Appropriate way to do this this is it to have the City Attorney draft a piece of legislation the clerk will review it to your consideration 90 days and comment on actual language when we are dealing with concepts likes the time for temporary evictions and eviction protections i cant if i were you it would be impossible for me as a board member of the board of supervisors it is impossible to opine heres the language that is in front of you, you youre supposed to talk about clarify that tear eviction in the retrofit for seismic retrofits for the building for improvements not considered a adu is it a 60 or 90 days is this kind of absurd and not our fault not what the charter and the code intends and i will maintain should you actually consider this i will say to the City Attorney that none of the amendments are properly before us if in theyre in committee youve not considered the piece of legislation. And supervisor peskin i think that is a gray area not only here but elsewhere we state where we even proposed changes to legislation that are before us or recommended how the legislation a cant be changed we dont necessarily draft that specific code language i mean, we make it as recommendations and i hear our considerations and appreciate one your adu legislation that fixes state law should move forward you know in those amendments to move forward you know simultaneously or later but you know but i dont think that is bad to move forward but i i get it what youre saying we also do not want to bog down the process the members suggest changes and we often make recommendations that are not at the refined as the legislation they may concern you know shortterm rentals takes shortening the timeframe that our allowed to do shortterm rentals and park it to you all the policymakers and you know, i think youre wanting to clarify this is we dont want to bog down the process. Appreciate may maybe i didnt articulate well while it is i think meant to be an intern process are spotted to start with actual language as you as commenter say if you consider this and that this is what the process was meant to do what is happening i will contend with all due respect to my colleagues slightly abusive of the process itself. Thank commissioner melgar. So i role appreciate you coming today, i remember when we discussed this last you know we discussed the legislation and then we discussed a couple of ideas that were with the amendment and no representative we were discussing and nobody to ska ask questions to so im okay with you know having your legislation go forward need to be in compliance and i think of other ideas not yet legislation but ideas you know consider that at some other point thats okay awe of the 6 points depending on the the devil is in the details and how their drafted they all are some amount of merit and im happy to think about them and do my job on every single of them this is not the place for it. I remember the specifically the one idea that was talked about the lass last time we discussed it having an adu within the envelope specifically garages that was a weddings issue i know interest is contentions with a lot of the discussion with the parties. Let me say i think our clerk intent as to your body and staff and be so bold i dont want to put words in your mouth so have as many was we came in a rational way throughout the city and county of San Francisco thats my desire since 2002 when i lost on the 65 vote laughter and i do believe we have someone from my office present on my behalf but other discussions he was not present for a sxhifgs. My issue you dropped something on us the public didnt see therefore we cant weigh in on it. February 23rd. Meeting you drop it and we have other supervisors. Ton to drop and well not end it i ask the City Attorney what legal ground are we on point out. You did deliver a letter to the board subsequent to the february 23rd youve discharged are your duty under the code and charter to have reviewed it im taking issue with additional review after you reviewed it once and said precede and again if so not fault of yours this legislation was introduced in january only a few weeks after Assembly Members blossoms law became law and in the middle of the april tax day is on saturday actually close and still not approved that is not youre doing but this is exacerbating the situation. The City Attorney. Deputy City AttorneyChristen Jensen responding to commissioner Vice President richards the supervisor is correct this board has discharged the duty with the underlying legislation but nothing if prevents the commission from among other things the legislation if the additional supervisors and likewise nothing that prevents the commission from continuing the issues that are raised as supervisor peskin submittal of today im not sure if that answers your question. Commissioner johnson. Thank you so id like to maybe consultant with the Commission Secretary to get clarity on the option are we considering additional amendments . What was the action we took in february for the record what did we actually do. We took action and recommended recommended the modifications by staff okay. I think what happened differently what typical where we recommended supervisor peskins. Recommended or modifications. So at the definitely did. So you reviewed the original ordinance and the staff recommendations on that ordinance. Right and. And decided not enough information and time to review the amendments in the letter and asked for it to come back. But i think to clarify you take for example legislation before us tom gets and has the best idea to amend this we tubed it and may take it or not take it or make a recommendation to modify the legislation we have language before us with that legislative change but the board can make that if we dont talk about it from the board wants to make changes they have to kick it back to us nicole we agreed weve not seen it in we specifically requested it come back to us to hear thats where we are at this point, i think ill encourage supervisor peskin to review the legislation to move forward but ill encourage us to hear and opine if they move forward separately or take amendments that would be great or further split or file moving forward i guess my question supervisor peskin i dont see the downside of us hearing those and talking about them and then hopefully, your legislation move forward with dispatch so we can be in compliance with state law. Further commissioner president hillis i absolutely agree with the legal advice from the deputy City Attorney that is nothing that prevents you from having this hearing and so say what you want to say ill say on monday that whatever you say today because you dont have proposed language as to the amendments in front of you wont be as a matter of law to be considered but have that conversation with ms. Jensen with her colleagues today and tomorrow. It is is helpful ill respond and provide information on that issue it is the position of the City Attorneys office you dont have to have written language in front of you today, i i believe that was not uncommon for the proposed language in connection with the legislation before it i have litigated that and with respect to the supervisor we won that litigation not inconsistent with the planning code or legislation amendments to the protective as long as the commission is comfortable enough understanding of what is being proposed and you should know that the City Attorneys office will be drafting specific language if it hadnt already been drafted. Thank you commissioner moore. It is actually toms letter that made me release hes deeper into the weeds it is like an article 7 amendment the things were talking about gets to a much level of keenness as intent maybe good ideas but without having a full deck how is it tracks itself and bring it into the code we suggest take more time and let the other things stay on itself own and have the supervisors together that is basically what supervisors is supposed to do work with each other to bring trailing legislation in a manner that is elevates what is in compliance at the moment two completely Different Things driving a base car and then make that a rallies car all power to folks trying to do that. Supervisor peskin did you want to comment on that. Thanks commissioner president hillis that depends on when you say and what happens in committee so relative to the litigation that deputy City Attorney jensen is referring there is a number of times where the Land Use Committee or the board wants to consider things that you actually didnt talk about as these things evolved and it has to come back to the Planning Commission that dangerous road when you through out 6 ideas with no languages it may end up in front of you again depending on the actual language the amendments that are not in front of you say and council is nodding her headnote affirmative. Whether or not you have enough understanding of what is proposed. Commissioner Vice President richards. When we continued the 6 ideas it was ill make an analogy it is like the eviction history of a building it is obvious we want to know if there is someone living in there new weve seen the eviction history it is observe well get language to back up the ideas during the period to continue this and second if we do go forward well be in the situation again well have another supervisor drop stuff on us and say oh, my god we dont have enough time well continue it we have this if we move to hear this is the setting a precedent i move to continue this item. Second. Second. Commissioner johnson. Okay. Thank you very much so heres the thing i actually agree with i think both supervisor peskin and the City Attorney i dont have the authority to say it is legal i have a couple of questions on the amendments or the amendments proposed that language might have clarified so i do think regardless of legality the problem we may have questions that we are not certain that the language is substantially answered like a chance when language is grafted there maybe material differences from the thing we thought we were going to get so i might id like to have an airing of those questions before we blanketly return but go on to Public Comment and do. Weve not heard the item yet. Who wants to hear the item and then in Public Comment and actually understanding the precedent i think that the Biggest Issue i understand where the commissioners with saying thats a problem i have questions i see now what the language written one way they answer the question and another way they may not it is to be considered. I want to clarify we make recommendations to the board all the time commissioner Vice President richards youve done it without language i know weve made policy recommendations to amend policies that are broad without language i think supervisor peskin brings up a good point do we want to continue to do that and make recommendations or take Public Comment and pass that Public Comment in the form of a recommendation to the board without language this is a question we should consider we would have you know several hearings on a lot of controversial legislation and ask the City Attorney so draft this and bring it back to us it is a policy when do we want to have that process so all the time we make recommendations occult of this body an legislation without you know our own recommendations without language so lets be clear that we do it ourselves so i think we should hear the item in we want to continue it well continue it but i think we should hear from the staff on the item and then the public and have a discussion on the item whether to continue it or not. Commissioner Vice President richards. I completely agree with commissioner president hillis i think just like we say project sponsor when we continue it you need a month to do the drawings and talk with the City Attorney and 4 weeks enough for language we need language it is obvious we need to continue to get something to back up we do recommend instances on the fly but we need information. We wanted to hear that and staffs recommendations didnt come with language it is recommendations so liquor an example of supervisor peskin legislation that was before us the staff are had recommends on changing that but not necessarily code language and ultimately up to the board of supervisors and the mayor and the City Attorney to put it into code language paw commissioner melgar. I wanted to clarify what were doing here so what i understand is that the action item on the agenda is actually a resolution; right . Isnt it. It is a resolution recommending whatever it is you like to recommend today. Correct me if i am wrong as i read the resolution it is not citing particular language but citing commissioner if i may. Making recommendations to modify it is it is making recommended to move supervisor peskin legislation weve heard multiple voices . Your legislation is coming back to us. So thats to me is actually you know. But we affirm and made recommendations originally to move supervisor peskins i think you agreed with him to modify his legislation we can make recommends to make additional it is a awkward. Commissioner. Chair we should hear the item and i share the personal frustration that supervisor peskins frustration with the process i do i think that is waste of time and waisting time the city and waste of time and wasting time getting for unit were crying for on the streets and so thats embarrassing to me frankly you guys as supervisors have frustrations i get it not easy work i applaud it but not really our issue i dont need a response but sharing my frustration. I concur. And well see. I agree the board should have passed our legislation 15 years ago commissioner fong or exposure. Im asking secretary ionin my correction is january 23rd that we decided not to get into the suggested modification i support that the legislation as it stood should be approved and move forward given the fact it is helping us in compliance thats all we did and recommended that the suggested modifications or policies considered by the department be brought back forward to us independent of the administration as it stood this is done it is gone why are we thinking at the time supported administrations we didnt. Im talking about separate modification and you adopted a representation recommending approval not the modification that was presented at the time of the hearing by another supervisor. You specifically asked the concepts presented that qualify by supervisor sheehy and supervisor farrell cob come back that is what todays hearing is. Right supervisor peskin; is that correct. My understanding it is that. Supervisor is here commissioner. That is, i think that staff has presented to you correctly i mean it is it is what it is and im sorry for this waste of time i absolutely agree that legislation should have been passed we should be having a policy conversation about other ideas in the meanwhile it is out of compliance and our staff is advising people to come to the current the adu law is not legal because of one change thats all im trying to do because to be fair were not holding that up you can pass youre taken up by the board. Thats correct but you put your finger on that mr. President , this is an odd absurd sidewalks another supervisor is trying to uses you a vehicle to amend another piece of legislation that is an interact process im not offered by the policy recommendations it is just this should have been passed 15 years but several weeks ago you guys heard it on february 23rd and got our memo on march 23 should have gone to the next lufks well last week not like this is full of stuff lets get this done can we. Commissioner Vice President richards. I guess what is stripping to me i thought well be coughing our approval of this legislation and sail on and in compliance and a is second hearing on policy things with or without legislation native language now theyve been coughled and cant be in compliance were in the middle and commissioner johnson. Yeah. Im expressing that frustration we dont do this at the commission but should we have specified that we wanted because i thought our action of two months ago was recommend approval with modifications with an additional hearing not understanding that the hearing later will be on the same case file i thought theyll be different is that something i mean honestly were going to go forward but something in the fair enough we should specific we moving forward and we expect it is a separate package and if it is different. Sure. Through the chair if you wanted a separate ordinance to come back to you, you can say we want to introduce it as a second origin and supervisor peskin said we cant bring to you a memo but brought back his ordinance with a signed former with proposed ordinance thats a vehicle were allowed to bring back so we brought it back at the hearing. I think i understand that mr. Starr it is dont done deal so we can move on and do whatever we are going or we are going to do Lesson Learned staff has been clear we needed to make that clear part of our action i for one would have i thought our action item was recommended approval with modifications and consider other ideas later that ive never seen an additional hearing of this level of substance without legislative language and maybe were not paying attention it is usually an appendix case file or a replacement that was in the past and never seen were looking at amendments to something weve approved with modification coming back two months later. If i may im sorry for taking more of your time you have a full calendar i completely agree with commissioner johnson the most fish thing to do to stable this matter today and say that youd like this to be considered separately all of the suggestions not earning about them like protections and straightforward and not two burdensome but my issue is actually a burning situations if you table this well take objection action on monday and have this law by the end of the most. Commissioner Vice President richards. I guess i think we