>> deputy city attorney, john gibner? >> thank you. it's not too late for the mayor to withdraw the measure from the ballot but it is too late to recommend -- amend the measure in any way. >> i really it's great that the mayor has been having this focus and the mta staff and transportation authority and other part of dbw, they're focused on our needs around transportation system, but to me, this declaration of policy is insufficient to really address the needs and putting it before the voters to kind of constrain what the thoughts are around it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. >> okay. >> not to discount anything you've done on this. >> thank you. >> supervisor cohen? >> thank you, the deputy city attorney answered my question because really it was a question about you expressed a lot of disappointment and dissatisfaction, so i was curious to know -- and the city attorney's rested, if you had an amendment, but you don't have any amendments because we can't amend at this particular point, thank you. >> i will just state i completely u

. >> john gibner, deputy city attorney those were there was a 12 most interim controls and a 12 months estimation to the maximum is 24 months so including the maximum. >> we hit the two year moment. >> that's correct. >> okay. so yeah like i said in terms of the issues impacting 1049 marketed i'd like to see those done yes, but the interim controls housed in the pieces of legislation that impacts a massive amount of prompts i want to make sure we get it right. >> what if we were to duplicate that file on monday and move that forward and then can hear the rest of it. >> we can duplicate it today and continue that one discrete piece. >> yeah. i'm not sure what amendment will carve out the simple be property. >> not the property. >> the legislation as a whole deals with removal of units legal unit and illegal unit and on public comment that property falls within this broad legislation but i'm not sure that today, we can really carve out a more narrow piece of legislation that will cover this issue. >> well, thank you for clarifying that like i said if this was a simple more simple legisla

. >> okay john gibner, deputy city attorney there are - state law prohibits the sale of tobacco products to minors our law would not duplicate economic e contradict or massachusetts make enforcement that have difficult or impossible it compliments the state law in a way that sources the city complies with the state and the local law the state law also does not occupy the entire field of tobacco legislation and california court of appeals interpreting the installing has so done so we are not preexpectpreempted. >> madam chair thank you to the 0 deputy city attorney for that explanation we do believe this law is defenseable a tobacco industry that because it is products serve no purpose and kill people it is an industry for 50 years or more has to fight having very hard to kill any sensible public health through spending numerous amounts of money and campaigns for years had the industry denied the california link to cancer and others illness and it's not sprooirlt the industry understanding i know the industry does had you hook hopp when in their young you're likely to hook them on smoking

. >> john gibner, deputy city attorney. >> maybe we can get an answer by wherever the next hearing colleagueshank you supervisor peskin. >> thank you, supervisor wiener i want to follow up on the path you were going down the individuals that didn't have the right to legalize their urban authorized units since that was able to be legalized and how was that since you said - 2014. >> may have 2014. >> may of 2014. >> may have 2014 to may of 2015. >> so a year and a half of data this number was helpful it seems out of the hundreds and 80 approximately, one and 50 are able to move forward and presumably have the financial resources if we move forward that quick and the fund of $4 million growing to $4 million doesn't sound like it is going to be a huge burden if we got the whole funds of 72 unit a year and keep money around for other things that's one of the my concerns but i want to follow up on the process on nov gets issued and supervisor wiener says the planning commission didn't grant the cu and now is owner is forced to legalize i assume from the the owner didn't have the financial resources

. >> john gibner, deputy city attorney. >> maybe we can get an answer by wherever the next hearing colleagueshank you supervisor peskin. >> thank you, supervisor wiener i want to follow up on the path you were going down the individuals that didn't have the right to legalize their urban authorized units since that was able to be legalized and how was that since you said - 2014. >> may have 2014. >> may of 2014. >> may have 2014 to may of 2015. >> so a year and a half of data this number was helpful it seems out of the hundreds and 80 approximately, one and 50 are able to move forward and presumably have the financial resources if we move forward that quick and the fund of $4 million growing to $4 million doesn't sound like it is going to be a huge burden if we got the whole funds of 72 unit a year and keep money around for other things that's one of the my concerns but i want to follow up on the process on nov gets issued and supervisor wiener says the planning commission didn't grant the cu and now is owner is forced to legalize i assume from the the owner didn't have the financial resources

. >> john gibner, deputy city attorney. >> maybe we can get an answer by wherever the next hearing colleagueshank you supervisor peskin. >> thank you, supervisor wiener i want to follow up on the path you were going down the individuals that didn't have the right to legalize their urban authorized units since that was able to be legalized and how was that since you said - 2014. >> may have 2014. >> may of 2014. >> may have 2014 to may of 2015. >> so a year and a half of data this number was helpful it seems out of the hundreds and 80 approximately, one and 50 are able to move forward and presumably have the financial resources if we move forward that quick and the fund of $4 million growing to $4 million doesn't sound like it is going to be a huge burden if we got the whole funds of 72 unit a year and keep money around for other things that's one of the my concerns but i want to follow up on the process on nov gets issued and supervisor wiener says the planning commission didn't grant the cu and now is owner is forced to legalize i assume from the the owner didn't have the financial resources

. >> okay john gibner, deputy city attorney there are - state law prohibits the sale of tobacco productsnors our law would not duplicate economic e contradict or massachusetts make enforcement that have difficult or impossible it compliments the state law in a way that sources the city complies with the state and the local law the state law also does not occupy the entire field of tobacco legislation and california court of appeals interpreting the installing has so done so we are not preexpectpreempted. >> madam chair thank you to the 0 deputy city attorney for that explanation we do believe this law is defenseable a tobacco industry that because it is products serve no purpose and kill people it is an industry for 50 years or more has to fight having very hard to kill any sensible public health through spending numerous amounts of money and campaigns for years had the industry denied the california link to cancer and others illness and it's not sprooirlt the industry understanding i know the industry does had you hook hopp when in their young you're likely to hook them on smoking for l

. >> okay john gibner, deputy city attorney there are - state law prohibits the sale of tobacco products to minors our law would not duplicate economic e contradict or massachusetts make enforcement that have difficult or impossible it compliments the state law in a way that sources the city complies with the state and the local law the state law also does not occupy the entire field of tobacco legislation and california court of appeals interpreting the installing has so done so we are not preexpectpreempted. >> madam chair thank you to the 0 deputy city attorney for that explanation we do believe this law is defenseable a tobacco industry that because it is products serve no purpose and kill people it is an industry for 50 years or more has to fight having very hard to kill any sensible public health through spending numerous amounts of money and campaigns for years had the industry denied the california link to cancer and others illness and it's not sprooirlt the industry understanding i know the industry does had you hook hopp when in their young you're likely to hook them on smoking

. >> john gibner, deputy city attorney. >> maybe we can get an answer by wherever the next hearing colleagueshank you supervisor peskin. >> thank you, supervisor wiener i want to follow up on the path you were going down the individuals that didn't have the right to legalize their urban authorized units since that was able to be legalized and how was that since you said - 2014. >> may have 2014. >> may of 2014. >> may have 2014 to may of 2015. >> so a year and a half of data this number was helpful it seems out of the hundreds and 80 approximately, one and 50 are able to move forward and presumably have the financial resources if we move forward that quick and the fund of $4 million growing to $4 million doesn't sound like it is going to be a huge burden if we got the whole funds of 72 unit a year and keep money around for other things that's one of the my concerns but i want to follow up on the process on nov gets issued and supervisor wiener says the planning commission didn't grant the cu and now is owner is forced to legalize i assume from the the owner didn't have the financial resources

>> deputy city attorney, john gibner? >> thank you. it's not too late for the mayor to withdraw the measure from the ballot but it is too late to recommend -- amend the measure in any way. >> i really it's great that the mayor has been having this focus and the mta staff and transportation authority and other part of dbw, they're focused on our needs around transportation system, but to me, this declaration of policy is insufficient to really address the needs and putting it before the voters to kind of constrain what the thoughts are around it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. >> okay. >> not to discount anything you've done on this. >> thank you. >> supervisor cohen? >> thank you, the deputy city attorney answered my question because really it was a question about you expressed a lot of disappointment and dissatisfaction, so i was curious to know -- and the city attorney's rested, if you had an amendment, but you don't have any amendments because we can't amend at this particular point, thank you. >> i will just state i completely u

. >> john gibner, deputy city attorney as supervisor tang mentioned some amendments are late breaking we'd like an opportunity in our office to prove read no errors in all the language because that meeting will be the last opportunity to make any amendments

. >> john gibner, deputy city attorney. >> maybe we can get an answer by wherever the next hearing colleagueshank you supervisor peskin. >> thank you, supervisor wiener i want to follow up on the path you were going down the individuals that didn't have the right to legalize their urban authorized units since that was able to be legalized and how was that since you said - 2014. >> may have 2014. >> may of 2014. >> may have 2014 to may of 2015. >> so a year and a half of data this number was helpful it seems out of the hundreds and 80 approximately, one and 50 are able to move forward and presumably have the financial resources if we move forward that quick and the fund of $4 million growing to $4 million doesn't sound like it is going to be a huge burden if we got the whole funds of 72 unit a year and keep money around for other things that's one of the my concerns but i want to follow up on the process on nov gets issued and supervisor wiener says the planning commission didn't grant the cu and now is owner is forced to legalize i assume from the the owner didn't have the financial resources

deputy city attorney john gibner. >> job gibner from the city attorney's office, supervisor yaoe would is unavailable for this meeting asked me to speak to summarize what we're doing here. the sr task force was sunsetting websinger require all advisory bodies to sunset every three years so this ordinance simply reps the task force for another three years and adds the task force into the administrative code, it was previously created and reauthorized by resolution several times. the one substantive change that this ordinance make tos the sr task force is it was a 14 member body, the 14th member was an appointee of the city attorney, a deputy from my office, but the best practice for advisory bodies like this is to have the city attorney act as an advisor, not a voting member, just like we advise all boards and commission ins the city so, we removed that 14th member, now it's a 13 member body and the city attorney will continue to be the legal advisor and there is one amendment, just a typo in here that we'd like to suggest on page 4, line 2, it still references seat 14 and we would chan

deputy city attorney >> john gibner. just to get everyone on the same page, the clerk of the committee is handing out corrected versions incorporating the amendment mr. strong mentioned as well otthe amendment suggested by the budget analyst. we will be submitting-the version before you isn't signed and will submit a signed copy to the clerk along with the electronic version later today two minor things not in the version before you on page 10, line 10 and page 11, line 10 to 11. the ordinance incorporates documents by reference and to the clerks file we will be removing those incorporations by reference. just for technical reasons in the final version that we give to the clerk today but take that as part the amendment as the whole before you, vote on it and pass to the next >> we'll take the amendment as a whole then? okay. colleagues any questions, staff, city attorney? okay. so, with that, colleagues what i'd like to do is entertain a motion to accept this amendment of the whole and then continue it to a special budge

deputy city attorney >> john gibner. just to get everyone on the same page, the clerk of the committee is handing out corrected versions incorporating the amendment mr. strong mentioned as well otthe amendment suggested by the budget analyst. we will be submitting-the version before you isn't signed and will submit a signed copy to the clerk along with the electronic version later today two minor things not in the version before you on page 10, line 10 and page 11, line 10 to 11. the ordinance incorporates documents by reference and to the clerks file we will be removing those incorporations by reference. just for technical reasons in the final version that we give to the clerk today but take that as part the amendment as the whole before you, vote on it and pass to the next >> we'll take the amendment as a whole then? okay. colleagues any questions, staff, city attorney? okay. so, with that, colleagues what i'd like to do is entertain a motion to accept this amendment of the whole and then continue it to a special budge

deputy city attorney >> john gibner. just to get everyone on the same page, the clerk of the committee is handing out corrected versions incorporating the amendment mr. strong mentioned as well otthe amendment suggested by the budget analyst. we will be submitting-the version before you isn't signed and will submit a signed copy to the clerk along with the electronic version later today two minor things not in the version before you on page 10, line 10 and page 11, line 10 to 11. the ordinance incorporates documents by reference and to the clerks file we will be removing those incorporations by reference. just for technical reasons in the final version that we give to the clerk today but take that as part the amendment as the whole before you, vote on it and pass to the next >> we'll take the amendment as a whole then? okay. colleagues any questions, staff, city attorney? okay. so, with that, colleagues what i'd like to do is entertain a motion to accept this amendment of the whole and then continue it to a special budge

. >> john gibner, deputy city attorney. >> maybe we can get an answer by wherever the next hearing colleagueshank you supervisor peskin. >> thank you, supervisor wiener i want to follow up on the path you were going down the individuals that didn't have the right to legalize their urban authorized units since that was able to be legalized and how was that since you said - 2014. >> may have 2014. >> may of 2014. >> may have 2014 to may of 2015. >> so a year and a half of data this number was helpful it seems out of the hundreds and 80 approximately, one and 50 are able to move forward and presumably have the financial resources if we move forward that quick and the fund of $4 million growing to $4 million doesn't sound like it is going to be a huge burden if we got the whole funds of 72 unit a year and keep money around for other things that's one of the my concerns but i want to follow up on the process on nov gets issued and supervisor wiener says the planning commission didn't grant the cu and now is owner is forced to legalize i assume from the the owner didn't have the financial resources

report that compliment it is completely illegal under the current law thank you for that reminded john gibnerdeputy city attorney. >> just to clarify on the amendment that supervisor wiener has property to the original version that was vote out of the committee report is includes as commissioner lee mentioned the original orientals but also why in the c-3 but the shaping and permeable surface requirements san francisco government audit & oversight commission i citywide so the amendment includes that not just phenomenon c-3 but the desire city. >> thank you for your clarification yes vote now on the two pieces of motions that are ahead of us madam clerk call the first motion. >> on the original file to need to accept the amendments he suppose first. >> okay. >> we did. >> okay. so for the original file to the amended as a committee report. >> yes. we'll take that without objection. that item passes. >> and on the duplicated file as amended to continue as amended to february 22nd. >> just answer my question whether the 22. >> we're working with dbi and they'll have the h

. >> john gibner, deputy city attorney those were there was a 12 most interim controls and a 12 months estimation to the maximum is 24 months so including the maximum. >> we hit the two year moment. >> that's correct. >> okay. so yeah like i said in terms of the issues impacting 1049 marketed i'd like to see those done yes, but the interim controls housed in the pieces of legislation that impacts a massive amount of prompts i want to make sure we get it right. >> what if we were to duplicate that file on monday and move that forward and then can hear the rest of it. >> we can duplicate it today and continue that one discrete piece. >> yeah. i'm not sure what amendment will carve out the simple be property. >> not the property. >> the legislation as a whole deals with removal of units legal unit and illegal unit and on public comment that property falls within this broad legislation but i'm not sure that today, we can really carve out a more narrow piece of legislation that will cover this issue. >> well, thank you for clarifying that like i said if this was a simple more simple legisla

report that compliment it is completely illegal under the current law thank you for that reminded john gibnerdeputy city attorney. >> just to clarify on the amendment that supervisor wiener has property to the original version that was vote out of the committee report is includes as commissioner lee mentioned the original orientals but also why in the c-3 but the shaping and permeable surface requirements san francisco government audit & oversight commission i citywide so the amendment includes that not just phenomenon c-3 but the desire city. >> thank you for your clarification yes vote now on the two pieces of motions that are ahead of us madam clerk call the first motion. >> on the original file to need to accept the amendments he suppose first. >> okay. >> we did. >> okay. so for the original file to the amended as a committee report. >> yes. we'll take that without objection. that item passes. >> and on the duplicated file as amended to continue as amended to february 22nd. >> just answer my question whether the 22. >> we're working with dbi and they'll have the hearing and be able to ge

. >> john gibner, deputy city attorney what i understand the conversations have been you're talking about different options how the corrective instead of the cu might work that may require a referral back to planning rather than accounting those amendments the committee to continue to the call of the chair and seek some input from the planning commission and go to the planning commission with the potential amendment and then the chair would after the planning commission meeting the chair of the meeting can reschedule and make the amendment at that time. >> the motion we'll make i'll let's have input to continue the item to move to the call of the chair and referring to the planning commission or rereferring to the planning commission for a hearing and feedback and once it's done the chair could a reschedule this. >> looks like we're in vaerment thank you a motion to move to the call of the chair. >> public comment. >> excuse me. >> let's take public comment at this point on item number 5 anyone from the public wish to comment all right. public comment is closed. at this point, a motion an

report that compliment it is completely illegal under the current law thank you for that reminded john gibnerdeputy city attorney. >> just to clarify on the amendment that supervisor wiener has property to the original version that was vote out of the committee report is includes as commissioner lee mentioned the original orientals but also why in the c-3 but the shaping and permeable surface requirements san francisco government audit & oversight commission i citywide so the amendment includes that not just phenomenon c-3 but the desire city. >> thank you for your clarification yes vote now on the two pieces of motions that are ahead of us madam clerk call the first motion. >> on the original file to need to accept the amendments he suppose first. >> okay. >> we did. >> okay. so for the original file to the amended as a committee report. >> yes. we'll take that without objection. that item passes. >> and on the duplicated file as amended to continue as amended to february 22nd. >> just answer my question whether the 22. >> we're working with dbi and they'll have the hearing and be able to ge

. >> john gibner, deputy city attorney. >> maybe we can get an answer by wherever the next hearing colleagueshank you supervisor peskin. >> thank you, supervisor wiener i want to follow up on the path you were going down the individuals that didn't have the right to legalize their urban authorized units since that was able to be legalized and how was that since you said - 2014. >> may have 2014. >> may of 2014. >> may have 2014 to may of 2015. >> so a year and a half of data this number was helpful it seems out of the hundreds and 80 approximately, one and 50 are able to move forward and presumably have the financial resources if we move forward that quick and the fund of $4 million growing to $4 million doesn't sound like it is going to be a huge burden if we got the whole funds of 72 unit a year and keep money around for other things that's one of the my concerns but i want to follow up on the process on nov gets issued and supervisor wiener says the planning commission didn't grant the cu and now is owner is forced to legalize i assume from the the owner didn't have the financial resources

deputy city attorney >> john gibner. just to get everyone on the same page, the clerk of the committee is handing out corrected versions incorporating the amendment mr. strong mentioned as well otthe amendment suggested by the budget analyst. we will be submitting-the version before you isn't signed and will submit a signed copy to the clerk along with the electronic version later today two minor things not in the version before you on page 10, line 10 and page 11, line 10 to 11. the ordinance incorporates documents by reference and to the clerks file we will be removing those incorporations by reference. just for technical reasons in the final version that we give to the clerk today but take that as part the amendment as the whole before you, vote on it and pass to the next >> we'll take the amendment as a whole then? okay. colleagues any questions, staff, city attorney? okay. so, with that, colleagues what i'd like to do is entertain a motion to accept this amendment of the whole and then continue it to a special budge

. >> john gibner, deputy city attorney as supervisor tang mentioned some amendments are late breaking we'd like an opportunity in our office to prove read no errors in all the language because that meeting will be the last opportunity to make any amendments the committee adopts these we'll do the proofread and submit the final copy to the clerk by 8:00 a.m. tomorrow morning and not make any substantive changes. >> i'm in supportive of that. >> i said to acknowledge the people that came out for public utility public comment i know you represent small properties so there is a lot of sharing on your part i understand that i will say that i know that they have been difficult bond measures that have passed that result in infrastructure improvements that, yes you can see so whether our public parks we used or a public hospitals or the library system all of these things are available to everyone in the general public comment i think those successes speak for how important some of the bonds manufacture measures we can't fund with the general dollars i think so that i do want to make sure that