mr. givner who worked on this language to explain and read into the record as is necessary. mr. givner. >> deputy city attorney jon givner. the amendment that supervisor avalos is referring to is on page 16 line 22 or begins on page 16 line 22 of the residential dnc ordinance, and very similar provision but begins on page 4 line 10 of the nonconforming uses ordinance. we would recommend a few little tweak to some of the language that was adopted in committee to make it more clear. and in committee there was a discussion yesterday of how to handle a situation where a tenant was evicted under one of the no-fault temporary eviction provisions of the rent ordinance and then chose -- the tenant chose not to reoccupy the unit. the intent of the committee and supervisor avalos, i believe, is to exclude from the prohibition landlords who were in that situation or property owners in that situation. and the question that the committee what discussing was how exactly should we -- how can a property owner prove that a tenant voluntarily chose not to reoccupy. ultimately, supervisor avalos's

mr. givner, supervisor tang has made that motion. looks like it's been seconded by supervisor campos. is that language that we can do today? >> deputy city attorney jon givner. the board could make that amendment today. we have not drafted that amendment. but effectively it would provide that section -- that evictions under section 37.9 a8 would be subject to a five-year look back instead of a 10-year look back. >> so, could we adopt that for second read next week or would we need to bring it back for first read? >> you could adopt that. we would prepare the actual language and provide it to the clerk by tomorrow and you could adopt it on first read today and second read next week. >> okay. so, supervisor tang has made the motion to treat owner move-ins at that five-year mark, seconded by supervisor campos. colleagues, any discussion on the amendment? okay, without objection, that amendment also is adopted. [gavel] >> supervisor tang, any other comments? supervisor breed. >> okay. this might not be popular for me to say as a legislator, but i'm very confused. i understand that we are e

mr. givner, can you clarify whether or not that's the case? because the resolution doesn't appear to read that way. or did you need a little bit more time? >> yeah, just give me one minute. >> okay, i'll let her -- if you don't mind, you finish your presentation and then maybe the city attorney can let us know. >> sure, happy to. so, i'll just verbally go through. we have budgeted every year about $7 45,000 in staff salaries that are used to provide services inside the jails. one staff member is someone who manages our legal services. one person is a farmer who does the farming for gardening at c.j. side. we have a senior administrative analyst who oversees the services provided for women, and three re-- four rehabilitative services coordinators who coordinate the programming inside the jails. in addition, we spend -- we have budgeted $70,000 for professional services which include translation for people who don't -- who need translation to other languages, and subscriptions for items such as legal books that go into the inmates' library. we a

mr. givner. >> deputy city attorney jon givner. in committee, the land use committee made an amendment to this ordinance that i think my office did not accurately take down. so, in committee, the amendment was to page 4, the further resolve clause that begins online 4. that during the pendency of these interim controls, the reestablishment of any commercial use that has been converted to residential use shall require planning commission approval through a conditional use and a proposition m authorization if triggered by planning code section 322. so, that will be -- that would be the amended language. >> supervisor kim, i assume you'll be offering -- >> yes. i'd like to make a motion to that effect. >> okay. is there a second of the motion? seconded by supervisor breed. colleagues, unless there is any discussion, without objection, the motion amendment is made. [gavel] >> and if we could take this underlying item same house same call as amended? without objection, that should be the case. [gavel] >> madam clerk, why don't we now go