and so we will walk through that in a future meeting but we are in good position here. but we want increased visibility for the board to see the dollar amount of our unfunded commitments. if we turn to also -- also to the graph, i'm not sure that i see a page on it but commissioner driscoll, you asked for the liabilities on the spurs monthly net assets that is included. and i do have a couple obligations i need to walk through in the c.i.o. report. you know, first of all in terms of economic conditions, everything is still quite solid. and earnings growth has been really, really good and it's north of 20% for the last couple quarters. and as long as earnings growth is going to be good, the markets, that should put a line on anything that happens in

terms of valuations and those kinds of things. the markets don't do well when earnings decline. and the -- i did want to point out on page 3 just the status of our implementation of the strategic asset allocation and you can see that we have come quite a long ways. you will see our rate in june of 2014, both our policy and our actual. the bottom line is that except for private credit we are most of the way through on everything, okay? and the private credit is one that we still think is going to take about five to seven years but we are anticipating making a large recommendation next month. i just want to say quickly that liquidity in the bond market continues to dry up and i just want the board to an, whatte, a, it can take a long time to sell

assets that we think are taking a long time to sell. some obligations in terms of reporting things to the closed session, board approved in closed session. beacon light which is a short manager we asked the board to approve $225 million and we have funded $100 million of that and future funding will come over the course of time. and d.c.m., which is a venture capital strategy, we asked for $50 million and the board, and we received $35 million. and a strategy that the board approved earlier this year, we requested $100 million and we did get the full $100 million. and k4 private investments which is a software oriented mid-market buyout strategy, we asked for $50 million and we did get all $50 million. kitty hawk, we asked for -- this

is real assets, real estate real assets strategy and we asked for £40 million euros and we got £35 million euros. and pepperton, we asked for $60 million in u.s. dollars and we did get $60 million. we have a couple additions, closings that took place, on thursday night and friday respectively that i believe that the board has received print copy of. first regarding polaris, this is a growth equity strategy in the portfolio and we asked for $30 million and we got $21. and solis which is a distressed credit oriented strategy in our buyout -- excuse me, in our out state return strategy that we asked for $300 million and the board approved that. we did fund the first $100 million on august 1.

and with that that's the close of the c.i.a. report. >> president stansbury: are w we (indiscernible) the funding? >> yes, they are calling capital as they see opportunity. >> president stansbury: and questions from the board? >> not really questions but, one, the cash flow that we talked about is a big issue and it will be a subject for the investment committee to talk about because it's a large task that he and his team has to manage. and in the immediate term though is the fact that it's not simply that private debt which would take several years to get to that allocation target but now we're overwreat and that's a tactical decision.

and we're underway real assets and we're at 4%. and so we look at a public equity as a private equivalent and i look at those three groups together. >> it's a long bull market. tactically the decision is that you park the money at your decision which we are supporting. (please stand by).

>> clerk: item 11 -- >> let's call items 11 and 12 together. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i will make this quick in the interest of time. item 12 before you is a monthly activity report. i just wanted to point out on page 3 that we had included a line item to call out the target dates

-- i will keep this quick. we had our meeting on july 25 where we had interviewed the three semifinalists, which are indicated in commissioner bridges report. and we are authorized to conduct

offsite due diligence. we were busy flying all over the country visiting these vendors. i wanted to report that they were very beneficial and helpful and able to learn things that were not seen on paper and that will help us in crafting our recommendation to the board. we plan on finalizing our recommendation to the committee on september 19. we're targeting an october board recommendation, but that could change and that's my update. >> thank you. commissioner bridges? >> my report is not different than the report in that we had a very lengthy meeting july 25 and committee supports everything in her recommendation that we did review the semifinals of all three and the onsite due diligence, so looking forward to hearing the recommendations coming back from the visits to understand all the details of

the offsite and due diligence. once we hear all of the recommendations from the travel and research, then we'll come back as a committee and make recommendations to the full board. >> thank you very much. let's open it up for public comment. any members of the public that would like to address the commission on this item? seeing none, we'll close public comment. anything further from the board? great. on item number 13, i'm going to continue that, pending feedback from our newest commissioners. and then why don't we help on to item 14, please. >> clerk: item 14, travel expense reports for the quarter ended down30, 2018. >> we'll take it as submitted. any members of the public that would like to address the commission on this item? seeing none, we'll close public

comment. anything from the board? >> a lot of due diligence going on out there.

>> any questions from the board? seeing none, we'll open it up to the public. any members of the public that would like to address the commission on the executive director's report? seeing none, we'll close public comment. is there a 16? >> yes. >> let's call item 16. anything from the board? >> the september 19 meeting of the investment committee is on september 19, following the deferred compensation meeting that morning. thanks to commissioners, we have a commissioner coming to speak at the meeting. we want to start promptly at 1:00 to take advantage of the amount of time we have with him. he's a world-class investor,

very strong views on the credit market. so my request to the board, please be on time so we can start on time. if you can't be here at 1:00, sit in the back of the room and don't come waltzing up here. hopefully we'll start at 1:00. >> we'll send out a reminder to everyone. anything else from the board? seeing nothing, we'll open it up to public comment. any members of the public that would like to address the commission only about the good of the order? >> i am a great believer in punctuality. in the last 50 years, i don't think i've been late five times. all you members waltz in whenever you feel like and you give the impression that you are only concerns about your own time and nobody else. i think that you should be on

time. people behind me probably have other commitments and meetings. so when you start late, it may make them late for their meetings. thank you. >> thank you very much. are there any other members of the public that would like to address the commission regarding this item? seeing none, we'll close public comment. >> there are no reports -- board member reports or comments. >> nothing in the packet, right, for item 17? >> that's right. >> meeting adjourned, everyone.

>> we think over 50 thousand permanent residents in san francisco eligible for citizenship by lack information and resources so really the project is not about citizenship but really academy our immigrant community. >> making sure they're a part of what we do in san francisco the san francisco pathway to citizenship initiative a unique

part of just between the city and then our 5 local foundations and community safe organizations and it really is an effort to get as many of the legal permanent residents in the san francisco since 2013 we started reaching the san francisco bay area residents and 10 thousand people into through 22 working groups and actually completed 5 thousand applications for citizenship our cause the real low income to moderate income resident in san francisco and the bayview sometimes the workshops are said attend by poem if san mateo and from sacking. >> we think over restraining order thousand legal permanent residents in san francisco that are eligible for citizenship but

totally lack information and they don't have trained professionals culturally appropriate with an audience you're working with one time of providing services with pro bono lawyers and trained professionals to find out whether your eligible the first station and go through a purview list of questions to see if they have met the 56 year residents arrangement or they're a u.s. citizenship they once they get through the screening they go to legal communication to see lawyers to check am i eligible to be a citizen we send them to station 3 that's when they sit

down with experienced advertising to fill out the 4 hundred naturalization form and then to final review and at the end he helps them with the check out station and send them a packet to fill and wait a month to 6 weeks to be invited in for an oral examine and if they pass two or three a months maximum get sworn in and become a citizen every single working groups we have a learning how to vote i mean there are tons of community resources we go for citizenship prep classes and have agencies it stays on site and this is filing out forms for people that are eligible so not just about your 22 page form but other

community services and benefits there's an economic and safety public benefit if we nationalize all people to be a citizen with the network no objection over $3 million in income for those but more importantly the city saves money $86 million by reducing the benefit costs. >> thank you. >> i've been here a loventh i already feel like an american citizen not felt it motorbike that needs to happen for good.

>> one day - i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, for liberty and justice for all. >> you're welcome. >> (singing). >> (clapping.) >> introduce the san francisco field officer director ribbon that will mirror the oath raise your hand and repeat the oath i hereby declare on oath repeating.

>> citizens cry when they become citizenship to study this difficult examine and after two trials they come back i'm an american now we're proud of that purpose of evasion so help me god please help me welcome seven hundred and 50 americans. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> she wants to be part of the country and vote so much puppy. >> you know excited and as i said it is a long process i think that needs to be finally recognized to be integrated that is basically, the type of that i

see myself being part of. >> out of everybody on tv and the news he felt that is necessary to be part of community in that way i can do so many things but my voice wouldn't count as it counts now. >> it's everybody i hoped for a bunch of opportunities demographics and as you can see yourself there's a good life for everyone. >> that's why. >> you have people from all

the walks that life and they're standing in water 8 hours to be an american citizen and contribute to the city and that's really what makes this worthwhile. >> ♪ ♪ [♪] >> i just don't know that you can find a neighborhood in the city where you can hear music

stands and take a ride on the low rider down the street. it is an experience that you can't have anywhere else in san francisco. [♪] [♪] >> district nine is a in the southeast portion of the city. we have four neighborhoods that i represent. st. mary's park has a completely unique architecture. very distinct feel, and it is a very close to holly park which is another beautiful park in san francisco. the bernal heights district is unique in that we have the hell which has one of the best views in all of san francisco. there is a swinging hanging from a tree at the top. it is as if you are swinging over the entire city. there are two unique aspects.

it is considered the fourth chinatown in san francisco. sixty% of the residents are of chinese ancestry. the second unique, and fun aspect about this area is it is the garden district. there is a lot of urban agriculture and it was where the city grew the majority of the flowers. not only for san francisco but for the region. and of course, it is the location in mclaren park which is the city's second biggest park after golden gate. many people don't know the neighborhood in the first place if they haven't been there. we call it the best neighborhood nobody has ever heard our. every neighborhood in district nine has a very special aspect. where we are right now is the mission district. the mission district is a very special part of our city. you smell the tacos at the [speaking spanish] and they have the best latin pastries.

they have these shortbread cookies with caramel in the middle. and then you walk further down and you have sunrise café. it is a place that you come for the incredible food, but also to learn about what is happening in the neighborhood and how you can help and support your community. >> twenty-fourth street is the birthplace of the movement. we have over 620 murals. it is the largest outdoor public gallery in the country and possibly the world. >> you can find so much political engagement park next to so much incredible art. it's another reason why we think this is a cultural district that we must preserve. [♪] >> it was formed in 2014. we had been an organization that had been around for over 20 years. we worked a lot in the neighborhood around life issues. most recently, in 2012, there were issues around

gentrification in the neighborhood. so the idea of forming the cultural district was to help preserve the history and the culture that is in this neighborhood for the future of families and generations. >> in the past decade, 8,000 latino residents in the mission district have been displaced from their community. we all know that the rising cost of living in san francisco has led to many people being displaced. lower and middle income all over the city. because it there is richness in this neighborhood that i also mentioned the fact it is flat and so accessible by trip public transportation, has, has made it very popular. >> it's a struggle for us right now, you know, when you get a lot of development coming to an area, a lot of new people coming to the area with different sets of values and different culture. there is a lot of struggle between the existing community and the newness coming in. there are some things that we do

to try to slow it down so it doesn't completely erase the communities. we try to have developments that is more in tune with the community and more equitable development in the area. >> you need to meet with and gain the support and find out the needs of the neighborhoods. the people on the businesses that came before you. you need to dialogue and show respect. and then figure out how to bring in the new, without displacing the old. [♪] >> i hope we can reset a lot of the mission that we have lost in the last 20 years. so we will be bringing in a lot of folks into the neighborhoods pick when we do that, there is a demand or, you know, certain types of services that pertain more to the local community and working-class. >> back in the day, we looked at mission street, and now it does not look and feel anything like mission street. this is the last stand of the

latino concentrated arts, culture and cuisine and people. we created a cultural district to do our best to conserve that feeling. that is what makes our city so cosmopolitan and diverse and makes us the envy of the world. we have these unique neighborhoods with so much cultural presence and learnings, that we want to preserve. [♪]

>> 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,