application is denial would be a year before you could reapply i'm not sure whether that holds for an amendment to a permit so i can found out but not this evening. >> reapply in 6 months. >> that's possible so as far as the intention of this commission or the wish of the commission take a look at and see if you go ahead and do something we find out shouldn't have done this will bring this back to you to make a change it seems like i don't know the answer try something that feels right to you and fought the consequence. >> maybe not a year but at some point in time so we have a motion to deny and second that they other comments?

or the let's take it to a vote >> all right. on the motion to deny the amended request for this permit commissioner frost commissioner lee commissioner joseph commissioner moshoyannis commissioner perez commissioner tan. >> that motion passes which means the it's done. >> the more i think about this is a condition so you have just simply denied the amendment of the condition i don't think the prohibition of the years is really. >> actually - >> in play when we are talking about him coming to you, in fact with a change of condition you said no which is in our right to do that but i don't think he now is barred from coming back to you in summary.

>> he can come back. >> he can reapply and come back whatever. >> i hope he comes back because i'm sure we'll be up there watching and driving by the restaurant more. >> to say to you guys if you're able to reach out to your neighbors and do proactively community outreach show us you can work with folks in advance of those hamburger i tinting intend to get the community feedback and put in the time and energy and effort neighbors to neighborhoods it is going to reflect better. >> it is meaning talking about with what you plan on impacting the neighborhood okay. >> sorry we can't talk anywhere i recommend you work with

officer torres to see how you know kind of work with the police especially around the issues of the - so we are going to move on we don't have any more time to discuss that item 78 a hearing on a rule change all the commissioners received coordinates over e-mail it is fairly mosaic active cleaning up up the language and words that needed to be cleaned up. >> for the purposes of being clear with record there's. >> memorandum on page dated the second of february there is a draft a clean what we're calling a clean draft of the rules and the red line version showing the changes that were requesting that you approve tonight for again, the rolls and

procedures for the rules of entertainment the extended hours and limited live performance permits simply put since 2007 when is the last time those rules were in front of the commission there's been 3 changes to the code sections we work windfall tax police code one 09 that was fairly steven and refined and processes for the permit extensionss another in 2010 to expand the grounds for revocation and lastly in 2011 to create this new thing called the live performance permit the code the police code the sections 1060 and 70 are our

bicycle those rules promulgate more in a specific way how the commission precedes in terms of hearings when someone comes in front of you to you know be suspended or revoked and so those steps you take are outlined in those rules and in 2007 maintains in 2015 they didn't so the clean version in front of you simply makes the changes so they reflect what the sections in the code say and i'm asking kindly that we approve those. >> thanks for putting that out and cleaning up up house. >> so commissioners are are there are clarifying questions it is pretty straightforward any

comments on this. >> comments thanks for the work reading it was kind of i imagine you trying to write it. >> you can they can our st. >> i want to make a motion to approve those changes. >> moved and seconded is there public comment i was sometimes i forget that no public comment public comment is closed. >> let's take a vote. >> commissioner perez commissioner moshoyannis commissioner joseph commissioner lee commissioner frost commissioner tan and the motion passes we're going to move on to item 8 commissioner questions or comments this is a free-for-all commissioner joseph. >> i'd like to take this time to offer a closing this meeting

in memory of eddy bell cookie dough cookie dough was an iconic san francisco person who spends his time not only entertaining people in san francisco but raising money for charity and other causes eddy passed and i away this past thursday in port authority advert they're still raising money at go fund me to cover expenses he died in port authority 51 art they have to bring his body bank serves on march 4 to once again i'd like to adjourn this meeting known to

us as cookie dough. >> thank you commissioners other comments? all right. any public comment on this lovely memorial meeting no our final thing any new business items item 9 agenda for march third or future dates >> commissioner. >> i want to tell you march second at the regency it is the cocktail the show starts at 7:30 and you can begin with a party that is nor the public as well you can buy our ticket at 90 awards.org see you then no agenda items if i have any

let us know any public comment no one that means our meeting is adjourned have a again night >> 7 and a half million renovation is part of the clean and safe neighbor's park fund which was on the ballot four years ago and look at how that public investment has transformed our neighborhood. >> the playground is unique in that it serves a number of age

groups, unlike many of the other properties, it serves small children with the children's play grounds and clubhouses that has basketball courts, it has an outdoor soccer field and so there were a lot of people that came to the table that had their wish list and we did our best to make sure that we kind of divided up spaces and made sure that we kept the old features of the playground but we were able to enhance all of those features. >> the playground and the soccer field and the tennis

fields and it is such a key part of this neighborhood. >> we want kids to be here. we want families to be here and we want people to have athletic opportunities. >> we are given a real responsibility to insure that the public's money is used appropriately and that something really special comes of these projects. we generally have about an opportunity every 50 years to redo these spaces. and it is really really rewarding to see children and families benefit, you know, from the change of culture, at each one of these properties >> and as a result of, what you see behind us, more kids are playing on our soccer fields than ever before. we have more girls playing sports than we have ever had before. [ applause ] fp >> and we are sending a strong message that san francisco families are welcome and we want you to stay.

>> this park is open. ♪

speaker: the meeting will come to order for audit february 26, 2015. i'm supervise yee and to my right is christensen and to my right is supervisor bree. erica major is the clerk. madam clerk, any announcements. speaker: make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices

and copies of any documents apart of the file should be submitted to the clerk. items will appear on the march 5th agenda unless otherwise stated. speaker: madam clerk, please call the first item. ordinance amending the environment code to require any person who produces a drug offered for sale in san francisco to participate in an approved drug stewardship program for the collection and disposal of unwanted drugs from residential sources; to provide for implementation, enforcement, fees, and penalties; and making environmental findings. speaker: thank you. since supervisor bree is the primarily sponsor of this item, i'd like to turn this over to her. for the rest of the item. speaker: thank you, chairman yee. colleagues, before you today is legislation that both -- that addresses both a public safety and

environmental concern. what we do with leftover medication. if you were like me or you may have a drawer or cabinet with a bottle of expired ib pro fin or unused prescription drugs. the problem is most of us don't know what to do with them. flushes meds down the toilet send them to the sewerage plant which means the chemicals pollute the bay. chemicals can leak out of the land field into ground water or get pumped to sewerage plants where again they won't be removed. it can seem easier to just close the medicine cabinet and forget about it which many of us do. unfortunately that approach that can the worst consequences as the drugs are miss appropriated by people struggling with addiction or kids looking

for a high or elderly confusing them with their daily meds. according to the poison control, 90% of poisoning happen in the home. last year san francisco called the poison control, 4,055 times about pharmaceutical exposure. 41% were unintentional -- drug abuse is a major problem among teenagers and adults and in 2010 and 2011, san francisco saw 225 deaths due to prescription drugs. at the national level, the center for disease control reported in 2013, a total of 43900 overdose drugs in the country

-- 51.8% were related to pharmaceutical. the disease control states that 15,000 people die every year from prescription painkiller overdoses, that is more than heroin and cocaine alone. so unwanted and expired medications are not just environmental problems they can be a public safety risk. we may not be able to prevent every accidental poisoning or remove all chemicals from the bay, but we do -- we can do something to help. this legislation will require drug manufacturers with city oversight to fund and operate full collection programs just as they do throughout europe, columbia, brazil and directly to our north and south and canada and mexico. consumers can place their old medications and secure drop off bins in pharmacies or return them by mail all at no cost and without any

increase in drug prices. we aim to have at least five drop off locations in each district in the city. san francisco has actually been operating a small drug, dispose pilot program for about three years now. in that time, our pilot which now includes 12 independent pharmacies and one community center and all ten of our city's police stations has safely collected 23.5 tons of medicine. that's 47,000 pounds of chemicals that will not end up in our bay or in the wrong hands because of this program. clerkly, san francisco will use it if it's free, and convenient. imagine how much more we can collect and properly dispose if we can include more than 13 locations. the ordinance before you today,

colleagues, will provide a safe disposal program. this is not a new or untested idea. it is an out growth of our pilot and it is informed by the similar programs in alameda and king county, washington. today is a combination of years of work and there are a lot of people that i want to thank for bringing this program forward. first and foremost, thank you to debbie ralphale and rodriguez and maggie at the department of environment. your department has championed this effort for years and i'm grateful for all of your work. it has been great to see a department has engaged on a piece of legislation which is a testament both to debbie herself and the importance of this issue. i want to thank all the stakeholder who's have met with us and provided feedback and some criticism over the last few months including the california retailers association, the

chamber of commerce, safe way, target, walgreens and cvs. kaiser, the hospital council and dignity health. bay bio, nova and consumer health care products association, your feedback has made this legislation although i do realize there's still concerns. i'm grateful to alameda nate mildly who pushed the first safe drug ordinance and i want to thank my predecessor and david chiu for carrying the legislation and to erik mar, i also want to thank my legislative aide conner johnson for his hard work on this legislation as well. my office and i have had numerous meetings with stakeholders over the last few months and we have added some important amendments as a result of the conversations. we have further clarified that retailers are

not obligated to participate in collecting -- collection programs though we obviously will encourage them to do so and some seem very interested in participating. we have refined the definition of manufacturers, wholesalers and copackers to make it clear that extended producer responsibility refers to the producer, the party that actually originally created the drug. we expanded the programs availability to non englanderish -- english supporters. so we added a requirement for all city operated pharmacies to par tas -- participate in the take back program. i don't know if i worked an issue with an impressive coalition of supporters that includes the san francisco police department, the department of the environment, the public utilities commission, the department of

public health, recology, the san francisco medical society representing over 1500 physicians and medical students. the san francisco suicide prevention center, alcohol justice, the national coalition against prescription drug abuse, the california retailers association which we just received a letter of support from today. and state wide environmental and senior groups including california produce stewardship council, green city california, clean water action, and the california association of retired americans. and i have a letter of support from all 12 of the independent pharmacies that have been participating in the city's pilot program. in considering this issue, we can either side with environmentalist, police officers, doctors, drug treatment centers, seniors and our own city department or we can side with the drug

companies. i know some will say this ridge legislation won't remove all pharmaceutical from our water and stop addiction. i know that. i agree. i would never argue this legislation is a cure all. but i also don't think we should do nothing just because we can't do everything. would we be better off if the 23 tons of drugs that our pilot program has collected have gone to the land field as well. drug disposal is an important step in protecting our environment, senior, children, pets, and those struggling with addiction. and i know some have asked, why don't we fund this program by adding a fee onto retail drug prices. i will let the department of the environment explain the precedent and rationale and the concept that a company should actually be responsible for the products it creates. all i'm doing -- all i'm going say is this

program will cost in the range of 4 or 500,000 compared to the millions of dollars that the drug companies do in this city every year. i will not raise the price of grandma's pay for her health medication just to save a few pennies for some multi billion dollar company and it's important to point out that as rate payers, we're paying for disposal on our water bill. we have no responsible for the end of life of their products. it's time for them to share in the responsible, san francisco won't back down from protecting our environment or public safety. now is a time for us to pass this law and make it convenient and say for san franciscans to do the right thing with their leftover medication. colleagues, i'm asking you to join me in protecting our environment and our families.

so with that, i want to first, before we make the specific amendments, i'd like to first introduce debbie raphael and gill more rodriguez for a presentation. speaker: good morning, supervisors. thank you, everyone for taking the time with us today on this incredibly important issue. thank you president breed for that phenomenal introduction. it will make my slides go very smoothly because you have introduced many of the concepts that i wish to touch upon. as president breed said, this is an ordinance with a truly unique coalition. a very broad spectrum of individuals who have come here today to express their

support for this ordinance. so you will hear from me and my remarks are going to be mostly setting the context for this. how does this relate to previous actions the board of supervisors have taken, previous statements by our elected body and how is this viewed in the larger context nationally and internationally. then when i'm done gilmore rodriguez will talk about the details of the ordinance and he'll talk about this ordinance has been improved and altered because of that incredible level of input we've gotten from stakeholders. after you hear from the department of the environment, i want you to hear from the other city departments that find this to be a very important ordinance to meet their goals as well. that will be the police department and the department of public health. so you'll hear in the next 30 minutes, the tremendous breath of support for this ordinance and

how this ordinance fits beautifully into the way we in san francisco work to protect our citizen and protect the environment. so san francisco has a wonderful history of being the first. it has a history of taking brave action and a history of taking good care of the people who live here as well as the environment where we find ourselves and this ordinance sits perfectly within that history. in particular, i want to call attention to something that happened in 2003 that really sets the stage for the philosophy behind this ordinance. in 2003, the berd of supervisors and the mayor signed into law chapter 1 of our environment code and chapter 1 is called the precautionary principle. i'm going read the text and i'm going to say what it means. here's what the law intends where threats of serious on are

irr versalable. it should not be a reason for the city to prevent the -- or protect the health of its citizens. what this sentence is saying is that the frame which you as supervisors should judge this ordinance, is number one, is there sufficient evidence of harm? potential harm to the environment or harm to people. secondly, is there a cost defective remedy and third, are we able to do that in the presence tense. do we have the tools we need to take action now? and i think what you will see and i hope by the end of my presentation, you'll see the answer to all three questions is a resounded yes. first, is there evidence of harm? is there evidence of potential ear

reversible harm. when the geological survey -- in thousands of cases they have found nearly in every case, they have found evidence of these chemicals entering the ecosystem with a level of science we understand now with low dose effects, we understand tiny levels of these chemicals do and can have impact on the ecosystem on our fish and natural environment. you heard president breed talk about phenomenal is it a -- the phenomenal statistics when they get into the hands of children, animals or the elderly. is there a mechanism for cost effective disposal. how do we get rid of these safely? san franciscans are well aware of thinking about where things go. we're such a well trained city in terms of looking at the green, the

blue, the black bin. the problem with medicines as president breed said, it's confusing. they actually don't go in any of those places. but in fact, there is a place they can go, and that place is been exemplified by our take back pilot. another context, producer responsibility. this is something president breed alluded to her in her opening remarks. in 2006 and 2010 the board of supervisors expressed explicit support for consumer responsibility. the way i like to think about it, instead of extended producer, it's a shared responsibility. the fact is all of us have a responsibility to make sure that the products we buy don't harm people or the environment. government has been the traditional end point of that responsibility through its laws, its regulations and oversight. in san