Cord ordinance that is in your committee, supervisor. Thats why only in front of you today is the land use portion. Were also talking about that in rules tomorrow. Great. Another question i having toling back and forth between ing toling back ing toggling back and forth. I dont think we rae solved that. I know supervisor kim and Public Health did bring up issues around employee whose may be exposed to this long term every day and want fog make sure there are proper requirements in place. So i know that last week, supervisor sheehy had an amendment on page 11 that had no reference to dph. It says we allow for on site consumption. Yet, when i read the operation the legislation piece pending in rules committee, i know there may be forthcoming amendments, i want to make sure its consistent. What id like to separate here is the process by which consumption is validated by the department of Public Health. We have eight sites right now where cannabis is consumed. The department at San Francisco general, there is a smoking room where smoking studies are conducted both for tobacco and cannabis. Employees from the department of Public Health and from ucsf are able to work in the space. Do i believe in the eight existing spaces and at the space at San Francisco general where inpatient smoking studies have been conducted. There is the ability to put in place the appropriate filters, etc. , to keep people safe. My point in doing this is for in order to issue the license, the department of cannabis, we dont put the department of Public Health in the position of having to support indoor smoking which they do not fundamentally which i understand. But we need their certification of the systems to make sure that the types of protections exist in existing facilities and at the Smoking Research center at San Francisco center are there to protect employees. Through the chair, and i think i see Deputy Attorney jon givner again to make sure the amendment to delete it from land use controls allows for department of Public Health to issue the permits regulating air quality in the facilities. Yes. And as you mentioned, most of the regulation of consumption and smoking for cannabis businesses is in the article 16 ordinance that is pending in rules. And so if that ordinance is further amended next week im sorry. Tomorrow this committee could consider a conforming amendment next week to the planning code ordinance. The meat of it is in the ordinance that is in rules. And then you can follow up to make sure theyre both consistent next week by amending the ordinance. Great, thank you for that clarification. The other question i had in this particular land use legislation on page 14 it talks about accessory use. Then in reading the article 16 legislation there is a definition of something called a can buses microbusiness which is defined as a fixed place of business where cannabis and or cannabis products are cultivated, distributed and sold to customers. I wonder what the difference is between cannabis microbusiness and accessory use. Mr. Starr. Accessory uses are something that is accessory to a primary use necessary for the operation. The way we were thinking of accessories for cannabis is a Corner Grocery store could have a small amount of cannabis products behind the counter, prepackaged and things like that. J unfortunately, because you cant sell alcohol and cannabis and with a tobacco at the same place and tobacco at the same place, its bookmarked to be determined later. A microbusiness is a primary use. Its more like a microbrewery. Microbreweries are allowed to make their own beer, have a tasting room and distribute it all by themselves. Its similar tie microbusiness. Theyll grow their own cannabis and manufacturer it from their own cannabis and sell their on cannabis. I think theyre limited to 10,000 square 10,000 square feet of can canopy. So theyre limited in what they can do from seed to sale for cannabis. Thank you for that clarification. I think its important and ties in with the comments made earlier around business gentrification and how were not just trying to target the cannabis industry. When i think about accessory uses, i think about issues we had with a the massage businesses and how a lot of massage businesses try to open up with gyms, supposedly and doing things that are not legal here and not permitted for. Its a word of caution in terms of accessory use and we had to change the zoning citywide to make sure you doipt just get you need to get a conditional use. Well address you urgent care facilities. That is another industry that has cropped up. Over the counter permits had been had. They have opened up one for example in district four, i had no notice of it. Were trying to get a handle on Different Industries here. So its not just targeting the cannabis landscape kidd wanted to make that last point back to you. Thank you supervisor tang and with regards to the last point i am dubious no pun intended, about having as of right in any part of the city. I represent the district that has the second most mcds. And i think the whole concept of notice whether its the urgent care or whether its the mcd or the formula retail. I think that should be an acrossed board requirement. I think that is important not a barrier to entry. It does allow the public to know and participate in the process. I think that is important. Supervisor kim. Thank you supervisor peskin. I have a question. Im not sure the City Attorney will be able to answer this. I have a variety of different concerns about how individuals are interpreting prop 64 around medical cannabis cards. And the validity after january first. There was a blog saying that all current medical cards would no longer be eligible after january first, they had to come from your primary physician. There is a lot of confusion over this. As we talk about the rush to put something in place by january first i want to clarify that for members of the public around whether current card holders will be able to continue to use their card on january first regardless of what the board of supervisors does. Ive heard that from some attorneys that they do believe that current card holders will continue to be able to use their medical card on january first. But i know there is confusion out there. So i think that we need to clarify that so that people dont have misinformation. Deputy City Attorney jon givner. I havent heard that, but ill check with the attorney in our Office Working most on the regulatory framework. I think sleup viers shi hi will want to add to that. Supervisor sheehy supervisor sheehy will want to follow up on that. You have the card to go to Public Health state registration. But there are only 540 of those issued in the city and county of San Francisco i believe. The other source is people get a recommendation from a doctor. Now, so an additional question for the City Attorney, will those be valid on january first . If neither are valid, i think we also have some problems. And i agree with that. If there is some question about the validity of patients that are currently Holding Cards today i just want to make sure that whatever we do ensures ensures that theyll continue to have access on january first. I think there are a lot of different interpretations. If there is a misconception about that, we need to claire that for members of public so patients that need can clarify that for members of the public that if they truly need cannabis the board will act on that. Supervisor safai and go to public comment. I just wanted to add on to supervisor shi hissheehys proposed amendment. I think you should could have a situation where you could have a temporary permitting process to allow for temporary adult use. It would be for existing mcd operators and a few in the pipeline that have had a significant amount of submitting their dph application and still have the conversation with growth and equity and allow for equity to happen in a thoughtful way and achieve what supervisor shi hi sheehy is talking about in terms of demand and making the existing businesses competitive and in3me an environment where theyll compete against places that essentially will have their permits in place and be allowed to do adult use. Once we have the permitting process worked out well have an allencompassing permit that will allow for and respect those that simply want to have cannabis as for its medicinal quawments and those thatqualities and those for adult use. There will be literally zero businesses operating solelies an mc solely as an mcd. What we need is a temporary permitting process to allow the department and board to continue the conversation on equity and getting the final piece right in terms of issuing new permits. So anyway, thank you. Well come back tofke that later. But now well open it up to public comment. Ill call speaker cards in the orders that they were handed to me. If you could line up to my left, your right, the first speaker is jim lazarus followed by lora thomas followed by gilbert crizwell. Jim lazarus San Francisco chamber of commerce. Thank you for all the hours and hours youve spent on this. We urge you to move swiftly to pass legislation in the next few weeks. So that businesses can be legalized and to take those steps necessary to get this program as approved by the voters of california and San Francisco off the ground. We believe that reasonable limitations can be placed whether its the recent suggestion by supervisor farrells office or in the legislation before you or originally from the Planning Department. But that we need to create a situation where businesses can be located throughout the city in reasonable numbers and that we have a permit process in place for the entire supply stream that will be in San Francisco from the grow to the labs to the dispensaries to delivery to retail. We urge you to act on that in the next few weeks. I think there are a number of other issues weve continued to raise in letters we sent to the board from the group we put together including other business organizations, Small BusinessesMerchants AssociationRestaurant Association and others that we have issues around nonconforming theus is needed for the cottage3industry industries that is needed for Cottage Industries and we need reasonable permitting for scums in the future. We need to deal with all the applicants that are in the pipeline and we need a comprehensive framework. One approach might be to duplicate the file. When you have a final piece of legislation in the next weeks, knowing that as supervisor peskin said, there is a lot of change that may be needed in the coming months. Get something on the books before january one, deal with it again, early next year. Next speaker and after mr. Bruno there is joanne hillary, rudy. Ali jm ma and susan king. Thank you, lora thomas a member of the state Legalization Task force. And i have faith that San Francisco can do it both right and fast. This is not actually a new issue for us. And we have a lot of expertise in our city to build on. Some of my concerns are related to our priority around ensuring that equity applicants are able to be supported. Thisthat theyre able to have both job and entrepreneurship, students in all of this. One of my concerns is that any buffer limits or caps are going to have a disproportionate impact on equity applicants by limiting their opportunities. I think that limits, caps, buffers, are based in very outdated assumptions about what a cannabis dispensary is or does. Weve heard a lot about in previous conversations about messages to children around this. I think honestly the primary message that a Retail Cannabis dispensary provides to young people is that this is not for you until you are older, which i think is exactly the message that the voters of california wanted to be giving and what we want for our young people. So i think anything more than the 600foot buffer is problematic and based in stigmatized and outdated information. I think that we can do this. Were available Drug Policy Alliance is available to help going through this. The task force has been meeting for two years looking at all the information. I hear supervisor kims concerns. Where the board of supervisors task force. We are appointed by you and our recommendation should be the floor. Thank you miss thomas and thank you for your work on task force. Next speaker, please. Hi gilbert crizwell. Im a cannabis user. The first thing i think that needs to be talked about is charity care for people in this city that are living with a. I. D. S. And h. I. V. For the medical cannabis. I think the operators and owners should take that into consideration. And the supervisors should take that into consideration when theyre crafting new legislation on this. I would like to thank supervisor supervisor peskin for his opening remarks and supervisor breed, i think that it has to be a citywide issue and not an ad hoc by district. I hope my cannabis will be able available to me on january first. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon im bobby bruno with the San FranciscoCannabis Retailers alliance. I humbly stand before you today. I am a resident of district 6 in sphriks sphriks and a voter. San francisco and a voter. State law was passed by the voters of San Francisco that has a 600foot buffer. A thousand foot buffer around schools and child care facilities would only benefit a handful of real estate owners. More restrictions would lead to fewer spaces and higher costs for equity applicants. Thousand foot district 6 and 10 and make access much harder for patients. Adding day care would essentially make a ban on cannabis in the city of San Francisco. Second, we ask for a citywide policy restrictive patchwork. We need a citywide set of policies to enhance not hinder equity candidates and small operations. Third, i would ask for a support of the pipeline applicants to be included, again, equity access, diversity for the industry. These projects have invested years of work and money and followed the citys policies faithfully and need a chance to be heard. Thank you, next speaker, please. Im joanne hillary. Thank you all for all your hard work. Im a Patient First and foremost. I think what is really important here is to realize everybody has been operating with the current mcds and doing very good business, yes but when come january first when people feel like they finally have access that they were not given before or looked down upon for using cannabis ill ill youll have a serge of patients in need of surge of patients in need of medicine. I worked with people to help them remove their fears they have around the stigma on cannabis. Thank you all very much. I hope that you bring it back down to the 6 had you 600foot and respect the pipeline applicants and go for the citywide policy. Thank you. After miss king miss dukay and dog block and sonia crouse. Rudy, put it o therein its up. Thank you, im rudy corpus. Im the executive director ever the program here in San Francisco thats been serving the city for over two decades, helping out and working with youth. Youre probably saying what is the correlation between youth and medical marijuana . Im about health and healing. Our number one priority is safety. We have a very comprehensive safety plan that we would like to put in place when it comes to medical Marijuana Stores. One in particular, we have a lot of ships with some of the medical Marijuana Stores in our neighborhood. Barbary coast green door, grassroots. Vapor. Theyre able to get thousands of guns off the street and educating kids about medical marijuana. You want to keep away the stores there is a buffer between stores, child care but i look at it differently its opportunity like you were saying for education, for us to educate kids because we know that kids and families around San Francisco is everywhere. You walker wawght outside this door, you smell the smoke. The kids see it every day. Its probably in their houses. They need to understand and know and be educated on this. Lastly, identify a like to speak about the Equity Program. The Equity Program to me was a very great idea. It gives leverage to a lot of young men for more neighborhoods affected by the drug raids that happened in the 08s. Im one of them. Im not only a person of color in San Francisco. Im born and raised in San Francisco. And ive been convicted of a drug crime in the 198 0s behind drugs. I want to say thank you rudy. Next speaker please. Im ali j jamali. The way you look at approaching things i think super sheehy is the only one worried about the supply chain. Youll run cultivators out of business if you dont put this law in january first. There are a lot of small cottage growers supplying almost every mcd in town. Most of it is Cottage Industry. If you implement the thousand foot ruled and you dont make a law by january first, were all moving to oakland because were looking at buildings in oakland where we can continue our business without having to stop it or interrupt it. Many of us wont be ail to continue it, if its interrupted. On the edible manufacturing front, were affected by the land use issue because we are working in an existing commissary that is not zoned directly. Necessary a fairly commercial zone but because there is no law, were prohibited to sell to our current clients and we cant,