if you restrict place, you cannot have equity. if you restrict place, you cannot have equity. so please, i ask you, create equity by allowing the locations. >> i'm alice lynn. i've been a resident of san francisco and attorney. i worked worked with landlords and tenants for five years. this whole buffer situation is theoretical to me because realistically the people taupe to the idea of having cannabis as a tenant is low. if i see a landlord who has a bank mortgage i will tell them not to host a cannabis business. and the problem with this is that

the kinds of club -- clause i see in leases between cannabis operators and landlords are so in favor of the landlord. i see annual increases in rents that are asked for to be astronomically high. they can't afford to pay the increased rent year after year and see unfair laws towards tenants. i think to prevent bullying, you have to increase the green zone and reducing the buffer to 600 feet and not having the sensitive use include child care centers. thank you. >> neck next speaker, please. -- next speaker, please. >> i'm nancy doe, i've been a medical cannabis user for 10 years. it saves my life from seizures.

thank you for helping us build this industry together. most of us cannabis supporters are here because -- are here despite having jobs and businesses to run and families to raise. we've been present here because cannabis is more than medicine and can continue to provide a new chance for life. cannabis has built beautiful communities that most san franciscos and californians understand and want. we have a chance for redemption for communities affected by the drug war and an opportunity to help small businesses thrive. we want to build a long lasting ecosystem for all residents including children and elderly. i want you to consider how policy decided today reflects equity affordable access, safe community and ownership diversity. we cannot have any of these things without your supportive votes.

this support would look like this, number one, we'd keep the 100-foot buffer and limit the sensitive spaces to k-12 schools. allowing for a 600-foot buffer would benefit equity applicants and small business owners previously barred from the city for legal and financial industries. we should allocate a robust fund for multilingual schools. children know and see what is happening. cannabis has been here for the thousands of years before us. we should not shield them from understanding this. we have sheltered them too long. >> thank you. next speaker, please. if there are any other speakers after this, line up. >> i'm jeremy. i've been a citizen of san francisco

since 1998. i'm in favor of the 600-foot rule. that makes sense to me. on site consumption makes sense to me. and not having the day care center as a requirement makes sense to me. what we have to understand is we have 35 40 shops? san francisco. that's after 15 years of having for mitts for this. that's a long time to get just even this amount. ful you keep it at a thousand we're not going to have much of an industry. there will not be an ability for new people to come in. i've looked for years in this city to find things in the zone. i would like all of you to recognize the history of san francisco and the politicians from mayor brown to gavin newsom to nancy pelosi to mark leno, and many more that have been favorable to cannabis or friendly. if you do the thousand foot you'll a send a message that you're not friendly

to cannabis and not in harmony with our good governor jerry brown who mandated 600. i encourage you to be friendly to this stwri. we -- to this industry. we need 600 feet for retail and non-retail participants. >> thank you for your testimony. that concludes public comment. that was the last word. it's time for you to go. let us do our work here. this is one of many items on the agenda today. charlie, don't push my patience right nowabout now. we'll take this matter up. we're back to momentarily six

supervisors. we're at six supervisors. here colleagues is my suggestion for the intervening week. i would suggest that we duplicate this file. that we take a number of amendments, we have to go through them because there are some contradictory amendments as we discussed earlier. i would like to take the file currently in front of us and strip it of a few things. in the intervening week, we'll endeavor to work with supervisors sheehy president breed and the mayor's office and city administrator's office to see where we end up and if we can do something that is a city-wide piece of policy that balances all the needs and concerns that we have in front of us and brings cannabis into the dawn of the 21st century on a retail basis here in the city and county of san francisco together with cultivation delivery,

etc. so with that, why don't we go to supervisor she sheehy. you have two sets of amendments. one is the stack that i'll hand out to my colleagues which the city attorney e-mails us earlier and we can add that to the duplicated file. and i have them right here. would you like one? right. this is prepared for conversations

that i missed at the special meeting on thursday prepared by deputy city attorney vickie wong. and supervisor sheehy, if you want to go through them and speak to them or deputy attorney givner. >> the city attorney may have a better idea of which amendments are from which folks. but one is one i passed out earlier thatuo cj allows -- >> theaks section 190 amendment. let's get to that -- let's do your big packet first, if that's okay and circle around to 190 in a second. >> i think the only other one was the chinatown one. i'll defer to you on whether or not to proceed with that. >> so this is part of the city-wide conversation. here is what -- again i think as i said earlier i think -- i mean this is legislation that came to the board

of supervisors originally sponsored by mayor lee. subsequently cosponsored by supervisor sheehy. relative to those amendments, we do not need to make those amendments today. in terms of the road map, we can take things out. we just cannot add things, is that correct deputy city attorney givner? >> the question what you can do on monday? monday or tuesday of next week? >> correct. >> you can on monday or tuesday roll back some of the restrictions that you adopt today or were adopted last thursday without triggering another hearing. if you impose o editional restrictions, that would trigger another hearing after monday or tuesday. >> so in other words, if you carved out an area today, you could add it back next tuesday but -- so for the sake

of continuing the discussion and having public notice so everyone can talk about everything in the intervening week, we'll keep the chinatown amendments in supervisor sheehy's amendment before us, then we'll wait and hear from the mayor as to the mayor's desire is in that particular matter. >> beyond just to put everybody kind inform context of the documents in front of you the big fat document is a document that we prepared that includes all of the district-specific amendments that were discussed last week in committee and slightly refined by various supervisors. those are the chinatown amendments, supervisor sheehy mentioned last week in committee. amendments requested by supervisor tang, and farrell and yee regarding specific

mcds. >> exclusive of supervisor farrell mentioned earlier. >> we did not include any city-wide controls in the fat document that's in front of you. those are the district-specific controls. >> what i would like is a motion to take supervisor sheehy's amendments in the in the duplicated file only. supervisor tang. >> wanted to tack a stab at the amendments quickly. i see on page two just some updated findings regarding cannabis use. then if you flip to page 8 i think this was in there last week which was just including cannabis retail as a use in our tables. table 145.4. on page 9, this was something requested

by supervisor yee starting on lines 8 through 12 which is -- i'm sorry that is a but combination of supervisor yee and myself in the motion avenue and west portal avenue ncds, and the district 7 part of taravel street that any existing mcds if they want to expand to recreational use they need a review. so that is new. on page 10 this is the change to 1,000-foot radius as of last week's vote. i also have some clarifying amendments that i passed out to my colleagues here around day care centers and more clearly

defining what they are, which is referencing california health and safety code section 159.6.76. so nobody just opens and calls themselves a day care center. i want to adopt those amendments. >> that would be an amendment to supervisor sheehy's amendment. would add a day care center 159.6.76. >> that's right. >> we'll take these amendments in a little bit. >> just for clarity i'd like us to go over each amendment and take them separately if that's okay. >> if you want to vote now. >> stand to the three members of tht panel, myself included, what i'm trying do here is end up with two different

versions just for the purpose of being able to actually have everything on the table come next monday. what i heard earlier from supervisor kim, from supervisor yee from supervisor safai was a willingness to collaborate and compromise on some of these things that i fully do not expect are going to make it to the finish line, but in order to continue to have the conversation, they have to be publicly noticed per pursuant to the law. i wanted to say that for the record. >> the chair given supervisor yee's comments -- did you want to actually vote? >> i think what i'd like to do is vote on each -- first of all, it was my understanding, and i want to make sure i'm clear, the first of duplicating the file is to specifically remove all the different limitations that exist that

are specific to the districts in order to have a clean version of the file that we can work with separately from all the additional amendments that are being pro -- that have been proposed and approved. the other amendments that are going to be proposed today to have those discussions and to use that on one specific file. the second thing is, i know that supervisor tang is going through what i'm assuming are some of the new amendments which are also combined with some of the things that have been done. i think that's where i'm a little confused because are we going to review the old amendments? are we going to focus on the new amendments that we're trying to propose today? i wanted 20 to get clarity. >> as to the undupalduplicated file, i was going to strip the thousand down to 600 feet take out child care facilities,

so that we could have two different versions. one version is loaded up with all of the district amendments, the other version is, as you referred to it, clean version. both come back in a week. does that make sense? >> it does, but i think my preference would be that we vote on some of those amendments. because i'm not -- i'm probably not going to vote to support some of those amendments. i think -- and i want to talk specifically about the amendments as we go through them. is to that -- i'm just not going to vote on amendments i disagree with for the purposes of having a discussion. i rather those amendments not be onal the table and -- not be onfje the table and i'm explain why i don't agree with them. >> so much for that plan.

supervisor kim. >> i thought supervisor tang was reading into the record amendments that were already voted on last thursday. am i incorrect? >> i'm trying to read through some of the amendments discussed. these were weren't actually in the legislation. i had also requested and amendment here and it's not in here. i specifically stated i didn't want it in the ordinance. i was going to put it in if we had district-specific zoning. not everything we requested is in here. >> we can work, i'd say, over the next week on additional amendments. and probably talk off line rather than publicly about the specifics of the request. >> i made the request last thursday.

at land use. >> yes. >> but i did say i only wanted it drafted. i didn't want it in the ordinance yet. >> sure, and so this week as you all know, i asked all the supervisors to make specific requests so we could draft them in advance because of all the moving parts here, for this meeting for next meeting and next tuesday's meeting. so i'd reiterate that request publicly to all of you and those not here as well. >> so, madam president what would you like to do? >> well i'd like to allow supervisor tang to go through each of her proposed amendments and maybe we can vote on them one by one, if that's okay.

>> through the chair, i actually didn't have that many. i talked about a few amendments last monday, but i actually stripped away already quite a few. i was going to help supervisor yee with amendments because he's not a committee member. >> okay, should i go through them. >> there was one go combination on page 9, starting lines 8 through 12 in district 7 and 4 neighborhood commercial districts that are named that we would like to have a mandatory discretionary review process if an existing mcd wants to expand to recreational use. this is just for additional notification to neighbors. they expressed to us that the uses are very different they would at least like to be notified about it. it's a mandatory d.r. versus a regular d.r. >> just for point of clarification why only those specific areas and why

not where they all exist? >> that's totally up for discussion. that was something that i think supervisor yee and i thought was important based on the feedback. if other supervisors are open to it, happy to entertain that. >> would a discretionary review process. is it possible to appeal to the board of appeals? >> mr. starr is standing up so we can explain that. >> can you explain what that would entail and mean as it relates to whether or not there is the ability to add adult use and then also what that means in terms of the process? >> so currently as the law is written, all changes of use from a medical cannabis dispensary to a retailer located in districts require the 30

day notification mailed out to neighbors within 150 feet of the subject site. neighbors have an opportunity to file a discretionary view to take it to the planning commission. that's how it's written. what supervisor tang is proposing is to have a mandatory discretionary review for that change of notice. the notice would go out but it would go to the planning commission automatically like currently when you do an mcd and the commission would decide if there is an exceptional extraordinary circumstances to deny or modify the project. >> are there any mcd notice corridors now? >> there may be one coming shortly. >> they don't -- i guess i'm trying to understand the purpose. because mine is the one that is potentially coming since there are no other mcds that exist within the other corridors, by the time we finish with the legislation, these are the kinds

of things that would be included in the process anyway. i don't know if it makes sense to make this kind of amendment where again, it's specific to a neighborhood or corridor district. >> through the chair, supervisor yee does have some that are in existence. >> particular corridors. >> i have a motion. >> i don't know if you want to vote on it. that's the explanation here. >> can i start with what i think is a nundment notion whatever they are, 46 existing ncds should be allowed as a matter of law to convert to retail whether it's tomorrow or january first or whenever they get it done, that to me seems like a no h brainer. no -- a no-brainer.

the art of trying to get to an 11-0 vote or at least a majority vote with all the different things and i say this to my colleagues supervisor breed because i was being slightly facetious in my earlier reference to the leader of the united states senate, with but this is complicated in meeting a broad set of needs and getting the policy right city-wide and respecting the nuances and differences that exist in different neighborhood commercial districts and that's not a cultural issue. the reality is there are some places that allow banks on the ground floor and others that don't and there are reasons for that. as i threshold issue, everything that is an mcd should be an adult retail use without any hassle. i think that is a no-brainer. i beseech you supervisor breed for the

purposes of discussion and dwoarks goarks betweennegotiationbetween yourself myself and mayor's office to allow the rest of the process to go forward. obviously, if we have to start voting we have to start voting. anyone can ask to start voting. >> let me say thank you, supervisor peskin. i know all of the members of the board have, as i said earlier, their desires to want to do what makes sense for their district. i do appreciate the comments of my colleagues and the understanding that neighborhoods are different. we have different regulations for formula retail and all the other things discussed earlier today. and i'm sensitive to that, i understand that. but i'm also concerned just in terms of as i mentioned before in developing

this policy, i want us to look at it from a city-wide perspective and also not add things into the policy that make no sense to add or are not necessary and make it a lot more complicated than it has to be. i guess in trying to understand the specifics of the proposed amendment, i -- you know, i don't sit on land use, i'm here substituting for supervisor farrell and when this legislation comes to me at the board i mean, clearly you have almost the entire board of supervisors sitting here with the desires to address what their concerns are. when this legislation gets to me as a member of the board of supervisors, and i have a problem with how it's developed or i take issue with some of the items that are part of the legislation then

i'm most likely to vote no. and i don't want to get to that place. so this is why i'm here wanting to have the conversation about why is it necessary for all of the different bands and all the -- bans an and limitations that makes it more difficult than it has to be. i'm just trying to make sure, i mean this is what we're here to do. this is what the purpose of committee is to have the discussions to have our opinions and to try and figure out what is the best solution. i'm not drawing a line in the sand to say i'm opposed. i want to get to a place where this makes sense to me so we can put in the right kinds of amendments that makes this a better piece of legislation. i think i just -- i'm not 100 percent certain i agree that this would actually do that.

>> maybe we can do it like this how about we, as we go through these things, make the corresponding amendment to the original file. so for instance, in the case of section 202.2, i would suggest that we return the thousand foot radius to 600 feet. and that we remove the language that refers to day care centers. >> i would agree, but the language to reference day care centers was never put into the legislation only the thousand foot radius. i would second your proposed amendment to reduce the thousand to 600 and be happy to vote on it today to be a part of both files. >> all right. there are two supervisors who expressed interest in that although there was some -- three supervisors who expressed

interest in the day care center issue. >> can you repeat that? i want to make sure i understood what she said. >> in one file or potentially both fileses within the thousand feet turns to 600 feet. and the existing day care center legislation which as supervisor breed points out is not in the original file, that that be removed. so that end, i know that supervisor yee expressed a willingness to negotiate this and i believe supervisor kim and i believe supervisor tang shared an interest in that, that would be a block of three supervisors and i'm trying to count to six. supervisor yee. and then supervisor kim.

excuse me, i saw your hand up and wasn't looking at the screen. >> i was going to concur with the concept of having two proposed move forward to land use next monday, one with all of the amendments proposed so it's at least on the record as you said so members of the public know what the members of the board are considering. if we were trying to move this through swiftly without delay, it makes sense for those amendments to go in and have what you call a clean proposal which i imagine is just the original -- i don't want to see the original, but the ordinance that came to land use last thursday without any amendments, is that correct? largely? >> i'm sorry i was not here thursday and i'm trying to toggle back and forth between the sheehy amendment and tang amendment. >> i have some tirch -- -- different

-- sorry, i'm not even on the committee i think it makes sense to have them move forward as the negotiation process not commences, but continues over the next week so members of the public know what might come back to the board over the next couple of weeks. i do have a couple of questions supervisor peskin, but i'll wait until all the amendments are on the record. i have a couple of the ordinance that came before us on thursday. >> i've got it, but it's fat. supervisor yee. >> i would favor having the split file which we include the amendments so we could continue discussing it. part of some of the amendments i wanted was the reactions to what exists. as i stated earlier, if we're going

to carve it out, i have to react to that. i have to see what happens at the end of the day, when i want to keep on fighting for certain amendments or not depending on what is going to be left on the books. i want to restate that i'm very open to that having a compromise with how far from a thousand to 600. but i also the compromise would be that the licensed child care is included. >> supervisor tang. >> i would like to support moving forward one version with all the amendments. i agree with everything supervisor yee just said which is the compromise on the 600 feet. but with day care centers included, i didn't want to do district-specific things but since it was being done,

i think our constituents would wonder why we were not doing same. i am eagerly anticipating that this negotiation will unfold and i've rolled back quite a few things i said i was going to put in here last monday. so if it's okay, i'd like to proceed to kind of outline all the different amendments that would potentially be in one version. -- version with all amendments. is that okay president breed? so i read what was on page 9 in terms of mandatory d.r. on page 10, it was the reflection of the vote regarding the 1000-foot radius, but i had added in wording regarding the day care center and that was supposed to be defined under the california health and safety code on page 10. on page 1 i believe that there were some -- sorry, bottom of page 10 lieu 11, there were some neighborhood

district-specific requests. west portal, commercial districts and district 7 portion of it taravel and van ness that would have a maximum much one dispensary per corridor there and also i think district 7 has requested a 1200-foot radius around schools, public/private existing day care center on page 11. >> if i may at the risk of for the duplicated file of upsetting my colleagues, the notion of having different radii doesn't make sense, even for the purpose of this next week's conversation.

if we could for this, shrink that 1200 to a thousand just for consistency purposes as we have a 600-foot version without day care centers a thousand foot version with day care centers as defined by under state law which is an important definition because that does not include all the day care centers out there. supervisor yee. >> your argument is so convincing, i will go along with that. i'll withdraw the 1200 feet. >> thank you. let the record show on page 13 line 6 1200 feet became a thousand feet for the duplicated file. >> and page 11, line 1 as well. >> correct. >> okay. and we'll get to all these in due

course. >> so page 12 just also states the mcd buffer as 1,000. >> you skipped line 12 on page 11 about consumption. >> yes. so this was, i believe an amendment we took last week already which was that cannabis may be consumed or smoke on site. we took that amendment. page 12 starting line 16 is about the buffer zone regarding mcds. right now it's 1,000. then this is also where we would make sure that there is a definition of the day care center under state law. on page 13, again, referencing ocean avenue west portal, and district 7 part of taravel street relating to a maximum of one mcd or cannabis retail at any given time in those corridors.

page 13, thousand foot radius already. on page -- i'm skipping over all the amendments that were taken by this committee. just in case you're wondering. on page 25? is there something else on page 17? on page 25, starting line 13, i want to make it known that i'm expanding the green zone in district 4. this reflects that. so in our nc-1s in district 4 this says west of sunset boulevard, cannabis retail uses shall be permitted on

first and second floors. okay. page 27 reflects the district 7 maximum of one cannabis retail at any time on taravel district 7 portion and between broderick and van ness. and page 29, 12 through 13, this is district 2. page 34, line 23 maximum one cannabis retail use permitted at any given time in upper phil fillmore street mcd.

page 38 lines 9 through 10, maximum of one in -- sorry no more than three in the excelsior district. this was adopted last monday. page 43, line 17, sacramento street maximum of one cannabis retail use mcd. page 48 lines 1 through 2 maximum of one cannabis retail in the west portal ncd and i skipped through district four i did fot make any changes there as i said i would last week, but i'm not doing that for the sake of comprehensive legislation. >> supervisor tang, while we're there planning department staff, why are all of the descriptions of the ncs crossed

out 739, 740, 741, 742? >> that's a correction to your favorite article 7 ordinance. they were in there as a formatting error. we're correcting that there. it shouldn't be there. >> i wondered why all of a sudden that had anything to do with cannabis. this is actually the cannabis regulation and article 7 cleanup. never mind. >> page 64 line 7 through 8 is the maximum of two cannabis retail uses in the ocean avenue mct. and page 74, you'll see the chinatown mixed use table has been deleted.

as well as proceeding through 77, 78, 79, so those are all the chinatown districts, the tables are deleted there and i know that will be corrected soon enough. okay. so i think that those are all the amendments that we're supposed to be adopting today. and then also, on behalf of supervisor farrell, i have the amendment here regarding the 600-foot radius proposal that commission spoke to earlier as well. >> i have four speakers on the roster, supervisor yee, breed sheehy,

supervisor breed. >> thank you. so there are a couple of things. i think that we should, instead of allowing this item to continue to be discussed at land use with a lot of uncertainty, i think we should propose doing a committee of the whole at the board of supervisors which will give members an opportunity to engage in this discussion and make decisions so we can move forward with this legislation. i think that you know just based on even some of -- first of all, i don't support some of the amendments that have been put into the legislation. and i also don't support many of the proposed amendments. and i have a few minor amendments of my

own, none of which involve a ban cap or restriction or the kinds of things that just from ply perspective don't make sense to include in this policy. so -- part what have i'm hoping for, because, again, everyone has the reason that they have for their proposed amendment. and i think i'd like to understand that better although i want to be clear tha i that i oust -- supervisor kim and i had a brief discussion maybe not wanting to see an mcd on the same block as a child care plett me think about that. personally i don't really believe i see a problem with it in general because as we had talked about earlier, kids are accompanied by adults, or teachers

or the preschool teachers and folks that they're with. i just don't -- i just don't see the need to ban or to include child care in this discussion period. but i want to be open minded about it and i want to be fair. i just don't see it. if i have to vote on it, i don't want to vote to, even though these amendments are being discussed so that we can read all of them in the record, what i'm hearing again is exactly what i don't want to see happen and that is a district by district kind ever situation here. but i also want to be open minded and fair to my colleagues about what their concerns are. the other thing is for example, with supervisor farrell's proposed amendments, when i look at the maps at proposed 600 feet, it's everything

is in district 6 and everything is in district 3. that just limits so many other parts of the city. i'm just really concerned because are we creating a worse situation? or are we creating a better situation? are we creating a fair situation? how do these things stack on top of one another and make sense in terms of being good policy. i've not steen that yet. for example, if we include child -- i have not seen that yet. for example if we look at child care and lay on top of the map what supervisor farrell is proposing in terms of a 600-foot buffer and lay on top of the map all the restrictions proposed in chinatown and restrictions proposed in district 11, what does that look like when we talk about opportunities in our city. and what actually makes sense? so i just have a concern with the fact that everyone clearly, rightfully

should be involved in the conversation on the board of supervisors and have an opportunity to try and fight for the kinds of things they want to see in this legislation. my preference would be that we get rid of all of the restrictions and all of the amendments and we bring the original legislation to the board as a committee of the whole and allow members of the board to either vote up or down specific amendments being proposed by differ[hv supervisors. i think it's unfortunate that we've come tie place where because one member is proposing restrictions and another member feels they have to fight for their district and proposed restrictions, that's not a good way do policy. i just want to say that on the record, because i'm concerned about this and if that is not the will of my colleagues to want to do it in that way, so be it. for now many of these proposed amendments are things that i can't

support. >> president breed, i'd be happy to have a committee of the whole and vote these things up or down. the problem is a procedural problem. and mr. givner, if you could rise and respond to if we were only to send the file at 600 feet, and bhf what have you then we could not take action because any of those amendments would be subject to additional notice and hearing. i think the most expedient way to get to where you would like and i would like to get, president breed is countenance these for another week. so procedurally being get there. mr. givner, i'm not a lawyer and i don't want to give this advice. >> that's right. the speedest way to get it -- speediest way is to make the restrictive amendments today and send them on for another hearing where there is another opportunity for public comment. that could be next monday or next

tuesday at a whole with the board. >> or it could be at another meeting of the board. >> right. >> so with that as a threshold procedural matter, madam president and supervisor tang what i would reich do in the duplicated file for the purpose of having this -- like to do in the duplicated final for the purpose of having this conversation is to take the sheehy amendments as described by supervisor tang with the two amendments -- we'll get to yours, we'll get to 190, 190 -- with the two amendments that have been discussed to the amendment and those two are the 1200 to 1,000 which appear in two places as well as the definition of the california health and safety code in section

202.5-b and i would suggest one other which seems like a solution looking for a problem and that is at page 9, subsection c the mandatory d.r. for the change from an mcd to retail use which just seems -- we can take care of it later or now but that looks like a solution looking for a problem. supervisor tang said later, so i will withdraw that thought for the purpose of moving in conversation forward. i see three names left on screen. but that's the idea that is before us right now and we can get to 109 and we can -- 190 and get to farrell as well as other thoughts. supervisor sheehy. >> supervisor sheehy: i was going to see

about 190 but i don't know if that's down the road and i think your idea is good. >> supervisor peskin: there are now two versions of 190 and the version that you and supervisor safai handed out and by the way, there was one member of the public who spoke toy a permit i never heard of called a provisional permit, which sounds like a proceed at your own risk kind of sort of permit. i don't know if you have any thoughts. that was an attorney for an apple can't. applicant. >> that's a new one on me. i think that's the way we were headed. >> supervisor peskin: miss elliot, would you like to speak to the amended conversion language which eliminates subsection c and d and changes subsections a and b and creates a

new b. >> supervisors, nicole elliot with the office of cannabis. what this amendment does is take those mcds that have applied for an article 33 permit to be an mcd that were caught by the moratorium and did not have a land use either scheduled at the planning commission or had not applied for their land use approval with the planning department at that time. and it treats them as basically this board treated the mcds that did have land use scheduled at the time the moratorium passed. it takes those applicants that didn't have land use and allows them through the process. it was at least our interpretation that the moratorium conversation was really around anxiety-related to those

operators applying in a rush to get through. this treats those applicants the same. applicants that had what plied for an article 33 permit prior to july 20th of this year. prveg of >> supervisor peskin: and the universe that have population looks like what? >> currently there are eight on list, but that includes one that has withdrawn the land use approval and has not communicated with dph about their permit application since they applied in

2013. >> and the changes from section 1 190 and changes before us today do what? >> the changes proposed before you guys today would -- i don't know if planning wants to speak to this -- it loops in the seven remaining pipeline applicants to the same provisions that 190 originally contemplated. >> supervisor peskin: why did you change -- why did you delete subsection c for a grand fathered mcd to convert? in other words, you don't have to apply to convert, you're deemed converted. i'm fine with that. for those people who are watching

on tv, you can't see the supervisors and staff nodding up and down in affirmative. supervisor tang because this is a question to you, because i think -- i don't want to put words if supervisor breed as mouth, but i guess new section 190 we'd be happy to have in both files. so if we're going to have the less restrictive file and more restrictive file what is your desire as to the duplicated file? >> supervisor breed: i guess this could go in both versions. i think we could put it in both. >> supervisor peskin: bang! so now, we have farrell to deal with, but i have three names on the roster. supervisor kim?

anything you want to add? >> i had mentioned that i had follow-up questions in general. so i had three questions. one and i apologize that i didn't ask this earlier, a question had come up or feedback was given to this committee from a number of different stakeholders asking if multiple permits would be permitted in the same location. does this ordinance allow for multiple permits in one location? >> supervisor, would you mind repeating that question. >> supervisor kim: this committee and members of the board received several letters from different stakeholders asking that multiple permits be allowed in a single location. i think partially in response to the limited number of locations that exist allowing multiple business owners to i guess collocate and coexist at the same address. currently this ordinance allows for

that, is that correct? >> so, there is some distinction made on the state level about how they are defining premises. we're waiting through the emergency regulation process to hear more about how this state will allow for multiple premises on one parcel. currently the state says that will a premises is defined as a designated structure or structures specified in the application that is under the control of the applicant or licensee where the commercial cannabis activity will be conducted. yes, this does to the preclude multiple permitees from operating but we have to have a better understanding in the coming weeks on how do delineate those

premiseses. >> delineate? what if they're cosharing? which was an example provided in a letter so businesses could share space to save costs. >> is it possible. but there will potentially be state requirements around having walls and doors between the spaces. bill 94 specifically allows for agricultural co-ops. the state is looks at extending that to commercial kitchens. that will all be more clearly spelled out in the emergency regulation. >> right and i'm sure there are businesses that would want to share things like a commercial kitchen which is hard to come by. >> yes. to the extent that the office of cannabis can help further clarify that, that is something we expressed to the state that we'd like to allow for in the city and county because of our space

restrictions as well as number of small operators. >> thank you. for example, i saw one address on our list of operators 214 california. i think there are many seven permits attached to that. i know they are a all different units or office space within the same building. i wanted to clarify that does pis does exist. another question that i had was -- and i didn't get a clear answer from this last time mr. starr about neighborhood notification. you had said is that not every neighborhood requires notification like c-3. are there other areas that do not require notification that i should be aware? >> all eastern neighborhoods require notification changing from one land use category from another. going from industrial to retail, that requires 312 notification. we've written in this ordinance defacto,

if you're converting from a medical cannabis dispensary to a cannabis retailer and that zoning district is subject to 312 notification that require -- changeoog. of use requires notification. the others are downtown and pdr districts. >> it would be great to know exactly where that is so i know the c-3 but besides the c-3 what other areas don't require 312 notification. although my sense it is based on amendment that just went in, that supervisor sheehy put into both files if mcds automatically become adult use cannabis, is it correct to say there will knob notification? because there will be no conversion application necessary? >> i think that provision is to allow a temporary license to operate. they still have to get their land

use approval. they'll have a temporary license to operate as an adult cannabis retailer and still have to come to get their neighborhood notification. >> there is no neighborhood notification required in the c-2 and perhaps some parts of my district considered pdr. i'm trying to clarify what kind of neighborhoods don't require the 312 notification. >> supervisor peskin: i said earlier i fully intend thoo that we that we put notice in for c-2, c-3 pdr, everybody gets noticed. s that a threshold issue and i'm also going to suggest that, i'd like to do it once and get it right, the whole "as of right" thing dent work for me. but we'll get to that. >> supervisor kim: i stated that last

week on thursday as well. if you're going to pursue that, i'll support that that everyone gets notification. i didn't read this amendment as a temporary permit. i read that you will permanently be able to legalize on january first without a conversion permit. does that mean no neighborhood notification will go out? >> that was not my understanding of the amendment. >> colleagues again, i'm not on the committee, but i support this amendment, but it raises a question, if we do approve this amendment, there will be no neighborhood notification that the mcd in your neighborhood is now going to adult use. >> i don't think that's -- through the chair that's not what director3me elliot had said before. >> said there would be a change of use -- did i mishear