Has been, you know, the city has waited long enough and been patient enough. We now need a stick. How we get to that Needs Analysis in terms of the implication from the Equity Perspective for Small Businesses opening their business. Lang you. In my neighborhood in the mission we have a lease. We got that all tracked. You are absolutely correct. Those are all speculators waiting for a few couple developments in the mission. Those not vacant are monthtomonth. I think we are all with you. To me it is simple. All of us have some sort of appeal process. Bad players will be found out and not get the appeal. Good people you could build criteria. Show me proof of conditional use taking this long. Let the features be reversed through appeal. Not i am going to refund you money to pay the penalty. It would be easier. That is how i see it. Yeah, i mean some people will have trouble coming up with 25,000 to have it given back. If you have to finance that, then getting it back is harmful. You have to pay the financing fees, and the people that need to finance this are not going to low cost lenders and they are going to high cost lenders that will cost money. That is an equity issue. I think that some appeal process and really being proactive about that, knowing that situation can arise so that there is not just we have that fund over here. We have the option to deal with it that way. I think you ought to be overt and say this fund will be used to, you know, compensate those trying to get through it but yet stuck in the process, you know. Then also acknowledge there will be many, many they wont be the edge conditions. They are dead center in the bell curve, these people that take more than a year in the city. We have to go after the process. Not to hold up the legislation but to acknowledge we have a broken process that goes hand in hand with this. The very fact we cant manage the current registry is a little telling. The rules changed in march of this year. I do think we have the ability. To require selfreporting . D. B. I. Inspections. It is too soon to say we cant handle it. I dont want to dash on d. B. I. Like that. I think it is a resource issue. How many people work at d. B. I. . They are out doing a lot of inspections. If there, as i have estimated 500 legitimate vacancies make it 1,000. There are only 250 works days. If one staff member is dedicated to vacancies. They would have to go to two vacancies a day or four. I dont think that would happen. It is not a fulltime job. They are not out pounding the street to look for two to four vacancies a day to be sure they are compliant. It is a man power issue. Cost recovery on the storefronts wont pay for the f. T. E. In san francisco. You know, yo your upside is if u can find the businesses 1,000 per 20 linear feet that is a 10 million budget so you can hire more people. As you said, you dont want to collect that fee. If you add more it properly and these people wont rent the space you will have a pretty big budget to go enforce it. Maybe it will work that way. Commissioner. What about the idea to put into the legislation that if the Building Permit or the c. U. Resolution permit is not done caused by the City Department delays it would be extended . That seems like the easy way to do it, you know, to allow more time. That is what we are looking at is folks not getting what they need because of the citys inefficiency. Lee acknowledged they dont want to penalize. If you can put that in saying they have done Due Diligence, it is the city that hasnt been able to complete it. I have to interject here. As the department who counseled businesses on the citys bureaucracy to now say to a business one more thing you need to track is whether you get through the conditional use process in this timeframe or your Building Permit in this timeframe. If you dont now you have one more bureaucratic step to go to to ensure you are not charged this tax. I feel so very, very strongly when we are having discussions with the mayor and the board of supervisors on what we can do to reduce the bureaucracy and the cost of opening a business, i think we can get to the supervisors goal, but, you know, when the Building Permit is except for the soft story or Property Owner is initiating their own improvements, the majority of the time it is Small Businesses if we are talking about ncd and nct. I dont normally interject. I dont want to receive the call for the First Business that has to pay that 25,000 tax. Perhaps, i think, the best direction is to you still need Public Comment. It is to still take your feedback and our office work with supervisor peskins office to really understand what the processes are so we dont inadvertently get Small Businesses caught up and add another layer of bureaucracy to it. This is a march ballot measure. What is the timeframe . You have to have it buttoned up by when. Last Board Meeting in november. This is a fastmoving train. In full appreciation of this it is informed by the a lot of the conversations. I agree the city can probably do a better job of possessing things more quickly. Lumping with the conversation around the tax legislatively is lets not lose the forest for the tree thing. All right. I am so sorry. I think i have heard all of as talk about need for an appeal, however, lee, i have heard you say there is problem areas around the appeal process, it creates liability, i think you mentioned in passing. It is potentially expensive for the city. Is that a fair summary of your concerns around the appeal process . Short of me characterizing as a legal issue, it makes it more complicated when you insert discretion in the mix. We could say maybe we can say that the city shall promulgate rules to establish an appeal process before this is implemented. Another idea in the mix. Listening to our executive director talk about adding another bureaucratic process to folks this is going to disproportionately affect those people not well equipped to deal with multiple layers of bureaucratic process at a vulnerable time as well. Could something be written just and again, i am spitballing here, but could something be written directing the sbaf to reach out to anybody who has who would get a fine and in some way, you know, streamlining that bureaucratic process maybe some sort of automatic grant if you do steps x, y, z. I dont know what those steps are. I am trying to figure out how to straddle the need for to not have a complex appeal process, the need to not have a bureaucratic process, while at the same time allowing the funds to be used and go ahead and speak to that. When we think about appeals process. There are two things to think about. There is the Property Owner and their appeals process, and then there is the Small Business that is engaging in their permitting that might be caught up in this, right . So and i think as the office of Small Business and our role is to help businesses get open and to, you know, try to advise on where we can simplify that process, i think the preference would be not to see a Small Business have to go through that appeals process. It is the Property Owner that is keeping their whatever the marker is for x amount of time, keeping their space vacant, that is for me a very different process. I mean there is the consideration that we have a vacancy registry. I do think there is more concerted effort and d. B. I. Has passed inspectors out in neighborhood corridors to keep an eye out to, you know, open these things. We now have a 30day window so it could be tied to a timeline you are on the vacant and abandoned storefront registry, which is, you know, you are on that if you have not completed your you are on that if you are not engaged in an active Building Permit to which the majority of the time will be a business to get your business open. I am putting that out in terms of can we go a simpler route and simpler to track and not inadvertently get out as commissioner ortiz said, catch the Small Business dolphins up in this net . I will chime in to say i dont know how a Small Business gets caught up in this, given the shared incentive here to alleviate the vacancy. It is kind of this question about what is market rate . Market rate is whenever somebody can pay to occupy your space to stay in business. That is how the market sets it. If you are confronting the pressure to stop the vacancy, why put it on the Small Business unless it is jointly shared if you know that is going to prevent them from opening in the first place. It is something that gets corrected by the market and, yes, this is designed to, i think, change the market for rents and commercial space leases in these commercial corridors. I dont see the equity issue. I will be completely honest. Well, lets open it up to comment. Do we have members of the public to comment . If so, come on up. Bob sam son comesher shall real estate broker. Costar is a service for commercial real estate. I can tell you how many vacancies you have in the mcd district 323. In 2015 we had 6. 2 overall. Today we have 19. 7 . They project 2021 will be 23. 7 . This is at a time when we see tremendous vibrancy in our economy. We still have vacancies going up. This whole thing is miss guided all the way. Why . Because the process is what is killing retail today. I will give you three examples. I represent 580 green street. The City Bank Building isvo cant over four years. When they bought it with the intent of putting in a service. They got rejected at planning after 18 months. We have attempted to lease this for well over a year and a hatch. We had all kinds of interest. The problem is we are in three different zoning districts. We cant put anything in there. We cant put Financial Services to replace the bank, we cant put restaurant use, no gym use, there is no use. I went to supervisor peskins office to ask what you would accept and i will get it for you. I am waiting for a phone call to be returned. Second a bakery fifth and full some. 1500 square feet. A family from france had 500,000 to build from scratch. By the time they waited one and a half years they put 750,000 into the space to open up the neighborhood bakery. I will tell you about 2366 mission street. It is the old tuxedo shop for over 70 years. It closed last year. They retired. We have attempted to replace that tenant. We have had all kinds of interest gym, restaurant use, all of which would require conditional use permit. That conditional use permit is not going to take 90 days or six months, it could take up to a year with an understanding the neighborhood has objections to opening more restaurants so the chance to get approved is 50 50 at best. Gym use creates noise for the neighborhood, also a problem. That is the problem in retail along with the fact the 11 story tail rule is a complete failure. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, commissioners. I echo the stimulating conversation taking place for the last several minutes. The chamber shares supervis or peskins desire to keep it vibrant. We are concerned about what the previous speaker just brought up. There is all of these other factors and reasons that contribute to the spaces becoming vacant. Retail vacancies can occur for many reasons including current zoning, uncertainty around the cost and now we are trying to build on to that. Of course, we know there are challenges within the city permitting process and things dont happen within those time periods we expect. The maximum days that would considered vacant dont allow as written sufficient time to market retail spaces, build out when rented or to come back from devastate being loss due to fire and earthquake. I am happy to hear amendment to that time period. Everybody raised the question of time period. That is a huge issue here. All of these things you are not going to end up having people have a loophole by opening up that window. If a land owner is able to lease a place, why is that now going to fall on the tenant . We are passing the fact we are passing this down to somebody who is trying to open a business and they have to go through that process and we are punishing them for our bureaucracy is absolutely ludicrous. We want to see beyond that time limit being extended i want to see that 182 day limit consecutive or nonconsecutive and we think that should be consecutive 182 period of vacancy to allow somebody who comes in and has to leave because it dent work out and some of the different situations we have been talking about. If it takes half a year to successfully market the space and the Small Business takes it. Will they be on the hook for the time they exceeded the time limit. From what i can tell that is the case. You have highlighted the points we echo and agree with. We feel this needs more work to consider it is not going to fall on our Small Businesses trying to open when there are so many other scenarios at play here. Thank you. Any more Public Comment. Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Do we want a recommendation . What are we contemplating as the recommendation . I would like to say the main recommendation is a reconsideration of the timelin timelines. Especially for anyone who has a Building Permit out there or a c. U. Resolution permit if that is not Going Forward if it is because of city bureaucracy, then there should be no fine on them. That should just we can, you know, decide on another six months, a year. You can write that in, but we have to have that. Would that be something that would be captured in the appeals process notion . I think maybe wording off having to do with appeal, at least by saying if you can proof to you say you have a Building Permit or you are actively pursuing the ceu, you are not going to have that fine slapped on you. Well, so you would say delays due to city delays resulting from the workings of the city will not count against the timal lotment . Yes. Something to that effect . What about the idea of average possessing time plus . There is no average possessing time. Okay. That is all you have got to say. A couple things come up. Delays how the city operates, notion of appeals process and extending timelines outright. Also back about the 182 days only consecutive. I second that. What about passing on to the lessee . Do you have thoughts about that . What about the 182 days . Consecutive . Right now it is nonconsecutive. In other words, you could have two weeks here, four weeks there, six weeks there, if it is at 182, you figure whereas if it was solely consecutive it would have to be an extended period of vacancy rather than patchwork every dom. You have to do the hat business then reset the clock and keep going. I think. I dont know what either one. Right now it is written consecutive or nonconsecutive. Just make it consecutive. 182 consecutive only, expanding the timelines to something greater than they currently are to be determined unless we want to make a hard recommendation. I would recommend that you have our office work with your goals and objectives. Restrict it to limited to the citys doing rather than something that the Business Owner has no control. There are other externals other than the city. The contractor. The contractor, pg and e. I mean i had to have power up upgraded and it took time. Pg e dont go here is your 220. What about automatic extension. After that if you have not completed . Are we suggesting change that due to the city . Things that you dont have control over, actings of god. Who is the responsible party . There is no appeal process now, who would be the party to hear these concerns to make that determination . We are clear on longer time periods. We seem to be clear on consecutive days. There is a request from the director the Supervisors Office works with the fpc to take a closer look at how the bureaucratic inputs fit into this and that might be sufficient right there to address some of these other concerns to simply ask that they meet with the director and her office and then they can dive into the nittygritty that we cant. Okay. So the keep points are extending the timeline extending all of the timelines but in consultation with the office of Small Business, correct . Yes. Making the vacancy term 182 days consecutive. Stop. Not unconsecutive, but consective. Allowing for extensions due to delays that are outside of well, see, you have to appeal if you are going to make an argument the delay is due to the city or the contractor. I would i think creating considering an appeals process for the Property Owner, perhaps something that we would have to discuss with the city attorney, but i think if the Property Owner in the 182 days and there are particular challenges and they havent leased it or something to that extent then an appeals process could be established. I think dealing with the timelines where we might get into the we are tracking by the ceu or the Building Permit we can look at those timelines and figure out what sort of reasonable so it doesnt inadvertently capture Small Businesses to put extra work on them. Is the recommendation to modify the timelines in consultation with the office of Small Business . Yes. Okay. Got that one. Modify the timelines in consultation with the office of Small Business. Then make the 182 days exclusively consecutive and do you want a formal appeals processor not . I will leave that to your discretion. I am asking the group. I want clarity if this is in the existing purview or we should specify our recommendations make it that d. B. I. Is vacant and the storefront unit has this as part of the responsibility so they are the responsible party. As it is written, you know, it is a separate tax. The question of who received these potential appeals or shows of Due Diligence is still unclear. Okay. Do we want to direct the administrative details of this . I would recommend that we avoid being that specific. I am good with where we are at right now, where we let them work with s. P. C. To figure out how to best move forward. I think there is some sophisticated arguments being advanced that i dont have the expertise to assess. Then have them both report back to us after those conversations, you know, what the conclusions were. You asked the question. I am asking the question. It seems to me the only way to deal with the unforeseen delays, whether they be due to the city or contractor or anything else unanticipated is to have a formal means of telling someone, hey, i have a problem. That to me is simply described as an appeals process. Yes, but i think that the testimony we heard there might be other ways to solve that problem. I would say for now we could probably just stay out of it. Let folks get together and talk. Extending the timeline in consultation with osb then captures that notion. I think both the Supervisors Office if it is appropriate in the design of this to put in an appeals processor procedure that will be considered. I am getting at the language for a nice clean recommendation. It may or may not. We are letting office of Small Business consult with the supervisor to extend timelines in whatever means they find is appropriate. That may or may not include an appeals process. Is that what i heard . They should report back to us afterwards. Lastly you may want to register an intent, if you have a supportive intent for the supervisors goal for addressing the longterm vacancies. You can support the spirit of the legislation, just some tweaking, major tweaking. Okay. I am not making the motion. I am trying to make sure that whoever makes the motion has a nice thing to say. What i think i heard was to extend the timeline in consultation with the office of Small Business by means to be determined and to lengths to be determined. Then a specific recommendation to make the 182 days consecutive only. Does that capture the end of the work with the. And to work with the office of Small Business. I like it. Who want goes to make it. I will move. Do you have it written down . You have a second . I will second. Motion by commission to support with the following amendments, one, extend alltime lines in consultation with the office of Small Business with the vacancy definition. Two, to make 182 days exclusively consecutive and strike non consecutive from the legislation. Roll call vote. roll call . Motion passes 60. File 192929 health code. Sugar skeetened beverage warning for advertisements ordinance amending the health code by amending the sugarsweetened beverage warning ordinance to update the statement of findings and purpose. Revise the definition of advertiser, reduce the required warning size, modify the required warning test, and revise the enforcement provisions. Supervisor walton. We knew we would be here past the dinner hour. I am abe evans to present to you on the ordinance. I want to give you a little background and quickly walk through six points as no why the Office Thinks this is important for the community. I am here to answer questions afterwards. I want to make a point that director stefani who is the director of the Environmental Health branch was to be here. She had to step out. She was here for a couple hours. They have been dealing with the sheltering of folks from the firing. She left notes. I am happy to answer questions to my ability. If i don dont have a specific answer, i will continue it. Points for speed. It was introduced in 2015. There was a lawsuit brought by the ninth circuit ruled against the city. The city amended the ordinance. We now introduce that amended version now. I want to introduce the warning language itself. San francisco government warning. Drinking beverages with added shopping goods macon contribute to obesity and tooth decay. Advertiser is a person in the business of manufacturing, distributing promoting or selling sugarsweetened beverages. There are some exceptions. Those are advertising in newspapers, magazines, television and internet. Advertisements on the packages, menus, displays on the delivery vehicle in the business of bringing those beverages. Any logo less than 36 square inches, any shelf label with a price on it. Main changes we decrease from 20 to 10 the warning. Macon contribute to and specified type 2 diabetes. I wont spend more than a minute on each point. Reasons w we are so passionate. One sugarsweetened beverages are unhealthy. They are linked to obesity, tooth decay. Studies shows people like one two two serving had 26 greater risk of getting diabetes than less than one. Obesity they were the strongest weight gains. Two communities of color are disproportionately advertised. Study at the university of connecticut that documents how they pour millions of dollars into targeting communities of color to make those advertisements for those communities. Africanamerican children saw twice as many ads for the drinks compared with white children. Black and brown communities suffer more negative Health Effects than white counterparts because of advertising. There is the clinical and Translational Science Institute that have done studies finding that People Living in 94124 predominantly africanamerican district are seven times more likely to go to the er because of diabetes than 94114. The difference isdiscretion for kids. Two times more likely overweight and more likely to have cavities. Four, given this warnings on the advertisements work. There is a number of studies analyses looking at the effectiveness of the warning labels documenting 20 to 30 decrease in the consumption when the warnings are present. There is another study that is interesting where a group got a come put tear computer model and had people making the daily decisions. They put the warning labelses and that caused 4 decrease in obesity in san francisco. Five. Warning labels on the advertisements have community support. They held a lot of focus groups in bayview Hunters Point and tenderloin. The top thing was take people want information and they want to know what is unhealthy and the Health Effects. Decreasing consumption is a Business Opportunity for Small Business community. I am happy to walk you through this one. Looking for a soda, they are thirty or they are tired. We might need caffeine. Lets say bob is thirsty in the store. He sees the warning on the ad. Changes his mind doesnt want the soda. He is still in the store thirsty. He is going to pick up water or gatorade. Maybe he is not thirsty just tired, looking for caffeine. Sees the warning and does not pick up the product. He will grab coffee or ice tea. There are a number of studies that backed this up that i am excited about. That is a study in the university of waterloo looking at the aftermath of the tax. It shows decrease by 27 soda, fruit drinks 22 . Comparable increases in sweet tea, they went up 36 surpassing decrease in soda. General nutrition studied the effects after the attacks on soda found 6 increasing sale of water 16 . We are encouraged by the studies. Consumers want this opportunity it could be an opportunity to retail the healthy markets. I am sure you are helping businesses to market the Healthy Options along with increasing sales along the way. We are part of the economic Mitigation Work Group and we are excited to hopefully expand or learn from the Healthy Retail program in this community in this climate of health promotion. We know these are unhealthy, target folkses of color, warning labels work and are supported by the community and present an opportunity for us. I am happy to take questions. Do you want to ask questions or go to Public Comment . Can you explain why the definition for advertiser changed to include retailers . Sure. The reason is to make sure we were capturing the folks involved in the advertisements growing up. The Large Companies on billboards. We have the opportunity to work with cretaylors to make sure they are the ads as well. As with most new department of Public Health triggered regulations, and as you heard in the discussion in the working group. Enforcement is insane. Department of Public Health we need to do a big tally of all of the things they are responsible for in terms of retailers. I mean i would like to know. There is a fine schedule here i saw. First iteration is that it was blanket 1,000. More recently i saw that was amended. Can you expand on that. It is important to know it is the administrative penalties and civil penalties. This is administrative penalties by the department of Public Health. Director may assist penalty 250 for the first, 500 for the second. Not exceeding 1,000 for the third and each one in the 12 months. This is a maximum of 250. There is discretion with the department of Public Health. Last question. For distributors or manufacturers in product representatives that come to our businesses to do a little pop up and pro month outside of our business, for example, if a thirdparty doing business with us fails to comply do retailers have to bear that violation . I want to make sure i get the correct response from the director. My understanding the person who brought the particular advertisement if they were coming to the store rather than the store owner. Thank you. Any other questions. We will open up to the Public Comment. Any members of the public to comment on this item . No. Okay. No Public Comment. Public comment is closed. Do you have any other questions or comments . All right. Thank you very much. Okay. Next item, please. Item 6. Board of supervisor file 190973. Approving a new location for a permittees medical cannabis dispensdispensary permit to opee under the permit adding new location. Provided it is rare ride as an applicant under the police code, the permitty has been evicted from the location or notified that the lease would be terminated and has an existing authorization for medical cannabis dispensary use and the permit complied with the act and the permittee satisfies the provisions of article 33 regarding authorization by the office of cannabis to sell adult use cannabis. Presenter is the legislative aid with supervisor matt haney. Thank you, commissioners. Our office is introducing this ordinance to amend the health code and all allow some limited portable for cannabis under article 33 permit. The reason is we want to support the Small Businesses in our district. What we are seeing that cannabis businesses are vulnerable to eviction. With their permits tied to location businesses that are good actors can lose all investments at the whim of the landlords. We want to make sure we provide protections where possible especially for equity business applicants without providing openings for big money to push out small necessaries or smalSmall Businesses to turn a bigger profit. We worked closely with the Planning Department, department of Public Health as well as the office of cannabis to make sure that we are both supporting the needs of vulnerable businesses and balances with making sure this limited affordability is narrow to prevent abuse. The goal is to further strengthen the act to survive without creating loopholes. We do agree more can and should be done to protect the small cannabis retailers and this leng legislation will allow for limited portability with certain requirements, a, the applicant be an equity applicant. This may not be in the legislative digest. The applicant must be in the type 33 permit to ensure that big corporate cannabis businesses from out of state cannot now just seeing this as loophole bring on the equity applicant to be able to facilitate the moving of the business. We are conscious of those continues and keeping these predatory options and possibilities in mind when providing this legislation. Of course, the other piece of this is where are these businesses going to go and the limited portabilities the applicant must get a lease in a space preapproved for cannabis in a green zone. We feel this is a small adjustment that will make significant difference in the lives of Small Businesses in our district. I am happy to answer questions. We also have the department of Public Health here and representative the office of cannabis. I have one question. Have you considered addings that the space that a cannabis dispensary was evicted from or terminated could not just turn right around and open a new dispenses reat higher represent . We wanted to be focused. We think there can be more legislation down the line to address other needs. We wanted to help support businesses and there are businesses this is impacting right now in dire need of a fix to continue operating and providing jobs for employees. Keep it simple. Yes. Any other questions or comments . We will open it up to Public Comment. Any members of th the public to comment . Come on up. Dont be shy. Good evening. I am heidi hanley relief herbal cooperative here in san francisco. I am a native san franciscan, born and raised and involved in cannabis since 2005 so i went through the first round of mcd permitting now recently with the new legislative new Legal Cannabis my second go around with that. Never did i expect to have everything that i worked for be taken away by one person, a landlord. All of my work, pain, struggles, roller coaster rides is this industry just ripped out. Here i am very thankful to the office of Cannabis Department of Public Health, Planning Department to be supportive of me as a Business Owner to hopefully continue as an operator in this industry. Yes, as a result i have become a verified equity applicant. I have always worked. Since Legal Cannabis i have worked with equity applicants. It is a great opportunity for somewhere given an opportunity to be part of this industry. I do see where there is a need to help us, i guess, since i am now equity verified. Most of us dont have the working knowledge. That is a problem. I am happy i have been able to do that in my capacity. I kind of see myself on the other fence and i am hoping that i will get a little support from you guys to continue to be able to work, not only as operator but to help equity applicants like myself try to survive in this business. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. I am ed ward brown. For the last year and a half i worked alongside heidi handling. This dispensaries have to do an equity plan to provide resources to the community. I have worked alongside of her with the community plan. I can say she is one of the best operators in san francisco. She is currently the only equity business that is in business right now. She mentored five equity applicants over the last year. They have resources and a little more understanding of the cannabis industry and that is due to heidi and my work. I urge you to push this toward so heidi can continue to be in san francisco. Again, she has had a long period of going through hoops and jumping through hoops to stay permitted here in san francisco. She didnt speak about her, but her employees are longterm employees here. 60 of them meet the equity requirements and are from san francisco. Being able to pass this would allow those folks to stay in business and stay employed here. With that said, i would like for you guys to really push this forward and to keep her in business. Thank you. Thanks for your comments. Any other members of th the pubc to comment. Seeing none this is closed. This seems narrowly crafted legislation that has a clear benefit in keeping with our mission. I dont see any controversial point. I would move to support. Do we have a second. Second. Roll call vote. roll call . Motion passes 60 with one absent. Thank you very much. Victory. Good luck at the next phase. All right. Next item, please. You need to read it. Item 7. Office of economic and Work Force Development presentation update on Small Business streamlining legislation and administrative reforms, implementation of the mayors Small Business budget investment and other oewd Small Business related programming. Due to the timeline i have a request to continue this to next meeting and so we will continue it to the next meeting. Awesome. We do need to take Public Comment just in case. It is on the agenda. Any members of the public to comment on the continuance . Seeing none Public Comment is closed. Next item please. Item 8 staff presentation commission tablets and software. Discussion and possible action item. So commissioners you have an option. We could hear it tonight or continue it to the next meeting. It is so fast. I am happy to. Go fast. Superfast. In for a penny, in for a pound. This topic in particular has waited a long time. We have a presentation. Where is the presentation . We are calling out to the people behind the curtain. Where is oz . Why is it so cold . They are trying to freeze us out. Are we going to continue this . I have the presentation in your packet. It is a tem8. Commissioners please refer to item 8 in your package for the slides. Thanks for your patients. For years the commission has been asking to go paperless. I have noted a few reasons why this is something we should adopt. We use 720 pieces of paper for a staff meeting materials, which is per year. That is 1. 5 reams of paper. That is 50 per year. In staff time we spend six hours per month dedicated to putting together the binders which equals approximately 3,752 per year. The total cost for putting together those binders each year is 3,802 and change. The majority of the pieces of paper get recycled after every meeting. Very few of you take them home. You have them electronic before the meeting. Eliminating the paper use would support the city zero waste goals. The cost of going paperless. It would require the use of tablets during the meetings a one time cost of approximately 2,000 to 2,000,970 for refurbished tablets. This is what the department of f environment has done refurbished ipads. The software would cost 1,800 annually called director point. I looked at other software this is the most user friendly. You would receive an electronic version of the binder on the tablet. You can access from your laptop or desktop at home it is very easy to use. This is what the department the Sf Department uses as well. Two step authentication. That being said,