That was my presumption. I assumed. I came to the conclusion. Apparently so. Trish why exactly do we even care what these people think or suspect when we have seen the transcripts . Not to mention that ambassador sondland admitted that he never heard the president say he wanted anything at all from ukraine. Which basically totally blows out his whole thesis he gave us in the open where he says the following. Was there a quid pro quo . The answer is question. The democrats were all excited about that one. But you know what . Sondland meant he thought there was a quid pro quo. Because the president it turns out actually had never said this to him. He never asked him to secure anything from ukraine from president zelensky. This is sondlands belief. A belief thats hard for anyone to take seriously given how much it has changed since Nancy Pelosis decision to launch hearings was initiated. Lets take a walk down memory lane. Sondland told lawmakers there was no quid pro quo. Then he goes out
That was my presumption. I assumed. I came to the conclusion. Apparently so. Trish why exactly do we even care what these people think or suspect when we have seen the transcripts . Not to mention that ambassador sondland admitted that he never heard the president say he wanted anything at all from ukraine. Which basically totally blows out his whole thesis he gave us in the open where he says the following. Was there a quid pro quo . The answer is question. The democrats were all excited about that one. But you know what . Sondland meant he thought there was a quid pro quo. Because the president it turns out actually had never said this to him. He never asked him to secure anything from ukraine from president zelensky. This is sondlands belief. A belief thats hard for anyone to take seriously given how much it has changed since Nancy Pelosis decision to launch hearings was initiated. Lets take a walk down memory lane. Sondland told lawmakers there was no quid pro quo. Then he goes out
1st, 2019. So a grandfathered mcd, as defined in section 190 of the planning code, that receives a permit to operate as an mcd before january 1st, 2019, so in the 2018 window shall be deemed a temporary cannabis sales use, and upon expiration of the temporary cannabis sales use authorization, the land use authorization for the parcel will revert to the original authorization to operate as an mcd unless the establishment has received a permit authorization to operate az a Retail Cannabis use. This would also need to result in an amendment to 205. 2 in the planning code. It would just add a subsection to that sub of the code stating that a temporary permit for cannabis use would last for one year and would expire on january 1st, 2019. The amendment would also provide for a process for these grandfathered mcds to obtain a Permanent Land use authorization to become Cannabis Retail uses, and that would be to section 190 of the planning code, subsection c, which would state in order for a gr
Can you tell us what section youre referring to. Supervisor kim so this is the section 1609, the section that supervisor safai had just asked a question about, so under 1609, this is b21c, it says describe how the applicant will work to encourage applicants who have received cannabis permits, and otherwise further the citys equity goals, which i also agree with. Am i misreading the first part . It seems to me that all applicants will have to talk about how theyre going to encourage and support equity applicants who have been awarded business permits. It should read equity applicants, not permit operators. Supervisor kim so to take out who have been awarded cannabis business permits . Supervisors, one opportunity to address that concern, maybe to say, instead of who have been awarded, to instead say, who are seeking . Jap ja supervisor kim i think the goal is who help those get into the business, but i wouldnt want to force people to help their competitors. Okay. So excuse me . Is that
They have 90 days to apply, and if they dont get it in a kbrae year, they revert back to mcds. President breed and i think it reverts back to i didnt want any amendment without a public process, so i know we need to do this so it relates to mcds and as it concerns land use, but the ability to do this after this legislation has passed is what im most concerned about. I would like a moment to review this particular legislation and make sure that i completely understand where youre coming from. I believe i do, but incident is we just received it, and we know in some regard that we have to do it because i know, i discussed it with our attorney, jon givner yesterday, and supervisor kim and i had a discussion about this in particular, and wanting to make sure that this is included, and so we know that its necessary. I think how its done is of question to me at this time. Supervisor kim. Supervisor kim okay. So i did ask a number of questions of mr. Givner yesterday, and i apologize. I think