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. . 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 regulatory and permitting certainty we will see many promises business move from the city and there are many attempts to get out in front of 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 that i have a chance to be involved in the process and help guide and shape the 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 d's. we have to bring the law and regulatory structures into the modern world to recognize what this industry is and the community is when regulations fall behind

the state of industry we ends up just encouraging a black market, creating a situation where businesses that are good businesses that want to be legal and play by the rules and want to have all the permits and pay taxes are not able to do so and have to do work arounds that are not in the businesses interest and just creates stress and challenges for them and it isn't in the interest the public because we want to make sure we actually have these businesses in the sun light. we have catch up to do but know we'll do it and look forward to that work. madam chair, with that said i would move that we file this item. >> thank you very much. without objection the motion passes. alright ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your time and staff think for your time as well. we will move to the next ajnda item and call item 8

first and then call item number 7. >> item number 8, ordinance amending the planning code to allow construction of accessory dwelling units on all lots in city area that allow residential use. applies to adu to [inaudible] california environment quality act making findings with general plan. >> supervisor peskin is the author of this item and will lead discussions here forward. >> thank you madam chair and thank you to the individuals who are here to testify and thank you for your patience. this city wide accessory dwelling legislation is a step to create affordable housing units and something that can be done

without drasticly alterering the look of neighborhoods and displacing tenants. this is evolving field of law that dates back many decades. there are any number of supervisors who tried to legalize in law units as they were called at the time or secondary united states mptd supervisor hal nan and tang i introduced legislation that didn't succeed but the world changed and since that time our colleagues, supervisor wiener led the way with legislation that first was for all of district 8 and my predecessor did legislation for district 3. i have always been as much as i was delighted to see that muchb forward i was puzzleed to dpoo legislation on district lines.

disttric 3 has downtown and fisherman's wharf. different land use types. i think the time for city wide secondary units has come and so i wanted to build off of the work of supervisor wiener and my predecessor. i want to thank supporters of the audience. recently as i think folks know, one of our colleagues proposed similar legislation for the ballot and i'm hopeful we can discharge the duties that we were elected to do which is legislate in the chambers and by doing so allow the flexibility to continue the tweak this kind of law as this field continues to

evolve. i am prepared to make a number of amendments, many clarical, some clarifications and colleagues, i have for you amendments i will distribute and describe to you. rather than hand the entire hundred some odd piece legislation all the changes are in the first 12 pages so i'll hand those to you. as i said, many are just clarical amendments but relative to more substantial amendments, one is that i actually followed supervisor wieners lead in district 8 legislation relative to the number of units that would be constructed, namely, i copying-that's

form of flattery supervisor wiener and that is a have additional one unit in building of 1 to 4 units and two in buildings over 10. is that right? is that how we started? >> i think it was 1 up to 10 >> 1 up to 10 and 2 over 10. subsequently the legislation done for district 3 was one for buildings less than 5 and unlimited over 5 and so the amendments before you actually go with the district 3 more liberal, more units legislation which i think is appropriate given the magnitude of our housing crisis. i do include language based on the mayor's office of housing relative to the minimum number

of square feet which is 350 square feet and [inaudible] there is provision to clarify that landlords are not precluded from setting initial rent. there was concern the new units would be subject to rent control and also subject to vacancy control, that wasn't the intent and there is clarifying language in the amendments i put before you. i am in my desire to try to get this done in these chambers willing to make other amendments that will allow it to receive wide spread support by majority if not supermajority of the board and given i know a number of individuals who want to testify need to

leave shortly after supervisor wiener maybe we can open to public comment. i know cumia is here from planning. >> before we hear from planning let's go to supervisor wiener and then planning and get to public comment. >> thank you very much and thank you for the overview. this is definitely an evolving process and when i started by work on the original district 8 tip towing back to the adu debate we started off with the legislation that you had done about 10 years before, so this is a evolving process and brought a lot of different brains involved and think it is overdue to broaden this out. we i think are making progress and think the political landscape shifted that 12 years ago sadly

you were unable to convince majority of colleague tooz pass it and now several pieces of legislation passed because we know the magnitude of our crisis in housing and it doesn't allow us to do things we have always done them. thank you for making the change in terms of acknowledging the larger buildings there shouldn't be a cape on the number of units. that makes sense for how much space is in the building. in terms of the seismic legislation i authored a couple years ago, which is if you are seismically ret row fitting your building that tend to be apartment buildings that you can add units. that program has been

successful and had around 100 permits pulled and it is a sinnergy between creating housing. i like to see the seismic adu program remain as part of this legislation intact in the current form because i tink it is working and don't want to disturb it. i also kierious to know the rational for requiring that the yupt be at least 350 square feet and 550 for one bedroom. the minimum unit size in san francisco is 220 square feet. i hate to see a situation where someone has space of let's say 220 or 250 or 300 square feet and they are prohibited

creating a unit. i understand the desire to have somewhat larger, but i hate for someone who wants to create a unit to be unable to do so. i like to continue that conversation. lastly, i want to know supervisor farrell and i have pending legislation where there is a good deal of overlap but differences. the amendments today seem to be a step in the right direction. it is my hope and i spoke with supervisor farrell this morning and his hope we will be able to come together and become one product and move forward in a unified way. i think this is a stetch step in the right direction and will have continuing dialogue. >> thank you. let's go to staff presentation. >> good afternoon members of the land

use committee. [inaudible] planning department staff. the ordinance was before the planning commission june 16. [inaudible] approval with modification with [inaudible] for taking this initiative to expand the adu program city wide allowing adu is a important housing strategy that kill convert unused spaces in our existing residential buildings into new much needed housing units. starting in 2014 supervisor wiener spearheaded ordinances that created a definition of adu with certain controls and restrictions. since then the department received over 70 applications including 130 units. majority the units are in buildings

undergoing soft story ret row fitting which is the most successful program we had to date. the planning commission recommended 4 modifications, one of which is the one that supervisor peskin modthe modification to remove the cap and number of adu's allowed per units and one adu less than 5 units thmpt commission recommended establishing a minimum units size. at the planning commission we discussed the average unit size we have seen in the adu pipeline. i put the summary table. >> my recollection is unit size is about 600 square feet? >> 600 square feet and studio 375 square feet and one bedroom is

600 square feet. these averages are both above the minimum sizes that you discussed right now. >> relative to supervisor wiener's interesting point which is somebody who has less-i added the minimums as a result of lifting the cap, right? so, he is raising interesting concept say you are a building under 5 units and have a spot that is 240 feet and this will preclude it. maybe the way to nuance that supervisor wiener and maybe you can share your thoughts is that only apply in buildings over 5 units. presumably those are the ones with larger amounts of space where you want to create the minimums. it soungds like on the studio side we are

above the minimum average and one bedroom minimum average. >> that is a step in the right direction. i guess at some point it is philosophical discussion of we also want to have more units rather than fewer units, but i imagine we can work something out on that. >> the point i was trying to raise is in the pipeline we are not seeing many super small units so it isn't a problem that we should-even though in a seismic ret row fit buildings there are no cap people are not bidding smaller unit so if the situation arises it will be great to have the units but you won't have a lot of smaller units because we haven't been seeing it so far.

>> what is interesting is quh i authards the micro units legislation 2012 i think or 2013, there were all sorts of concern expressed from different parts of the political spect rum that we would become a city of micro units so there was a cap placed of 350 regular market rate micro units with no cap for student housing or affordable housing and we have not yet hit the cap for market rate micro units, but i know there is studen housing separate from that and affordable housing which are the two most common scenarios. in terms of the market there is always going to be a space for mike cro units but don't see it becoming a dominant type of housing units. i think it is just one

piece of the overall pie. >> i would agree with that from what we have seen so far in the pipeline. the second recommendation was- >> just one other thought which is in the case that supervisor wiener is speaking to, perhaps there can be a hardship provision where the zoning adminivator can vary in certain circumstances. just a thought. >> the second recommendation is to clarify that existing built [inaudible] include spaces that can be filled in without notification as listed in the zoning adsminstration bulletin number 4. the proposed ordinance maintains the current restrictions on space use for adu's where they are within the existing built envelope. the commission recommended allowing adu to

be built in bey windows and [inaudible] and the like and these are spaces are listed in number 4 as type of spaces that expansions to them are not subject to notification. expansion to these type of spaces is already exempt from notification and key to making some adu pchs that are infeasible because they can't meet the [inaudible] and would make them feasible. the third recommendation is study adu for nob nab especially in condo minium buildings. we have a discussion at the planning commission meetding and the result was to study this further. it was discussed the can dough ownership structure maintains complexity

for adding adu prohibiting from sale would add to this complexity and discourage owners of conoes to convert unused spaces to new house units. single family home owner may not choose to add adu if they know in the future they cannot sell it separately. and then the last recommended modification in section 207, c 4, 4 which allows buildings to be raised 3 feet if they add adu and the refers to incorrect section in the building code. it refers to chapter 34 b which talks about soft story seismic ret row

fitting so recommend to make that correction to refer to chapter 34 of the building code. the building code only allows buildings to be raised 3 feet if they are doing full seismic reto fitting at all levels and chapter 34 b only talks about soft story so the last is just a correction with reference. that concludes the planning commissions recommendations and hear for questions. >> thank you. any questions? no. let's go to public comment. i actually have 4 cards in front of me. charles head, tom [inaudible] catherine [inaudible] and eileen boken. any of the speakererize speakers are here come to the podium. >> i want to say part the technical corrections have that chapter 34 .

>> good afternoon supervisors. tom [inaudible] exectelevision drether of livable city. we are big believers in in law legalization and potential of in-law units it add to the housing stock in ways that make it minimal or positive impact on neighborhood character to add more rent controlled units and may be the only way to add rent controlled units to the city. supervisor peskin we thank you for bringing this forward. supervisor wiener, you as well. you have been leaders in this. we appreciate also the amendments you brought forward supervisor peskin and think this is a better ordinance. some of our concerns are-let me just say we are very much in support of what the planning commission brought for would. clarifying the building envelope for infill{white wells or under projecting stories is good clarification. this will allow the units to be more hab ltable

and meet the exposure requirements and have little or no impact on neighbors or loss of yards. we also agree there should be no restrictions on the seismic program. it is very successful. fewer than 10 units created under the district 38 ordinances but 130 are approved under the seismic program, so keeping the limit on the number of units, the size of units. you may just default to not the micro unit size but minimum unit size is like 275 square feet, so maybe just make it as small as the unit can be. also notification for raising the 3 feet is something added back but it was a exception under the original ordinance. we believe there should be flexibility about the number of units. there are a lot of restrictions. that

forms restraints you couldn't fill the whole ground floor with studios so we think-[inaudible] >> next speaker. >> good afternoon supervisors. cathy [inaudible] and the housing element of the general plan doesn't support the proposed ordinance because it has city wide application and the extensive community planning process has not occurred. also, vimetal review under ceqa hasen occurred and eir prepared did want evaluate impacts of city wide zoning changes enacted woutd community planning process. also, the city would act add itsd own risk to approve this relying as they propose to on the final eir for the 2009 housing element. the legal sufficiency is considered

by the california cort of appeal and not been finally decided. essentially, in 2004 the housing element policy changes took city wide approach. they were struck down and revoked for failure to performed a eir. and then in twnt 09 the city decided to abandon the city wide approach and require community planning process and that is the hallmark of the process. policy 1.5 of the 2009 carried to 2014 housing element says consider secondary units in community plans. implementation measure 10 provides planning process the planning department notify organizations registered with planning departments and may continue outreach efforts. that community planning process has not occurred is maybe it is

done by district before because the requires outreach so the coalition hasen gotten notice and neighborhoods haven't gotten notice and sure people would like input and thratd is a the way the general plan is set up. the planning department resolution admits they didn't have the traditional planning efforts so it is the summer but urge you to engage in a community planning effort. the potential impact on land use character and zoning and neighborhood character also need to be analyzed in a eir. i know smf some of the extensions couldened up in the ordinance and can impact going over 45 percent rear yard line. also, there are news report of a condo clut so it looks like the boom is turning and so i wonder why whether we should

have further study city wide. >> next speaker. come on tim or who ever is next. >> good afternoon. tim colon on behalf of housing hackz coalition and remember supervisor peskins attempt about a dozen years ago and it was a bitter bill when it failed. we cu-mind you for bringing this back. we would like to see a robustords nns support for adu's is it in the founding dna is mission. there are two competing measures and hope and pray the two get reconciled and move forward. the best measure is one that builds the most housing and gets property owner tooz do it legally. the city does chbt have a problem so much not building

adu's as building legally and the proposed ordinance can be strengthened. maximizing ret row fit incentives is the logical way to do it. it gets at the right point in the process and gives incentives to consider building legally. i would agree with the remarks made by mrs. hoddaud bat condo adu's. we would be concerned not allowing that is disincentive moving forward or moving forward legally. i say that the micro units idea makes sense. if we have that in place everything we see is getting smaller and we see studios much smaller than 350 feet commonly. the [inaudible] remains committed to advocacy for new financial tools and

educatedveneders on home equity lines of credit and like to help in that measure and finally, we need a process of streamlines for permit applications and getting permits. we heard stories it is just too daunting. it is too difficult to get the permits and this is a part of-[inaudible] >> thank you and to mr. colons comments, we have convened a number of meetings between representative of building and planning department and department association and others to effect process improvements relative to the permitting as well as attempt to undertake a outreach program to convince people that it is a good, smart financially thing to do so hopefully we will be proactive. >> good afternoon. brook

turning with coalition for better housing. i want to thank you supervisor peskin for trying to address this issue again and supervisor wean iener for your work as well. you have been very diligent trying to get this done and appreciate it very much. not to outdo tim but i remember being here for the initial discussion of this with supervisor hal nan so many years ago and can tell that by my beard. here we are today and have 3 possible initiatives. our hope is we can wis out and get one thing that is done hopefully in the boards chambers and look to you to facilitate that. just a couple things, one is that we are very supportive of maintaining the seismic rules and the ability for seismic ret row fitting to

allow for these adu's to continue. we hope that won't be touched. the second thing, we like to make sure that vacancy control issue is addressed within all the legislation so appreciate you looking at that. thank you all very much. >> thank you, brook. >> good afternoon supervisors. fernando [inaudible] with counsel of community housing. when i saw tim colon come up i was excited we may bon the same side supporting a measure together for accessory dwelling units. unfortunately tim raised the question of condo conversions and brings me to the opponent point of the devil being in the detailss and make sure we address unintended

consequences. supervisor wiener when you passed your legislation for micro units very smartly included a cap in ability to for the supervisors to review what the consequences of that legislation were in creating a new market. what we want to do here i think has been a part of the story since the hal inan days of expanding affordable housing, housing of people who first arrive in the city can live in, where families can move into and that is a what the adu legislation can potentially do is expand the amount of rent controlled housing in a way we have no other way of doing. however, if we allow the new units to be subdivided and sold off as condos recollect we are potentially creating a new market on speculation that would work absolutely against the

intention of expanding the rent controlled stock. i want to say we are fully in support the adu legislation as is as a ordinance and think you are all very much against the idea of ballot box planning and will be supportive coming together in a joint solution as a ordinance. thank you very much. >> good afternoon supervisors. junan [inaudible] san francisco apartment association. first of all, i like to thank supervisor peskin for introducing the legislation and work with all the interested parties making sure what we pass works in the city. the first thing i like to say is i hope that supervisor wiener cohen and farrell and breed remove the ballot measure option because this legislation as you can see

is fairly complicated and any changes we decide to make now today or in the future should be made at the body and not on something we have to go to the ballot on. i dont think any can afford to do that. we want to make sure there is no vacancy control in the proposal. we found a fatal flaw, supervisor peskin agreed to fix it. we had our legal council submit comments and been distributed to your office about getting that fixed through the city attorney. the ballot measure has the problem, there is no way to fix it. that is a reason we like to get that removed. we like to maintain the seismic language that allowed the adu's to be build. we think if adu is subject to rent control they should continue to be subject to rent control but not to vacancy control. we think that the adu's that are not

subject to represent control should be the same as in the building they are. no subject to rent control. we believe the ability to create more units that are taken care of in supervisor peskins amendment, i think that is good thing. we don't want to limit the number of units that can be added. i think as far as units size i think we should allow as much flexibility we can. [inaudible] indicated the larger units arebying added but there is no reason supervisor wiener brought up that a smaller--[inaudible]. >> thank you for work wg my office and i want to acnology lee helpner who is laboring at our office. >> next speaker. >> eileen boken, district 4 resident. i would like it echo mrs. [inaudible] comments. also, i like to

advise the committee charles head who is here had to leave for a civil grand jury. mrs. head is with sunset hides association for responsible people. i'm with sunset action community. organizations have received notice regarding adu's and look forward receiving that notice . thank you. >> good afternoon supervisors. charley gaus, san francisco apartment association. thank you for bringing the item today, it is exciting to work on something positive and construct newly ren controlled housing. continuing off what junan was saying, based on the way the buildings are organized if someone puts together a application to create a adu and the building is already condoized we

believe it makes sense to allow that adu to be subdivided. we also believe there shoulden be short term rentings in accessory dwelling units. we had a question about permeable permit requirements and the nexus and why that is in the code. it seems that could prevent the creation oof dwelling units and not sure the legal reason that is in there. i'm sure it is something, but i hope you can look into that. we already addressed concerns with your office in writing with regards to vacancy control and appreciate that being taken care of. just once the legislation is passed if it gets passed we are hopeful we would want the city to also look at the regulatory agreements the owners are signing just

to verify they are in compliance with the local laws. thank you. >> thank you mr. goss. >> >> anyone else that would like to speak? nope. seeing none, public comment is closed. mr. peskin. >> madam chair. let me take these in no particular order. i believe that the issue raised unintended by the author relative to the vacancy control has been dealt with in the amendments offered earlier. with regard to the general plan issues that mrs. deven chinsy and mrs. boken brought up, i would like to differ to comp tent council in the form of deputy city attorney gibbener as to whether or nat that before us is general plan and ceqa consistent. >> deputy city attorney john

gibbener. the planning commission and resolution after considering this proposed ordinance made general plan consist a ens findings determining that the ordinance is consistent with the general plan. the planning department created ceqa review and ordinance will aform the planning departments ceqa determination. >> thank you for that. as to the permeability issue, i will have to get with folks at planning and i know supervisor wiener was the author of most recent permeability legislation so i don't know how to answer that. with regard to subdivision, i'm prepared in the spirit of trying to bring these pieces of legislation together to offer a amendment, which i think is very consist wnt the words that mr.

goss just uttered and that is in buildings that are currently condo miniums as of todays committee hearing do not have a history of ellis act evictions in the last 10 years and have been a condominium that is a condominium for 3 years and can be subdivided, however, i believe in the spirit of what we are doing on the rental side which is having them rent controlled, that we should insure that these units if they are subdivideable and for sale units should be subject to a bmr provision at 1 20 percent of ami. the amendment that i am about to offer would in section 207 c 4 e starting at

page 7, line 2, add the words provided however this prohibition on separate fail or finance of the adu shall not apply within a building 3 years prior to today, july 11, 2016 with a existing con dough with no rental units of the admin code. two, no evictions per sunt to section 37.9 a 8-37.9 a 18 and provide any such adu can be solds to household that doesn't exceed 120 percent ami. nob nacould be included as part of a regulatory agreement. i think that and i'll distribute those to you colleagues. in addition to the earlier amendments offer that

amendment. finally, as to unit size, i do not have language. i am inclined in so far as we offered in earlier amendment tooz remove the cap to sfick with 350 for studios and 5501 bedrooms, however, to accommodate what i think supervisor wiener brought up which is if there is space left over, say you have a very large space and can build two studios or one studio and one bedroom and there is space left over below the threshold within the building code minimumsioacan utilize that and don't have language prepared to that effect, but we can work that in. finally, as to the bulletin

number 4 issues, it would offer the following: i think there is a vast difference between filling in under bey windows and filling in under decks and filling in light wells. i think if we were less broad and crafted this more narrow lee and attempted to do that, we could actually carve out pieces of bulletin number 4 and to that end i am prepared to offer one more amendment. we can take these separately, which defines the existing envelope to include certain areas set forth in the zoning administrators bulletin specifically light wells that don't-that are blank neighboring wall so somebody does want have to close up their windows because usually light wells are for

light and i'll distribute those. lastly, there is the issue that i am sensitive that supervisor wiener raised, which is that we not in any way amend the seismic work that supervisor wiener pioneered and i'm prepared to remove the 311, 312 notice provisions as relating to the seismic adu legislation that supervisor wiener already passed. >> supervisor peskin, a question for you. not to be funny but does size really matter? i heard remarks raised by fernando mar tee, desired not to see very small units created. just wanted to talk to you about that. >> i think as supervisor wiener said,

to some extent this is a philosophical question and sometimes more is not better. it is fundamentally a function of liveability and 350 square feet is- >> in this case more sonot better, less is not better. less in terms of square footage size per units. >> we deal with numbers of units versus size of units and i think from my philosophical vantage point this program will build more units. i would hope to build more quality units that are on the face livable high quality units and think space is a big part of that, which is why i spick with the mayor's office of housing 350 for studio and 550 for one bedroom. i think that is praety modest and reasonable but do think that supervisor

wiener raised a interesting thing, which is if you utilize that space and there is space left over i think you thereare ways to deal with that, wrun is utilize the balance of a space provides it meets building code minimums or give the zoning code admip strairt for ordinances. >> will you be open to language of that effect? >> i'm open to either concept which is if people build minimum suz in larger unit they-any left over space can be used for a additional unit. >> it seems to me if i am comfortable living in a small unit, smaller than 3 fifen 0 i should be the one to make that decision, not a advocacy

or particularly interest group. supervisor wiener i see your name. >> thank you. just a couple things i want to opponent point out. i appreciate supervisor peskin. some amendments i think are positive and some are more challenging. one of the-we want people to build these units and building the units is never easy. it can be costly, have to go through a planning process, you--i know our city departments have tried to get better and better for efficiency and making it aizey process it is all -there are challenges and there are factors that can dissuade people from creating the units and more restrictions we place on

the units the more we say if you do this there will be negative rem fiications to your building or a different type of housing and have restrictions other housing doesn't have. it just dissuades people building. i am not saying there shouldn't be any restrictions but you reduce the overall units because people don't want to deal with it. in the end, this is housing and housing is housing and we want people to put the units in and say this is a separate class and all these restrictions other units don't have, why is it adu have restrictions that someone who is building a non adu and building development wouldn't have? why do we treat one class of housing differently than others? if we want people to build the units it is cheaper to build them andtened to be more affordable we should encourage people to

build them, not disnincent vise so look forward to the continues process. i want to note one thing, the new askwe withdrawl the measure that supervisor farrell and myself and supervisors tang and breed put on the ballot and we are not prepared to do that at this point. i know it is my hope and supervisor farrells hope we come to a resolution by the ends of the month. we are not prepared to do now. this is not at a place where we can do that but it is hope and surpriser farrells hope we get to that place. i want to correct there is a amendability provision in the ballot measure that we submitted with the 2/3 vote. the board can amend it. in terms of if there is

something that needs to be changed after it passes because of legal issues we can do that with 8 votes. we prepared to gee go to our ballot and preference not to go to the ballot and work this out in a reasonable way that works to actually expand housing in san francisco and to start promoting housing rather than holding back and look forward to the the process. >> let's make motion. we have a series of amendments. i have two in front of me. >> three. >> three in front of me. >> the first amendment was the clarical amendments including the chapter 34 language, the amendments that lifted the cap, the amendment that

created the minimum units size. those are all in the first 12 pages i handed out. the second amendment was the amendment with regards to subdivision and the final amendment was the amendment with regards to the zoning administrator number 4 bulletin clarifying what things could be filled in. >> alright. thank you. the 3 amendments, mr. clerk we read them into the record. colleagues can we take this without objection or do we need roll call vote? >> i'm happy to accept the amendment. >> thank you. we take the motion to accept the amendments without objection. >> is that all 3? >> all 3. do you need me to read them in? >> i have copies for you mr.

clerk and colleagues, while there are i think a couple issues still hanging out there it is my desire to work with my colleagues in the intervening week and why don't we send this to full board? we need not send with recommendation by why not spend the next week working to resolve the remaining matters? i pledge to deal with the issue over the seismic safety or seismic ret rowfit matter and that i think is easily addressed as i spoke to and will prepare the amendments between now and offer them at full board. >> that sounds good so we send the legislation to full board without recommendation and without objection the motion passes. >> refer to full boards without recommended. >> that's correct. are you ready mr. clerk? >> iletm number 7. resolution

imposing interim zoning controls for residential hotels requiring conditional use authorization for any application for permit to convert residential hotel units under administrative code chapter 41. >> thank you chair cohen. i brought this legislation up over a month ago. over a quarter of a century ago there was a crisis having to do with the loss of sro single resident occupancy hotel rooms in san francisco. in the late 1970's the board passed a moratorium on the conversion of sro hotels to tourist service and other uses and in those days the city did a count and found in the 1970's we had 33,000 sro

hotel units. today, those have dwindled to 19,000. these yuchbts have traditionally housed artist, people in our haase pitality industry, neighborhood characters and the housing of last re-sort and they not only serve as transitional housing for those existing homelessness or low income families struggling to get by but there are far more of the housing of last re so sort and think that frankly we can do a lot better and so as we have had the pleasure working with planning staff and the community to draft revisions to the hotel conversion ordinance chapter 41 of the administrative code, i wanted to offer this interim zoning control that require conditional use believe it or not, conditional use is not

required to convert in front of the planning commission so like to offer the 18 month conditional use control as we bring chapter 41 into the 21 century. those that have applications in the pipeline, this will not apply to them. it on applies to anything going forward. with that, subject to public comment i seek your support to send to full board. >> i like to add my name as cosponsor to that. >> thank you madam chair. >> alright ladies and gentlemen, public comment. anyone want to speak on item 7 come up to the podium. thank you and welcome. >> [inaudible] urban policy. [inaudible] i think this is way

overdue. when i moved to the city, there was a lot of secondary units, sro and group housing in the area, upper tenderloin, lower nob hill which is where it is. there are a lot of residential hotels. they have been decimated. this legislation is needsed. the planning department needs to really think through how it deals with the decimation i think of your district, districtthry and a lot of district 2 because that is where we have a lot oof secondary sro and grew housing. i [inaudible] the legislation and huah. it is overdue. let me be the first to congratulate you

for doing this. >> any other speakers? public comment is closed. is there a motion >> i make a motion to send the item to full board with recommendation. >> alright. the motion passes unanimously. thank you. >> that completes the agenda for today. >> thank you, this meeting is adjourned. [meeting adjourned]

as a society we've basically failed big portion of our population if you think about the basics of food, shelter safety a lot of people don't have any of those i'm mr. cookie can't speak for all the things but i know say, i have ideas how we can address the food issue. >> open the door and walk through that don't just stand looking out. >> as they grew up in in a how would that had access to good food and our parent cooked this is how you feed yours this is not happening in our country

this is a huge pleasure i'm david one of the co-founder so about four year ago we worked with the serviced and got to know the kid one of the things we figured out was that they didn't know how to cook. >> i heard about the cooking school through the larkin academy a. >> their noting no way to feed themselves so they're eating a lot of fast food and i usually eat whatever safeway is near my home a lot of hot food i was excited that i was eating lunch enough instead of what and eat. >> as i was inviting them over teaching them basic ways to fix good food they were so existed. >> particle learning the skills

and the food they were really go it it turned into the is charity foundation i ran into my friend we were talking about this this do you want to run this charity foundations and she said, yes. >> i'm a co-found and executive director for the cooking project our best classes participation for 10 students are monday they're really fun their chief driven classes we have a different guest around the city they're our stand alone cola's we had a series or series still city of attorney's office style of classes our final are night life diners. >> santa barbara shall comes in and helps us show us things and

this is one the owners they help us to socialize and i've been here about a year. >> we want to be sure to serve as many as we can. >> the san francisco cooking school is an amazing amazing partner. >> it is doing that in that space really elevates the space for the kids special for the chief that make it easy for them to come and it really makes the experience pretty special. >> i'm sutro sue set i'm a chief 2, 3, 4 san francisco. >> that's what those classes afford me the opportunity it breakdown the barriers and is this is not scary this is our choice about you many times this is a feel good what it is that you give them is an opportunity you have to make it seem like

it's there for them for the taking show them it is their and they can do that. >> hi, i'm antonio the chief in san francisco. >> the majority of kids at that age in order to get them into food they need to see something simple and the evidence will show and easy to produce i want to make sure that people can do it with a bowl and spoon and burner and one pan. >> i like is the receipts that are simple and not feel like it's a burden to make foods the cohesives show something eased. >> i go for vera toilet so someone can't do it or its way out of their range

we only use 6 ingredients i can afford 6 ingredient what good is showing you them something they can't use but the sovereignties what are you going to do more me you're not successful. >> we made a vegetable stir-fry indicators he'd ginger and onion that is really affordable how to balance it was easy to make the food we present i loved it if i having had access to a kitchen i'd cook more. >> some of us have never had a kitchen not taught how to cookie wasn't taught how to cook. >> i have a great appreciation for programs that teach kids food and cooking it is one of

the healthiest positive things you can communicate to people that are very young. >> the more programs like the cooking project in general that can have a positive impact how our kids eat is really, really important i believe that everybody should venting to utilize the kitchen and meet other kids their age to identify they're not alone and their ways in which to pick yours up and move forward that. >> it is really important to me the opportunity exists and so i do everything in my power to keep it that. >> we'll have our new headquarters in the heart of the tenderloin at taylor and kushlg

at the end of this summer 2014 we're really excited. >> a lot of the of the conditions in san francisco they have in the rest of the country so our goal to 257bd or expand out of the san francisco in los angeles and then after that who know. >> we'd never want to tell people want to do or eat only provide the skills and the tools in case that's something people are 2rrd in doing. >> you can't buy a box of psyche you have to put them in the right vein and direction with the right kids with a right place address time those kids don't have this you have to instill they can do it they're good enough now to finding out figure out and find the future for regular meeting of san

francisco small business commission relayed on monday, july 11, 2016, the meeting is called to order at 5:29 p.m. tonight meeting is televised life thanks to sfgov for stlifgz live i'd like to welcome everyone to the small business commission meeting of please silence our phones limited to 2 minutes unless by the presiding officer and speakers requested but not required to fill out their cards please deliver speaker cards to the commission concert additionally