regulating, getting fees, actually having somebody in charge of regulating the industry on january 1, seemed like a good idea. but i'm not wedded. there is no deal for me. i mean, i was just hoping to get something set up so we could show that we fulfilled the promise of 64. but, you know, if we continue, will we get there? we have legislation in front of us. it is the land use issues that have stuck, that we've gotten stuck on. so why don't we just work on that today? i sat through, you know, i don't know how many hours of both rules and planning. and the rules piece seems like there are changes, but in general, it's been pretty -- people seem fairly comfortable with it. but we won't be able to get to equity if we don't get through this planning piece.

i agree with supervisor safai, is there some way we can make sure the pipeline is filled with equity participants? i have no -- i think we heard talk the first 30, two years, we only take equity applicants. or three years. i think there is a severe injustice to be addressed. if folks want to continue, i'm not, i'm not wedded to that, but i don't see how we're going to get around these planning issues. and really, we all ought to do it while we're here. in my view. because that's where we're stuck. and i think all of us feel that the strongest equity program should be in there, but the status quo is not going to change.

it's just not. and people are still going to make money, and i understand that there is injustice, that the people are making money, that it's not just. because they're not the people who have been penalized by the war on drugs, but the way to offer that is actually to get something out -- this planning piece out today, so on -- so they can start the process to get places to operate, to get permits. and like i said, we all come from districts and we all have interests and for me personally, i've been 600 feet and you know, if there is a way to work through this today, do we really think we're going to work through this in the next two weeks? we haven't worked through it in the last two weeks. you know, but if people -- i mean, it's fine with me. you know, i'm happy to continue, if that's what folks want to do.

>> president breed: thank you supervisor sheehy. supervisor farrell. >> supervisor farrell: i don't think anyone is coming from a bad place. i completely agree with supervisor sheehies wanting to get something done january 1. i don't think it makes a difference. i'd rather get it right. mine is born out of supervisor ronen alluded to the notion we might punt this for a long, long time, and i don't think that's the right approach either. so it seems like there is some building of consensus here for a two-week continuance. what i would say, though, it's transparent, i will vote on something two weeks from now. we may have to put it hard work over the next few weeks, but so

be it. we owe it to the people of san francisco to get this taken care of. president breed, we have amendments on the floor, i'm going to add one. we amended the file yesterday to include 600-foot radius around the -- from schools and from other mcds, from other cannabis dispensaries. it was -- i'm going to call on the city here, it was incorrectly reflected in the text of what was in front of us. i want to make an amendment to correct and make sure the amendment yesterday was ac -- accurately reflected in here. >> the land use ordinance pending before the board currently includes a provision that no cannabis retail use and no mcd can be located within 600

feet of another without a conditional use authorization. we thought that was the amendment that was made orally on the floor yesterday. that was not supervisor farrell's intent, to supervisor farrell's amendment today would be to change that language on page 10 and page 12 to provide for a 600-foot four bit without a conditional use. this is languages that is in the what we're calling the bulky file. the medicinal cannabis retailer shall not be located 600 foot radius for cannabis retailer or me disis in retailer has been issued. 1 per 600 feet, basically, with

no conditional use exception. >> president breed: just for clarity, this was done in committee, but wasn't corrected in the file, so why is there a need for us to make that amendment today? it should just be corrected in the current file. >> the -- i would say, we weren't clear on the record in committee and because the document we prepared after the committee, this was on the floor oral amendment, the document we prepared coming out of committee is the document that is before you. the board should make the amendment today so that we can reflect that. >> president breed: got it, thank you. supervisor farrell, you done? >> supervisor farrell: yes. >> supervisor safai: i wanted to end on a positive note. sounds like we have consensus to postpone this. if we miss by a couple of days,

the start date, i don't think it's the end of the world. i think what supervisor sheehy and peskin were doing to have a path forward, one step and two step. there is a lot of competing interests in the legislation. there is a lot of cultural sensitivity, but i would say that both the land use committee and the rules committee, collectively, we have be accomplished a lot and although it might feel fractured, i think in the end we're going to come with consensus and end up with a good piece of legislation. what i was trying to say and you said it much more eloquently, i think that one of the ways forward could be that as we move past this initial process for temporary you a dealt use, we -- adult use, we say the people prioritized after that are equity applicants and we make them a priority until we reach a threshold and we build up industry up to right the wrongs

that supervisor cohen and ronen referred to. i think we have the time and ability to get it done. we're almost there, but it has been inordinate amount of work. >> president breed: thank you. supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: just wanted to appreciate the discussion that happened today within chambers. think my comments today are less to my colleagues and more to, i think those outside of the chambers. and you know, first thing i should say, i think there has been a lot of confusion about what the board of supervisors is currently debating here around recreational cannabis for adult use. when i read the articles that have been put out there, people are conflating access to medicinal to recreational adult use. that is not what we're debating. i think the board has been consistent and uniform in

stating that we all believe there are medicinal values and benefit to cannabis, and that we all agree in the legalization for recreational adult use. consistent with perhaps other drugs that are already legal, like tobacco and alcohol. that's not the debate before the board. we're not debating legalization of cannabis. we're not debating the public health benefits of medical marijuana. what we're debating before us today, is a regulatory framework on a new for profit tt industry on the sale of cannabis and this debate is no different than other debates on the limited and valuable land and the 7 by 7, that makes up san francisco. we have similar debates when he debate short-term rentals, chain store controls, when we talk about housing versus job balance. in many way, this is a land use debate and i want to remanufacture size the concerns i have, because -- remanufact --

>> i think it is responsible for the board to have a debate about how much cannabis should be in our city. frankly, we're already the leader. i heard the cries and laments that we're falling behind, we have 46 operators today in san francisco. there is no access issue to cannabis today as supervisor sheehy has stated over and over again. when i look at cities like seattle where legalization has happened, there were two retail dispensaries when legalization occurred. we are far ahead of the curve already without doing anything. but we're having a debate about what makes up a healthy and balanced city. so that includes a discussion of again, things like how much

office, how much pdr, how much hotel, housing in and within that is the balance of retail uses. one of the concerns that i've had within this regulatory debate is retail gentrification. and we know as supervisor cohen has brought up, this is a cash-rich, very profitable industry that we are such to regulate as it goes into adult use. and one of the concerns that i have is that we will start losing more than we already have, mom-and-pop shops, barber shops and services and amenities that all the neighborhoods need. what we're talking about today is the debate of what is a balanced approach to allowing what we all agreed to, which is a legalization of adult use cannabis and the continuation of medicinal marijuana access. and i have frankly been incredibly disappointed by the

debate that we are hearing outside of this, both in communities that i feel like are firing up you know the tensions that may or may not exist in this quote, unquote, tolerant city where we accept everyone. i found it incredibly disappointing, some of the condescending comments, simple minded, the racial overtones made against communities and one another. and frankly have been fired by others out of this room. disappointed to see two members -- former members of the board of supervisors, putting forward their own ordinance, since they no longer serve on the board, if we can't get our act together. happy to move forward. i don't think we're ready yet today. a larger framework, still a lot of points that continue to be debated. but i think there are two things

that this board must accomplish. one is to do with the 46 dispensaries that we currently have operating that provide medical marijuana and how they can convert to adult use and how to balance that with equity. we know that the misguided policy of the criminalization of marijuana, is at a disproportionate impact on black and brown communities. and as we legalize adult use, what we see is that we're not rectifying the wrongs done that those communities. they're not going to benefit from the industry. one of the things i'll say to the industry, which really actually doesn't look very different from the leadership of intact is to work with us to diversify your ownership. whatever equity program this board passes will not be as powerful as what you can do to

bring on equity owners that are women and people of color. nothing this board passes will accomplish as much as what you can do in the private market today. it's been very disappointing as we look at applicants, as i look through the applicants, those currently operating in the pipeline, i see few women, maybe five and i don't know if the applicants means are the owners or the applicant. and very few people of color. in fact, i have yet to meet -- i'm not saying they don't exist -- you i have yet to meet latino or african-american owner in the cannabis industry. i think it is important that we try to get this right. i look forward to hearing what proposals come forward from the board and i think all the members of the board that have been working on the equity program to make sure we ensure diversity in this new industry, but also ensure that the communities that have been hurt by the misguided policies that

we are now correcting benefit from the wealth of that correction. the last thing i'll state, i have been hearing that this board is treating this different. i was not around when 270 tobacco permits were issued in the district that i represent. 260 tobacco permits just in district 6. we are now limiting to 45 per district. and as permits expire or businesses go out of business, they will not be reissued again in the district. this board has acted to regulate a lot of permits.

many of us work a lot, with community leaders in our neighborhood and the bay view and the tenderloin, where we have a plethora of liquor stores, but no grocery stores. thanks to neighborhood leaders, they've been working hard to convert liquor stores into stores that sell produce and fresh food. as well as other needs that our community needs. the comments are general that i'm making today. i look forward to the continued debate on this regulatory framework, but finally, i think it's important that we ask the cannabis industry also to answer our call and to bring in owners into their current existing businesses that meet the equity definition. >> president breed: thank you supervisor kim and thank you to my colleagues for your comments and feedback, your proposed amendments. the fact that those two items which i know have been worked on by the rules and land use

committee extensively came out as committee reports that we just received earlier this afternoon. and not really had a chance to really come through and look at the language sufficiently is an indication that we are not ready today to move this legislation forward. more importantly with the number of proposed amendments that have been suggested here. so, i am definitely going to be supporting the continuance, but more importantly, i appreciate the comments of many of my colleagues about just the dialogue that has been created with members of the public. the negativity, the disrespect of different communities. you know, at the end of the day, we have a responsibility to the city as a whole to pass good policy. and doing so requires a number of different conversations and of course, to listen to community feedback, and watching some of the meetings, i've been really disappointed in what i

believe are very racist comments. we all have our own experiences, our own cultures and that is what san francisco supposedly a tolerant city, our uniqueness, who we are, how we were raised, whether in public housing like me, or large homes, we're all part of the city and we have an opinion and different experience. it doesn't make someone bad or good for their particular experience. and so, i think it's important that we as city leaders set the tone in how we treat each other as we develop this legislation. no one here from my perspective is opposed to equity. we just have differences of opinion as to how we believe we can achieve that particular goal, but we also can't say on the one hand, we want to see equity and then continue to develop a number of caps that exist all over the city which may make it challenging for those equity applicants to even have a location to be in the first place. we have a lot of work to do to

get this right. clearly developing the appropriate equity program. clearly looking at the maps and how each of these caps and the differences of what we all want to see look on a larger map as we layer those things on top of one another to determine exactly where those new opportunities would be. we have a responsibility to look at the bigger picture of the city and how we're going to make this work. and roll out the appropriate programs with an equity program attached to it. that's important. i want to appreciate especially the rules committee for the legislation before us today that has information about the equity program. i think some folks are getting the land use issues confused with what came out of the rules, because there is information in a comprehensive description on equity that is a part of this continuance. so that program was not getting left off the table, but it is a

part of the dialogue, and potentially going through with the regulations that are being suggested. but i also would say that, as i mentioned before, i think it's important that there is no automatic anything. that there is a community process and whatever happens to the people are made aware of what is happening in their neighborhoods. i just wanted to put it out there, voice my concerns. and just appreciate the fact that we have some amazing members of the board of supervisors with a lot of passion, with a lot of different experiences, a lot of community challenges, but ultimately we will get this thing right, we will come together, we will make the best decision for the city and county of san francisco and we would ask the public to be a lot more considerate of your fellow citizens of making the comments, avoid the racist,

disrespectful and negative comments that sadly have dominated the conversation. we have bigger fish to fry. we will get it done. we will get it done together. before i go through the specific amendments and continuance and those sorts of things, supervisor tang is on the roster. >> supervisor tang: i'll be quick. one thing that is not too late to do this, this whole conversation has not gone out to all ott communities. when i was working with on the affordable housing legislation, planning staff and our office, they actually went out to all 11 districts, some more than one to talk about the legislation, people said it was not enough. for the cannabis legislation, i have not seen any community meetings being held on the topic. or one maybe. on these proposals and so, of course, we have to expect the reaction we're getting from the communities. we need do this. it's not to late to have those

conversations. i want to continue to see diversity on the cannabis task force. last i saw it was a lot of people in the industry. i did not see diversity whatsoever on that task force. so i call out to the rules committee. if there is a chance and opportunity to revisit that, i encourage it. community outreach, really important, haven't seen it done, love to see it happen. >> president breed: supervisor tang, thank you for bringing that up, that's one of the things i discussed with the mayor directly a couple of weeks ago in making the request that we do a better job as a city, just to be clear and not to make excuses. we have three legislative aids that work hard for the districts, between 70-80,000 constituents. this is where we rely on the office of cannabis, the mayor's team and others who are going to be involved in implementing the industry to help get the word out, communicate what is going

on and reach out to the communities. i know in supervisor cohen's district, there was a cannabis town hall and i think we need to do a better job as a city in reaching out to communities about this particular industry, what the state law is, what that means, what are the changes and what we in the city are trying to propose to do, rather than just assume everybody understands what is going on. i appreciate your comments. supervisor sheehy? please stand by.

supervisor sheehy is not proposing his two amendments. >> sorry, two by me. victoria wong, deputy city clean. i would like to ask the board for three clean-up amendments.

>> president breed: would you mind if i accept the amendments from the colleagues first? supervisor tang, your amendment is which item? >> supervisor tang: it is to item i believe 40. yes, 40. >> president breed: ok. supervisor tang has made a motion. is there a second to her amendment? seconded by supervisor peskin. colleagues, take that amendment without objection, that amendment passes unanimously. supervisor fewer, your amendment is to which item? >> i believe it is item 38. >> that's correct, madam president. >> no. 38, 40. it's item 40, i'm corrected by supervisor safai. >> president breed: supervisor fewer has made a motion to amend item 40, distributed and

clarified in her earlier remarks. is there a second? seconded by supervisor tang. can we take that amendment without objection, without objection that passes unanimously. and supervisor farrell a motion for item 38, as a matter of clean-up for the proposed barrier that was explained by supervisor -- i mean by mr. givener. colleagues, can we have a second? seconded by supervisor tang. can we take that amendment to number 38 without objection. that amendment passes. so mr. givener, the amendment for item 38 passed, i want to be clear and i will come back to supervisor safai on his particular amendment and we will hear from the city attorney's office on those particular amendments before we address the continuance. >> victoria wong, deputy city

attorney. the three amendments i would like are clean-up amendments. one is on page 10 and 12 of the ordinance and these are references to -- the language here -- the section that says -- section that says cannabis may be consumed or smoked on-site pursuant to authorization as applicable. >> i can't hear what she is saying. thank you. is that better? page 10 and 12 of the ordinance, cannabis may be consumed or smoked on-site pursuit to authorization by the city's office of cannabis as applicable. ordinance out of rules committee designated the department of public health rather than the office of cannabis will be regulating smoking and consumption. >> president breed: which is currently the case as it is, right? >> i believe so, yes.

so -- the amendment would be to add a reference to authorization by the department of public health to conform to the amendments made in the other ordinance. >> president breed: ok. is there a motion to do, move by supervisor peskin, seconded by supervisor cohen, take that without objection? without objection that amendment passes unanimously. >> the second amendment is on page 73 and 74 of the ordinance. the -- controls, this is relating to table, sorry, 803.2, i believe. and this is use is permitted in chinese town mixed use district. cannabis retail uses actually --

oh, i'm sorry, i thought these were stricken. so, i'm going to set that one aside. the third one is an amendment to the planning code section 102, the definition of retail sales and service uses. should be amended to include cannabis retail as a retail sales and service use just as a clerical matter since it's created with a separate definition in section 102 of the planning code. >> president breed: that would not go into effect until after january 1st, correct? >> well, yes, well -- right. when this use becomes available to be approved, you mean? yes. >> president breed: is there a motion? moved by supervisor sheehy, seconded by supervisor tang, can we take that without objection, without objection the amendment passes. is there anything else? >> no, that's all. >> president breed: and sup

supervisor safai, clarification. so, i have an x -->> supervisor safai: that was just drafted, i'm not introducing that, it's something that supervisor cohen and i need to continue to discuss regarding a threshold for equity owners. the second page talks about the local hire, which is 35% for existing operators, 50% for new operators. >> president breed: the only amendment, page three, line 13? >> supervisor safai: correct. >> president breed: ok. >> supervisor safai: and then there's a second, a second amendment on a different page. >> president breed: wanted to make sure -- >> supervisor safai: page three, line 13 to line 16. >> president breed: does everyone have that amendment? ok. so, colleagues, supervisor safai has made a motion. ok. seconded by supervisor yee. >> on page two. i'm wondering what is the

baseline that you are using, this is for -- >> supervisor safai: you and i need to continue to talk about that. just ignore that. >> ok. thank you. >> no, it's 40. just for clarity, item 40. >> supervisor safai: correct in the rules. >> president breed: a motion and second on item number 40, that was entered into the record. colleagues, can we take that without objection? without objection, that amendment passes. so those are all the amendments. >> supervisor safai: one more, now is the second one i gave you on the good neighbor policy and the management and security plan. >> president breed: item number 40? ok. >> supervisor safai: yes. starts at the top, article 33 medical cannabis act, and then it goes all the way down to line 24 and talks about how if and when we decide to allow people that are current operators to transition to adult use, they would have to resubmit their

good neighbor policy and management and security plan to the office of cannabis for their approval and so that is -- that is designed to ensure that getting to your point about public process but also that if there are operators that have not been operating well in terms of their interaction with the community, this is another opportunity to sit down with them and really beef up their management and security plan and good neighbor policies and the thing that i said in rules yesterday was out of the 30, maybe we have 5 or 6 that really need to beef up their, and resubmit these plans, this will give an opportunity to sit down and not allow for an immediate transition, for the ones that have been doing it, they'll be resubmitting and it will be pretty straightforward. >> president breed: and supervisor safai, do we have a copy of the good neighbor policy anywhere? >> supervisor safai: no, this is something that they need to produce themselves. >> president breed: office of cannabis.

>> supervisor safai: the actual operator. done in -- these are things that they are already, local bars have to do the same thing. this is not something that's new to this industry or license. >> president breed: we don't have a standard which we could use as a template to provide? >> supervisor safai: that's another thing discussed yesterday so we have the office of small business, office of cannabis and then there's existing operators. >> president breed: would you mind if we hold off on this particular amendment to the next two weeks? you don't want to? >> supervisor safai: i would like to move forward. we had a lot of discussion about it yesterday and the amendments were done. there was concern that it also might slow things down and we had a lot of conversation about is that, but the consensus was that this is not designed to slow down, this is designed for operators that are doing well to operate and submit this as a way for the district supervisor, the office of cannabis and the police department to weigh in one more time. >> i would like it defined more

so it's clear what it actually means and so that's my only pushback. >> supervisor safai: ok. >> president breed: supervisor fewer. >> supervisor safai: we can ask the director of cannabis, but -- >> supervisor fewer: i believe director of cannabis wanted to speak. >> president breed: thank you. mrs. elliot. >> supervisors, i want to point out that in the regulatory ordinance there is a description of a good neighborhood policy, good neighbor policy a minimum kind of baseline for good neighbor policies and that includes presidential and commercial neighborhoods name, phone number and email address of on-site staff member who may be contacted concerning problems associated with the establish meant and maintain premises and adjacent sidewalk in good conditions and prohibit loitering in and around the premises and post notifications on the premises advising

individuals of the prohibition, baseline good neighbor policy which can be built upon. also security plans in place at many if not all of the medicinal cannabis dispensaries, to ensure we have an inventory of those plans and that we feel that they are adequate for that dispensary prior to them serving the adult use. >> president breed: thank you for the clarity. >> supervisor fewer: some of the concerns, will that slow down the process of people to get adult use, considering the office of cannabis would have to review every one and approve it. and also in the timeline, if we wanted to do it by january 3, 4 or 5, would that hold back the ability for people to go to adult use because they have -- office of cannabis has not completed this complete review?

another aspect i brought up yesterday was that if these cannabis dispensaries need some help to be better operators, that where is the advice or the technic technical assistance the operators can get to have a permit for adult use and i think it's one thing to say that we will did them to have a plan, but since we are embarking on something new, there should be an opportunity for the dispensaries to have some technical assistance to help them get up to the standard that we expect in the city and county of san francisco. those are the two issues i brought up at rule and i am not prepared to vote on this amendment today. i am not sure how this may curtail dispensaries from actually beginning to operate in full force for adult use in the beginning of january, just because of this review process that it must go through.

considering that we are on to a short month in november and also december, this board only meets for two meetings and many people are on holiday break. thank you. >> president breed: supervisor fewer, thank you. supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: i want to be really clear. this is, as we said and into the nitty gritty on this one amendment, this is a very well funded industry. i have a really hard time believing they are going to have a hard time getting the resources to produce this plan. this is really about maybe 4 or 5 operators that are not interacting well with the surrounding businesses, surrounding neighbors, and have not performed well under the current rules. and so at the end of the day, if we ask them to resubmit these plans and beef up this opportunity, there is a big carrot waiting for them and this is the opportunity to do adult use. so, if they are not able to take something that they already have and build upon that, and i've

said in committee yesterday, the two operators in my district that have not been operating well, we have been meeting with them the past few months and giving them a path forward. so, this is a really important tool, i believe, that this body needs to consider. and i feel very strongly about including that in this package today because this will allow for another level of review. i don't see this as a barrier to these businesses opening. i see it as an incentive for them to produce a plan and begin to operate in a manner if they have not been operating under good faith that they'll give them the incentive to do such a thing. that's why i ask this body to consider this amendment today. >> president breed: supervisor fewer. >> supervisor fewer: this is not about two dispensaries. this is about many, many dispensaries that will have to have a plan and i think a plan is a good idea. my only concern is that if the

office of cannabis must approve all these plans before they are able to operate and transition to adult use. we are not speaking just about the two dispensaries in a particular neighborhood. we are talking about all the dispensaries in san francisco. will the office of cannabis have the resources and time to review every single plan before they are permitted for adult use. that is my only concern. so i think that is, and i'm not saying that i am against this, i think a plan is a very good idea, i'm just saying for the purposes of this board and knowing that the discussion that we just had about coming on board for adult use in a timely manner as we have heard from many of my colleagues here, will this hinder us from actually getting it, adult use by january and that is just my main concern. i would just like to clarify that for the record. >> president breed: thank you supervisor fewer. supervisor yee.

>> supervisor yee: i would like some clarification. maybe miss elliot could clarify. for the existing mcds, if -- if they are not behaving well or they are not following the regulations, what, do we have any recourse in terms of disciplining them? >> supervisors, for existing mcds operating on a temporary authorization for adult use, that is the enforcing agency is the article 33 health code enforcing agency and that is the department of public health. not until they have their article 16 permit would the office of cannabis have the ability to do any enforcement of conditions on permits. >> supervisor yee: i was not really asking whether you would be doing enforcement but are you aware of whether the department of public health can actually

nullify the permit? >> department of public health currently right now, if you tell us you have a problem with an mcd, we would go out and speak to them. i have not heard of a complaint to the office but i could check. >> president breed: can you identify yourself. >> from the health department. so, we can do that now and we can currently do that in partnership with the director moving forward. it's a partnership. in 2018. we will continue to support the mcds with the director during this transition. >> supervisor yee: that's helpful. i think my original thought was that this made some sense, this amendment but seems like if we have issues with any of the mcds now, there is already a recourse. so i'm inclined to, after hearing supervisor fewer's argument to not support this.

>> president breed: thank you, supervisor yee and seeing no names on the roster, before i move forward, unfortunately, supervisor cohen had to leave. so, can i entertain a motion to excuse her from the rest of the meeting, moved by supervisor tang, seconded by supervisor kim. colleagues, take that without objection, without objection, supervisor cohen is excused and supervisor safai has made a motion to amend. is there a second on his amendment? moved by seconded farrell on the amendment. madam clerk, please call the roll. >> clerk: on the amendment, madam president? supervisor yee, no. yee no. supervisor breed, breed aye. farrell, aye. fewer, no. kim no, peskin no.

ronen, no. safai, aye. sheehy, aye. tang, aye. there are five aye and five no. >> president breed: the amendment failed. since supervisor cohen had to leave, is there someone who would like to make a motion to continue items 38 and 40, moved by supervisor sheehy, seconded by supervisor ronen. madam clerk, on the continuance to the meeting of november 28, 2017, please call the roll. >> clerk: 38 and 40, yee. aye. supervisor breed, aye. farrell, aye.

peskin, no. ronen, aye. safai, aye. sheehy, aye. tang, aye. there are nine aye and one no, with supervisor peskin in the dissent. >> president breed: items as amended will be continued to november 28, 2017. all right. madam clerk. let's go to our commendations. we have four commendations today, and we will start with supervisor fewer. >> colleagues, today i have -- >> president breed: for those who are here, members of the public, would you please exit

the chamber quietly? we will honor a number of individuals and we want to make sure that we have quiet so that we can hear. thank you. >> supervisor fewer: colleagues, today i would like to adjourn today's meeting along with supervisor peskin and kim in memory of my uncle, herbert patrick li, the first american chinese police officers in san francisco. born on november 19, 1932, at home in san francisco chinatown, to lily and mayli and al li. the only way they knew how, tight quarters and making ends meet. he first caught the singing bug and performed in many stage productions. >> president breed: i'm sorry to interrupt again but it is noisy in the chamber.

we are doing 2:30 commendations. >> just do the commendation first? >> only commendation for sarah bacon. >> i would like to recognize sarah bacon. richmond district resident volunteered countless hours to creating a platform in the form of a blog that has helped facilitate conversation among residents and neighborhood stakeholders around neighborhood news, community issues and local events. richmond district blog started in 2009. since its inception, it has published over 3500 articles and received over 20,000 comments from richmond district readers on average, the blog attracts 20,000 readers per month. not only does the blog create a virtual community, it also organizes events that brings neighbors together to build community. the blog hosts an annual family

friendly 5k race, jog in the fog, raises over $10,000 each year for a neighborhood charity, which has been the richmond district ymca for the last three years. additionally, the blog also co-hosts the annual spooky photo spot with angelina's cafe, free souvenir photos on halloween night offering a delightful snap shoot of spookular memories. also hosted a debate for district one supervisor, over 150 people attended. in addition to running the blog, honestly, i don't know where she finds the time and regardless her name is sarah bacon, she is also the owner of one of the finest plant-based cafes in san francisco, the nourish cafe on 6th avenue which opened in 2015. this small business has become a hub and a community gathering in the inner richmond.

sarah, thank you for being a wonderful small business owner and facilitator for the richmond district blog, covered a breadth and depth of so many issues, and documenting so many of our realtime issues in our neighborhood. thank you so much. [applause] >> thank you, appreciate the recognition and the board of supervisors having me here today. it's an interesting time for local news, i see the blog as a hobby, because i love my neighborhood and i grew up, was born and raised here in the city. so, for everyone who is here, please support your local news outlets and give them the help and the support they need. i love district 1, richmond district, i look forward to reporting more news and history about the district.

thank you, appreciate it. [applause] >> president breed: congratulations, again miss bacon, and thank you for being here today. the next commendation will be given by supervisor norman yee. >> supervisor yee: thank you, president breed. folks, today i am proud to honor

a community leader from the west porto area whom i and my staff have enjoyed working with for over the past few years, tom kanaly. sorry. tom has been the president of the greater westporto neighborhood association for the past three years, and is now going on his fourth year. as a great community partner with my office, he has been leading community fundraising efforts to improve the westporto playground, as part of the friends committee. he also served and my participatory budgeting neighborhood council to improve neighborhood services. for our first west porto outdoor movie night last year, he even recruited his wife, colleen, and

his kids, to volunteer and serve food to his neighbors. additionally, in the community, he has -- he was the past president of st. gabriel church's parish council and served on the planned giving committee for the edgewood center for children and families in san francisco. tom is a graduate of the leadership san francisco, and by profession, is a financial and estate planning advisor, and former practicing attorney. li sue, commissioner for mta, who also served on the board with tom for several years, said that tom is an inspiration to him and all his neighbors who want to better their communities, not only is tom an amazing community leader but also very engaged husband and father of, get this, six

wonderful kids. if you are lucky to have such a strong community partner, and we do, we think every neighborhood in san francisco needs someone like you, tom. so thank you very much. i can't thank you enough for what you do for district 7 and in particular, the greater west porto area. tom kanaly. >> thank you, madam president and supervisors. thank you for this recognition and especially my district 7 supervisor, norman yee, i really do mean it. thank you very much for the recognition. when you thank supervisor yee you are not just thanking norman, but the entire team there providing support to all of us as around the neighborhood and all of you as well. something to say, i really

appreciate receiving this commendation from you. the expression i heard once, amazing what you get done if you don't care who gets credit and i really think your leadership is personified that kind of ideal and we appreciate that very much. and it's a wonderful thing in our community, and nice to be recognized, as all of you know when you are recognized as part of a neighborhood committee, you know, it guapna lets me be president, they suffer me. whether it's putting together a playground, serving the neighborhood association, the merchants, it's the people in the community that make it happen and on their behalf i'll accept the commendation, say thank you, and let you guys get on with your work. thank you very much.

>> president breed: congratulations again, tom, thank you so much for being here today. next up, we have supervisor ronen. >> supervisor ronen: thank you so much. i would like to call to the podium shauna verago. [applause] this past weekend celebrated the 20th anniversary screening of the san francisco transgender film festival. it is my immense pleasure to honor the co-founder and artistic director of the film festival, shauna verago. she is a fierce activist, talented musician and producer which has gifted san francisco with her talents and passion for the past three decades. shauna has been at the forefront of the movement for