tv Government Access Programming SFGTV August 11, 2018 6:00pm-7:01pm PDT
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
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?
>> 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.
- working for the city and county of san francisco will immerse you in a vibrant and dynamic city that's on the forefront of economic growth, the arts, and social change. our city has always been on the edge of progress and innovation. after all, we're at the meeting of land and sea. - our city is famous for its iconic scenery, historic designs, and world- class style. it's the birthplace of blue jeans, and where "the rock" holds court over the largest natural harbor on the west coast.
- the city's information technology professionals work on revolutionary projects, like providing free wifi to residents and visitors, developing new programs to keep sfo humming, and ensuring patient safety at san francisco general. our it professionals make government accessible through award-winning mobile apps, and support vital infrastructure projects like the hetch hetchy regional water system. - our employees enjoy competitive salaries, as well as generous benefits programs. but most importantly, working for the city and county of san francisco gives employees an opportunity to contribute their ideas, energy, and commitment to shape the city's future. - thank you for considering a career with the city and county of san francisco. >> for the first time in nearly two decades fishers have been
granted the legal right to sell fish directly to the package right off their boat -- to the public right off their boats in san francisco. it's not only helping local fishers to stay afloat but it's evoking the spirit of the wharf by resurfacing the traditional methods of selling fish. but how is it regulated? and what does it take for a boat to be transported into a floating fish market? find out as we hop on board on this episode of "what's next sf." (♪) we're here with the owner and the captain of the vessel pioneer. it's no coincidence that your boat is called the pioneer because it's doing just that. it's the first boat in san francisco to sell fish directly from the boat. how did you establish your boat into such a floating fish market? >> well, you know, i always thought that it would be nice to be able to provide fresh fish to the locals because most of the
fish markets, you would have to do a large amount of volume in order to bring in enough fish to cover the overhead. when you start selling to the public that volume is much less so it makes it hard to make enough money. so being able to do this is really -- it's a big positive thing i think for the entire community. >> a very positive thing. as a third-generation fisherman joe as his friends call him has been trawling the california waters for sustainably caught seafood since an early age. since obtaining a permit to sell fish directly to the public he is able to serve fish at an affordable price. >> right now we're just selling what a lot of the markets like, flat fish and rock fish and what the public likes. so we have been working for many, many years and putting cameras in them. there's the ability to short fish and we have panels that we open and close so we target the different species of fish by adjusting the net. and then not only that but then the net sort out the sizes which
is really important. >> joe brings in a lot of fish, around 20,000 pounds per fishing trip to be exact. >> we had one day one time that we sold almost 18,000 pounds. >> it's incredible. >> i know, it's hard to imagine. >> but this wasn't always the case for joe. >> the markets that we have left in california, they're few and far between, and they really are restrictive. they'll let you fish for a couple months and shut you down. a lot of times it's rough weather and if you can't make your delivery you will lose your rotation. that's why there's hardly any boats left in california because of the market challenges. my boat was often sitting over here at the dock for years and i couldn't do anything with it because we had no market. the ability to go catch fish is fine, i had the permits, but you couldn't take them off your boat. >> that was until the port commission of san francisco rallied behind them and voted unanimously to approve a pilot program to allow the fish to be sold directly to consumers right off their boats.
>> the purpose of the program is to allow commercial fishers to sell their fish directly from their boats to the end consumer in a safe and orderly manner for the benefit of the overall fishing community at the port of san francisco. we have limited the program to certain types of fish such as salmon, halibut, tuna and rock fish. crab is restricted from this program because we did not want to interfere with the existing crab sales on taylor street and jefferson street. so this is not meant to favor one aspect of the fishing industry more than another. it's to basically to lift up the whole industry together. >> and if joe the program has been doing just that. >> it was almost breathtaking whenever i woke up one morning and i got my federal receiver, my first receivers license in the mail. and that gave me permission to actually take fish off my boat. once we started to be able to sell, it opened things up a bit.
because now that we have that federal permit and i was able to ppetition the city council and getting permission from san francisco to actually use the dock and to sell fish here, it was a big turning point. because we really didn't think or know that we'd get such a positive response from the public. and so we're getting thousands of people coming down here buying fish every week and so that's pretty cool. they like the fish so much that they take pictures of it when they cook it and they send us all of these pictures and then they ask us, you know, constantly for certain types of fish now. and when they come down here the one thing that they say is that they're so amazed that the fish is so fresh they could eat a little bit during the week and it's still fresh all week in the refrigerator. so that's really cool. >> the fish is very fresh and the price is super. i don't think that you can get it anywhere in the bay area. i can see it, and i can stir fry
it, wow, you can do anything you want. i just can say this is a good place to shop and you have a good experience. >> this program supports the strategic plan in terms of engagement, people being connected to the waterfront, and also economic vitality. because it's helping the fishermen to make ends meet. they have no guarantees in their businesses, not like some people, and we want to do everything that we can to help them to have a good and thriving business. >> how does it feel to be able to sell your fish locally kind of in the traditional way, like your grandfather probably did? >> when i was a kid and i used to work in my dad's fish market, a lot of the markets that we sell to now are second and third and fourth generation markets. so i remember as a kid putting their tags on the boxes of fish that we shipped out of monterey and ship down to l.a. so it's kind of cool that we're
still dealing with the same families. and this is probably about the only way that anyone can really survive in california is to sell your own fish. >> one of the advantages of this program is the department people that pull in the fish, they can find out where they caught it and find out more about the fisherman and that adds to their experience. the feedback from the fishers has been very good and the feedback from the customers have very good. and there's a lot of people coming to the wharf now that might not have done so. in fact, there's people that go through the neighboring restaurants that are going to eat fish inside but before they go in they see the action on the dock and they want to kind of look at what's happening on the boat before they go in and they have a meal. so it's generated some conversation down at the wharf and that's a good thing. >> as you can see by the line forming behind me getting ready to buy fish, the pilot program has been a huge success. for more information visit
sfsport.com. (♪) (♪) - >> shop & dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges resident to do their showing up and dining within the 49 square miles of san francisco by supporting local services within the neighborhood we help san francisco remain unique successful and vibrant so where will you shop & dine in the 49 san francisco owes must of the charm to the unique characterization of each corridor has a distinction permanent our neighbors are the economic engine of the city.
>> if we could a afford the lot by these we'll not to have the kind of store in the future the kids will eat from some restaurants chinatown has phobia one of the best the most unique neighborhood shopping areas of san francisco. >> chinatown is one of the oldest chinatown in the state we need to be able allergies the people and that's the reason chinatown is showing more of the people will the traditional thepg. >> north beach is i know one of the last little italian
community. >> one of the last neighborhood that hadn't changed a whole lot and san francisco community so strong and the sense of partnership with businesses as well and i just love north beach community old school italian comfort and love that is what italians are all about we need people to come here and shop here so we can keep this going not only us but, of course, everything else in the community i think local businesses the small ones and coffee shops are unique in their own way that is the characteristic of the neighborhood i peace officer prefer it is local character you have to support them. >> really notice the port this
community we really need to kind of really shop locally and support the communityly live in it is more economic for people to survive here. >> i came down to treasure island to look for a we've got a long ways to go. ring i just got married and didn't want something on line i've met artists and local business owners they need money to go out and shop this is important to short them i think you get better things. >> definitely supporting the local community always good is it interesting to find things i never knew existed or see that that way. >> i think that is really great that san francisco seize the vails of small business and creates the shop & dine in the
49 to support businesses make people all the residents and visitors realize had cool things are made and produced in san . >> hi i'm brandon the mist at sfpuc my role to support the employees between our yosemite location to san francisco and the typical things we deal with are puc recommended and network relate an telecom i like my role it varies day to day it is a unique challenge from providing in that user conclusions i solutions on their computer or a the president on a task they're trying to complete the training is very important there are many
things to stay up to date my manager has helped me making sure any skills are up to date with the skilled in my field it is about right time of day and about you know the percentage of resagsz for water and power are posh to the citizens of san francisco and keeping those systems up and running for this is one of the challenge to progress within the organization and commit count i commit to the local government is where i want
>> 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]. 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