it with the huge rosy picture, but the reality also is that young adults. this is for san francisco, young adults between ages of 18-20 had the highest e.r. rates among all groups. it said that between 2006 and 2010, and 2011 and 15, cannabis related hospital visitations increased substantially. it even talks about patients ages zero through 4 that has cannabis related poisoning accounted for the most e.r. visits. again, although i don't think this is a problem, in particular, this dispensary. i want to point to our own department of public health report that they just came out with this year. i know that again, the opponents to the mcd, they have fears

about this dispensary and i think that some of it is based on this data. i don't want to discount commen comments. i see the value of comments from over side. with that said, i will, if there are no further comments, i will make a motion. i would at least like -- do i put the conditions in first or make the motion? >> well, it depends on for the conditions, maybe we should vote on them separately. supervisor tang, i'm happy to support the onsite consumption, but not the hours of operation. so if we can take those two separately. if you want to propose them in conditions before you make any propos propos proposed mental healths for --

amendment for approval. >> there is desire from district supervisor for there to be onsite consumption, i think semantics are important, the word require versus allow is important, because there might not be the space veil, the costs associated with it. it should be an option, not requirement. i think allow is the operative word. >> supervisor breed: thank you, and in that same spirit i also agree with hours to go to this particular process and provide a requirement of operation hours without knowing any details about the surrounding community, the hours of operations there, the needs of the members of the community who would like access to this facility, is just not a fair requirement to add. i think what is being requested is appropriate and could maybe potentially work with the

community to address in the future. if we could add these in conditions in a way that are more recommendations rather than requirements, or there is something that this is not kind of set in stone and it's something ta goes to the planning department, i don't know, but i don't feel comfortable with the hours of operation finding. supervisor tang? >> supervisor tang: thank you, i just wanted to say that in terms of the hours of operation, i would like that to be requirement for the first year and then subject to review. but in terms of the onsite smoking, i was just informed by the city attorney, this needs to be approved by the public of health because of the ventilation requirement. so i would like to say that -- can we say -- pending dph approval? >> the motion can be to require

onsite smoking pending approval of the dph, who has authority over that issue. >> could we say encourage dph approval? >> i think that's fine. >> supervisor breed: so the first motion is -- so we have other speakers, supervisor tang and i'll coming back to you. supervisor farrell. fa >> supervisor farrell: i would like to commend supervisor tang for her work on this project. i remember a similar challenging vote early on in my tenure on a project in district 2 where i had a distinct sense it was going the other way and how difficult that was. but i want to say how much i appreciate supervisor tang and how well she represents her district. we all come across these

circumstances once in a while, but a quick shoutout. >> supervisor breed: thank you, and i couldn't agree with you more. supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: so actually in response to the comment made by supervisor safai, i wanted to ask the project sponsor if there was physical space available for onsite consumption? is this something that pending department of public health approval, is this possible for your site? >> i mean maybe vaporizing or something, but there is not the space for it. downtown we have space for it. it is set aside specifically for a room that is enclosed. that staff doesn't have to go into. i don't know that there is a space to have the same type of onsite consumption that we do downtown. >> supervisor kim: would you be committed to working with best

faith efforts, with the department of public health and supervisor tang's office? >> of course. >> supervisor kim: thank you. >> supervisor breed: ok can seeing no other -- supervisor fewer. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much, i want to say that i have met with the irving street residents for over an hour when we provided translation and interpretation. and i went out to the site. i went out to the site again before the vote. i think the reality is that if you had a medical marijuana dispensary, these are probably the best sponsors you could have ever. i think these are responsible small business owners. think they're diligent. i think they want to also have a safe place to have a dispensary, but also a small business that is viable, that is part of the

community. when i walked around i saw empty store front. in my neighborhood, i said this during the noriega street debate, i have one dispensary in my neighborhood. and it hasn't caused any problems at all, in fact that block is very quiet. as i said, i hear more complaints from safeway. i just want to say when we look at -- marijuana is a drug and so is alcohol. when i see you have three barsnd i also see that you have advertisements for wine, and alcohol within less than a thousand feet from a school, when i see that there are cigarettes for sale, when i see that alcohol is readily accessible, off of shelves where students can steal it? and it's not locked up?

also, when around there, i noticed that it is everything that the residents say, it's a really vibrant district, i shop there all the time and eat there, too, and i know there are young kids there, but the reality is that we live in an urban city and this dispensary regardless of what somebody testified, this dispensary is a thousand feet away from a school, which is even a bigger buffer than we voted on last week, or today. i want to commend supervisor tang, i know this has been weighing heavily on her. she has done her homework, she is diligent and reads every single communication. i've had conversations with her, willing to answer questions. i voted in support with the neighbors on noriega street, but

i think when i look at districts that have over ten dispensaries, there is not geographical equity here. i have one in my neighborhood, if this passes, you will have one. i think, yes, cannabis is a drug. some people might have an issue with it, but an issue meaning that they may overindulge, but when you look at alcohol and accessibility of alcohol in san francisco, and when i look in the sunset district and my district, too, the massage parlo parlors, where there is sex going on for money. and there are all these things happening. we're in an urban city and i don't hear any complaints about the massage parlors and the complaints about the bars. and also the access to liquor, alcohol, hard alcohol, for

teenagers. i think that today, i came in and i was thinking i heard from the residents and i was sympathetic and i really do want to support supervisor tang, but the reality is that people, mccann has been voted -- cannabis has been voted on. the board has spent now, many, many hours -- i can't tell you how many hours -- debating on the best way to regulate it and what is the best way to enforce it and what is the best way to keep children safe? and i get that there is a report that says that it does get into the hands of children, but those -- that happened even before -- i mean even with alcohol. think it responsible adults also. when you talk about a small business and 70% of golden gate

park is my jurisdiction, so when you talk about people in the park and drug use, i completely understand it, because i'm trying to work on that, too. but to say that people who will indulge in cannabis are going to be crazy and lose their minds, that might be meth, but i don't believe that is cannabis. and then also, with the speaker that came and said, what about the doctors, we should have a doctor medical dispensary? i don't know how many have gone to herbalists and gotten medication and taken that for a cough. i know i have. when i lost my voice. when i've had other ailment. i have gone to chinese doctors. they're not a doctor. they're an herbalist and they prescribe things for me to take and i take them. so i think i just really want to put this into perspective. i understand and hear the fear.

and i know what it's like to be afraid for your children. however, these issues that we have to decide on the board, and i do think that everyone has a right to have a birthday party and everyone has a right to go to their friend's birthday party. and i think that it is really about what is the best thing for san francisco? i hear the residents really well. and i just want i guess to say, we are -- we are a little cautious in san francisco. we're going into adult use here, which is something we haven't done before. but i believe that something really powerful happened at this board of supervisors. and that was that through democratic process, we spoke about what is the safest thing for children, what is the safest

thing for adults and what is the best way we know how to roll out adult use. and i think we came to a really good decision. and not that it is -- i won won't -- -- it will need amendments, and we worked late into the tonight and many extra meetings to discuss how to keep it safe. how do we keep it safe for people who want to indulge in cannabis? and how do we keep it safe for your children? and how do we keep it safe for your communities? it's not that we haven't heard you. we have debated this over and over again. and we came up with a product that we voted on that i'm proud of. i think this has been weighing on all of us, emotionally.

i know i have really thought about this long and hard. and i just want to say that i feel completely reassured that this board of supervisors has really debated this and made the best decision they know how to protect you, to protect your children, to protect your communities. but also rolling out something that the vast majority of the san francisco voters voted for. thank you. >> supervisor breed: thank you. supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: thank you, i wanted to say to supervisor tang, i know she has spent a significant amount of time on the issue. it's not always easy position to be in when you might have your own personal feelings and feel one way, versus trying to reflect the nature and the voice of your district. i, too, have struggled with

that. as many of you know over the last couple of months. i agree with what supervisor fewer said, in the short amount of time, we've accomplished a tremendous amount on the issue. it feels as though, this is about the one year some of us have been on the board, we spent more time energy and effort on this issue than almost everything, even inclusion housing, street resurfacing, trees and beautification and homelessness. i mean this has taken up a significant, significant amount of time and i'm sure it will continue to. i know that supervisor tang has put her heart and soul into this and it is not easy position to be in when you're getting hundreds and hundreds of e-mails on a daily basis on a particular issue. on the issue of -- i said on my piece on the consumption part i understand what you were leaning toward there and it sounds like it's encouraging, not a

requirement. in terms of the hours of operation, the question that i would ask is, when you're starting out, often times there is quite a bit of margin of error and a need for there to be support for your business. and when you're starting out with constraints, it can constrain the business and inhibit the success. that's a reservation i have. i dealt with an issue like that a decade ago. supervisor kim's kim district. when they were starting a club there. and the neighbors were really adamant on trying to control the hours of operation and it certainly could jeopardize that business and in fact it would have. and what i would say is, you could -- one consideration could be to put some conditions on if there are issues that rise to the level of concern to your office, then you could revisit

the issue after that time. but if there aren't, then you would allow it to move forward. the question i have for the planning department, is there other examples like this on mcds? do they have restrictions on the hours of operation? in the city? >> supervisor safai, there are 46 dispensaries in the city. i'm sorry, i'm just not prepared to respond to the question. i don't know the answer. >> if i can rise -- >> supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: there are only 30, 16 of them are delivery services. >> supervisor safai: i would imagine if there aren't any that come to his memory, it probably is not in terms of recall. that gives me reservation. >> supervisor breed: supervisor

kim. >> supervisor kim: -- >> supervisor breed: i'm sorry, supervisor yee. >> supervisor yee: i'm ok with the hours that supervisor tang is suggesting. when there was a committee for the liquor license, many of them had restrictions and had to wait a year to see what happens. if they operated in -- as good neighbors, they were able to extend their hours later. so this is not new to me. if you're going to suggest it, i'm going to support it. >> supervisor breed: thank you, supervisor yee. >> supervisor kim: thank you, first of all, i want to thank both sides for today and making the discussion and debate a much

more peaceful and responsible discussion than the one we had prior. i think it really makes a difference for the board of supervisors. when we hear people being reasonable and expressing concerns about their feelings, neighborhood, community and where they live and work. this was a really good debate and dialogue. i want to thank members of the public for that. i know issues like this stir passion in people and i appreciate that we had a constructive dialogue today. this, of course, is always a difficult decision and i want to concur with all members of the board and thank supervisor tang for her leadership. supervisor tang is somebody who really takes all the issues, incredibly seriously and is a thorough reader of all the letters and issues and understands all the issues that come before her in her neighborhood.

this being said, it is impossible to vote against every dispensary in the neighborhood. and i know that this is going to be a controversial vote either way. if my name is going behind supporting a business going into a neighborhood this is unsure of whether it is going to welcome a dispensary, it is going to be one that i have very familiar history with. this organization has a dispensary in the district that i represent, barbary coast and is opening another one in my distribute as well, so in that sense, i'm biased because i've seen their work firsthand. this is an organization that has spent a ton of time doing outreach both to nonprofit organizations, small businesses and resident. they developed relationships with many of the youth programs, donating to our first gun buyback in the south of market. and to multiple different

organizations that serve some of our most at-risk children. when they decide to open a second dispensary, they initiated and convened neighborhood meetings about public safety and have offered their services to provide additional services and lighting. worked with difficult tenants along the corridor to try to clean up really problem parking lot behind the building. has really gained the support and trust of the landlord, who was skeptical of bringing in a marijuana dispensary to the neighborhood. and have really won over a lot of the residents. so from my personal experience working with a dispensary, if i'm ever going to stand behind one and my name is behind that, i'm going to want to make sure it's a business i trust and have seen their record and history.

i do want to support her ask on the hours. we do it all the time with liquor permits. we're constantly amending hours for the liquor licenses. i think it's reasonable that we limit it to one year. and put it under review again so if we want to expand the hours from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m., we can do that and after there is more comfort in the neighborhood and they see what this business is able to add to the corridor. so i will be supporting that amendment along with the best faith effort to move forward with a process with the department of public health for onsite consumption. but this is a very difficult decision as always. but i do want to thank the business, the project sponsor for doing the outreach you did and being committed to bicultural and bilingual

outreach. i know that a motion will be made. i imagine after that, we will make a motion to amend the conditional use authorization with the hours and the best faith efforts. and i'll be happy to make the motion or supervisor peskin. >> supervisor breed: supervisor tang. >> supervisor tang: thank you, colleagues, if there is nothing else i will go for it and make a motion to move item 24 -- >> supervisor breed: wait, supervisor tang, we haven't made the amendments to the findings. so would you like to do that first, or you want to -- how would you like to do that? >> supervisor tang: i could do the findings first, i don't know, city attorney. i will make the motion for the findings. the first one is the hours of operation for one year have it be between 9 a.m. and 8 p.m.

subject to review afterwards. i agree with the colleagues, we do this all the time with even restaurants that have liquor license permits, having to wait a year. again, if this is going to be the first one for the community i really want to at least give the community the hours of operation change. >> supervisor breed: supervisor tang, what is the review process after a year? >> supervisor tang: i would like to ask planning how to do that. again we do this for other permits, perhaps they can clarify. >> as i understand, the intention there will be restriction to the hours of operation you've articulated. in a year we could have a hearing at the planning commission for the operator and the members of the neighborhood to report back on findings after that period of time. there is no invoke mechanism for the planning commission to amend the hours beyond whatever you stipulate in the motion today.

if there were a desire at that point to change the hours, a new conditional use application would be required to be more restrictive or more lenient at that time. >> so it would be up to the project sponsors to apply and get that? how does it work for bars for example or restaurants with liquor? >> on occasion, the planning commission has asked for a similar report after six months or 12 months, the commission hearing public comment. more often or not, there is no follow-up action asked by the commission, on the occasion, commission has asked the staff to consider ratification hearings or encourage the sponsor to take the matter into their own hands or file an application to amend the hours further? >> supervisor tang: just hearing this i would like to go forward with the change in the hours. subject to monitoring or review after one year.

and if the community feels comfortable at that time then certainly there could be application for the change in hours. >> thank you, supervisor tang. as i said, i won't be able to support you on the amendment. i understand your intent. with the number of regulations we've already imposed, this adds another bureaucratic layer i think would be challenging. as you and others said, we're talking about an operator with a great track record, not only in the district that they're located in, but also, they're part of the community as well. so i just don't necessarily feel comfortable getting into regulating the hours of operation, but i do understand your goal and what you're trying to accomplish here and appreciate that. supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, madame president, through the president to supervisor tang, as

we do amendments like this on the fly, there is a number of issues. i agree with the advice from planning department staff that as a matter of law, and i believe actually for trying to do what you intend to do, it's not a finding, it's a condition. if you put nite the findings, it will never work. he will say it was a nice finding, but does not bind us. so number one, if that becomes a condition, i agree with mr. sider that after a period of time, this case, the one year you're suggesting, there can be a hearing and they can come back and reapply or there need not be a hearing and they can come back and reapply, and that will force a hearing. that's not where i'm going. there are other issues around -- this is akin to restaurants,

whether or not there is alcohol involved or not. which is a condition of approval says the restaurant shop closed at 9:00, which means that is the last time that somebody can come in the door. so there are issues like that. relative to mcds, there are delivery issues. so to the extent that they want to continue to deliver beyond nine, say until the original 10:00 time, is that being considered in the motion? i think that actually makes sense, because you don't have -- i mean when i think about sunrise and the aforementioned late night activity, they mostly close their doors at 9. so i hear you with the exception of walgreens, which stays open later, but the delivery aspect i think really is not implicated in that. so i would be amenable to 8 a.m.

9 p.m. after a year, they come in and apply for conditional use, there is no bar there, but it would not implicate delivery. that would be my suggestion. >> supervisor breed: supervisor tang, would you like to respond? >> supervisor tang: thank you to that, i agree with that, i think the hours are flip-flopped. 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. close and not impact delivery, that's fine. >> supervisor breed: is that a motion supervisor tang? >> supervisor tang: yes. >> supervisor breed: moved and second by supervisor yee. >> just a point of clarification, could you do the condition there wouldn't need to be conditional use hearing, so you say after one year time it expires and reverts back to the original time authorized by the planning commission? could we make that as part of

the condition? >> i think you could make that part of the condition. the reason i bring it up, i understand what supervisor tang is trying to do, but the idea of having to go through conditional use process all over again on this matter to rehash this matter all over again, for those hours, it seems like if we put it into the conditions now, along with what supervisor peskin said in temples of the delivery -- terms in of the delivery. >> supervisor tang: thank you, to supervisor safai, one thing i want to make sure is there a review or feedback mechanism so that the city officials can hear from neighborhoods, neighbors, ok, this is working, is it not? whether it needs to be a full blown cu, i don't think it should be, because then we'll have to go through this whole thing again. so i think that what i would

recommend and thank you deputy city attorney who is watching at home, jon givner, who is watching, it's to have the review go through the office of cannabis. we have that established now. i think it important for the residents to provide that feedback. >> supervisor breed: thank you supervisor tang. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: that sounds fair. >> supervisor farrell: i feel -- i fully agree with supervisor tang with the onsite consumption, encouraging them to do so. >> supervisor breed: so supervisor tang made a motion and seconded, seeing no other names on the roster, madame clerk on the motion, please call the roll. farrell no.

fewer aye. kim aye. peskin aye. ronen aye. safai -- >> supervisor safai: can i ask a point of clarification. >> no. >> no. sheehy no. tang aye. yee aye. breed no. there are six ayes and four nos, with supervisors farrell, safai, sheehy and breed in the dissent. >> supervisor breed: the motion passes. the second motion supervisor tang? >> supervisor tang: i believe it requires a two-thirds vote. >> the motion does not pass, there needs to be eight votes to add additional condition, because what you're doing is -- >> supervisor breed: thank you for that, the motion fails. supervisor tang, you want to make the next motion?

>> supervisor tang: the next motion is to encourage onsite smoking pending dph approval? >> supervisor breed: motion, seconded by, can we take that without objection. without objection that motion passes. supervisor tang? >> supervisor tang: all right. so i would like to make a motion to approve item 24 and 28. >> and table -- sorry -- >> supervisor breed: you want to reverse the planning commission decision? >> supervisor tang: yes. >> supervisor breed: so you want to approve 24 and 28 and table -- but i see the deputy attorney standing up. >> i think the motion would be, you're going to make the motion

in 24 and 28. disapproving the planning department condition, approval. adding the condition that you all just approved with the ventilation requirement, and the consumption onsite. and then directing the clerk to prepare the findings. support of that. >> supervisor breed: you know what, i'm going take a two minute break to get clarification. we'll be in recess for two minutes.

welcome back the san francisco board of supervisors and thank you to everyone for their

patience as we get -- got clarity on exactly what we need to do as it relates to making certain amendments. i would like to acknowledge that we are -- have been rejoined by supervisor cohen. with that, supervisor tang, you have proposed amendments? >> supervisor tang: yes, thank you. and i do want to call up the project sponsors, because i'm open to amending the hour conditions that i have originally proposed 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., as we stated with the supervisor peskin, it would not impact delivery. so simply the operations of the store front for patients would be 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., is that something you'd be ok with? >> president breed: can you start over? >> we'd definitely be open to that, we have a lot of respect

for you, the neighborhoods, the neighbors and merchants and we just want to be as positive influence as we can so definitely 9 to 9. >> supervisor tang: this is a fine compromise, saving off hour in the beginning and the end, but it would mean a lot to the community. with that, i would like to make a motion -- >> president breed: excuse me, i was told i need to make clarification we had excused supervisor cohen and she is no longer excused because she is

present. supervisor tang. >> supervisor tang: i would like this make the motion to insert this condition into items 24 and 28. and it would be rescinded after one year, because we did not want that to come back as cu, but would be evaluated by the office of cannabis. >> president breed: mr. city attorney, is that ok? >> i believe the plan was to do these conditions motions now and then once you've decided on whatever conditions you're going to impose, then you adopt 24 and 28 subject to the amendments. >> president breed: thank you. supervisor tang made a motion, seconded by the supervisor yee, can we take that without objection? without objection the amendment passes. >> supervisor safai: i want to clarify 24 and 28, the way i read it, maybe that's why you were side barring, seemed -- you said -- >> >> president breed: 24 and 28 are the ammed items. -- amended items. item 23 and 27, if we -- those are the specific approvals of the planning department and to uphold the planning department's -- well can i'll

let the city attorney explain. it's lengthy. so if you could explain specifically the difference between 23, 27 and 24 and 28 and why those were amended instead of 23 and 27. >> because you're adding additional additions to the conditional use authorization that the planning department approved, you need to disapprove that the conditional use and approve a new conditional use with the additional conditions that you're adding. so the two motions that have been passed, you can now approve items number 24 and 28, a motion disproving the decision of the manning commission, approving the cu application identified and approving conditional use fort same planning case for the additional two conditional conditions that the board has already improved. >> thank you for the clarification. >> supervisor safai: that makes

sense. >> president breed: supervisor farrell? >> supervisor farrell: if no other comments, what i would like this do is make a motion to move forwards times 24 and 28 and table 25, 27, 29? >> president breed: motion to move 24 and 28 as amended and table 23, 24, 27, and 29. is there a second? seconded by supervisor cohen. madame clerk on the motion, please call the roll. >> clerk: thank you, madame president, you did see item 24 to table, but i think you meant 25. >> president breed: 24 and 28 as amended, 23, 25, 27 and 29 to table. >> clerk: thank you. supervisor cohen aye. farrell aye.

fewer aye. kim aye. peskin? >> can i make a motion to rescind the vote -- then no. peskin no. ronen aye. safai aye. sheehy? aye. tang no. yee aye. breed aye. there are nine ayes and two nos with peskin and in the dissent. i'd to make a motion to rescind the vote. i want to hear the motion one more time. >> president breed: is there a second. without objection the vote has

been rescinded. >> supervisor peskin: let me restate, item 23 tabled, item 24 as twice amended, 9 a.m. 9 p.m. delivery and urging onsite consumption, in a year, urging in essence. item 25 is not tabled. the trouble i had was that i heard that there was a motion to table item 25. mr. rossi? is that your name? >> my understanding is the last time that the board amended cu like this, they did not require the -- the board wants to direct the clerk to prepare findings, it's usually the typical practice in these cases.

>> clerk: essentially the last time we did this, the way mr. givner did it was in the same way, we tabled the findings because the cu has findings contained in it. >> i would like to preserve the right to prepare findings. and if those findings are identical to the findings that are in, i want them, but if we're going to take this action, i would like to this to be legally sound. i am not a lawyer, i play one on tv, but i would not like to table item 25. i would go with the motion, but it's to approve 24 and amended, to table 23, to approve 25, to table 27, to approve 28 as amended and to approve 29. >> ok. >> president breed: so, can we have clarity, so there shouldn't

be issues as it relates to the preparation of the findings. >> the preparation of the findings would be to support the additional conditions that the board is imposing. >> president breed: so there shouldn't be a problem based on the intent of what the board would like to do. >> supervisor farrell: i'll remake the motion. motion to table item 23, approve 24 as amended, approvetime 25, table item 27, item 28 as anded. approve -- >> president breed: approved. keeping the findings on both. >> president breed: all right, i think we got it. is there a second? seconded by supervisor yee. madame clerk, the motio t