regulations, think about the coe loss with smoking cigarettes and tobacco. you do an analysis and do a surd see how many people really, trud cannabis if san francisco beforu allow all the stores to be open. i am here to ask all of you youe rules and regulations to study d and best side of cannabis. >> supervisor farrell: thank yo. next speaker. >> i'm mary maugh. i'm a retired clinical social w. for 32 years i work as a psychic social worker for the city and f san francisco. i want to echo what the previour said. the report she refer to is the n francisco department of public h cannabis legalization in san fr. a health impact summary report . i want to quote for you on pagef that report. it talks about the hospitalizat. "when examined by cost, cannabie disorder was the primary drivert specific rates and counts of hospitalization e.r. hospital v. among those eight, 08 to 4 canns poisoning account for all hospitalizations and most e.r. . therefore, it is imperative thau keep the 1,000 feet buffer zoned schools including preschools ane day care centers. i know you've heard a lot from t speakers about protecting childs report is from the department oc health. i urge you to take that into stg consideration. and for the sake of children, gm a head start in developing a dre lifestyle. so please keep that 1,000 more . and also the report talks aboute edibles that they are concerned. so quote on page 5, the city shd consider strong regulation on cs edibles and prohibiting productt appeal to children e.g., candiee gummy bears and cookies and cup. >> supervisor farrell: next spe, please. any members of the public want , line up as we'll wrap it up. >> i would like to start my tima moment of silence for all the m, women, children that died of a.n san francisco in the '80s and t4 million people that died of a.i. worldwide. and so i want to thank miss tanr showing us that san francisco is divided. we're divided, gays, lesbians, i sexuals, transgendered, questiog [inaudible] against agents. what i want to encourage every n this room to do is to write thir down, 866-dhs-2, word "ice" repr illegal members of your communio are violating federal law and yw who they are, you know where th. call that number they'll be cary and i will be greatful for evern that is removed from san francir the asian community support froo organizers in chinatown to the e here, i hope you feel the pain d hay -- people that come here, iu feel the pain and hatred you shr the gay and lesbian community fg with the justice institute, a he group. shame on you! shame! which are your enemies -- we arr enemies we'll fuck with you, whu fuck with us. >> supervisor farrell: turn it . i neverç wish to extend publict but i hope from is someone elsek after that. next speaker, please. >> my name is ellen, i'm a famil worker on behalf of san franciso community empowerment center. through the last one month, we'n trying to communicate with nicot who sits here and try to work we mayor's office and all boar boaf supervisors to set up regulatiot is win win for business and winr residents and protect the child, youth, and workers. i am here to repeatç the same . as earlier, there is a comprehee executive summary, 19 pages. i'm sure you all read that alre. it is very bad for the youth ane under-developed aged minors. it is well-written, a 19-page r. we have residentsç from 11 dis. can you all stand up [speaking n language] we are here from all 181 distris representing 35% asian residentm different residents. we are here because the middle e parents have to go to work. though don't work -- they don't, they don't get paid. the children and youth are afrad to come here because we understy of those cannabis business-rela, drug-related trafficking. we don't want our children and h exposed to retaliation. that is one of the reasons you e youth. guys, we are we are all in in t. for the government, you have the responsibility. you have the responsibility to p rules to protect each resident m lawsuits. we do not want lawsuits for san francisco because of cannabis. it is an illegal substance. >> supervisor farrell: thank yoy much. next speaker, please. >> roberts rules of orders. this is a sanctuary city for ims and -- >> supervisor farrell: you don'a point of information. it doesn't work like that. next speaker, please. public comment is closed. >> can you hear me? is this okay? >> supervisor farrell: we gotch. >> charlie pappas. good afternoon. i'm vice chairman on the berkely cannabis dispensary. i want to remind you we're makir regulations than were forged in5 which were great recommendationt was 50 dependence israel and ite wild west -- dispensaries when s the wild west. yes it can be improved. i'm sympathetic with the neighb. why would you want to open a diy when your neighbors don't want u there? but that's not to say that it st be screu scrutiny in oversight. that's where you have make regus where the permit process doesn'e nine months like it d did for m. 600 to a thousand. that's a no-brainer. the green zone is insufficient . that reinterpreted. in my experience of planningç , they haven't had a map out for r three years. san francisco needs more dispen, not less. your job is to make better regu, improve the ones here not do lid restrictions. that won't help equity, that heo one. the stigmatism for marijuana uss being propagated by your restrie proposals. and it's hard to find a landlorn that stigma exists. it shouldn't be like that. why is it easier to getç to gea than marijuana in san francisco? >> supervisor farrell: thank yoy much. thanks for being here. any other members of the publico comment on items 3 or 4? all right. seeing none, public comment is w closed. [gavel] okay. so colleagues, i think there ara number of potential amendments,i understand that we're going to e considering here in committee. first of all, i know supervisorn had an amendment. if you want to come up and expl. his aide is here then we can tae on that. >> thank you, i'm sophia,ç i'mn supervisor cohen as office. supervisor koaen is pro poisingn amendment to allow schmal smalls businesses to collocate in a sie place of business provided theye permitted by state law. in an effort to create more oppy for maul business, this creates- small business this allows multe retailers to collocate without g the radius rule. each individual business which l smallç businesses, subject -- s subject to all of the other locd use controls in each rft drafts. super -- each of the drafts. supervisor cohen asked for an at to both the original and duplic. i believe the clerk has circulaa copy of each. specifically this wol allow cans retail use permits as reflectede 2 for the duplicate file and ser the original file language as ws medical cannabis permits reflecn page -- on 6 and 9 to be locatee same place of business as one oe other establishments also holdid permits. in the original file, this is ey mean that the retailers would bd without a conditional use authon if one is not required or in the duplicate file that conditionale authorization language was stru. this is a solution that will poy creates more space for maulñ sms without compounding the clusterg issues. the number of permitted retail businesses would be limited to e than one retailer for 350 squarf retail -- square feet of retail. this is subject to all state law requirements. when the state comes in with res regarding how collocated businel with security or storage, this e subject to those. supervisor cohen wants tone coue small business and early stage t presenters in the cannabis indu. a subset for whom a full lease s prohibited as prices are drivenç land use regulations. >> supervisor farrell: any quesn the potential amendments? supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: this would- you'd be authorizing the retailo locate in the same place of buss of -- of another retail business. we think of it -- >> supervisor safai: so multiple cannabis retailers could share e space. >> like you have a thousand fooe with three, i guess only two int case. >> supervisor safai: i got it. i got it. okay. thank you. >> supervisor farrell: colleaguy further questions or comments? supervisosupervisor peskin? can we make a motion? >> supervisor peskin: i'm fine h putting these in both files. >> supervisor farrell: supervis, can we take those without objec? we have a vote on the amendment. motion by supervisor peskin. we can take those without objec. [gavel] supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: i have onee question. i want to clarify, this colloca, does it have anything to do wite selling any ownership of their g business to come in? it would be separate permitsç d separate ownership all of that. >> exactly. they're all -- the permit -- >> each permitee would have then permit? this is not selling -- >> as i understand it. >> supervisor farrell: okay. thank you very much for that it. i do have one that we've distrid essentially taking the item in e bulk ri filey file -- excuse me. item 3, thank you. -- the clean file. it would be amendments triking . retail use will require authorif there are more than two other cs retail establishments or m.c.d.n combination with a -- it was mee a thousand foot radius. i'd like to replace that. it was two for 1,000 feet with e that states th it shall not be s retailer. we're replacing two for 1,000 tr 600 and the language that we han prior versions. i'd like to make that amendmente clean version. it's more restrictive than what currently exists in there.ç >> so a question to deputy cityy wong or givner which is if we gh the more restrictive today in c, should the board -- the board we a lot of options tomorrow. but they could expand that. so in so far as hopefully we'lle file out without recommendatione can continue this lovely convern tomorrow. i will support it for the purpof having that conversation tomorr. >> okay. a motion? >> supervisor peskin: that's a . >> ray motion by supervisor pes. supervisor tang without objecti? so moved. supervisosupervisor peskin. i don't believe you have any ams at this point? >> i do not. but i think there are a number f amendments, supervisor sheehy so the thrust of them at the beginf this meeting that we are able te tomorrow. i did mention at the last hearin committee that i intended to ast will as of right, be turned to y d.r. i subsequently decided that insf requiring 312 notice is the quao so i will not make that amendmee may make a section 312 notice tw at the full board. >> okay. then supervisor safai, did you y comments? >> supervisor safai: on that? >> supervisor tang. >> on that note, i had an amendt on -- i think it's major 9 of it it should be for both files, thy and the clean one. originally i proposed a mandato. for district 4 and district 7. we'd like to city-wide require 2 notification. this still allows for neighborhd notification. the ex ability to appeal when a grandfathered m.c.d. wants to ha change of use to a cannabis ret. a 312 notification, this would e city-wide not just for district7 so the motion for both files. >> can you reiterate? >> originally i had mad a motio- made i motion for a mandatory d. now i change it such that it's 2 notification which is neighborhd notification, 30 day window forl districts. not just 4 and 7. for existing m.c.d.s that seek a change of use that allow for cas retail. >> are you talking about for thl permanent permit? >> that's right. not a temporary. >> when they go through the fin- >> for the final. >> i'm clear, thank you. >> for the purpose of having ths discussion tomorrow at the full, if we send this without recomme, i'm happy to adopt it. so we can have the conversation tomorrow. deputies -- >> deputy city attorney jon giv. the mandatory d.r. requirement n section 190 for district 4 and t 7 m.c.d.s is in the dirty versi- or bulky version. >> item 4. >> it's not in item number 3. as i understand the amendment, supervisor tang is pro poadzing- proposing to delete that mandat. from item 4 and add into both ia requirement for 312 notice. >> that is correct. >> along lines of supervisor pen stated, and i think to get this forwarded to have a discussion , i'm happy to support that. for motion by supervisor tang tn without objection. >> and to reiterate, this is son have more comprehensive streamld policies along all districts&stw for the neighborhood notificatie ability to have a right to appei think are the important poan exs of the mandatory d.c. -- componf the mandatory d.r. i wanted to put it into hig eyee bulky version. as you see here in the highlighd versions areas south of lincolnd west of sunset boulevard, a maxf two cannabis retail uses and m.s and any combination shall be ped at any time. any such m.c.d. must obtain a cr conditional use authorization. while it seems i'm trying to lie m.c.d.s, imexpanding the green e into the outer district. this reflects the additional ncs in which i add to the green zon. then if you go to the tables fof our n.d.c.s. irving, ortega, there is a maxim number of one m.c.d. or cannabil establishment per manipulated ay given time. it would allow district 4 to hae potentially up to 6 establishme. again, although it may be seen e carving out districts or puttinn caps, realities of expanding thn zone in the district while puttn what i think are reasonable conn each of the commercial corridor. i'd like that to be an item fou. >> okay. motion by supervisor tang. can we take that without object? so moved. [gavel] >> an >> supervisor tang: and two oths i'm not making amendments to bui wanted to bring up, i heard in c comment an issue from at least e operator, there may be more, i't aware of this, that they were in compliance and operating in come with the compassionate care actt down by the feds, currently hava provisional permit. where do they stand in this pro? culting with the city attorney', we believe this will be somethit will need to be handled in the m before the rules committee and n land use. that is something that we're vey interested in termsz of operatiy ensuring if you're in complianch the compassionate care act prev, now operatesoing under provisiol permit and as a result of the fs shutting you down, there is a ps for you moving forward. i think that's fair. that will be addressed by the rs committee. lastly, i did have an issue wite grandfathering date that was st, i think both pieces of legislat. at least i think it starts on p. seconds 190, the grandfatheringf july 20th, 2017 i had raised soe concerns in the first land use e meeting because there were, i ts board had agreed upon when super cohen's interim moratorium dates passed, there were a certain nuf m.c.d.s that would have been grandfathered in during a hearie set. i think the july 20th window hop queue that i was not okay with. i understand that the supervisee made this amendment wants to moe forward some of the applicants s district which i'm fine with, bi don't know that we're going to e language today. i just wanted to raise that thid grandfathering date is arbitrar. i think we ought to address thi. that's all the amendments i hav. >> thank you. supervisor peskin. >> i was going to make a moaks d item three to the full board wit recommendation as a committee r. >> supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: one to reso supervisor tang's compassionate. we introduced amendments today n committee to allow for there toa path of travel or path forward w operators to participate in the compassion program. we did make that amendment todao you'll see a that at the full bd tomorrow. the only other thing we discusss the conversations around m.c.s.. do we have that hang? that lank had been introduced? >> yes. >> so it would be -- >> hold on. let's confirm with our city atts office. i thought the n.c.s. -- >> at the committee meeting las, supervisor safai wanted to makes retail use a c.u. insteaded pro. we prepared that amendment. >> so if someone -- do i make t? or i'm happy to -- >> do you want to make the motin supervisor tang? >> supervisor tang: i'll mach an in behalf of supervisor safai. >> supervisor farrell: motion by supervisor tang. can we take that without object? so moved. [gavel] supervisor safai, do you want tp going? >> supervisor safai: i lost my f thought. what was the other thing we werg about? i think it was the n.c.s.s. i'm trying to i think about oth. the comation, i mentioned the -e compassion and n.c.s.s. we have another one that we'll h tomorrow at the full board.ç >> okay. supervisor tang. >> supervisor tang: one questio. supervisor safai mentioned in rs there was an amendment to the compassionate care act. would that address the situatioi mentioned earlier? about those shutdown by the fed? >> nicole elliot office of cann. what supervisor safai is speakis a program that supports providiw cost or free cannabis to low ine patients. i think supervisor tang, what ye speaking to is the act of 1996 t down because of federal enforcer threat of federal enforcement. while compassionate use is in bh remps, one is a program and thes operation and closure of the opn by federal activity. >> essentially we would have ton amendment in the rules committee legislation. great, thank you. >> and i have one more questioni want -- that i need to clarify. going back to supervisor cohen's meavment aboutç-amendment's abt collocation, i wanted to ask, wd the -- i guess the way i underse play out, there would be an exig operator in a space andç that e else would apply to operate in t space to share. would they have to go through te procedure of submitting to the g department of public health, yor office, they'd go through the se approvals. it wouldn't be anything differem the process that anyone would gh to be approved to locate in tha. the only thing that we're doingh this amendment is saying you cae more than one licensee in the se address. ?a the way i understand it? >> i believe so. i believe this is not subjectinl in the same parcel to the same anticlusterring goals. there was a lot to be developedw that would work to house retailn one location on the same premis. and whether or not the state wiw that. so we'll learn more as the stats their emergency regulations. >> the only other thing, what at non-retail? we talked about that this mornih regard to accessory use for manufacturers and so we're prepo take that up as part of trailing conversation in terms of trailig legislation. but does this amendment allow fr non-retail to collocate? >> this amendment seeks only to, supervisor. as you know, the state has defid premises very specifically and e seeking more state guidance foru can locate very -- multiple lice holders and permit holders on te parcel, but different premises. that is something that we'll neo develop in conversation with th. >> in terms of having non-retaie in the same location? >> correct. >> wwe cannot do this through ts amendment? >> no you cannot. >> that is something we need tok about. in terms of space, in terms of d terms of everything we heard toi want to throw that out there. i think this is a really good a. but i think we should be thinkit the non-retail. >> i would agree and say once te issues the emergency regulatione have a better sense of how theye that, we need to look at trailig legislation. >> thank you. >> supervisor farrell: so unlese are any other comments or queste have items three and four in frf us. i would say i think there is goe a motion -- let's be clear, we d one of these items forward if is tie debate tomorrow, we could af we forward item 3 and keep itemn committee, we could potentiallyd elements of item four into the e tomorrow. i think we'll preserve all optif you will, on the table. i think we'll have a robust disn at the full board and hope thatn move in item forward. >> mr. chairman. >> supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: i'd like e that motion as item three has bn further maned. i would like to make a motion td item 3 as several times amendede full board as a committee report recommendation for hearing tomow november 14th. >> supervisor farrell: would you consider adding to your motion continuing item 4. >> continuing item 4 to the cale chair. >> we can take that without objn dpf.[gavel] madam clerk, any other businesst of us? okay, thank you, everybody. we are adjourned. >> hello, san francisco. >> welcome to a fresh new episode of "public works tv." i'm majorl dan. >> and i'm carlo and we're both from public works i.t. and today we're your hosts. >> before we get into our exciting episode, let's take a quick look back at some of our activities this past week. this week, we welcomed examiners from the california awards for performance excellence program, to meet our team and to help our organization continue to improve and better serve san francisco residents, visitors and workers. >> you may also have spotted our crews continuing to enhance the streets all across the city. we attended an official lighting in harvey milk. >> in honor of his 43rd anniversary to his election of the san francisco board of supervisors. carlo and i recently attended the robbery -- of the ribbon cutting of the office of the chief medical examiner. >> public works provided services for the newly constructed state-of-the-art building at 1 newhall street. >> five, four, three, two, one! [cheering] [applause] >> it brings me great joy to welcome this new addition to the city's infrastructure. >> now we have a world-class medical examiner's office that for all the reasons i said earlier, the public can trust. and we did it, as mohammad said on time and on budget. that is why i invest in public works. ♪ >> there's so much more to know about this impressive project which open for business is sweet. it certainly will serve as a model for the nation. >> if not for the rest of the world. >> that's right! but it's time for us to get going. ♪ >> i'm jordan. >> and i'm carlo. >> thank you for tuning in to public works tv. until next time, here's a sneak peek for what's to come. ♪ >> hi, i'm albert. i keep s.f. shipshape. i am public works -- >> i just want to say for all of you that are here, it has been just great. i mean, it's taken a long time, like 10-plus years to make this happen. >> yeah. [ applause ] but it's because of all of you that this has been possible. i don't want to do too many thank you's, but i want to introduce phillip stone, who is the treasurer of the board. phillip and i came in here at the same time when this place was falling around. and when you opened the doors, they fell off their hinges. >> yes. >> he even got threatened by one of the staff people at booker t. who threatened to beat him up and grabbed him by the collar. so that's what it has been like. but the three of us, including larry griffin, who is our board claire, have been around this project for a long, long time now. what we really ended up doing is having great supporters like alice barkley. where is that girl? alice represented us legally pro bono for years and years and years. [ applause ] outside of saying, "pat, shut up. you don't know what you're talking about. just do what i'm telling you to do, and you'll be all right." phillip just wanted to say a brief word before we introduce our incredible mayor, mayor edly. >> thank you. welcome to all of you and thank you for coming. i just

Related Keywords

Israel , Jordan , San Francisco , California , United States , Charlie Pappas ,