at 4130 mission street. per ufcw it's about the jobs and economic development. we're also for human rights and patient rights, but we take jobs and policy and politics very seriously, especially our union member jobs so we definitely do make endorsements, we count votes and we definitely keep report cards. i ask you to not further restrict the permitting process and wait for the planning department to do its study on expanding the green zone. there's consensus on there and there's a big split where i believe most people against this conditional use, less than 500 feet system. i don't think our union shops should be treated any more different than our safeway union shops or our walgreen's

union shops so i am here to support the workers at mission organics and the future workers at lucky dragon. thank you. >> thank you very much. i'm excited there are unionized medical cannabis workers in the district and actually there's a place that could really use union support and that is the manila oriental market street. it's a great place to organize new workers as well. probably about 25 workers there as well and the neighborhood has a great deal of difficulty with this store because there are deliveries that come all hours of the day, all kind of debris in the parking lot and in the corridor and we know if

there was union standards in this place we would have a much better experience in the neighborhood. that'd be a great thing to see your union helping out with workers there and bringing up standards of the neighborhood. >> my name is kevin johnson. i think there should be more expansions on the cannabis clubs opening up in the city. the people talking about the young people hanging out -- well, if you put 'em all in one spot there's certain places that young people can't go to run into other young people. so that's where your problem come in. there's certain areas of the city, some young people on this side of town can't go to this side of town. you got a problem there. also, in 1981 i was rear ended by a streetcar, i had six

operations, they told my i'd never walk again. i've head every pharmaceutical medication known to man but did it help me? no, my liver, high blood pressure, but medical cannabis has helped me get up out this chair. that's what it's done for me. so there's a lot of other things that you guys need to take a look at. you worried about your kids seeing this stuff. well, they gonna see it anyway. you go by medical cannabis clubs, you don't see anyone laying on street. you go by a liquor store? what you got? you got people laying on the street. this is medicine to us, this is not for the money benefit.

this is not for the taxes benefit. it's medicine. that's all it is. thank you. >> thank you. are there any other members of the publy who'd like to comment? and if not, we can close public comment. public comment is now closed and this legislation is before us live. i think supervisor wiener you have a question about some of the language in the ordinance? >> yes. to mr. star, we were just discussing about the notation for mcd's that's c hash tag which, my understanding that means the conditional use if it's within 500 feet of another mcd? >> correct. actually that's probably a typo. it should probably say p hash tag which brings you to the back of that section that says if you're within 500 feet it

requires conditional use. if it's not within 500 feet of another mcd it doesn't require conditional use. >> is that an amendment we should... >> i would recommend making that amendment to clarify. >> right now it says c hash tag, the hash tag brings you to the end of the zoning section and gives you the description if the mcd is within 500 feet of another mcd it requires conditional uses. i would recommend slashing out the c and putting a p. >> how many sections? >> just one section, one little area. >> okay. we can make that. >> so is there a motion to make that amendment? >> so moved. all right, and we'll take that without objection. >> okay. and thank you member of the public for being here and for

expressing yourself on this legislation. i understand how you -- many of you may believe this i'm associating mcd's with negative activity. i'm actually looking at the association comes with the current negative slide that's happening in our district and how many people in our district feel very uncomfortable with an increased number of mcd's that are coming in while we're seeing the corridor deteriorate with store fronts that are actually not providing really good activity, like, store fronts that are providing internet sweepstakes, gambling, and store fronts that are paying cash for gold and things like that. if we have a corridor that was going in the other direction where we saw a great diversity

of businesses coming in where we saw wonderful neighborhood serving businesses like bike shops and bookstores and clothing stores and art shops, we would see no need to move forward and we would see mcd's could actually enhance what's happening on the corridor. that's not what's happening and i think it's important that residents in our neighborhood have a say so on what the corridor looks like. i have petitions here from [inaudible] organizations and one of the mcd's that wants to start up, lucky dragon. and i'm seeing for the first time that people have checked off on here as residents of district 11. in the 14 years i've lived in district 11 i haven't had a single person come to me who said i need access to medical cannabis. i haven't had one person ever do that. i've been

to many other places where people do that, and at the same time, even though i have not had a single person from district 11 come and say that, i have actually been okay with medical cannabis dispensaries coming into the district. now we have three and what's it saying as a district and residents that we want to keep it at three and not have anymore. that is not restricting access to people who live in the neighbor mood who seek medical cannabis. we have three maces where you can get it. what i do see is by only having a certain part of san francisco that has access for medical cannabis, that we actually have very limited access all around and i want to change that and that's been my second item is all about and why i hope that our board of supervisors could vote in the positively on that to direct our planning department to give us some recommendations for future

guidelines and when those come forward i will move them forward. that's my word. >> thank you supervisor avalos and thank you to everyone on both sides that come out to testify today. first of all, despite the controversy around the mcd's, i want to congratulate the neighborhood for establishing an mcd. i think mcd's are incredibly important in terms of helping to have great vibrant neighborhoods. i know in my district we have two long standing mcd's. it's been really helpful, for example, in these neighborhoods where we probably have every other store front be a bank if

we didn't require conditional use for financial services so it is a very useful tool in terms of having neighborhood commercial districts established and being /aeublg to have that basic level of dialogue and community input for various kind of uses and ensuring a diversity of retail and other uses. i think the dispute here really comes from the fact that we have a really distorted way of -- in terms of permitting medical cannabis dispensaries in san francisco. we have a very significant bubble around schools and other institutions with children, which is understandable why the city put that in place, but what's done is certain parts of

the city if you fall outside of that zone where mcd's can go, and other parts of the city where they can't go, and so you end up having concentrations instead of a little bit more dispersion. early they couldn't actually find a place where it would be illegal under zoning and they gave up. we had an mcd that was able to come into the castro and find a space at 14th and market and the castro is -- because of the hiv epidemic -- a neighborhood where a lot of people need access to cannabis. in three years i've never had a single complaint about that establishment. they're very responsible. there are good actors and not so good actors. i think it's always important

to keep in mind that not all mcd's are created equal. there are some mcd's that i think do a fantastic job. this is, as far as i know, and i confirmed this with department of public health before -- i believe would be the first time that a cu was established for mrd's in san francisco. in the past it's been -- has it happened once before? >> i believe west coral requires -- >> okay. you know, i would like to see a better thought out citywide approach to this. i think that would be extremely helpful 'cause right now i think we're going to start seeing patch work. with that said, i am supportive of moving this out of committee. i would like to suggest that normally if we moved it out it would go to next week, the 29th, instead we put it out to

the 5. i am a believer in trying to finds at least some common ground, if that is possible. we did that actually last week with a piece of legislation that i had setting park hours, we put that out for an additional week to allow some additional time. that's my suggestion that we put it out of committee to the full board of supervisors for consideration on the 5th. for item four i'd like -- that to me is not controversial and i have no problem putting that up for next week unless you'd like to keep them together? >> keep them together. >> so november 5? >> just to be clear, the clause for cu for dispensaries, that

provision sunsets with the new regulations that are citywide so that's written this this legislation so there wouldn't be permanent controls, but would be [inaudible]. >> given how things can sometimes move along in this city, i'm not sure when we'll get there. i suspect these will be in place for quite a period of time. >> i think the entire city and i think the impact that are disproportionate on certain districts should be taken into consideration by each of us. >> i agree and that's why i support moving this out of committee to the full board of supervisors. if someone would like to bottle this up to the full board i would like to do that. i was very impressed by the public comment by the neighbors and

neighborhood groups and the opponents of the legislation. there's a lot of passion on both sides. an extra week for a little extra conversation never hurt anyone and so that would be my suggestion. >> okay. so i could live with it going to the one after the board meeting. what i'd like to do before that is, not to -- i want to [inaudible] go three all these things twice. i actually would like to duplicate the [inaudible] for item number three and send that forward as is with a new amendment to -- that little minor we did. submit that forward to the full board and /kaoeup one in committee. the one in committee i would like to actually make some new language around clust ering so that it's consistent with what

i've been saying and what i have told members of my community that we would extend not the cu for new mcd's, not from 500 feet, but to 1000 feet so that would be consistent with what my word has been in terms of making sure we stay with the rate of this part of district 11. that would be my -- my amendment would be on page 10, change /-g from, like, line two, number 500, crossing out to 1000 and i believe -- would there be any other places i need to make, mr. star, an amendment? >> [inaudible]. >> i don't believe so, but i'll defer to the city attorney. >> city attorney, i don't believe so either, buff the committee could just make the

amendment orally without referencing the particular line my office can then go through and ensure that the references to 500 are changed to 1000 throughout. >> okay, that would be my motion that we duplicate the file, move one with the new amended version that is [inaudible] minor change that goes to the full board to -- >> november 5. >> and then we keep one in committee that has a new distance from existing mcd's of 1000 feet. >> okay. so we'll dunely duplicate the file and the first motion is to prove move the previously amended to the full board to be heard on november 5 and take that without objection. then the second motion is to make the amendment that super /sroeuz oup supervisor avalos

described from 500 feet to 1000 feet so we'll take that without objection. would you like to continue -- >> call to chair. >> continue call of the chair without objection. thank you. okay madam clerk, can you please call items five through ten together? >> i teams number five through ten are the ordinances /tpwraoepb building codes by repealing and placing the 2010 codes with provisions with codes and directing the clerk of the board state agencies. >> okay. just wait one second to let the chamber clear. if folks could please take their conversations outside.

if folks would please take their conversations outside, we have further business to conduct. okay. okay, go ahead. >> my name is clerk means, i'm an inspector for the technical services division there and what we have today for you is a reenactment of our building codes based on the new set of codes that california issues every three years. by way of just the rule's short /-r /h*eugsly, san francisco came up with its own building codes around the turn of the century, 1900, late 1800s and that carried on through with new ordinances and earthquakes and fires and things like that that had to be addressed. after

>> for your consideration. planning department makes an environmental review, a cost effectiveness study on energy and green building codes. there's the three hold in land use, ten days for the mayor to sign, 30 days for the effective date and the publish /sher needs to get the code at the end and publish them, come back to staff, staff are trained, there's outreach and all that. become effective january 1 so there's a fairly tight timeline to the beginning of year, no room for anything. we have to really stick to the schedule. at this point i think we have a pretty good set of consensus

documents that i have submitted. the general policy of the department is to carry forward the existing amendment that's been working for us and developed and working for us since 1900 roughly so these are been reviewed many times over and over and modified, tweaked, perfected, but they're what works in san francisco as opposed to what works in general area of california. we delete unnecessary or duplicate amendments and the codes developed in the model documents. they do address some of the things we have previously addressed and so occasionally we are able to delete some things and make our codes simpler. we do strive to make maintain a current standard of safety. there's one last part, that and that's legislation that happens right in the middle of all this.

there's this middle that we give you and then there's legislation that passes and become effective and become put into our code after our submittal that are given you. the submittals that are given you include some that are expected to go through by the end of the year. significant changes in this cycle -- chapter 11b of the building code is our disabled access to commercial buildings and the 2010 ada standards were adopted by the federal and california and that's the new format going forward. san francisco's made no amendments to that chapter. there's a new chapter 34b, mandatory [inaudible] legislation that you're familiar with. that is already passed and in

there. there's an ordinance update for toxic soils and ground water and there's two previous ordinances that were passed last cycle but got overridden in the process of this submittal. and then the ordinance becoming effective and then -- and that process -- the two ordinances, including partner a and then the other one was some access to commission sending packets to the mar mayor's office on disability. we have a green building codes that's kind of followed the history of san francisco where san francisco had a green building code or ordinance before there was a green building code so there there was no code to modify, so we brought it into the building

code as the green building standard portion of the building code, but since california now has a green building code and that's mandatory in california, we're able to amend it just like we are mechanical code, electrical and plumbing code. minor changes -- building code wise -- >> i don't think we need to go through minor changes. >> that's it then if you don't mind. any questions? >> i don't think so. thank you for the presentation. so we will now open up items five through ten to public comment. is there any public comment on these items. seeing none, public comment is closed. and can we forward items five through ten with recommendation? that will be the order. madam clerk can you call item number 11.

>> ordinance california commemorating the location with a plaque. >> okay. this item was amended and continued. it is before us again. we received a presentation at the last hearing and so if there are no comments or questions we'll open this up to public comment. is there any public comment on item 11? seeing none, public comment is closed. and can with forward to full board with positive recommendation? without objection that will be the order. >> madam clerk is there any additional items before the committee? >> that concludes the business. >> we are adjourned, thank you.

>> thank you. we're on item a approval of

board minutes we'll be voting on those for october 8, 2013, any corrections. seeing none. i move adoption of the minutes >> oh, yeah. there are no corrections i previously asked for corrections madam clerk, please call the roll. >> >> on october 8th optional. your microphone. go ahead >> on october 8th only. mr. logan (calling names) thank you and ms. norton >> yes. thank you all right. we'll move on to item b and the superintendents report. >>