If you want. And our clerk is ms. Alyssa samira. Do we have any announcements . Yes. Please make sure to silence all cell phones and leng tro ng devices, completed speaker card and any documents to be included as part of a file should be submitted to the clerk. Thank you, ms. Samira. Colleagues could we have a motion to excuse supervisor farrell made by supervisor tang. Well take that without objection. Supervisor farrell is excused. I also want to thank the staff at sfgov tv,jim smith and jesse larson for Live Streaming todays hearing. And with that, madame clerk, if you could please call can item number one. Item number one is relating cannabis land uses, allow m. C. D. S in additional zoning districts, establish a land use process for the conversion of m. C. D. S, repeal ordinance 18617, created a limit of three m. C. D. S in Cannabis Retail in excelsior outter mission m. C. D. And making appropriate findings. Thank you. Before we turn this over to staff, i just want to start with a few preliminary comments. I was on the board of supervisors over a decade ago when we adopted the First Medical Cannabis dispensary legislation. And was a supporter of proposition 64. There was a hearing last thursday, a special hearing. Actually the First Special hearing of this committee that i can recall in recent times to discuss the legislation that is before us that was continued to today. And i want to start because i think were a little bit off track and i wanted to get us back on track and look at this hollistickly. There are other competing pressures in different districts. But there is one underlying dynamic that i would like to unsds score, which is i would rather get this done right than get it done fast. And so i understand that we have this looming deadline of january 1 of 2018. But that does not mean that we, a, have to meet it by midnight on december 31. I would rather get this thing done right. I know that is going to be complicated. I know there is a lot of moving pieces. I want to acknowledge the mayor and his staff and supervisor sheehy who started with the first piece. But i think that we really have to look at this as comprehensive citywide legislation and i know many of us have, as i said earlier, different needs. But let let that not drive the conversation. Thank you, supervisor and thank you for your opening remarks. I thought it was really important that i sit in on this conversation, mostly because i think we have to dial things back just a little bit and realize that we cant develop good policy focusing on a district by district approach. We have to create good policy for the city as a whole. I do appreciate all the time and dedication of individual supervisors and the Planning Department, the office of cannabis, operators and members of the public who have provided their input on this legislation. And while the rest of the state is taking a step forward on these issues, with the passage of proposition 64, unfortunately some of what is being discussed here at the board is really taking a step backwards. Im deeply concerned about the patchwork of land use controls, including numerical caps and neighborhoodspecific exemptions being discussed. And theyre not, as i said, good city policy. In revealing some of the amendments made last week and some which were going to discuss here today for consideration, im growing concerned that were creating an overly restrictive set of controls which will significantly reduce or even eliminate any new opportunities in our city for folks who we are trying to make sure have access to this industry. Especially the issues around equity. Cant on the one hand say we want to provide new opportunities in this industry for those who have born the brunt of the countrys failed war on drugs while simultaneously making it fearly impossible for them to find legal space to operate. Expanding the buffer zones in distance, such as new uses such as child care while also setting numerical caps in certain areas does just that. And some of what is being proposed has the effect to their yo our green zone even more than we have today. So, that is not where i believe we want to go. And i agree with supervisor peskin that it is important that we have a comprehensive conversation that we look at data and that we make a better decision about a citywide policy and not a districtspecific policy. But more important, we this particular conversation in development of legislation does not have to be rushed and im looking forward to the discussion around this particular issue. Clearly from the number of members of the board of supervisors who are present here today and some may be joining us later, it is clearly something that we are not taking lightly and i look forward to this lively discussion. Thank you, supervisor. Thank you, president. As i indicated earlier, we are now joined by supervisor jane kim, supervisor kim the floor is yours. Thank you, chair peskin. And i just want to appreciate some of the points that the president has made. A couple of comments that ill make having followed this process through the last few weeks. One, i do want to make sure that we look towards finding a pathway towards legalization as supervisor sheehy has proposed for cannabis dispensaries that are operating currently and figuring out which portion of the pipeline we also want to make sure can legalize, you know, as early as possible in 2018 as we move forward. Two, i also want to make sure that we get clarity on permits and making sure that they are attached to Business Owners and not just the location. And i know that the issue came up several times at Land Use Committee last week. But we have heard that there are Property Owners that either hold the dispensaries kind of hostage because they know that the permit is attached to the address and not to the owner. Or, in worst case, go as far as evicting the tenants who spent the work doing the neighborhood outreach, developing relationships, and also working hard to obtain the permit for that address. So i just want to make sure that we establish strong controls around that. So that we dont incentivize land lords to evict or harass their tenants once theyve done the work to get the permit for that location and site. I also am happy that were moving forward with the clustering orbit. Because i think that that is a way that we can make sure that we dont have an overdensity of cannabis dispensaries in one specific portion of the city. Now just to add on to the point that the president has just made, i prefer that we pass a Land Use Plan that has overall citywide controls so once that does not treat neighborhoods or district differently. But that one that is overarching for the city as a whole, that is our Public Policy statement on what we would like to see for cannabis dispensaries moving forward. However, i did say last week that if amendments passed where we are basing restrictions and controls district by district or neighborhood by neighborhood, that will leave me no choice but to put one in the district that i represent as well. That is not my preferred route. It is just the route that i will feel that i have to go down if other neighborhoods are putting prohibitions or restrictions. I currently in the district i represent have 17 medical dispensaries and i believe six in the pipeline. Six in the pipeline. Sorry. There was a little confusion last week. Which will bring me to 23 cannabis dispensaries in district six. And so i just think that it does at some point have to be a conversation on a maximum number. Because i think that certainly my district is wellserved and there is no issue with access in the south of market and Tenderloin Mission bay neighborhoods. So that is a conversation that i would like to have and also want to make sure that there isnt retail gentrification where we see Property Owners stop renting out to barbershops and dry cleaners because they know that cannabis dispensaries can bring in a higher portion of revenue. Finally, some of the points that i also made last week, id like to see the current task force diversify and actually represent our diverse constituents here in the city and county of San Francisco. The current task force, i dont believe, represents all of our different community. As we move forward with cannabis legalization, the task force has to represent what the city looks like. Finally, i do want to figure out a pathway for how we can truly support equity applicants as well as businesss that were shut down by the federal raids in 2012 and others. We want to make sure that these businesss are able to flourish. In our city. And certainly have our support. Theres certainly some of the very businesss that we want to make sure are opening and have places to go here in San Francisco. I should finally note that while im currently of the position of 1,000 feet for schools and child serving facilities and daycare, im open to this conversation and i certainly want to hear the arguments on all side about what is the best way to move forward. Regardless of our personal feelings on cannabis, i think that there is still many members of the city that are not ready to embrace this and particularly where we have children. I just want to hawer that we move forward with the best approach on how we can have these businesses alongside some of our children serving facilities. Finally, i should just note, i was i think there is a lot of confusion about the civil rights element of the legalization of cannabis. And there are many members of the public that i think conflated the overarounding civil rightss to businesses being wherever they want to be. And i just want to say on the record that the civil rights issue with cannabis was the overcriminalization of largely black and brown individual are overarrested and overincarcerated and one of the positives of prop 64 is that we decriminalize this activity. However, i do not believe it is a civil rights of Business Owners feel to make money wherever they want to in our city. I dont think we should be conflating those two issues. As we move forward and talk about where we want to see cannabis and what are the appropriate locations, i think that we should just be very careful in our conversation of bringing that theme into place. What were largely talking about now is the right for people to open businesses and that should happen. I look fortoward to this conversation as we move forward. Thank you, supervisor. Thank you. Supervisor kim, actually i agree with everything that you said and although it may not seem like it, im trying very hard to figure out how it is that we can have more comprehensive, citywide proposal and regulatory scheme here. However, the reality is that not all land use is onesizefitsall. In fact for things that are already legal, whether it is formula retail, whether its about bars, Liquor Stores, we all have actually different zoning in all of our different districts and that is also why we have things such as neighborhood, named commercial districts, m. C. D. S, to be able to custom tailor land use controls to our particular districts needs. Although i totally support the idea and concept of a Regulatory Framework for cannabis regulations, the reality also is that we do have our own districtspecific zoning currently as is for other issues. I want to remind everyone about that. Because i dont want it to seem like cannabis, were targeting something as zoning in our different neighborhoods w. That said, i actually do have one clarifying question quickly for mr. Star from our Planning Departments or anyone else who could answer this question with. Come january 1, 2018, i know that we have limited number of board meetings here and in our efforts to try to have comprehensive legislation versus rushed legislation, what will actually happen come january 1 and the second part of my question is, for example, can we extend our kufrment Regulatory Framework into the new year if we dont finish. Would you like the City Attorney to answer that . Whoever can answer it. I believe the answer is if we took some steps between now and january 1, we can do whatever we want. That is correct. You can do whatever you want based on the land use proposal except if you exceed certain limitations state has put on such as no alcohol and cannabis together and things like that. But january 1, we do have medical controls and so i believe that would be the only thing that we would permit at that point. Come january 1. Anything you want to add . You can speak with your client if you need to. Centrally, if the board does not adopt an ordinance on second reading and the mayor does not sign that ordinance by december 1, on january 1, the city could continue to allow m. C. D. S, medical can dispensaries medical retail to operate in the city under our current law. But would not allow adult use retail or other cannabisrelated uses. So that if a business went to the state seeking a license, and asked and the state called us and said that this business has permission to operate in San Francisco, we would say yes for m. C. D. That is are authorized to operate under our current law but would not say yes for other types of cannabis businesses. This goes back to my original comment which is we can get it done and get it done right and not get it done fast and mess this thing up. Ms. Wheaton . Elliott. My apologies. Elliott wheaton. Either one. Nicole elliott, office of cannabis. As far as january 1, the state is looking for authorization from a local jurisdiction as to what activity we are authorizing. There are provisions in state law that disallow any state licensed holder from operating with nonlicense holders. So as far as local operators, while we would be very clearly setting a line for what sort of zoning controls we would and would not allow for our local operators would be unable to operate with any outside operator that has a state license. Thus putting them at a potential competitive disadvantage. All right. Supervisor . Thank you. I appreciate that. I thought that was really important to kind of get out of the way at the beginning because although we would like to rush to pass this legislation as soon as possible, i do agree with supervisor peskin that we dont want to, in our rush to do so, do so sloppily. So, with that, ill save my comments for later. All right. Supervisor . Thank you, chair. I appreciate all the thought that has gone into it. I appreciate the opening remarks made by my fellow supervisors. I would like to overemphasize the point that supervisor tang made. If we were to look at the interactive map and the interactive maps that have been put out in the press and in the public over the last few days. Even if you were to completely remove the School Buffer Zone, the vast majority of what is allowable for this particular use would be in the Downtown Core. And the reason for that in many ways and if you look at the way our land use policis are designed is because this is a retail use. Acceptsingly essentially thinking about how this interacting in the retail corridors an important point of departure. The other point of departure is, as this conversation began as you said back in the 1990s, this conversation began about access for a medicinal use that was not allowable under the federal government rules. So it became about access. And the way we have approached this legislation this particular retail use has been about access. Today in 2017, there are parts of the city with zero access. There are other parts of city, as supervisor kim pointed out, have tremendous access. What were trying to balance is the growth Going Forward afternoon i think that what we have done over the last number of months with supervisor sheehy and nicole elliott, office of cannabis and all the other folks sitting here and supervisors involved in this, think about how we implement these rules and how they interact with our commercial corridors. Essentially that is the most appropriate space. But not many not all of the supervisorial districts have the same amount of corridors, one. And two, theres certain districts that have nonresidential and retail uses. And others that dont. And that is why i started by saying if you were to remove the School Buffer Zone and child care completely, the area of San Francisco that would have the highest amount of use would be in the Downtown Core. Because it is less residential. I dont want to disanies interactive between a retail use and residential use. But if you are standing in the Downtown Core and there is apartment buildings far away or around the corner, it is very different than interactinging with a Single Family home or duplex immediately around the corner from this use. And a lot of this use creates additional extranalities. It creates foot traffic. It is in and out. And the difference between existing retail uses is very different. I have seen that played in and out my district over the last 10 years where you have had existing retail uses that have declined significantly because of the interaction between the foot traffic and the car traffic and the parking. That is not to say that cannabis in and of itself is a use that will decrease activity. I think while were in the neighborhood, we have to be thinking about this in a different way. So the way we have approached this is to think about the citywide policies, think about child air care and schools and a policy that rms our corridors. That is the conversation in front of us today. I think we regressed in our previous conversation the other day. By think we made some good points as well. Ill save the rest of my comments for later. Thank you. Thank you, supervisor. And to the cosponsors, supervisor sheehy. Thank you, supervisor. So i had a couple of questions for the City Attorney and city staff. I want to have a little bit of clarity on what happens january 1. So existing m. C. D. S would be able to operate. Yes . Supervisor, the state is looking for authorization from a local jurisdiction for that activity because we have controls on our books right now for medical Cannabis Retail. Absent the controls for any sort of activity beyond that. The state would, if an applicant were to go to the state and seek a state license, the state would turn to us and say what do you authorize . The state knows that were having these conversations right now. They have our legislation in their hands. So they would know that we are working through authorizinging some sort of activity and would not issue that lnls. That license. Well, will we have licenses for cultivation, testing . Our existing cultivators would not have the authorization locally. Cultivators, manufacturers, dispensary and some nonstore front delivery would not have that authorization Testing Facilities as well to go seek a state license. And so if you are an existing m. C. D. , if i understand it correctly, you cant get product from outside of the city without a license . All license holders must interact with other license holders of their supply chain. So there will be an adult use supply chain and medical use supply chain and license holders must do license with other license holders. If we have license holders in San Francisco that are medical Cannabis Retailers, they may do Business Activity with other mtype license holders throughout the state. Ok. However, if we have manufacturers who were currently supporting the medical supply chain, they do not have local authorization to do that activity. Therefore, that i do not have a state license to do that activity. They may not do business with other license holders. So, the rest of the supply chains basically would cease to function. And those businesses would be put at a competitive disadvantage moving forward as existing m. C. D. S and then contracted with outside of the city, entitis that are licensed to grow, to manufacture and to test. Am i correct . Can you say that one more time, supervisor . So, for ancillary activities, the existing m. C. D. S have to go outside the city in order to get product, get manufacturing, get testing. And those businesss that are currently operating right now would cease to be able to operate. With license holders, yes. So that period of time, these existing businesses would be harmed and possibly put out of business because woe are not able to license them because we havent moved forward on our regulations. The other thing i want to say is that i take the equity issue very seriously and i think the longer we wait to put in place a framework the further behind our equity applicants are going to be. I thought supervisor cohens suggestions, amendments were outstanding and i deeply appreciate the hard work that she put into doing that. But if it is a month, two months, its three months, those opportunities are going to be lost. Were not operating in a vaok vacuum here. Were operating in a world where berkeley is going to have a Legal Framework in place. Oakland is likely to have a Legal Framework in place. Lots of other places. So, what were really doing is hurting our local industry and helping people who are not here. Were setting down. We will literally be shutting down local businesss if we dont have something in place by january 1 so i want to put that out. You know, and the reality is i really have been frustrated and a bit i try to keep it mild. But i just feel like weve been working on Pacific Justice institute talking points. I just dont see what the horrific threat is to children. You know . I have a child. And theres no one objects to a liquor store being or alcohol being sold around the corner from my kids school and cigarettes. No one has said thats a bad idea or bars being located near my kids schools. Somehow cannabis has become demonized and there are times when i ask myself is the relationship between the creator of this narrative, the birth place of medical cannabis which is in the Lgbt Community and People Living with h. I. V. , and not wonder exactly what were doing here. By sustaining and supporting that nicer tiff. I think it is very divisive narrative. I certainly agree with my colleagues the desire to have some control over where things are located. That is what we do with zoning rules. But i merging into this other narrative, i think is not helpful for the unity of San Francisco. And it does ncaaing tiez people, a lot of sick people who have been taking medicine for a number of years. I know people who are alive today who would not have survived the aids epidemic because of medical cannabis. So, i just think when we talk about this, i think we have to be sensitive to and i tried to be sensitive to the concerns of all the communities that are in San Francisco. And in our attempts to come up with something that works, and i do hope that we have something works january 1. That has been the intention all along. And i do have amendments that hopefully we can introduce later that will allow the existing dispensaries to move to adult use on january 1, but i just think that we need to be careful. On how we talk about this. Thank you. Supervisor yee . Thank you, chair peskin. I appreciate everybodys viewpoint on this issue. I wanted to just say a few things. First of all, regardless of what were trying to do for whatever reasons, we all understand that every district in San Francisco and in every district, the voters actually supported recreational marijuana. So, we understand that. So the discussion becomes what is it that were trying to solve in this case and i take to heart what supervisor sheehy just said. And some of it is some issues were trying to solve would be what supervisor kim just mentioned in regards to do we allow one type of business to drive up the rent so much that other types of businesses cannot operate . And that is why, for instance, many of us actually and city wide. But many of us have rer chant zoning area around Financial Institutions because we know they can afford to pay 10 times more than a mom and pop type of business. And were seeing certain corridors where almost half the corridors of Financial Institutions. The because of the timeline, if there is no real actual dropdead january 1 or whatever date it is, then im probably would lean towards taking whether it is a month more to get this right. The issues that im most concerned about would be this whole 1,000foot distance. From a school. I supported it in the past. With the m. C. D. S and i would support it, but im also willing to to have compromises around that issue. Especially what i i think the compromise for me that i would support would be making sure our preschools which by the way, unlike schools, unlike the Public Schools where it is a buffer zone of a yard, a lot of our preschools are right there in the retail space next door to a retail store and i have i think everybodys district has Child Care Centers. And i hope we get it right that we dont just say Child Care Center and it is actually a california licensed Child Care Center so that people dont start using any definition of what a child care is. So, i would be very supportive to get that language in and trade off the 1,000 feet. The issue of looking at my own district, yes, not onesizefitsall, but it shouldnt be to the point where we all have to carve out everything. Because some are reacting to whats going on around me. My reaction is, wait a minute, if everybodys going to be doing this, i need to speak up for my district and not end up having 50 of them in my district. By the way, the many of the arguments people are making, i could make the same arguments. Im more than willing to have a much better discussion around those issues. But if not, im going to keep my amendments in there. But it is one of those where i hope were not forced to do something as a reaction and hopefully we can have a logical discussion around that. I was thinking this more in terms of how can we approach this, looking at the history of m. C. D. S as a sort of anchor point for discussion. And seeing and try to be equitable across our districts and throughout the city. So i i if people are open to it and we get to the point where were going to spend more time discussing how do we do this district by district, i have this concept that i thought about where, you know, no matter which district you have a minimum of numbers, period. That you would cap it at. In other words, if you have one, maybe the cap is four or Something Like that. Doesnt matter what the number is. But that somewhere along the line, if you have one, you dont cap it at one. And i had this concept. I know it is probably hard to follow because i love numbers and nobody else does. But if your district has five again, according to what you already have historically, like if you have five fewer than five or fewer m. C. D. S right now, then you could use a magic number. Theres no rule you know, you use any number you want. If you have lets say four then you cap it at twice as much which is eight. If you have more than five, because you know you dont want to have twice as much as supervisor kims district or 17, that you use a Different Number for that in terms of a multiplier. So, for instance, if somebody had 10, i would say and it is above 5, anything above 5, you multiply by 1. 2. So if you had 10, then you would have to bring your minimum to at least 12. So, again, i hfp. Im just throwing out a concept that may not make sense to you because you dont have the numbers in front of you. But im more than willing to try to explain it. And hopefully that would be a little more equitable so we have some share in the discussion. Thank you, supervisor yee, and thank you for your willingness to be collaborative. With that, well go back to supervisor kim. I just want to make a comments i want to include in my opening remarks as tobacco and liquor. I dont treat those differently. In fact, i feel much stronger about tobacco permits. There are 270 tobacco permits in the district that i recommend. And there is incredible equity. I know not everyone was on the bore at the time, but supervisor eric marr did pass legislation limiting the number of tobacco permits to 45 per district. So, this board has taken that issue up. We do recognize it has an issue and we frankly dont want it to be, you know, overinfiltrating our neighborhoods. And so that issue just in case people feel like were treating these quoteunquote different issues differently, i think this board has taken this issue up. Unfortunately we cant close down businesses once theyre in place and we rightfully grandfather those permits in. As tobacco businesses go out of business in my district, and weve certainly had one or two since the legislation has passed, they never come back to the neighborhood. And around Liquor Stores, i have 72 Liquor Stores just in the tenderloin. That is a huge issue as well and our neighborhood is working to convert these Liquor Stores into Corner Stores and working with the owners to sell more healthy and fresh food instead of tobacco and liquor and were also working to reduce the number of Liquor Stores in the district that i represent. So i dont want it to come across that were singling out cannabis. Honestly, id rather have a cannabis dispensary in the tender loin because they have to do the outreach and they come often with security and cameras and a lot of things that benefit the neighborhood. Plus good jobs. So when i bring up this issue of saturation, i think there is a couple of questions that we need to ask and that is a big question. What is the problem that were trying to solve for . Yes, we want dispensaries to be able to legalize. There is no question about that. We want to think about neighborhood character. Not because cannabis is bad, but we want to make sure that we have a diversity of retail businesss in all of our neighborhoods. Its not like we think it is bad and that is why were putting a cap on it. We want to make sure that there is a diversity of businesss that serve multiple needs of all of our residents. Thats why we have formula retail controls. Some neighborhoods do have caps on restaurants because they felt like their neighborhood had too many restaurants and not enough of other amenities. This conversation isnt i dont want to say i dont want the community to feel like were singling cannabis out, its just that this is tissue before the committee and the board today. And finally, you know, just to talk about berkeley, berkeley as far as i know has only three m. C. D. S. If we only had three, we would legalize all of them on january 1, too. I dont think there would be a question about that. But we have 40some that are offering today. 20some that are in the pipeline. We have to have a thoughtful conversation about what that is going to mean for our city. We have to have a thoughtful conversation about what access means. And is access even an usual ewe today . And one example ill just bring up, i had a family friend that interned for my office for the upper. His first day he moved into the outter sunset and within an hour of moving in, his roommates asked him what he wanted from a local dispensary and they had it delivered within 30 minutes. So im not sure there is truly an access issue. I dont think that should be the argument meant today. That doesnt mean we should put on caps and restrictions, but i dont know if access is truly an issue in our city. When you have enough businesses, that doesnt mean that we cap it at that none. Number. But the conversation needs to be how we make sure theres a diversity of amenities in our neighborhoods and were properly growing this market and not doing it in a way where there is retail gentrification and prevent other types of businesses come from coming into San Francisco. Thank you for those comments, supervisor kim. Many of which i support. President . I just want to go back to access and to the equity issue. I know that supervisor sheehy believes that there is a possibility that if we delay implementing this legislation that it could have an impact on equity. And the problem i have is that i think its just the opposite. Because whats happening with individuals who im interacting with in my community and talking to them about this particular issue, they dont know the first thing of what they would necessarily in order to basically open up one of these businesses. I dont think we, as a city, have done a good job in trying to make sure that we are working with the communities who have been most impacted as it relates to what i had said in terms of arrest rates and other things and targeted as it relates to marijuana offenses, not only in the city. But the entire state. And i think part of what i want to make sure is that those who have been disadvantageded by this industry in the past has an opportunity to now that this has become a Legal Industry here in the city, that we, in developing these equity provisions that exist within this legislation, that were doing a better job with outreach, with how we work with the community as you had say. I know supervisor cohen has some proposed suggestions around equity and how we began to make sure that the opportunities for this community actually exist. But my feeling is from engaging in conversations with a number of people that were just not ready as a city and that particular community is not prepared or comfortable with now interacting with, you know t city and the government on trying to develop their business here in the city, even though the opportunity exists. And so i just want us to do not only a better job around outreach and equity for that particular purpose, but i also want us as a city to do a better job on education and dealing with the fear that is out there in communities that is genuine fear, despite the groups that are trying to. Capitalize on that, unfortunately. But we just have our work cut out for us and we have to do a better job with communication. We have to do a better job with making sure that we have the right tools in place to make it easier for people to understand what this actually means and understand this could potentially benefit their communities. Thank you, president breed. In so far as this room is now at capacity, weve opened an overflow room in the committee room, room 263. If you are in there and we call your name for public comment, you will be given an opportunity to speak as well. With that, supervisor asafai . I just really appreciate what supervisor kims comments. I think that this is a process that weve all been involved in over the last number of months and were trying to be very thoughtful about it. Were trying to balance the need to grow. Were trying to balance the need to expand and have equity as supervisor breed said as well. At the same time, were also trying to respect the commercial corridors and the differences throughout San Francisco. So for my district and i said this before, to get into the technical conversation, you know we have five type 47 permits in their entirety in my district. Type 47 as i how for full alcohol and food. Four of those are like social clubs and Italian American social clubs, sons of italy, ones a golf club and one is a bar that essentially serves like a lot dog every now and then. There are no establishments other than maybe one that will serve full food and alcohol. That is a generator of Economic Opportunity along a commercial corridor and we have one of those. Yet we have three m. C. D. S. And to add an additional point to what supervisor kim said is we do see that. Since i came into office, we had three additional permits come and these are vacant store fronts that have sat in some cases for over a decade. But the point about, you know, commercial corridor, gentrification or diversity of amenities, these operators have the abilities to pay a very, very high rate. One of them was actually half the building is daly city and half the building was in San Francisco. But it had a San Francisco address. It literally has sat vacant for over a deck a. But because the ability to come if and operate at this particular use, i wish we had other engines that could drive economic diversity. The controller did a report last year. We have the highest rate of vacancies and empty storefronts in San Francisco. 100 . So ill end by saying that i think the balance of thinking about how your commercial corridor grows, how you balance that out with the citywide demand, i agree with supervisor sheehy. I, too, am a parent. I have two small children. The idea that small children would be influenced by this retail use, i dont buy that argument, personally. I think at the end of the day, it is a parents decision where they take their children, how they walk with their children, how they interact with store fronts and that, to me s a restrictive policy that could go citywide. So i think we have to balance those things out when were having this conversation. I appreciate what supervisor yee said which is you also have the other one, 1,000 feet from a school. So, how do we maybe there is a give and take there. And im open for that conversation as well. Well open up opportunity and open up equity. Thank you. This seems like a very productive meeting. We have seven out of 11 members of the board and we also have a representive from the chair of this committee who i will turn it over to in a couple of moments. If she wants to speak. Let me, at the risk of sounding funny, want to offer to supervisor asafai, perhaps the dispensaries could lead to more restaurants in district 11. [laughter] [applause] chair, i would hope. We have not seen that. I wish we did. And let me social myself with what i think are very legitimate concerns about retail gentrification as a lot of our Small Businesses have been under tremendous pressure from rents and rising costs. Were all seeing that, some more in other parts of the city than others. But part of the reason that this board of supervisors adopted formula retail chain store controls over a decade ago was because these were types of businesss that could come into San Francisco and command and demand much higher rents. The next thing you know there went the shoe repair person and the local Hardware Store and that was precisely the reason that San Francisco has historically been very reticent to permit and encourage big box retailers. And yet we have the amazon effect, which is added to that pressure. So i think if you look back and see in other areas what experiences that we have had that we need to learn from, those should be applied in this case. I do have concerns about a green rush which ultimately will reach some equilibrium. There are other people out there with money who want to invest and think this is the new frontier. And if you end up with too many of them coming to a neighborhood that already has those pressures you may inadvertently kill things that you love. And getting that right at the beginning i think is very important. I actually think that the idea of portability helps with that problem in a very, very big and real way. And definitely think that portability makes abundant sense. I know it is a little bit difficult because historically these types of permits, conditional use permits have run with the land so we have to figure out ways to make them run with a business and that is going to take a little bit of time. I also want to speak to the elephant in the room which is that certain communities have historically and culturally had a very different experience with cannabis than other communities. Was born and raised in berkeley, california in the 1960s. I have a very different world view about cannabis than some of my neighbors. And getting that right and beinging respectful of that, i think, is also very important. And part of what you see going on in the rush to carve out and what have you is a legitimate response. Its not about pushing away a business. Its all about respecting the Cultural Values of some members of our city. And we know the numbers. 70 for prop 64. Im very proud. Its a great victory. Lost previously. But we have to also do it in a way that is culturally sensitive and i note that our mayor, whos chineseamerican, is the primary author of this legislation. So, we need to hear from him a little bit as well to go through what is turning the corner if a more rational, citywide view process. Thank you. Legislative aide for supervisor farrell. Last week at the special Land Use Committee meetings, supervisor farrell discussed his intent to legislate a control in district two that would limit it to one m. C. D. Or Cannabis Retail per neighborhood commercial corridor. His intents was one on lom bard, one on chestnut, one on union, one on fillmore, one on sacramento. After discussing this further with colleagues and advocates, supervisor farrell shares supervisor peskin and supervisor breeds intend to have a more citywide approach and would like to offer an amendment that limits to Cannabis Retail to a sixfoot radius of another Cannabis Retail or m. C. D. This is similar to the original legislation that was one per 300foot radius. Instead, he would support one per 600foot radius. The Planning Department has a map and can show you what all these different radii look like. And we have the amendment drafted if a member of the committee is interested in discussing it today. If not, supervisor farrell would discuss it at the following landuse meeting next month. Obviously this is up to the three voting members of this panel, but im saying this as somebody who has done land use as a member of the board of supervisors on an offer getting on to 20 years. I think this hearing is very, very helpful. I was not able to make the special meeting last thursday. What i would like to do is take all of these ideas and within the confines of the brown act try to actually maybe working with ms. Elliott and with the mayor and the sponsor and i believe after this hearing when chair farrell returns, president breed will not have a problem. Maybe we can take this all and come up with something that perhaps could get to an 110 vote. I almost feel like, you know, im starting to understand Mitch Mcconnells pain in trying to put together votes in the United States senate. But this is a complicated issue and maybe we could do that and not make anymore amendments today. I know that supervisor sheehy has a rafts of amendments that came out of thursdays meeting that ive seen sent to me by deputy City Attorney givener. Maybe we can take a time out not a lot of time between now and next monday, but and maybe we can run an interim measure in parallel, given that as i said at the beginning id like to get this done once right and not rushed. So, just food for thought for the Committee Members as well as the other members of the board gathered near. With that, the moment everybody has been waiting for and thank you very, very much for your patience. If it is ok with colleagues oh, supervisor tang no, please. Did you want to see the math of the proposed amendment from supervisor farrell . I would i think that it would be very important for the public to see it. So, if you want to put that on the overhead so that everybody can see what it looks like. That is a good point of information. Let me just say we very much want the public, all members of the public, whether you think it is too generous too restrictive to be a part of this is page 10 and 11 insertede 202. Can you also show the map, p . Yes. Aaron starr is going to pull upp way 600foot around mcds and 60t around schools. We go toggle it as you wish to. Chair, do you mind if i ask a question . Please. Youre not proposing an amenr schools and not opposing an amet amendment to add day cares . This is around an existing. And mr. Starr or commissioned you, please, talk to how this is with the orbiting proposal thate brainchild of the planning comm. This would be a replacement e orbit. The orbit originally was a replt of the original proposal which e per 300foot. Then we were at the orbit. So i guess were proposing goino one per 600 instead of 300. Okay. Feel free to ask questions, com, supervisor breed, do you have ay questions . Supervisor sheehy . Do you have questions or do youo speak to your section 190 stuff . Supervisor sheehy i was goio speak to my section 190. All this does is allow existings and grandfathered mcds to be reo function january 1. I still believe, i mean to be ao adult use, people are going to e getting cannabis. You know. I mean i dont know what we cans going to happen on january 1, be have plenty of product o in th t now. It disturbs me that our processd leave us in the situation wheree foster the black market which ww exists. We dont bring this into daylig. I mean, honestly, one of the tht weve been talking about in opeg rules is labor peace to workerse protected and join a union. I really do think that we shouln place somewhere where people cao legally get cannabis on january. Because theyre going to get it. I do want to speak to the prd amendments to the conversion paf the legislation, section 190. But before that, are there any r questions for staff . Seeing none, supervisor tang, ik you have a few more questions tl get to supervisor sheehy 190. I have one question about 19n another question about some of r pieces. Supervisor through the chairo supervisor sh sheehy, does thisr the cultivation testing . The way i read it, it doesnt. That was a concern come january, you brought up, essentially the cultivation parliament and so fh would all be impacted. It does not, no. I did not. Obviously, i did not know we wee talking about delaying the entie legislation. A lot of that is in the operati. I dont know how much of that we found, to what degree. Maybe miss elliot, to what degrs that need to take place in thisf legislation . I get confused between the two. Section 190, as i read it ins legislation speaks specificallyo retail and to storefront retail. It would not cover the rest of e pipeline, those, as you may be , were running a current registrn process for the nonretail and y components of the supply train o capture the activity out there e a temporary permit. They have to be in compliance we planning code. Whatever you end up wutting in e would be the putting in placd be the planning code which you o comply. I say if were going to do the e pete, address cultivation testio forth, we should have a companie with the rules committee. Through the chair, im sorrys in my committee. On that particular point, i bele weve been working on the reguln the police code side, is that c . Director elliot . The legislation system and ty mer mitts are a component of the