Programs. They spoke against it. Listen to the concerns of the San Francisco health department. Thank you. And after the last speaker that ive called ryan indigo kitty chang, wendy wong and miss something kwong i dont know. Good afternoon, everybody. Thanks for hearing us again on an important topic. I want to put my support for the im david mccarthy, im the Owner Operator of a small nonconforming cultivation site here in San Francisco. I wanted to support the citywide policy in San Francisco. I want think we should approach this as a whole city. Id like to put my support behind the 600 square foot distance, i think that is a large distance. I think its an easily supportable distance. I want to talk a little bit about myself. Weve been talking about access. Ive heard a lot about the mcds and access to patient. What about the access to the mcds for their product and the cultivators. Im a small nonconforming cultivator. Although i take the leap and hope to make the transition in deregula
Details on what the costs of this to the city would be. We are also continuing to examine as the Ethics Commission has raised, limiting the fundraising window for Office Holders to run for office, both prior to election day and after election day. And also, adding to the pamphlet that is sent to San Francisco registered voters, Current Campaign activities for all of the candidates and ballot measures to a certain date of that election day. I look forward to this ongoing conversation, both with the stakeholders, the board of supervisors, and the Ethics Commission and colleagues, hope to get your support as we move this ordinance through the process. The rest i submit. President breed supervisor peskin. Supervisor peskin thank you, to supervisor kim through the president , i have not read the legislation, but it sounds very good and upon reading it, hope to afix my name as a cosponsor. Colleagues, as many of you know, i have been actively looking for a temporary Navigation Center in dist
Until the budget legislative Analyst Report to provide details on what the costs of this to the city would be. We are also continuing to examine as the Ethics Commission has raised, limiting the fundraising window for Office Holders to run for office, both prior to election day and after election day. And also, adding to the pamphlet that is sent to San Francisco registered voters, Current Campaign activities for all of the candidates and ballot measures to a certain date of that election day. I look forward to this ongoing conversation, both with the stakeholders, the board of supervisors, and the Ethics Commission and colleagues, hope to get your support as we move this ordinance through the process. The rest i submit. President breed supervisor peskin. Supervisor peskin thank you, to supervisor kim through the president , i have not read the legislation, but it sounds very good and upon reading it, hope to afix my name as a cosponsor. Colleagues, as many of you know, i have been act
Today, Campaign Materials in San Francisco will have to include the original source of the funds for third party expenditures when an individual has given over 20,000. Billionaires and corporate interests will no longer be able to hide behind political committees. Audio and video ads on television, radio and social media, will not be required to begin their ad with a clear disclosure of who the funders of the ad are before the ad even begins. Candidates for official office must test under penalty of perjury, they are not working with committees. This includes social media advertising, along with what we currently require of mailers, audio and video advertisement, which means a copy of the social media ads and vendor that was paid, what the vendor provided and the target audience of the social media ads. This legislation will require that ethics mail a separate pamphlet 30 days prior to every registered San Francisco voter explaining the history of Third Party Spending and what was spen
Pattern with a lot of people who purchase homes in the city, violate the law, pay the penalties and still able to move forward with their projects, which sometimes, unfortunately, changes the character of a community. So im trying to understand how that continues to happen in these particular cases. Supervisor breed, the Planning Department shares those concerns. And thats why weve asked for legislation that will strengthen and enhance the administrative penalties, provisions of the planning code, that are in sections 176. And as far as allowing a project to proceed, the remedies that have been issues are ones that have suspended all work on the project. This project sponsor is not being allowed to proceed. Work was done out of scope and theres work the subject of a discretionary review hearing pending before the Planning Commission. What is proceeding is this hearing on the adequacy of the ceqa determination. Unless this body finds that the Planning Department improperly i issued that