheme, set out a series of procedures with aljs of regulations. what arizona does is let 40,000 localities -- >> at the time the statute was passed, there were many laws that adjudicated revocation of licenses. perhaps not many have addressed the issue of hiring undocumented aliens but many state laws existed that independently adjudicate revocation. what is the history that shows congress intended to limit those adjudications? >> it is undoubtedly the case that without the parenthetical saving clause that arizona higle laws would be swept away. the questions is if the phrase stays that. the answer is no. to read the statute that way is to permit the states to have their own laws. it is the case that congress wanted to sweep away the state statutes that were in place that impose sanctions on employers. >> you are saying that if arizona sank you had to have a license to do business, and then became aware of a problem it did not know before, a lot of employers were imploring child labor and they did not know. they say, we can revoke