Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  February 15, 2018 8:00pm-9:01pm PST

8:00 pm
[gavel] >> welcome, everyone, to our land use committee meeting of february 12, 2018, monday. i am katie tang, chair of this committee, and we're joined by supervisor safai and supervisor aaron peskin is filling in today. we're joined by supervisor catherine stefani. any announcements? >> yes. please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices. items acted upon today will appear on the february 27 board of supervisors agenda, unless otherwise stated. >> is thank you very much. can you please call item one? >> item number one, ordinance
8:01 pm
amending the planning dozed establish the geary-masonic special use district in the area generally bounded by geary boulevard to the south, masonic avenue to the east and assessor's parcel's block number 1071, lots one and four to the north and west respectively. >> thank you. i will defer to supervisor stefani first since this is in her district. >> thank you. you heard this project last week. most important, it allows the number of affordable housing units in the project to go from three to 22. that is more affordable units than the total number of units in the original project. again, these amendments raised the inclusionary from 18% to 23% and broken down as 10% at 55% of the a.m.i., 4% at 80% a.m.i., 4% at 110% a.m.i. and
8:02 pm
5% at 120% of a.m.i. and the appropriate a.m.i. bans will apply. the second recommendation is around car share spaces and the commission recommended four of the spaces be reserved for car share. on the advice of the city attorney, the amendments increased the findings requiring car share and the 16 spaces to be reserved for car share use. again, i want to thank the laurel heights improvement association for being forward-thinking and the developers working so well with the neighbours. this project in a neighbourhood that hasn't seen any new housing is very welcomed. and i just want to thank everyone for their hard work on seeing this across the finish line. i was aid to supervisor farrell when this started over two years ago and to see it now is just incredible. so i'm happy to bring this uniquely dense neighbourhood and project forward. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor.
8:03 pm
any other colleagues? supervisor safai? >> no. i'll reserve. >> all right. and if we don't have any questions for planning staff as well, then i will open this item up to public comment. i have two speaker cards. kathy and richard and anyone else who would like to come up to speak. please line up. >> good afternoon, supervisors tang, safai, stefani and peskin. i'm from the laurel heights improvement association and i'm very happy to support the project before you today. because this project is on a small 12,000-foot irregular sized lot, the density increase through the special use district would allow the housing units to be increased from 21 to 95 units. which would serve the city's need for more housing. i think this density accommodation is reasonable because the building would
8:04 pm
conform with the applicable height limb and this would strike a reasonable balance. and the 95 housing units would be better than commercial use in the majority of the building that was the first it ration proposed. although we sorted that out, too. long time residents there were commission ago shadow study before the project was revised. and we worked with them and we appreciate that the developers worked with the neighbours on the issues of the project design in the height and the nature of the roof screenings and this is not talls case. but we had a free flow of information with these developers because they were willing to work with the neighbourhood so we thanked them for that. we support the building, it's within the height limit and the affordable housing increase
8:05 pm
because it will provide 5% more for the middle income group, which is so needed because we're losing the middle class in san francisco. the developers responded to our information in a timely fashion and agreed to our request for a condition of approval that, to the extent allowed by [inaudible], that any roof screen be transparent in order to minimize impacts on the neighbourhood so we had a collaborative process and we thank you very much. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisor and staff. i'm richard frisbee, laurel heights improvement association. i would just like to thank the four parties involved in this planning department. christopher may, the developers, supervisors past and present now supervisor stefani. and also the neighbourhoods of people who got involved in that.
8:06 pm
i think that the open, transparent process worked well. we didn't always agree but we always agreed to discuss and have an open dialogue and from that came what we believe is a productive, useful development in our neighbourhood. so thank you very much. >> thank you. any other members of the public? seeing none, public comment on this item is closed. supervisor peskin. >> thank you, madame chair. first of all, i just want to acknowledge the mould work that the developers and the community have done here. and i think it is a sign that neighbourhoods that some might think are resist tanlts to more housing and dense housing is untrue and i was pleased to hear her speak about her support for raising what would have been 100 development unit to [inaudible]. and i wanted full recommendation that i wanted to
8:07 pm
speak is because there is a bill that's been introduced in the state senate, senate bill 827, that would really take away some of the zoning powers that local municipalities like san francisco have had now since the beginning of time and here's proof positive that we don't need an sb-827, we know how to hand it locally and i'll be introducing a measure at the board of supervisors tomorrow and hope to get the support of my colleagues in opposing sb-827 as the league of cities has already done and as l.a. is preparing to do. and with that, i would like to make a motion to send this item to the full board with recommendation. >> thank you. and before we do that, supervisor safai? >> i was just going to make a motion to congratulate supervisor stefani on one of
8:08 pm
the first pieces of legislation that she's able to lead on and something she started on when she was an aide. that's pretty great. and also to have neighbourhood support to take something that was diminuitive in the overall context of what's needed in san francisco to make it an impactful project without having negative impacts on the neighbourhood is commendable. i commend the neighbourhood leaders and developer and our new supervisor on a wonderful project to begin her term on the board with. >> thank you very much. >> i'll second that motion. >> ok. and i mean, personally i'm a little bummed that it wasn'ted home s.f. that we were using. but this is a better project for the neighbourhood. there was a motion to send forth with positive recommendation to the full board. we'll do that without objection. before we move on to item two, i neglected to ask if we could have a motion to excuse supervisor kim or do we need to do that? >> yes. >> motion to excuse supervisor kim from committee and supervisor peskin is replacing her. motion, someone. >> so moved.
8:09 pm
>> we'll do that without objection. [laughter] all right. item two, please. >> ordinance amending the planning code to regulate restaurant and bar uses in the jackson square special use district, broadway neighbourhood commercial district, north beach neighbourhood commercial district and the north beach special use district aming the jackson square special use district to require a conditional use permit for office uses, business services and institutional uses fronting on pacific avenue. >> thank you. we'll turn it over to our sponsor, supervisor peskin. >> thank you, madame chair. supervisor safai. this is an ordinance that contains a number of nonsubstantial clean-up amendments to the broadway, north beach n.c.d.s and north beach s.u.d. zoning tables. principally the ordinance contains amendments to the jackson square special use district relative to a increasing number of rest rhawns, limited restaurants and bar uses in the area.
8:10 pm
this limited control on bars and restaurants already exists in other parts of the northeast corner of the city. particularly in the north beach n.c.d. which saw a huge number of additional restaurants and bar answer oversaturation within its bound ris and in north beach in particular, those controls have helped to minimize speculative commercial rent practices in the neighbourhood and cultivate and maintain a diverse array of retail and other community services. so the folks in jackson square wanted the same thing. jackson square has the largest number of pre-1870 commercial buildings in the city. it's a very small discrete geography that encompass about five blocks and has an increasing number of residential units within it. and in that small geography, currently there are 17 bars and restaurants sprinkled among an
8:11 pm
array of unique and thriving ground floor commercial uses. it includes architectural philip morrisser and antique stores and emerging community of tailors and retail clothing establishments. i'm very happy to say around the conversation of the amazon effect and what's happening in retail in general, the vacancy rate in jackson square as well as north beach remained quite healthy as set forth in the planning department's staff report. so long story short, we don't have a -- we have a healthy vacancy rate and it's the threat of restaurants and bars that can afford higher rents and are displacing the mix of art gallery and retail spaces
8:12 pm
that this legislation addresses also the legislative file for this matter didn't include several letters of support, most of which went to the planning commission when they heard and recommended this without modification on january 11. and i've included those colleagues in hand-outs i've given you and they are now part of the board packet. you will see letters there, including from the small business commission, that unanimously voighteded in favour of the legislation without modification as well as letters from the jackson square historic district association, which is a combination of businesses and residential letters as well as from homeowners associations in the area asking for our support. and with, that colleague, i respectfully request your support for this item. >> thank you. supervisor safai. >> just to clarify -- i know you said this pretty clearly but i want to understand -- this is to protect the area
8:13 pm
from additional restaurant and bars coming in and displacing existing restaurant bars and other uses or to ensure that existing retail that is nonrestaurant bars and uses are -- >> why don't we have diego sanchez come up and give the staff report. i just wanted to note, madame chair, that our former board member, bevan duffty is in the chambers. >> welcome. >> supervise so as mentioned, the planning commission heard this ordinance on january 11 of this year. they voted 6-1 in support of the ordinance without any modification so as proposed by supervisor peskin. the commission believes that the existing retail conditions in jackson square are working. it is an interesting and historic place with attractive retail and sufficient eating and drinking places as well as the voe vacancy rate. the ordinance will help keep what's working, working.
8:14 pm
and supervisor, if you could repeat -- did you have a question -- >> my question was, so i understand the use that you are trying to -- the existing uses -- do you want to jump in, aaron? >> sure. >> if you look to page four, which is section 249.25, this is one about intensification and increase in square footage and, two, you'll see that section two subb, which is conditional uses says restaurant, limited restaurants and bars uses may be permitted as a conditional use on the first story through the procedures set forth in section 303, which is the conditional use section of the code. only if the zoning administrator first determines that the proposed new restaurant, limited restaurant or bar would occupy a space as currently or last legally occupied by one of the uses
8:15 pm
described below and those uses are a bar, a restaurant, a limited restaurant. so, bottom line, the answer to your question is that bars and restaurants may replace bars and restaurants but may not displace retail uses. >> got it. ok. so i can i make something for -- any of the rest raufnls, bars or other use similar to that, that can't locate here, they're welcomed to come to my district. because we're encouraging those. [laughter] >> and the sunset. outter sunset. >> because we have a higher vacancy rate ands are a little bit more in demand, i made this joke during cannabis and i think it is a nice lead-in because we talked about it limiting the uses and the amount of licenses around the city. but type 47 licenses, i think we have five in our district and maybe one of those is really being used in the appropriate manner. so, anyone just for the record that wants to use their type 47
8:16 pm
license, come to the excelsior district 11 and i fully support this piece of legislation. >> and supervisor safai will offer a finder's fee. >> and by the way, i wish we had these problems in district 11. [laughter] did toe. all right. any members of the public who wish to speak on item number two, please come up. ok. seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor p/esskin? >> i'd like to make a motion to send this item to the full board with recommendation. >> all right. we'll do that without objection. thank you. item three, please. >> ordinance amending the planning code by revising zoning map sheet zn06 to rezone assessor's parcel block number ab-2719c lot number 23 located at burnette avenue and burnette avenue north from public to residential mixed district, low dense tiff rm-1, rezoning a portion of burnette avenue north, generally bounded by
8:17 pm
ab-2745 lot number 36 and ab-2719c, lot number 023 to rm-1. >> thank you very much. supervisor peskin? >> i see supervisor sheehy's staff. i spoke to him earlier and understand that they would like this item continued. >> we'll let holden couple and speak to that. >> hi, good afternoon, chair tang and members of the confirm i'm here on behalf of supervisor sheehy's office and we would like to continue this item at the call of the chair. and john gibner, the city deputy attorney is here to answer any questions that you might have. >> how about explain why we have to continue this item. >> sure. deputy city attorney john gibner. this item is part of a package of legislation that's connected to a litigation that's pending
8:18 pm
in the oversight committee. the plan is to have that settlement ordinance move forward along with this ordinance and additional piece of legislation that's not yet been introduced to vacate the street. so, once that piece of shesing introduced, we'll work with the clerk's office and supervisor sheehy's office and your office to get everything schedule sod they move together. >> great. thank you for that. let's open up item number three to public comments, then. seeing none, public comment is closed. a motion to continue to call the chair for item three. ok. thank you. we'll do that without objection. item four, please. >> hearing on the year two report of the cannabis state legalization task force to report. >> thank you very much. this item was sponsored by -- or is sponsored by supervisor cohen. i don't know if someone was going to come and make opening remarks or just call on mr.
8:19 pm
allen here. ok. mr. terrence allen. >> thank you, madame chair. i have copies at the request of the clerk ofpt presentation that i would like to make available to the committee members. if we could have the slide, please. thank you. i would like the begin with some introduction, if i may. my name is terrence allen. i'm pleased to be the chair of the committee, but i'm actually one of three co-chairs and i would like to introduce now my two co-chairs who sit behind me.
8:20 pm
sarah payen, who sits at the seat for two years of cannabis legislative advocacy and jen garcia, our labour advocate. we're also joined by nicole elliott in the box as i'm inclined to call it. [laughter] nicole is now the director of the office of cannabis and, as the task force will be moving from its facilitation role with the department of public health to the office of cannabis, this is the perfect time for this marriage to be introduced to you, the board as it was your idea to come up with this task force. in doing this, the department of public health and their role shifts. they are now deeply involved in all the regulatory framework, but it would be a mistake not to recognize israel rivera and gretchen poly who worked within the department for over
8:21 pm
two-years to bring these issues forward in a comprehensive way. and in concluding my introductions, michelle and janine from harter company have been instrumenttal in bring us forward in a legal fashion so the continuety of each topic item can be brought forward to its conclusion and they're joined by tim morrison who will be part of the team for this year. with, that those are my thank yous. and if i get the right buttton. ok. i had one too many buttness to
8:22 pm
pushed. we have to begin by taking a look at what is the task force, what did it do in year two and what is its vision in year three. so, the task force had in its purpose the early job of facile tating a conversation between the community, the department heads and the city. this was prior to understanding that we were going to have any legislation, let alone a valid proposal passed. this was to set up the mayor and supervise source and city departments. as we refined this over time, we're now proposing that the year three goal be that the task force recommend and review policy in three main topic areas, regulatory, land use and social justice inequity and we'll get to that. we friended on year one. you are now being presented on year two. and let's look at year two in review. so year two in review builds on year one.
8:23 pm
year one we had no legal framework in which to work. we decided as a task force that public safety and social environment were key as well as land use and social justice and regulation and city agency framework. as this process evolved, they became more formalized and you'll note they followed the legislation that you ultimately passed this past year. retail, licensing, actually here in the city we're calling it permiting. so retail permiting. nonretail permiting. what impact it has on land use, what changes you need to make and of course the all-important equity and social justice component. that was our year one and year two framework. out of those framework documents came 98 recommendations and about two thirds of those recommendations made it into your legislative
8:24 pm
and law making process. we thank you for those tours and thank you for participating in all thes work that was required to be able to get months and months of input from the task force and combine it down into a few sentences that you could use in your process. we're proud to have been part of that and the success has shown in that slide. now we go into the meat and potatoes of what we're doing. we start with nonretail licensing and i'm going to introduce sarah, my co-chair, and will talk about nonretail licensing and what that permiting system looks like here in the city. >> thank you, terrence. in year two, the task force discussed nonretail licensing and made 29 recommendations. number five, priority licensing. we recommend that existing permit holders in good staj or have been displaced as a result of federal intervention to receive priority processing and licensing status in the city
8:25 pm
and county of san francisco. mm-hmm. this recommendation should not conflict with social justice prioritized permiting processing recommendations. number two, new local licensing. we agreed that in addition to state defined license types, the following local license type should be created. a virtually dispensary which would be a physical location use for delivery with no walk-in retail, manufacturing 6b special cook license, consumption lounge where one can bring their own products, whether that be entertainment, restaurants, yoga studio or gym and temporary event that include cannabis cups, cultural venezuelas and farmer's market examples. it should be noted the above licenses will not include retail activity except in the case of micro businesses. consumption lounges and temporary event should be allowed in san francisco. the city should look into whether a license is necessary in these cases. from an advocacy stand point and social justice stand point
8:26 pm
and also compassion, consumption lounges support safe access for patients using cannabis who might use their housing if they medicate on the premise. as we've seen on the dispensary side, safe access to cannabis lowers usage rates of opiats of which use is epidemic in our country. whoops. excuse me. for social equity, workforce development and business ownership, 26 states -- >> excuse me for one second. i'm sorry. excuse me. are you moving the slides? because the slides aren't moving. >> oh, my slides aren't moving there. we go. >> just so -- >> thank you so much. >> we can follow along, but the viewers will not be. >> sorry about that. social equity, workforce development and business ownership. so, for retail licensing -- i'm sorry. in our discussion on retail
8:27 pm
licensing, we made 44 recommendations. i'm sorry. i think i really did -- no, i'm sorry. we are actually back in the old slide. we were talking about consumption under that as well. because that is talk about temporary event and farmer's markets, for example. they should be allowed. i'm sorry about that. here we go. so woe are talk about consumption lounges in both of these areas, the nonretailz and the retail because the nonretail would be a lounge where you are able to bring your own cannabis to consume. so, there wouldn't be any purchasing involved in that when we are looking at people living in section eight housing, low-income individual, they shouldn't have to be pressured to purchase merchandise in other words to have a safe consumption area. and then we're going to 11. license portability. san francisco should issue local nonretail license toss the operate tors and take steps to ensure that the licenses are portable so that we may close a
8:28 pm
loophole allowing takovers of already-established cannabis business locations. and then number seven, information and the federal government security of information and local government. local licensing agencies should do everything within their legal power to prevent disclosure of personal information to federal agencies to reduce the risk of thefts, local licensing agencies should keep nonretail facility, physical addresses discrete with mailing addresses as an appropriate way of providing information. now we'll go to the next slide for not for retail licensing. the task force made 44 recommendations. on-site consumption. so we're going back to that. 19. san francisco should allow on-site consumption at cannabis retail locations and these locations must include proper ventilation systems. as we go on to social equity, which includes workforce development and business ownership, san francisco should engage community members in the target populations people of colour and former will incars
8:29 pm
rated pencer ands in these groups, traditional age use, 21 to 24 and lgbtq people along with development organisations, community-based organisations and other key stakeholders to develop the strategis to reduce economic barriers to enter the cannabis industry as workforce or entrepreneurs. san francisco should reduce annual permiting fees according to target populations. 25 pkz off for 25% employment of target populations. 50% off or 50% of target populations. the task force encourages legislation to address compassion programmes and supportive services that may fall outside the permiting system currently adopted. as a seat representing advocacy, i feel it is important to note the industry began the compassionate cannabis programme by providing cannabis to those who didn't have financial means to purchase at retail. the compassion programme has a history of improving patient's quality of liefz and we firmly believe that our current
8:30 pm
permiting system should make permanent the practice of compassion. as many of our critically ill patients live on fixed income and cannot afford medicine, these programmes are essential for their survival. san francisco should encourage nonprofit models and make nonprofit licenses available for those that provide supportive, compassionate programmes and for example tax and licensing incentives to cannabis organisations that provide compassion programmes and supportive services. and then we'll go on to my colleague, jen garcia. >> thank you, supervisors. the task force made 17 recommendations. the recommendation to expand where cannabis businesses could be was made with a desire to include cannabis in areas where other equivalent businesses could operate. there is also a grant for the
8:31 pm
recommendation, to brace for the recommendation of future sensitive use that is may choose to locate near an existing cannabis business. the task force feels strongly that lounges should be addressed sooner rather than later. community engagement must be a part of the application process. the city should encourage and promote a good neighbour culture from this industry as it continues to grow. in the discussion of social justice has been and continues to be a priority with the task force. the seven recommendations we made began with the questions of what are the characteristics of an equitable business ownership structure and workforce development structure. sorry. thank you. for the cannabis industry. the task force intent was to make recommendations that would commit san francisco to helping
8:32 pm
repair the damage to community most impacted from the war on drugs. we commend the district attorney's office for proactively expunging thousands of misdemeanor cannabis convictions and to review thousands more for reductions and resentencing. this will help ensure equitable employment opportunity and the opportunity for business ownership. diversity belongs in ownership as well as in the workforce. we have recommended that the city support applicants by providing technical assistance and possible zero interest loans. we recommend san francisco allocate revenue from cannabis tax and/or cannabis funds received from the state to go toward education programmes and workshops, loans for equity cannabis businesses and to nonprofits. workforce training and job opportunities for impacted communities is another important recommendation we
8:33 pm
have made. san francisco should ensure existing workforce protections are tendsinged to this industry. the labour peace requirement for cannabis businesses an important opportunity for workers to have access and understand their rights to act collectively. as the union labour representives see, i have encouraged and supported the participation of our workforce in a state registered apprenticeship programme. also, working with first source for local hire helps ensure that a broader selection of san francisco workers are the people that benefit mosts from having a sustainable cannabis industry. social justice inequity is a category that touches all in this industry. the task force will use due diligence as we continue our work into year three. >> thank you, supervisor,
8:34 pm
terrence allen back again to talk about agency oversight. you heard the words permit portability mentioned one or two times during our discussion andan area that within agency oversight we would like to, as a task force, bring the subject up and bring it forward so that a permit given to a particular location when they outgrow or that sloex no longer appropriate does not have to abandon the work involved in getting that permit, but there is some methology for portability. i don't believe we're suggestioning that it be like a liquor license so they become horse traded commodities. but as communities evolve, our permiting system within san francisco has to accommodate the necessity of moving this business from here to there. also in agency oversight, the task force had many discussions about what is the best
8:35 pm
interface between individuals that are working within the system overseen by the office of cannabis or individuals part of a community in which businesses would like the open, having interactions with the applicant and having a challenge. and decisions that are made, being challenged by both. in other words to do that, one thought that was brought forward by the task force was an independent commission. i respect and honour the discussion that was had at the board and so the task force brings it up only as a point of reference. so as long as there is a process in dispute can move beyond the initial individuals working on the project, i believe that it will satisfy the need for third party review of any dispute.
8:36 pm
we're happy that the office of cannabis is stand alone. thank you for that. and let's move on. the important one. year three. what framework and vision should we have and supervisors, if i can have your attention for the next two minutes, it will be great because there will be a leading question at the end of this presentation for you. so, year two our recommendation categories morphed. they became more aligned with what the legislative intent was going to be. now year three, we're shifting again into three areas. we recommend that we shift to regulatory, land use, equity and social justice. we believe as a task force leadership team, that these will be the three areas most needing the kind of community input and facilitation that the task force can do. and then you see on the side cross cutting. cross cuting is a subject which occurs in all three.
8:37 pm
as you heard. consumption, social justice and inequity. you cannot have a regulatory discussion without considering social justice and equity. so, in our proposed year three vision, and this is where a little attention is needed because you're going to guide us in what we actually do. in the regulatory side, you hear about compassion. it was bookmarked in the legislation. thank you very much for that bookmark. now we need to build that compassion programme out. and we need to involve the office through the regulatory process and if there is a requirement for legislation, come back to the board. remembering the compassion was the purpose that medical cannabis was born. and i'll just take a moment now. two weeks ago on saturday, we lost the pioneer who made medical marijuana -- you notice i say medical cannabis -- but
8:38 pm
the pioneer who made medical marijuana, dennis perone, a thing. almost 50 years ago. his single handed and single-minded approach that cannabis belongs in patients hands and appropriate hands and it should not be an illegal substance, it should be something that we use in our compassion, or giving in our society, has lead us to where we are today and with this mention, i would like us to note that without dennis perone, i don't think we would be having this discussion today. i thank him for his labour of work and memorialize his passing. also in regulatory, there is the fun part -- event. we need to provide a vehicle by which san francisco can participate in the invents system that has grown up around cannabis. currently the state does not allow any space in san francisco to be licensed for events.
8:39 pm
so this is a dual pronged effort. through the advocacy and political will building at the task force, we can bring suggestions both to you and the office of cannabis with some force behind them and together take them to the state and ask that they expand the way in which events are seen so we don't end up with hippie hill on 420 and nobody knows what to do about it. the leadership of mayor lee last year brought that into the city. the regulatory framework now pushes it back out of the city. we have to fix that. youth as well. youth diversion has been a big issue throughout the legislative process at the state and here. the task force stands firm. one of our voting members on the task force is a san francisco unified school district employee, which is unusual. the object voting member which is what i would call a department employee and that is to underscore the necessity of
8:40 pm
having youth consider rainfallsings in all the decisions that we make. in equity, equity programmes for year one and workforce protections and in land use, you'll see some broad categories. such as, remember when we created the legislation, we took the tours out of landing use. we took the tour capability and said we have to study that for a year. what an ideal petri dish to do that study the task force would be so that it can bring back recommendations to you as the board members and the office of cannabis so that we can create a tour programme to once again keep san francisco on the cutting edge. all of you that went on a tour with me, i believe t came away from that tour knowing and learning something that you did not know that you couldn't have gotten from a book and would have been impossible to get from just sitting down with an individual or even looking at a
8:41 pm
youtube video. tours are a necessity. san francisco is a tourist destination. how we weave that together and respect the industrial nranlds which most of the nonretail businesses are located is going to be tricky and that is where the task force can step in. and the big question that everyone asks me as i walk around the neighbourhood is when is my corner store going to have a cannabis shelf? in other words, accessory use. accessory use, again a bookend. whether it is the conversation of this year or next, it will be a conversation pushed by our small businesses who are seeing profitability in cannabis retail and want to participate in that opportunity and, as we evolve this system in one, two, maybe three years, we'll be ready for that conversation. the task force would like to bring that up as part of its year three vision. and, of course, consumption. we cannot get away from the fact that people will buy and
8:42 pm
they need to consume and the way the legislation came out of sacramento, it has to be in a private residence with the permission of the land lord. that is very difficult to get if you live in germany and you are coming here for two weeks. we don't want to be pushing our tourists to airbnbs. we just created a system that took the pressure off our housing stocks by limiting airbnbs. we don't want the only place that airbnbs will be the only legal place for people to consume with the permission of their land lord. in the sphere of equity, we have state tax and local tax. there is going to be a conversation about local excise tax at this board. there will be a ballot initiative, i'm almost certain of that. so what is the appropriate tax rate and where do we get to the point in our taxes that the price of cannabis, with the tax coming out of the state, the excise tax and the sales tax,
8:43 pm
make it more economically viable for customers to go to the blake market. right now we're seeing almost an 80% increase at the retail shelf. at what point, by adding an excise tax will we make that a doubling of the price that you can get it on the corner from your weed dealer? is we don't want to go back to that system. so, let's not allow the tax discussion to fail to bring in that consideration and the task force would be an excellent place for that discussion to happen. and then finally, regulatory equity and land use all overlap in data. we cannot move forward without getting data. we have an excellent director in the office of cannabis who understands the need for data, who is going to help me understand my next slide, which talks about how data works with our system. but methods of collection and the stoep of what we need in the first year's data, we need to decide now. so that we can start collecting it. and year one regulatory programme analysis. so, the task force is unique.
8:44 pm
it can look over the shoulder of the office of cannabis and hear both from its participants in the regulatory process, the applicants, hear from the equity community, is it working and hear from our neighbours. is it working? we will be in the unique position to provide that ant. sister and will do so with your blessing. now what is this? review of viable system. i like talking about this because i'm learning about it as i speak. what i'm understanding is that the office of cannabis is being set up as a model for how online programmes can be used to gather data and make sure that that data is complete and send that data to the appropriate departments for review. so, in the online -- in this minimum viable system, we have not only those things that happen within i gate permit, i
8:45 pm
need go to step one, step two, step three but then we also have the preapplication requirements to make sure that you -- make sure that you are an equity approximately kanltz or you have the appropriate number of equity employees. all of those things need to be data pointed and happen within the minimal, viable system. i probably fumbled that a great deal. by wanted you to know that the cannabis department is on the cutting edge of this technology. and i think it is going to help us. now in conclusion, and this is the part where i ask for your insight. our year three vision is outlined in this final slide. you saw it before. where have we missed an issue that you as the board would like us to take up as we move forward and set our agendas for the next year. if we've done great, i thank you very much. if you think of something in your sleep and text it, that is great.
8:46 pm
if there's something now that you would like to bring forward and talk about, i open it up for your conversation. >> that the end of your presentation? >> and then i have a thank you slide. they were thanked at the beginning and on our website. and thank you for your time, supervisors. >> thank you very much, mr. allen. and ms. garcia and pam as well for your work on this presentation and our director and everyone who's been trying to help us navigate this new era here in san francisco. i appreciate the overview of the work that you have done in the past as well as highlight or preview of what you plan to do in the future as well. i really do like that you have a portion on here regarding youth. that is really important. and a lot of youth in our district through the youth council that we have in district four are curious about this topic. ftz in, it might be one that they're adopting to work on this year.
8:47 pm
because they also want to understand better how it is that they talk to their peers about it. how do they understand, you know, kind of what's available to them or not and so forth. and i see -- ok. you are not getting up to talk about it. i would like to see what that education plan is for youth and now the unified school district as a whole is going to institutionalize this type of outreach to our youth. >> thank you, supervisor. i've made that note and will make sure that it is included. >> from the department of health, we are in partnership. currently with this unified school district and dcyf to work together in collaboration. i already met with the wellness centre counselors to brief them about this and we'll be working with them and happy to work with the youth council to engage.
8:48 pm
>> great. thank you for that. supervisor safai? >> thank you, chair tang. just a couple of comments. i know that, first of all, i think that the task force did a tremendous job of informing us throughout the process when we were crafting our legislation. we had the good fortune of having many knowledgeable and talented people. i think the tour we participated in our office was very beneficial. i don't know if all the supervisors participated in that. but i know that many of them did and that was something that was very influential in terms of an impactful in terms of the way i was able to encroach given the legislation. i know you highlight add couple of thing, one of which we fried to solve for and have conversations around portability. the biggest hurdle with portability has to do with the
8:49 pm
fact that the regulatory and entilement. have to do with is it a land use conversation? and then to essentially take that in terms of your licensing. we did provide for the mobility of the license. but it didn't remove the ability -- the requirement that a new location would have to go through the land use process all over again. and i don't think there is any way we're going to be able to remove that. as much as we would like it to. but what we did do, which i think was really important is allow for and control for the amount of ownership that the particular permit could be sold under. and how much ownership had to remain in the hanses of. so, we had instances where property owners came in and bought properties and were hopeful that they would then
8:50 pm
immediately assume that designation. in some cases they did. but we were able to, and correct me if i'm wrong, task force, but i believe we were able to solve for that in the sense that just because you have the land use designation, doesn't mean you immediately assume the permit. so we worked directly with director elliott on that. it was an it ray tiff process. there was a lot of good leadership on behalf of the departments, the task force, the office of cannabis. my colleague. and i think we got to a really good place. woe are going to have to have a conversation about taxing. i think the taxing of this use is imminent. the state will come up with a number in the city and county of san francisco because of a lot of the needs in regard to health and equity and all the other desires.
8:51 pm
it is a conversation that is going to move forward in a rapiden maer, probably after the june election. but maybe even sooner than that. so we should engage in that conversation. and other than that, i appreciate the conversation. i would like to echo what supervisor tang said because of the expansion of retail use, the knowledge and the access and the exposure of youth has gone up exponentially and i think it is important we have a real conversation because the folks that will be exposed to a broader variety of cannabis on the market, whether it is the secondary or tertiary market after folks that are buying it through the expanded retail
8:52 pm
accessability, we have to have a full-blown conversation about how we're disseminating that information. it's important to include, as you said, the department of children, youth and family because there are those that are no longer in school, that are out of school and are hopefully accessible through the nonprofit networks that we have in the city and it is just about providing information and knowledge and understanding. and that might be a good thing in terms of the expansion of the retail. there is a little bit more knowledge about the strands and the usage and the dosage of t.h.c. levels versus just buying something on the street and not knowing what's exactly out there so that then there is going to be generally, what i'm saying is there is generally going to be more knowledge out in the general public. hopefully. and i think the department of public health has a key role to play in that. that way we'll be protective of our youth in general. thank you for your presentation today.
8:53 pm
we appreciate and look forward to a continued conversation. >> thank you, supervisor safai and thank you to everyone who has been work on this. i myself are first and foremost interested in how the legislation that we just passed as a board will shake out in addition to everything that you presented today. i think that all of that will be very helpful in guiding us on your future work as well. we'll certainly all be thinking about that. i see there are no other questions from this trung indicated committee here. so, i will open up this hearing item four to public comment. if anyone wants to speak. come on up. >> hello. i'm jesse stoue. i live here in the neighbourhood. i'm on seat nine of the task force these past two years. thank you for passing this wonderful legislation two months ago in december that's enabled san francisco's
8:54 pm
cannabis industry to begin the process of becoming state licensed. appreciate that. a couple of areas from the presentation and others that i wanted to highlight. first the issue of consumption of cannabis that currently the city has allow add few of the retailer, i think eight in total, to have consumption spaces within the retail floor spaces but that is not accessible for most people who would either like to use cannabis in their home, might have trouble with their land lord and there's just not going to be enough physical spaces in eight retailers for all the people who want to use cannabis in san francisco legally. so, we want to avoid a situation where people are going to use cannabis in the park or on the street corner. we instead prefer to allow some kind of space where people can go to use cannabis within city law and not run afoul. in other words to avoid people getting tickets that they can't afford to pay, we prefer if the board can continue to work on its legislation, to provide a place where people can go for safe consumption of cannabis.
8:55 pm
another area that is important that we mentioned earlier is compassion programmes. it's wonderful that the new legislation has the sentence about the city will allow to have compassion programmes. we have a conflict with state law where the state regulations currently only alow for free medicine to be given out to people who qualified already as medical patients. we ask that the city lobby the state and expand city law to allow compassion programmes for anyone who can't afford it, rather than only people who have already gone through the expensive city card process. and finally i ask that the supervise source and the board to see your recommendation about the funding for eke wi applicants. we're concern that they may not be able to get bank loans and would be great if the city budget could include low-interest loans for these businesses. >> thank you very much. any other members of the public who wish to speak on item four, please come on up?
8:56 pm
>> hi, my name is wolfon i'm with the chinese-american democratic club. i respectfully ask to reject all recommendations coming from the task force. it has been over a year of activism that's come of the neighbourhood and none of these recommendations come to support or address the needs of the neighbourhoods. i find that somewhat -- i nienlds offensive. i find that very offensive. since the last time i've spoken in front of the board ands in front of planning, two and a half months has passed since there's been a lot of people that's reached out to me. two of the top concerns that i have heard is cannabis grow within homes, rentsed homeswr*
8:57 pm
and i respectfully ask that everything from the task force be rejected until there are resolutions to the neighbourhoods. thank you. >> thank you very much. any other members of the public who wish to speak on item four? ok. seeing none, public comment is closed on this item. i think that perhaps the task force could work with some of the members of the public who brought up suggestions. i think that would be really great. for example, i don't know if you heard earlier that we had chatted about the focus for youth. that is really important. again, i was glad to hear that you have a plan moving forward and perhaps we can do a better job to share with the public what exactly that is.
8:58 pm
supervisor safai? >> yes. i just wanted to -- the last comment by the previous speaker that's on the task force. >> jesse: something to highlight for task force members and maybe they can report back to us next time. one of things that we heard from industry folks that because of the way we drew the equity rules that there was a lot of existing cannabis owners that had employees and other folks that were qualifying members in terms of the parameters that we set for equity applicants, that they were interested in working to invest and work with them as well. so i'd like to see -- you know, i'd like to see a report on what you're seeing in the industry as we move forward. the way the rules are set the next 50-plus applications that have to be approved have to be
8:59 pm
equity applicants. what we were getting some initial feedback is there were existing operators that were looking to invest and help to grow -- no pun intended -- the equity applicants and their ability to expand. it will be interesting to see how they plan on doing that. and to the last speaker, you did miss our conversation and request that we had in terms of education and outreach and how we were informing youth in this process, particularly high school students. we had quite a conversation on that. director elliott, did you want to say something? >> director elliott? >> i'm sorry. >> i'm kidding. >> sorry. sorry. >> supervisor elliott, director of the office of cannabis. i want to a fluiinger for our website and on that website is a meeting page that gives every member of the public a sense of when we will be holding task
9:00 pm
force meetings. and we encourage members of the public to attend and participate in those meetings. as the recommendations of the task force are advised by members of the public as well. thank you. thank you for sharing that. any other comments or questions? >> i don't have anything else. >> all right. well thank you again. i know that this is ongoing conversation that we're all going to have and monitor pretty closely. for today's purposes, we're going to close this hearing that was again called by supervisor cohen. i think we'll try to make a motion to file this hearing. ok. all right. we'll do that without objection. thank you. mr. clerk, are there any other items before us today? >> that completes the agenda for today. >> thank you. this meeting is adjourned.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on