districts, and we are the people who survive gangs, crimes, and we are targeted by crimes. as you look at the jails, look at the san francisco jail. look at the california jail. who are the people, and what are the races? you do not see a lot of people who are away from drugs in jail. today you are here legally notified by the people, the people of united states citizen and san francisco residents that you are willfully violating people's business. you are -- we are local residents, and we want peace, happiness, and safety, but you are not here protecting us. you are wasting a lot of government resources. according to the san francisco data, we had approximately 15,000 homeless sleep on the street. last year we have more than 200 people die, suffer, related to

drug and mental health and overdose. they die on the streets. san francisco streets. 60% of those people, they are related to mental health and cannabis. when they started, 60% of them, they are starting in high school, young people. i am a government employee. i saw the research. i am not here for the government. i am here as a mother, as a coalition representing people. and again, if we don't want it, why do you force us to accept an illegal drug that is continuously -- the federal can come and bust, you you are willfully manipulate and miseducated and missupported illegal activities in san francisco. we the people over here, we don't want it. when we say we don't want it, that means we don't want it. you are willfully doing illegal business and in violation of our constitution rights and civic

rights and you're hereby notified by the people of san francisco and the residents of san francisco, and you are -- looking at yourself. you could be a victim. >> president hillis: thank you very much. thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is rob yost. i reside at 355 first street, and i am here appearing on behalf of a group of concerned residents in that particular condominium complex, the metropolitan, as it's referred to. it's located in district 6. i'm here because we would like to voice opposition to the current matter before the planning commission, and i could talk about impact to the neighborhood and all those other concerns. the issue i really want to hammer home and speak to is the

fact that the planning code as it's currently written, and the applicable sections of the code are fairly clear on their face. they are unambiguous, and they prohibit a parcel that contains a cannabis retail use from operating within 600 feet from another such establishment. that code was legislated and hotly debated last year. there were seven hours of testimony considered, and input from, like, 150 members of the public. i think if the board of supervisors and the other committees involved that had debated the issue and deliberated wish to have an exemption to the 600-foot rule, they would have legislated it at that point. so i would respectfully request that the commission on this date consider that and consider the fact that this has already been -- this issue has already

been presented, it's already been legislated, and it's already been debated. so i think there's no need, frankly, for an exemption. we already have quite a few of these dispensaries, and i think the clustering of them will only be exacerbated further. but i will leave you with the following request, and that is to please uphold the will of the people and the board of supervisors in maintaining the legislation as presently written, and do not grant an exemption to the 600-foot buffer rule. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is travis kelly. i'm just here to quickly voice my support for the hard work done by director elliot and michael christensen of the planning department and to further voice my support in favor of the amendments before the commission today, to give added discretion and help rectify unintended side effects

of prior legislation. i think these are amendments done the right way, don't give handouts, just give parties a chance to move forward. i'm here in support of them. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hi there. my name is kristen evans. i'm a business owner, i own the book smith, bindery, and the olympic and serve as a member of the ashbury association. i'm going to second what tess wellburn, the president-elect of the council said, we are grateful to nicole elliot for meeting with our groups to educate us about what the process will be for this selection of candidate. it appears we have three candidates that were qualified

under the equity designation, and they all submitted applications within two hours of one another. so 1685 hiatt street submitted applications between 10:08 and 11:57 a.m. and this is one of those things that we as a neighborhood have not taken a stance on which of these three applicants we think will be the best for our neighborhood, and, in fact, it may make the most sense for us to have more than one, but what we are really concerned about is the arbitrariness of the existing process by which one of these three candidates is moving forward in the process because of the difference of less than two hours of submitting an application. i think in the spirit of what the equity program was designed to do, which is to give people that potentially did not have a

permitted business to have the resources to go forward and put forward a permitted business in our community, that particular applicant may not have had the resources to speedily put an application in two hours, you know, more quickly. so, therefore, in the spirit of the program, and the designation to try to identify which of the applicants might be the best or if the neighborhood prefers two of the three or all three, i think that would be a much better process, so you can do to essentially help us have a better community responsive response would be greatly appreciated. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hello, commissioners. it's nice to see you again. thank you for listening to our comments. i'm the president of the vape

room, a cannabis cooperative that was forced to shut down in 2012 during the federal medical cannabis crackdown by the u.s. attorney. last year this commission unanimously approved our application for our new location after we presented our plans to have our dispensary become a positive community member and finally reopen our doors. i'm in full support of the planning code text amendment before you. our ability to remain in operation is positively impacted by your votes in favor of this amendment. this amendment will allow us to convert to adult use and provide our uniquely experienced service to our community. without this, we would not be able to remain open in this extremely competitive environment of adult-use access. the process from conversion from article 33 to article 16 has oftentimes been confusing an convoluted, especially so with the everchanging regulations brought down from the state and bureau of cannabis control.

what the amendment seeks to do is help reduce the confusion and allow for impacted dispensaries that already applied to have a chance to move forward with the process as planned on a level playing field. the office of cannabis, with nicole elliot, eugene and ray, along with michael christensen at planning department have been diligently working with the community to effectively implement the new regulations and help us all understand the landscape as things get changed and evolved to applicants. we owe a huge debt of gratitude, as they have been very helpful to get our doors open. i ask you, please, approve the amendment before you so our dispensary can have a chance to serve our members on a level, fair, a playing field. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm a retired preschool teacher. i know that kids are full of

curiosity and marijuana is not a necessity or -- to the kids. all the marijuana shops and merchandise should stay away from kids. overcrowded shops affect our quality of life, kids' futures, location, will be eliminated. pot shops do affect kids, all communities, and i remember when i was working with kids, and every single week i brought my kids go to the neighborhood shop, look at the shop, look at everything, explain to them. they are very excited, and now i don't know. now the teachers can bring -- help the kids learn. because the kids are very curious to know everything, and

i hope you can consider the kids and also our quality of life. i feel like we deserve to have a better life. we will work hard, we'll help the community. we try to have a good, quiet, safe community for us and for the children. i really, really -- please, think about it. if you have many around the schools and the children have less space, less location to go. so, please, consider our quality of life and the children learning. and i don't know what you say, but please, consider that. and also, please know -- amend section 190. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please.

. >> hi, commissioners, i'm the president of the h.o.a. at 18th and mission street. i came under the assumption the 600-foot rule was going to be exempted overall. i understand that's only in one specific case? is that the case? >> president hillis: a couple. we'll clarify after this, but the overall 600-foot rule is going to remain. it's applications that are in the process, there are some exemptions being proposed to that, which we'll clarify after public comment. >> okay. i'd just like to say our entire building, as well as many of our neighbors we've discussed this with are concerned about the extreme density of proposed -- looks like potentially approved applications. not only on our street, but also in our neighborhood. right now it looks like there's going to be one on every single block. one of our neighbors who lives across the street is allergic to pot smoke, she'll have to keep her windows closed moving

forward. if we were to make one or even many exemptions, you get even multiple dispensaries per block, we're hoping that our neighborhood can become more family friendly, and we feel like that would be moving it in the opposite direction. thank you for your consideration. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i have a letter from a neighbor in the visitation valley area. can i give you copies? >> president hillis: absolutely. you can leave it right there on the shell of. -- shelf. >> thank you. so, mr. russell maureen, mainly he said, please do not improve any modification to section 190-b3 to allow cannabis store fronts to locate within 600 feet

of one another. one particular location that he's concerned about is 5 leland avenue. he said, concerns would be multiplied as two m.c.d. applications simultaneously work their way through the approval process. if both were approved, the two storefronts would be less than 100 feet away from one another. so there should be no circumstances to allow new m.c.d.s or retail cannabis operators to circumvent the 600-feet radius limitation. any new locations, cannabis locations, within the now 600 radius, go against the intent of preventing the clustering of this type of use.

i'm a resident in the -- in district 1, and there's one cannabis store about three blocks from my house, and there's a steady line outside. and there's -- there used to be more parking, but now you can't really find parking. so -- and i'm really concerned that with this 600-feet radius limitation, it's not to limit the cannabis, it's actually to corner our kids, so no place to go. because if you have two cannabis with a school in the middle, that means they are blocked in the middle. there's no free land for them. okay, if you multiply, you know, to a square footage, that's 115,000 square feet for every cannabis store that you allow. so you are taking away the free space for kids that could be free for them to roam around.

so please use these opportunities to limit the expansion of cannabis stores, because our kids are our priority for equity. we have spent a lot of tax dollars, and we have just approved many tax measures to encourage families to come to san francisco, but with more cannabis stores, you are actually doing the opposite. so thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is michael mussler, and i spoke last meeting you had regarding -- requesting to have more africans heard, and i kept on thinking i discussed it with one equity applicant, who was kind of this -- confused about the whole system. because when this was happening

in the beginning, before the applications went live, the confusion amongst people applying was this a best qualified person, is this a horse race? who stands there first? so the notion behind this being an equity program is eliminated by the fact this is a time-stamped program. since there's a very stringent guidelines to who can be an equity person, once the equity person is approved, at that time it becomes a horse race, which takes away the whole idea of who was best qualified for this equity program. so i say anyone applying within the cluster be heard to keep it fair for those people who are disenfranchised and didn't have enough information, nor knowledge to submit the application within the due time. so that being said, i'd like to maybe encourage you to understand who is here supporting the notion of having

more than one candidate -- maybe i could ask people to stand up to see who is in support to have more than one application being processed or checked by the commission. that's just something to think about when it comes down to who to choose, to choose the best candidate for the area that has the best security plan and best location and the best experience in running such a business. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. thank you for allowing us to be here. i want to say that my name is demy, and i second my brother's opinion. i do feel very strongly about -- we've been in business in san

francisco since 1979, and we've been in the neighborhoods all our lives, working in these same neighborhoods, and we feel strongly for the neighborhood and for everyone else, that decisions are made based on what the community and the neighborhood qualifications are met, not on who comes first or who delivers first. we feel it's really important that those decisions are considered and neighborhoods are heard and communities are being listened to. thank you very much. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. thank you for hearing us. my name is kevin o'connor, and i'm a life-long member of the haight-ashbury and agree, it should be based on qualifications, not time stamp. i'm also highly offended by mr. richards' opinions. he doesn't sit in the meeting and while he's here he yawns and

doesn't cover his mouth. very offensive to the people that take the time to be here. thank you very much. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is dominic, the district manager for the top of broadway c.b.d., and i'm here today to add my support to the commission to consider all of the points and factors in an application for a dispensary. there is two applications very close to our district right now that are before our commission, and we think that there are multitude of factors to consider rather than simply a time stamp to ensure that we have a safe and orderly dispensary operating in north beach. so with that, i'd like to end my comments. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> mr. roger gershman. appreciate being here. i also hope the planning commission also recognizes the quality of the applicant, their

experience, and their -- not only business acumen and capability, but, you know, not only financially capable, but also their dedication to their community that they live in. this is not just about profits. this is about community. this is about building relationships, and, again, i second and third the motions as such. appreciate it. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is jason everett. i'm an equity partner, a part of the forward integration group, to open a dispensary on 353 divesedaro street. we hope that the planning commission will be able to look over our application and give us a fair shot, and thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please.

>> good afternoon. any name is ricardo donaldson. i was born and raised in san francisco, went to alvarado elementary school, went to francisco middle school, graduated from thurgood marshall high school, and went to u.c. merced and graduated with a bachelor's in business management and minor in psychology. as a first-generation college student. now after being a bartender and managing a bar for over a year, i would like to own my own cannabis retail business, and as an equity applicant, i believe the permitting process for applicants within a 600-foot radius is flawed. apparently applicants are based on the time stamp of each application. this system prevents immediate neighbors and the community from having a say where these cannabis businesses can and cannot open.

the current system also prevents you, the planning commissioners, from reviewing multiple business applications side-by-side, without comparing each location and team, how will you know if one location is better suited than the other? i strongly believe this is -- i strongly believe this to be unfair for the applicants who may have a superior location and/or experience with controlled substances. a better system needs to be implemented. thank you. >> president hillis: next speaker, please. >> hi. i'm -- my name is katrina. i just want to second the sentiments today, we think it would be the fairest to consider all applications simultaneously, versus a time stamp. it would be a disservice to the neighborhoods that these dispensaries are opening up in to not really look at all the options and see what is the best fit for the people who actually live nearby, so just wanted to voice that opinion. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you.

next speaker, please. >> my name's alex, board member of the merchant's association on haight, board member of the haight-ashbury neighborhood council. i think the first come, first approved is flawed. i think that all applicants should be heard for the best benefit for the neighborhood. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. please pay special attention to the importance of the planning department recommendation modification on the cannabis grandfathering law. if the modification gets passed, more pot shops would be able to open on the same block of an existing one. communities would have legal basis against the second or

third one. the first one on the same block was already determined to be applicants with law. even though this recommendation receives applicable to old ones, other applications would use this as an example and would go through exemption, as well. if we always make exemptions, can we go back to no m.c.d. or no recreation cannabis at all? multiple damage on the community. please say no. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name's quinton platte. thank you for taking the time to hear everyone speak today. this has been an issue that has clearly a lot of time has been spent on. this is public comment, but to me it's a very personal issue, and i just want to express how

much i support a fair process. and i do agree that the neighborhoods should weigh in on what businesses are open and have a chance to judge the people opening the businesses in their community and make sure they are actually going to be a part of their community and deserve to have that opportunity, but there was a process in place and a lot of people made decisions. personally in their lives, financially, planning for their futures, based on the process that was outlined, that was already in place and approved. so while i do think that it's important for areas that have a conditional use authorization to, you know, that team to be qualified, i also don't think it's a very good idea to open it back up and to go back and now change the process yet again. friend of mine also asked me to speak on his behalf a little bit, because he had to leave. he just wanted to express the fact that the equity program is

important to him, as it is important to all of us that are involved in these applications. and so we want to make sure that those opportunities that exist right now are able to be processed in a fair and expeditious manner. and, yeah, thank you very much for your time. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. johnny dellplane, cannabis entrepreneur here in the city. i'd like to apologize for my computer. my printer hit the skids right before this, so here we go. we support all the proposed amendments of section 190 of the planning code. it's important and the clean-up is critical for many applicants you already heard from through some maybe misstep and not seeing a part of the process, you know, missed their march 31 application or something of that nature, so it's important to bring all the people in part of

this process earlier. the ordinance intent was to allow sites and processing to continue processing, so that process is anything but quick and simple, as we all know, so hence the important of the all-important cleanup. so we thank the planning department and office of cannabis for working through this with the industry. in particular, i'd like to address two sections of the staff report on the cannabis grandfathering. first, obtaining a full permit to operate. so we've got full support that any m.c.d. applicant that received approval prior to january 5, 2018, should be allowed to apply for a cannabis retail permit. i believe this reflects the attempt of the board of supervisors when they were drafting this legislation last year, and second, the 600-foot rule, so we support exempting m.c.d. applications that were pending at planning department, but without approval prior to january 5, 2018, from the minimum radius requirements. so three projects were taken off the planning commission calendar when they were within 600 feet of an existing m.c.d., so this

isn't a 600-foot pass for new applications. this is just bringing those three applications forward so they have their chance in front of the planning commission. so it's not an approval. it's simply giving them their day so they can finish the process that they already started. these three projects will be approved or denied by the planning commission on their own merits. the community will have a chance to give input, which is always the case, and that's what's fair. i'd also like to note the orbiting zoning that was originally proposed by the planning department prior to the ordinance would have actually included these three projects, and so i know that it's already done and it's a done deal, the orbiting thing, but it's just worth noting, so i thought i'd bring that one up, as well. so the last year has been extremely challenging. these three projects are not coming for you at this time. it's just a fair and equal pathway for them. and so we support all of the amendments, and thank you for your time. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is guy carson. i'd like to just echo the sentiments of those that have come before me and spoken, questioning the logic and wisdom of qualifying applicants according to the time they applied for their permits. i'm a north beach resident for the last 30 years. i have two teenaged sons. i'm a solo dad. my kids like pot. it's really important to me, personally, that the operators that are in our neighborhood are good operators. we've seen this a lot in the bar and nightclub industries. it's important to have good operators. good operators equal good fun and safe fun, and i'd like you to -- urge you to reconsider that time stamp quality, and because i believe that each applicant needs to be screened and compared side-by-side, and

that we have the absolute best operators in our neighborhoods. thank you very much. >> president hillis: all right, thank you, mr. carson. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm not certified interpreter, but she wrote some chinese on the paper, i can translate through the paper. >> president hillis: thank you, thank you. >> hi, i live in san francisco. [ speaking in chinese ] >> translator: when the city allowed the recreational marijuana, i was the first to protest it, because it is illegal in federal level. [ speaking in chinese ]

>> translator: recreational people know that this is harmful to our kids, first generation, second generation, and so on. [ speaking in chinese ] >> translator: i live in potrero and i have the right to deny recreational marijuana in my district. [ speaking in chinese ] >> translator: we attend numerous public hearings to tell the supervisor, board of supervisors, that marijuana is harmful to our human beings. [ speaking in chinese ] >> translator: why are we still letting them opening the recreational marijuana? still letting them to open it? [ speaking in chinese ]

>> translator: planning department should not allow to have this amendment, also to allow them to be about the law and change the law. we are opposing it. [ speaking in chinese ] >> translator: it affects the residents' quality of life. [ speaking in chinese ] >> translator: i oppose it, absolutely oppose it. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> may i continue, please? helping translate? >> hi, good afternoon. [ speaking in chinese ] >> translator: i am living on irving street, sunset district. [ speaking in chinese ]

>> translator: i am here to oppose the proposal of the amendment today, which is become law. [ speaking in chinese ] >> translator: when we attend the irving street public hearing, we already opposed even medical use of marijuana on irving street. and we know that was a patients' needs. [ speaking in chinese ] >> translator: we know the patient has a lot of ways to get their own medication, marijuana, for medication use. [ speaking in chinese ] >> translator: at that time, we have 85% of people opposed the m.c.d. on irving street.

[ speaking in chinese ] >> translator: at this time, about 300 feet, we have 85% of people saying no to the m.c.d., and at least we need to have minimum of 600 feet away from kids, from preschool, from the facilities that have kids around. [ speaking in chinese ] >> translator: recreational marijuana should not be automatically converted from m.c.d. [ speaking in chinese ]

>> translator: we have a lot of kids, middle school, high school kids that come around on irving street and buy their drinks and hang out in the district. we have elderlies also on the street. [ speaking in chinese ] >> translator: having the cannabis shop, pot shop, in our district will be huge, will be hugely negative affect our community. [ speaking in chinese ] >> translator: we are here to oppose t

oppose the recreational marijuana in the communities. please consider to say no to the proposal today. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is li young. i have to say something to our community. [ speaking in chinese ] i agree with the speaker. she said that patients, if they need some marijuana for treatment, they can have different ways to get it. it's not necessary to open so many stores in our residential community. it's not good for all the residents. it's not good for the elderly and the children. and we are not deserving to have

the bad smell, so i really don't want to open so many -- so many stores. thank you, everyone. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hello, commissioners. my name is duncan lie. i'm here to speak against the arbitrary time stamp process that propels one equity application over an another based purely on an application's time of submittal. the community should have the opportunity to hear all pending applications in a contested 600-foot buffer zone. this will ensure that the most suitable location and operator is selected as opposed to the neighborhood having one thrust into their community, regardless of the location and operator. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please.

>> thank you. everyone has raised good points so far, so i won't waste time going over it. i'd like to add a couple of technical points, if you want to call them that, regarding the exemption for the blacksmith shop, the blacksmith shop on folsom at the moment, that wants to be used as a medical dispensary. i've done some research on the matter, and it's been used as a blacksmith shop for decades. the blacksmith shop uses metal and coal. coal is primarily carbon and absorbent, that's why it's a filter. it's mined out of seams in the ground, and as water goes down through the topsoil, it picks up heavy metal ions and isotopes, which are then absorbed by the coal. the use of coal as a fuel

released not only carbon dioxide and other contaminants like that, but also these heavy metal ions, and the ash in the coal also has these heavy metal ions. also, the act of blacksmithing involves the use of metal. i'm sure you've seen pictures of blacksmiths pounding iron and so on. these metals are often alloyed with and naturally contain other heavy metal ions, and over the years, these have been -- these have fallen on to the soil in that blacksmith shop. i've been in the shop. it's a nice, very nice old-fashioned blacksmith shop with dirt floors. to sum up, people who go to a marijuana medical dispensary or whatever have medical conditions. sending them to a place where there's toxic metals in the topsoil right underneath them is probably not a good idea, and the amount of work required to turn it into a safe place for

people with medical conditions would be disruptive to the topsoil and the soil in the foundations, which would pose a health hazard to the people who live in the area, such as myself and my wife. we live right around the corner at the metropolitan. so, while everyone raised very good points regarding legal and zoning matters and commercial matters and so on, we would appreciate it if you'd take these technical considerations, well, into consideration, when looking over and [ bell rings ] -- and approving or disapproving the exemption process for the blacksmith shop on folsom street in that district. simply put, we regard it as a health hazard. if it were to be turned into a medical facility.

thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is teresa with san francisco community empowerment center. i've been here numerous times with the community to address our concerns. i would like to point out something, one very important thing, that we do not have enough time to address this issues to the community. and also, on the 20315, on the planning, okay, it states that district 11, so it's wrong. it's district 9. so this is another thing that, you know, that we want to address, that you need to be very careful. we do not have enough time. we do not -- we cannot address all the people letting them know what's going on right now.

so either this meeting has to be continued until next year, there's only one month, so we can address to the people, to the community, okay, that is fair. and also i'd like to address 3015, again, has a childcare just like five houses away. and it's just -- we didn't know about it, and then it grandfathered and you change everything. that's not right to the community. so i would like to, commissioner, really consider this. this is not right. we do not have enough time. we didn't know until, you know, the agenda came out. how come -- how come our community doesn't know? you tell me. is that fair? okay, thank you so much. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please.

and if anybody else would like to speak on this item, please line up on the screen-side of the room. welcome. >> my name is wendy wong. i'm the spokesperson of the san francisco coalition for good neighborhoods. we have 11 district people who came out today representing their own districts. we have very normal lives. we have jobs, we have kids, we have family to take care of. we do not have this time to play the games, but i would like to tell the public that in the compassion, in the name of compassion, when the m.c.d. opened in our district, they used the analysis, they used the number of patients, to approve m.c.d. every single hearing in the board of supervisors, in front of the supervisors, we told them that we don't want the marijuana close to our kids. they passed and passed. no matter how many people attending the hearings, you all were there. i would like to address that the

m.c.d. should not, should not, be converted to recreational at all. we have the 600-feet buffer zone away from kids, away from preschool, away from playgrounds, and irving street has golden gate park, the famous golden gate park in the world, that is selling illegal drugs. imagine how the city can return into a drugstore that's nearby our kids. also, if this is 600-feet buffer zone, it is about 105,000 feet that is taken away from having preschool. imagine, if the rules set up and the m.c.d., recreational marijuana established one place, we take away 105 -- 115 square

feet, having daycare, having playgrounds, having kids that are nearby. so please, respect the community. listen to the community. the community don't want cannabis close to our kids, to our family, to our children. please listen to us. the special interests that you see today, you hear, they all said about how fast you need to process their application, how fast you need to give them the permit. do you hear how much they care about the community? you hear the community representatives saying that they don't want the cannabis near us. they are talking about quality of life. the special interests representatives, all they care is money, greedy, they want to make money out of the district where they attract unnecessary traffic to affect the quality of life.

so i'm here to ask all the commissioners to vote no to this proposal. and this proposal is very misleading. a lot of information has not been disclosed to the public. please, you work for the city of san francisco. >> president hillis: thank you. >> you work for the people of san francisco. >> president hillis: thank you very much. i appreciate it. any additional public comment on this item? seeing -- mr. paul? >> thank you, president hillis, commissioners. thank you for holding this hearing on this matter. the question that has been raised repeatedly is about simultaneous review of applicants within the same 600-foot zone, and what hasn't been considered is the impact on the number two or number three applicant in any given zone if we do not hear them simultaneously. we're asking them to maintain rent on a location to keep their

application active, while it comes to the planning commission under conditional use, and then the hearing will become a hearing where another applicant is trying to shoot down what may be a very qualified applicant. and that's not an appropriate place for us to take our neighborhoods, whereas if you were willing to accept applications from each qualified equity applicant within a 600-foot zone and allow staff to give you a staff report that compares and contrasts the individual applicants, you can hear from them all at once. you can make your decision based on what is best for that neighborhood. you've heard a lot of interesting testimony about the various qualifications of the different applicants, whether it be the configuration of the sales space, what the traffic might be like on the sidewalk, the security arrangements, and hearing from a couple of the equity applicants themselves, who have been working towards

the goal of the equity program is destined for, it was meant for, and we need to keep those kind of dreams going. we need to complement the people who are sticking with this and not burden them with additional rent on a place they may not ever get to use, pending the disapproval of this commission. i've read through the office of cannabis regulations about who they send to you. there is nothing in that legislation that says that you can't know who the other qualified equity applicants were, nor does it say that you can't accept a fee from them to review an application and consider those applications. so i would suggest to you that the solution is available to you, and to ensure that the procedures that you go through with these conditional uses in contested zones is reasonable

and productive and doesn't bring out the worst in our neighborhoods, but brings out the best. so i would suggest that you implement a policy that can review simultaneous applications at one hearing. thank you very much. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional public comment on this item? and if anybody else would like to speak, please line up on the screen-side of the room. >> yes, health lope, commissioners. thank you for your service and your time and for hearing us. i'm a resident of the metropolitan on first street and folsom, and i'd like to make some comment about the 600-foot rule amendment. i don't believe it's -- as my fellow residents had mentioned, it's been reviewed by your panel and other people in the prior discussions, so there's no need to make an amendment to that 600-foot rule, which would impact the density of marijuana

dispensaries in our neighborhood. it would impact the family lives of the community and our residential area, which, i think, is improving, and i just would like you to reconsider the 600-foot rule as making that amendment, as well. thank you. >> president hillis: all right, thank you. any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. can i just ask some clarifying questions on the ordinance that's before us and then just on the process. so on the ordinance, there's three categories that we're changing. the first being that they had to obtain a permit by a certain date, by december 31, 2018, so four dispensaries would be potentially affected by that. are those all in process, like they are actively seeking permits? >> so these four --

>> president hillis: actively seeking -- >> they were approved by the planning commission towards the end of last year, and they have an application with the department in processing that we just can't approve without a final permit to operate. >> president hillis: okay, but part of this was that construction costs were high, that people were having difficulty getting -- building out or getting approved. they are all actively in process? i mean, i know we approved them all. >> yeah, so their permit for establishing the medical cannabis use was approved by the commission. i went to d.b.i., got approved, and they are actively constructing, so that permit is still active, and they have a second separate permit in on file for conversion from medical to cannabis retail. >> president hillis: right. >> that we reviewed and it's just on hold, pending a final permit. >> president hillis: got it, but they are pursuing their medical permit in construction of the

facility, because, you know, two come to mind, obviously, irving street and san bruno were fairly contentious here. the commission approved them, but they are out there actively pursuing the medical cannabis kind of portion before the conversion? >> yeah, their medical permits have been issued. >> president hillis: okay. so then the ones -- the five that were missing the march 31 deadline, those are all actively operating currently? >> yes. >> president hillis: actively operating as medical, they are seeking conversion, but missed that deadline, and we would allow them then to submit the paperwork beyond that deadline? >> the only one that i'm not sure if they are open doors yet is 79 ninth street, the vapor room, because they are impacted by both, but i know they are nearing completion. >> president hillis: okay. and then the other group, where this 600-foot buffer, there's only three of those, now becomes

applicable, where it wasn't quite applicable before. those would be the only three that would kind of be allowed to pursue this avenue within -- and they are still within the 600-foot buffer. we're not opening this up to anybody else. it's just those three that were already in process, and it's my understanding they would still all need a c.u. and approval by this commission, so we could deny those, if we thought they were inappropriate or we had issues with clustering around those? >> yes, that's one of the department's recommendations, is to require the conditional use, regardless whether it's required in the zoning district, and that section currently did qualify for that. you had to have an application on file as of july 20, 2017. [ please stand by ]

>> in reviewing these different sites, there is a big difference in proximity. one is 599 feet away. that finding further gives the commission the ability to determine the merits of the

application based on its unique circumstances. >> okay. that makes sense. on the new applications, do you want to respond? just to the general issue of the timing in equity applicants that came forward and how you selected those. can you also give us a number of -- how many applications would be disqualified because of the 600-foot rule? or in a buffer -- how many applications do you have that couldn't come before us because of the 600-foot rule. >> i don't have a specific answer. it is a living process. if someone came in at any time as an equity applicant to a location that had an existing application before it, that would be eligible to be put on hold. i want to, if i may, ask you -- .2 the section of the planning code that is causing this consternation.

this is section 202.285 b. it is an acknowledgement of that issuance. as well as, and acknowledgement that we have a defined green zone and no permit kak. this role was put in place -- permit limits. this role was put in place to prevent a massive land rush for these storefronts. this rule was shared with our distribution list. if i can make a public service announcement, on our website, there is a blue field at the bottom of our homepage were all these individuals present and watching can submit their e-mail address so they can receive notification of our comments or regulations when they are posted so they may provide this comment at the time that the rules are open for comment. second, it was shared with the entire task force and the entire board of supervisors during the

comment process. in anticipation of this consternation, in its most basic form, what this rule was seeking to contemplate is that we were not seeing land grabs without meeting the rigorous application requirements. requirements that we publicly disclosed in significant detail. prior to the release of the application. this would undermine the city's goal if we see that landgrab of providing fair and equal work -- equal access to real estate. another barrier called out. you heard arguments that they may not have the resources necessary to submit a complete and thorough application on may 22nd. i want to address that because our office worked very hard with the office of digital services to ensure we had a transparent process. of course, as i mentioned, sharing the application requirements in detail at multiple days before releasing the application.

we also went to great lengths to ensure that every individual that was verified was notified by e-mail. we tracked whether or not the e-mail was open. we called every applicant who did not open that e-mail to ensure that they received it. we posted the requirements publicly on our websites. we reworked the language to be readable to individuals with a seventh grade reading level. we made it a.d.a. accessible. but if we are going to argue that a bureaucratic process of challenging application requirements disproportionately and negatively impacts applicant his, question mark -- we must also acknowledge the approvals process in san francisco bends in the direction of those who have more capital and more financing to be successful. the office of cannabis wanted to avoid pitting one application against another in a way that can, in an unintended way,

perpetuate these imbalances. nothing about this rule as drafted and closed, removes the ability of the community to weigh in and shape a project, to oppose a project, it only makes it so it occurs at one permit application at a time, and on the merits of that specific project. finally, the office wanted to be conscientious about not overburdening your department with application review for applicants that would otherwise perhaps not succeed if the one application before them did. we can send 156 retail applications to you guys. but we wanted to seek -- we wanted to acknowledge the immense responsibility that are placed on the department staff to address the pressing and competing needs. that was the thought behind that rule. thank you. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> i am sure