stigma. those are my thoughts and concerns that i'm not sure the badge itself would really support anyone from being subjected to human trafficking or not whether if establishment itself has the information on its premises about who are the practitioner there. it seems like that can be cooperated during any effort of the investigation there are there

to no pictures to associate what is the license. i don't know if there is room that maybe in the respect live massage room that there be a text and in lieu of being the person. i don't know if the discrepancy that the person is identifying who the name is who they are. or that they are physically wearing it. just some of the concerns.

>> it's an interesting question you are raising. >> that issue did come up in all of our discussion. to reiterate what cone is subjecting. would it be posted in the premises but in a public setting or in an area of establishment. you just don't want it to be physically on

them. physicallly on the person. that would require further continuation of this item. >> john gibner. the board could make that amendment and pass the item on first read. you can make the amendment and pass it today. >> supervisor yee? good

points. i'm wondering if there is someone in between. in terms of medical people they usually have someone. they usually have a name tag of some sort. it doesn't usually give you the full name. it addresses some of the concerns that avalos is alluding to and whether or not it could be a compromise. >> supervisor breed? >> yes, thank you, i just -- have a problem with them wearing the id. some of the

establishments seem to face. someone who frequents places like massage places and nail places and other places oftentimes sz quite confusing and you don't know necessarily if an actual license belongs to an actual individual. i wanted to make sure that there is a legislation that was meant in terms of may not necessarily be for the can you see mer but if there is a challenge or audit or ever anything done to try and figure out if the establishment is credible then having the actual id on the person and identifying that person with the number with what's meant to be a safe guard. i just wanted to get clarity to make sure by changes and requiring that it be on the

premises i think it required bylaw then how does this policy going to be effective to serve the purpose of stopping those who are abusive in the industry? >> supervisor kim? >> okay. so i'm really glad, i didn't appreciate the coverage we had. i'm just worried about the safety of the massage therapist. i'm particularly sensitive to that because i know what it's like to have all my information out in public and have someone follow you from place to place. that's what i was thinking about. massage therapy locations attract a certain type of clientele even if that business is doing what's right. i want to make sure we are supporting that right kind of

establishment. is there a way that it can be their initials or id numbers with the photo to ensure that it's there. i apologize because obviously we are bringing this up very late in the process. i apologize that we got at the mail so late. i didn't bring it up earlier but now i'm thinking about the public safety issue for the individual women. supervisor? >> i want to thank supervisor tang for the issues and what supervisor avalos said. i'm hoping there is a way to incorporate something that addresses the concern that supervisor avalos raised. i think it's a legitimate concern. obviously we want to

do that what you are trying to accomplish here. i'm hoping we can get to something that makes sense. supervisor tang. single family >> right now the law requires that it be available on the premises but it doesn't require it's posted in a public area. i would be okay with that. >> rather than on the person. >> yes. >> i will take that to be an amendment. any further discussion on that amendment which we understand is not substantive. without that, any further discussion. okay. why don't we take colleagues, can we take this ordinance as

amended and do the same house same call? okay. without objection this ordinance is passed on the first reading as amended. item 21. >> item 21. resolution respond together presiding judge of the soup roar court on the findings and recommendation. >> same house same call. this resolution is adopted. item 22 same house same call. let's call items 23 and 24. >> ordinance amending the planning code to modify when the control is required to

issue various reports, item 24. ordinance amending the administrative code by actioning section to direction planning commission to prepare and submit a resort to the board of supervisors to evaluate the provision of the planning code related to the location of medical cannabis dependence reese. as you know the labor commission allows us to can you -- customize and to establish ways to move forward in certain types of projects and certain types of businesses. this distribution. we have very different

phenomenon that was happening elsewhere in san francisco in the district. more of the backstop and promoting greater elements that we can an add to a positive direction going forward. i see tremendous growth in the next few decades we have single family homes in some places. 2 story homes,

zones, the zoning will be much higher than that. in years to come. we want to make sure that we are keeping a limit on that. and the stores will be there to continue. it would allow any liquor store to maintain the liquor license. that's something that could happen with the safe way store that is actually potentially renovate

to commercial residential development. >> floors to be able to create uses that would establish greater resident housing as well for this legislation. we are with the transit first policy. it would no longer be a requirement. it would be below that level. the park is a

change. in the corridor in the proximity of balboa park. planning staff can, one of the reasons why a lot of people are here, because this legislation is looking at the clustering issue that happens around the medical cannabis industry in san francisco. around the regulation established in san francisco was a thousand foot limit that they have with the situations from existing schools and organizations that sit primarily children. i'm

supportive of access to medical cannabis for patients. last year they were approved in the longest corridor and i did not work to counteract any permitting process for those units for those mcd's because i really believed that we had to be doing our part to access for patients. there is a great deal of heat that came toward me when i actually did not and tried to prevent cd's present we now have great access in

district 11 and i do not believe that it makes sense that when most of i would say 95 percent of my district is not supportive of mcd's coming in that we create more access for patients that don't create in my district. now there is one of the cannabis sites in the mission organics there is a spin off of a person who wants another cannabis industry in the existing or other part of the corridor. i have been working on this legislation since last january and it wasn't until last month that

the medical cannabis dispensary said they don't want to have it here. now they have been telling mers -- members of this body that they she be able to green light it. i don't think it makes very good sense and they have been moving forward on this cannabis dispensary. it involves a conditional use for any mcd that would like to be in close proximity. i have a city land use commission that would extend that proximity. that could comb forward at a later time. for me i need to be standing up with my district for people who have been very

vocal for about 2 years to how many cannabis dispensary in my neighborhood. i hope that you can support this distribution i think the green zones can -- create a harmful voen and other parts of san francisco are saying that it's okay in these neighborhoods but not in our neighborhoods. we need to have a plan that works citywide to make sure that people all over

the city can have access that is not impacting neighborhoods.

i think there needs to be more awareness of how medical cannibalis is used and the neighborhoods. it's really limited. but my hope is that the committee could have time to look at this carefully, with stake hold groups raising awareness and raising awareness

of medical cannibalis, and not just the health qualities of medical cannibalis. that's my concern. and it's important to give our planning department and commission enough time. i hope that the medical cannibalis task force is involved in this as well. i think there is lumping of medical marijuana with liquors and gambling as well. and it could lead to less understanding than more, i hope that you consider this as it moves forward. >> supervisor campos. >> thank you, i want to thank the supervisor and his staff and all the work in this item. and i know that all the members of the community, not just from this district, but other parts of the city. from within the cannibalis community that have opined this.

i will be supporting item 23, and item 24. i do want to note that, i think there are differences between these two items. and as important as i know item 23 is for district 11. it is item 24 that to me as a resident of a different district has the larger city-wide impact. and i want to thank supervisor avalos for his openness to discuss the more specific concern i had, along the lines of what supervisor mar indicated. that item 24 allows a platform of how we deal with medical cannibalis. i want to be sure that we do it

right. that we have as inclusive a process as we can. and i understand that supervisor avalos recognizes that and committed to making sure that happens. and that means making sure that everyone that has an opinion on this has an opportunity to weigh in. as the author of the legislation that created the task force. i can tell you that nothing is simple when it comes to the medical cannibalis community. and the most simple and basic thing has complexities behind it. and it's in light of that complexity i would like to make an amendment. and make a motion to amend item 24. by amending on page 2, line 11 of the ordinance to change the

date from january 1 to may 1, 2014. with the understanding that it's possible that the work can be completed before may 1. this is simply you know the deadline, if you will, for some reason the work is completed prior then you know that's perfectly acceptable. but this is simply to make sure that we take the time to do it right. and if it takes a little bit longer, then that's allowed. so i make that motion. >> supervisor campos has made the motion as he described, is there a second? >> if i have a discussion to the motion. >> is there a second to the motion? seconded by supervisor. >> supervisor campos, what is the significance of the change, could you repeat that? >> yes, item 24 is asking the planning commission to conduct a

review of the location of the medical cannibalis dispensaries. and the deadline is january 1, 2014, i am increasing that to may 1, 2014. so there is ample opportunity to make as much input from t various stakeholders as possible. i think we are dealing with a very diverse community that impacted not only the individual 11 districts that potentially these will be located: but we have a number of other stakeholders in a very diverse cannibalis community. and there may be other communities that have a say on this. i want to be sure that we are not limiting the amount of community input that could be

needed. and so it may be that we don't need as long as may 1. >> it's conceivable that we could get it done in march. >> it's conceivable. >> supervisor avalos, i would like to explore this and be a co-sponsor on this. i have two cca's that is submitted in planning on leland street, i am curious to see what this commission will find. thank you. >> supervisor campos has proposed an amendment and take that without objection. that's the case, and now on the underlying ordinances as amended. any other further discussion? colleagues, supervisor avalos. >> i want to clarify that the legislation before us today is item 23, the neighborhood

commercial district did not have amendments before it, it's going through as it is today. for those watching, there is a number of people in the district that have raised this as a major concern. i want to thank you them for their patience and advocacy. and for their work in the neighborhood. people have been working very, very hard to improve our commercial corridor. and it seems like at times we are going backwards with empty store fronts. and i don't equate mcd's as causing great harm. but there is a perception that people have. if we have an equation that is all store fronts and businesses on the corridor are doing well. i could see mcd's fitting in okay. but that's not the case, we are going backwards and have a huge problem of sweep stakes gaming,

and people are preyed on businesses that take gambling money, on the premises. and you add mcd's to the mix and it doesn't create an inviting community for many people and i think we have to hear the community on that and why i brought forward this legislation. >> supervisor. >> i want to thank supervisor avalos for making that clarification. the amendment i made is not related to first ordinance, 23. but with respect to item 24, with respect to this study. and of course underlying the amendment is the hope and spirit of the author. and the department to make sure that we have as robust an outreach process as possible. >> just to make this clear, let me make two motions regarding item 23. colleagues there have been no

amendments made to item 23, can we take this item 23 same house, same call. without objection, ordinance is passed on the first reading. and item 24, could we take it same house, same call that the ordinance is taken as brought forward. and that is taken on first reading as amended. with that let's go to the special order, and for those waiting, thank you for your patience and we had a lot of items. appreciate your patience, and i hope that we can move through this expeditiously, i may force the recusal of supervisor tang, and we have the appeal of the conditional use project and at

this hearing the special use operation to install a wireless special facility including nine screened and paneled antennas located on a roof top of an existing building at 725 terradel. we have up to 10 minutes for present for planning and 10 minutes for project sponsor and two minutes for the speaker opposing the appeal. and three minute rebuttal. and to all parties you can use an all of that time or portion of that time. supervisor lee. >> i am looking forward to