if dogs are digging and chasing which our natural instinct for them. i'm not opposed to dogs in the gg nra butmany ways.impact the scintillators. i'm an animal lover and a dog sitter but these are not urban dog parks. they're part of a national park system. a species that live here have little other habitat left. they deserve our protection. thank you. >> thank you. next he could. >>i'm a longtime symphysis go resin. i have a dog. i was born here. i think the most important thing for the supervisors to consider is that were not in a void here. the more we restrict the gg nra the more it's going to affect the dog parks here in san francisco. so already lots of dog walkers are just populating

mclaren park, but more than that though to fort concent right now. as you restrict more that area at fort constant good i live near mclaren park right now i live in [inaudible] now. it's going to impact how many dogs you have in mclaren park and the other parts of the city. i really want the supervisors to think about working out something with the gg nra about that. because somebody has to give. they're either has to be more dog parks in the city parks were more in the gg nra. they're tipping the balance by what they're doing. so i support supervisor wieners resolution. >> thank you very much. is there any additional public comment on items one and or 2? relating to the gg nra dog policy? seen on, public comment as close. i want to thank all numbers of the public

for coming out today. as a great turnout and we really appreciate the feedback. supervisor agree through staff would like to make a comment on items 1 and 2 and supervisor is a cosponsor of resolution. >> thank you supervisor went. legislative aide to supervisor lenin bree. from justify. i'll be very brief because i think the members of the public actually articulated the case very well today. supervisor breed as you mentioned is a cosponsor of the [inaudible] which would've loved to been here unfortunate she's just returning from travel overseas. briefly, she shares a lot of the same concerns but the gg nra's plan. particulate the impact it could have a dog owners who like you to use gg and raise for recreation and also for spawning impact of restricting those areas would have on our part. district 5

includes a large portion of golden gate park and the panhandle and alamo square and we don't want to see them suffer in a undue burden from dogs were not restricted from all the other great areas in the city. so she supports the efforts taken again she wishes she'd be here and thank you again supervisor winner was a cane and supervisor apples for meeting on this important issue. >> thank you very much. at this point the items are back in the hands of the committee. so, again i want to thank everyone for coming out today. i think what's clear, just not just from today, but i think anyone who's been spends any amount of time in the community in san francisco, this is a city where there are so many people and families with dogs. it is, dogs are absolutely significant and important part of the san francisco community, and it's important that we support our

residents who have dogs and we need a place to walk them. but this resolution, and the opposition to the gg nra proposal, isn't just about accommodating people with dogs. it's also about making sure that we as a city are taking care of our own parks. and that we are looking out for the entire city. the fact is that whether one loves dogs or doesn't love dogs, and there is a diversity of views in the city, even if someone isn't particularly enamored of dogs, it's still important for our city park not to be overcrowded. we have many great parks in our city. we have many federal parts that are recreation areas. as part of the gg nra. it's important that the people with dogs or without dogs have full access to all of those parts. the gg nra proposal

is so restrictive in terms of dog access and work on push such a significant reduction of dog access on these federal properties that will create an imbalance. it will move many dogs into our city parks. we will see urban crowding. we will see more wear and tear. we will see more tension among dog owners. as you have overcrowding of dogs and between dog owners and non-dog owners. this plan is not adequately take into account the needs of san francisco residents and the needs of our park system. i respectfully request that we put this resolution, opposing the plan out of committee with positive recommendations. supervisor avalos >> thank you supervisor winner and i'm now cosponsor of this resolution. i had cosponsored the resolution 2 years ago as well. i spoke at fort mason a couple years ago and remember

the crowd yelling take it back, take it back. we talked about when we can actually take back the golden gate recreation area lands from the gg nra compared him not sure if we could actually do that financially, but i think the message that people are dissatisfied with the plan comes in loud and clear. i would also put myself as an environmentalist. someone who has worked hard to support the urban and natural environments. the natural environment that is in the urban environment, and i think there's a way to balance our needs around the environment with dogs. especially knowing that if we were to shut out parts of golden gate national recreation area that would have a major impact on our parks here in san francisco. i would affect everyone who wants to use them. i think having the most use of the public then

have access to for dogs ever dogs to be off leash is something that san franciscans have been accustomed to that doesn't make a lot of sense to change that right away. this is a symbolic resolution. it's taken a policy. it doesn't bind the gg nra to do anything. but i'm actually very comfortable with making statements, especially when they're backed by hearings that we have here at the board of supervisors, hearings that last a couple hours at least. so thank you all for coming here. thank you for making san francisco a home . i'm very concerned about how san francisco is becoming more and more difficult for everyday people to live in. i think having access to parks of the city with dogs is an important way we can make this place a little livable city and i support this resolution for that and many other reasons. thank you. >> think. supervisor avalos at then have a motion to for the resolution, item number 2, to the board with positive recommendation and to file the

hearing item number 1? should have okay. motion to file the hearing and motion to move the resolution forward with positive recognition >> okay. we'll take that without objection. thank you. >> [applause] >> because now there are 2 of us here. if one of us leaves the room we lose a quorum so were going to take a

>> -- say we're going to be building wonderful, affordable housing and neighborhood serving housing with fixed use lots /tp-f businesses on the ground floor, we have a portion of that this legislation does that who have to make sure we're building a corridor that's not going to have a lot of negative influences that have come with check cashing places and liquor stores as well. folks who are here and there will be many of them who represent the interests of who need access to medical cannabis

who will say you can link medical cannabis to all these other impacts, and i would tend to agree with you on that. we can't seem to get them off the corridor or off places where their smoke is not going to get into the youth centers there and the other stores there, we know that's the mix at times medical marijuana or marijuana smuggling comes in and it creates this real sense of unease in the neighborhood and so i've actually dealt with politics on this in a real strong way the last cupping years. last year and over this past

year three medical cannabis dispensaries are come into the neighborhood. i did not take a strong position against them. i actually said there should be access to medical cannabis in my district. i didn't think we should have three all approved at once or two in one block, but i thought that we need to explore ways to have access all over san francisco and i believe there should be access all over san francisco, i was not going to say there shouldn't be access at all in district 11. i accept it. now there are -- one mcd that's there wants to spin off and have an mcd across from an existing mcd and another mcd wants to be on the same block where the other two are. i don't think many makes a lot of sense. i don't think it's reasonable to expect while access is limited in many parts of san francisco, that we create more

places for mcd's to come in a particular may neighborhood where there's already numerous mcd's. i am interested in increasing access and that's why i have my /s*epbt piece of ledge /shraeubgs moving forward so we can have that before us and direct the planning department to go guard with an actual study of how mcd's can be cited in the future. with those recommendations i'll be coming forward to the full board and this committee again with legislation that will have a broader set of regulations so we wouldn't see certain neighborhoods be the ones that are going to be receiving mcd's in the future. that to me is about increasing access and what i want to be able to do moving forward. but it'll take cooperation with my colleagues and i need to make sure my colleagues are making sure they're keeping all

mcd's in their neighborhoods and being satisfied with their neighborhoods like parts of south of and i want to actually live up to that by something that would be useful for all of san francisco. i know there's some controversy about these mesh asures, i don't think there should be, but i understand people's concern about touching the third rail of medical cannabis. i'm willing to hear everyone out and i'd like to see at the end moving forward how we can make some improvements to my commercial corridor in district 11 so i do not have anyone presenting necessarily from the planning department.

someone from the planning department, please identify yourself and come forward. >> [inaudible]. >> thank you supervisor avalos. i'm with the plumbing department. as touched on the proposed along mission /straoetd from alemany boulevard down to the county line. the planning commission heard this item on april 13, 2013 and voted for approval. i understand all of them have been integrated into it. in addition to the cu for mcd's within a certain location of other mcd's. we have also started to do research on the report you requested. i've spoken to some neighborhoods groups as well as mcd operators and advocates, department of public health and police department so we're moving along on that hopefully we'll have a robust report on

you for that. that sums up my comments and i'm here for questions if you have some. >> if you could sum prize provisions on how this legislation works what we have for fringe financial services. >> so fringe financial services would be prohibited here within a quarter mile. i believe it already exists in the district, but this integrates this into the commercial district. mode cal cannabis dispensaries require provides a 5 foot height bonus for buildings with larger ground floor. i believe it also increases the density allowed in some of them. it was -- certain areas were zoned mc two and now they're be being bumped to mc 3. >> and alcohol issues. >> the parking is no locker required as well.

these are all great planning policies we're looking to implementing. >> thank you very much. i have a number of cards here for public comment and if you can actually come forward as your name is called and you can line up along the wall by the tv set and we'll follow the pattern established earlier in this land use committee meeting. two minutes, you'll hear two bells, one is softer, which means you have about 30 seconds and the latter will be your time is up. mr. hernandez, i have axis of love, james ward, denice [inaudible], hector torres, steven crane, and looks like penny graham.

please come forward as your name is called. >> my name's james ward, i'm a veteran, i've been a citizen of this city for about seven years now. i want to make sure nothing happens to -- remove our safe access from having a cannabis club where it should not be. how many walgreen's do we have abused than marijuana ever has been. that might be a problem now in this city is the abuse of the drugs that are legal, the ones that are prescribed. well, medical marijuana is a prescription too and i don't want to see any access removed for anybody. one of the many things i want to see is that we don't /hruplen it in with the gambling and massage parlors and all the other stuff it's going on. it's nothing to do with that. it's a medical issue and that's where it should be left is a

medical issue and that's all i have to say. thank you. >> >> good afternoon, my name is shawna. i have a concern about fairness of process. i know there's a few dispensaries that have applied in the pine line and i'd like to see everybody get fair rules, the same rules as everyone else and i think this is a little premature. i think we need to look at what comes back from the planning department and how the planning department works with parent advocates on their concerns about access. i would ask that we could really reconsider item number three until we get the feedback and input from the planning and our community members so that we can make a good map. i appreciate that you are

looking towards opening up zones that haven't been opened up and that is a problem, but we can address that problem by having an unfair process and i told the same comments as mr. ward before me that our community should not be lumped in with dangerous things like alcohol and gambling and i don't think the use of medical marijuana will create any type of adverse neighborhood impact. in fact, we are partners with the city on public safety and it's been proven that we increase public safety around every dispensary and our task force also unanimously voted in support of compassion recare and having the city work with us on programs like healthy san francisco and being inclusive of our patients that are denied

access because of affordability. these are discussions i'd like to see the city further and i'd like us to hold on with item number three until we're able to meet on item number four. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker please. >> good evening supervisors, my name is kenneth, thank you for being here today. i'm here in support of cannabis use and for recreational and medical use. we need to work on making a green zone bigger and any dispensary shut down for any reason is unfair and i'm hoping everyone can work together so we can have dispensaries where we need them. >> thank you, next speaker.

adolph picket, amy ladderman, sarah shrader, zach risener. >> good evening. i want to say yes on the four paws everyone. i just think this -- you know, i've seen the federal government shutting our dispensaries down in the city so i have a phobia there. the ones that are open, i feel that three on one block is actually safer for our community. i think that keeps it come fined so it's not in the areas you're talking about, like, in front of a senior center it most people are pretty

conscience even rules and an even playing field. if there's two more dispensaries, you have three now, you have a pretty good fight to stop the other two than to cancel somebody who has put out their well being to have a dispensary in the first place. i think the person who has that dispensary would be awfully mad if they had to cancel their project and invested their entire life being into this industry and their thought of well being. i think that we should really think about before we cancel somebody's permit unless they're a very bad actor, i think we should have sanctuary city. thank you. >> hello supervisor avalos. i'm penny graham. i'll keep it short and sweet. i think ever since the medical

task force was disbanded we've been getting run over. we just need a process. there's a lot of proposals being made but you're not going to the community where it's greatly affected so please, we need to abide by the process. thank you. >> good afternoon supervisors, my name is greg ledbetter. i am former member of the medical marijuana oversight offense committee put together by supervisor [inaudible]. first of all, we are talking about safe access of medication to parents. i understand mr. supervisor avalos you may not

understand having three dispensaries back to back, but there are different reasons for that being some may be just the accessibility, some may just be the climate of the dispensary that particular person wants to go to. the is not -- is important as the idea of having the option of safe access and being that san francisco is supposed to be a pioneer in the medical cannabis community, in so far as, allowing folks to turn around and be unhindered with getting their medicine. i think you should take a look at first broadening the degree zone as well as taking time to way wait to the planning commission is finished with their assessment