tv Government Access Programming SFGTV August 30, 2019 9:00am-10:01am PDT
>> hello, welcome to the rescheduled meeting. today is tuesday, august 27, 2019. please call role. [roll call] do we have a quorum? commissioners you have the minutes of august 13, 2019. are there any additions or corrections? i have one correction, and that amused me, because i did not adjourn the meeting. perhaps i was tier one spirit. physically i was not. any additions or corrections from the public? seeing none. may i have a motion. >> i will move as modified.
>> the motion carries. next item, please. >> general public comment. members of the public may address the commission. >> commissioners, i want to talk about the headlines that are made linked to pg&e. they are getting from bad to worse. so, pg&e, right now, even though there are deliberations going at the california public utilities commission which i am monitoring, they are arbitrarily statements that we will have to pay more, when it comes to our rates, because of the fires.
the statements made here about clean power, and how, you know, they are getting an increase in customers. i am one of their customers. so, we haven't had any deliberations. i mentioned it, last time, in january whenever we want to upgrade our power, whenever we want to do -- pay our bills, but, we have not reached a stage if we have blackouts, and if we happen to be a customer of cleanpowersf and how that is going to be addressed? just having these discussions where we are getting people to come on board, super green, and
all of this we need to discuss. i want to know who is providing the super green clean power? how is that monitored? what transmission lines are used and so on and so forth? when it comes to our notice of violations, at water treatment plants, if you have connections you know about it. no mention is made here about a notice of violations. they have had an added, substantially added notice of violation at the treatment plant. they've also had a complete shutdown at the ocean treatment plant of the computer system. no mention is made over here. now, we don't need to have moles reporting to us. we need transparency and
accountability. since the commissioners should be informed about this mickey mouse operation, we need to know why this mickey mouse operation or ongoing at an increase in notice of violations. thank you very much. >> thank you. and the other speakers? next item, please. >> item five is communications. >> any comments? okay. the report of the general manager. >> i do have a couple of quick updates. the first one is, i want steve to come up you and give you an update about the meeting that he
held. >> good afternoon commissioners. assistant general manager for water. yesterday, i was able, together with the national -- natural resources manager. [inaudible] to meet with three of the folks from the running club at our offices in berryman game. we went over the issues that we had talked about the last commission meeting that really revolved around the watershed management plan. it was about the radar facility, but others allow discussion about access to the watershed. we described the potential watershed management plan that was developed back in 2,001, and its importance of policies on watershed uses. a trail to the peak was not included in the plan. there was no access allow for the rest of the watershed. of course, we do want to provide access managed to the peninsula watershed land.
consistent with our peninsula watershed management plan. we committed to the folks from the running club to work towards finding an alternative location for access to this area that provides an experience as close to the existing views of both the coast side and the watershed as possible. the representatives, from the club, said they would work with us to find a viable option for a trailside in the peak area. those folks that we met with, ron liddell, sean handle, agreed that they would be the point people for the coast side running club and communicate with their constituents about what we might be able to do. it is the next step we are going to work to identify some site concepts for consideration that would be in that ridgeline area, and would provide as we said, a
similar experience. something we can incorporate into an amendment to the watershed management plan. we would basically have some site conflicts put together and follow up with them, within the month. that is certainly by the end of september. it was a very productive meeting i felt like we found some definite common ground. >> thank you. am i on here? there we go. it would be great if we could hear back once you have come up with a resolution on what that is. >> definitely. you definitely will because we have to amend the watershed management plan. the commission will have to approve whatever is done, and it will have to be pursuant to some form of environmental review. hopefully we can keep it narrowly contained a not have a drag out. sometimes environmental review
can. >> it would be if you could invite the representatives to come come at that time. >> i am sure they will be here. >> thank you. >> is there an opportunity for educational that you could have the plants, the butterflies, or whatever it is we're trying to protect so the people can have an idea and be more aware of what is going on? that way we are educating the public as well. >> that is a core principle of the watershed management plan. the only basis for us to allow access to our watershed is for education. i can arty envision certain things that would come into this, certainly a couple of interpretive panels that would provide information about the watershed as a whole and the specific area what is going on there. >> great. thank you. >> as a pre- luminary meeting, would you say it a from the meeting with a group?
>> yes. very positive, and constructive. at one point they did say, you are committed to this? and we did say yes, we are committed to this. >> is this part of the lower trails that we discussed? >> no. that is a work still in progress for the extension of the ridge trail there. this is an access point that people had gained access to the watershed over many years and basically established a social trail, in this area. i would call it, given all of the references, the best advertised, best kept secret that exists in our part of the world. any questions? thank you.
>> are you done with your report? >> no, have another item. >> public comment on this item? >> sorry about that. also giving an update on fluoride and water is steve. >> thank you. the commissioners received an e-mail from a constituent who was concerned about fluoride, in the water, and there was a recent study that was published in the american journal of medical association that was concerned about the potential for fluoridated water consumed during pregnancy to result in potentially lowered iqs, in children. the study was not absolutely conclusive, and the consensus of most people in the academic community, looking at that research was -- this is
interesting information. there needs to be a lot more study before we draw any real conclusions on it. i wanted to quickly summarize where we are at with fluoride. california mandates that we actually floor date our water, all public water systems are required to fluoride their water by legislation. it's helpful in preventing dental caries in children. that is a strong belief by the cdc and others, that this is an important public health program. it's also an equity issue. our optimal level for fluoride in our water system is .7 milligrams per liter or parts per million. that is below the public health goal of 1 milligram per liter. we are adding fluoride in very low concentrations. that concentration was revised
in 2015, to make sure we were providing dental support, not having any other adverse effects that fluoride public health goal was set in 1997. the states office of environmental health regularly reviews those goals to determine if updates are warranted. they have not updated, since that time, despite research that has been done. it is not conclusive anyway. regarding this particular study, noted comments by the american academy of pediatrics where they observe the results of the study are difficult to interpret given that the iq difference was small and the results were actually different from boys and girls. there were some results but there were not conclusive one way or the other. one thing we want to point out, we do an annual consumer confidence report. we may consider editing that in the future, if it becomes clear
there is a greater consensus among professionals that there is a reason for pregnant women to be cautious about fluoride intake. our ccr informs parents that infant formula can be made with low fluoride bottled water to lessen the chance of dental fluorosis which is streaking of the teeth. something we added to our reporting years ago after discussions with external stakeholders on the department of public health. fluoride is an issue we take seriously, both on the dental prevention side and keeping track of what is being found by research. these studies come out from time to time, i just wanted to make sure you are aware of it. we do take it seriously, look at them critically to make sure we are on the right course. happy to answer any questions. >> recently went through a very extensive discussion on this, a number of years ago. >> yes.
>> obviously -- >> that concludes my report. >> any public comment? >> commissioners, you have been noticed, on the agenda items we have gotten personal information. the last time around when this discussion about the trails to place -- -- took place. when things are put on the agenda, for the public, the public are not stupid. they heard the gentleman say that they wanted to put this whatever equipment on, and
adversely back to the activities and so on and so forth. we need a point of contact. we need somebody to speak on behalf of the other side. not to say that mr. richie is not a good person i did not do a good. when you come to adjudication, you need to have both the site sincerely say that okay there's an agreement here. that is the first topic. we have ucsf here, in san francisco, and we have other institutions that have the expertise on fluoride.
at least -- unless we have empirical data, we need somebody who is an expert, a phd, professor, head of the department to come and say, okay, you get this water from hetch hetchy. you like to say it pristine water. when it is raining and we have all of this water, you know, we are letting it go here, they are, and everywhere, you have to explain those things. people are wondering now.
mr. richie, a good man, can say what he wants to say. we want experts to say, and educate us on the issues. thank you very much. >> thank you. i would like to add to your comments, the fluoridation came up because of a recent letter. it was not on the agenda. i failed to ask for public comment, under item five, communications. any public comment on communications? item seven, please. >> item seven is the water supply conservation agency
update. >> good afternoon. thank you for having me here today. two months ago i spoke to you about a critical water supply issue for the 1.8 million people , and 40,000 businesses and community organizations, under state law. i wanted to provide you an update today, respond to a suggestion from general manager kelly to include basic information especially for your two new commission members. in 2,002, the california legislature passed laws to protect water users especially those outside of san francisco. the bill required sfusd to rebuild its old earthquake vulnerable san francisco regional operating system.
reporting progress to the legislature, every year, about finding new sources of water especially for future droughts. another law, in 2,002, it authorized the formation to represent the interests of all water users in the three counties because there was no regional government or body to do so. the third law was passed, senate bill 1870 that created the san francisco bay area regional water system financing authority to issue, if necessary, revenue bonds to fund the capital project to improve the systems reliability. extending the state oversight provided by the 1823 until 2026 and the regional financing authority's ability to issue bonds until 2030.
they appreciate the puc's support for this bill which is now in governor these laws are especially important right now. all water users dependent upon the system face a threat of mandatory 50% water use reduction during multiple year droughts, if the state water resources control board delta plan is implemented as adopted. the plan would give more water to the twombly river and less money to the people, businesses and communities and our three counties and san francisco. the sfpuc has estimated the adopted plan could result in a loss of 90 million gallons of water per day. this threat is real for constituents and water users in san francisco. new sources must be found as required by law and developed without delay. negotiations for voluntary settlement come of this plan, while the threat continues and they strongly support the governor, and his water team in
their efforts. also urging your commission and its staff to address this water supply challenge. as it has with a $4.8 billion program you did to implement the regional water system infrastructure improvements. this means developing a strategic sfpuc program to identify new sources of water, and to develop them. by the end of this year, the commission should authorize the appointments of a high staff executive. one that reports regularly and directly to the commission about progress being made. this new water supply program needs a sufficient budget, and support staff also by the end of this year. monthly progress report should be made to the commission, and annual under existing law to the state legislature and the california department of public services. bawsca will continue to monitor and be involved in your water supply program closely as we are doing and will continue to work with the legislature on the water supply issue, until it is all.
thank you very much for your time for you and we will answer any questions that you might have. >> it is not really for you, but thank you for coming to farce again. i remember when you were here a couple of months ago. i thought we had talked about a question for steve, or the general manager. i thought we had talked about developing a strategy, and plan. i know there's a lot of conversations. it is focused on water supply in the future because of these threats we are facing and could potentially include things like engaging the planning commission , putting together additional staffing, what kind of reports. in the event the state does take
a bold mood, how will we stay informed. where there be an ex a plan we are going to review. -- will there be an exit plan we are going to review? >> we actually have commission approved for the capital improvement program for this fiscal year, $19 million for additional water supply projects 13.5 million regional and $5.5 million locally. over the last, about 1.5 months now, as i recall of looking back, we have actually formulated a group of staff internally basically a small task force to start to develop the program, including the reporting mechanisms that people use, get it before the commission and share with bawsca, as well. that work has been going on, again for about 1.5 months.
the primary staff person on that is actually just getting back this week after being off for a month. we have struggled, in her absence, but that work is progressing. we have gotten out putting up a notice now for two staff people to actually manage the individual projects in that. though should be going out in the street, in the next week or so to get staff and that. we are looking at an additional management level position that would supervise those, we are still working on that. we are moving forward, because we have a list of approximately 14 projects right now that are potential projects that we could pursue. they are all of many different kinds. i think i reviewed most of them with the commission and in some cases you have approved, the last meeting where the meeting before that where we had a
memorandum of understanding with the union sanitary district for working on an indirect political use project in the fremont area that would potentially be where water could be put into our transition system or used by the county water district locally, they would forgo some of our water. that is a good example of the kind of project we are looking at. we are continuing to look at projects that we can do with the irrigation districts so we can actually augment our supplier from the river where we will share some of that water from the river itself. it would be a combination of benefits for us and the environment. those things are underway now, they are starting underway. we expect to come to the commission either in september or potentially october with the first report on how that structure is set up, and how we see that progressing over time. we will actually be meeting with bawsca, i believe, next week to
review where we are out on this and how we are approaching it. yes, we are beginning serious work on that now with the intent of really coming to some conclusion within the next year or two on which of the most promising projects to actively pursue. we will start to really develop them as individual projects. some will go faster than others, but we are fully committed to making sure we carry this out. >> i just want to highlight, starting i think in october when we start bringing forward our new budget, you see the budget proposal for positions and resources so that we can carry this out. >> i am a bit more interested in getting something soon that is a bit more high-level, less project specific and staff specific and more of what the
overall goal is for the program, what kind of numbers we are talking about, what kind of resources are going to be needed beyond what we have appropriated, beyond the staff we are going to be looking at in the next year to oversee the specific projects. i really want us to get moving relatively quickly on what the parameters for the program would and should be and what the goals are that we are trying to achieve. >> that would be part of the first report. the challenges, some of the goals are clear cut, and some are what-ifs, that is with the state plan, that is a huge what if, but it's still a what if. whereas, other needs and wants are very concrete where we are making up for certain shortfalls we arty have. >> i would like to see the what if scenario what it would look like. in the event the state moves forward, what are we going to do and what is the plan to get there.
>> just to correct nine fall, 90 million gallons per day is actually 93 million gallons per day. we have the analysis that backs up where those numbers come from. >> great. thank you. are these positions going to be permanent? once you put things in place will it unfold to the regular program or do you need to continue having the staff. >> to get started now, these first two positions are what we call category team project positions. as the general manager mention, looking in the budget process to probably do something more permanent. we want to make sure that we have the right staff and resources to deal with it. also carrying out over that long period of time because these projects to take quite a bit of time to develop.
>> they would be project driven? >> they would be project driven initially, they may turn out to have a lifetime -- >> that would have to be managed i thought it was about finding different alternatives. once you find those alternatives , then what? >> we have pretty much identified the alternatives now. the technical institutional and environmental issues need to be dealt with for water supply project are usually pretty daunting. it's a long list, actually one of the ones that is on the list as well is expansion of calaveras dam which we just completed but actually the engineers who worked on the project are still under contract for another year, so we just did a test order to get them to evaluate what our four possible scenarios are.
i think if we go down the road without projects, the project will take probably ten years in the planning process. >> as we continue to dam up water, what about the flow of water. what about what we leave behind? is that a consideration? >> i mean, people are coming to a lot of conclusions that damning may not be in our best interest over the long haul. are we looking into those kinds of things when we talk about expansion. you will see when we present them, there is a wide array of alternatives. half of them involved recycled water and some way, shape, or form. another couple involved water transfers.
it will be a good selection mix. >> i think when we come to you with the whole plan, i think we will have a better idea of how to manage, because it's not like all capital projects that we are managing, we have the money, we have, you know the team, the environmental team. some are working with other entities that may be motivated or not motivated. and then there may be projects that we are currently doing that we want to expand which we have a team in place. we want a structure so the person in charge of water supply alternatives will make sure that these teams are resourced and report back so that we can report on it. i just want to say, it's not one person doing all of this work,
it is one person coordinating and making sure all of the work is done. just to let folks know, when we did a water system improvement program, we had -- but they are not doing anything. this whole team works on it. given some projects we may not have all of the control, because we are working with other agencies. >> any other comments? >> are you pleased with our discussion? >> that concludes my report. thank you.
>> any public comment? >> commissioners i want you to think about what is happening in brazil. we may not think about it as we want to think about it, but we've had recent fires right here, not very far from san francisco. as part of that, we have to think about conservation there is a lot of water that we can hold -- that we let go in areas that do not have our fish, our trees, our vegetation, and so on and so forth. the other thing that you
completely ignore is how much water daily leaches from our pipes. we haven't had a report on that. millions of gallons of water, cleaned drinking water. another thing that you need to keep in mind, because it is that all of the skyscrapers that are coming, they need to pay more. preferably for their sewage, the toilets. they need to have different pipes, gray water pipes to fulfill that obligation. the most important thing is -- none of y'all have once brought
the wrecker act over here, to tell the public at large, what was the mission objective of this act. where are the customers who were prioritized in this act. so, we think that we have some power, that we can choose whatever policies we want. talk about environmental impact studies, and environmental impact reports and then, you know, come up with our own models. the people who preserved and protected our resources for thousands of year. years. the native americans. we prefer the developers.
why do we prefer the developers? because we are greedy, and in love with a lot of money. thank you very much. >> any other public comment? next item is other commission business. yes? >> i have a disclosure to make on the consent calendar item 9b, somebody i have known for years is carol owen, we have become friends in that time. that does not affect my ability to act objectively, on the matter, so i will not be asking for it be separated. i did want to give that disclosure. >> thank you. >> i am going to be asking that that is separated. >> item nine is the consent
calendar. all matters listed here constitute the consent calendar are routine by the sfpuc and will be acted on by a single vote of the mission. -- the commission. in which event the matter will be removed from calendar and considered as a separate item and as per the president remove item 9b. >> i would like to move the consent calendar. to the public, are there any items you would like to discuss from the consent calendar? okay. so, all of those in favor? opposed? the motion carries. let's hear item 9b? >> approved the novation of agreement number pro.0061, federal representation to --
representation and advocacy services, authorize the general manager to execute a novation agreement for the existing agreement pro.0061. approve amendment number 2, increasing the agreement amount of 220,000 when no change in, for a total not to exceed agreement amount of 1,220,000 and remove the requirement for 5% withholding from each invoice and authorize the general manager to execute this amendment. >> the reason i asked to have this heard separately, is because of a name change? >> correct. it is a name change, but we are also adding -- asking for approval to increase and not to exceed amount for 20,000, two provide travel amounts for up to 5,000 per year for four years of the contract. we wanted to give them the flexibility to travel, as needed
>> why did we have -- what is i? >> that is a standard requirement that we generally have contracts. they do something where we build them after the work is done. that is to make sure that people do the work, and in this case, since they bill us after they have done the work, we thought that there is no need to actually do that as well. >> i just want to point out that we do that for a lot of aob's as well, because you're holding money for, you know, really no reason, because they completed the work, the cost had been occurred, so we normally we pay them after we receive the invoices. >> one note on the travel, it is as needed and still needs to be
approved by us. >> we haven't seen mr. owen for quite some time. >> is pretty standard for lobbyists to be reimbursed for travel. i think he has been more careful about it, because he does not get reimbursed for it. this would help him travel. >> i will move the item. >> second. >> further discussion? all those in favor? the motion carries. >> would you like to call for public comment? >> i forgot. public comment on this item? okay. next item, please. >> item ten, prove the terms and conditions and authorize the
general manager to execute an agreement for purchase and sale of real estate in the amount of 1,590,000, plus related transaction costs not to exceed $100,000 for the purchase from michael mitchell of approximately 5 acres of alameda watershed land, improved by a 2890 square foot single family residence and certain personal property commonly known as 12163 calaveras road in the incorporated town of sunil, california. >> good afternoon. i think he was here about a month ago for the world ranch acquisition. this happens to be very near the ranch, another proposal under our watershed. i think michael mentioned that the commission launched in this direction, almost 14 years ago. when the entire program was adopted by the commission, there was -- included a down payment on meeting our objectives under
our watershed and environmental program. alameda watershed is one of those places where we do not actually own, and most of the watershed is not publicly owned. it is private we held. if they're in the primarily watershed, both cool ranch on this one,, surrounded by some of our properties, it made more sense for us in this case to work with the land owners and have us acquire the title which they are willing to come forward and asked us to help them with. another proposal like that. this is a much smaller proposal. it's just 5 acres. but it's an holding and surrounded by her property. just to the north of the ranch. i would be happy to answer any questions. >> i would like to move the item. >> second. >> any public comment on this item?
seeing none. the motion carries. thank you. >> this is a.j. oc contract for general engineering contract work. terms are 5 million for two years, to sierra mountain construction. happy to answer any questions. >> questions? any public comments on this item? may i have a motion? >> i move for approval.
>> second. >> the motion carries. next item, please. >> item 12, consent to the terms and conditions for completion and exception of water, storm water, and sewer infrastructure in the mission bay south plan area set forth in the letter of agreement dated july 29, 2019 between the office of community investment and infrastructure and the city and county of san francisco. >> commissioners would you like to hear this item, or shall we move forward? who would like to move the item? >> second. >> is the public comment on this item? >> this is regarding getting
sewer and water into my house, i live in san francisco heights. i don't know if this is the right time? >> actually we hear that at the beginning of the meeting, under public comment. >> can i give you a copy of my -- >> we will make an exception, so let's finish this item. >> thank you. >> certainly. so, all of those in favor? the motion carries. all right, sir, you may speak. >> like i said, i live in san francisco, federal heights. in 2016, we had a problem, sewer water coming in the backyard. we called the puc, and they found out there was locking on the back of the house. they came in 2018 to fix it,,
so,. [inaudible] when the rain starts pouring into the city, our drain could not get the water out, -- >> excuse me, for a moment. are you the gentleman with a letter on this topic? >> you. >> i believe somebody is looking into this, is that correct? >> yeah, i can give you the copy of the letter, the e-mail. >> as i understood, somebody from puc is -- yeah, i thought it was greg from wastewater? >> anyway, do you want to explain that you have received his letter?
>> i have received your letter, we wrote back to you. mr. norby is here, assistant general manager for wastewater and he can speak with you. >> okay, sure. >> all right. >> thank you. >> so, madam secretary, could you please read the items for closed session? >> item 15, existing litigation pacific gas & electric corporation. item 16 is existing litigation city and county of san francisco versus pacific gas & electric company. item 17 existing litigation city and county of san francisco versus pacific gas & electric federal energy regulatory commission complaint under sections 206-9306 of the federal power act. >> is there any public comment on the items for closed session? may i have a motion whether to
assert? >> move to assert. >> second. >> we have reconvened in open session. the announcement following the closed session is no action was taken. may i have a motion whether to disclose? >> move not to disclose. >> second. >> all those in favor? >> aye. >> the motion carries. commissioners, any new business? seeing none, the meeting is adjourned at 43:08 p.m.
-- the meeting is adjourned at 43:08 p.m. -- the meeting is adjourned at 43:08 p.m. -- the meeting is adjourned at >> in november of 2016, california voters passed proposition 64. the adult use of marijuana act. san franciscans overwhelmingly approved it by nearly 75%. and the law went into effect in january of 2018. [♪] >> under california's new law, adults age 21 and over can legally possess up to 1 ounce of
cannabis and grow up to six plants at home. adults in california can legally give up to 1 ounce to other adults. >> in the state of california, we passed a law that said adult consumption is legal. if you are an adult and in possession of certain amounts, you will no longer be tried. you will not be arrested or prosecuted for that. that is changing the landscape dramatically. [♪] >> to legalization of cannabis could bring tremendous economic and social benefits to cities like san francisco. >> this industry is projected to reach $22 billion by the year 2020. and that is just a few years away. >> it can be a huge legal industry in california. i think very shortly, the actual growing of marijuana may become the biggest cash crop in the state and so you want that to be a legal tax paying cash crop,
all the way down the line to a sales tax on the retail level. >> the california medical industry is a 3 billion-dollar industry last year. anticipating that multiplier as 20, 30, 50 times in the consumer marketplace once adult use is really in place, you could go ahead and apply that multiplier to revenue. it will be huge. >> when that underground economy becomes part of the regular tax paying employment economy of the bay area, it not only has a direct impact, that money has a ripple impact through the economy as well. >> it is not just about retail. it is not just about the sensor. is about manufacturing pick a lot of innovative manufacturing is happening here in san francisco in addition to other parts of the state as well as the cultivation. we should be encouraging that.
>> there is a vast array of jobs that are going to be available in the newly regulated cannabis industry. you can start at the top tier which a scientist working in testing labs. scientists working at extraction companies. and you work towards agricultural jobs. you have ones that will require less education and you look towards cannabis retail and see traditional retail jobs and you see general management jobs. those things that are similar to working at a bar restaurant or working at a retail store. >> we are offering, essentially, high paid manufacturing jobs. typical starting wage of 18-$20 an hour, almost no barrier to entry, you do not need an education. >> that means that people who do not have college educations, working-class people, will have an opportunity to have a job at cultivating cannabis plants. there's a whole wide array of job opportunities from the seedling to the sale of the cannabis. [♪]
>> last year, they said 26 million people came to san francisco. >> the tourism industry continues to be very robust here and the city and county of san francisco is about a billion-dollar industry. >> if we use a conservative cannabis user adoption rate to 15% that means 4 million tourists want that means 4 million tourists want to purchase cannabis. and we need to be ready for th them. >> in 2015, as adult use legalization efforts gained momentum in california, the supervisors created the san francisco cannabis state legalization task force. this task force offered to research and advice to the supervisors, the mayor and other city departments. >> we knew that adult use legalization was coming to the ballot and stat that would bring with it a number of decisions that the city would have to make about zoning and regulation and so forth. and i decided at that time, at a
know it was a great, that rather than have a fire drill after the ballot measure passes, as suspected it would, we should plan an event. so i authored a task force to spend a year studying it and we made it a broad-based task force. >> we prepared ourselves by developing a health impact assessment and partnered that with key stakeholder discussions with washington, oregon, colorado, to really learn lessons from their experience rolling out both adult and medicinal cannabis. >> within days of the passing of the proposition, ed lee called on agencies to act decisively. >> he issued an executive order asking the department of public health, along with planning and other city departments to think through an internal working group around what we needed to do to consider writing this law. >> we collectively, i would say
that was representatives from g.s.a., as well as the mayor's office, met with a lot of departments to talk through what prop 64 and the implementation of prop 64 it meant to them. >> the mayor proposed an office of cannabis, a one-stop shop for permits allowing operators to grow and sell cannabis. >> he wanted a smart structure. he wanted a regulatory structure that ensured that kids didn't have access and community's were safe and that consumers were safe. and he wanted to ensure, more importantly, it was a regulatory structure that encouraged diversity and inclusivity. >> this is an office that will be solely charged with a duty of wanting not only the policies that we create, implementing and enforcing them, but also executing the licenses that are needed. we're talking about 20 different licenses that will put us into compliance with what is
happening on the state level. >> this is a highly, highly regulated industry now, at this point. we have anywhere from 7-10 departments that will be working with these industry participants as they go through the permitting process. that is a lot of work at a loss of coordination. we are creating a permitting process that is smart and is digital. it is much easier for the user and for community input, and is less mired in bureaucracy. >> for the first time ever in san francisco history, standalone licenses are available for all aspects of the nonretail side of the cannabis industry. now, a cultivator can go in to the department of building inspection and to the department of health and say, with this first registered and temporary license, and then what will eventually be a permanent license, this is the project, this is what i am going to do.
>> very rarely in city government do we interact with industries that are asking to be regulated. these guys want to be regulated. they want to be compliant. they want to work with the city. that is rare. >> san francisco has created a temporary licensing process so that the pre-existing operators here in san francisco can apply for a temporary state licensed. >> we have taken teams of up to 12 inspectors to inspect the facility twice a day. we have been doing that with the department of building inspection and the department of public health. and the fire department. >> it is really important for the industry to know that we are treating them like industry. like manufacturing. like coworkers pick so that is the way we are approaching this from a health and safety and a consumer protection network. this is just the way practice happens with restaurants or manufacturing facilities. >> because there are so many
pieces of industry that people haven't even thought about. there are different permits for each piece. you have to set up a permitting system for growing, for manufacturing, for testing. for delivery. for retail. you have to make sure that there is an appropriate health code. certainly the regulation of alcohol in terms of restaurants and retail it's probably a model for how this industry will be regulated as well, both on sale and consumption. >> it is completely uncharted territory. there is a blessing and a curse with that. it is exciting because we are on a new frontier, but it is very nerve-racking because there's a lot at stake. and quite frankly, being san francisco, being the state of california, people are looking to us. >> we hope that cannabis does become more of an accepted part of society in the same way that alcohol is, the same way coffee