section 1604 subsection b, 4b. i expand the length of time for consideration for one's conviction history. this is originally from 2009 up to the year 2016 after extensive conversation and an extensive review of the data in both the office of cannabis equity report and the center on juvenile and criminal justice report which found in 2016 and americans in san francisco experienced drug arrest rates ten time higher than san franciscans of any other race and 2.4 times higher than african americans in california and it's time we looked at the impact on targeted communities. i've limited conviction crimes to cannabis only. section 1604b, 4d explain the length of time for consideration of a family member's conviction history but again limited the crime to only cannabis. intersection 04 subsection 4e i explained and expanded the length of time for adding -- excuse me, adding the length of time for attending public schools to include the year of 2016. subsection b4f expands the length of time to 2016 for living in a speci

if that is the case that such subsection two cannot be severable from subsection one. >> i would not know if i would use the phrase inseparable, but i think it operates inseparably and without constitutional issue. justice roberts: it does is same thing, right? it says it is illegal for -- individuals to follow state law. activity under state law, the same thing as saying state shall not authorize individuals to do that. mr. clement: two points. a difference in text between 37022 and 37021 and i think there is an argument that the two parties have not had the brief because this has not been a 3702 case because i think 37022 is broader than license or authorized by law. putting that to one side, when i would say is particularly when you read 37022 against the backdrop of the pre-existing federal statutes in title 18 that made operating a sports violating -- sports scheme and violation of law a criminal federal prohibition, then it basically says private parties, there is something that is essentially a cancer on interstate commerce that we do not want to take place -- >> how do we kno

onehat part of subsection is not challenged? the ban on the seat itself operating gambling casinos. >> this would be something similar, justice ginsburg, to the reno versus condon case or the south carolina versus baker case where the federal government chose to enact a law of general application that apply to private parties engaged in interstate commerce and applied the same law to the states in the states were engaged as a market participant to the same degree as interstate commerce. so to the extent that congress had initially decided to regulate this area and put itself into the field of regulating private persons engaged in activity, it could ton -- if a state chooses engage in the same activity. >> if you take the prohibition on private parties and have a comparable prohibition on the state, what do you accomplish by not being authorized by? if you have two parts that are not constitutionally -- they achieve almost the same thing. >> it would because the two should only in firm because -- it would be constitutionally in f

it would just add a subsection to that sub of the code stating that a temporary permit for cannabis use would last for one year and would expire on january 1st, 2019. the amendment would also provide for a process for these grandfathered mcd's to obtain a permanent land use authorization to become cannabis retail uses, and that would be to section 190 of the planning code, subsection c, which would state in order for a grandfathered mcd to convert to a cannabis retail use, a completed application for the change of use must be submitted to the department of building inspection no later than march 31st, 2018 and first approval by the planning department or planning commission must be received on or before december 31st, 2019. an application will be deemed to have received its first approval from planning when that body issues its decision regardless of any appeal or lawsuit is filed subsequently challenging the application, so this would allow the grandfathered mcd while operating as a temporary cannabis sales use to move forward in the process to convert to obtain a permanent lant use au

>> so we're focusing on subsection j of the code of commissioner conduct, and this is focusing on the city attorney, of mr. brian's language, so it would say any suggestions, exercise of undue influence, including without limitation, any attempt to influence staff or consultant's recommendations, end parentheses, or administration or investment matters shall constitute official misconduct and/or a violation of this code, provided, however that nothing here in shall restrict the board's powers of hearing and inquiry as provided for by the city charter. >> i'd like to make a motion -- i'd like to make a motion that we accept the small amendment and enter the word exercise before undue and after suggestion in subsection j. >> exercise of. >> excuse me, exercise of. >> i second. >> i've just going to make sure what you're saying. >> sure. just give me... [ inaudible ] >> this does not change the basic meeting of this phrase. >> actually, it just makes it a stronger sentence. >> and it incorporates robert's suggestion. >> so procedurally, there's a motion, there's a second. we need to have

in response to the commission's motion we simply removed the subsection from the ordinance and in itsplace as i mentioned earlier we worked with commissioner chiu and with interested persons to craft a broad disclosure system. instead of have been a pro prohibition we have something that would require disclosure. i want to go into greater depth on this particular section since it's more technical than the other changes. so everyone should have a chart on the table under agenda item 7 and i distributed one to each commissioner that's entitled "draft rules for behested payment disclosure explanatory visuals" i think it would be useful to make reference to this for the discussion. do all the commissioners have the chart? i'll also put it up on the projector. the top half of the chart gives a basic idea of what a behested payment look likes visually. you have an official making a request to a donor. to donate tie recipient typically an organization. then you see a payment which could be cash goods or services going from the don'ter to the recipient at the behest of the official. that's th

at section 1808 subsection b i would like to ask the committee to please consider ownership change of up to 40% would be permitted. this services the needs of the existing operator to remain in control of the business. cannibis operations are expensive. it's going to be expensive for these businesses to continue to operate after they have a licence and they need the ability to take on the capital they need in order to do so. so i ask you for that change and of course the change to 1608 subsection d for portable permits as well. and the second point in my 30 seconds has to do with consumption. we cannot have practical legalization without consumption areas. that is because it is illegal to consume publicly and while we have made possession legal, we have made illegal public consumption. therefore we must have consumption areas not only for tourists and folks coming to san francisco expecting that, but also for purposes of social justice. we're simply cutting and pasting the problem of selective enforcement. >> thank you ma'am. next speaker. >> thank you supervisors. doug block with tea

and not to the substance, but to the use of an emergency exemption, and if you read section 6.60 subsection c which defines what an emergency is, respectfully, this does not meet that test. i mean, i can ask the city attorney, i don't know if i need to put the city attorney through the paces, but these were all foreseeable events. an emergency is an unforeseeable event. and it's a really slippery slope when we start applying emergency declarations where an emergency does not exist because it was a foreseeable event. 440 turk street, highly foreseeable. this board took unanimous legislative action to not allow the department of homelessness and supportive housing to use a different site and to require them to use the 440 turk street site, so we've known that for quite a long time, because that happened six months ago. that's foreseeable. i hate to be the parliamentarian, but i'm sounding a note of caution that we should really use the admin codes as intended and, therefore, will support the continuance. i would actually support a continuance of both items. and, quite frankly -- >> councillor

of you in pursuit of a resolution by the security council and believe that article twenty seven subsection three of the charter should be invoked and in this regard we called again on the united states to resend this decision and rectify this serious matter in conformity with the relevant resolutions and in a manner that will salvage the prospects for a peaceful solution and ensure sooner than later if you cheer of peace security prosperity and dignity for both the palestinian and israeli peoples in line with the relevant resolutions we call on all states not to recognize the unlawful situation resulting from israeli's illegal measures not to recognize such unilateral decisions and to act accordingly in all of their policies and actions including visit every israeli illegal settlement colonization of our land we also call on those states that have not recognized the state of palestine with is general as its capital on the basis of the pre nine hundred sixty seven borders to do so as a matter of urgency and as an investment in peace such a practical step would be accorded with the longstand

subsection form made it through the house, what about the senate russian mark i do any doubts it will be approved there as well? >> not really, everybody expects that the senate will also approved the bill even though the majority there is very tight, there is no doubt. >> what is the guest u.s. economy expecting to get out of this, be it had a lot of positive news when it comes to investors, who will benefit, >> the republicans say that this means that money will go back to middle-class families and companies who will invest the money which in turn will then create more jobs and raise wages, the democrats say this is just a handout for the rich and basically this trickle-down effect the republicans are hoping for never materialize, for me, there are three main points here. first of all, yes, there have been a few improvements for the middle class and the final version of the bill, most of the tax cuts still go to corporations and to very wealthy americans. et and in a", the republicans have now already announced that they will look into cutting welfare programs to address the budget

world subsect capital might sound like a bold claim but seeing used against you can't help but think it through i listened . to you. now is the headquarters of the roman catholic church the vatican attracts millions of visitors a year but perhaps non as colorful as these a circus troupe including two polar bears has put on a special show for pope francis as part of his weekly public appearance the pontiff praised the performance saying circus art is beautiful and brings people closer to god am. i. right so let's update you now on the stories making headlines aid workers have started evacuating critically ill patients from a besieged suburb of syria's capital damascus the united nations has been calling on the syrian government to allow some five hundred critically ill people to leave east in ghouta for months the area has been under a tight government siege since you since two thousand and thirteen and subjected to hundreds of strikes and artillery attacks at least eighteen people have died while waiting to be evacuated. the president of the international federation of the red cross

instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment -- in subsection g-3 of the matter proposed to be inserted by section 2 of the bill, insert after subparagraph 2 the following flush left text, for purposes of this subsection, the term vehicle company does not include a financial institution that is engaging or has engaged in a pattern or practice of unsafe or unsound banking practices and other violations related to consumer harm. add at the end the following -- four, additional definitions -- ms. waters: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading? the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? without objection, the reading is dispensed with. pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from california is recognized for five minutes in support of her motion. . ms. waters: mr. speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. bill will he immediately proceed to final passage as bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended. my motion would prevent institutions that have engaged i

building code section 105 a subsection 282 states that this board has the authority and the ability to make a determination whether or not the violations are found to constitute serious and imminent hazards at the premises. if the board makes that finding, they are able to modify the order of abatement and there are specific rules for how long it's given to parties to resolve it. specifically it says the board for abatement, that the repair work be completed in less than 18 months. the notice of violation identifies the violations. it refers to the specific code sections at the premises and it's my understanding that individually and combined, the violations are not of the type that constitute a serious imminent hazard and the tenants, despite the fact we're asking them to cure the violations, the breach of lease are still using the premises for residential occupancy. it appears at this stage, there is a possibility to give the parties an additional time to work something out without having an order of abatement on title to the property, which ultimately has consequences for the owner.

that subsection 11,000 a violates section 313-b-1-a of the congressional budget act of 1974, that subparagraph b of section 11,032 starting on page 5, line 17, and all through page 6 line 9, violates section 313-b-1-d of the congressional udget act of 1974 and that the phrase, quote, tuition paying, end quote, as it appears on page 309, line 12 and page 309 lines 14 through 15, violates section 313-b-1-d of the congressional udget act of 1974. hip that's how it unfolded around 5:40 eastern time two senators, bernie sanders, independent of vermont and ron wyden, democrat of oregon, putting up a procedural hurdle for congressional republicans as they move forward on their tax bill. here are some tweets, this is from senator john tester, we're tracking both democrats an republicans on twitter. the senate is hours away from passing a bill that will add more than $1 trillion to the national debt, force cuts to medicare and cause health care costs to rise by 6%. and this from senator tammy baldwin, democrat from isconsin, calling it #goptaxscam, giving powerful corporations permanent tax breaks. she

and not to the substance, but to the use of an emergency exemption, and if you read section 6.60 subsection c which defines what an emergency is, respectfully, this does not meet that test. i mean, i can ask the city attorney, i don't know if i

article 25, section 1509, subsection b requires planning to provide reasons in writing as quote of its determination. in other words it was required to put in writing an explanation or justification for its decision. planning failed to supply any written justification for its determination that no significant harm would come to any aspect of the presidio heights neighborhood by installing verizon's equipment. that's violation of 1509 b and sufficient reason for you to deny this request. dpw, backed by verizon, urges this board don't worry that planning failed to do what it was required by law. instead, both offer an excuse. their excuse is they both believe verizon's wireless equipment is well designed. well designed, carefully designed, or any other type of design is not an express standard embedded in article 25. those words or anything like them cannot be found any article. what is at the heart of article 25 is the principle that it is the neighborhood context into which the equipment is placed that matters. both dpw and verizon leaped to the conclusion that simply because they thin

this markup will address only unclassified matters pursuant to committee rule 6-c and clause 2 subsection h4. the chairman mri conclude any on adopted member for recorded votes or yea's and nays, authorized to declare a recess at anytime. item hr-4478 fisa amendment's reauthorization act of 2017 and the clerk will designate the bill. >> hr-4478, to improve foreign ip -- intelligence collection, and foreign intelligence to extend title 7 of such act and for other purposes. >> consent the bill be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. without objection, so ordered. today our committee will consider the fisa amendment's reauthorization act of 2017, a bill that would reform and renew surveillance authorities including 702 of the fisa act. in preparing the bill, the house intelligence committee held an in depth discussion with the house judiciary committee and adopted numerous ideas based on their efforts and the bill produced by the senate intelligence committee. i'd like to thank both committees for hard work and consideration they put into this issue. without congressional

this subsection would have creaa conflict of interest provision t would have prohibited officialsm askinga person to convey sometf value to a third party if that d party had a matter pending befoe official. in response to the commission's, we simply removed the subsectiom the ordinance and in its place,i mentioned earlier, we worked wih commissioner chiu and with inted persons to craft a broad discloe system. instead of have been a pr prohie have something that would requie disclosure. i want to go into greater depths particular section, since it's e technical than the other change. so everyone should have a charte table under agenda item 7 and i distributed one to each commissr that's entitled "draft rules for behested payment disclosure expy visuals" i think it would be uso make reference to this for the discussion. do all the commissioners have t? i'll also put it up on the proj. the top half of the chart givesc idea of what a behested paymentk likes visually. you have an official making a ro a donor. to donate tie recipient typically an organization. then you see a payment which coe c

territl waters precisely toa prohibits n based on nationality has a clau se in it, it lists specific subsectionsf the ina. list 1182f. what do you make of that? >> if you look at the exceptions listed specifically, those were all added to the ina the same time that 1152 was. themer, no one, including will say that is the exclusive list of exceptions to 1182. 3d exampler, section 1250 explicitly authorizes denying nonimmigrant visas based on nationality in some circumstances. >> it is curious that if congress did intend, 1182f could overwrite anything else in the ina, but they believe that off the list of 1152. >> i don't think it is any more curious than they did not specifically list any pre-existing provisions of the ina that authorized nationality discrimination, including provision 12503d. that is about immigrant visas. it authorizes nationality discrimination for immigrant visas, but it is still not listed as an exception in 1152. one last point on 1152, then i would like to reserve the remainder of my time, on their reading, the suggestion would be even in cases where we are on the brink o

emergency and authorizing department of works repair facility pursuant to administrative code 660 subsection a and the director of the department of homelessness and support of housing to contract for homeless services and to offer such services to protect the health safety and welfare of individuals affected by homelessness. >> president breed: supervisor ronen. >> supervisor ronen: yes, colleagues. i wanted to speed ak for a mom about the difference a homeless shelter made in district nine. i think we opened up a district center working with dpw in about two months, and it has reduced the number of people living in tents in the mission district. when we started and right before we opened up and counted the tents, we were around 200, and we got down at one point to 30 tents, and they're now up hovering around the 60, 70 area. but what also came with the navigation center was, i think, an unprecedented amount of resources. resources from dpw, from the hot team, from the police and from the department of public health behind the scenes, but i think it -- in the future, i'd like to see the dep

instead -- and i just passed this out to you colleagues and i would support this amendment, that subsection b would read will provide on-site affordable housing after the city's inclusionary affordable housing program and add where 25% are affordable as are defined under planning code section 401. so it kind of really requires a very robust affordable housing project before one can receive the exemption. >> ok. thank you, supervisor peskin. supervisor breed, any comments? >> i just have a question for supervisor peskin on the amendment. do you know if any of the current developments in the hub are actually doing more than 25 affordable housing? >> i believe that there is only one project, which is the former city-owned 30 van ness property that is proposing on site affordable housing and i do believe that that one is, or is said to be 25%. >> and just for clarity, your amendment will still require that if they want additional parking, they still have to go through a process. and get a c.u., specifically, for the additional parking. >> so i believe the answers to that, that is current law an

section 205, and it's subsections are outside of mission bay are the entirety of what the planning code permits. >> i don't want to get thoo that. i just remember that as a temporary. and perhaps i'm quibbling over the two terms, public, and nonconforming. now if the appellant can demonstrate it was a paid lot at one point in time, that makes it nonconforming. >> so a -- >> a nonconforming use? >> if i can elaborate a little bit here. i mean, any use that does not conform to the current requirements of the planning code for that site is nonconforming. the question of whether or not that's a violation for nonconforming use or a legal nonconforming use is if that use is ever legally established in the past, so we have lots of situations where rezonings happens across the city or plans change one way or another. you may have gotten a house built in the 1970's, and now, it's legally nonconforming, at the time it was legally authorized, it met the kurpt coded. we have many nonconforming uses. >> i was going to go to that second portion of that. >> and that's why the focus was on trying to fi

i'd like to strike the word out exclusively from section 10.100-162, subsection(b), and this is in reference to the use of community reinvestment fund, and this is at the suggestion of supervisor kim. thank you for bringing it to our attention. >>president breed: breed i'm sorry, supervisor cohen, i want to follow you, so can you give me some -- section 10. >>supervisor cohen: sure. section 10.100-162(b). we're just going to take that out, exclusively, and that was in recommendation of supervisor kim. >>president breed: okay. >>supervisor cohen: i would like to say i've been in discussion with the mayor office of economic and workforce development and recognize that first source, the city's workforce program may be an equally effective way for us to also achieve our equity incubator hiring goals, so in that plan, i will work with the city attorney's office in trailing legislation that captures and creates an option for nonequity operators to hire through the city's workforce system. that way, we're covering all of our bases, okay? finally, my last amendment is to change section 1618 to say t

commissioner kopp: from the ordinance, f23, and i'll read, any prospective party to a contract subject to subsection b shall, by the date of execution of such contract by the party inform any member, etcetera. >> i'd like to make one comment on that, and that's that -- >> commissioner kopp: huh? >> i'd like to say in response, just to highlight what that change would do, is that parties that are bidding, that are seeking contract are already subject to -- to section 1.126 before they actually execute the contract, so they wouldn't be getting notice until the contract was executed, whereas as written, they would get notice at the time the proposal is submitted, so at the time they become subjects to 1.126, they would be getting notice from the organization. >> commissioner kopp: well, what's your language? >> as written, well, when the organization that knees individuals, the directors, officers, shareholders and subcontractors, when the entity that they're affiliated with submits the proposal to become a city contractor, at that point, the organization must notify each of these individuals that they

it says the planning commission may reduce the above numerical elements of the criteria in subsections b and b2c by up to 20% of their values should any adjustment be necessary to implement the intent of this section. so, while this is all being jettisoned, you do have a chance to do something even though this has been discontinued indefinitely and here's my point. here's the material on it. thank you, have a good day. >> thank you. any additional public comment on the items being proposed for a continuance? seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioner? >> motion to continue items one, two, three to the date specified and item number eight indefinitely. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners, on that motion to continue items -- excuse me -- as proposed. commissioner fong? [roll call] >> so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 5-0. in places of admission matters, i have four commissioners with comments and questions. >> commissioner moore. >> thank you to the mayor's office. thank you to the mayor for organizinging the pop up yesterday at city hall. it was a lov