pipeline, those, as you may be aware, we're running a current registration process for the non-retail and delivery components of the supply train to try to capture the activity out there to issue a temporary permit. they have to be in compliance with the planning code. whatever you end up wutting in place would be the -- putting in place would be the planning code which you need to comply. i say if we're going to do the land use pete, address cultivation testing and so forth we should have a companion piece with the rules committee. >> through the chair, i'm sorry, that's in my committee. on that particular point, i believe we've been working on the regulations on the police code side, is that correct? director elliot? >> the legislation system and temporary mer mitts are a component of the police

cord ordinance that is in your committee, supervisor. >> that's why only in front of you today is the land use portion. we're also talking about that in rules tomorrow. >> great. another question i having toling back and forth between --ing toling back ing -- toggling back and forth. i don't think we rae solved that. i know supervisor kim and public health did bring up issues around employee whose may be exposed to this long term every day and want fog make sure there are proper requirements in place. so i know that last week, supervisor sheehy had an amendment on page 11 that had no reference to dph. it says we allow for on site

consumption. yet, when i read the operation the legislation piece pending in rules committee, i know there may be forthcoming amendments, i want to make sure it's consistent. >> what i'd like to separate here is the process by which consumption is validated by the department of public health. we have eight sites right now where cannabis is consumed. the department -- at san francisco general, there is a smoking room where smoking studies are conducted both for tobacco and cannabis. employees from the department of public health and from ucsf are able to work in the space. do i believe in the eight existing spaces and at the space at san francisco general where in-patient smoking studies have been conducted. there is the ability to put in place

the appropriate filters, etc., to keep people safe. my point in doing this is for -- in order to issue the license, the department of cannabis, we don't put the department of public health in the position of having to support indoor smoking which they do not fundamentally which i understand. but we need their certification of the systems to make sure that the types of protections exist in existing facilities and at the smoking research center at san francisco center are there to protect employees. >> through the chair, and i think i see deputy attorney jon givner again to make sure the amendment to delete it from land use controls allows for department of public health to issue the permits regulating air quality in the facilities. >> yes. and as you mentioned, most of the regulation of consumption and smoking

for cannabis businesses is in the article 16 ordinance that is pending in rules. and so if that ordinance is further amended next week -- i'm sorry. tomorrow this committee could consider a conforming amendment next week to the planning code ordinance. the meat of it is in the ordinance that is in rules. and then you can follow up to make sure they're both consistent next week by amending the ordinance. >> great, thank you for that clarification. the other question i had in this particular land use legislation on page 14 it talks about accessory use. then in reading the article 16 legislation there is a definition of something called a can buses microbusiness which is defined as a fixed place of business where cannabis and/or cannabis products are cultivated, distributed and sold to customers. i wonder what the difference is between

cannabis microbusiness and accessory use. mr. starr. >> accessory uses are something that is accessory to a primary use necessary for the operation. the way we were thinking of accessories for cannabis is a corner grocery store could have a small amount of cannabis products behind the counter, prepackaged and things like that.j unfortunately, because you can't sell alcohol and cannabis and with a tobacco at the same place -- and tobacco at the same place, it's bookmarked to be determined later. a microbusiness is a primary use. it's more like a microbrewery. microbreweries are allowed to make their own beer, have a tasting room and distribute it all by themselves. it's similar tie microbusiness.

they'll grow their own cannabis and manufacturer it from their own cannabis and sell their on cannabis. i think they're limited to 10,000 square 10,000 square feet of can canopy. so they're limited in what they can do from seed to sale for cannabis. >> thank you for that clarification. i think it's important and ties in with the comments made earlier around business gentrification and how we're not just trying to target the cannabis industry. when i think about accessory uses, i think about issues we had with a the massage businesses and how a lot of massage businesses try to open up with gyms, supposedly and doing things that are not legal here and not permitted for. it's a word of caution in terms of accessory use and we had to change the zoning city-wide to make sure you doipt just get -- you need to get a

conditional use. we'll address you urgent care facilities. that is another industry that has cropped up. over the counter permits had been had. they have opened up one for example in district four, i had no notice of it. we're trying to get a handle on different industries here. so it's not just targeting the cannabis landscape kidd wanted to make that last point back to you. >> thank you supervisor tang and with regards to the last point i am dubious no pun intended, about having "as of" right in any part of the city. i represent the district that has the second most mcds. and i think the whole concept of notice whether it's the urgent care or whether it's the mcd or the formula retail.

i think that should be an acrossed board requirement. i think that is important not a barrier to entry. it does allow the public to know and participate in the process. i think that is important. supervisor kim. >> thank you supervisor peskin. i have a question. i'm not sure the city attorney will be able to answer this. i have a variety of different concerns about how individuals are interpreting prop 64 around medical cannabis cards. and the validity after january first. there was a blog saying that all current medical cards would no longer be eligible after january first, they had to come from your primary physician. there is a lot of confusion over this. as we talk about the rush to put something in place by january first i want to clarify that for members of

the public around whether current card holders will be able to continue to use their card on january first regardless of what the board of supervisors does. i've heard that from some attorneys that they do believe that current card holders will continue to be able to use their medical card on january first. but i know there is confusion out there. so i think that we need to clarify that so that people don't have misinformation. >> deputy city attorney jon givner. i haven't heard that, but i'll check with the attorney in our office working most on the regulatory framework. >> i think sleup viers shi hi will want to add to that. >> supervisor sheehy: supervisor sheehy will want to follow up on that. >> you have the card to go to public health state registration.

but there are only 540 of those issued in the city and county of san francisco i believe. the other source is people get a recommendation from a doctor. now, so an additional question for the city attorney, will those be valid on january first? if neither are valid, i think we also have some problems. >> and i agree with that. if there is some question about the validity of patients that are currently holding cards today i just want to make sure that whatever we do ensures ensures that they'll continue to have access on january first. i think there are a lot of different interpretations. if there is a misconception about that, we need to claire that for members of public so patients that need can -- clarify that for members of the public that if they truly need cannabis the board will act on that. >> supervisor safai and go to public

comment. >> i just wanted to add on to supervisor shi hi'ssheehy's proposed amendment. i think you should could have a situation where you could have a temporary permitting process to allow for temporary adult use. it would be for existing mcd operators and a few in the pipeline that have had a significant amount of submitting their dph application and still have the conversation with growth and equity and allow for equity to happen in a thoughtful way and achieve what supervisor shi hi sheehy is talking about in terms of demand and making the existing businesses competitive and in3me an environment where they'll compete against places that essentially will

have their permits in place and be allowed to do adult use. once we have the permitting process worked out we'll have an all-encompassing permit that will allow for and respect those that simply want to have cannabis as -- for its medicinal quawments and those thatqualities and those for adult use. there will be literally zero businesses operating solelies an mc -- solely as an mcd. what we need is a temporary permitting process to allow the department and board to continue the conversation on equity and getting the final piece right in terms of issuing new permits. so anyway, thank you. >> we'll come back tofké that later. but now we'll open it up to public comment. i'll call speaker cards in the orders

that they were handed to me. if you could line up to my left, your right, the first speaker is jim lazarus followed by lora thomas followed by gilbert crizwell. >> jim lazarus san francisco chamber of commerce. thank you for all the hours and hours you've spent on this. we urge you to move swiftly to pass legislation in the next few weeks. so that businesses can be legalized and to take those steps necessary to get this program as approved by the voters of california and san francisco off the ground. we believe that reasonable limitations can be placed whether it's the recent suggestion by supervisor farrell's office or in the legislation before you or originally from the planning department. but that we need to create a situation where businesses can be located throughout the city in reasonable

numbers and that we have a permit process in place for the entire supply stream that will be in san francisco from the grow to the labs to the dispensaries to delivery to retail. we urge you to act on that in the next few weeks. i think there are a number of other issues we've continued to raise in letters we sent to the board from the group we put together including other business organizations, small businesses merchant's association restaurant association and others that we have issues around nonconforming theus is needed for the cottage3industry -- industries that is needed for cottage industries and we need reasonable permitting for scums in the future. we need to deal with all the applicants that are in the pipeline and we need a comprehensive framework. one approach might be to duplicate

the file. when you have a final piece of legislation in the next weeks, knowing that as supervisor peskin said, there is a lot of change that may be needed in the coming months. get something on the books before january one, deal with it again, early next year. >> next speaker and after mr. bruno there is joanne hillary, rudy. ali jm ma and susan king. >> thank you, lora thomas a member of the state legalization task force. and i have faith that san francisco can do it both right and fast. this is not actually a new issue for us. and we have a lot of expertise in our city to build on.

some of my concerns are related to our priority around ensuring that equity applicants are able to be supported. thisthat they're able to have both job and entrepreneurship, students in all of this. one of my concerns is that any buffer limits or caps are going to have a disproportionate impact on equity applicants by limiting their opportunities. i think that limits, caps, buffers, are based in very outdated assumptions about what a cannabis dispensary is or does. we've heard a lot about in previous conversations about messages to children around this. i think honestly the primary message that a retail cannabis dispensary provides to young people is that this is not for you until you are older, which i think is exactly the message that

the voters of california wanted to be giving and what we want for our young people. so i think anything more than the 600-foot buffer is problematic and based in stigmatized and outdated information. i think that we can do this. we're available drug policy alliance is available to help going through this. the task force has been meeting for two years looking at all the information. i hear supervisor kim's concerns. where the board of supervisors task force. we are appointed by you and our recommendation should be the floor. >> thank you miss thomas and thank you for your work on task force. next speaker, please. >> hi gilbert crizwell. i'm a cannabis user.

the first thing i think that needs to be talked about is charity care for people in this city that are living with a.i.d.s. and h.i.v. for the medical cannabis. i think the operators and owners should take that into consideration. and the supervisors should take that into consideration when they're crafting new legislation on this. i would like to thank supervisor supervisor peskin for his opening remarks and supervisor breed, i think that it has to be a city-wide issue and not an ad hoc by district. i hope my cannabis will be able available to me on january first. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon i'm bobby bruno with the san francisco cannabis retailers alliance.

i humbly stand before you today. i am a resident of district 6 in sphriks sphriks and a voter. -- san francisco and a voter. state law was passed by the voters of san francisco that has a 600-foot buffer. a thousand foot buffer around schools and child care facilities would only benefit a handful of real estate owners. more restrictions would lead to fewer spaces and higher costs for equity applicants. thousand foot district 6 and 10 and make access much harder for patients. adding day care would essentially make a ban on cannabis in the city of san francisco. second, we ask for a city-wide policy restrictive patchwork. we need a city-wide set of policies

to enhance not hinder equity candidates and small operations. third, i would ask for a support of the pipeline applicants to be included, again, equity access, diversity for the industry. these projects have invested years of work and money and followed the city's policies faithfully and need a chance to be heard. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> i'm joanne hillary. thank you all for all your hard work. i'm a patient first and foremost. i think what is really important here is to realize everybody has been operating with the current mcds and doing very good business, yes but when come january first when people feel like they finally have access that they were

not given before or looked down upon for using cannabis i'll i'll you'll have a serge of patients in need of -- surge of patients in need of medicine. i worked with people to help them remove their fears they have around the stigma on cannabis. thank you all very much. i hope that you bring it back down to the 6 had you 600-foot and respect the pipeline applicants and go for the city-wide policy. thank you. >> after miss king miss dukay and dog block and sonia crouse. rudy, put it o therein -- it's up. >> thank you, i'm rudy corpus.

i'm the executive director ever the program here in san francisco that's been serving the city for over two decades, helping out and working with youth. you're probably saying what is the correlation between youth and medical marijuana? i'm about health and healing. our number one priority is safety. we have a very comprehensive safety plan that we would like to put in place when it comes to medical marijuana stores. one in particular, we have a lot of ships with some of the medical marijuana stores in our neighborhood. barbary coast green door, grassroots. vapor. they're able to get thousands of guns off the street and educating kids about medical marijuana. you want to keep away the stores --

there is a buffer between stores, child care but i look at it differently it's opportunity like you were saying for education, for us to educate kids because we know that kids and families around san francisco is everywhere. you walker wawght outside this door, you smell the smoke. the kids see it every day. it's probably in their houses. they need to understand and know and be educated on this. lastly, identify a like to speak about the equity program. the equity program to me was a very great idea. it gives leverage to a lot of young men for more neighborhoods affected by the drug raids that happened in the '08s. i'm one of them. i'm not only a person of color in san francisco. i'm born and raised in san francisco. and i've been convicted of a drug crime in the 198 0s behind drugs. i want to say --

>> thank you rudy. next speaker please. >> i'm ali j jamali. the way you look at approaching things i think super sheehy is the only one worried about the supply chain. you'll run cultivators out of business if you don't put this law in january first. there are a lot of small cottage growers supplying almost every mcd in town. most of it is cottage industry. if you implement the thousand foot ruled and you don't make a law by january first, we're all moving to oakland because we're looking at buildings in oakland where we can continue our

business without having to stop it or interrupt it. many of us won't be ail to continue it, if it's interrupted. on the edible manufacturing front, we're affected by the land use issue because we are working in an existing commissary that is not zoned directly. necessary a fairly commercial zone but because there is no law, we're prohibited to sell to our current clients and we can't, sco we'd leave the city. we took the risks and been in the industry for six years and as compliant as it gets with the city rules. if you don't have a law where we can apply for a license, then you're awe -- then you're running us out of business. equity should not be just about those who are arrested but the cottage industry that helped to bring this industry where it is, special --

especially in san francisco. >> i'm susan king. it's a pleasure to be here. i'm here as a residentú1÷lnénjáp' francisco and somebody who ised from in is interested in the emerging cannabis industry. my three proints one, hold at this 600-foot buffer for schools and do not include child care. do not include child care facilities in that because it will essentially stop the industry in its tracks. also please do support the pipeline applicants. i wanted to talk a little bit about safety. i know you guys are pretty smart and are not falling for the narrative that some of the pearl clutchers as i call them have promoted. but marijuana dispensaries make the area safer because they not only have

enhanced security around the facility, cameras, guards, but there iser in foot traffic. in areas that are quiet, and don't have a lot of foot traffic, it enhances the safety. there are more feet and eyes on the street. there has been a study that found that when a cannabis dispensary closes, there is a spike in criminal activity in the neighborhood. so not only promoting and allowing the industry to expand with reasonable rules like the 600 feet but also ensuring that the operations that are here especially with the equity applicants to allow thoases those operations to begin operation and continue operation in the city that pie o neared medical cannabis use. thank you. >> thank you. after the last speaker, i call johnny

della plains. >> good afternoon supervisors doug block representing 100,000 steamsters in northern california including 12,000 in the city and county of san francisco. we are organizing workers throughout the entire supply chain and we're heavily involved in the drafting of the state legislation and regulations governing both medical and recreational cannabis. i'm proud to say we're responsible for the requirement for independent distributors using employee drivers or delivery by drone. we're responsible for the labor piece requirement which is going to unionize this entire industry as it comes out of shadows. i want to thank supervisor sheehy for mentioning the labor peace requirement. without a license on january first

there is no labor peace in san francisco for a recreational company if we don't get this right. in fact, there is no requirement for them to comply with any laws for that matter and they'll continue to operate in the dark. that's bad for the workers obviously, and bad for the city budget. the question is how do we bring these companies into the light of day and strike the right balance between what the communities need without being so restrictive that everybody stays underground. we support supervisor sheehy's efforts and urge you to move forward quickly and thoughtfully. >> next speaker, please. >> i'm john morocco. i used to go to school here. i do live here and i help operate and part owner in a cannabis delivery medical service. i want to address the problem of the

square footage. if the problem is about the smell and site for kids, we only measure it straight. we don't take into consideration it could be a block down or two blocks behind which would be less in view than something that is straight and narrow, a thousand square feet from the laws as it is now. i want to say how square footage affects delivery services. i want to bring to light that we are disbreet. -- we are discrete. our packages are smell-proof. nobody smells it. i don't think the square footage has a huge impact on us. i want want to say to not forget about the small businesses that work hard. we are the people who educate and interact with the community and people of san francisco. just to take it to consideration, that delivery services are the people who

serve the very many ill and seriously ill patients. we have patients who have cancer, who can't walk that we deliver it straight to their door. we need to come into a better understanding with the people in san francisco who are against cannabis. thank you. >> my name is sonia crouse. i live in district 6, the most residential district. we have the most residents. this is surreal, because i think i'm like most san franciscans i thought we decided. we voted as a state to legalize as you know three quarters of san franciscans voted to legalize. and you may not be hearing from those people because they thought they already expressed their point of view.

[applause] marijuana opponents, i object to the characterization of their om -- opposition as cultural. the science is very very clear. when i hear their rhetoric, it's like being back in the 1980s, they believe marijuana is a gateway drug but we know that's not true. global warming is caused by humans and abortion doesn't cause breast cancer and marijuana is not a gateway drug. you don't have to respect clearly disproved scientific theories. especially when the city has so clearly articulated that they want to see marijuana dispensaries be legalized. i support jeff sheehy's efforts, reduce the radius back down to 600 and respect the pipeline applicants and um --

the day cares. it's okay to have disens disens dispensaries near day cares. >> i'm johnny de la plain. we're the unified progressive voice of cannabis retail here in the city. i'd like to address the change of ownership. right flow it's at 20%. can -- right now it's at 20%. cannabis companies need capital. they need to sell part of their company. let's say 51% ownership is mandated to keep your permit instead of saying you have to have 20% change, what we want is the permitee is to own his permit or have people flipping permits. let's do 51 percent ownership. next i'd like to speak to pipeline

applicants, the two-step process for non-retail and consumption because they're all linked. we want products made in s.f., sold in s.f. and consumed in s.f. a lot of this is about let's start with a place of inclusion, not start by shut people out. i encourage everyone to support the pipeline amendment that was deferred for vote from last week. i urge everyone to support the two-step process for non-retail. i'm for non-retail. i love non-retail guys. they're people. and we're all an eco stim and ecosystem and working together for years and years. let's be encluesive and foster growth and create rules that allow the industry to flourish and grow. so made in s.f. sold in s.f. consumed in s.f. and support the pipeline amendment. 600-foot buffer, please, but i know

it's touchy. i thank everyone for their time. >> i'll came couple more. aaron flynn, jody knight. brendan brown and kendra sugar. >> i'm quinton flat. i'm -- quinton platt. i'm a member of the cannabis retail alliance. myself and johnny have a dispensary permitted in the soma district. i want to talk about the barriers of entry and how this legislation is going to address that. the 600-foot distance between sensitive uses will reduce the barriers.

when you talk about the radius orbiting, we want a situation that is better than what we're in. second barrier of entry is funding. first, you have to find a place. find someone who is going to rent to you then you have to come up with the money. associated with that is a very -- what has been in the past a lengthy process for going through the approval process. so to circle bag on the funding to allow for businesses to be able to hope and incident tren prenners to enter the space, i agree that we should -- entrepreneurs to enter the space, we should look at 51% as opposed to 20% that is propose the right now. you tie that into the length of time that it takes for some of these permits to get approved, as i mentioned, i'm part of two permits, one has been approved at discretionary review, the other is awaiting hearing.

i hope that any processes moving forward will give the applicants more certainty at the outset of whether they'll be able to comply with the regulations that are in place at the time that they do apply. that will segue into please protect the pipeline applicants. people who entered into a process going on for many years and trust in the city to -- >> thank you, next speaker please. >> good afternoon i'm liz williams with americansamericans for non-smokers rights in berkeley and we've been working for 40 years to protect the right to breathe smoke-free air. we're concerned that the new laws don't protect the non-users from exposure to secondhand marijuana smoke. i believe this is an issue addressed in the rules committee. the fact is that smoke is smoke. like secondhand tobacco smoke, marijuana

has a risk to non-user and it can be an indoor form of air pollution. if marijuana smoking is allowed in dispense israel and other businesses located in mixed-use businesses, they will have to breathe the marijuana smoke throughout the day. we realize a lot of thought is put into the process. san francisco has a very long history of protecting non-smokers and as these new industry regulations are discussed we hope that the city takes care not to weaken the city's public health protections in the process so expose people to another type of secondhand smoke. we thank you for your consideration. >> thank you. s next speaker please. >> hello i'm scoat scott bic kmore.

i'm a registered voter. i use cannabis for pain and other things to get me about. i recently figured out that cannabis reduces my blood pressure, cholesterol and helps me get out and interact with others so i don't have to deal with pharmaceutical side effects. please change the buffer zone to 600 feet and open up the green space so there will be more available spaces so i can medicate and be able to enjoy the wonderful scenes in san francisco. >> next speaker and after the last speaker that was called silas tess, and kristen. >> i'm malik. i'm mad and disappointed.

in the most progressive city in united states you're catering to ignorance hip okayhypocrisy and ignorance. there are antilgbtq groups. yes, you're catering to ignorance. meetingsmeeting after meeting you have propaganda and put the arguments on the same level as scientific studies that show that the fears are completely irrational. i'm a scientist and this reminds me of the anti-vaccination crowd. you should be the opposite of this position and show leadership. yes, you're caving to hypocrisy. you're allowing our children to be

used as an excuse. i'm a dad of two young children one in the school district and one in preschool. not one parent has asked that we keep a thousand foot radius around the day care. there is it no way my 4-year-old will escape and go to an m cd. you're caving to racism. because of the equity program, people of color should have priority o open new businesses. we all know that this is not the conservative base you're catering to. you're making impossible for the reparations to happen. please keep the 600 feet radius. do not include day care and no cap per district. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, thank you for

listening to our comments. i'm aaron flynn, i run the san francisco chapter of the california growers association along with a few colleagues. i'm here to just talk a little bit more about what was brought up at the beginning of the meeting. supervisor sheehy did a good job and we appreciate bringing up the fact that if we take up more time if there is more time, what will happen in 2018 is that the current registered dispensaries will be able to move forward and get temporary state licenses and not permanent. but all the producer in the city of san francisco, the mom and pop cottage shops, cultivators if this process slows down and if it's taken in a deliberate way, they least, those producer will not be able to enter into the permitted supply chain january first. so many of us are working hard and we're

excite and appreciative of what the office of can with cannabis and director elliot has done so that we don't have to shut down operations or continue to operate in the gray collective cooperative model. please recognize that even if you do decide more deliberation is needed on some aspects, please keep the registration process moving forward and allow the non-retail operators to become at least temporarily license sod they can continue to move through the permitted supply stream. on that note, i would also respectfully ask that non-retail producer be considered in temporary adult-use licenses. if we only temporarily allow dispensaries the adult-use side of things we lose continuity and it rel rates the others to only operating in the medical supply chain.

it seems simple to add into the amendment please include producers in the temporary use licenses. >> next speaker please. >> i'm kendra from district 6. yes we have a lot of fence ris there. we -- dispensaries there but not enough compassion. i'm a heart patient os sfi and i don't have enough medicine to keep me going. my mental problem i get angry bad and it helps me cope with life. the thing about the children, it's lewd russ. why can't marijuana be solid with alcohol? it's ludicrous. come on! let's be real about this. it's only marijuana it's not cocaine or heroin. please help us. thank you. >> thank you sir, next speaker.

>> i'm daniel. i'm a resident of district 3. i wanted to thank you all for having this today. i want to talk about the 1,000-foot buffer zone. which i feel dupuis fies the intention of the state law-it defies the state law passed. i believe the expectation of the people is that cannabis should be regulated similar to alcohol. but if the zoning is reminiscent of housing zones for sexual predators. cannabis panic is real. but it's worries are unfounded in rewralt. they are -- reality. they're person ised by -- person ised by lawsperson -- spurned bylaws of the past. there is -- where there is statistical evidence supporting the aggressiveness

of this thousand foot zoning? there is none. it's absurd. there is a compromise. that can take real fact noorgs consideration. i -- factors into consideration. i support roo reducing the 1,000-foot buffer zone to 600 feet. >> next speaker please. paul jesse stout. wendy mcpherson shona and i'm sorry -- last name is courier. >> thank you. thank you for moving this forward. i'm kristen. i serve as cannabis provision director for testimony teamsters. we're tasked with the job of helping the state form regulations that take into account worker and consumer safety. looking at the proposed map the

teamsters feel this map is too restrictive for the area. it's been proven that severe caps or bans actually help feed crime and maintain the illicit market. we're asking that the cannabis businesses not be choked back into the underground. withbut allow them to operate as good neighbors and open up the green space. a prime example, if you look at two distinct cities here in california sacramento has a decentfo place and they review tax and permit their cannabis businesses. in the city of sacramento, we have about 30 disbens30 dispensaries operating. in bakersfield and kearn, there are almost a hundred dispensaries where there is a ban.

severely capping or banning does not help limit the businesses. in addition on a personal note, i am a mother of two. i have an 8-year-old and 9-year-old. i believe speaking open pli with them about can -- openly with them about cannabis as i would alcohol is beneficial at least to teach them the benefits for some, what cannabis, a plant can do for them but also teaching them things that we are facing such as edibles that may not be properly packaged. thank you. >> i'm si las from district 6. handicapped people have problems going to clubs. a lot of other districts don't have places i can walk to. i have a hard time going to clubs

and getting home because of disability problems. we need cannabis clubs in other districts as well. thank you very much and have a nice day. >> thank you, sir. >> good afternoon, chair, members of the committee and the other board of supervisors that are no longer here. i'm patrick i've a been an attorney working -- i've been an attorney working on this since 2005. i currently represent a couple of applicant dispensaries that are -- that have been approved by planning and one of them has been approved by dph with a provisional permit. i'm concerned with the way section 190 is currently drafted as only allowing those withholding valid permits to proceed in converting to adult use. those with the promotional certify

visit -- provisional permits would not be able to proceed. i don't think that's the intention of the city. so i'd propose an amendment adding in allowing those with provisional permits to proceed without a conditional use permit. i also strongly support the 600-foot buffer. this has been something that's been suggested by planning several different times. it would alleviate the map considerably. if you go back to a thousand foot buffers, we'll look at a map that was increasingly difficult to find locations and will be even more so considering these other sensitive uses that are considered. on site consumption is a necessity if we want to reduce smoking in public. if anything, allow for on site vaporization. we require hvac systems and we have

to keep compassion in the city. compassion has been something that's driven the medical cannabis community historically. >> mr. p goggin, don't go away, are you referring to section 190 as proposed in the legislation before us or propose in what supervise sheehy mentioned earlier in this meeting which is -- >> i have not seen that language. >> let me read it to you. i'm sorry i can't hanld you a copy. -- hand it to you but i only have a copy. this is conversion to mcds to retail establishments. an establishment that either holds a

valid permit from the department of public health to operate as an mcd as of the effective date of this ordinance or, that submitted a complete application for such a permit by july 20th, 2017 and received such a permit from dph shall be deemed a retail use on january 1 or received a date which ever is later. >> i believe it's good, but i would add in "provisional" to make it clear. >> i did not even know that dph had a provisional permit authority o. i have never heard of a provisional permit. >> so the vapor room was issued a provisional permit on october 19th. and it indicates on that permit that it does not -- the reason for this is to allow folks to go in and get their building permits and do the construction and get it signed off before it goes

final. that permit is not appealable to the board of appeals until it goes final. the concern is they've gone through the process, gotten the provisional and spent thousands of dollars to improve their property and now be treat differently. >> this recalls the bizarre deal where dph issued a temporary permit then they didn't have the authority to issue the temporary permit. we will hewe'll figure it out. >> they need protection. >> i've got it. >> good afternoon. i'm shona. i'm the executive director of access of love. i served on the medical marijuana task force and helped to create the oversight board. we've been going for 15 years strong and i'm standing here once again saying what about equity for poor patients? we need to get compassion in writing,

mandatory. we've been standing in line and the last in line, we have an access problem in district 6 especially with the new taxes moving in, many patients are not going to be able to afford their medicationsos. with the new tremendous restrictions from pop 64, many patients won't be deemed patients. we need on site reduction but harm reduction lounges for low income patients as our advocacy committee suggested. on the current task force, poor patients have no voice. we strongly support the 600 feet. we strongly support this body thinking in terms of science and not in terms of religious zealotry.

in 2005, i was a provisional permit holder through sanctuary. we need to move forward carefully but need to assure that our cottage industries are part of the legal structure as we take our time to do this right. so i echo a lot of what mr. flynn said from the cal growers. but please, respect the poor patients' voice. we are part of equity. >> thank you. next speaker please. let's call more. david mccarthy. marlene dynise and chris emmerson. if you are, by chance still in room 263 there are plenty of seats available here in the board of supervisor cha

-- supervisor chambers. >> i'm matthew king. i grew up in piedmont across the bay, at age 12 i had access to lsd and cannabis and opioids cannabis has been the least harmful substance i've used in my life. i graduated from harvard university 2008. i spent two years at microsoft corporation and time at morgan stanley, i'm a healthy and functional member of society. i completely oppose the 1,000-foot buffer for schools. i think children would benefit from increased cannabis use. i think it's medicine and something that everybody needs to be educated on. i'm a founder of royal cannabis virses. i work with equity applicants and entrepreneurs.

i've seen directly the tangible and wide-ranging benefits for health including physical and mental health for consumers. and i am an outspoken advocate working with a number of businesses based in san francisco as well as the3me east bay. i think that cannabis is something that should be universally accessible and affordable. i think the city should go to any length necessary in order to make sure all citizens have access to cannabis and that the businesss have a good climate to operate. when i was living in kas pro castro, the local dispensary there was one of the best-managed retail business notice entire district and it was tangibly and directly contributing to the health well-being safety and economic benefit of the community. thank you very much. >> next speaker.

>> good afternoon. i'm wendy mcpherson, owner operator of flower power dispensary south of market. i'd like to speak on the planning department's language of expanding retail. i'm in a high-tourist area on second street between market and mission. there are easily 100,000 people that pass by my door every day. hundreds of toorists asking to come in since prop 64. i have the ability to facilitate access to cannabis users by using the second floor of my building. and it has a separate entrance, elevator, i have separate security. my dream would be to have medical cannabis on the first floor and recreational adult use on the second floor. i'm not only speaking for myself but other dispensaries to set up to have more access to cannabis.

>> thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon i'm marlene. after 30 years of public school teaching in san francisco, i'm passionate about helping the young population that i served. san francisco prides ourselves as a city where all our residents rights are respected and validated. i've been to all the marijuana hearings, where are all the representatives from the school communities to speak for our children and youth? are there laws that require the planning department to notify our school district and all the school communities? if not, where is the respect for the future leaders of san francisco? on october third, they quoted jane kim, i'm surprised to find that preschoolers are not included. it seems that there was an oversight. it makes sense if we're talking about impacts to children under 18.

the way that we would write the ordinance would include all facilities zero to 18. how can there be balance of views when members of the marijuana task force exclusively represent their interests? where are the rights of property owners and residents who oppose mcd notice neighborhood? although marijuana out-power our resident voices bawforts vast financial resources, we hope you will haar ow please. there have been four applications nearby property owners like myself and residents were not timely or properly informed. project planners never attended our community meet totion hear our positions. they may have unfairly affected the commissioner's decisions. within a thousand feet of the two mcds there are youth groups. after school and other childre