in order to be clear we included the subsections and obviously some other parts may not necessarily have the restrooms but hope this is the most clear way to transfer that. >> they also asked we include that the signage that has to be posted that be the conformations are available must be in compliance with subsection regarding the signs and practical signs and they really added the emphasis the language needs to be clear this requirement shall not impede with my federal, state, and local for access to people with disabilities and balance for the necessary requirements for a diaper changing to not included in the restrooms so we provided ways to wave that recipient for we also heard from different downstairs and added amendments introducing one it is the compliance from six months to 12 months to give for instance, to the building they have need additional xhoopgsz to be installed we're allowing for a one year timeframe. >> can i interject to the commissioners. >> sure. >> is there going to public outreach. >> yes. >> and question to the department is there a permit required for the baby

claims certainty endrammatical phrases, the of a run-on sentence, buried in some sprawling statutory subsection, i stopped worrying. for questions like those my only gospel is skepticism. it doesn't mean our disagreements are matters of personal politics rather than an honest effort of legal materials at hand. the very first piece i hoped for the circuit to reach the united states supreme court involved a close question of construction. justice breyer voted to affirm. he was joined by justices thomas, ginsburg hit sotomayor. chief justice roberts was joined by justice stevens, scalia, and kennedy. as a lineup that the public does not often hear about. the vast majority of disputes are that all judges agree on the outcome. intense focus on a few cases where we disagree suffers from a serious selection effect problem. that's pretty typical of the federal courts. 40% of the supreme court cases are unanimous to. they face the toughest assignments and nine, not three judges have to vote in every dispute. you don't hear that. despite the fact that in 1945 were of the nine justices appointed by a sing

ungrammatical prepositional phrases tacked onto the end of a run on sentence, buried in a statutory subsection, i start worrying. for questions like those, my only gospel is skepticism. i try not to make a dogma out of it. to admit that disagreement does and will always exist over heart and find questions does not mean our disagreements are matters of personal will and politics rather than honest effort in making sense of the legal materials at hand. the first case from the 10th circuit from the supreme court involve the statutory construction. the court split 5-4. justice breyer wrote to defer. he was joined by justices thomas, ginsburg, alito, and so the mayor. chief justice roberts dissented and was joined by scalia and kennedy. that is a lineup that the public is not often hear about. it is the sort of thing that happens quietly day in and day out in courts throughout our country. if you know that the legal cynic overlooks the vast majority of disputes are ones in which all judges agree on the outcome. intense focus on a few courses where we disagree suffers from a problem. decisions issue

about some chain of grammatical run-on tacked onto a sentence buried in some sprawling statutory subsection, i start to worry. those, myons like only gospel is skepticism but i try not to make a dogma out of it. but to admit the disagreement does and will always exist over hard questions like that does not mean our disagreements are matters of personal well or honests rather than an effort to make sense of the legal materials at hand. the very first case i made for the 10th circuit involved statutory construction and the court stood 5-4. justice breyer wrote to a farm. he was joined by justices thomas, ginsburg, alito, and sotomayor. dissentedice robinson and was joined by stevens, scalia, and kennedy. that is a lineup the public does not often hear about but it is the sort of thing that happens quietly day in and day out and courts throughout our country. as you know, the legal cynic overlooks the vast majority in our courts in which all judges agree. the intense focus on a few cases where we disagree severs from a serious selection problem. over 90% of the decisions issued by my core dark

in order to be clear we included the subsections and obviously some other parts may not necessarily have restrooms but hope this is the most clear way to transfer that. >> they also asked we include that the signage that has to be posted that be the conformations are available must be in compliance with subsection regarding the signs and practical signs and they really added the emphasis the language needs to be clear this requirement shall not impede with my federal, state, and local for access to people with disabilities and balance for the necessary requirements for a diaper changing to not included in the restrooms so we provided ways to wave that recipient for we also heard from different downstairs and added amendments introducing one it is the compliance from six months to 12 months to give for instance, to the building they have need additional xhoopgsz to be installed we're allowing for a one year timeframe. >> can i interject to the commissioners. >> sure. >> is there going to public outreach. >> yes. >> and question to the department is there a permit required for the baby cha

under section 2, subsection c of the policy it reads..."re that jurisdictions that fail to comply with applicable federal law do not receive federal funds, except as mandated by law"san francisco city attorney dennis herrera says the exective order is... "attempting to deprive san francisco and other cities of billions of dollars in federal funding because of our sanctuary status"on tuedsay herrera filed this law suit against president trump and his administration claiming the executive order targets sanctuary cities and is unconstitutional"no president can commandeer the local police force and turn it into the deportation arm of the federal government, president trump's executive order tries to turn city and state employees into federal immigration officers that is unconstitutional"san francisco stands to loose over 1.2 billion dollars a year in federal funding, most of which is used for health care, nutrition and other safety net programs "that is why i have said that we should be ready, everybody in our city should be ready, whether it i

section on page 1, lines 9-13 and as well, strike the provisions at section 3.8.1, which were a subsection to the public comment provisions and instead, move that the board of supervisors amends rule 3.3 of our rules of order by adding a subsection 3.3.1 to read as follows administration of oaths of government audit and oversight committee members adopted by the members of the committee the committee may instruct the committee clerk testifying before government audit oversight committee excluding public comment upon adoption the city clerk shall administrator an oath to the audit and oversight committee. be given under penalty of perjury. we would like to add a rule 4.27 which would read administration of oats by oral motion adopted by majority of members of the board meaning the full board of supervisor may administrator an oath to any person test pieifying before the board during that portion of the meeting under adoption of such a an oath excluding public comment any testimony following such oath shall will given under public penalty of perjury. and that the entire board of supervisors

section on page 1, lines 9-13 and as well, strike the provisions at section 3.8.1, which were a subsection to the public comment provisions and instead, move that the board of supervisors amends rule 3.3 of our rules of order by adding a subsection 3.3.1 to read as follows administration of oaths of government audit and oversight committee members adopted by the members of the committee the committee may instruct the committee clerk testifying before government audit oversight committee excluding public comment upon adoption the city clerk shall administrator an oath to the audit and oversight committee. be given under penalty of perjury. we would like to add a rule 4.27 which would read administration of oats by oral motion adopted by majority of members of the board meaning the full board of supervisor may administrator an oath to any person test pieifying before the board during that portion of the meeting under adoption of such a an oath excluding public comment any testimony following such oath shall will given under public penalty of perjury. and that the entire board of supervisors

section on page 1, lines 9-13 and as well, strike the provisions at section 3.8.1, which were a subsection to the public comment provisions and instead, move that the board of supervisors amends rule 3.3 of our rules of order by adding a subsection 3.3.1 to read as follows administration of oaths of government audit and oversight committee members adopted by the members of the committee the committee may instruct the committee clerk testifying before government audit oversight committee excluding public comment upon adoption the city clerk shall administrator an oath to the audit and oversight committee. be given under penalty of perjury. we would like to add a rule 4.27 which would read administration of oats by oral motion adopted by majority of members of the board meaning the full board of supervisor may administrator an oath to any person test pieifying before the board during that portion of the meeting under adoption of such a an oath excluding public comment any testimony following such oath shall will given under public penalty of perjury. and that the entire board of supervisors

under section 2, subsection c of the policy it reads..."ensure that jurisdictions that fail to comply with applicable federal law do not receive federal funds, except as mandated by law"san francisco city attorney dennis herrera says the exective order is... "attempting to deprive san francisco and other cities of billions of dollars in federal funding because of our sanctuary status"on tuedsay herrera filed this law suit against president trump and his administration claiming the executive order targets sanctuary cities and is unconstitutional"no president can commandeer the local police force and turn it into the deportation arm of the federal government, president trump's executive order tries to turn city and state employees into federal immigration officers that is unconstitutional"san francisco stands to loose over 1.2 billion dollars a year in federal funding, most of which is used for health care, nutrition and other safety net programs "that is why i have said that we should be ready, everybody in our city should be ready, whether

if you look at the law i believe it's subsection f of 1182 u.s.essentially says the president may do what the president chooses to do. >> 1965 an additional law was added that doesn't just make that the only law that applies. >> we can assume these three federal judges knew the code and the law when they made their decision. >> i think the green cardholders, et cetera, is what caused the hangup. >> would you advise the president trump, mr. trump rewrite it and make it more narrow and try to win. >> here is why. it's not about doinwinning. it's about doing what's right for the united states. >> you don't think the initial executive order was right for the united states? >> when you took an oath, do you find implicit in the oath thorough vetting of individuals who choose to come here? he said i do, i think that's mart of my oath. i do as well. statistically the threat is small. based on data the threat is real. due diligence is appropriate. we're in a holding pattern. if the threat is real, getting out of the o holding pattern and getting a policy i

deadline for completion of land exchanges, it is the intent of congress, the land exchange under the subsection shall be compete -- completed not later than 16 months after the date of enactment of this act. that was back in 2009. so it's important to protect this watershed. it is important that where development occurs it occurs in the right places. we have always felt that way in oregon. facy dating this exchange resolves a decades-long controversy and puts development where it belongs, protects a special area in the upper hood river valley that needs protection and finally needs certainty and resolution. i hope you all will come out and see it or you can come over to the energy an commerce mount hood room which soon will have a beautiful photograph up there of mount hood at lost lake. i encourage you to come over, when you're tired with that, come to the crater lake room in the energy and commerce committee suites as well. i discovered being chairman of the full committee you get to name rooms at least briefly in your tenure and show off some of the best aspects of your state. with that, mr.

prepositional phrases, tacked on to the end of a run-on sentence, buried in some sprawling statutory subsection, i start worrying. for questions like those, my is skepticism. i try not to make a dogma out of it. admit disagreement does and will always exist over hard and that,uestions of law like doesn't mean our disagreements are matters of personal will or than honest er effort of making sense of the legal material at hand. case i wrote for the tenth circuit to reach the united states supreme court a closed question. justice split 5-4, bryer wrote to affirm, joined by thomas, ginsberg, alito sotomayor. chief justice roberts of joined kennedy.ns and that is a lineup the public doesn't often hear about. but it is the sort of thing that happens quietly day in and day out in courts throughout our country. the legal cynic overlooks vast majority of ispute coming to the court are ones in which all judges agree on outcome. focus on a few cases we disagree suffers from serious selection effect problem. over 90% of decisions issued by court are unanimous, pretty typical of the federal appellate court.

outreach program in the next month's to try to get those owners of those buildings for the tier 3 subsection on board and acting director hui does bring this up often during any kind of media opportunities we keep pushing the envelope on that and trying to get compliance in advance and finally i'd like to say a special facts to john and also to judy for that initiative on the legislative process you were discussing earlier and that should add a great deal of of aren't to a process that has been in place but has made for last minute scrambles especially the last couple of years we've seen board initiatives that effects the building code. >> with that, i'll take any questions. >> seeing none, mr. strong thank you for your update. >> item 15 c update on major projects. >> good morning tom hui the director of building inspection the board founds this compared to last month and then to answer you know commissioner president mccarthy for the communication planning you know move e meeting between john rahaim from planning according to him the eir the major project in the pipeline that's why we have

it is 8uscs subsection 1182 paragraph if. whatever the president finds the entry of any aliens or class of aliens in the united states would be detrimental he may by proclamation and such a period he deems necessary suspend the aliens or opposed on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. the suit that was filed by washington state and minnesota claims that legal permanent residents are being kept out of the country as a result of this executive order. the executive order excerpts so-called lprs. also according to the white house not targeted at any one single religion. there is a blanket pause on all refugees and when the refugee program starts back up again it will prioritize people of minority religions in countries that are being persecuted which could in some countries where muslims are the minority population, apply to muslims. for example, say the weigers in china. it argues established state law has states have no standing to bring suits. a state lacks authority to sue as the representative

section 22500 subsection i of the california vehicle printed by private vehicles such as commuter shuttlesstopping in red unique couples except to avoid other topic or the combines of the police officer or official traffic control device. here there is no evidence that the commuter shuttles are stopping at designated uni zones to avoid conflict with other traffic. they're not doing so at the direction of a peace officer. they are also not doing so at the direction of an official traffic control device because no such official traffic control device exist. as a result of commuter shuttle from conflicts with and is printed by the california vehicle code. in addition, the report reports the sfmta is acting pursuant to authority granted by vehicle code section 21458. but that section does not provide the city with any such authority. all that section does it state that-state what the meaning of various painted curb colors used by local agencies acting pursuant to authority granted by other provisions of the vehicle code. as a result the city has no authority to enact a ordinance direct conflic

section 22500 subsection i of the california vehicle printed by private vehicles such as commuter shuttlesstopping in red unique couples except to avoid other topic or the combines of the police officer or official traffic control device. here there is no evidence that the commuter shuttles are stopping at designated uni zones to avoid conflict with other traffic. they're not doing so at the direction of a peace officer. they are also not doing so at the direction of an official traffic control device because no such official traffic control device exist. as a result of commuter shuttle from conflicts with and is printed by the california vehicle code. in addition, the report reports the sfmta is acting pursuant to authority granted by vehicle code section 21458. but that section does not provide the city with any such authority. all that section does it state that-state what the meaning of various painted curb colors used by local agencies acting pursuant to authority granted by other provisions of the vehicle code. as a result the city has no authority to enact a ordinance direct conflic

section 22500 subsection i of the california vehicle printed by private vehicles such as commuter shuttlesstopping in red unique couples except to avoid other topic or the combines of the police officer or official traffic control device. here there is no evidence that the commuter shuttles are stopping at designated uni zones to avoid conflict with other traffic. they're not doing so at the direction of a peace officer. they are also not doing so at the direction of an official traffic control device because no such official traffic control device exist. as a result of commuter shuttle from conflicts with and is printed by the california vehicle code. in addition, the report reports the sfmta is acting pursuant to authority granted by vehicle code section 21458. but that section does not provide the city with any such authority. all that section does it state that-state what the meaning of various painted curb colors used by local agencies acting pursuant to authority granted by other provisions of the vehicle code. as a result the city has no authority to enact a ordinance direct conflic