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 theyre 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 hasnt 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 its not locked up . Also, when around there, i noticed that it is everything that the residents say, its 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. Ive 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. Were in an urban city and i dont 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 cant 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 im 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 dont 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 dont 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 ive had other ailment. I have gone to chinese doctors. Theyre not a doctor. Theyre 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 its 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 friends 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. Were going into adult use here, which is something we havent 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 wont 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 . Its not that we havent heard you. We have debated this over and over again. And we came up with a product that we voted on that im 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. Its 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, weve 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 im 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 youre getting hundreds and hundreds of emails 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 its encouraging, not a requirement. In terms of the hours of operation, the question that i would ask is, when youre 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 youre starting out with constraints, it can constrain the business and inhibit the success. Thats a reservation i have. I dealt with an issue like that a decade ago. Supervisor kims 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 arent, 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. Im sorry, im just not prepared to respond to the question. I dont 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 arent 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 im sorry, supervisor yee. Supervisor yee im 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 youre going to suggest it, im 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, im biased because ive 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 atrisk 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 im ever going to stand behind one and my name is behind that, im going to want to make sure its 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. Were constantly amending hours for the Liquor Licenses. I think its 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 ill 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 havent 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 dont 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 youve 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 HearingPublic Comment. More often or not, there is no followup 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 wont be able to support you on the amendment. I understand your intent. With the number of regulations weve already imposed, this adds another bureaucratic layer i think would be challenging. As you and others said, were talking about an operator with a great track record, not only in the district that theyre located in, but also, theyre part of the community as well. So i just dont necessarily feel comfortable getting into regulating the hours of operation, but i do understand your goal and what youre 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, its not a finding, its 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 youre 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. Thats not where im 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 dont 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 flipflopped. 9 a. M. To 8 p. M. Close and not impact delivery, thats 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 wouldnt 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 condi