i would like to acknowledge the house has changed. madame clerk do we need a role call vote? >> clerk: yes. [roll call] >> supervisor mandelman: i have a question. >. what is the reason to continue it. >> supervisor tang: she doesn't need one. >> supervisor peskin: if i may, matters on the adopt with that committee reference calendar except for motions, resolutions require a unanimous vote. if there is not, it goes to committee, so a continuance is a polite way to then have a vote at the next meeting, but that requires eight votes. aye. [laughter] >> thank you you. [roll call]

there are 10ayes. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. next item please. clerk io time 70. [ reading item 70] >> supervisor peskin: thank you madame president and i want to thank the clerk for preparing the appropriate amendments before everybody and i would like to move them and add one more, which is based on our earlier action today where in the t. n. c. gross receipts tax

wasn't submitted to the ballot and i would like to strike the words online 22 to page 23 at line eight and then adopt the other amendments as presented by the clerk. >> supervisor cohen: i would like to modify the language. it should read cannabis business tax. >> clerk: which page? >> supervisor cohen: i believe it is on page -- it starts on page three madame clerk. i am looking for the exact line. i am looking at the amendments you circulated for us, so amendment e, it just says

initiative ordinance cannabis tax. i have want to change it to cannabis business tax. >> i believe it does in the legislation. >> supervisor cohen: that is right i just wanted to make sure we were consistent. >> supervisor cohen: supervisor peskin made a motion, is there a second. second bysym by supervisor fewer. can we take the amendments without objection? we can take the amendments without exception. the motions are amended. without objection the motion is approved as amended. madame clerk, is there any other business? >> clerk: yes, today's meeting willing adjourn on behalf of the late ms. mercedes rouis, for the

late phillip scott ryan, and for the late mr. gus constantinutus. >> supervisor cohen: thank you very much. i want to bring to your attention by legislative aid britney, today is her last day and she is going on maternity leave, and she and her husband are expecting their first child. she has been a delight to spar with intellectually. we haven't seen eye-to-eye on a few things but for the most part have enjoyed each other and i want to thank her for her thoughtfulness and incredible

ability to give shade. she was the most impeccable dressed woman in my office. if you see her between now and the next five minutes, please thank her. britney, i wanted to say thank you on behalf of the city of san francisco for your time and also for your talent. thank you, ladies and gentlemen, we are adjourned. [gavel] [meeting adjourned]

sustainability mission, even though the bikes are very minimal energy use. it still matters where the energy comes from and also part of the mission in sustainability is how we run everything, run our business. so having the lights come on with clean energy is important to us as well. we heard about cleanpowersf and learned they had commercial rates and signed up for that. it was super easy to sign up. our bookkeeper signed up online, it was like 15 minutes. nothing has changed, except now we have cleaner energy. it's an easy way to align your

environmental proclivities and goals around climate change and it's so easy that it's hard to not want to do it, and it doesn't really add anything to the bill. >> thank you, good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. i want to welcome you to the july 31, 2018, meeting of the san francisco board of supervisors. madam clerk, please call attendance. [roll call taken]

>> madam president, you have a quorum. >> president cohen: please right, put your right hand over your heart and pledge allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. thank you. madam clerk, any communications? >> none to report, madam president. >> president cohen: we are approving minutes from june 26th -- june 26, 2018, for the full board and also the special meeting of the budget and finance committee for june 22nd, and june 27th of 2018. is there a motion to approve those minutes? motion made by supervisor kim, seconded by supervisor peskin,

take it without objection, without objection the meeting minutes will be approved after public comment. madam clerk, please call the consent agenda. >> items 1 through 13 are consent, considered to be routine. if a member objects, an item may be removed and considered separately. >> president cohen: madam clerk. on the question, shall these items be passed, please call the roll. [roll call vote taken]

>> 11 ayes. >> president cohen: regular agenda, to unfinished business. call items 14 through 20. >> 14 through 20 are called together. 14 and 15 comprise the budget and appropriation ordinance appropriated all estimated receipts and expenditures for departments of the city as of june 1, 2018. item 15 is the annual salary ordinance, enumerating in the annual budget and appropriation budget for the fiscal years ending june 2019 and 202. neighborhood beautification and graffiti clean upfund. item 17, ordinance to amend the administrative code to allow the use for the planning code enforcement fund for all planning code enforcement activities. 18, ordinance amending the administrative code to increase

the balance of the district attorney's revolving fund to approximately 2,200. item 19, ordinance to amend the health code, set the patient rates and rates for other services provided by the department of public health, starting july 1, 2018, through june 30, 2020. and to revise certain substance use disorder treatment services and increase patient rates charged for those services retroactive to july 1, 2017. and item 20. ordinance to amend the administrative code to reclassify the mayor's fund for the homeless as category 8 fund, authorize to receive grants, gifts and bequests of money and transfer administration of the navigation partnership fund to the department of homelessness and supportive housing. >> president cohen: thank you very much. supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: madam president, i would like to as i did last week severe the portion of item 14 that relates to the

improvements to washington square, which i believe is at page 230 of the aao, due to the fact that i own real property in 500 feet of that project and i would like to be able to come back and vote on the balance of the budget. >> president cohen: please, thank you. may i have, take a motion to excuse supervisor peskin, made by supervisor safai, seconded by supervisor ronen. thank you. all right. madam clerk, please call the roll on the divided question. >> although you gavelled down, you meant without objection. thank you. and call the roll on the divided portion? >> president cohen: for 14. [roll call vote taken]

there are ten aye. >> president cohen: thank very much. divided question for item 14 is finally passed. mr. peskin, welcome back to the chamber. now call on supervisor sandy fewer. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. i request we divide the question for the san francisco municipal transit agency budget on the rest of the budget for roll call vote, please. >> president cohen: all right. thank you very much. supervisor fewer. madam clerk. please call the roll on the divided question. divided question for m.t.a. budget. [roll call vote taken]

>> ten aye and one no with supervisor fewer in the dissent. >> president cohen: the budget is passed, and call the roll for items 14 and 15. [roll call vote taken brang. [roll call vote taken].

11 ayes. >> president cohen: items 14 and 15 are finally passed as a whole. madam clerk, could you please call the next item. >> and just to be clear, items 14 through 20. >> president cohen: excuse me, 14 through 20, correct. >> item 21, ordinance to approve the third amendment to the contract between the city and the public utilities commission and the department of energy western area power administration for delivery of a low cost power and scheduling coordinator services to treasure island and yerba buena island, extending to december 21, 2024, and maximum amount of the agreement to 28.4 million to suspend certain requirements of the codes upon findings made by the general manager of the p.u.c.

>> president cohen: same this item, same house, same call, passes unanimously. >> item 22, ordinance to deappropriate aapproximately 6.2 million from police department permanent salaries and appropriate the same amount, 6.2 million, to support increases in worker's compensation expenditures for fiscal years 2017-18. >> president cohen: can we take this house, same house, same call. passes unanimously. >> item 23, ordinance to amend the business and tax regulations code to permit validate actions and respect to proposition c and g adopted by the san francisco voters on june 5, 2018. >> same house, same call. without objection, unanimously. >> 24, accessory dwelling units

to authorize expansion in the buildable area, to authorize the waiver or modification of bicycle parking requirements. to exempt from the permit notification and allow conversion of and existing stand alone garage storage structure, other auxiliary structure and expansion of the building envelope, and make the appropriate findings. >> supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: is this the piece of the legislation that pertains only to the trees, this is the overall one, ok. right. ok, so i just wanted to make a motion to duplicate the file and send it back to the land use committee. >> president cohen: all right. >> president cohen: supervisor

safai has made a motion to send it back for duplicated file, without objection, any objection? any discussion? all right. unanimously it will be going back as a duplicated file. thank you. madam clerk. >> clerk: item 24, madam president, item 24, supervisor mandelman. [roll call vote taken]

>> 11 aye. >> president cohen: without objection this ordinance passes unanimously. thank you, madam clerk. next item, please. item 25. >> clerk: item 25, ordinance to amend the planning code to prohibit cannabis retail and medical cannabis dispensaries in the chinatown mixed use districts to affirm the determination and make the appropriate findings. >> president cohen: colleagues, i would like to make a few remarks on item 25 and i will just let you know that to begin my remarks with the quote, it's a bit long, i would like you to please bear with me. this is the beginning of a quote, we will all defer to one another in each other's district overland use matters. and while this generally is true, we have to be very careful when we go down that road because sometimes society is wrong and elected officials have to be brave and stand up to what

is right. proposed same-sex marriage may we some day as it relates to gun control in the united states of america where supervisor farrell said lame politicians either scared of or bought off by the gun industry don't have the wherewithal to stand up, we have to view this in the same -- we have to view this in the context of a changing political landscape whether the reefer madness of the 1930s and the normals of the 1970s and 1980s is a thing of the past. prop 215 has passed, prop 64 overwhelmingly in the sunset, all these things are true. we, i, reluctantly voted for what i said today in committee. i will call, i will -- i still call an interim moratorium in district 11 as it relates to the number of m.c.d.s or should they change over time, r he creational facilities in

district 11. we voted for supervisor cohen's short 45-day time out and then this one is the next 1 down the road and collectively it looks like the san francisco board of supervisors is, looks like some kind of a bumpkin county. so i want to be perfectly clear so far as the words of the legal counsel of the appellant seem to come out the dark ages and come from the reefer madness days of 1930s, this is the last one. it's the last one in that district, and that district and apparently there is nine in my district, who knew. but we got to get this thing right. those are the words of the sponsor for item 25. supervisor peskin, who, during a seven and a half hour meeting on october 3rd regarding a c.u. appeal for the apothecary in sunset said in emphasis, his vote on the evening was the last

time he was voting for district specific carve out to exempt an entire neighborhood from providing access to legal cannabis purchases. so, colleagues, i must say with all honesty and sincerity, i'm appalled to even be sitting here with this piece of legislation before us today. supervisor peskin said this is the last one, which i understood to mean the vote that day was the last time he would support a geographic carveout for dispensary free neighborhood. now, he does not want to take on his fair share of providing legal access to cannabis. and quite frankly, this undermines the city's goal of geographic equity, respectfully to all of you, i find it not only irresponsible but wholly inappropriate that any member of this board would take such an approach to cannabis regulation. we are better than this, we are better than this. if you were recognizing, if you

are recognizing in your legislation that you don't -- you do not yet know what the impact of m.c.d. and recreational cannabis dispensaries will be on real estate prices as you do in section 1b on page two, then why are we making this proposal? why is this proposal before us? if you are recognizing in your legislation that you are not yet satisfied with the "cultural and communal considerations of chinatown immigrant and low income populations," as you do in section 1h on page four, why are you, why are we voting on this today instead of investing in public education in a culturally considerate manner. i see this legislation as premature and a back door attempt to get special treatment. not only does it give special treatment but it sets a precedent and it creates an

entree' into, well, quite frankly, to let every supervisor get an exception in his or her district and i'm nervous about that. i see this as perpetuating a city-wide division on cannabis regulation under the cape of "protecting vulnerable populations." there are vulnerable populations across this city and every neighborhood of every identity, and we are not a city that should be giving special treatment or special deference to any single neighborhood. our role is to be objective, and to have an objective position that are best for our constituents and the entire city, and the entire city as a whole. allowing permit applications in chinatown to go through the planning process just says they do in every other district in san francisco is appropriate. it's fair. a special exemption is not.

if we continue to piecemeal legislation, especially on controversial issues, until certain communities, you know what, you are special, you don't have to feel the same growth and adaptation pangs of everyone else, we are only upholding the social stratifying that plague our city in so many ways. we cannot continue to otherwise cannabis users or retailers of certain neighborhoods. to m i colleague and friend, supervisor peskin, i'll just say that you said it was the last one. when you took a vote on the apothecary appeal. you told us that we shouldn't be carving out parts of the city and in our very own tiny city i might add to give misinformed constituents special treatment because they voiced their opinions loudly. you said to be brave and have the wherewithal to stand up when a society gets, when a society gets it wrong, it's our job to

get it right. so, i'll be following your advice today and voting no on this item. it is in the collective interest of our city that we make policies that benefit everyone. i don't believe that this is a universal benefit. in fact, i think that it will have a negative impact. i think that by limiting commercial retail spaces we will be contributing to the driving, the driving -- driving up the leases of prices for property and i believe that this is not equity, and unfortunately, i'm not going to be able to support it today. i see brown next on the roster. >> as the sponsor, i believe it is my right to speak next. >> president cohen: supervisor brown, would you mind if i let supervisor peskin speak? >> supervisor peskin: first i would like to rise to a point of

procedure which is that it is the tradition of this body that when the president advocates for or against a particular item that he or she step down and have somebody conduct the meeting. i want to put that on the record. i am somewhat taken aback, it is an apples to oranges comparison, but let's start with the concept of geographic equity. i will move on to other concepts of equity that i think are profoundly important in the conversation around access to cannabis. but when it comes to geographic equity, because i happen to represent the densist, most populus part, the same number of people, it also has the second highest number of existing cannabis permits. and it also has 14 pending

permits, all around the edges of chinatown and if you look at the chinatown mixed use districts, together they are approximately 15 blocks. there are pending applications on the other side of broadway and north beach. there are pending applications on the other side of kearny in the downtown. pending applications to the south of bush street. so, geography has been served. there is no question about that. if the conversation around access should really be a conversation around the price point, which is none of this cannabis, whether recreational or medical in nature, is affordable to actually people who want to get it. that's where this conversation should be going. but relative to physical geographical access, i can stand here in good conscience as somebody who has supported and

voted for and made clear that i would come back for the needs and wants of chinatown, which is not only a physical place, which it indeed is, it is also the spiritual, psychological, headquarters of the chinese american community, not only in san francisco, but beyond. this has had chinatown support from the community tenants association, from the chinese chamber of commerce, chinese consolidated association, development center across all walks of life. i want to show that community that this city, that this law making body respects that, not only as a place but as a concept that means so much to so many people. and that is why i brought it, i was very clear in december when we were racing to get this done to comply with prop 64, that i would be back with this. it is very different than the

case of a c.u. appeal wherein appeal after appeal, so the words you quoted did not have to do with a legal zoning change. they had to do with conditional use appeals at that time in that place. i want to thank the members of the land use committee as well as my co-sponsors, supervisors kim, tang, fewer and safai, and i would also like to thank the members of the community who have really stood up, whether it is in the back and for the at 48 hills, where mr. leon, the president of the community tenants association, the largest tenants association in san francisco retorted the words of my former colleague and friend tom around this issue, and there has been a sea change in the policies and politics around cannabis use in the state of california with the passage of prop 64.

the issues that were so near and dear to all of us, particularly in san francisco, in and around the aids crisis, this is not about issues around medical cannabis. this is -- that access is there, that will remain there. this is really about paying some respect to a community that wants it, that deserves it, and with that, i would be happy to hear from my other colleagues and would like to take a vote. >> president cohen: thank you, supervisor peskin. appreciate that. and actually, very thoughtful. thank you very much. supervisor brown. >> supervis >> supervisor brown: thank you, madam president. i have several concerns and questions about the legislation before us today. i want to speak to the city-wide support for 2016, prop 64, and the support in my district, district 5. nearly 75% of san francisco

voters, 80% of district 5 approved prop 64, and the voters in the district i represent approved at a higher rate than any other district. that said, i have questions about what has or hasn't worked in chinatown since prop 64 was passed. and i know supervisor peskin you mentioned about the c.u. process in place, the board worked hard to put in place. has the c.u. process been ineffective? i don't are we changing course now? with this new course change i find myself concerned of the possibilities of a domino effect in other neighborhoods across the city. today we are discussing a ban in chinatown. down the road i'm concerned we will be forced to revisit this issue over and over again, even in my district. what prevents us from -- what prevents that from occurring, and we are creating a situation in which cannabis dispensary are clustered in a few small areas of the city. so, we are talking about, you

know, traffic concerns, all the concerns when you cluster businesses like that that we saw during the m.c.d.s when they first started. and finally, i would also like to know whether a temporary moratorium was considered by the sponsors. could a multi-year moratorium, rather than a ban ensure this issue would be revisited after more time has passed, and we know more about the impacts, positive or negative, of cannabis, retail on the culture and vibrancy of a commercial corridor or neighborhood? would a temporary moratorium create more reason for continued discussion and outreach to the chinese community? i feel we have not given the policies recently enacted by the body time to work and have not explored other options that we would prevent clustering of dispensaries in an only, only a few neighborhoods. and my colleagues, for that reason, i have really concerns with this legislation. thank you.

>> supervisor mandelman: colleagues, i have thought a lot about this vote and it is a difficult one for me. i have a long record of supporting the rights of communities to have a say and the type of developments that happens in their neighborhood, going back to my days as one of board peskin's appointees to the board of appeals, and cannabis carries a complicated history, and the densist san francisco neighborhood fighting to retain its unique character and significant stock of affordable housing. i do think that supervisor peskin is doing his job today. you know, we are district elected supervisors and are supposed to represent the concerns of the neighborhoods that elect us. i am sitting here today keenly

aware that i sit as the sole lgbtq member of this body. the in heritor of decades of activism by queer and cannabis activists working together to rationallize the drug laws and hiv positive supervisor jeff sheehy who spoke about medical cannabis saving his life and the lives of countless others and though his body may have died earlier this year, dennis paron's spirit is strong in my district and must remain true to that legacy. given that, and given my strong belief it is long pastime to bring cannabis out of the shadows and eliminate the stigma attached to its use, and notwithstanding my great respent for chinatown and personal affection for the author of this legislation i cannot support it. with or without this legislation, neighbors will still have the opportunity to oppose proposals for particular

cannabis businesses, and that is as it should be. but i simply cannot vote for a blanket ban on such businesses in any portion of this city even very, very special portion of the city like chinatown. >> president cohen: thank you, supervisor mandelman. supervisor yee. >> supervisor yee: thank you, president breed. >> president cohen: cohen. ok, old habits die hard, it's ok. >> supervisor yee: i deeply apologize, president, president, president cohen. i think i deserve to be demoted and take the last seat down there. so, this particular legislation i've had probably some, lost some sleep over it, because i don't -- i saw merits for either

a support or don't support for this piece of legislation, and i probably was walking in here, and again, there's -- we have heard some arguments already and some of the justifications and yes, part of why i was having some issues is 75% of the people in san francisco voted for, to legalize the marijuana. and we've gone through much discussion on the board in terms of, you know, how do we roll out the program to allow for businesses to start up and we talk about equity and so forth. so, all those things weigh heavily with me, and i probably walk into the chamber favoring not supporting this, although i was still pretty much on the

fence on this, and i think supervisors peskin remarks struck home somewhat, growing up in the same community that he represents, and knowing the dynamics and what has happened over the many, many decades in which, whether it's one thing, one issue or another, one type of business, the tech business, this business or that business. wanting to go in and looking at what's close to our financial district and so forth. always, always fighting the gentrification of that particular community and because they see that even though it's one of the most dense area in terms of population in san francisco in fact, what i see is that if you have a lot of money you can buy those buildings and you can buy those buildings and

make it even more like financial district, and so over the many decades, starting from me in the 60s when i saw that fight, i realized what supervisor peskin is talking about, maybe he didn't mention as much as also the notion of what's going to happen there in terms of gentrification. there are, i believe, and i know so, because i've heard people talk about, they have people that have a lot of money that can go in there and buy things, and just flip everything around and at some point it's just going to, you are going to be wondering, what happened to this, this particular area and why isn't there -- was there -- read history there used to be a chinatown there. so, i'm really mixed and, because we are going to -- if

this passes, is it going to be a threat that other districts might follow suit and say hey, we have our neighborhoods, too. possibly. i could possibly see that i may introduce something, although i don't have 14 pending businesses trying to get their licenses around my neighborhood. so -- i guess what i'm saying, reluctantly support this. >> president cohen: thank you. supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: i wanted to add to the comments, i think they were both thoughtful from all sides. i will say in the context of crafting our overall ordinance that we passed last year, i actually did go to talk to many of the constituents in chinatown and i did talk to the community tenants association, to the merchants, i did speak with community development, chinatown community development corporation. a lot of the leaders in that community and overwhelmingly

people kept resonating with the same theme, which was, and i think we all agree with this, there are many parts of san francisco, i know supervisor ronen and fewer have put forward our cultural districts and that conversation, there are certain parts of the city that add significance and play a special role in our history, and chinatown is one of those places. and when you are talking about a small merchant that's been there for years that's paying a certain price per square foot, versus someone else that can come in and exorbitantly raise the rent, you are no longer able to compete. so, this to me is more decision, less about whether or not you believe in dispersing cannabis across the city in a more balanced manner. it's more about from my perspective, do you believe strongly in preserving a part of san francisco that plays a significant and special role in our history.

also, paying special recognition to many of the things that supervisor mandelman said, that you can look at this from the perspective of access to lifesaving medication that was criminalized and has been criminalized and still cr crimnalized in the united states. but if you do open the floodgates, and many conversations over the course of town as it pertains to the preservation of chinatown, you will see those pressures and will see a massive influx in gentrification and displacement in terms of the businesses, in terms of the people, and so for me, i think that they -- this particular part of our city has enough significance in history and plays a special enough role that it is warranted to have this particular protection, and then you know, adding on to the arguments that were laid out.

i mean, if you look at the pending application, if you look at the dispersement, you cannot argue it's about access, it's just the market for profit and so for me, people that want to access medicinal marijuana or marijuana have plenty of options in that part of town and i think that seals the argument for me. so, i'm happy to be a co-sponsor of this legislation. >> president cohen: supervisor ronen. >> supervisor ronen: thank you. i wanted to just remark about the gentrification pressures that cannabis stores are putting on neighborhoods. i do think that that is a real worry. for me, the fact that there are no applications for cannabis stores in chinatown and the fact that this law is so brand-new, and that we spent so much time arguing over the details and

striking that very, very careful balance, is what's tipping me over the edge to not supporting the legislation today. i will -- i would say, though, given, you know, my passion for cultural districts, the fact that chinatown is a very, very special and precious neighborhood in our city, that i -- i think it's incredibly important for all of us to protect and preserve, but it's a hard vote. but i -- i just don't see an imminent threat right now. it looks like from what i can gather that this legislation will pass. but if for some reason it didn't pass and there are applications in the future, while i do think the c.u. protections we put in place are probably enough to protect chinatown, it's something i would be -- i would be open to in the future, but for me, this law is too new

and -- and i don't see that gentrification threat happening at the moment because there are simply no applications for cannabis stores in chinatown. so that's what's putting me over the edge of voting no today. >> president cohen: thank you. colleagues, any more discussion? all right. i'm going to come down and discuss. all right. i appreciate that. supervisor kim, i'll have to learn how to catch your eye so you don't have to walk so far down this way, to come down and just to discuss some of the policy matters. so, you know, supervisor peskin raised i think an interesting point to his credit, really compelling. i asked him last week, i need

compelling reasons as to why you are doing this, and so he, the argument that began to move me is around the fact that correct me if i'm wrong, nine already m.c.d.s in existence in your district, is that right? >> supervisor peskin: according to my staff, there are, hold on, there are -- i have two numbers, and maybe there's somebody here from planning. i have 12 and i have 16, and i think the difference is that four of them, i believe, are delivery only, i think. so, i need to confirm that with planning. is there somebody here from planning to confirm that? mr. star is here, and i believe i have 14 pending. >> i don't have the numbers in front of me, but you have quite a bit of delivery in your district, at the embarcadero,

one address has a lot of deliveries there. >> mr. star, please identify yourself. >> aaron star from the planning department. >> thank you. >> so, supervisor, if i'm not mistaken, based on another conversation, or what i read in the legislation, we are just talking about a 14-block carveout. >> supervisor peskin: through the president to president cohen, i passed out a map before we continued it. what's called the chinatown mixed use districts, which is some of them are half blocks, and when you add them together, they are about 14 blocks that are bounded to the north by broadway, to the south on bush street, but only along the grant avenue corridor, so kind of half blocks. and then the land going to the east to kearny and then up to

powell, about 14 square blocks. that's adding together half blocks. >> as of right now, you don't have one m.c.d. or dispensary inside that 14-block radius, right? >> supervisor peskin: that's correct. >> president cohen: ok. and to the best of my knowledge, my research shows there are no pending applications either for this block, is that correct? >> supervisor peskin: correct. >> president cohen: discussion around a moratorium, would you be able to entertain a legislation instead of passing legislation today, could we in turn put in place a moratorium, to sunset to allow us to revisit at a later date? >> supervisor peskin: that was suggested by the planning commission there be a sunset date on that. the community that i represent was not open to that.

having said that, legislation is a human creation and can be changed and altered and rescinded in the future if, you know, attitudes and more' change. >> president cohen: that makes sense. i'm going to pivot to mr. star from the planning department. if you could tell us what was the discussion at the planning commission on this particular item, that would be helpful. >> aaron star, planning department, glad i showed up for this. so, it was actually the planning department that recommended that it be a two-year moratorium, the planning commission decided that because the ordinance was so new, and that it had not had time to play out, that they just recommended disapproval. so, there is -- >> president cohen: disapproval. >> disapproval of the ordinance. >> president cohen: what i would like to do, pivot off what supervisor brown said and the

department said, if you are open, supervisor peskin, making a motion for a two-year moratorium on your 14-block window and after two years we can revisit, or if you want a year and a half, 18 months, i'm open to it. >> i would respectfully stand my ground and oppose that amendment. >> president cohen: appreciate that. to the deputy city attorney, would this -- could you talk about the impact on notification if we were to make some changes? >> sure. deputy city attorney. if the board chose to amend in a sunset date with a provision that basically says after that sunset date, the code will revert back to its 2018 version, that would not trigger a referral back to the planning commission, but also not trigger a referral back to another committee meeting so the board could adopt that amendment today

and pass the ordinance on first reading, if you chose. >> president cohen: supervisor peskin, sounds like you could not support a two-year moratorium. what about 18 month? >> supervisor peskin: that would be even shorter in duration. through the chair to president cohen. when the department recommended two years, it was the sentiment of all the aforementioned organizations and leaders that that was not acceptable and as their representative i'm not in position to support that. >> president cohen: all right. appreciate that, thank you very much. colleagues, i actually am going to change my position, and i'm going to support the motion supervisor peskin has put forward and the reason why i'm doing so is that the new information that he shared with me today about the number of applications happening, i'm comfortable it's in 14-block

tight jurisdiction and also i think the argument is sound, the one made about access, and that there is enough access to, for anyone that wants to consume cannabis. so, i just want to let my colleagues know that i will be supporting item 25. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: through the chair to the president, thank you, supervisor cohen. >> additional comment on this item? >> president cohen: to my colleagues, supervisor kim and yee, looking to you guys. all right. keep those eyes roving. madam clerk, seeing there is no other -- seeing there is no other discussion on this item, could we, we call the roll. [roll call vote taken]

>> clerk: eight aye and three no, mandelman, ronen and brown in the dissent. >> president cohen: the ordinance passes. madam clerk, it is after 2:30. could you please call the 2:30 special order. >> at this time, madam president, we will now be subject to a wonderful 2:30 commendation period. >> thank you. all right. colleagues, i am, i have, we have -- we have two special commendations, first i'll be recognizing miss anne cronenberg

for her retirement from the department of emergency management and then we will have supervisor tang who will be honoring pier 39 for proactive work on the "skip the straw" campaign. i'm looking forward to that. but before we go any further, could we please call up police anne cronenberg. ladies and gentlemen, is she here? yes. [cheering] anne, do you hear that resounding applause? >> yes. >> president cohen: i know, it's humbling. please give me a minute to just lavish you with some love. so, colleagues, the reason why i really wanted to recognize miss anne cronenberg, the executive director of the department of emergency management, because it's an important time in her life, this marks the occasion of

her retirement. after 40 years of public service, anne will be retiring from d.e.m. on august 10th. starting in 1997, anne served as department of public health deputy director for public health emergency preparedness, responsible for disaster preparedness and planning for emergency medical services. and after 15 years, with san francisco department of public health, in january of 2011 became the executive director of the department of emergency management. and during her time as the e.d. of, i'm going to step into city jargon, she directed upgrades to the 911 dispatch center and also executed major hiring initiatives to increase the 911 dispatchers. anne has also secured funding for city-wide emergency operation watch center. and this center will enhance san

francisco's ability to gather situational awareness of evolving incidents and address immediate needs of the community. she spearheaded efforts to redefine emergency preparedness education that in 2014, d.e.m. launched s.f.72.org, not only explains how residents can be prepared for any type of emergency, but also promotes a critical component of emergency preparedness and community connection. are you all prepared to live on your own for 72 hours, that's the critical question that we all need to ask ourselves and it's a life or death question. thank you for bringing it to our attention. under anne's guidance, d.e.m. also expanded alert s.f. and this is the city's only emergency text message alert system that now reaches more than 100,000 people. so i encourage anyone not yet registered to alert s.f. to text

your zip code to 888777 to receive these critical alerts. also i want to acknowledge that anne initiated a multi-year project to update san francisco's aging public safety 800 megahertz radio system, so the first responders have reliable radios that communicate both inside and outside of the city. in addition to anne's local achievement, she is a national leader in the field of emergency management and the past six years served on the federal emergency management agency national advisory committee. advisory council, excuse me. also represents san francisco on the big cities emergency managers association board of directors where she is been a powerful mentor and influencer throughout the united states. anne, i want to say thank for your public service. thank you, the city of san francisco has beenre