tv Government Access Programming SFGTV November 20, 2017 12:00pm-1:01pm PST
objects item, may be removed. >> supervisor yee? supervisor breed? aye. cohen? aye. farrell? aye. supervisor kim absent. supervisor peskin. aye. ronen aye. supervisor safai? aye. supervisor tang? absent. there are nine ayes. >> president breed: those items passed unanimously. please read item 6-8 together. >> these are three ordinances. item 6 amends the general plan for the urban element and other
appropriate findings. item 7 amends the planning code and the zoning map to add the pier 70 special use district. it makes the appropriate findings. and item 8 is ordinance to approve the agreement between the city. for 28 acres of real property in the southeast portion of the larger area known as sea wall lot 349. >> president breed: can we take the items, same house, same call? those items are adopted unanimously. >> item 9, ordinance to designate mcallister street as a landmark to make the appropriate findin findings. item 9? breed aye. cohen aye. farrell aye.
fewer aye. kim aye. peskin aye. ronen aye. safai aye. sheehy aye. tang aye. there are 11 ayes. >> president breed: the ordinance passed anonymously. >> the revenue agreement between san francisco public works and j.c. decaux llc for the automatic public toilet. changing the termination date from october 2017 to february 14, 2018. same house, same call? without objection, it's adopted. >> item 11, approve and authorize the second amendment to a real property agreement to grant the mid peninsula a permanent public trail easement in exchange for quit claim to
the city of open space easement as part of the city public utility commission water system improvement project, upgrade bay tunnel. >> president breed: same house, same call? the resolution is adopted unanimously. >> item 12, resolution to improve emergency declaration by the public utilities commission pursuant to 6 # 60 to repair the bushings on the moccasin powerhouse. >> president breed: same house, same call? the resolution is adopted. >> item 13, approve amendment number 3, to secure 40 foot coaches with new flyer of america inc., to revise the list of spare parts and include the list of additional equipment added to the vehicles during the production phase of the contract
for a total amount not to exceed $413.7 million. >> president breed: same house, same call? the resolution is adopted. next item? >> item 14, to authorize the arts commission to accept a gift of art entitled the comfort women of strength, and to accept and expend donation from the justice coalition of $208,000 for the purpose of maintaining the artwork for not less than 20 years. >> president breed: supervisor peskin? >> 190,000, not 109,000. >> president breed: same house, same call? without objection, the resolution is adopted unanimously. item 15. >> item 15 is resolution to approve the modification to airport contract for the international terminal check
baggage system program and budget handling system, with cage, the professional services inc., for an amount not to exceed approximately $10.6 million through september 30, 2018 and to i prove amount for further modifications to not exceed $14 million. >> president breed: supervisor ronen. >> supervisor ronen: i wanted to let you know i dissented in committee, not because of issues with the contract itself, but i dissented because i i don't believe the board should give away our right to review future modifications. >> president breed: thank you, supervisor ronen. roll call vote? roll call vote. >> on item 15, supervisor yee? aye. breed aye. cohen aye. farrell aye. fewer aye. kim aye.
peskin aye. ronen no. safai aye. sheehy aye. tang aye. there are 10 ayes and one no with supervisor ronen in the dissent. >> president breed: the resolution is adopted. >> teller machine lease between wells fargo bank, and the city for a five-year term with a two-year option to extend and minimum annual guarantee of $475,000 for the first year of the lease. >> president breed: supervisor kim? >> supervisor kim: thank you, i realize that wells fargo was the sole bidder for the lease agreement, however, i have a number of concerns about wells fargo and their current business in san francisco, given the gross violations they've conducted upon their customers
over the last year and a half. and second, given the small amount of revenue that this lease would even bring forward to the city at $475,000, i think the airport should have considered some of our federal credit union banks or other banks here locally in san francisco and consider that a cost to the city's budget as a way for us to support some of our local banks that are investing responsibly in our communities and neighborhoods and also not fleecing their customers, so i will be voting no on this agreement. >> president breed: thank you. supervisor fewer? >> supervisor fewer: i concur with supervisor kim. i have concerns about wells fargo and also we have voted as a board to sanction some banks that have also invested in investments that we as a city don't a agree with. i would encourage the city and
count icounty to look at the -- to look at the county to look at credit unions, i also will not vote yes. >> president breed: madame clerk call the roll? ee -- yee aye. cohen aye. farrell aye. fewer no. kim no. peskin no. ronen no. safai aye. sheehy aye. tang aye. there are 7 ayes and 4 nos with supervisor kim, fewer, peskin and ronen in the dissent. >> president breed: the resolution is adopted. item 17, aproving the terms of air limited doing business as
fiji airways for a lease term. roll call vote? on item 17, supervisor yee? aye, breed aye. cohen aye. farrell aye. fewer aye. kim aye. peskin aye. ronen aye. safai aye. sheehy aye. tang aye. there are 11 ayes. >> president breed: the resolution is adopted unanimously. >> item 18, resolution to approve memorandum of understanding between the city and the college district for the city to provide financial support to the free city college program not to exceed $11.2 million for a term ending on june 30, 2019. >> president breed: same house,
same call? the resolution is adopted unanimously. madame clerk, call 19-21 together. >> item 19 through 21, three resolutions that approval historical property contracts. between 885 front street, the owners of 101 in the city, item 20, between hjelmstad and brandtsfield and the smith-hantas trust to authorize the planning director and the assessor to execute the three historical property contracts. >> president breed: supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, colleagues, i want to start by thanking the chair of the government audit and oversight committee, supervisor kim and member of that committee, president breed. these are three of a number of contracts that came to the committee. i think the committee really sent a message to the historic
preservation commission and planning department staff relative to the criteria that we want going forward before we grant contracts to ensure they are about preserving and rehabilitating historic structures that benefit from large tax reductions. for those of you not familiar with the no zack, it's a rolling 10-year contract and relative to the value of some of the improvements that individual property owners are making we came to the conclusion these 10-year contracts don't have to roll forever. and in case of item 20, waller, i want to thank the owners of the property, they indicated at the hearing they would have the property tax reduction last for one 10-year term. to that end and pursuant to chapter 71, i'm hereby asking
the city attorney to draft a resolution that would discontinue this contract after its initial period of 10 years at which time it would return to its normal property taxation value. and all three items i support. >> president breed: thank you, colleagues, same house, same call? without objection, the resolutions are adopt d unanimously. >> item 22, ordinance to amend the subdivision code to allow subdivision map applicants to obtain final or parcel that are for conveyance, but do not grant developments right. to make findings. >> president breed: same house, same call? ordinance passes unanimously on the first reading. next item? >> item 23, ordinance to amend the existing building and fire codes to require builds sold or
transferred after september 21, 2017, to abide by regulations. >> the ordinance passes unanimously. >> item 24, ordinance to amend the planning code to create the special sign district and to make other appropriate findings. >> president breed: same house, same call? the ordinance passes unanimously on the first reading. >> item 25, resolution to add the commemorative street name, tony bennett way in recognition of the legendary singer and his ambassadorship to the city of san francisco. >> adopted unanimously. >> resolution to determine the issuance of beer license to frank junior, 2049 chestnut street, will serve the
convenience and impose conditions on the issuance of the license. >> same house, same call? the resolution is adopted. item 27, ordinance to amend the administrative and campaign conduct code to change all reference from the office of citizens complaints to the department of police accountability and to make related terminology changes to reflect the name change resulting from the passage of proposition g. >> president breed: same house, same call? without objection the ordinance passes unanimously on the first reading. >> item 28, a motion to appoint chase chambers term ending december 16, 2018 to the market and octavia committee? >> same house, same call? the motion is approved unanimously. going to committee reports. >> clerk: item 37 was considered by the budget and finance committee at a regular meeting
on november 9th and was forwarded as committee report. resolution to authorize the execution of a multifamily revenue note in one or more series in aggregate principle amount not to exceed $76 million to provide financing for the acquisition and rehabilitation of a 92-unit housing project located at 171 loehr street. >> same house, same call? the resolution is without objection, adopted unanimously. can we call 38 and 40 together? >> clerk: yes. items 38 and 39 were considered by the land use and transportation committee at a regular meeting on monday, november 13, 2017. and item 38 was amended with the same title and forwarded to the board without recommendation. to regulate cannabis land uses
to allow dispensariedispensarie. to cannabis retail establishments to establish location and operating conditions. to repeal ordinance 186 which limited the number of cannabis dispensaries in district 11, to create a limit of three medical cannabis dispensaries and any combination in the outer mission neighborhood, to delete superseded planning code. item 39 was not sent at committee report, but item 40 was considered at the rules committee. item 40 amends the administrative business, health and tax regulations to regulate commercial activities relating to the cultivation, manufacture, distribution, testing, sale and delivery of the medicinal and
adult use cannabis. supervisor cohen. >> supervisor cohen: i wanted to remind you of a few things as we get ready to debate. madame president, thank you for calling this out of record. it deserves full attention. at the land use and transportation committee, on november 6th, supervisor peskin said that it would be his preference to do this right the first time and to be close to an 11-0 vote, because quite frankly, not only is the entire city watching us, but i would venture the entire country is watching what is going on here in san francisco. i'm asking to step back and continue this item until the next meeting of the full board which would allow businesses to continue to be online by the first week of january. i do hope that we'll be able to honor our commitment to collaboration and writing a law
that is most appropriate for the entire city. for the entire city. i want emphasize that so we're not leaving those people who we historic leave behind, that's people of color, veterans, people incarcerated, people who don't have a voice, that we don't rush the legislation. what will complement the entire body in the last two weeks, we have pulled together and i want to recognize the leadership in every one of the offices on the amendments that have been heard in committee. on the public feedback that you've received from constituents. both for and against. we've been busy. i still think there is more work to do. these i'll thames were -- items were sent out of committee just yesterday and it would be most responsible to continue them until november 28th. doing this ensures that the
final legislation passed is thoughtful, culturally sensitive and the best legislation for the city of san francisco. and most importantly, doing that will allow us to be up and running by the first week of january. from what i understand with talking to many colleagues, that's a priority and that's a priority that i definitely honor and want to respect. so, i want to ask that we continue these items so we can continue to do our due diligence and do our homework. this is a humble continuance request. thank you. >> president breed: thank you, supervisor cohen. supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: i defer to the cosponsor of these two files, supervisor sheehy. >> president breed: i'm sorry, supervisor sheehy is not on the roster. supervisor peskin, do you want to wait and then i can call in
supervisor yee? supervisor yee? >> supervisor yee: so, let me speak to continuance. the last few weeks, we've been rushing through a lot of issues, lots of amendments, sometimes i wish i had a little more time to introduce more amendments. i would love to strengthen things like the equity piece, if there is a way to strengthen it. i would love to have more discussion around, should there be a cap in the city, or no cap? should there be car belts for every district? which counters somewhat the equity piece? should there be discussion around what does it mean for --
to list childcare as education institution like the public schools or the schools? seems like we need to have a deeper discussion what schools really are. there is the distance piece. there are many pieces to that than a few, that could use more discussion. the -- so, i just want to say that hopefully if the supervisor that had asked for the continuance, that we will have these type of discussions. i would love to then support the continuance. >> president breed: thank you, supervisor yee. supervisor sheehy? >> supervisor sheehy: so, i have amendments to make today. an amendment to make. that would allow existing
operators to function on january 1st. i think it's absolutely crucial we have something up and running on january 1st. i believe that the world is watching us. and i do hope that we can get it right. i do hope we can get a bill that is right. but earlier today, senator scott weiner and david camphouse said the san francisco board of supervisors is getting close to destroying the first blue collar industry that has come to san francisco in decades. i know we can pass legislation that establishes the industry, collects taxes and protects kids by moving into a highly regulated market, rather than a black market and unregulated. let's be clear, cannabis is available today. it will be harder to get on january 1st if we allow existing retailers, existing business to
convert to adult use. otherwise, we risk disintegrating the industry, right? so, there will be no enforcement, there will be nothing, there will be no way that the office of cannabis can enforce. there will be businesses operating, for instance, in berkley, oakland, that will be able to transport product into the city and legally sell it through the system. the supply chains will not be established because the manufacturers, cultivators, testers will have to make a choice between staying as they are, or getting a state license and not being able to sell to existing medical cannabis distributors. in short, we take what we already have and turn it into chaos. now, i would hope that we could get the final legislation done by january 5th. you know, taking the time to get that piece right makes a lot of
sense. but, not having something available on january 1, i think it makes us look bad. i really do. it makes us look like we're not capable of doing our job. we have existing businesses. i know the problem we want to, and supervisor safai has talked about this, we want to make sure the existing operators are good operators and i believe he'll have amendments to have the office of cannabis give them another look. but the reality is that the office of cannabis does not have to permit anyone. but this will give the office of cannabis the ability to issue permits. and if there are operators not operating well, through supervisor safai's amendments to the operating roles, there will be another look.
and we'll look at the -- we'll talk to the police captains in the districts. we'll talk to the neighbors and see if they've been good neighbors. but if we don't enable, if we don't enable this industry to start on january 1st, with people who have been operating, some of them for years, i don't see what we're going to accomplish. and i get that people want to work out the kinks and the rest of it, but you know, i think that i would hope that my amendment allowing people who are operating now to add adult use, will be supported by my colleagues. >> president breed: so, supervisor sheehy, i have a question about your amendment. just for a point of clarity.
so your particular amendment would propose that without a community process, we allow current ncds to automatically, on january 1, be allowed to operate adult use, which means they go from only specifically offering just medical use, to adult use, which means anyone of age could walk into their facility. i guess my question is, that's what you're proposing, correct? i just want clarification. >> supervisor sheehy: yes, anyone 21 and over. again, this is dependent on the office of cannabis issuing that permit after looking -- after having a look at their good-neighbor policies, after looking at their safety management policies. so -- >> president breed: it's not automatic? >> supervisor sheehy: it's not automatic. they have to apply and receive a
permit. >> president breed: can you explain the community process, the process with -- that exists to notify the members of the community and the surrounding neighborhood? >> supervisor sheehy: could? is there a notification? did i ask -- i would make the point, they're already selling cannabis to whoever walks through the door. it's not hard to get recommendation. >> president breed: i can write a prescription right now, give you a recommendation and you can walk through the door. i get it. i do understand, but i want to understand, because you know, i'm not necessarily opposed but i want to understand the process, because i think it's important that we make clear what this might mean for existing ncds and the communities that they reside in. miss elliott? >> supervisor elliott, office of cannabis. so currently in the ordinance before you, there is a provision
in there that amends article 33 of the health code. that provision allows for article 33 permit holders to sell adult use cannabis and cannabis products, provided they apply for a state license, receive a determination from planning that they're in compliance with the planning code, and comply with article 16 requirements. that is a provision -- that would be a provision of the article 33 permit. there was a conversation yesterday at rules committee requiring the office of cannabis to review their security plan and their good-neighbor policy before telling the state they're authorized to sell adult use cannabis. i don't believe that amendment has been proposed on the floor yet, however, that was discussed at committee and could be contemplated as part of this. however, this is currently contemplated as part of the article 33 permit, so they would
not receive another permit for the temporary adult use activity. they would be required in the ordinance to apply for article 16 permit, once the office of cannabis makes that available. they would be operating on article 33 for temporary adult use activity until they receive permit 16. >> president breed: what is the -- you say look at the good neighbor policy, what does that amin abdullahi -- mean? what does that mean as it relates to the community? how are they notified? >> supervisor: there is not a good neighbor policy in article 33, but in this legislation, there are minimum requirements for good neighbor policy. they would have to be in compliance at a minimum with those requirements. for article 16 permits there is
required community outreach. that is not a part of what is currently contemplated for the article 33 adult use. >> president breed: thank you for the clarity. supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, madame president and colleagues, i've been working with supervisor sheehy over the last several days to try to figure out a path forward and i think what supervisor sheehy is suggesting is interim path forward. what the supervisor didn't say, these would be temporary permits for 120 days. the applicants would then go through the process. they could still be rejected, appealed. but i think some of the concerns that i've heard in the last 24 hours comes around the equity piece, which i think there is widespread agreement on and we're in a position to pass today. i think the worry -- and i acknowledge that worry, is that
communities of color and other communities that have been disproportionately impacted by the war on drugs, would not be there on day one. but in reality there is a huge amount of growth that is going to happen in this industry. i think there have been suggestions, i heard one from supervisor safai, that the next 30 permits could be equity permits. i think there are ways of doing this, while sending a signal that this is an industry whose time has finally come. that san francisco, contrary to the inflammatory, provocative, unnecessary and ill-informed words of two former members of this body is ready to enter the dawn of the 21st century. as a reality, and i think we know it, cannabis has been available, not only for the medical community that has needed it for many, many years, but widely available throughout
california and the united states and the city is no exception. this is much ado about nothing, but i think we can send a signal that on january 1, there will be 30 brick and mortar facilities up and running and over the next few weeks, we can continue to deliberate some of the very complicated stuff in 200 pages of legislation. and quite frankly, and i've said it repeatedly, we can do that in a way that is respectful of communities that have tradition alan alan some of the words i've heard in the chambers, not from members of this body, but members of the public, have been overtly racist. i mean the level of intolerance in the city of alleged tolerance has been just frightening to me. and i want no part of it.
and quite frankly, with all due respect to former supervisors accomplice and weiner, the politics that are playing out in the press release are not helpful to the deliberations. >> president breed: thank you, i would agree with the last statement. thank you to members of the public for being here, but i would ask that you refrain from any vocal expression. if you want to support something, just wave your hands. if you want to oppose something, you can do thumb's down. thank you for your cooperation. supervisor farrell. >> supervisor farrell: just a few comments here. i want to say that i completely agree with supervisor sheehy an his comments and desires as we think about january 1st. i believe we need something in place by january 1st and i'm prepared to vote on that for sure. however, i think there is two types of delays here, otherwise there has been contemplated
right now. there is one two-week delay to discuss the whole issue and pass something out in potentially two weeks. i mentioned this in president breed, if that happened the way the board means, it would not take effect until january 3 or 4, so there is potential for a special board meeting or lapse in the first three days of january. either of those is ok. i don't like it. i would rather vote today. i think the voters of san francisco have spoken. i would be prepared to vote today. however, the other option, which is contained however in supervisor sheehy's amendments is slice off of of this, do january 1 for brick-and-mortar and then for the rest of the controls, that is not what i want to do. i have seen it too many times
now, getting long in the tooth in city hall, if you prick the balloon, the air deflates and we're not going to pick the topic up for a long, long time. with all respect to -- no one is going to be able to convince me otherwise. so it is not an approach i want to take. i can absolutely see this being late 2018, talking about new controls. there is equity program i think all of us support, but we better support it by putting controls in place so they can't take advantage of it moving forward. i want to say on the outside, i would rather pass something out today, but if there is spirit of delay for different reasons, i would choose the two-week continuance. hopefully with a commitment that in two week's time we pass something out, that's the whole kit and ca boodle and we're not slicing and dicing.
>> supervisor safai: thank you, madame president, i wanted to ask for clarity, we're talking about delays of two or three days, i want to understand, if we did postpone the vote, maybe the deputy or director elliott can talk us through is there still a way to meet the deadline of january 1st? i think this body, in terms of many of us that were elected last year for the first time. this is our one-year anniversary in many ways. this is the first item i've seen that has really fractured the conversation in this chamber in a lot of different ways. we've tried to build consensus. i think there was a statement in the beginning that we wanted to try to get to 11-0 vote, but these are not easy issues. they're issues that drive us on a daily basis. we hear from our constituents and we're tackling a lot all at
once. i can say in the time that we have tackled this, at least on the rules side, commissioner fewer -- well supervisor fewer and supervisor yee and others that have sat in. supervisor ronen and sheehy leading on this. cohen on the equity piece. i'm going to list off all the things in a three week period. we talked about labor. we did first source hiring. talked about the permit. dealt with the two tiered system for the local hiring. i'm going to talk about that today. i'm going to come back to the good neighbor policy and security plan that supervisor sheehy. noticing in multiple languages. people brought that up. i can't remember who made that conversation. supervisor fewer talked about a pathway for preexisting
nonconforming operators. ownership thresh hold. we set it at 20%. we didn't want the permits to be commodified. cohen spent and led a tremendous amount on the equity program. out of all the things that are difficult, we're at a very good place. i know some colleagues haven't had a chance to review that. i would like to hear from director elliott or deputy city attorney, if we were to postpone today, could we get back on track to january 1? and how many days are we talking about? and what is really on the table? because i don't think that's clear. >> deputy city attorney, john givener, in order to allow adult
use sales in san francisco, adult use in san francisco on january 1st, the board must adopt an ordinance authorizing and the mayor must sign by december 1st. that would mean if you do not pass the ordinance on first reading today, but you want to ensure that adult use is permissible in the city on january 1, you have to have a special meeting on the week of thanksgiving. i think that's the only possibility. in order to pass an ordinance, the board must vote twice on the ordinance at two meetings, at least five days apart. >> so if we did it on the following, the 5th, when would the ordinance become effective?
>> it depends on how quickly the mayor signs. if say the mayor signed -- if the mayor had ten days to sign or veto or return on ordinance, but if the mayor, you pass an ordinance on first read on 28th. and then the mayor signed on the 6th, it would become effective on january 5 or 6. i would have to count the days. >> so we're really only talking about two or three days? and that's why i listed out all the different things that we've accomplished in the three-week period. we've done a tremendous amount. to say this industry is going to have to wait 2-3 days, is not a hardship. i understand and i feel torn and i know supervisor sheehy has put in hours on this as have many of
us. and supervisor cohen, honestly, i think at the entered the day -- end of the day to have a 2-3 day wait, i would go with the will of the body. i do feel the urgency of january 1, but a difference of 2-3 days does not seem to be a crippling blow to the industry. i do appreciate what supervisor peskin has said, because we're dealing with outside influence and forces and the path forward about having something for brick-and-mortar ready to go, i do like that idea as well. madame president, would you like know say anything about the proposed amendments or should i come back? >> president breed: whatever you want to do. >> one of the things that supervisor sheehy referred to in terms of if we do go forward -- i think we are prepared to do that with a temporary process for existing businesses.
one of the things we talked about in land use, i have an amendment, existing businesses have to do a good neighbor policy, have to do a management and security plan. the way this is written currently without the amendment, essentially there would be nothing, pro forma and they would do assault use. one of the -- adult use. out of the 30 brick-and-mortar and 16 delivery businesses, we wanted to make sure if there were businesses having issues with neighbors, they would then resubmit those plans. the plan would be reviewed by the director of office of cannabis in consultation with the police captain and our offices and that way, we would ensure that this plan was moving forward in a positive way. that's an amendment we talked about, the good neighbor policy, working with the office of cannabis, and the police department. so i'll pass those amendments around. the other amendment that we had and we talked about this and we
can talk about this as well, supervisor yee and i talked about a local hire process. we set at the bar at 30% and then set it higher for ones that will be coming online new. we wanted that to be higher bar. we said two tiered system and after talking to folks in the existing industry, we said for existing operators that would be 35% local hire and those that are new businesses would be at 50%. we have been in conversations with labor as well and other folks in the training industry. we want to come back to the conversation about apprenticeship. we left the legislative file in the rules committee and we're going to continue the conversation around apprenticeship, but we wanted to get the language in regarding local hire. we want to answer sure that -- ensure that san francisco is benefitting from the jobs and that those who begin in the entry level, that become
managers, hopefully one day will become owners of the business which is what happens in many industries. that's the second amendment. the last one, we can decide. i'll work with supervisor cohen on this. we talked about looking at those in the pipeline. i think supervisor peskin referenced it. after the pipeline and the folks that are in the transition period, temporary adult use, we need to have a real conversation in the body and that's one of the reasons i'm in favor of moving the conversation a little bit, is maybe prioritizing those that come after that. and i think we should, equity applicants. they are prioritized in the sense they give priority, but we want the permits given out after we've dealt with this transition in the pipeline and gone through that, that those that would get the permits going forward, until we reach a certain threshold
would be equity applicants. that way, we have a universe of folks operating in san francisco, equity business owners will have an opportunity to catch up and have a foothold in the mark. we can come back to that amendment after we've had more time to flush it out, more in rules and staff in the industry. those are my two amendments. i'll circulate those. thank you. >> president breed: supervisor ronen. >> supervisor ronen: before i make comments, i have a couple of questions through the chair to supervisor sheehy. in the amendments that you just gave us now, i see that it does include a cap on the number of dispensaries or cannabis shops in the excelsior. >> that is in the legislation already proposed before us
today. >> supervisor cohen: but that is included? >> that is something we worked through and he worked through the -- we worked through the rest of it. i'm trying to enable existing to -- >> if we pass this version of legislation and didn't amend it, it would have a cap on the number of dispensaries in excelsior. >> i believe it is mooted by the strikeouts that are in supervisor sheehy's legislation because of the way it deals with the cannabis definition, i defer to counsel, but this only creates the temporary permitting scheme and that issue is moot in this legislation, but i defer to deputy city attorney wong.