Talk about that beforehand. If there is an issue and the business did not bring that to us, that is partially their fault. So we need to make sure that we know everything before we do the application. Lets sort it out. Clerk there is a motion to approve the legacy business registry registrations and resolutions as described in the meeting agenda. [ roll call ] vote. Clerk motion passes 60 with one absence. Thank you. Congratulations. [ applause ]. Clerk if the legacy businesses would like to join the commissioners for a photo on the floor, that would be great. Clerk item 4 board of supervisors file no. 190756. Police code. Cannabis retailers at permitted cannabis events. Ordinance amending the police code to require that cannabis retailers at permitted events hold cannabis business permits issued by the city that applicants for cannabis event permits identify the retailers that will be selling cannabis goods at such event sand affirm that said retailers hold cityissued cannabis business permits, and that recipients of cannabis event permits take steps to reasonably ensure that only said retailers will sell cannabis goods at such events; to provide that a material false statement made in connection with an application for a cannabis event permit may be subject to administrative penalty, cause for denial of a pending or future application for a cannabis business permit, and cause for suspension or revocation of an existing cannabis business permit; and affirming the planning departments determination under the California Environmental quality act. May be, cause for denial of a pending or future and affirm that said retailers hold cityissued cannabis business permits, and that recipients of cannabis event permits take steps to reasonably ensure that only said retailers will sell cannabis goods at such events; to provide that a material false statement made in connection with an application for a cannabis event permit may be subject to administrative penalty, cause for denial of a pending or future application for a cannabis business permit, and cause for suspension or revocation of an existing cannabis business permit; and affirming the planning departments determination under the California Environmental quality act. Hello, im here on behalf of supervisor mandelman. In 2018 there was an ordinance issued on this file number. Prior to the development of this permit San Francisco residents experienced unregulated sales and consumption of cannabis. Under the Pilot Program authorized by this ordinance, the city issued its first temporary cannabis events to grasslands at outside lands in august. This first permitted cannabis event was a success with zero medical calls or calls to Law Enforcement demonstrating that a legal and regulated approach can provide a safe environment for cannabis sales and consumption. I will also add as a happy and Positive Side note said that this was the favourite part of the festival. Unsurprisingly. To further the goals of enhancing Public Health and safety and supporting our local Small Businesses, we are introducing an amendment that requires the following of cannabis retailers at these permitted events. First, to hold cannabis business permits issued by the city and county of San Francisco. Second, that applicants for cannabis event permits identify the retailers that will be selling cannabis goods at such events and affirm that all retailers hold cityissued cannabis permits. Third, that recipients of cannabis permits take steps to reasonably ensure that only s. F. Retailers will sell cannabis at such events. This requirement will allow Regulatory Oversight to ensure that the rules will be followed. It also appropriately for this commission ensure that sales that happen at San Francisco events benefit our local Small Businesses. This amendment will also require event organizers to demonstrate their support to further the citys equity goal as part of their cannabis permit application. Many s. F. Cannabis businesses are required to show their commitment to equity. And this extends to cannabis event organizers. Commissioners, we have been pleased with the early success of these permits and feel that the amendments described here will make the program even better more event attendees. I look forward to hearing the commissions feedback and hopefully having your support for this ordinance. I would also like to thank and our colleagues at the office of cannab cannabis. Thank you. Any questions, commissioners . I just want to say that you guys did a great job with grasslands at outside lands. You know, there wasnt any not one complaint, not one Police Action or event or anything. From people i know who attended, you guys had your act together. I think that was a great model that you did, and i can see you doing that at other events and in other neighborhoods now. I think you guys just did a great job with this and i like this a lot. Do we have any other comments before we go to Public Comment . Do we have any members of the public who would like to make comment on item number 44 . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Commissioners, do we have any support . Sure. Move to support the legislation as presented. Second. Okay. Roll call vote. Again, grasslands was great. That could be like a model in other places. Office of cannabis is here. I do like to say first, thank you so much. Thank you to all of you. We like to look at this example as sort of the model for grasslands or for other events similar to that, because of course we dont want smaller events to feel like they have to take that much onus with respect to how expensive it can sometimes be. Its such a large event so its different, but we expect it will be just as safe and enjoyable for the entire community, all of our future cannabis events. And they were all local. Thats right. And thats the beauty of it. Yeah. And we really want to encourage that and support our local retailers. Of course we want to create a space where all brands can be exhibited, but we want local businesses to be able to be celebrated in that space. All right. Well, we have a motion. Thanks. Clerk morges by commissioner dwight to support the legislation. Roll call vote. [ roll call ] vote. Clerk motion passes 60 with one absenc]with one absenw. Board of supervisors file no. 190842 various codes renewing and extending waiver and refund of investigation fee persons registered with the office of cannabis oneyear extension of medical cannabis dispensary permits and temporary cannabis business permits. Ordinance renewing and extending a prior waiver and refund of investigation fees imposed by building code, section 107a. 5, for persons registered with the office of cannabis through december 31, 2020; amending the health code to extend the date beyond which temporary medical cannabis dispensary permits issued under article 33 of the health code are rendered invalid, from december 31, 2019, to december 31, 2020; amending the police code to extend the date beyond which temporary cannabis business permits issued under article 16 of the police code cannot be extended from december 31, 2019, to december 31, 2020; and amending the planning code to extend the date by which a grandfathered medical cannabis dispensary, as defined in the planning code, must have received a permit to operate from the department of Public Health to be deemed a temporary cannabis sales use, as defined in the planning code, from december 31, 2019, to december 31, 2020. The presenter is again tom temprano, legislative aide to supervisor mandelman in the office of cannabis. Welcome. Its great to be back with some more cannabis for you this afternoon. This ordinance will allow cannabis businesses participating in the citys Amnesty Program to continue to access d. B. I. Waivers and also extend medical cannabis dispensary permits through 2020. Following the passage of prop 64, the city commenced a registration process and allow existing nonretail cannabis operators to come forward and make themselves and their opportunities known to the city. This process disclosed 250 previously unregulated activities in cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, testing, and delivery, and allowed the city to begin to move many of these operations into the legal and regulated market place. This registration process initiated an amnesty process for these operators to bring them out of the shadows and into a regulated and compliant space. These operators were then able to apply for a temporary cannabis business permit and as part of that process submit to inspections of the business premises. In an effort to ensure that these operators focused their Financial Resources on coming into compliance, the board of supervisors passed an ordinance in 2017, waiving and we funding that fee. That expired and due to unforesee delays and many processes that the applicants were subject to, some operators were not able to complete the inspections prior to that date. This ordinance will extend the deadline for these fee waivers through december 31, 2020, so these businesses can pass their inspections and come fully into compliance. The ordinance will also extend the Effective Date of the temporary cannabis permits that these businesses are operating under through december 31, 2020, as the office of cannabis works do their permitting backlog and processes permanent license for these operators. Finally, because were getting all of the deadlines done at once, this ordinance will amend the health code to allow for additional 120day extensions through december 31, 2020, of existing medical cannabis dispensary permits. These extensions are necessary to successfully transition our medical dispensaries to recreational adult youth sales and allows them to continue operation and remain in compliance while supporting our broader equity goals. As part of their permit, we are committed to supporting the citys equity goals and our temporary authorization is a condition of their successful support for the equity program. Commissioners, this ordinance will allow existing Small Businesses operating on these temporary cannabis permits to continue operating through 2020. We hope to have your support. I hope to be joined by our colleagues from the office of cannabis for any questions you might have about this ordinance. Do we have any commissioner comments . I think this is another good cleanup ordinance that we need. I just want to echo that. Firsthand, ive been helping a lot of Small Businesses go through the process. You hand hold them and make this easier. We appreciate that in the neighborhoods. Its helping get it out of the darkness and into a legitimate business. I want to echo that, im hearing a lot of good things. Any other commissioner comments before we go to Public Comments . Okay. Lets open up item number 5 to Public Comment. Do we have any members of the comment who would like to make comment on item number 5. Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Commissioners. I second. Clerk motion to support the legislation, roll call vote. [ roll call ] vote. Clerk motion passes 60 with one absent. Keep up the good work. Thank you. Next item, please. Clerk item 6, office of Small Business staff presentations, San Francisco massage regulations. Discussion item. Presenter is dominicadon van, senior policy analyst. While dominicadon is getting set up to present her powerpoint, i want to extend a great amount of appreciation for the amount of policy work shes done. Shes sent you the document. You may not have had a chance to fully read it, but because of it supervisor brown is utilizing this policy document to do the framework to amend the current massage regulations. And of course much of it follows the recommendations that the commission made when the first legislation or last set of substantive legislation was passed in 2015. So i will now turn that over to dominica. Commissioners, thank you for having me. Its always a little weird being on this side of the podium. Sfgov tv, i have a powerpoint. Today im going to provide you with a very highlevel, as brief as possible, overview of the legislative history affecting massage regulations, existing law and regulations, issues and considerations, and the policy options which were all covered in the massage topic paper which you should have received a little less than a week ago. So to go over the legislative history, as you may be aware in 2003 the regulation of massage businesses moved from s. F. Police department over to the department of Public Health. This was pretty significant for a number of reasons, but most importantly it legitimatized massage as a Health Service and established the linkage between Massage Therapy and healthcare and the department of Public Health would now be overseeing administration of regulations related to massage. It had been regulated through the police code prior to that because it was considered to be an Adult Service by city regulators. In 2006, a fairly comprehensive overhaul of land use regulations relating to massage was implemented and mandated, and it required that massage establishments be subject to conditional use authorizations in most commercial districts. This was responses to challenges that emerged to you to variations in businesses and land use across the city, which led to an overconcentration of massage businesses, both legitimate and illegitimate in certain areas of the city. Most significantly in 2008 a state law passed which set the stage for how we see massage regulated as it is today. The state law limited local land use controls relative to local businesses as you may remember hearing about back in 2015. Because of this localities across california started experiencing much higher volumes of complaints related to illegal commercial sex activity and human and sex trafficking, which was a very unfortunate, unintended consequence of that 2008 state law. In 2009, the city attempted to control for this in modifying certain land use controls with regard to massage, but it was extremely administratively challenging for the city to provide adequate oversight and regulation over both legitimate and illegitimate massage establishments. In 2014, the state recognized this and returned local land use controls to cities and countries, which is why in 2015 you saw two very significant pieces of legislation which were passed which regulated massage in San Francisco, which this commission did hear, both pieces of legislation and had significant commentary for. Some of you were here during that time and may remember that. One ordinance significantly regulated where massage can be operated in the city and significantly limited where it can be operated. It also defined massage establishment as its own land use very distinct from other Health Services and other medical services. I do recall that one recommendation from this commission was that massage continued to be considered a health use for those purposes, but it wasnt. It also required that all new general massage establishments, so thats any business that employees massage practitiones s undergo a conditional use authorization practice in sole practitioner massage establishments. Those that are occupied by only one practitioner would have to participate in a neighborhood notification process. So both are fairly onerous and the conditional use authorization process, as we all know, is fairly costly. Ordinance 7215 was also passed, and this ordinance comprehensively amended article 29 of the health code, which regulates how massage establishments themselves are licensed and how they operate and provided the department of Public Health with much more authority into oversight responsibilities with regard to massage establishments, including how and when fees and fines would be administered to those establishments. The ordinance also requires three types of licensing for specific massage permits. One is for a general massage establishment, the second is for a sole practitioner massage practice, and the other is for outcall massage practices. Finally, the last significant regulations that were passed were around this time last year in 2018. That ordinance added further requirements to obtaining massage establishment permits and significantly limited how many full practitioners could share a physical space and provided the director of the department of Public Health with more authority for accessing criminal histories of massage permit applications. When i was going through my research and looking at all of the prior legislation thats affected massage establishments and the Background Information for the last piece of legislation, it was noted that one purpose of article 29 is to ensure that massage establishments do not become elements of the sex trade and engage in other human rights violations. And the amendments that were made would close enforcement loopholes and discourage that conduct that puts worker and client safety at risk, which as well see, arguably this has been very successful in that regard. So currently massage is regulated through the department of Public Health and its regulated through the planning department, through the health and planning codes. Briefly, as briefly as i can do this, before a permit to operate a general massage establishment or a sole practitioner massage establishment is issued, the applicant must satisfy two major requirements. The first being an 18 to 19page application and for general massage establishments and an 892 application fee. For sole practitioner massage establishments, that fee is 5 635. [ please stand by ] for general massage establishment listed as 1,389, per year, which is modified depending on what month the individuals applying for the annual license fee and for soul practitioner massage establishments it is