>> good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco planning commission regular hearing for thursday, november 15th, 2018. i would like to remind members of the public that the commission does not tolerate any disruption or outbursts of any kind. please silencer mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings. when speaking before the commission, state -- to do so for the records.

[roll call]. we expect commission or more to be absent today. first on your agenda his consideration of items for continuance. at 34,414th street and 1463 stephenson street. a large project authorization. item two, case number 2015--- 137 clayton street. conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance until december 6th, 2018. and item number 3, 830 olmstead street. further, under your regular calendar, items 14 a and b.

3140 through 315,016th street. conditional use authorization. we received a request from the project sponsor yesterday requesting a continuance until november ninth 2018. i have no other items and i have no speaker cards. >> is there any other public comment being proposed for continuance? seeing none, we will close public comments. >> motion to continue items one, two, three and 14 a to the dates set aside. >> second. >> thank you. on that motion to continue items as proposed. [roll call] so moved. that motion passes unanimously. placing us under your consent calendar. all matters listed under this are considered to be retained by the planning commission and may be acted upon by single roll

call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussions of these items unless staffs are requests and then the matter will be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item. item four, 162 west portal avenue, conditional use authorization. eight and five -- item five, at 1200 irving street, conditional use authorization. and item number 6, at 1 jones street. conditional use authorization. i have no speaker cards. >> would anyone like to remove these items off the calendar? seeing none, we will close public comments. >> moved to approve items four, five and six. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion to approve items 4-6 on the consent. [roll call]

>> so moved. that motion passes unanimously 6 -0. placing us under commission matters. item seven. 2019 hearing schedule. in your pockets you should have received a sheet indicating your hearing dates for the following year. january 3rd has already been cancelled as part of last year's consideration. some things to consider, unfortunately these proposed cancellation dates transferred just from last year. i would suggest you could consider consider the april 4th cancellation to april 25 th. it would call -- easter would fall on april 25th of this year. and to the september cancellation date on the 19th was for rosh hashanah. it falls on september 30th. cmh fruit does choose not to cancel a hearing in september january 31st as a fifth -- it

is the fifth thursday however, the third is already cancelled. you may want to go she may choose to keep it but those are my suggested changes to the proposed hearing schedule. >> is there any public comment on the proposed schedule or calendar for 2019? seeing none. we will close public comments. commissioners? >> i don't see anything scheduled for january 31st on the advanced calendar. that is my only feedback. will there be enough to meet? if i saw steph scheduled i would say let's keep it, otherwise let's dump it. >> my only hesitation is that the proposed schedule has a cancelled meeting on february 14 th. >> to 12 weeks later. >> it is easier for us to cancel a meeting then it is to add it.

even if we end up cancelling it, that is probably the best option >> okay. do we need a motion from this. >> we do. >> okay. jonas is preparing to shift the cancellation to the 25th. >> yes. end of september. >> and reinstating. >> i would just, remembering what happened this year with you and me both, i thought that we had cancelled that because of spring break. which actually falls in march of this year. it is the last weekend in march. i don't know how everyone else feels, but that is the s.f. p.u.c. spring break. >> so you propose keeping the april meetings and counselling march 28th? >> yes. that's what i would propose. >> commissioner richard squeeze. >> that's a great idea. >> is that a motion? >> we keep the april meeting and

do the cancellation on the 28 th. >> second. >> what about september? >> the september 19th meeting. >> september 19th we can keep as a regular meeting and cancel if necessary. okay. >> very good. on that motion to adopt your 2019 hearing schedule, cancelling march 28th and reinstating september 19th and april 4th on your proposed hearing schedule. on that motion. [roll call] >> so moved. that motion passes unanimously. 6-0. that will place us on item eight for commission four commission comments and questions.

>> commissioner richard squeeze. >> i have a lighthearted thing today and i will try to be -- commissioner richards? i have a lighthearted thing today. when i was off recuperating, i came across an article called what are they building over there and it translates into our process here. and some of the frustrations and things we can't understand why people get so upset over what seems to be different to -- little things. just a paragraph if i can read, the article is really good. it talks about how people react to change around them. a sense when people move into a house with more space around them, they feel like there is more space around them. we often choose where we live not just for the home before the look and feel of the block and the neighborhood and the view from the bedroom windows. but the environment around us is not static. it is subject to the winds of developers of the residents in the city. each time something changes their minds is how little control we have over the space beyond our lot line.

our homes are reflective of ourselves and our identity. her research focuses on how people think about changes in their environments. the physical changes that take place surrounding our home are signalling a lack of identity -- a lack of respect for our identity. that is summed up what seemed to be little changes when we have discretionary review changes. there is a psychological aspect to it. >> thank you. >> seeing nothing further, director's announcements. >> i am here on behalf of director ram who is travelling on a much deserved vacation. nothing to report to you commissioners. i'm happy to respond to any questions or comments you may have. >> thank you. >> mr. cider, if you would be so kind as the acting zoning

ministration and continue item 14 b 416th street until november 29th. >> as acting zoning administrator, i will continue item 14 b to the date proposed, november 29th. >> thank you very much. that will place us on item ten. review of past events of the board of supervisors. there is no report for the board of appeals. >> good afternoon. i'm the manager of legislative affairs for the planning department. as you know, the land use committee was cancelled for veterans day. the board did meet and they passed on second read the dogpatch public realm plan. supervisor came's ordinance that would modify the better street plan, the mission alcoholic ordinance sponsored by supervisor ronen, and the affordable housing projects on undeveloped lots in the sally district. does all past second read. the board unanimously passed on first street and ordinance introduced by supervisor brown to establish specific

illusionary housing requirements recurrent pipeline projects including 650 to visit darrow which was approved by the commission last week. the on-site mac requirement would be 20% for rental process -- projects are 23% for ownership projects. and the affordability levels would be consistent with the citywide inclusionary program. future projects will be subject to the on-site mac requirement for home s.f. which is currently 23% for projects that have received no increase in height. there is an off-site mac requirement for all projects in the district and would be the same as a citywide inclusionary program. under the ordinance, the fillmore and c.t. district would remain subject to the inclusionary housing requirements. the boards passed on first street the su d. sponsored by supervisor fewer. the flexible retail ordinance sponsored by supervisor tang and the two amendments to the 1629 market street su d. sponsored by supervisor kim.

the board then unanimously approved the mayor process legislation that extend the time for grandfathering projects to keep their existing inclusionary requirements. however, before the supervisor stated that he had an amendment that he would be introducing at the second read on november 27 th. this amendment would apply the fee on state density bonus projects to the grandfather projects. it is not clear if you would duplicate the file to make the amendment, that the item was taken back to the planning commission for your review. next, good news. the central soma plan passed its first read. it is moving along finally. and the appeal -- of the environmental appeal and the conditional use appeal for 450 o'farrell street were withdrawn. finally the board considered the appeal for the category exemption for the washington square water conservation project. this project includes installation of a new weather sensing irrigation system, a new sub- drain infrastructure to

reduce saturated soil conditions , pathway repaving and a.d.a. improvements, the removal and replacement of 11 trees, and the maintenance on benches. the issues contended that a violated the landmark designation of the park and construction impacts from park closure including traffic, parking, air quality, and noise would be negatively effective. the appellants procedural issues related to whether the apartment -- of the department is adequate noticing. the planning commission did not hear this project, however, they approve the project certificate of appropriateness in may of 2018. members of the public spoke in favor of upholding the appeal and spoke about the impact on residential -- on residents and businesses to do the construction. commenters claim there is no public outrage in the project was improperly noticed and advocated for a more moderate

approach that would reduce the time the park is closed. public comment to deny the appeal spoke in support of the project and the long-term benefit for businesses and residents by restoring the park. they also said that they worked with the community on the project and conducted extensive outreach. the supervisors did not ask any questions on the project and confirms the exemption denying the appeal on a 10-0 vote with supervisor peskin excused. as a follow-up, commissioner richards asked for an update on the 16th street appeal. the city is waiting to get a date for an oral argument. i'm told it can take a few years to get an oral argument date but this case, expediting process was requested. we don't anticipate taking that long. once we do get a date, we will get an opinion about 90 days after that. that concludes my report. >> thank you. >> in the meantime, that the project is stalled.

>> i believe so. >> i think they could go forward but it's at their risk. >> okay. appreciate it. >> seeing nothing further, we can move onto general public comment. members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission accept agenda items -- with respect to agenda items. the opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when it is meet -- when it is met in the meeting. i have no speaker cards. >> is there any general public comment? welcome. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is mark dwight. i am a homeowner and business owner in historic dogpatch neighborhood and a board member of friends of the dogpatch hub. a group of neighbors working to develop a community center in dogpatch which is one -- which

was once a sleepy postindustrial neighborhood but is now the fastest growing residential neighborhood in san francisco, as you well know. we believe the old abandoned police station is an ideal location for the community center and i'm here with some of my colleagues to solicit your support. the police station is located at 2,303rd street at the intersection of 20th street a few blocks from sfpd mission bay at headquarters at the border of the dogpatch historic district and pier 70, which is being redeveloped with a combination of commercial and residential buildings. there are two structures on the lot. the two story police station building and the adjacent single-story infirmary. the buildings were constructed in 1912 and the site was used by sfpd until 1998 when it was vacated. twenty years ago. during their first decade of vacancy, the buildings remained relatively good condition. the second decade has been an entirely different and sad story

as abandoned buildings, the police station and infirmary were broken into constantly. occupied by homeless people and invested -- infested by pigeons and stripped by vandals of everything with value and subjected to senseless vandalism including more than five building fires. the worst of which was a two alarm blaze in 2012 that left -- left a gaping hole in the police station roof. the buildings have been ravaged by weather and the basement is permanently filled with water. this is now a blighted property -- property into closer to being irreparable. and 2001, they showed an interdependent dutch interdepartmental transvaal -- transfer. everyone from sfpd to planning to real estate thought the buildings belong to someone else in march 2012, the police commission issued a resolution to release the property to the real estate department for leasing. in january 2013, the real estate department director attended a meeting to solicit ideas from neighborhood residents about the best use of the property in preparation for a formal r.f.p. the community supported public

serving or commercial use in hopes of saving, restoring and activating the site. that effort weathered and the proposed r.f.p. was forgotten. the rest of the story is to be continued by my colleagues. thank you very much for your time. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon commissioners. i'm here speaking to you as a board member of friends of the dogpatch hub. i'm here to speak about how and why we started the effort to save the potrero police station. the neighborhood decided that the best way to save the building and served a rapidly -- serve our rapidly growing neighborhood is to work with the city to convert the site into a community center. at a board of supervisors land use and transportation committee report hearing in may of 2016, and with the support of our supervisor, we submitted letters requesting that the city reuse the buildings by much-needed community purpose rather than simply selling them off. we then organized friends of the dogpatch hub and were funded by the dogpatch neighborhood

association to incorporate as a nonprofit public charity. in april of 2017, we convened a meeting to the supervisors post s. office to call attention to the site and brainstorm the neglect and bring the building back to a public serving use. the consensus was that due to the poor building condition the historic status and the small lot size, the buildings which which we happily encumbered to sell or lease easily. after a walk there with architecture and building professionals, it was determined a minimum of $10 million will be required for a bare-bones adaptive reuse of the site.

as as. we secured a further commitment of $2.5 million from pier 70 and the port of san francisco. as the sight is still wide open and vulnerable, the friends of the dogpatch hub requested funds from supervisor cohen and that resulted in $250,000 to protect the buildings. the department of public works, the san francisco police department and real estate use these funds to temporarily secure, paint, and fence the property. >> greetings commissioners. i am the board chair. i'm here to speak about our latest efforts to transform the old potrero police station site into a community center. the summer of 2017, oewd infested funds to conduct neighborhood asset activation process on the potrero station site.

to prepare for the anticipated r.f.p. by the city, friends of the dogpatch higher design architectural partners based -- and raced $54,000 and began design and feasibility schematics. data from our online community survey with over 250 responses plus public outreach meetings drip alumina reprogramming plans to best serve a growing population and neighborhood undergoing massive change. our population is on track to triple by 2020 and triple again to over 18,000 people by 2030. the idea of the community center is not just to save these buildings but is equally fuelled by the fact that the dogpatch has not one public serving facility despite nonstop development. as part of the n.a.a. process,

the san francisco police department was contacted about the building. bike to our great surprise, chief scott sent a letter to the city stating that the police were considering used for the station. this was the conclusion of the n.a.a. process. on may 1st of 2018, the friends of the dogpatch hub board met with chief scott and were joined by the city real estate department, the board of supervisors president and her staff and architects. chief scott said that the site would potentially be used for office space. we discussed the friends of the dogpatch hub efforts to build a center there on behalf of the neighborhood as well as the possibility of working together. however, at the time, sfpd did not have a feasibility study prepared. chief scott promised a final decision and planned by how they would reuse or could roll out or not to this reuse by the end of 2018. in the meantime, friends of the dogpatch hub is sharing with the city commissioners what we have

learned would be required to adopt a lever or use the building post s. --dash the site -- the site s. the site as. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners we are not here on any other matters that has been spoken upon today. my name is greg and i'm here in behalf of mission for all today. and the 1979 mission street project. i just wanted to say that you guys include included the 16th u guys have been working with them they have been working with you guys and i'm just here to ask you guys today if we can also be included in those meetings because i'm part of the community also and my partner would like to say something also

>> thank you. >> my name is steve and we have, since you just sent you guys a letter. it was late last week. i'm not sure if you guys thought or not but it is requesting for us to have our day of planning sooner than february. it is pretty late. you know we have been working and trying to get our building built. it has taken a lot of time and we feel like, in order to progress, and you know for people like me and greg to get further, it would help us if we at least have a chance to have our voices heard at these type of things officially without just having to come in and bombard or whatever. so if you would like to, please consider giving us a date of this year, 2018. thank you. >> thank you. any additional general public comment?

seeing none, general public comment is closed. any comments, commissioners? did you have general public comment? >> if your item is not on the calendar, if you can speak to an item on the calendar, we will have public comment for each of those items but if you're here to speak about something else, now is the time. thank you. okay we can move forward. >> when we had the mission for all of the plaza 16 coalition come next week we wandered but the status of the project was. maybe it is a future meeting where we could understand where things stand. >> i think -- we have the community. we have worked out a hearing on february 7th. that was the earliest we can do. within reason, it is difficult for us to do it on the 29th, the week after thanksgiving after this last one was

cancelled. so we've got february, at that hearing, we will hear from staff and the project sponsor on the status of the project and where it is. i think we are all anxious to have that hearing and look forward to that on february 7th . >> that is correct. >> that is currently what we are working with. thank you. >> your regular calendar. items 11 a and b. for adult use cannabis implementation informational presentation and case number 2018-008367 pca for cannabis grandfathering update planning code amendments respectively. >> good afternoon. i'm dipped with department department department staff. the item before you is a two part item. we will start with an informational presentation on the limitation of adult use cannabis. the planning department has worked closely with the office

of cannabis over the last year to implement adult use in san francisco including creating new regulations for adult use sales and classify different types of nonstorefront land uses and creating a robust licensing system of the newly re-created -- newly created office of cannabis. the department has recognized its duty to aid qualified equity applicants. many of whom are investing considerable amounts of money to start their small businesses. currently the city is only accepting new applications for equity applicants and incubators as defined by the office of cannabis. the planning department has not yet brought any new sites before the planning commission for approval but we anticipate bring them forward next year. next so far we have been conducting outreach with equity applicants. preparing written guidance including the guide to cannabis -related land uses which you received a week ago.

if i could have the computer for a second. >> can we go to the computer? >> do you want the other? >> yeah. for reference, this is a map service that is available online any member of the public or applicant can use it to view the different types of applications that we have received so far in the city. as you can see, there are a lot of new applications that are coming in. many of which will never make it to the planning commission if there is a 600-foot rule issue but are currently under review at the office of cannabis. and applicant can also use these to see where schools are in the city or existing medical cannabis dispensaries and to see those buffers. the 600-foot buffer around locations to verify compliance.

any member of the public who is interested in seeing what is going on in a particular neighborhood can use this on our webpage. here is this one back. currently the planning department has a number of permits in processing and some of which the commission may review. we have 37 existing storefront medical cannabis dispensaries that have been converted to cannabis retail. and may have been conducting adult use sales of temporary authorization from the department of public health but they will need a full permit authorization to continue that. that is something the commission will be seeing in the next year. we have also been processing non storefront uses. things like distributors, testers, many areas of the city

are now principally permitted though there are some that require conditional use authorizations such as cultivation and p.d.r. zones. we expect to have the first couple of those come to the commission in february. since the office of cannabis has been doing the bulk of the work, these new sites so far, i would like to turn it over to the director of the office of cannabis to talk about her office. >> thank you very much. welcome.

>> president tell us, commissioners, i am the director of the office of cannabis. it is a pleasure to be with you today and i want to thank you for taking the time to have this discussion. as well as contemplating the legislation before you on the next item. for starters, it has been a little over a year since i came before you in mid october of last year to contemplate the regulatory framework to implement prop 64. since then, my office has accomplished quite a bit. we have run a successful amnesty program. one that is being held up as a best practice throughout the state. we have implemented the city's first ever equity program and creating the things necessary to participate in the cannabis program. we have developed a major portion of the application system with an eye towards equal access and accessibility. we have transitioned over 40 legacy mcd to temporary sales and drawn from them commitments to the city's -- city's equity

goal and holding them accountable for the last year. and we have coached applicants and community participants throughout the entire journey to make sure that whenever asked, people get the answers and clarity that they expect and deserve. i say all of this to give you context for the workload we are facing at this time. and to bring you quickly up to speed with the work that has been done in the last year. things are progressing and we find ourselves in a position of knowing that we still have a monumental task ahead of us. so if you will bear with me, i want to go into a bit more detail of the office of cannabis touch a implementation of the existing policies and systems. since i think this information is important and relevant to the discussions you will have today, as well as the many discussions you will have about commercial cannabis in the future. starting with the review of the amnesty program and transition m.c.d. his, this represents our existing industry today.

one that we have kept in operation throughout the implementation of our commercial cannabis policies. a review of our equity program, one of the most complex pieces of art implementation responsibility, and finally, the status of permits that are pending before our office. starting with the amnesty program, you will recall that in september of last year, we opened a registration process that received over 230 registrations from operators throughout san francisco, representing everything from cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, testing, and delivery only retail. we closed that registration process 60 days after opening it and on december 15th, we commenced safety inspections, bringing together up to 12 inspectors from multiple departments. the department of building inspection, the health department, the fire department,

to do those life safety inspections at any given moment in time. we also coordinated that review with the planning department and the tax collector. and at the end of the day, we have over 146 temporary permits that have been issued. you can see here those categories of activities that they were issued to. and we also had numerous affidavits signed and submitted to our office representing up to 36 or more activities ceasing to then move them to zoning districts where they would be more appropriately positioned. in january 6 of this year, article 16 went into effect meaning the city could allow for the legal adult use sales enabled by prop 64, effective january 1st. so the office of cannabis, in coordination with the department of public health and the police

department received quite a significant amount of information from our existing m.c.d. his, including a submission of a security plan that was reviewed by the police department. a good neighbor policy reviewed by our office. to date, 44 m.c.d. submitted this information and 41 have received authorization to temporarily sell adult use cannabis. seven of those representing dispensaries with consumption. we have extended these authorization over 85 times and seven dispensaries have lost their authorizations because they have not complied with their equity plan. this chart shows you the process of what it takes to become verified under our equity program. as i mentioned, one of the most complex parts of our process is implementing this equity program from -- i will ask that you bear with me as i walk you through

some detailed and important comments about the program so you have the context of those complexities of this process for the remainder of this discussion also, to help you understand the immense amount of work that we have in front of us and ahead of us. the following chart is meant to show you the equity application applicant verification process. on the far left, you can see the eligibility categories of those who can seek article 16 permits. those who qualify to seek those permits. at the top, you can see equity program eligibility criteria. for the equity applicant his, the top of this graphic shows you the stages in process of verification. on march 30th, the office of cannabis opened the city's verification process for stages one and two. this is where they seek verification for the two buckets of criteria that are associated

with them as individuals. the asset test and the three '06 --dash 306 eligibility criteria. those being personal cannabis -related involvement in the criminal justice system, family cannabis belated involvement in the criminal justice system, income status, school participation, census tract and housing displacement. applicants submit to applicant -- documentation to serve the asset test in three of the six eligibility criteria. it then reviews all of that documentation, which is significant to verify eligibility. once the office of cannabis verifies the applicant meets the criteria is a bucket one and two , the office provides that individual with a verified or preverified status and as of may 22nd, the office gives that individual access to the cannabis business permit application. applicants are able to seek the

potential for success. this seeks to address the financial barriers section of the equity report which stated all new businesses face financial requisites to enter a market. accessing the business financing is necessary to purchase the equipment and labour to get any business up and running. for individuals disproportionately targeted for drug enforcement and consequently having a higher propensity at being disadvantaged during the last decade of cannabis prohibition, these financial barriers can be particularly difficult to overcome. without the initial capital to launch a business venture or to sustain operating costs until profits are realized, these individuals are rendered unable to enter the adult use cannabis markets. once the application and all material agreements are submitted to the office of cannabis as part of the part one cannabis business permit application, the office of cannabis reviews those bylaws

and operating agreements to ensure that the ownership as shown in the third column on this slide, are in fact realized i cannot stress enough how important this review is to the process of ensuring a successful equity program. when you hear critics expressed frustration with how long the office is taking to do this review, all i will say is the office is not willing to make the trade-off trade off of sloughing off our duties to ensure the success of the equity applications in favor of speed. many of these applications -- many of these applicants and individuals cannot afford the permit expediters you hear from so frequently. they cannot afford the lawyers. they cannot afford the consultants. with that in mind, the office is also spent a significant amount of time to try and address these issues by pursuing partnerships like the one we successfully pursued with the bar association of san francisco for pro bono

legal assistance and by the partnership with your department where we have heard a commitment to ensure the review of these applications will be turned around in a way that contemplates these applicants' financial restraints. to date, you can see the office has verified 217 individuals from over 340 submissions. on the left, you can see the eligibility trend as a general interesting data points. as a general interesting data point. >> this slide shows you the number of locations seeking permits. 263. while these categories are not mutually exclusive, you can see we have a significant number of equity program applications in light blue and red, temporary permits in orange, m.c.d. in dark blue, affidavit signatories in purple.

for those 263 business locations , you can see, in total , those locations are seeking 395 cannabis business permits. this chart breaks down the permits by activity type. 159 seeking storefront retail that includes the existing m.c.d. his. forty-seven cultivation, 66 manufacturing, 70 distribution, 52 delivery and one testing laboratory. important to note these numbers do not contemplate zoning compliance review in total. and the review has not been done on all of these. so this is not, you know, it is not certain all of these are viable. this slide shows a status of our review of these applications. as you will recall, article 16

mandates we review equity program applicants first and into -- incubators second. right now we are still reviewing equity applicant applications and doing a significant amount of back-and-forth communication with these applicant entities. to give you an overall sort of status update, you can see that of those that have been submitted, 159 applications have not yet been reviewed. forty-eight are under initial review. twenty-one have been moved to processing, meaning they've undergone a bit more scrutiny. eighteen of them placed on hold. many pursuant to the 600-foot rule. sixteen have been withdrawn. one has been denied. of all of those that have been under initial review, you can see a further breakdown of those here. that concludes my presentation. i'm happy to address any questions that you may have.

>> okay. i think we will have -- did you have -- >> we were going to go right back into the part two and implementation. >> that will be great and then we will take public testimony and everything. >> we have amendments to the planning code for your review of this item. these amendments are focused on section 190 of the planning code , which deals with the conversion of existing medical cannabis dispensaries to cannabis retail establishments. so the establishments can continue adult use sales. the amendments are proposed by the office of cannabis with review by the planning department. so this existing section 190 allows a grandfather to medical cannabis dispensary to convert to a cannabis retail using a special conversion procedure. if it needs -- if it meets the criteria, which i will go into any moment. and it provides certain exemptions from planning codirectors planning code requirements that would go to a

new shop. it allows a conversion to not be subject to a conditional use requirement as one would normally require -- be required for the new use and it provides an exemption from the 600-foot rule from schools and other storefronts. so over the course of the year, we have been implementing this section and we encountered a few issues that we were hoping to fix with the legislation. the first issue is the language requires a full permit to operate from the department of public health in order to use this section to convert to cannabis retail. deferral -- the full permit to operate is having planning department approval and you get your full permit and you build it and get your inspections. you are opening doors. four sites that applied and got approved by the planning commission of the tail end of last year, they are still waiting to be able to convert because they can't open their door yet. and the proposal is to just change that final permit to operate the planning department

approval to capture those sights that we approved at the tail end of last year and remove that procedural hurdle. so it does not authorize sites to convert that otherwise would not. it would just change the requirement and allow them to process that while they are still in construction. the second issue deals with qualifying for conversion. when the section was first adopted in december of last year , the city contemplated rolling out permitting with the office of cannabis in the planning department, fairly early -- very early in 2018. as such, the code was written that to qualify for conversion you needed to file addled permitting by march 31st. march 31st -- march 30th there was applications for equity applicant his and the application. did not open until may. between that delay and a lot of confusion was some of the rollout. there were certain sites that did not file by march 31st. and that is the only reason why

they are not qualified for conversion is missing that date. these are not new sites but may not be able to convert just because of having filing data a week after it was due. given the amount of confusion, the department finds it appropriate to move the date -- remove the date from the section they would be required to do neighborhood notice and potential discretionary review. those two changes fill up the existing section at a tenth of the section. a final change proposed by the office of cannabis deals with medical -- medical cannabis sights that have an application for a dispensary in processing at the time that the ordinance was adopted. so we had three sites that were in processing and when that ordinance was adopted, it suddenly became ineligible due to the 600-foot rule. they are included with your package. the legislation is proposing to exempt these sights from the 6- foot 600-foot rule only as it

relates to the dentist -- distance between storefronts not from schools since that was not a new requirement of the ordinance. would also allow the sites to file directly for cannabis retail rather than establishing as a medical cannabis dispensary going through that hearing and then renoticing and going through a secondary hearing. importantly, it would not exempt these sights for many permit requirements since these are sites that have never had their day here before. so the department has reviewed the proposed legislation and supports its intent in removing unnecessary regulatory hurdles to permitting and the support for sites -- support for existing small businesses in the city with respect to the third group on the sites that were in mid processing when the 600-foot rule was adopted. the department is recommending two modifications to the ordinance. first we recommend requiring a pending medical cannabis dispensary be an active processing as of january fifth

2018 to utilize the section currently -- currently it has been a little vague so that a site that may have not been impacted by the new ordinance could still use it. adding that additional date is minor technical change that would make sure it is targeted only at who it is meant to be targeted at. second, the department recommends any site using this exemption is a pending m.c.d. be required to maintain conditional use authorization. to establish cannabis retail use even if it is not inherently required where it is located. for that conditional use, the department recommends an addition to the normal 303 findings, the commission shall consider the overall availability of medical and cannabis retail establishment in the district where the use is located and whether the approval of the cannabis retail use would create a noticeable over concentration of cannabis retail uses in the district. this finding would allow the

commission greater flexibility in reviewing these sights. the commission gauged sights on a case by case basis and this would return it to adapt for these sights that were in processing at the time. given the ability to still approve or deny the site. so the department has received three e-mails regarding the proposed legislation. namely exciting specific opposition to the individual sites and benefit from the legislation. however, this legislation does not authorize the conversion of any individual sights. they are all required to obtain a conditional use authorization or undergo neighborhood notification and potential discretionary review. this legislation does not change that. will also receive multiple inquiries related to the language of the legislation with respect to exempting existing open m.c.d. his and converging to cannabis retail from the 600- foot rule from schools and other storefronts. it has always been the intent

and practice at these sights exempted from that rule by the interaction between local and state law is circular. of the office of cannabis may continue to tighten that language as it reaches forward and we would like some confirmation that the commission -- from the commission that the intent of the section is to exempt the conversion of these existing open sites that have been operating for years from that 600-foot road requirements. this concludes my presentation and we are what available for any questions you may have. >> great. thank you very much. we will open this item up for public comment. i have two speaker cards. if others would like to speak, lineup on the screen side of the room and you can approach in any order. go ahead. do you want to speak? >> how much time do i have? >> three minutes. >> thank you. hello. i am the president of the san francisco entertainment commission. i'm speaking as a civilian and a

citizen and an applicant for a two dispensaries san francisco. first thing i wanted to say, was that i really want to attest to the intelligence and competent work that director elliott in the office of cannabis has done throughout this process. for the great majority of the things they have implemented, they have been absolutely stellar and especially given the circumstances, i think we are very lucky to have them at the helm. today i want to highlight a huge problem. in the process and that is the flawed and arbitrary process for permitting two or more applicants who are within 600 feet or one -- of one another. cannabis retail establishments bring a significant amount of disruption to local neighborhoods. they can make long lines that form on the streets, which we have all seen on market street and lombard street with the m.c.d. there. customers can sometimes be tempted to consume illegal products after purchasing them within the neighborhoods which is a big no. and dispensaries can be targets

for armed theft at a rate much higher than other establishments due to the cash reliance of the businesses. right now, these ideas -- the idea that one more than one dispensary is within 600 feet apply to one another that the only ones you are able to hear is whoever got in first is crazy to me. the problem in my mind is the only body with the jurisdiction and experience to evaluate these competing dispensaries and to see which one is best for the neighborhood, and they need to be evaluated side-by-side by this commission at the same time he will have to determine which location is best and which layout is best and what kind of square footage is best for the neighborhood. what security plans are better? the crowd control plans for dealing with lines. you have to deal with the experience of the operators and their commitment to san francisco's equity program.