terms of what wasn't handled appropriately, a lot of discussion. i agree with mr. emblich, that once the treasurer's and tax collect jorz office received a returned letter downtown, do we think we did due diligence enough to sell the property and too bad for the homeowners. again, they should have updated their address with the assessor's office, no doubt, however, i think it's absurd to think that failure to do that would result in your land being sold out from under you. talk about the law. there is one supreme court case on point here, two supreme court discussions. there was a lot of discussions back and forth. the one thing i want to say, every one of these cases, for those that are lawyers and have gone through this exercise

before was about a piece of property that was occupied, for sure. but each one of the holdings did not distinguish between occupied or unoccupied property. they just talk about property, so therefore, by not distinguishing, they are including both occupied and unoccupied property in terms of the constitutional rights of the people that own them. that is a very, very big distinction. second of all, we also should be looking at what other jurisdictions do. now, i appreciate and i absolutely appreciate the tone of mr. cisneros today and the fact that he believes, at that point in time, he did what he needed to do, but since then, there have been a lot of things that they've done to improve their process inside the treasurer and tax collector's office. i distributed this letter that i printed out for the first time this morning. i have never met this person or spoke to him, mr. drasba, but talked about the four main things that as he was in charge

of the 2017 auction at the treasurer and tax collector's office, he said dwhoo, there was a bunch of things that we need to change. those were the basis for significant changes to the city's tax sale procedures and are evidenced by the resulted of the 2017 tax sale. because such drastic improvements were made and because of their timing, they seem significant to merit your attention. in contra costa and san luis obispo, the staff has to consult a lexus next i sus wou have solved the issue. in this case, i appreciate our treasurer and tax collectors office, but what reasonable people, reasonable residents should expect of our city government, the only thing they did was post in the examiner, and again, i go back to perhaps

i'm not the right audience here, but they posted lot and block number. they didn't post address. they didn't post on the property, they didn't check lexus nexus or do other things that other counties do. and again, what i would like to do going forward is work with my colleagues, if there's additional things we need to do, codified in law or other things, i'm certainly willing to do that. i look forward to working with you all with this. and again, let's talk about what a reasonable person who expect. if you are a property owner in san francisco, if i own property and the city was going to sell it, i would expect absolutely expect the city to do everything it can to locate me. and after multiple years of getting returned mail, the only thing that results is the

placing of an ad in the examiner is ridiculous. it's not assessing fine or increasing a penalty, it's a sale. i would expect a notice on my property. i would expect the city would check all of its recorded. i would simply expect more because this is a serious matter. and lastly, from a policy perspective, is this what we want to be supporting or condoning at the board of supervisors? do we want to allow speculators, out of town to bid on san francisco pieces of property and purchase streets and then charge our residents for access to those streets? or to make a quick buck on their backs? as a supervisor representing presidio terrace, obviously, i'm offended by it, but it happened in any one of your districts, i would also be offended by it. on its face, it's a ridiculous idea that we want to condone that here. again, we can debate the fwlam

of what happened, but i can't imagine anyone on this board, literally anyone in the entire city. i think it's not a good idea to auction off our streets to force residents to pay for the use of their streets outside their homes. it shouldn't happen in any district. and the current property owners, they were very nice when they dame in any office a -- came in my office and spoke with me. they didn't want to change anything on the property. since then i have learned that they wanted to entertain a long-term lease with the residents, so they want to make money, and last night their attorney offered the h.o.a.'s a settlement of $950,000, so they wanted to make close to $1 million to sell it back to the h.o.a. that, to me is offensive, to we want to condone that at the board of supervisors? we want to condone speculators buying people's streets and making million dollars off

their backs? i don't. so look, what should we do? we have two choices: keep the sale and place or rescind the sale and give everyone their money back, and while this is the first time we've had this hearing in san francisco, it happens in other jurisdictions unfortunately all the time. los angeles, 15 times in the last four years this exact thing has happened, and it's been -- property sales have been rescinded. it's happened in contra costa county in the last five years, and it's happened in alameda county in the last five years. what's the right thing to do? it's an obvious answer. given this is totally bungled -- i don't believe this body wants to set a policy which facilitates speculators buying roads in our cities and then holding the homeowners hostage, whether they want to rent it back to them so their kids can ride their bikes in the street or making a million

dollars off of it. i think there's only one reasonable out come: rescind the sale. give the speculators their money back. no harm, no foul except the massive profit expecting to make off of our residents' back, and require the property taxes to be paid now, and i'm sure the h.o.a. has their checkbook ready and will be happy to pay those taxes at this time. so what i would like to do it make a motion to approve item 30 and table item 31. >>president breed: supervisor has made a motion to approve item 30 and table item 31, and there's a second. supervisor ronen? >>supervisor ronen: look, i don't think we're dealing with an actor that's blameless in such a critical situation where their life would be ruined if

we voted one way or another on this individual case, and i have a lot of respect for supervisor farrell, but i'm not going to be supporting this motion today, and i wanted to explain a little bit why. first of all, what i believe my duty is is to look back at 2015 and evaluate the treasurer's judgment about how to use limited resources, which there always are in city government to perform his job duties. and at that time prior to a situation like that revealing gaps in the system, the treasurer decided to put more resources into lots that were not vacant -- and many times, i've heard mr. emblich refer to it as vacant property. it's not vacant property, it's vacant lots, and that's a very

different. the picture that you put up of a vacant piece of property that doesn't have a structure on it is very different from vacant lots. and the treasurer deciding at that time he's going to put limited resources into noticing of lots that are not vacant to make sure there's nobody living there seems actually like an appropriate use of limited resources to me. and that the measures at the time that the treasurer went through were reasonable. were they the best measures? no, and the fact that the treasurer is changing his practice, i think shows that i realizes he can always learn and do better because the intention is never to deprive someone of their property, the intention is to make sure that individuals pay their property taxes. and so, you know, i -- even looking at the due process

issues, and mr. kopp, i think, as a licensed attorney, i might be a little more sympathetic to your argument than some of my colleagues who are a little more offended by it, i think i do need to read more of the cases to decide whether they're relevant or not. but i -- i think that there's an elephant in the room here that we have to talk about and to respond a little bit to supervisor tang, you know, there are so many laws in this city where poor people never get discretion. they never get a second bite at the apple. they never get to come to the board of supervisors and say, you know, you know, that this isn't fair. it's like oh, you're going to

be homeless and you're going to get kicked out of your house because you know, the sheriff's going to come and evict you because you forgot to pay your property taxes. oh, you're an elderly person who didn't understand the paperwork and you're in your wheelchair? do we give you any discretion or opportunity? no, and so this has viscerally san francisco residents because there's no discretion in the law when it comes to poor people, there's no discretion in the law when it comes to people of color, and that's what people learn again and again and again and again. and here is a situation where homeowners in a wealthy part of town -- and i don't blame them. i could see where they didn't think they had to pay taxes for the street in front of their home. i don't think they're bad people. i understand why they're angry that this is happening, they're being reasonable in that anger, but this property was taken

away at one point, and they had notice that this was a responsibility of theirs. and mr. emblich started his presentation saying that most people wouldn't think the area in front of their home is taxable. well, most people in san francisco don't expect exclusive use of the sidewalk and the street in front of our homes. in fact, most people in san francisco pay for the roof to park their car, and most people in san francisco either do that by finding one of the very coveted spaces that exist in the garage, or they find if in some way, shape or form a mile from their house or they pay parking tickets, because that's what a person without a parking garage does, they pay regular parking tickets, and this is not the end of the world. you've been enjoying -- it does

suck for you, and i get that, but did the treasurer act unreasonably? i don't think so. and should we give a second bite of the apple to these homeowners when most people never get that? i don't think so. thank you. >>president breed: thank you, supervisor ronen, and again, remind members of the public, no audible expression is allowed in the chamber. seeing no other names on the roster, madam clerk on the motion, please call the role. >> clerk: [ roll call. ] >> clerk: there are 7 ayes and

four knows with supervisors kim, peskin ronen and yee, in the dissent. >>president breed: the motion passes. madam clerk, let's go back to items 8 and 9. >> clerk: we are discussing items amendments to the planning code and discussing -- >>president breed: i want to ask members of the public to please exit the chamber quietly. we are still conducting business. thank you. madam clerk? >> clerk: just to repeat that we are now discussing amidvarious amendments to the planning code to discuss the regulation of retail -- [ gavel ]. >> clerk: thank you, madam president. >> clerk: discussion of cannabis and the retail -- >>president breed: madam clerk, madam clerk? >> clerk: yes. >>president breed: i want to ask the members who are here who are going to remain, to

please be quiet. madam clerk? >> clerk: yes, for purposes of the members of the public who came late, we have already called items 8 and 9 together. these are various amendments to various codes regarding cannabis regulation. >>president breed: thank you, madam clerk, and as i said earlier, there will be no public comment on these items, and we will continue our discussion here at the board. we left off with supervisor cohen has introduced a motion to amend and i'm sure you're -- we've had sufficient time to review those amendments and colleagues, is there a second to supervisor cohen's amendment? seconded by supervisor sheehy, and just so you know, colleagues, i will list out these particular amendments and we can vote on them when we're finished at the end. i have a list of 34e78 berz who

a are -- members who are already on the roster, and supervisor cohen had finished her comments, and we left off with supervisor fewer. >>supervisor fewer: thank you very much chair. i, today, just want to make a comment on the amendment that -- one amendment that supervisor cohen has proposed, and that is amendment section 10.00-162, office of cannabis and changing it to office of cannabis community reinvestment fund. i just want to state that the original intent of this investment fund was to assist those dispensaries that would be equity operators -- that would be owned by equity operators financially to help

them actually start their businesses, start -- have the funds to setup a business skm to assist them in being a small business that can be really successful. the amended language here takes us to a different intent, so although i would love to work with -- although today, i am in favor of the other amendments because i think they're very good amendments, and i just want to thank supervisor cohen and her staff for this diligent work and this hard work to build this legislation and to ensure that we have equity and anecwhich tee progr an equity program when we roll out adult use cannabis, i don't believe the intent has changed with the establishment of this fund. this fund was not to provide assistance to organizations working to address the impact

of racially disproportionate arrests and incarceration, other burdens of the failed war on drugs. it was really intended to help, i think, those equity businesses that would need some financial help. i think that we will bring forward, props hopefully, a revenue measures and this in particular, but i think the real intent of the equity fund was to help these dispensaries and especially the -- the equity operators. and then, i just wanted to say that i have some amendments here to article 16 under the regulation cannabis, and it's section 16.02 and 16.05 and section 16.18, and i can either -- >>president breed: supervisor fewer, if you could identify the item number, as well, so that we can make sure that we

do it to the right piece of legislation, that would be helpful. >>supervisor fewer: oh, and there's a couple of others on the back, too. would it be possible to have miss elliott respond to this. >>president breed: so i understand, miss elliott, these are cleanup amendments, and if you could specify each amendment as well as whether or not they're for item number 8 or 9, that would be helpful. >> supervisors, nicole elliott, office of cannabis. these -- all of these amendments are for item 8. the first amendment is to section 16.02, definitions, which you can find on page 12, line 1, and it adds, relating to medal cannabis to the definition of preexisting nonkboermino conforming operator. section 16.5, transition provision -- i'm sorry.

section 16.05, transition provisions, you can find this on page 20, line 10, a cleanup amendment to strike medicinal, which was the intent originally, and it did not get struck, and for clarification supervisors, this is actually for item 9. the third amendment -- bred breed wait, i'm sorry. so 16.02 is the definition, is for item number 8 >> they're all for item 9, president. >>president breed: breed all of them? thank you. >> yeah, all of them are for item #. so the third amendment applicable to 16.18, we are removing suggesti removing -- suggesting that the board require that a business

have a safe in which they store their things, and then, this is a cleanup amendment which you can find on page 56, line 19 to strike health and safety and replace it with business and professions to then read california business and professions code. >>president breed: thank you. so just quickly, are there any questions about these cleanup amendments? okay. supervisor fewer, you'd like to make a motion to amend. >>supervisor fewer: to adopt these amendments. >>president breed: okay. supervisor fewer has made a motion and seconded by supervisor tang. and we will -- is that -- anything else? >>supervisor fewer: no, that's it, thank you. >>president breed: so next on the roster is supervisor yee. >>supervisor yee: thank you, president breed. first of all, i want to say that i appreciate supervisor --

the majority of supervisor cohen's amendments, and again, i want to commend her for working on the equity piece. now that i've gotten a chance to go through it, the -- the one -- the one amendment that i don't agree with is changing the -- which is section 16 section 16.04 c 1, which is in regard to the local hiring requirement. i think it was during the rules committee meeting, i made a motion to increase it to 50% for local hiring, and the rationale at the time when i made it was that why -- why are we sort of having such a low bar in terms of local hiring when many of these jobs are not

what i call construction jobs, where you need a lot of training and it's harder to find people that's local. and so here's an opportunity to actually provide jobs for people that are living in san francisco, so i -- i'm going to vote against that particular amendment and keep it -- i would like to keep it at 50% for local hiring. but everything else, supervisor cohen, thank you, i appreciate it. i'm going to offer an amendment for item number 9. it's under -- let's see... >>supervisor safai: excuse me, madam president. >>president breed: i'm sorry, supervisor safai. >>supervisor safai: i'd like to ask him a question. >>president breed: i'm sorry, supervisor safai.

>>supervisor safai: i'm sorry. >>president breed: go ahead, supervisor y. >>supervisor yee: . >>supervisor yee: instead of having a one year deadline, it would be a two year deadline, giving people under the equity lens a longer opportunity to get -- get their life -- their permits because when i spoke to miss elliott, she said -- actually, it would take -- it's very unusual that somebody's going to go through the whole process in one year, so just by having it for two years, it's a greater opportunity, and am i saying it right, miss elliott? >> supervisors, when discussing this amendment, in order to further the goal of having more equity applicants and ensuring that they have time to get their foot in the door, one of

the recommendations was extending the timeline to instead of january 1st, 2019 for new businesses to come in, january 1st, 2020. >>supervisor yee: being on. -- okay. so that's one amendment. i have other amendments -- >>president breed: okay. supervisor yee, just for clarity, you want to make a motion, and we have copies distributed of that particular amendment. >>supervisor yee: correct. >> teacher: is the-- >>president breed: is there a second on the amendment? >>president breed: okay. and are there questions on the amendment? supervisor yee. >>supervisor yee: i have others that i would like to offer, but i think i'll wait for the discussion. >>president breed: okay. thank you, supervisor yee. supervisor safai? >>supervisor safai: i actually have a question. you said you kept the local hire at 50%.

can you just reiterate that because someone was talking to me? they were. they were handing me an amendment and talking to me at the same time, so i was trying to -- >>supervisor yee: so basically, during the rules committee, we made an amendment to increase the local hire from 30 to 50. today's amendment offered by supervisor cohen is to bring it back down to 30. >>supervisor safai: but that was for equity. >>president breed: and just for clarity, just because of a conversation -- >>supervisor safai: through the chair. >>president breed: thank you. >>supervisor cohen: okay. through the chair -- >>president breed: i 'm sorry madam chair, can i ask supervisor cohen a question? >>president breed: thank you. supervisor cohen? supervisor safai, you are

correct. >>supervisor safai: okay. so through the chair, then, she reduced the tlaesh held fhreshl hire applicants from 50% to 30%. >>supervisor yee: the amendment we made during the rules committee was talking about local hiring. >>supervisor safai: from 30 to 50, yes. >>supervisor yee: from 30 to 50, and from what i'm reading here in her handout is section 13.04 c is this is local hiring requirement to 30% from 50%, so i was assuming this is the same numbers we talked about. >>supervisor safai: so through the chair, madam president, just to clarify, you were correct, we did -- on your amendment, what we support in the rules committee, we raised bar from 30 to 50% for the entire universe of new applicants, and supervisor cohen had the same number, at

50% for equity applicants, and she made a motion to reduce that number today from 30 to 50 applicants, as i understand it. >>supervisor cohen: that's corre correct. >>president breed: supervisor safai, did you have any other comments? >>supervisor safai: i just had any own amendments to clarify that, but i just wanted to clarify that. i was confused. okay. i have two amendments. i think it should be pretty fast. i think supervisor fewer and i had a conversation after last week about the good neighbor and management security plan. i'm reducing that amendment today. we're going to prioritize the review of making sure that office of cannabis, unless there's any issues or complaints or flags that go up, it should be pretty pro forma for the majority of the existing applicants to transition to a temporary adult use permit.

but for anyone who have been flagged or that might need additional review, they have to -- everyone has to resubmit their good neighbor and management policy, so i'm resubmitting that today. you have a copy of that. that is for item number 9. the second one is going to require a little more explanation. >>president breed: i apologize, supervisor safai, so you're making a motion to amend item number 9 to include the -- >>supervisor safai: correct, which would be under article 33 of the cannabis act to require that anyone that's transitiontion fr transitionti transitioning from an mcd would be required to resubmit their management zp good neighbor plan. >>president breed: okay. is the there is a motion. seconded by supervisor tang. next? >>supervisor safai: okay. it builds on this idea of moving toward our new applications prior to the

existing pool of people that are mcd -- current mcd operators and delivery, and so it's a pathway that we achieve the goals that i heard are c t articulated from the majority of this body are those that we're giving an opportunity are those that have been disproportionately by the war on drugs, and those who have been incarcerated, and communities that have been skrim 2345i9e discriminated. what this says is this entire universe of our entire number, then 50% of that number, 23 or 25 25, the next 23 or 25 would are equity applicants only. >> does that include those in the pipeline. >>supervisor safai: it says

those that have received their planning commission aful pro, so there are a few of those in the pipeline that have already had their planning commission approval that might be either doing their buildout, that might be doing their last permitting phase of the process that would be allowed to proceed, but those that have not, that just submitted and have not been processed, have not gone through the process or have not had a planning commission hearing, those would not be included, so that is specifically called out. >>president breed: supervisor -- >>supervisor safai: and this has not been called out, and supervisor yee and i did not have an opportunity to speak prior to this, but it strikes the january 1st, 2019 date completely, and what it says is it gives us time to get to that 50% number, and after that time it goes 1:1, so after we received that over jaul number of 50% in our over jaul universe, we would go on a 1:1 basis, and we would proceed on that going forward, and i think

that meets essentially what i've heard over the last couple of months from people before this body, from members of this chamber, supervisor cohen and others, that we would have a strong base to build equity applicants in san francisco, so i make that motion to adopt that. >>president breed: supervisor safai has made a motion to amend. is there a second? seconded by supervisor tang. >>supervisor safai: i don't have anything else at this moment. i'll hold my next comments. >>president breed: supervisor tang, you're next, and then supervisor cohen, and then i'll go back to the roor. >>supervisor tang: there was a case that now instead of providing equity and businessmen toring to these

applicants, that these applicants would submit an equity -- basically help and encourage and establish the growth of equity operators. i'm just wondering kind of how often these plans are going to be evaluated, at what junctures -- how do we know -- this might be a question for the office of cannabis, but how do we know these people are meeting these benchmarks and helping other operate skbrors? >>president breed: supervisor cohen. >>supervisor cohen: thank you chair. supervisor tang, that's a good question, and we will be lending and looking to the director of the cannabis -- office of cannabis. i'll let her speak. >> supervisors, there are some moments in time where we can ensure that we are checking on the status of these progress reports, so of course, you have

the plans submitted prior to the sale of -- temporary sale of adult use. and you will also have a progress property submitted at the moment of application for article 16 permits. the vision is that these applicants have their own files that they are continuously updating, and this can be done on an annual basis, as well. that is not currently put in this legislation. it's something that i would -- i can do by regulation, so that is something that we can set on an annual basis for those updates moving forward. >>supervisor tang: okay. i do think -- thank you for that. i do think it's really important that i don't see the language in here, that these operators are just submitting these plans, and then, they just go into these records, and no one checks on them and no one meets them. i just want to make sure that they're meeting these benchmarks. >> to your point, supervisor, in thinking about it has been

contemplated how we're going to share these updates on our website, and of course they are all subject to public disclosure, as well. >>supervisor tang: okay. thank you very much. okay. great, so i don't know if this is the time, but -- so i have amendments i've circulated to everyone to item 8, the planning code legislation. these are amendments that were in originally the bulkier version of the legislation, and so i'm simply just trying to reinsert them in here, and one of them is regarding the 1,000 foot radius and including the daycare centers. this is something that i know we will have a full on discussion about, i'm sure, but i do know that at least the constitch we knco constituency that i represent wanted they to go forward with

that. so one in a neighborhood in district 4, as well as expanding the green zone, that was already included and adopted, but in that expanded area, which is west of sunset boulevard and south of golden gate park or lincoln way would be restricted to two in that specific area, so again, those are amendments that i have spoken on before, and i'm just simply trying to put them back in here. >>president breed: supervisor tang has made a motion to amend. is there a second? seconded by supervisor yee. and colleagues, before we move on, i know that there are a lot of amendments, and this is probably getting a little bit more complicated, and i was thinking we could probably vote on these one at a time and then continue because then i won't have to completely repeat exactly what they are, and we can probably just knock them out and then do the next ones, if that's okay with you. my biggest concern is there were names on the roster, but more importantly, there might be questions or other issues

with regards to each of these amendments, so i'll do my best, and if i see that there are questions or concerns about the amendments that are -- have been proposed, then we'll do what we can. i want to hold off on supervisor cohen's amendment because i know that one is a lot more complicated, and we'll get to that one towards the end, if you don't mind. and the next one we had, if we could do this one, supervisor fewer made a number of technical amendments, and so on those particular technical amendments, madam clerk, please call the roll. >> clerk: on supervisor fewer's technical amendment? >>president breed: yes. >> clerk: just turning the pages, madam president, to get

back to that page. all right. this item was seconded by supervisor tang, correct, madam president? >>president breed: yes. >> clerk: okay. supervisor. >>president breed: breed aye. >> clerk: supervisor cohen. >>supervisor cohen: aye. >> clerk: supervisor fewer. >>supervisor fewer: aye. >> clerk: supervisor kim. >>supervisor kim: aye. >> clerk: supervisor peskin. >>supervisor peskin: aye. >> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >>president breed: okay. those amendments pass nonly. the next propos -- unanimously. >>president breed: the next amendments were to pass the date to january 1, 2020. madam clerk, please call the

roll. >> clerk: [ roll call. ] >> clerk: there are four ayes and seven noes with supervisor breed cohen, safai, sheehy, tang, and yee in the dissent. >>president breed: yee is not in the dissent. >> clerk: oh, did he say no? supervisor yee said aye? >>supervisor yee: aye. >> clerk: i apologize. i thought i heard you say no, supervisor. okay, so madam president, there are

>>supervisor safai: do we have any advice -- through the chair, do we have any advice on why the previous mcd's were targeted? was it simply because they were within 1,000 feet of a school?

>> supervisor: through the chair, if i can... >>president breed: supervisor kim? >>supervisor kim: so in 2012, i know that at least three property owners were sent letters by our attorney general's office, melinda hague, threatening action if they didn't follow the federal law, which is the drug free zone which 1,000 feet of school and children serving facilities. i know that in this case, three dispensaries did shutdown in response to them, did not own their property, and so the landlord did not feel comfortable continuing their business relationship. in the third case, the mcd happened to own their own property. they did briefly shutdown, and it's my understanding after talking to miss elliott that they later reopened as a

delivery service only and have completely reopened as a retailer. >>supervisor safai: through the chair, can you -- can supervisor kim speak a little bit more about what her amendment was regarding notification? >>president breed: unfortunately, she can't because the conversation is about supervisor tang's amendment, so we can get to that later. >>supervisor safai: okay. >>president breed: supervisor yee, you have a question about supervisor tang's amendment. >>supervisor yee: yes. i actually have a question for miss wang -- is it miss wang? you mentioned school and child care centers? is it how the federal government sort of interprets...you mentioned schools, child care centers, or preschools or something, and youth centers. >> victoria young, deputy city attorney. your question is how does the federal government interpret that? well, i can't speak to the federal government with regard to the state law, which is the law that includes the 600 foot

buffer zone, is that what you're referring to, where it says 600 feet from school, daycare center or youth center. >>supervisor yee: or in this case, it's federal law, i guess it's 1,000 feet. >> oh, i see. >>supervisor yee: but does it include child care centers in which supervisor tang is making a motion to include? >> that's federal law. i don't know off the top of my head. >>supervisor yee: i thought you just said something. you mentioned chiel care, that's why. >> oh, i was talking about child care centers in the state law context, and child care centers are defined under state law, so we have a definition that we can look to for that purpose, but i'm not -- i don't know, as i stand here, about how the federal law would interpret -- would treat -- would treat that. >>supervisor yee: okay. >> yeah. >>supervisor yee: i guess my

point is child care in general or the early education program, that's licensed through the state and should be looked at as a separate education institution. i'm supporting supervisor tang's motion, that's all. >>president breed: okay. seeing no other questions regarding supervisor tang's motion, madam clerk, please call the roll -- oh, supervisor kim. >>supervisor kim: i just don't know how to put my name on the roster promotion, but i just wanted to ask supervisor tang if she's open to a friendly amendment -- and by the way, i think it is -- the reason why it's been x'ed out so many times, it's been changed to 1,000, and then it was changed back to 600, but i did want to see if the author of the amendment was amenable to a

friendly amendment, which would grandfather in existing operators that were less than 1,000 feet from an existing school, public or private or daycare center. >> mr. givner, is that even necessary? >> i assume this would apply to mcd operators that are in spins bspins -- existence but are within the 1,000 foot radius, that it would prohibit them from even applying for adult use. >> victoria wang, deputy city attorney. the existing mcd's that are currently operating already legal uses, so if this were to pass, they would become legal nonconforming uses, so they

wouldn't be affected on that. >>supervisor kim: okay. i just wanted to propose that friendly amendment. >>president breed: supervisor safai. >>supervisor safai: i'm sorry. i have an amendment and a question. how would that affect the ones that are temporary permitted mcd's or have had their planning commission approval, how would that impact those that are about maybe about to be mcd authorized zm victoria wang deputy city attorney, so in the absence of any particular grandfathering language, the permit would be decided based on the law in effect at the time that the permit is issued, so if this amendment were in effect at the time that the final permit were -- one