as being an upstanding person and i mean not only in the medical cannabis community but in the community as he's been instrumental in drug rehab for several people in the east bay. i also know nor a fact he's participated in constructing our policies here in the male cannabis community and therefrom i feel that you guys need to relook at the person that is running waterfall well unless at this point. the allegations that were directed to reinforcing greg are not founded if i look at into it further you'll find out the thugs are holding the shop down. please folks take a look at this and revoke that permit our

patients need better service than they're receiving out there. thank you >> thank you. is there another speaker please step forward and. >> good evening, commissioners. thank you for allowing me to speak i first met greg shep a number of years ago we participated in community outreach in the central district when he was working at opening an dispensary in that area as a teacher i unfortunately met people that needed medical cannabis so fast forward my present experience with medical cannabis is my 94-year-old father-in-law who has a disease

i find relieve from medical cannabis we don't receive an effect we get the medical relieve we found we expect a clean and professional well run dispensary and when greg shep was involved on ocean avenue our were met the environment was smokey and messy when the other person took over we stopped going. there's no room for unprofessionalism when health is the issue. greg shep is the epitomize of the honest medical cannabis provider it's my understanding that greg shep has been given

the run run around and it's my sincere hope and belief that the commission will error open the do of the kind of professional we need and president in the medical cannabis field. thank you very much. >> thank you duo do you care to state your name for the record. >> i'm susan tip of the iceberg even. >> any public comment on that item? >> okay. thank you mr. pacheco can you switch to the other microphone if we're going to use that other microphone if you like and hello, everyone. >> my name is brenda r vi suffer from various medical problems but yo go into that. i was a member of the waterfall and there was a supervisor

running that and i can't tell you all the names it got so terrible to bad that i left and i said i don't want to go into there there were employees engaging into their own products so i left and went simplifier i went to ocean street it was rebuilt and there was a person there they were very, very nice i went into the store and explored think medications you can take you don't have to smoke it you can put it into our tea or bread and butter whatever helped you to eat so like i said i left and came back and walked if and said oh, my gosh i was

surprised by the medical professionalism i was impressed to help the other patient so anyway, i something happened i wasn't there are a person called me on the phone telling me do you want to be there compassion person i don't know what was going on so the person i guess has the license now wrote me a letter dlefr my compassion telling me things about what was going on and i knew there were lying they were calling me on the phone and barging me to be their patient and where i was before they didn't take care of

me not only with that but your personal needs make you feel like our at home and everything like i said, i got letters saying things that were not true about the former people working there. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you any other speakers step forward please. okay >> hello. my name is robert ricci guess the only point i was coming up here to make it seems like on the application that you have one person saying they're the main party to the permit and the operations the collective it

appears very evident and mr. mendez will be involved and if you see fit when you hear that's the case and i still - that wasn't what was represented in the first hearing i believe that needs to be take into account and at least clarified that's not been the case of what's been prepared but it seems like it is the fact so you thank you >> is there any additional public comment? >> hello, i'm larry blnt we are at washington, d.c. this is a staff pompom in the first world series the defense ramps city

college is on the ocean and i'm here because i was asked to be at the police meeting they've rescheduled that but the acts of love they're here advocating for us san francisco sometimes, i feel like berkley colorado everyone has left us behind. you know, washington and cannabis is something we need and should be known for cannabis if that's where it started 215 started here and the crown on my head see the crown i got this at the aids walk on sunday i'm a person that's undid he terrible cannabis is the reason i'm here today it is like eviction this is someone know that americans

need and god made cannabis all over the world like sea we'd it's important that i'm supporting people that i know need cannabis i need cannabis, you know, and the president was in town today. the - our climb will be step we may not get there in one year ever one term but america i've never been more hopefully than i am 20e79 we as a people will get there >> he was in town on howard. >> we can't have a 5 wall street. >> we'll asking you. >> the support i've yet to earn i may not have earned your vote tonight but you tell need our help. >> so today like i voted for

him the last two years, yes we can cannabis was part of my spirit so i know today in san francisco i am a person that used to be a in a medical marijuana americans safe access and access of love we need to let the leaders 125u7d and we're not the laughing stock of american. >> thank you is there any public comment? >> i'll leave my card up here. >> so we will take rebuttal now there if there's no accountability public comment

mr. shep you can spank or it will go to our lawyer. >> hello just a couple of facts to you know what was heard tonight and in the briefs. i never 92 knew danny mendez before the fire. the union was we were going to sign with the union as waterfall wellness and as danny menu suicides and people started to come back people were asking what was going on they chose to go a ways. when i got my permit present with larry kessler and the doctor we were in a hearing

given the permit and it was told it if danny mendez came back into waterfall my permit would be revoked i tried to get ahold of the doctor they couldn't find the tape in the meeting we had so. i decided to get a spot that was city legal and federally legal which is a thousand feet away from the school and the waterfall is not i found a spot up the street that's when they tried to take over to keep me from largely itself found a spot and in japan they came in and

actually took over, you know, the misunderstood and all this stuff it's internal but they took my lease went to the family i negotiated the 17 lease for 15 years and he went to howard jew and the rent should have been 2 thousand and mendez was paying 11 thousand for a nonprofit and took my lease the jews took my name avenue and he paid over 12 thousand a month the lease went into his name i never asked to take my name off the permit they pushed the paperwork. the spot up the street was 4 a

much larger location he skroonl of waterfall is 8 hundred and this spot is 22 hundred square feet for our compassion. the last thing i wanted to say about, you know, our dispensary waterfall wellness i built with christine we ran a compassion driven dispensary giving back to our collective members that's what i'm about the vets and our aids patients and the low income patients i work with mr. magee working to get the medicine to the people that need it >> sir your time is - >> we can hear the rebuttal

from the permit holder. >> thank you it's been a long day and the hour is getting late i'll be brief i'll ask you to take a look at exhibit h there's two sides to every story there's the premium on time and the premium open our time for consideration of the different views but again, the focus should be is there a problem was on a error made in the orients e issuance of the permit i've heard different things nothing nor current it seem like if there were such everyday you would have heard about it thank you unless there's any questions. thank you very much >> i have a question who's our client. >> waterfall wellness the

corporation there's the permit holder a corporation and whose it's a nonprofit; right? >> it's a in the. >> is there an executive director? >> it's t r mitchell and is daniel on the board. >> i'm not corporate attorney. >> your representing the corporation but - >> i represent the corporate's. >> you don't know who's on the board of directors. >> i'm - i don't know. >>. i can find out if it's critical thank you very much. >> we can hear from the department if there's rebuttal.

>> i would simple is that much has been made about the one time incident involving the fire and the gun. this is not the first time that's happened with the dispensary and, in fact, no one was bard mr. mendez was not barred from further participation at any level rather the permit was suspended for thirty days while all the conditions were abated in the variety of departments that are typically involved which is the police and fire, etc. confirmed that indeed the conditions had

been abated so that's a one-time incident. since that time mr. - the gentleman has been involved in one capacity or another in operating this dispensary. he is currently on the permit with mitchell and has been since 2011. what you're hearing is really a spit between two business owners and it's been heard over in superior court and heard before the director of health and it's also here now before you. so i would respectfully request that you uphold the directors decision that mr. mitchell

submitted all the necessary paperwork that's attached i believe as exhibit b signed under penalty of perjury and that she is, in fact, the permit holder. >> i have a couple of. >> i'm sorry as a final note i'm going to say that he's sued the city before based on this board decision to deny him a permit to open a dispensary and this board - is that it. >> this board decision was based on it's not in the best interests of the community. >> go ahead. >> i have a couple of questions is that the standard procedure if the permit is initialed or

issued and there's language regarding no grow that it is a thirty days suspension. so what i mean is when this incident happened we'll talk about the first incident they're not supposed to have the second level not a grow area so since they've violated that is health department to give a thirty day suspension >> maybe the gentleman will know. >> can you introduce. >> i'm ryan it's mapped that article 33 gives a few enforcement options so their sited to a hearing and the director choose to give a thirty days suspension.

if the incident happens again, the order is a revocation >> then the other one was there was a loaded fiefrm was it combined. >> during the investigation the fire department correct me if i am wrong there was a firearm found the same situation. >> at the same time since they were stealing electrical it was also combined. >> there was a fire around december it was all combined and the investigation from the fire department they found the steering wheel of the power and a firearm on site my lawyer asked because of the hearing they gave thirty days and subsequent they did a change of ownership and mr. shep was brought into the permit now, mr. mendez was taken off the permit.

>> as other mc ds had violations and what was the actions. >> i have been managing the program in two years and not seen situations i know the program goes back several years i can't think of any other situations. >> this is the only mc d that had this problem in san francisco. >> in my last two years no. >> so what was given testimony this evening was mr. mendezs name was put it in and the department doesn't have a problem. >> it wasn't put in at the last minute and speaking to the lady when i posted the notice i'm sorry the health directors hearing i let them, you know,

during the submittal of the paperwork mr. mendez what about the the structure so i told him you're not an owner but i'm going to introduce you, you're going to be described as being an applicant. >> okay. thank you. >> questions. >> yeah. i'm confused about the applicant piece. because i think i've heard council state i - are you an attorney >> no. >> the applicant mitchell it was relevant to the public mr. mendez his involvement here with the application seems like the problematic piece and i'm confused about the rfrls it's

treated at a nonissue from your departments prospective can you help me understand that clarify why this is an issue if it's not an issue from an application prospective from the director but for the community. >> he - it is true and i believe the paperwork was submitted to the director and robert mendez was identified as being an officer of the although not holding the permit. >> the applicant was originally ms. mitchell correct. >> correct. >> originally yes. >> at the directors hearing at the point the paperwork and

everything was summit mr. mendez comes into the picture and then put into the record as an additional applicant or co- that applicant is that what happened i'm trying to understand. >> that's part of the packet of information that is submitted along with the articles of incorporation of the different forms that are signed. i do know that for example, mr. shep at one point agreed to keep mr. mendez on as an employee e.r. consultant so the two relationships have flip flopped to a certain extent over the past year and again, i would say that's why and who's the applicant it's ms. mitchell;

right? >> right i why are you saying anything about the employer versus the employee. >> i'm not sdrurg employer and employee i'm saying that mr. mendez had already been part of the cooperative. >> okay. but right they're both involved but at issue the permit at issue relates to whether or not it should have been providential permit issued the applicant for the permit was ms. mitchell. >> right. >> the entity includes mr. shep and mr. mendez. >> right and the various members. >> and that's what is before you so mr. shep is shaking his head when i see that i'm needing

clarification. >> i'm not at the directors hearing. >> i'd like someone to clarify. if you're finished with our rebuttal >> i won last question. >> i have a question too. >> we can skip over that. >> during the directors hearing for example, this evening we have a lot of public against mr. mendez. during - and i don't see anything for mr. mendez wellness clinic 33 at the directors meeting when was the audience there >> there were supporters in opposition and a hearing with the same turnout as well. >> thank you. >> that's one of my questions. >> you do background checks an

applicant. >> correct. >> and on this case who is the background done and what's the scope. >> in this instance it was only on terry are a mitchell and again what's the dependent e stent of the background it's criminal. >> the defenders and if a life scan had been done on mr. - >> anything there's a subsequent arrest i'm getting the information and nothing that bars him from the application. >> are you folks out of questions. >> is the directors hearing televised? and it is not

>> is it recorded. >> it's recorded. >> if what form. >> the reason i pause is because i have a convicting but it's recorded. >> i have the convicting. >> thank you. any questions commissioner moore >> you have questions for the attorney. >> i'd like further clarification on the issue of who's the applicant to the extent that has my materiality with respect to the requirements for the issuance of the permit. >> so the applicant is the individual seeking the change of ownership in this case it's - >> a change from what to what. >> terry are a mitchell seeking

to remove appellant from the permit. >> okay. >> permit holder. >> so the applicant is within who is the applicant question and it includes mr. mendez does that include mr. mendez as an applicant i heard our colleague state that. >> yes. >> at the directors hearing it it was represented that mr. mendez with an was an applicant. >> it was represented. >> i think you said applicant. there is a difference i want to know the definition >> ms. mitchell is the only applicant i added mr. mendez at the time he was