Union shops so i am here to support the workers at Mission Organics and the future workers at lucky dragon. Thank you. Thank you very much. Im excited there are unionized medical cannabis workers in the district and actually theres a place that could really use Union Support and that is the manila oriental market street. Its a great place to organize new workers as well. Probably about 25 workers there as well and the neighborhood has a great deal of difficulty with this store because there are deliveries that come all hours of the day, all kind of debris in the parking lot and in the corridor and we know if there was Union Standards in this place we would have a much better experience in the neighborhood. Thatd be a great thing to see your union helping out with workers there and bringing up standards of the neighborhood. My name is kevin johnson. I think there should be more expansions on the cannabis clubs opening up in the city. The people talking about the young people hanging out
Described from 500 feet to 1000 feet so well take that without objection. Would you like to continue call to chair. Continue call of the chair without objection. Thank you. Okay madam clerk, can you please call items five through ten together . I teams number five through ten are the ordinances tpwraoepb Building Codes by repealing and placing the 2010 codes with provisions with codes and directing the clerk of the board state agencies. Okay. Just wait one second to let the chamber clear. If folks could please take their conversations outside. If folks would please take their conversations outside, we have further business to conduct. Okay. Okay, go ahead. My name is clerk means, im an inspector for the Technical Services division there and what we have today for you is a reenactment of our Building Codes based on the new set of codes that california issues every three years. By way of just the rules short r h eugsly, San Francisco came up with its own Building Codes around the turn of
4 . Put it in chapter 4 . Any views from the commissioners to put that in chapter 4 . We can move to that in chapter 4. Then i think the changes that are being proposed for section 3 are to flip section 2 iii b and to add unless impracticable after next regular meeting, in 1b1. Is there a motion to adopt Decision Point 3 with those changes . So moved. We took Public Comment on that section. Is there a second . Second. All in favor . Aye. Opposed . Motion passes. Chapter 4. Aside from adding the language from page 14 of attachment b, any other comments from the commissioners on Decision Point 4 . I have a question. Yes. Taking the language from page 14 of attachment b, read in entirety that presumes there may be commissioners that may miss the hearing and if the hearing takes one day and all of the commissioners are here, i dont think you need to make that affirmation, because you were here, you know . With witnesses. So you can put it in the way it is and it doesnt really do any harm.
The current draft does not contain that language and i would like to see the subject reintroduced, but i suggest that the commission require audio and or video recordings of all such sessions with the recordings to be made available for inhall camera review as to whether questions arise of incould have hail discussions or acs have taken place during those closed sessions . X and im still generally david pillpa and generally committed or should be. [ laughter ] let me go to item b, without complicating this section, unnecessarily, we have seen complaints about investigative files. I dont know how explicit this particular document should be about complaints, files and related documents. I just dont want anyone to interpret any more or less from this language than is appropriate. I am not sure that i am prepared to think through whether an investigation under these regs is the same as an investigation under 6. 9913 whether its an investigative file as Law Enforcement agency, how it deals
Things. Its just adds a personal level of procedure, that you dont necessarily need to go through, if everyone is here. But it wont take that long for everyone to do it. I think its a good point. I certainly dont want to add additional, unnecessary procedural requirements. Where would we add that . I would take just the last sentence of the paragraph, that starts, each commissioner who participates. Now you are looking at attachment b . Right. Page 14, section b, the last sentence. So that would read, each commissioner who participates in the decision, but has not attended the entirety of the hearings, shall certify on the record that he or she personally heard the testimony, et cetera. Okay. I think that is good and where would we put it . Section 4 i think i would just add at the end j . Yes. Just make it j and then you dont have to renumber the other sections. There is a particular need for chronology here. Any other comments on Decision Point 4 . Just a comment, it may be unnecessa