Skip to main content

tv   BOS Replay Special Rules Committee 7716  SFGTV  July 11, 2016 8:00pm-10:01pm PDT

8:00 pm
>> good morning. welcome to our special the wills committee meeting of july 11, 2016, monitored i'm katie tang chairman of the committee. to my left is supervisor cohen and eric mar will join us soon and we also supervisor weiner. our clerk we like to think sfgov tv. mr. clerk any announcements? >> >>[moment of silence] also phones items appearing today will appear on the july 19 agenda
8:01 pm
>> think you. please call item 1 >> item number one, >>[reading code] >> >> thank you. i will let supervisor weiner take this away. >> thank you very much mdm. chairman. i described this measure a few times so i won't say other than today mention it does create a segregated dedicated fund for transportation improvements as well as for critically important housing related homeless services. so, we made a number of amendment through a very broad-based collaborative process and today subject to public comment, i will ask the committee to forward this item to the full board of supervisors with a positive recommendation as a committee report. thank you. >> thank you. seeing no other
8:02 pm
questions or comments will open this up to public comment. >>[calling names] >> district for resident here in opposition to this set aside. charter member homeless housing and services fund; transportation improvement fund, budget set aside. the; says it all. one charter amendment, to budget set aside. when does not equal two. this is ill-conceived and poorly drafted. >> thank you very much. any other members of the public which comment on item 1 seeing none,, and >>[gavel] >> at this time will go to our comptrollers office the modified cost letter >> good morning supervisors. comptrollers office. as written in the legislation this creates two new funds. the first one is a homeless housing services fund. this fiscal year the city
8:03 pm
would provide $12.5 million in the next fiscal years it would be 50 known. the second one is a transportation improvement fund this fiscal year it would be 25.4 million going to 101.6 million in the next fiscal year. starting in fiscal year 2018-19 and through fiscal year 2040-41 the contribution would grow at the same rate as other city baselines required funding at the same rate as the city's aggregate discretionary revenue. >> thank you very much. colleagues, cc no other questions or comments i think we had heard the intent for a motion of where committee members to make that supervisor mar get the thank you. i want to thank the mayor and supervisor weiner and farrell and avalos's office for all been part of this effort to make sure we're adequate funding for transportation. the
8:04 pm
homeless services part, you by surprise as was added on and though i really appreciate the need for dedicated funding stream michael is that we can have other funding streams become to support homeless services. i know that the strongly supportive of jeff kosinski's new office of homelessness. i worry in some ways, when broader efforts that are matrix like like the 90s giuliani in new york in san francisco crackdown on homeless people and dehumanization of homeless people is a concern of mine. my hope is that we move forward deftly with supporting transportation the equity part though then i really appreciate but i can't support this measure to go forward i know and i'll be voting no. >> all right. is there a motion to let supervisor weiner had stated? thank you. supervisor cohen >> i would make a motion to accept the amendment. >> we will move forward this item to the full board of
8:05 pm
committee report. >> so moved >> with a positive recommendation but let's do local >> on emotion, supervisor mar nay san francisco aye, tang aye we have 2-1. >> thank you so this measure will appear on the july 12 board of supervisors meeting. >>[gavel] >> any other matters before us today >> no more items mdm. chairman. >> thank you. the meeting is adjourned. >>[gavel] >>[adjournment] >> >> good afternoon, this meeting
8:06 pm
will come to order. the regular meeting of land use committee. i'm supervisor cohen. our clerk is mr. victor young and also want to acknowledge and thank sfgov tv who are broadcasting the meeting. i want to recognize mark bunch and jessie larsson for their talent. do we have announcements? >> please silence cell phones and electronic devices. speaker cards should be submit today the clerk. items will appear july 19 boferd supervisors meeting unless otherwise stated. >> thank you very much. >> item one. administrative code to create aforth preference for people who
8:07 pm
live our work in san francisco in addition to existing preferences in allocaturing affordable housing units to affirm the planning departments determination under the california environment 8 quality act. >> supervisor weanser the author and believe he has a presentation. >> thank you very much. i'll limit it to 45 minutes. just joking mpt today is a amendment i will offer for existing legislation to provide a preference and help for victims of fires. people who are burned out of their apoormts due to fire to give priority accessing affordable housing. we have seen way too many fires in san francisco year after year particularly in the last few years terrible epidemic of fires in the mission district
8:08 pm
resulting in displacement where people are burned out of their homes with no notice what so ever. just a terrible tragedy and traumatic event for anyone to have a fire who burns you out of your home and lose your position squz don't have a place to live. even someone with resources the horrible trauma. to put on top of that, the insane housing market inf san francisco and inability of a good number oaf the fire victims to afford housing in san francisco. as one level of trauma on top of another level of trauma and need the help. a few weeks goy r ago ewe considered legislation to provide preference in affordable housing loterary for people who live our work in san francisco. this is a legislation i'm author to say
8:09 pm
people who live our work in san francisco get statutory preference in affordable housing lottery. long over due. i asked to snd back to committee to add in victims of fire and burned out of the units and as a result we are here today and distributed language with the amendment. there is a lot of work going on to try to address the fire epidemic that we have. a few years back the board passed my legislation to create the good samaritan program that provides a mechanism to landlords to take unvictims of fire or earthquake or other dejaster related deplacement and provide low rent with one or two years with a temporary 10 squaens that is a
8:10 pm
successful program. another solution the fire victims assist nss fund sponsor by president breed and supervisor campos. we need a longer solution for people burned out of the units for at least 6 month jz giving preference in the affordable housing lottery makes sense. this will place the victims in the affordable housing preference category as people evicted under the ellis act or owner movement. we place a sun set date december 31, 2020 and that will allow our seckcessors as it may be to take a look where we are with fires and is it a still a problem and how has the program worked and the board can renew
8:11 pm
at that time. we also have a clean up amendment with category two residents displaced by owner move in. when the ellis act affordable housing pref rchbs was required it had a requirement that the person had to have resided 10 years continuously in the unit and that was amended out of the legislation so you don't have to have lived there for 10 years but left in owner move in evictions so we are making that a [inaudible] after public comment i will ask that we put the amendment language in to support and help fire victims access affordable housing and ask it forward to the full board. the mayors office of housing and community
8:12 pm
development is here today to answer any questions that may arise. thank you very much. >> thank you very much supervisor wiener. would you like to go to public comment? >> i think at this point we can go to public comment. >> public comment is open. you have two minutes to speak and hear a soft chime indicating you have 30 seconds remaining. if you are interesting speaking on item 1, come up to the front. i don't have cards but if there is anyone who would like to speak come up. seeing none i'll close public comment. public comment is closed. thank you. supervisor wiener. >> thank you very much. >> supervisor peskin is there something you cht to say some? >> i scr a question to had maker of the ordinance. i support the additional category of eligibility, but with regard to the fourth preference, how do you define and monitor people
8:13 pm
who work in san francisco? >> um, so, relating to the original version already put out? >> yes >> i like it ask mohcd to come up who has applied this preference but not also and not required to do so so perhaps someone from mohcd can talk about how that happens. >> we accept proof of employment from city and county of san francisco. >> what is that look like? >> typically it is a pay check or copy of a pay check or a benefits statement or letter from the employer. >> thank you. >> thank you. supervisor wiener. >> thank you, so colleagues i move that we adopt the amendment that i
8:14 pm
distributed and have a copy for the clerk as well. >> alright. any objection to that? without objection so moved. >> thank you. madam chair and move we forward item 1 as a-minded with positive recommend-this has to sit another week, my apology. now because i move we continue itedm 1 one week. >> mr. clerk can you tell me what day of the week that is? >> monday the 18th. >> alright. without objection the motion passes. thank you. >> continue to the july 18 meeting of land use and transportation meeting. >> yes, that is correct. mr. clerk. could you call items 2 and 3 together?
8:15 pm
>> item 2, resolution san francisco municipal transportation agency for grant agreement and related documents under affordable housing sustainable community program with tenderloin development corpication for 480 eddy street. item number 3, resolution authorizing san francisco municipal transporeitation agency to execute grant agreement under state of california [inaudible] joint application with mercy housing for project at 455 fell street. >> thank you. pardon my interruption. i understand the mayor's offices of housing they have a number of amendments they need to make and they recognize thoseitisms be heard at a committee so what i like to do is after
8:16 pm
public comment continue to the call the chair that gives the office of housing time to substitute the legislation and work with the presidents office to reassign these items. that is the plan. is there a representative from the moh that #wd like to speak on this quickly? >> sofy hayward for mayors office of housing and community development and you are correct. because of language that we are required to add to the resolution changing into a slightly different form. we like to substitute the legislation next week and move to budget if possible from there. >> thank you very much. let's open up items 2 and 3 to public comment. if you would like to speak come up >> student the podium. you have two minutes to do so.
8:17 pm
>> my name is helen johnson and i have [inaudible] and even though they have already said things are reported, level of housing [inaudible] we
8:18 pm
create other properties to you think you have a idea of what that building [inaudible] i put with our considerations of building houses. [inaudible] for affordable housing. number two, processes that do, you know, [inaudible]
8:19 pm
>> thank you mrs. johnson. any other members that like to speak at this time? seeing none, public comment is closed. thank you. colleagues can i have a motion to continue the items. ? . >> [inaudible] i believe this is we should refer these to budget and finance committee. >> correct but i think we have to work with the board of presidents office to make that referral. let's send items 2 and 3 to the budget committee. >> item 2 and 3 is refer today the budget and finance committee. >> so moved. without objection this passes; can you call item 4? >> item number 4, ordinance amending the code to establish human servicess fire victims assistance fund.
8:20 pm
>> thank you. president breed is the author of the item. >> i want to start by thanking supervisor wiener for adding fire victims as a preference to our preference for affordable housing category, mostly because we all know that sadly there are challenges with fires throughout our city where we displaced residents specifically and it has been challenging because we have not been able to provide them with any real opportunity or access to affordable housing and part of why i introduced this particular fund is because what is great about san francisco and is the residents who live here who when someone goes through a tragedy of this nature folks step up to the plate and want to help and support
8:21 pm
and this fire assistance fund is a way to do that. thank you colleagues, this legislation will create a dedicated city wide fund to help san franciscans who have fallen victim to a fire in their home. a residential fire strikes without notice. there is no planning for a fire. no one expects it to happen to them and men atimes it isn't in a fire in your unit. the fire starts sometimes epiother unit or other buildings but suddenly you have no place to live. low and middle income earners are especially impacted, not only do they lose their belongings they lose home jz given the sky rocketing rents they are vulnerable to being priced out of san francisco. this happens to dozens of people every year. december last year there was a
8:22 pm
large fire in district 5. middle income earners were able to find another unit but went from a 2 bedroom apartment where they lived for years and son was born to a one bedroom unit where they created a bedroom for their sun and nuke under the staircase. the rent from $1800 to $4 thousand a month and struggling to pay expenses for a child with disability. hardship cause families to leave the city by choice or force of finances. in february we had another sizable fire in district 5 on folten street which displaced 16 people. i worked with the north of pan handle neighborhoods association and alamo scare association to organize a fundraiser for the fire but couldn't help wundser where the sid y
8:23 pm
was for all this and why can't the government help people when they are losing anything. the department of human service has funds in the budget used for limited term housing subsidies for fire victims who earn below 35 percent of thearia medium income but they are not benefits for victims earning over the 35 percent of ami and neither the department or city has a dedicated permanent fund for assisting fire victims. if you make more than $25,000 a year the city cant help you if you are a victim of the fire. my legislation will change that. it will create a permanent category 6 figure fund to help victims who earn up to 100 percent of ami. 100 percent of ami may sounds like a lot u but a librarian making 75,000 a year or hotel
8:24 pm
worker or made are not rich. they are struggling to stay in the city like everyone else and when fire strikes we should help. the fire assistance funds will be able to receive private donations and propeation from the board and mayor. funds will carry forward year to year and the specific allocations will be made by the implementing department, the human services agency. there have been several fires in the mission reechbtly and numerous people displaced. i know how hard supervisor campos is working on the issue and want to thank him for co sponsoring this legislation with me. i was proud to work with spl visor campos in the years budget process to help secure $300 thousand for san francisco fire victims. it is very important step forward in those times of need and thank you also to our deputy
8:25 pm
city attorney tom oens and chief of staff connor johnson and ben [inaudible] at hsa. i do have minor amendments to offer today, which i-sorry i didn't pass out to my colleagues but will shortly. we revised the short title to make the name of the fund consistent. we cleaned up a code reference and clarifyed the fund is for rental assistance, not blanket financial assistance and changed the maximum benefits fire victims can receive from a set dollar amount of $10 thousand to a max time period of 2 years. this better reflects the wide variety of circumstances and victims hsa
8:26 pm
helps from a single individual to a family of 7, so colleagues, i ask for your support of those amendments and everyone who is a victim of a fire in san francisco, whos friend, family or former neighbors are struggling to recover from the fires i say finally with this legislation we can help and do more to support you in your time of need with my legislation we definitely will. thank you. >> thank you president breed. do you have staff presentations? no. let's open to public comment. any mb that would like to speak on item 4? please come up. seeing there is no public comment, public comment is closed. thank you. president breed do you have closing remarks? no closeic remarks? >> thank you for hearing the
8:27 pm
item and hopefully you will pass out the amendments and pass to the full board with positive recommendation. >> we got amendments that are on the floor. >> i move those amendments. >> supervisor peskin moved the amendment and without objection those moments are approved. >> i move to snd the item as amended to full board with recommendation. >> thank you. i want to note the item is agendized as a committee report. >> the item is recommended as amended to full board as committee report. >> that is correct and without objection that passes. thank you president breed. >> item 5, authorizing the department of environment to submit applications for all grants offered by the california department of resources and recycling and recovery mpt >> do we have staff >> to present? seeing there
8:28 pm
is no one from department of environment we'll get started. let's move to public comment. item 5. really, okay. public comment is closed. >> madam chair i move this common sense item to full board with recommendation. >> thank you. without objection it passes. alright, mr. clerk you ready for item 6? >> hearing how san francisco medical cannabis regulations are impacted by the state medical marijuana regulations and safety act and any policy changes san francisco needs to make to insure the continued existence of well regulated industry. >> thank you. supervisor wiener is the author of this item. i'm excited and looking forward to hearing this hearing for some time now. supervisor wiener i assume you have a couple of
8:29 pm
enlightening and thoughtful remarks. >> yes. thank you very much madam chair. colleagues, today we are holding a hearing on oversight hearing on the medical marijuana regulation and safety act or mmrsa that was passed late last year by the state legislature and what san francisco's current activities are and what the future holds in terms of our local regulations because san francisco will be required within the next couple years to adopt a local regulation around various aspects of medical cannabis. san francisco has long been a leader having a strong and well rgulated cannabis community, but this new state law changes how the state regulates and ovsees
8:30 pm
medical cannabis dispensaries. this will impact our own local rel regulations and as noted we are going to have to revamp how we regulate and oversee medical cannabis in the next several years. it is important for us to understand how thiss impacts and changes we will have to make and making sure we are actually doing this in the context of 2016 medical cannabis. i think there is a perception at times medical cannabis exists of mcd's but the community is much larger than that and there are many types of medical can business and businesses and organizations. i have had the
8:31 pm
pleasure of visiting some of these organizations engaging in cultivation and manufacturing and it is hard because there is no official permit. we are operating under the model it is all about medical cannabis dispensaries without all the other innovation and other organizations and businesses and we need to make sure that our regulations are keeping up with the realty of where medical cannabis is today. and so, today we'll hear from the department of public health, planning department, department of building inspection on the impacts of the medical marijuana regulation and safety act on the local regulation and also hear from representatives from the medical cannabis industry about the impacts they are seeing and what the needs are in san francisco including for example, businesses that are frankly legal under state law
8:32 pm
but we don't have a local permit. this sh important conversation in san francisco needs to continue to be a leader in medical cannabis. if we don't adjust the new regulatory framework we will fall behind the rest the state and the local community will fall behind as well. comeges, as you know there is a ballot measure in november if the voters pass will legalize non medical use of cannabis. i voted last year to create a taskforce to make recommendation tooz the board of supervisors and mayor how to best regulate and oversee the broader use of cannabis in san francisco if legalization occurs. that passed for the meeting and doing great work and working hard but today we are focusing on medical cannabis.
8:33 pm
colleagues i look forward to todays conversation and if there are no initial questions or comments, i invite up the city departments starting with department of public health to talk to us but what is happening and needs to happen. >> thank you very much. >> so, bear with me for a second. the powerpoint on my drive was curupt and going to by e-mail to find the most up to date. i apologize. i have copies of the presentation if someone wants to take them and hands them out to the supervisors and should be able to find updated copy in a minute. again, i appall yz for the delay. is
8:34 pm
that okay with everyone? if you can send it to me. sorry. i'm going to get
8:35 pm
started. i can pull up the presentation hopefully as we get fl into the slides and have the maps that are more important. i want to start by saying good afternoon and thank you for your patients. my name is [inaudible] here from the office ofpologist and planning from san francisco department of public health and here with aaron star and darrin lowery who is deputy director of inspection services from dbi. we are here to present on the medical marijuana regulation and saeftd act and this comprising 3 sep rlt california state bill squz 3 proposed bills that entail different aspects of regulating commercial cannabis dispensaries, cultivation, manufacturing, transportation sales and testing. i do
8:36 pm
cht to differentiate. today we are talking about medical cannabis. there is a state ballot about adult use and that is not the focus of todays presentation. so, what i will do is start off by just giving a overview of the presentation today. so, what i will do is very briefly give a legislative history of medical cannabis in the state of california and san francisco and then i'll discuss what the current medical cannabis system looks like in san francisco. next i'll give a overview oof the current state laws passed last year and
8:37 pm
proposed pending state laws moving through the california state congress now. after that i will turn it over to planning and dbi to talk about their role in medical cannabis and then i will concludes the presentation talking more about the key decision the city needs to make and we are happy to take any questions after the presentation. i am also here with douglas [inaudible] who is environmental health inspector from the department of public health and also here with bill strom and inspector from db eeurfx. i will talk about legislative history of medical cannabis. 1996 the state of california passed the compassionate use act and this was a ballot initiative which allowed for the use of medical cannabis
8:38 pm
in california and allowed patientwise a recommendation from a doctor to use medical cannabis. it also allowed for possession and cultivation of personal use and the law has been expanded to collective and cooperative for distribution and the basis framework for the laws we have now in san francisco. in 2005 san francisco passed the medical cannabis act that created article 33 of the health code and we'll talk about that on the next slide. since 2005 there are several amendments to this act and we had 3 additional bills passed by the state last year and 3 proposed bill and governors trailer bill that makes up what we see for our legislative landscape right now. i will go
8:39 pm
and use these slides over here. i apologize for the technical difficulties. to talk about our current system right now, we have 28 permitted medical cannabis dispensaries. we won't be able to see both maps but the first map shows the permitted dispensaries within san francisco and the second map that we can't see shows the distribution throughout the san francisco neighborhoods. most the cannabis dispensaries are located in the eastern side of san francisco. the department of public health is the issues the permit after sign off from department of building inspection, fire department and planning department and
8:40 pm
mayors office of disability. the department of public health regulates and inspects the dispensaries. the law now says all the medical cannabis dispensaries organize as a non profit collective or collaborative. we don't issue separate permits for cultivation, but as a function of the cooperative, the medical cannabis dispensary be distributed to the patients. patients need to get recommendation from the doctor and become a member of cooperative or collective. we donetd track patients at department of public health about estimate there is probably 10 to 20 thousand in the city. >> i have a question and don't worry about the technology, we will make dumpt the image you have of this is telling. you said most of the
8:41 pm
mcd's are on the east side of the city? >> most is on the east side oof the city. if we could see sth map that shows the density the largest density is south of market which has about 9 medical cannabis dispensaries. >> my question is before you go on, for what reason is there is concentration? >> i think it is based on two reasons, one is the allowed zoning and a lot has to deal with the neighborhood conditions and neighborhood input when these permits come up with discussion. >> i see. i'll leave my question frz zoning but will go back to the phrase you put, neighborhood conditions and curious to know what that means but please continue. i'll ile
8:42 pm
save them for dbi and planning. >> i'll try to see if i can get the presentation up. so, bear with me with these two next slides, they are very text heavy so they are going through the past laws. the state of california passed 3 new bills which comprise the medical marijuana regulation safety act and the acronym fl act is merca so i'll refer to it as that. through the department of consumer affairs this creates a new entity at the state level which is known as bureau of medical marijuana regulations. also known as [inaudible] the new regulations create a dual state licensing system so especially different types of cannabis
8:43 pm
operations will need to get a license from the city of san francisco and also the state of california. this new regulation creates 17 new license types that range from retail dispensaries which we now permit to non retail license types, which include manufacturing, cultivation, testing, transportation and also non retail distribution. the new law allows for limited type of vertical integration between the license types. the new law phases out the cooperative and collective model and now the medical cannabis dispensries can operate for profit businesses. the local authority in the new law is rather broad. it allows for the city to determine the lands use, the permitting system, the types of licenses we would like
8:44 pm
to issue. besides the dense pensry the city can decide whether it wants to allow cultivation or manufacturing. on the right hand side of the slide it shows all the different state agencies involved in the structure. at the top department of public health is not the state agency, is not the main permits authority but the new regulatory entity, the bureau of marijuana regulation out of department of consumer affairs. cultivation will be permitted by the california food and ag manufacturing is by department of public health. there are 11 state agencies in all that are now taxed with the new regulations of medical cannabis. right now there are
8:45 pm
3 proposed bills moving through the state congress and looks like they are slated to pass. originally mursa was scheduled to go into effect march. the regulation will make the laws go into effect january 2018. all the state agencies need to issue their rules, regulations and guidelines by january 20 17. the state hasn't come up with guidelines on passed or proposed bills. the thew state laws include 3 new bills, one has to do with applicants implementing employee training on mercy with twnt or more employees. the second has to do with taxation and tax amsty and third bill is a set of amendments that revises the first 3 bills. there are 60 amendments in all so i won't go through them but
8:46 pm
some include packaging standards can't exceed what the state puts in place. there are exsemp sons for quality control and more specific requirements around security and details on nurseries. lastly, what it does is changes marijuana to cannabis throughout the legislation. on the right there is a governors trailer bill. this bill makes amendments to changing the name of the bureau of medical marijuana to now cannabis. it also creates a lot of clarity in the existing legislation arounds license types and what department is authorized to do what and changes some authority from certain state agencies to other state agencies. that is a overview of the bill and turn st. over to planning to talk about zoning and then dbi will talk about building inspection and i'll come back and summarize the key
8:47 pm
decision points the city needs to make. >> thank you. aaron star, the manager of legislative affair frz the planning department. reviewing mursa there are two steps that need to be considered with the current regulations and bring into conformance with pending state laws. the first item to review and consider outlined in the march 20 report. the second is look at amending existing mcd's, agricultural to address state licenses classifications. in
8:48 pm
july 2013 supervisor avalos introduced a ordinance to submit report to the board that evaluating the planning code mcd locations. the report was adopted march 20, 2014 and referred back to the board of supervisors. to report provided a summarize of the laws in san francisco as well as staitd and federal laws. simerized existing control and recommended changes to existing regulations and addressed questions. staff already instituted some the recommendations that didn't require changes such as requiring preapplications for mcd's and requiring mcd's follow the planning code transparency requirements. enhance the dr process by adding commission finding for mcd review application. now there are no findings for the planning commission to consider deciding
8:49 pm
whether to deny a application. given the commission direction when they should take review and deny a mcd will help provide more consistent application of the regulation and also provide the community and applicant a clear understanding of what is expected. second recommendation is expand the green zone. several ways to do this is reduce the 1,000 foot buffer to 600 feet. two, allows mcd in more zoning districts and permit mcd on the second floor in neighborhood district. the one,000 thousand foot buffer limits. in addition san francisco is a dense environment and 1,000 feet from a school can be in a different neighborhood or separated by a major roadway. there are several zoning
8:50 pm
districts where mcd's are prohibited where it may be appropriate to locate. [inaudible] they are not allowed on the second floor district. opening up will expand the green zone and address the clustering issues. it next recommendation is remove the 1,000 foot buffer primarily serve children and teenagers. these provisions is difficult to implement and like the 1,000 foot buffer arounds schools it is over lee restricted. most recreational facilities surfb various districts [inaudible] there may be need to restrict around sensitive yeas so recommended a fiending be added to the mcd application consideration that if the mcd is located clouser than
8:51 pm
1 thousand feet of school or recreational facility-instead of a prohibition it is a new eproach to the restriction. the report recommends if the green zone is expanded a buffer or anticlustering provision should be added to the regulations. >> what exactly are you thinking about, mr. star? you are making the recommendations about-i'm concern about the clustering issue. i represent neighborhoods on the southeast part of san francisco and most of the green crossed areas fall within supervisor avalos district. there is spillage, if you will. >> supervisor avalos in his district in mission street has a buffering requirement that doesn't prohibit mcd's located closer than 500 feet but requires a conditional use
8:52 pm
authorization. the green zone is so constrained. i had a map but-there we go. >> sfgovtv, the overheed >> the orange zone is there current green zone and the yellow ifia allow in all districts that allow some sort of commercial activity and trunk the buffer aroun schools to 600 feet which is state requirement rather than 1,000 feet >> one thing i'm not seeing on here is very much yellowen the west side. >> there is not a lot of yellow on the west side but most of the west side is residentially zoned. it restricts a lot of parcels in the neighborhood commercial districts. >> as you know the southeast neighborhoods are not going from industrial, we are losing pdr
8:53 pm
space and the loss is resulting into residential parts of-new residential parts of san francisco so how do we reconcile this and make sure there is equity in terms of access for folks on the west side of the city and so we don't have oversatch riization on green resources on the east side? >> i think some of that can be cleared up with clear sort of findings or guidelines in the mcd. in the dr application of what the commission should consider. is there a overconcentration in the neighborhood? what is a appropriate concentration? another way to do that is clustering issue to prohibit mcd's to locating more than 500 feet of another one. addressing it that way. now the commission doesn't have
8:54 pm
guidelines whether to take a disregzary review and deny permit so it is based on neighborhood opposition or support and staff recommendation. >> so, i know you are a staff person and planning commission heard this item and probably hear another proposal later this month for proposal of mcd and you are finding you voolot of neighborhoods that are in opposition to aspiring entrepreneurs to opening new dispensries in the neighborhoods. how do we balance that? you can have super informed neighbors or super uninformed neighbors. either way it doesn't seem like it is a very fair process for those that are entrepreneur in spirit and looking to open mcd's to
8:55 pm
for my opinion wage war against a neighborhood. for example, visitation valley there are many mcd's attempted to be opened and constituents have organized quite well to prevent this from happening. i know you have recommendations, but maybe you will present them in later on the presentation, i don't know. if they are, my apology. you can let me know and address them later in the presentation but how do we neutralize this so the process is more fair and even kiel for all the parties interested? >> one of the biggest concerns we learned through the report from march 2014 is clustering and impact on the neighborhoods. one of the recommendations to deal with that is expand the green zone and provide anticlustering things so they
8:56 pm
don't cluster in particular neighborhoods. when planners look at the code they look at what is within the code. if there is nothing in the application to give direction on that they differ to probably approval unless they find a reason not to. >> so the expansion the green zone does that include the west side or? >> yes, it includes the west side. the map probably isn't the most legible, but the orange is existing and yellow expanded. the only way to expand the green zone because there are so few commercial districts is shrink the 1,000 foot buffer to 600 feet or between that. the second steps is modify certain definition tooz address the state licenses classifications so going back to state law and what is changing. the state
8:57 pm
[inaudible] cultivation license. the agricultural use urban, neighborhood and green house are currently silent on growing cannabis. they should be a-mind today prohibit or permit certain new license types. neighborhood agriculture is permitted in every zoning district in the city including residential. this definition allows to a half acre of cull evaluation. we have 30 cultivation sites in the city. which are located in pdr and [inaudible] this is like the most appropriate place for them, however it is prudent to acknowledge in the planning code rather than leaving it up to inturperation. the new state laws removes the requirement for mcd's. mcd is considered institutional use because oof non profit status so they are [inaudible] should we have two
8:58 pm
separate use definitions, one for medical and one for adult cannabis? should we continue to regulate deliveryonal businesses the same brick and mortar mcd? the city should look at the 3 existing manufacturing use definition. lith, manufacturing and food, fiber and manufacturing process one and two to permit or prohibited the manufacturer of cannabis. these peer the logical use categories that occur for cannabis products, but there are several differences in the license types and not all are appropriate. that concludes my portion of the presentation and turn it over to dan lowery and bill strom from dbi. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. department
8:59 pm
of building inspection, article 33, san francisco medical cannabis act. referral to other departments. receiving a permit application, and permit application fee the director shall refer to city planning department, department of building inspection, mayor office of disability and fire department. section 3307, issuance of medical cannabis dispensry permit. applications with provisional permits secure a certificate of final completion. the director shall issue the app cant. operating requirements for medical cannabis dispensry
9:00 pm
[inaudible] prior to submission of the buildsic permit the applicant shall submit the application to mayors office of disability. over here you can see examples of the routing of some of the permits that is approved through the building inspection process. it shows where it went through city planning, building and mechanical. it is routed to puc, dpw. development fee, mayors office of disability-this shows all the routing the permits have #5ur8d already gown gone through and been obtained. the colorado [inaudible] for the dispensaries they call it [inaudible] that is all we have here. the mercantile. smoking treatment rooms are [inaudible] growth
9:01 pm
facilities are f 1 occupancy and that is moderate hazard. marijuana oil extraction operations is f 1. marijuana infused product, kitchens and bakeries. f 1. packages and processes is h 3. combustable hazards. 2012 building code lists products and tobacco as a example of uses to classify as f 1 occupancy and closely match the function in the marijuana growth facilities. marijuana oil extraction operations and infused kitchens and bakeries. colorado state also adopted the international building code of [inaudible] the washington state building code. the washington state building code council adopted
9:02 pm
regulations categoryed marijuana facilities as f 1. the state building code council took action june 20, [inaudible] the state building code council updated emergency rules and incorporate changes to chapter 1 permit squz processes, extraction facilities june 10, 2016. similar to california, washington state also adopted the ivc as a model. thank you. >> okay. i have two concluding slides but i am going to since we have the powerpoint working to scroll to the first map. this was the map of
9:03 pm
all the dispensries within san francisco and going the next mep shows the distribution throughout the neighborhoods. we can see there is 4 or 5 neighborhoods that have the majority of the medical cannabis dispensry and a couple others that have one or two. the density ranges from 9 to most of the gray area where they don't exist. just to summarize, what the current law looks like and what the new state laws look like. right now in san francisco we issue one permit only for retail distribution. the new state law allows for 17 new types of licenses. this includes cultivation, manufacturing, testing, distribution and transportation. right now the organizational model of the dispensry is non profit and now laws
9:04 pm
allow for profit. the business ownership type is collective or collaborative model and this will be phased out in the next year or two. the local jurisdiction still has a lot of land use. now our current law is a,000 feet from schools. the new law stipulates 600 feet from schools but can make it more stringent and keep with the thousand feet . now we have no taxation on medical cannabis and the new law gives the city the opportunity to impose taxation on cultivation, production and dispensing. i believe the state law there is a pendsing legislation about tax and coltivation at a state level. here are the key decision points for the city to make. >> presumably that is subject to prop 218 and requires 2/3 vote or simple
9:05 pm
majority if legislatures on the ballot? >> i apologize i don't know the answer. i know it is just on cultivation and think it is 9.20 a ounce. the key decision points for san francisco right now are whether we want to allow or prohibit cultivation. whether to allow or prohibit delivery. within the state law it stipulates delivery must be connect today a cannabis dispensry so caents have third party delivery businesses it is connect today the dispensry. we have a option to low or pr hibit manufacturing. aaron talks about the zoning to increase or decrease the green zone. we want to think of equity as mu rep. .
9:06 pm
oakland passed a ordinance. they passed a ordnance stating cannabis law enforcement policies that effect communities of color and that people could have issues getting into the type of workforce they said the 6 police beats that have the most impacted by cannabis law enforcement would have a opportunity to get a permit or if someone is arrested in oakland for a cannabis conviction. what happens is, 50 percent of the permits have to go to either people from the disadvantage communities or people who have suffered from law enforcement impacts on cannabis so when they issue permits one comes from a equity clause and
9:07 pm
another issued to another type of ownership. >> are you suggesting this- >> not suggesting, just saying- >> just giving backgrounds. >> this is what oakland has done. i don't kneif it wim work in san francisco but there are local jurisdakezs that take the equity seriously as we move the new legislation forward. >> sorry, real quick. has san francisco-have they come up with their own set of recommendsations to present? >> the task force we have is for adult use so this is different. sthis for medical cannabis. i don't think they addressed the ecwawty issue. now they are talking about land use but think they will have recommendation for the board by the end of the year. >> i imagine that is on the ballot in
9:08 pm
november will address adult use so we should be forward thinking in the policy. >> that is why the task force exists. >> thank you, supervisor wiener. >> department of public health is head thg task force and think ecwawty is a main thing i will talk about. also, taxation how we tax medical cannabis will have a big impact on its output. >> quick question back to taxation, is there a estimation how much new revenue will be generated? >> i don't have a estimation. i know right now when we look at different systems for example the state of washington had adult use tract and medical cannabis tract and they ended up merging them because they had a tax structure that was different on medical cannabis than adult use and 37 percent
9:09 pm
tax on both. >> now, from department of public health perspective you mentioned you don't track medical cannabis use. is this something you will track moving forward? >> the state now will implement a tracking system and it is two fold. one is tracking the fee soosale of the medical cannabis and also will have a patient tracking database so that is done at the state level. >> and, for the city and county of san francisco, how many licenses are-new licenses will be created in order to address the growing industry? >> now we have 28 licenses and think it will depend on the zoning. as aaron said, there isn't a lot of opportunity for new businesses to come in now because of space issues. i think we will have to look if we want to expand the medical and adult use we have to think about the taxation zoning
9:10 pm
to allow for this new industry to expand. >> thank you. >> just the last thing we need to do is really the state will give treatment to new business the city is in good standing. just next steps very brief ly, we need to participate in the state agencies currently developing the new laws and regulations. we need to development a city process for working with our key stakeholders and informing the key decision i just talked about. lastly, we need to develop local legislation and also the new local decision we make. thank you. >> thank you. just want to jump in. i think a lot of times when we talk about medical cannabis locally, the issue that dominates is the
9:11 pm
clustering issue, the green zone, red zone issue. i think it frustrates absolutely everyone. it frustrates the planning department and other departments and frustrates people who want medical cannabis dispensry in their neighborhood but can't mpt it frustrates those in the green zones because they don't want clustering. what frustrates the medical cannabis community because there are certain areas where they can go and sometimes the system encourages clustering because oof the areas off limit. in my district, the castro and market the bulk of the neighborhood is off limits thrmpt is a area off church street near
9:12 pm
market where there is a very small green zone, but most of the neighborhood is completely off limits and we know there are parts of the southern part the city and southeast where it is the opposite. it is just a challenging situation and i will say that we asked the taskforce in terms of planning for the possibility of adult use leagueization to try to make good recommendations arounds how to address the clustering/green zone, red zone issue to vamuch more equitable system because now the system is not working. i also think it is unfortunate that the clustering green zone red zone issue dominates because we know the cannabis industry is so much more than dispensaries. people think
9:13 pm
just of the dispensries and worst case scenarios and sketchy dispensries. we knethe industry goes beyaunds dispensries for cultivation and manufacturing and the products that are not smoked, this is a industry that is innovating and flourishing and creating so many products with businesses that may not have interaction with the consumer what so ever so there won't be people going in and out but need a place to operate. our laws are just way way far behind in terms of recognizing the breath and diversity of this industry and community and the products they produce and the need to have a modern and rational permitting system that takes into account the breath of this
9:14 pm
industry and doesn't just try to pigeon hole everything into the mcd category. that's challenge we have both in terms of implementing the state law locally and creating the needed permits and parameters and the possibility of adult use legalization and local regulation. i think it is important to keep that in mind. thank you for the presentation. city presentation is done. thank you. madam chair, if there are no question or comments i would like to ask [inaudible] allen to speak. i have been work wg mr. allen and others on the hearing and also on various issues of interest in terms of medical cannabis. mr. allen. >> thank you supervisor wiener. give me just a moment to get settled
9:15 pm
here. while i'm doing that i will say your closing comments were quite appropriate in that the diversity of the new industry is yet to be known and as we talk about how to license it on the non retail side and explore what some the pioneers in the industry have done to create business models that may look what those license types will be in the future you can see how diverse the community of producers is and in many respects how invisible their businesses are. i will begin by saying they my presentation isn't about medical cannabis dispensaries or retail environment or the challenges that we have in trying to locate a medical cannabis dispensry in the
9:16 pm
neighborhood. i'm encouraged when i hear mr. star talk about creating find frgz the planning commission so when they begin to hear future cannabis dispensry applications they have more than just the number of people that are there to speak against or for it to determine if they say yes or no. we have something different with non retail. good afternoon, i'm speaking today on behalf of california cannabis voice edgeucational group and california chapter association. the medical marijuana regulatory safety act soon to have the name changed to medical cannabis regulation and safety act because there is no plant named marijuana, there is a plant named cannabis and want science to direct the
9:17 pm
way the bureaucracy addresses the plant. use cannabis for the scientific term. i'm known because of advocacy of entertainment and night life and for the past two decades i did that. by introduction to the political process started with cannabis and happened long before entertainment. when i met a man named dennis per own in the summer of 1992. by taking me by the hand and walking through the office of insupervisors he showed the power of direct citizen action. that day i recounted to anyone that would lusten of having just been arrest td for growing cannabis in my closet.
9:18 pm
arrested for growing pot in my closet which i used to alleviate the side effects of aids drugs for my husband who passed shortly after that arrest. cannabis was one of the few things that worked for him in the last of his years. after his death i continued my medical cannabis advocacy in 1996 as a board member of the first medical cannabis dispensry known as camp or california helping to alleviate medical problems. as the chair of state leagueization task force and taking up social justice issues and zoning and looking at how this industry will look when we have further distinctions between just dispensries and production. san francisco should really show its leadership in cannabis by demonstrated to the state and nation how we can in the thriving
9:19 pm
urban mixed use environment have cannabis and have it work. today i ask you to focus not on the retail side, but on the non retail side of licensing and take the retail at another hearing. as mentioned, a requirement for making a application to the state dual licensing system is for the applicant to first provide a permit or statement of authority from the city and county oof san francisco. in order for that state agency to accept the license. the state has given a date certain of january 1, 2018 for business tooz make that application and if we-or they will face-they won't be able to continue. they get there or don't survive the first cut. by working backwards now is the time for san francisco to start getting our local permits process in order. in failing to provide
9:20 pm
regulatory and permitting certainty we will see many promises business move from the city and there are many attempts to get out in frontof the cannabis industry by providing zoning and other incentives to have the businesses locate there. regulation gives good aspiring businesses huge incentive to become permitted and licenses. let's harness the momentum and use this as our call to action. you heard how leadership in the dph created a process to allow for the local production of cannabis in cultivation sites that are all associated with medical cannabis cooperative dispensry and how those 20 registered cultivation sites harmoniously operate today with
9:21 pm
vuch wale no complaints from neighbors or from the police. some of those cultivation sites are immediately sharing a boundary with residential uses and still and yet today after two years of operation they produce no complaints. that is a pretty good example of a good neighbor. the state gave a temperate for stands alone licenses based on business type and can create a approval process and activate the non retail side of cannabis businesses where they are appropriate as we heard from aaron in his presentation in planning and in so doing not only create incentive where they should go, but advance this made in san francisco branding opportunity. cultivation gives a glimps into realty of inblack market. it is my estimate there are at least 150 cultivation sites alive in san francisco today.
9:22 pm
150. we know about 20, there are 150. there are all most all invisible to local authorities and not inspected or approved. while we don't have a complete profile of the businesses, we have engaged the beginning stages of a survai which i'll distribute to you now. you can use for reference gives a idea the scope of the businesses and the workforce development opportunities. many cultivation operations want to transition to a legalized business. some are located in buildings and not in the proper zoning or are incapable being brought up to code and they will have to close or move. that is the realty. some the folks i talk to actually plan
9:23 pm
to sun set their business and not continue in a highly regulated environment. they came out of the days when this was the wild west, cannabis was the substance that didn't require regulation and now that is rerelated it no longer fits them and will sun set their business and come will consolidate and others won't make it through the regulatory eye of the needle. for me, the sorting begins with zoning appropriateness. in desire and advocacy to create a clear approval process to guide the evolution of cannabis industry to meet and exceed standards for best practice and being active good neighbors, cannabis compalshz programs should continue as part the agrud to good neighbor policy to insure financial patients continued access to medicine. we can use cultivation, the only non
9:24 pm
retail cannabis business type which can receive sf recognition to pattern principles to create a pathway to the other 5 groups of non retail license types. simply stated, mcrsa divides by size. the new multitiered state regulation challenges through dph and it is time to update the system to accommodate the variety of new different cultivation license types. why is this going on in san francisco? we have very little land and that is because cannabis grows well both indoors and outdoors. cannabis cultivation in san francisco primarily occurs indoors where science enabled master grows to optimize conditions and produce a fine product. they were all developed under threat of
9:25 pm
prosecution so indoor cultivation facilities created and baroes technology and business practices which render them un detectable of the surroundings. a business that exists and produces taxes and jobs is undetectable is a good example of a good neighbor. indoor cultivation has been proved in 20 sites that have gone through the city's recognition process to be able to be permitted, inspected and safe and that's is our goal, create a cystal all can go through. in manufacturing the different issue. the state created two license types for manufacturing. one, volatile, one using non volatile substances. as the distinguishing factor when it falls in the volatile and non volatile. we have
9:26 pm
similar distinctions in our zoning code so there will be a reezy transition when we talk about volatile and non volatile. it gets more complicated because manufacturing creates a unlikely mix of products. it starts in manufacturing with a process known as extraction. that is where everything from a non volatile co 2 to volatile substance can be used to separate the active cunab noids from the plant mass producing a highly concentrated and molasses like substance along with a huge pile of compose. the extracted product is potent and ready to be refined and transformed into a product you can eat, spray, eb, drop, infuse, smoke, drink, put in your dog, send to the moon, whatever it is,
9:27 pm
science and technology will show where cannabis belongs. these products generation facility resemble more small assembly plants and all about again invisible neighbors that offer good paying jobs and benefits. third type is where you produce things like medical rubs. they are great for arthritis or sublingual spray, great for quick upof the medicine. shoe insert with can bunoids in the insert allowed to transmit through the sole of your feet. to vape cartridge which 3 years i didn't know about that is the preferred by 30 percent the consumers preferred way to injust cannabis t. is all most smoke free way to take this
9:28 pm
concentrate through extraction and refinement without having the consumer have a pipe and joint and have smoke and create a problem. 3 years ago didsant exist today, 30 percent the market, probably a big percentage. businesses engage in that manufacturing look like knhae other light production facilities and huge opportunities to scale and produce good paying jobs which don't require a technical degree, just good work ethics and showing up on time. lastly, and also includes in the large manufacturing license type is my favorite, the creation of cannabis food or refer to as edibles. a place to create those products actually may very well resemble a commercial
9:29 pm
kitchen rather than factory. when chefs can produce food san franciscos food culture will be able to write a new wikipedia section on medical cannabis food and hope we do. for san francisco, for me, san francisco belongs at the forfrupt and think medical culinary cannabis institute of california where even if the food isn't good, it still does the trick. let that sink in. there are other type of license that don't exist and created for support services licenses to help the state collect taxes. they make up 3 license types, transportation, distribution and test. the wonderful thing about this is these businesses fit into our existing zoning where we allow
9:30 pm
transportation facilities, distribution ware house and testing labs. this is part of the lock down the state regulation provides. it has to be transported to that dist pensaries by a licenses transported and a license distributesed with the products tested and labeled by a testing facilities. this happens with a tracking system to among other things established [inaudible] needed such as made in san francisco or humbolt. >> you are losing us here. >> i will end by saying social justice opportunities. we are coming
9:31 pm
from a incourseerated moment and need it to transition those people. these jobs don't require special skills, why don't we set up training programs and reach out to partners in the unions and go to drug policy alliance. that's smart thing to do. >> that is one of things i'm most interested in and wish your presentation focused more of the workforce education and training component earlier in the presentation only because we have a few more items we have to get to that are just as long. i just want to say thank you, you painted quite a vision for us to aspire to. i had no idea about the insoles. i learned so much in the one
9:32 pm
year i have been studied this particular topic and want to recognize your leadership. the taskforce i think will be a tremendous asset for san francisco and entire state and i like to say across the entire country if we are not the first state to legalize adult use. so, i am sorry to rush your presentation, any other key points you need to tease out for us? >> i think i would like to close by saying right now like never before you got the full attention of everyone that is aspiring it be a legal participant in the cannabis industry. let's not lose this moment when we can in a call get everybody together to participate with city partner tooz craft regulations, rules, zoning and best practices so these can be good neighbors and the industry can participate so the regulatory
9:33 pm
system is doable and makes sense. let's capitalize on the moment and do it now in parallel with the taskforce working on adult use regulation and start the non retail conversation now. >> alright. let's go ahead and start the conversation with going to public comment. i have several carts here in front of me and if you haven't filled out a card you have a opportunity to come up and speak in public comment after i called the folks who turned in cards. first is herald joseph smith junior. ma tt, osborn [inaudible] alisa [inaudible] ron brandon. chris emerson. if you can all line up in that ord er and we can start
9:34 pm
with you, mr. smith. you are first up. just as a reminor everyone has two minutes >> thank you so much. i'm the owner of a ancillary business that cons traits on information technology or it side of the cannabis industry organization. i am rolling out my loc by being a compliance shop from a it perspective for cannabis industry organizations. i won't speak long, but i will say that i'm very much in support of everything you are doing, everything city hall is doing and everybody in the medical marijuana or cannabis adult medical community is doing. i want to let you know that i have received mavilous feedback from my colleagues in the industry and want to make sure
9:35 pm
that i have a chance to be involved in the process and help guide and shape e way cannabis is going to go forward from a technological and social perspective. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> hello, my name is ma tt osborn and represent a group called the safe of lower haight. i'm here today because many reasons, but the specific reason i came today is i hope to request the board of supervisors and committee will look into the grandfather clause of mcd's specifically for the lower haight is in the process of having one attempt to come in. grandfather has not allowed a public hearing for
9:36 pm
the planning commission. the neighborhoods isn't able to speak. i'm not for or against marijuana dispensry, the problem is there is a specific case of people not allowed to speak and have their voices heard because of a issue that essentially 10 years ago something was grandfathered in for rule changes but without people be allowed to speak i don't think people can feel their voices matter. i also have something i would like to hand out. >> thank you. anymore? thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is
9:37 pm
brian brook jz work with ma tt on safe for lower haight. he showed a store front 473 haight street location and think what ma tt was going to describe is you have quotes from the planning commission in favor for this project when it hasn't been passed yet. ma tt mentioned and feel as a neighborhoods organization we were not informed about this project because it is grandsfather clause and this was given in 2006 for a notorious mcd back then. we talked about clustering the lower haight was a neighborhood that had a lot of clustering. we had 4 to 5 over the past 10 years and they closeed in the past year and the neighborhood is safe and walkable. we are asking for this commitsy to look into the issues of
9:38 pm
grandfathering in. it was basically auctioned to the highest bidder and this is how this project is moving forward. there fsh no automatic dr from plan toog health and the neighborhood wasn't informed. i'm for medical cannabis. my mother passed away and was on chemo so, i just look for this committee to look into the grand fathering of the certificates issued in 2005. >> thank you. mr. star, could you talk to this gentlemen about grandfathering and hear him out and see if there is a remedy? this is mrs. [inaudible] from the planning department. she will be able to answer your questions. aaron star. not ken star. aaron star. sorry, wrong mr. star. okay,
9:39 pm
next speaker. >> hello supervisors. [inaudible] from humbolt county jerked on the issue as a rural community organizer. i cofounded a thousand farmers strong movement pin humbolt county and served for california cannabis association during the mursa process and worked in the industry. i like to speak about two quick things. the first is of course transportation and distribution. on the back of the comments i have written a brief fact sheet what seems like a thorny topic isn't so thorny. this is where a lot of the jobs will come from is transportation and distribution. this risky controlled
9:40 pm
serbstance. i want to speak to social justice issues and seems this is interesting to this committee. and bolded two statements. these new approaches are unburdened by certain negative historical precedents present in other industries. you won't necessarily foithd a head wind here. just like there are social justice issues there are larger social justice issues of commerce itself. the pursuit of money [inaudible] there is a great opportunity to approach these justice matters as if we create capitalism because this is a wholly unregulated industry and regulating for the first time in 2016. we can give other treatment to workers coops llcc. benefit cooperations. here is
9:41 pm
a opportunity to saet new precedent how cannabis business and all business should be conducted. thank you for your time and consideration today. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. alisa nob nab i'm a supporter of legal zizeed regulated and appropriately taxed medical cannabis at the market and non retail business so the product can be made safe in a permitted license facility. the most important thing here is the products are understandable to consumer squz made in a consistent quality with standsards and clearly labeled for use of patients. additionally i believe the revenues derived from the legally controlled market place are for good delivering income from taxes that support research, education and other programs to benefit society. i am a big proponent of legalization
9:42 pm
and ending prohibition for the social justice implication, namely, lowering incourseeration rates and freeing those for non violent marijuana crimes. ime arstart up entrepreneur with deep experience in the wine industry. i served as a ceo of 2,000 case permitted full silty and consumer wine on line market place. my current start up focus on delivering professional compliance service for cannabis producers, growers, producers of edible, any cannabis prublt. it is my theory that cannabis will be regulated in the capacity similar to wine and spirits. it is super important that the producers procure the right permits. here in san francisco as well as the state level. our business will not only help procure and maintain the licenses but pay the exsize
9:43 pm
taxes. on the personal front, i'm a mother of 3 kids and live in san francisco in coal valley. i'm a firm believer, legalizing and destickimatizing cannabis is a cay to raising healthy kids that per tain to the plant. let's work together to make sure the plant is positive and transformative here in the community and state level and nation. thank you, next speaker. >> good afternoon. my name is ryan brandon, a former professional football player and emt and attendsed san jose university. i am a founder in king stn royal a full service management and consultant company that specializes in cultivation. 10 years goy when i
9:44 pm
retired from profotball and found at a cross road. i had a knee injury that needed surgery and i had to make a decision whether or not getting surgery and going back to play was the best thing to do or whether i need to start over my professional career. quh i started medical marijuana i was skeptical. i was taking pain pills to manage the plan but the pills started to make me sick. one week medicated with medical cannabis i felt amazing, not good enough to go back and play but getting out of bed was easy once again. that is quh i got involved in cannabis and did research and meeting others who believe in the medicmal benefits of cannabis. that is why today is important day to plan to apply for a type 2 a license for indoor cultivation. in order to apply for
9:45 pm
licensing we need to receive a official permit the state recognizing. if it doesn't happen soon the loss will be devastating. without a clear system to get locally permitted for cultivation we will be forced to move the business out of the city to where local jurisdictions are permitted for marijuana businesses. please support our request to work with the city agencies to development a appropriate local permit systemt that encourages people like me. >> thank you very much. next speaker please. come on down. >> good afternoon supervisors. dr. chris emerson at a cannabis manufacturing company in san francisco. i have been trained working in pharmaceutical [inaudible] plant
9:46 pm
derived medicines. i witnessed how cannabis can provide safe treatment. at the heart is two years i spent providing my mom who had breast cancer with cannabis products mpt these products will fall under the framework of mrfing. the two types of manufacturing 1 and 2 are contingent to show we have been operating in san francisco in compliance with local oord nns. there are challenges interpreting and navigating the nebulous pathway necessary to demonstrate compliance with local ordinance. at this time we are engaging with dph and planning department to determine which permits we need to apply for. this isn't a easy process. to begin nor to work through and without my prior knowledge of facilities we wouldn't have gotten
9:47 pm
this far. without local permits our ability to raise outside capital to scal operations is challenging. scaling operations involves capital and equipment but in hiring and employing local sf residents. the manufacturing jobs don't require advanced degrees such as phd or skillset such as software development. they require individuals who are hards working and want to make a difference. operators are not able to get permits in a timely fashion will be forced to close down or muchb out of san francisco. we are a san francisco company. all our founders live in sf and that is we like to remain. thank you for your time. >> thank you, next speaker. >> my name is jeffrey [inaudible] and for the last 10 years i actually i center operated within the
9:48 pm
undefined realm of patient cultivator and manufacturing. a number of years ago i began making edible in the home and-so, there are no regulations for manufacturing at all in san francisco. what we have been asked it be and remain is closed loop system as a patient cultivator. i have operated out of a small home with discussions with [inaudible] and various [inaudible] dph. that was the only way that an edible could be made in san francisco and then brought to multiple dispensries. you cannot have a medical cannabis dispensry and distribute to another in san francisco. so, there has been a very fuzzy place where i have made a state wide brand out of a private home in san francisco which basically falls 92 to the the
9:49 pm
closed loop system that existed until now. [inaudible] developing the framework for manufacturing, extraction, cultivation doing heavy lifting and all the industry leaders i have met with, large brands, extractors of [inaudible] to agricultural department for cultivation and to department of public safety in sacramento. we have been presented white paper tooz the state to help guide mmrsa that is the entire framework completely non existent in the state and have a leg up to work with and have infrastructure. within a short period of time we are asked to create a incredible amount of infrastructure and [inaudible] san francisco i hope gets on board with the manufacturing as many cities
9:50 pm
like oakland that has taken start ups as [inaudible] >> i have to stop you, you time is up. thank you. next speaker, please. >> >> good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. my name is mooky [inaudible] cannabis consultant in san francisco. my business partners and i 2 or 3 years ago started a cannabis consultant business and trimming company to assist growers. we have worked with dispensry in san francisco for 10 years . 5 years when we work would dispensries through the relationships we develop through the growers we decided to taylor make our business to help the growers. our clients and growers help with everything from training and man power with employees to logistical
9:51 pm
issues to allow them to just focus on continuing to grow great medicine. my concern is a small business start up here is just making sure that the regulatory process doesn't tax out the smaller people like myself trying to do things correctly. there are others in the bay area that are in some ways more-the lawerize a little more ahead of had curve and want to make sure because san francisco is so great to us and where we have our start up we can hopefully still stay here and grow our business with the economy here in the city. >> thank you, what is your name? >> mooky walton. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. my name is aaron flynn. i served in the united states marine corp for 4 years with combat tour in iraq and afghanistan in
9:52 pm
2003 and 4. i suffered from a variety of different post traumatic stress related issues and while the va really tried to help by prescribing prescription drugs cannabis helped the most. that is when i decide to get into the cannabis business mpt i have done it since 2004 and cultivating since then. i have cultivated in san francisco with a class 2 a license since 2010 and proud to say i'm one the facilities on the dph list. i employ 3 veterans and contributes products to veterans and donates proceeds to veterans and other organizations we feel strongly for. my fear is that in 2018 i won't
9:53 pm
continue to operate by business in san francisco. i live and operate in san francisco, i love san francisco and want to stay in san francisco. i strongly urge the committee to direct staff to begin the process to create stand alone licenses that cultivation sites like mine and others will need in order to continue to operate past 2018 in san francisco. again, i want to stay here and scale may business here and continue to create jobs here and continue to prosper and create more jobs for those that need it, so thank you for your time. >> thank you for your time and service. next speaker, please. if there is anything else that would like to speak i have one last speaking card, alex zel. >> that is me. >> alright. >> thank you supervisors. alex [inaudible] regulatory analyst
9:54 pm
and policy advisor for california growers association and cannabis bar association committee on locum policy and regulation. in these roles i work with state government agencies and local governments across the state to implement regulations for medical cannabis industry. i thank you for your time to hear about this important matter as you heard from city staff as well as other speakers. the state is under going a ground braig transition how to regulate the industry and san francisco has a opportunity for leadership on the matter to bring san francisco's long standing history of leadership into conform wns the new regulatory structure. this committee direct the staff to work further developing a non retail permitting structure. the city has been
9:55 pm
regulating the retail dispensry component but largely only indectly and informly dwelt with where the cannabis product is sold and comes from. now is the opportunity and requirement for the city of san francisco to act to create a former permitting structure for these particular non retail business types. i also request you in directing staff to do that ask them to continue their dialogue and request participation of businesses who operate in the industry to have a framework for the city that works for all and insures the central medical product can be available to all that need it. thank you very much. >> i appreciate your testimony. thank you very much. ladies and gentlemen, anyone else that would like to speak? >> mmrsa is illegal. it was against the voters will. the voters
9:56 pm
have not passed this and against the california constitution and i disagree with any law-prop 215 shows there are very few dangers associated with cannabis. it is -we legit mise the community so everyone can take it away y. suffer from a life threatening illness and proper 215 saved my life. my lime disease treatment cost $600 a month and get $950 a mupth so i have little to live on. it seems like the callusness of the law is beyaunds belief. it is only happening to line rich white boy pockets and bleez i wish i was wrong about that that is all where have to say. there is too much to say in one minute. good. thank you. i wanted to say that 99 plants is appropriate for patients to grow for one
9:57 pm
another. if we can't grow for one another how can they call it legalization? i don't understand why cannabis has to be regulated by alcohol and pharmaceuticals kill 100 thousand people a year. why are we regulated, market greed. we tested the substance and done all the research. i saved my katz life, she should have been killed in february. i give the oil. i need to grow [inaudible] plants a year to save my life. thank you. >> anyone else that would like to share their thoughts or comments? no, we will go-i will close public comment and want to take a moment and thank everyone that took the time to participate in the conversation. there taskforce has a lot of work as
9:58 pm
do the ballot initiatives coming in november. i want to encourage everyone at the table to continue to do the work needed. i'm committed to this discussion and love to-i will work to insure that there is certainly equity and access and opportunities for everyone. people that want to remain in san francisco should have a opportunity to remain in san francisco. those businesses offering in the gray or shadowy area we want to bring them 234 n to the light. supervisor wiener i appreciate sponsoring the hearing and ask you add my name as cosponsor. >> thank you madam chair and for calendaring this. so, i want to thank city departments for the thorough and thoughtful presentations. i think a lot of times for the departments it is
9:59 pm
challenging and frustrating because you are required to administer a law that is frankly incomplete and not necessarily out of the year 2016 and trying to regulate an industry that is dramatically different than it was 5 or 10 years ago and having to deal with clustering green and red zone issues which i know planning commission is yelling at us for years to deal with it and the board and have not dealt with it in the way we need to. i know it is challenge and appreciate the work done and in a time of change in termoffs the recently passed state medical cannabis legislation we talked about earlier and the possibility hope probability of adult use legalization in november, we need to make sure we in san francisco
10:00 pm
are staying ahead of the curve instead of falling behinds. the adult yuss taskforce that is doing work will be helpful and we need to just make sure we keep the momentum going for both adult use if and when that happens and medical cannabis. i want to emphasize what i talked about earlier and what came up a number of times during public comment that this is not simply about the traditional mcd model. yes, mcd's serve a incredibly important purpose for many people. mcd is access you have to medicine and need to make sure people have access to their medicine, but we also need to acknowledge that the medical cannabis world is so much larger than simply mc