affordable housing and followed by the directive to streamline large residential projects, whether affordable or not, diluting the intent of the previous directives. this legislation strengthens and complements other efforts underway to streamline planning approvals for affordable housing and to bring down construction costs. what the legislation does is straightforward and first it directs five city departments planning d.e.i. and the mayor's office of disability to give absolute priority to every housing project that comes for review and approval. it requires to dress nate a point person -- designate a point person, to attract these projects, shepherd them through the process and coordinate with sponsors. and, third it requires that the board receive quarterly updates

on the status of all affordable housing developments in pre-development. this gives us the ability to check the projects and their progress in our own districts. i want to thank the mhocd for their partnership and advice and the work of the staff and planning and the public works and m.o.d. and oewd for their cooperation. and i want to give a special thanks to amy binehart in my office who developed this legislation and took the lead for us. i hope to have your support. thank you so much. >> thank you, supervisor. i appreciate those remarks. any other discussion? all right, colleagues can we take this item, we can without objection. the ordnan passes. madam clerk, next item. >> clerk: to have steven lee to the commission. >> any discussion? coocolleagues can we same this m same house, same call.

without objection it passes. madam clerk, call item 44 and 45. >> clerk: items 44 and 45, are two motions to approve president cohen's reapipement of dennis richards and kathrin moore to the planning commission for four-year terms ending july 1, 2022. >> all right, supervisor kim? >> i just want to thank both commissioner moore and richards for their service on the planning kim and i appreciate they're willing to continue to serve. this is commissioner moore's fourth term which is extraordinary. the planning commission is certainly not just a volunteer commission. it is a ton of work and many hours. and watching many planning commission meetings i just want to extend my appreciation to our two board appointees for all of their work and rigor and also for continuing on and i'm happy to be supporting these two

appointees today. >> thank you. supervisor presidency kin. >> thank you, supervisor cohen and i want to thank you, madam president, for seeing fit to reappoint those two individuals that give voice to those who need to be heard before that important body. thank you. >> absolutely. all right, seeing that there are no further names on the roster, can we take this same house, same call? all right. without objection this passes unanimously. madam clerk, call 46 and 47. >> clerk: 46 and 47 approve two mayoral reappointments of the first is rodney fong and milicent johnson to the planning commission for four-year terms ending june 30, 2022. >> supervisor kim. >> i did not want to leave out any words because i see that commissioner johnson is actually here but i want to thank these two commissioners as well for their service and also miss johnson who has just begun, i

have enjoyed watching you on the planning commission. i'm enjoying -- i am looking forward to continuing to watch you serve. >> thank you, supervisor kim. i too want to join in on those remarks. good to see you commissioner milicent johnson, thank you for your service. anyone else? all right. supervisor ronen. >> thank you, i too want to echo my two colleagues and it's been fun to watch you on the commission, commissioner johnson. >> okay. all right, colleagues, can we take these items, same house, same call? without objection it passes unanimously. thank you. madam clerk. next item. >> clerk: item 48 to appoint apt with the residency requirement to the office of early care and education, citizens' advisory committee and the terms ending may 1, 2020. >> coocolleagues can we take ths

same house, same call? it passes unanimously. next item. >> clerk: item 49 to appoint george ishikata and the requirement waived for the four-year term ending january 31, 2021, and deborah dacamos and matthew brower for the expired portion of a four-year term ending january 31, 2022 to the veterans' affairs commission. >> colleagues can we take this item, same house, same call? all right. without objection, this motion passes unanimously. next item. >> clerk: committee reports. madam president. item 54 through 64, were considered by the budget and finance sub-committee at a regular meeting on thursday, july 26th, 2018, and it was forwarded as committee reports where specified. item 54-59, madam president, are resolutions to approve the

airport concession lease. and with the new title, it retroactively approves amendment number 1 to dot mostic terminal food and beverage program between bay group j.v. and the city to extend the term for five years through december 31, 2020. with no change to the minimum annual guarantee or m.a.g. of approximately $169,000. >> colleagues, any discussions? >> clerk: did you want me to read 54 -- >> yes, please. >> clerk: item 55 retroactively approves the first amendment to the domestic terminal food and beverage program lease between dlau with the extension to january 31, 2020 with no change to the m.a.g. of $146,000. and item 56, recommended as amended with the new title to approve the second amendment to the electronics and technology stores in terminal two and three

between inmotion entertain pent group and the city extending for two years through december 31, 2020, with an option for early termination and a new m.a.g. of approximately $413,000. and item 57 was recommended as amended with a new title to also rest owretroactively to have the for gotham enterprises l.l.c. and the city extending for three years through december 31, 2020, and a new m.a.g. of approximately $152,000. and item 58, was also recommended as amended with a new title that retroactively approves amendment number 2 to the terminal food and beverage program lease between bay area restaurant group joint venture and the city and extending the term by two years through september 30, 2019. and introduces a new m.a.g. of approximately $87,000. pardon me, yes, $87,000. >> all right, thank you. colleagues can we take these

items, and same house, same call? without objection, these resolutions are adopted. madam clerk. next item, please. >> clerk: item 59 is a resolution to retroactively approve amendment number 1 to the domestic terminal food and beverage program whrees between lady luck l.l.c. and the city extending the term through september 30, 2019, with a new m.a.g. of approximately $96,000. i left that one out, madam president. >> okay, i was wondering what had happened. seeing no objection this resolution is adopted. madam clerk. >> clerk: item 60 a resolution to approve the first amendment to lease -- to a lease between bodin properties at 160 jefferson street and the city for two-yea-extension for a tero

june 30, 2065. >> all right, same choice, same call. without objection adopted. next item. >> clerk: item 61, a resolution to authorize the general manager of the san francisco public utilities commission to execute the fifth amendment to an agreement with urs corporation and to increase the lent of the agreement by up to 13 months through june -- july 10, 2020. to increase the agreement and adjusting the estimated cumulative contract amount for a total not to exceed $30.9 million. >> all right, thank you. same house, same call? without objection this resolution is adopted. next item. >> clerk: to declare the intent of the city to reimburse certain expenditures from the indebtedness and to have related documents to the allocation committee to permit the issuance of mortgage revenue bonds in an

amount not to exceed $80 million for 691 china basin street. >> colleagues, same house, same call. without objection. next item. >> clerk: item 63 and 64 are two motions to order submitted to the voters at an election to be held on november 6, 2018, and item 63 was not forwarded to the board of supervisors. and item 64 is the motion to order submitted to the voters at an election to be held on november 6, 2018, and to have the business and tax regulations code to impose a gross receipts tax starting january 1, 2021, on gross receipts from cannibas business activities, but exempting the first $500,000 of gross receipts and exempting retail sales of medicinal cannibas.

>> thank you, madam clerk. i recognize president cohen on this item. >> well, colleagues this is an interesting discussion. i feel like i have been talking about this topic for years. and, again, i just want to say thank you for considering it and the recreational cannibas industry is brand new. it's growing. but we've been dealing with its impacts or in many cases its perceived impacts, for decades. here's a fact -- it's been 20 years since prop 215 permitted medical cannibas in the state of california which gave patients legal access to medicine and pain relief. it's been 20 years since that prop passed. another fact is that it's been

five years since the obama administration issued the cohl memorandum and it deprioritizing the enforcement of cannibas laws. another fact is that it's been almost two years since california passed the legalization of recreational cannibas. but cannibas is still a controlled substance, it's still banned at a federal level. we still have a two-tiered system between those with privilege and access and, frankly, those without. and as of last fall we have 14% of all cannibas retailers in san francisco grossing 63% of revenues. and so the absence much absencg system for cannibas means that the well-funded businessman have a leg up on raising money, access to capital, and on finding a location, a location specifically in the green zone. and also a leg up on getting their permits through what some

people have described as fairly onerous process. and zoning restrictions mean that quite possibly it could mean that we're compounding the issues for equity businesses. despite our efforts to have a process to repair some of the harm done by the war on drugs, our zoning perpetuates that two-tiered system. and as a city we must commit to the equity program and helping upstart businesses, particularly those that are finding themselves -- making their homes in communities of color, and have the same -- making sure they have the same opportunity as those with better networks and better access to capital. and this means that funding for workforce development as we have heard supervisor safai talk about. workforce funding. this means funding for staffing,

for a permit expediter in oewd. and this means ensuring that there's funding to support the legal aspect and the navigation of the regulatory procedures. this includes loans for tenant buildouts to meet zoning requirements. not to mention that we've got a long way to go when it goes into building our compassion program. now compassion programs is something that you may be familiar with or not familiar with. in a nutshell it's a simple -- it's simply -- it subsidieses cannibas as a medicine for low-income and for struggling patients. and, frankly, this compassionate program is at risk under the new regulatory scheme of not surviving. san francisco must be committed to patient access and also it must support a compassion program and, again, this is a compassion program for

low-income patients. now my call to action is very simple. it's time to fund these programs and i think that it's time for us to put our money where our mouth is. and we need revenue to do it. and so what i am proposing is a tax that includes a staggered timeline. i have spoken about it at length in committee and i will take a few minutes to speak briefly on it today. now the staggered timeline allows us to begin to generate revenue in 2019 through the wayfair amendment. you have heard a lot about the wayfair amendment. and i want to recognize supervisor peskin for that -- for that suggestion in this legislation. but what it also does is delay the implementation for the cannibas industry until 2021. and the reason that we're delaying the implementation of this tax is because we've heard from the cannibas industry. people are saying that we need to stabilize, we need to normalize, we need to get our

footing. and i agree. and so in agreement we are allowing or requesting i should say -- requesting that this tax bill go into effect in 2021. many of you are saying why would we put this in 2021 if it's important and important now? let me touch on one point before i get back to answering that question. you see, the wayfair amendment allows us to collect money upfront which allows us to bridge the gap between the immediate need of the industry and the industry's ability to shoulder such attacks. and the delay and implementation i might add was made at the request of the cannibas industry. it gives the industry time to adapt to the oversight for the environment they're currently operating in. having the framework in place and having this tax framework in place allows us -- it gives us

the infrastructure and a reference point as we continue to move forward. now voting for this legislation now with the wayfair amendment in place gives us the seed funding for the programs that are essential for normalization, essential for the educating of the population after decades of misinformation, and it's essential for building and -- building out an access to medicine. the rates that have been introduced are among the fairest and the lowest in the entire state. now that is an argument that the industry is making saying that it's an unfair tax. of course, nobody really wants to be taxed. i understand that. but this is an important measure that must go forward. and when you compare -- when you compare 10% -- the 10% tax rate that is going on in oakland to maybe the 20% in santa barbara. and santa cruz has 7%. and 5% for the entire industry

in berkeley and an outright ban in other counties, this is a fair starting point. what we're proposing and discussing today is absolutely fair. now here's a key point. this tax exempt medical, i want to make sure that i say that very clearly so that people are not mistaken -- tax exemption for medical cannibas. it exempts testing and delivery and it also exempts the first $500,000 in gross receipts. and, most importantly, it has a lower rate for start-up businesses. a lower tax rate. what does that mean? it means that this legislation is in line with the guidelines used by the cannibas task force and reflects several amendments made based on industry feedback. and it is -- this is the infrastructure and the tool to give us the authority to examine the industry and to revise this and we can revise this tax measure by the board if need be. now people are concerned that --

that we don't have enough data to inform us on our decision today and i argue that we actually do have information and data to allow us to move forward. but, more importantly, this legislation is expressly written to address the fluctuations and the desires of this board and future boards. it is this body that has the ability to raise the tax measure, raise the tax rate, or to lower the tax rate by a simple vote of eight people. now i think that it is incredibly fair. quite frankly, it's very forward thinking. allowing us to put infrastructure in place to begin to collect taxes but also it does not hamstring us to a specific tax rate. that we come together as a legislative body to adjust whatever adjustments need to be made that reflects our need in the future. and so i am asking for your

support, colleagues, not only on this tax framework but a commitment for our equity program. a commitment for our compassion program and a commitment to continue the conversation around the cannibas industry both in the states and the local level and for keeping this industry fair and on equal footing. i also want to note on the statewide level this legislation is being passed around as model legislation. so i hope that you will support me and support this notorietitive. i'm happy to answer whatever questions you may have, i'm available. and i want to particularly recognize the team of folks that have helped me to shape and craft this legislation, specifically my legislative aide, she's been remarkable and available to answer anyone's questions. with that, i will be happy to answer questions that colleagues

may have, thank you. >> supervisor mandelman. >> i recognize that i'm coming to this legislation very, very late and it's been before the board for more than a year and i thank president cohen and your staff for the clear and extraordinary efforts that you have made to work with the industry and the affected parties to try to craft legislation that makes sense. and on a personal level i want to thank you and your staff for being willing to meet with me and my staff to get a handle around what this legislation would do. however, after hearing from dozens of my constituents and many cannibas industry leaders, operators and employees, i'm not going to be able to support this tax as written today. the retail cannibas industry is barely six months old and in my view needs more time to stabilize before we as a city should be imposing additional restrictions. i know other localities are

moving forward with taxes that are much higher and in some cases outright bans but i'm not sure that we should look to them for guidance on this. there's a significant unregulated market that remains and it may even be growing. so that's something that we have to be attuned to. cannibas businesses are already facing high taxes at the state level and constantly shifting regulations from the state, including major changes that went into effect earlier this month. so i recognize that this legislation would not take effect until 2021 but i think that it makes sense to have this developed and possibly come forward with a tax at a later point. i am eager to work with president cohen on measures related to equity and compassion, regardless of what happens with this tax. but for me today i'm not going to be able to vote for this. >> supervisor brown. >> well, i too want to thank president cohen and her staff

for working on this and really helping me to get more into the weeds since -- [laughter]. as supervisor mandelman had said, you know, we were dropped in a little bit late on this. so we weren't able to work on it with you and we would have loved to. and i know that it's very difficult, i worked as an aide for medical cannibas with we crafted that legislation and it was intense. i know all of the work that you have put into it. but i vote for this item because i believe that san francisco will ultimately tax and it can be amended as the industry develops between now and 2021. generating more information, more data, for all of us to work with. the tax rate established is lower than most of the other cities with a tax framework in

place and that is appropriate for a city as supportive of cannibas as ours. and i want to emphasize also that key to my support for this item is the wayfair amendment. thank you, supervisor peskin. and the funding that it will generate in the near term which i expect this body and the city will dedicate to supporting our equity and compassion programs. to uplift those who are hit hardest by our failed war on drugs and we need to support these communities in succeeding in this newly regulated sector through additional staffing support for homegrown small businesses, to help them to overcome the permitting and regulatory hurdles. and by reinvesting to support greater health and education outcomes in this community. thank you. >> clerk: supervisor kim, were you about to hit the button? supervisor kim. >> thank you, supervisor safai. i was not sure if i'd speak to

this item but i know that i have let several of my colleagues know since last fall that i was not open on supporting the revenue measure on this new industry. we talk about access on the board and the focus is largely been on geography and whether people can access cannibas, but i actually agree with supervisor peskin that the access issue is the price point. it is not how many there are or which neighborhoods. i think that anyone can access those recreational and the medical cannibas if they would like, given just the current universe of retail and delivery services that we have here in the city. however, there's a concern that if the price of the product goes too high those that are low income will not be able to afford it. i know that this tax does not impact medical marijuana and i do really want to appreciate that, particularly for low-income patients who really depend on cannibas for their health.

and i think that -- i'm not going to cite the numerous cases that support this and there's recently a great article about veterans coming out, asking the federal government to re-think whether it advises their veteran patients on the use of medical cannibas. i think that is certainly important. but as this industry develops, i think that there's a i little bt of time that we should spend in evaluating their gross receipts before we move forward with this. what i would not like to see is that cannibas goes back to the black market. because it becomes so expensive to legally purchase that people start to purchase it outside much our legally provided avenues. so i want to give this industry that time to be able to develop their business and move forward. that being said, i just want to say supervisor cohen did a tremendous job in listening to a lot of different stakeholders. i think that you are putting something forward that has

really taken into account many of the feedback and thoughts that you have heard both in the delay and in the percentages. and i think that we have the time and though i won't be on the board in 2020, i think that is the appropriate year for the board to move forward with a tax on cannibas. i think that for now we're just jumping the gun a little bit early. and because we have talked so much about access, again, we should think about the price point versus geography and making sure that a lot of different consumers are able to access this product. but if over time we discover that this industry is burgeoning in cash, that is an assumption that many of us have made, including myself, that would be the appropriate time with more data to put forward the appropriate percentages for both our retail and manufacturing industries. >> supervisor ronen. >> thank you. i want to also start off by appreciating you supervisor cohen because this is not an

easy community or issue to try to reach consensus on anything moving forward. but i also am not going to be able to support this today. and the main reason that i think that following supervisor kim is i am worried that the 24% tax on the product that the state has placed on cannibas, might be too high and they might have to right size that. i think that at this point adding the local tax on to that and it's especially for one that won't go into effect until 2021 when we'll have the opportunity in an election prior to that to add a local tax on cannibas, and that that might be the more appropriate time. i did hear a report on npr the other day that the revenue that

the state has been taking in from cannibas, the cannibas industry, is much less than they anticipated and i fear that is because the price has become so high that -- that the product is once again going underground and into the black market. mrcgp8p.six6lt1gkdcb2c9,a%pg "ct

mrcgp8p.six6lt1gkdcb2c9,a%pg "ct

. >> these are taxes on people if you consume tobacco, if you

consume cannabis and alcohol for that matter. these are mind altering substances. i believe that they should be taxed and a portion should go into education, so we are educating young people on the the effects of the consumption of these products, particularly the effects on a developing brain and we would need he have knew to do that, and i can't think of a better place to start than those folks that are making a considerable amount of money and projected to continue to make a considerable amount of money and pour back into our local economy. one thing that i do want to highlight again is the environment. the environment statewide, i

want to acknowledge that oakland, again it's revising its tax and they had a taxing structure in place prior to the passage of prop 64 and that was 10% and they have scaled it back to 5%, as has berkeley and so no mo -- santa cruise is at 7%, but it has the ability to revise it's tax rate up to 10%. miran county has ban it out right. when you are looking at business being conducted in the state of california, you still have businesses taxed at a higher tax rate than other counties and still surviving the 24% tax rate so i reject the argument that

businesses are going to crumble and fold under our modest proposal. thank you and i rest. >> there has been a lot of discussion around this about cannabis i wanted to allow supervisor peskin to comment on that. for the course of the record or maybe the controller can say what the estimate is on that. >> i will defer to the controller. >> i can jump in through the chair, the amendment is scheduled to bring in on the high end $12 million, so anywhere between $6 million to $12 million. i know i'm not mistaken. >> that is in addition to the cannabis.

>> yeah. >> we estimate between $7 million and $16 million and that includes the nan cannabis cannabis. our preliminary estimate is in the shorter term the wafer amendment would be worth $2 million to $4 million, but that is probably a conservative side estimate. as the treasure and taxpayers become more familiar it might be additional $100 million in san fran that could be taxed and would generate additional $100 million to give you a sense. >> thank you mr. chair.

>> listening to the conversation, it seems that unanimously we agree that we should be taxing this as a opportunity to create positive impact for the community. another thing that is important for us listening is that this tax won't goat int go into effect for a few years and we will have additional information from the controller in terms of looking at perspective revenue is from the industry, and if we feel that the tax number isn't correct, whether too high or too low we have the ability to amend this. we don't have to go back to voters. we are able to amend this through the legislative process. if we are not on point we have

the ability to work with the industry and experts to work up with the right number. i will say that san franci san san francisco, looking at our tax number, i think president cohen and those that crafted this started out with the right number and we have the ability. i don't think there is a debate that we need to tax this, but it is a matter of when and how much. i feel comfortable supporting that today and working on this in the future. >> thank you very much. it's so funny we are debating this tax issue and i won't be here as chair of the budget to direct where the dollars are, but i do hope that this goes forward and that the voters will see value in supporting this

measure and it will go to them in november. madame clerk, i don't see any other names on the roster. are you ready for a vote? would you like to take the same in call? no? i thought i would ask. [roll call] there are eight ayes and three kno noes. >> thank you very much colleagues this motion is

approved. [gavel] madame clerk. [ applause ] please call the next item. item 65 is ordinance to amend the planning code by abolishing a nine foot legislative setback on 19th avenue betwee. >> i would like to request that we sever item 66 for a role call vote, please. oh, 60. we are on item 65. >> no i just called item 65 and 66 were forwarded from the board to the committee. >> so i will hold my comment until item 66. >> supervisor tang: we have a

product upo sponsor interested in preserving -- one thing in the way is a legislative setback which all are wildly inconsistent, so knowing there will be full-on engagement with the community if there is a project developed or a proposal developed, i just wanted to at least set the stage for allowing the developer to consider using home sf for developing housing on this corner which i think it is very appropriate given it is on a busy corridor. i wanted to set the stage for that. >> madame clerk would you do a role call vote? [roll call]

there are 11 ayes. >> thank you very much with that objection the ordinance has passed the first reading. next item please. >> item 66 is ordinance to amend the planning code to allow payment of in lou feet or adu's street tree requirement and to make the appropriate findings. >> supervisor fewer: requesting that we have a role call vote on this and also i will not be able to support this today. my father-in-law founded friends

of urban forest and married into a family of arborists who strongly believes in the planting of street trees throughout san francisco, and that is why i am requesting a role call vote. thank you. >> supervisor kim: thank you i did want to let colleagues know what while i am a co-sponsor of item 24, i did vote against item 66 at land use committee yesterday and i wanted to distinguish the two ordinances that are before us. i support us working to both streamline and accelerate the process of building accessory dwelling units in our single family homes throughout san francisco and i want to thank supervisor tang for her work holding listening sessions throughout the city and understanding why homeowners were not building adus after we

had allowed many neighborhoods to build these additional units. after these listening sessions, he came to the board with a set of ways that we could streamline the process which she had heard directly from how many owners were impeopled o impeople impeding on this. many have said that adus are one of the most important ways that we can build accessible housing more cheaper and more quickly. housing costs went up to $450,000 a unit and now we are hearing there are units that cost $750,000 just to build. accessory dwelling units on average are set to cost about $250,000 and can be done more quickly and cost-effectively and

double our density through our single family home neighborhood throughout the san francisco bay area. after we legalize the building of new ad uses we were not getting as many as we like. supervisor tang went out to hear what we could do to streamline the process and encourage m more hom homeowners to take advantage of this that was one of them and also was the requirement that you must build a tree. a compromise is requiring homeowners to pay in lieu fee for street trees. i don't support this obstacle who are willing to provide

additional homes to our tenant in this city. since we are not building homes i am not sure why we have this requirement. i will be voting against 66 and i wanted to explain why i am a co-sponsor of item 24 but not supporting this amendment. >> supervisor tang: i just wanted to clarify that this particular amendment actually allows for a project sponsor who wants to create adu to either plant a street fee or pay in lieu fee. you could do either or. my originalal legislation just removed the planting requirement totally as supervisor kim stated that she supported the original version but wanted to share this with folks who really care about

planting tree it is. >> supervisor safai: i believe that the vast majority of where these will be added is in areas of the city, mine, on the west side of town that don't have the same amount of tree canopy that other parts of the city do. i had conversations with the bureau of urban forestry, and i do agree in the past that office was unfunded but we have a tremendous amount of money going into maintaining and preserving existing tree canopy and now we are adding money to add 4,000 new trees citywide, i think it is very easy to add a street tree. for the record, i still believe, supervisor fewer that we are going to get more street trees out of this because it is more expensive to do the in lieu fee

than to plant the tree. the tree is usually under $100 and the in lieu fee gets into a higher amount of money. one of the reasons i duplicated this file. we are going to have a full comfort about adding adus for new construction but also working withsymp peskin's office whom i know is in the process of tasking demolition controls. we also did invite the fire marshal to the land use hearing and i think from talking to the building, planning, and fire

department there are serious impediments to adus in general. for adding additional unit do you have to have two forms of egress, do you have to have sprinklers through the whole building? these are more impediments than asking for a street tree to be planted, so although i would like to see it be required still first that you plant a tree, i am okay with this ultimate compromise because i think in the end even if folks dosym do supervisor fewer, pay the fee, the city will come back and have the money to plant that tree in the same spot. in the end i think we will get street trees out of this which i think is important.

>> thank you. supervisor fewer, you wanted to sever item 66? you want a role call vote? okay, for item 66 let's do a role call vote. [roll call] eight ayes and three noes. >> can we resend the vote. >> motion made by supervisor

norman yee. could you call the role for item 66. is there anything supervisor yee that you want to discuss? >> no. i was in the wrong thing. [roll call] there are 7ayes an and two noes. >> passes on the first reading.

what is the next item. >> new business. >> submit. >> supervisor peskin: i will submit but i was remiss in item number 37 where i neglected to thank and acknowledge the city attorney's office for all of the work they did on something that we ultimately tabled. [laughter] so i want to thank scott riber and the tax department and kern and deputy city attorney jo john. >> given that it was tabled we won't have you rescind the vote and retable all of that. >> today i am introducing several planning code amendments

along mission street. we are promoting small commercial places in new develops and adding a cu requirement for new businesses after a displacement of a legacy business and social service and nonprofit uses on the third floor and above and ensuring a commercial mix by limiting future growth of restaurants and bars. full service restaurants will be vetted through a conditional use process and we are disallowed new type 75 liquor license establishments to expand a brew pub into a full bar. we have included lookbacks at two and five years, so that we can make adjustments if needed to market focus and focus on the

goals. thank you you to the many community leaders who have been participating in map 2020 and a special things to amy bynart. >> supervisor safai. : i have a few things. marie holland was a member of the neighbors in action and she was 95 and passed away last week. she started her life in magnolia mississippi and moved to san francisco. in 1995 she joins the missionary baptist church where she worshiped for 73 years,

literally up until where she most recently passed. she volunteered for the community and worked with her grandson as her primary focus. she volunteered at the va hospital. she comforted the sick and visited laguna hospital. she was the founding member of the oh my neighbors in accessory dwelling. in '95 she was recognized by senator milton marks for seniors in action for the work that she did. in 2003, supervisor sandra value presented her with a certificate of honor, she was known and everyone knew her as someone that greeted with a smile and was constantly present and just a happy force, so if you saw her, you would not have believed she was 95 years old.

she didn't look a day over 70 and carried that happiness with her her whole life. i hope that we can end the meeting in her honor today. i am happy to introduce two ordinances, one of them is surplus medication distribution program. i want to thank janet ril rileley founding member, and my -- essentially this legislation impacts people's lives in a couple different ways. we look for pre screened recycled medication, nonopioid, but medications that would end up in the trash and ultimately into the bay in our waste stream. in this way we can work with the local ba bay area company