Good afternoon, everyone.

This meeting will come to order.

Welcome to the June 29, 2026 regular meeting of the Land Use and Transportation Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

I am Supervisor Mirna Melgar, Chair of the Committee, joined by Supervisor Bilal Mahmud.

And today we have Supervisor Stephen Cheryl, who is very kindly filling in for Supervisor Tent.

The committee clerk today is John Carroll.

And I would also like to acknowledge uh Jeanette Engelauf at SFGup TV for staffing us during this meeting.

Mr.

Clerk, do you have any announcements?

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

Please ensure that you've silenced your cell phones and other electronic devices you've brought with you into the chamber today.

If you have any documents to be included as part of any of today's files, you can submit them directly to me.

Public comment will be taken on each of each item on today's agenda.

When your item of interest comes up and public comment is called, please sign up to speak along your right hand side of this room.

Alternatively, you may submit public comment in writing in either of the following ways.

You may email your comments to me at J-O-H-N period C-A-R-R-O-L-L at SFGOV.org.

Or you may send your written comments to the clerk's office by the via the U.S.

Postal Service.

And the address is City Hall 1, Dr.

Carlton B.

Goodlit Place Room 244, San Francisco, California, 94102.

If you submit public comment in writing, I will forward your comments to the members of this committee and also include your comments as part of the official file on which you are commenting.

Items acted upon today are expected to appear on the Board of Supervisors Agenda of July 7th, 2026, unless otherwise stated.

Thank you so much, Mr.

Clerk.

Let's get this out of the way.

First, I would like to make a motion to excuse Vice Chair Cheyenne Chan from today's meeting.

Please call the roll on that motion.

On a motion offered by the chair that Supervisor Chen be excused from today's meeting, Member Cheryl.

Cheryl I, Member Machwood.

Machmood I, Chair Melgar.

Thank you.

That motion passes.

Mr.

Clerk, please call item number one.

Agenda item number one is a resolution adding the commemorative street name Art Agnes Way to the 500 and 600 blocks of Connecticut Street in recognition of former Mayor Art Agnes for his decades of dedicated public service and commitment to the people of San Francisco.

This item is on our agenda as a potential committee report, and it may be sent from today's agenda for consideration tomorrow on the committee report agenda.

That's the June 30th, 2026 meeting.

Great.

So we welcome uh District Count Supervisor Shimon Walton.

Thank you, Supervisor Walton, for being here with us today, and thank you for introducing this item.

The floor is yours.

Thank you so much, Chair Mergar, and thank you to the entire committee.

I'm proud to support this commemorative street naming in honor of Mayor Art Agnos and his lasting contributions to San Francisco.

Mayor Agnos led our city during a pivotal period and demonstrated a deep commitment to public service, equity, and expanding opportunity for residents.

His leadership helps shape many of the policies and institutions that continue to benefit San Franciscans today.

Commemorative street names provide us with an opportunity to recognize those whose public service has left a lasting impact on our city and our history.

This designation ensures that future generations will remember Mayor Agnos and his contributions and the values he championed.

And I just want to remind everyone that he led our city during the earthquake and uh got us out of that, and he was major in making sure that everything that was really disintegrated during that time period was able to be able to come back and thrive.

He also was major in if we go back to the children's fund that uh funds the Department of Children, Youth and Families.

He was also key in making sure that that happens.

And so uh I just want to honor him obviously as a constituent, obviously for the work that he's done for this city.

And this is the perfect place and space as he lives on this street and community is very supportive of making this happen.

So thank you so much for having me here and thank you for providing that opportunity for Mayor Agnos.

Thank you so much.

Uh, Supervisor Walton.

Uh, please add me as a co-sponsor.

Um, and let's go to public comment on this item, please.

Thank you, madam chair.

Land use and transportation.

We'll now hear public comment related to agenda item number one, a commemorative street name for Art Agnes.

If you have public comment for this item, please come forward to the lectern at this time.

And Madam Chair, it appears we have no speakers.

Okay, public comment on this item is now closed.

I'd like to make a motion that we send this item forward to the full board with a positive recommendation as a committee report.

On the motion offered by the chair that this resolution be recommended as a committee report.

Cheryl I.

Member Machmood.

Machmood I, Chair Melgar.

Aye.

Melgar I.

Madam Chair, there are three ayes.

That motion passes.

Congratulations, Supervisor Walter.

Thank you so much.

Let's go to item number two, please.

Agenda item number two is an ordinance amending the planning code to principally permit the relocation of bar uses with alcoholic beverage control licenses as of May 19th, 2003, within the Third Street Alcohol Restricted Use District and the Bayview Neighborhood Commercial District to allow establishments with alcohol beverage control licenses as of May 19th, 2003 to re-establish the use under the existing license within the RUD and NCD, affirming the planning department's secret determination and making other findings.

Okay.

Supervisor Walton, would you like to make any opening remarks?

Definitely.

So first of all, I just want to say that this legislation provides much needed flexibility for businesses while maintaining the city's commitment to responsible land use planning and public safety.

Many small businesses face circumstances beyond their control, including redevelopment projects, disasters, lease terminations, or other economic challenges that force relocation.

Allowing eligible liquor establishments to relocate or re-establish their businesses helps preserve jobs, maintain neighborhood-serving businesses, and support economic recovery.

At the same time, this legislation continues to require appropriate review and compliance with planning code requirements so that community concerns remain a part of the process.

As we work to revitalize commercial corridors throughout San Francisco, we should support policies that help businesses remain viable while balancing neighborhood impacts.

I appreciate the work of the planning department and stakeholders in developing this proposal and look forward to continuing to support policies that strengthen our neighborhood commercial districts.

I respectfully ask for a positive recommendation from this committee.

And thank you, Chair Mayor Gauar.

Thank you so much, Supervisor.

Uh we have Veronica Flores here from the Planning Department.

Good afternoon, Supervisors.

Veronica Flores, Planning Department staff.

The Planning Commission heard this item on June 18th, and during the hearing, they adopted a recommendation of approval with modifications.

That modification was to conditionally permit all bars within both the third street RUD and the Bayview NCD instead of the narrow criterion.

Part of the discussion included support for a more comprehensive look at the Third Street RUD.

This concludes the commission report, and I'm available for questions along with Mr.

Ben Van Hopton from the Office of Economic and Workforce Development.

Thank you.

Do we have any questions from Mr.

Van Haten on the amendments?

No.

Okay.

Yes.

Okay.

Okay.

No questions to uh Chair Milgar.

I just want to say I do accept planning's recommendations.

Okay, great.

Thank you so much.

Let's go to public comment on this item then.

Thank you, Madam Chair, land use and transportation.

We'll now hear public comment related to agenda item number two, relocation and reestablishment of liquor establishments.

If you have public comment for this item, please come forward to the lectern at this time.

Madam Chair, it appears to have no speakers for this agenda item.

Okay, public comment on this item is now closed.

Um, well, I will um make a motion then that we send this item out of committee to the full board with a positive recommendation.

On the motion offered by the chair that this ordinance be recommended to the Board of Supervisors, uh member Cheryl.

Cheryl I, Member Machmoud.

Hi.

Makmoud I, Chair Melgar.

Aye.

Melgar, I.

Madam Chair, there are three ayes.

Okay, thank you.

That motion passes.

Congratulations, supervisor.

Okay, let's go to item number three, please.

Agenda item number three is an ordinance amending the planning code to exempt post-secondary educational institutions located in a C3 district or the art and design educational district.

I'm saying art and design educational special use district from the requirements of institutional master plans, require post-secondary educational institutions located elsewhere to file institutional master plans with a development application.

Require updates to such plans only when the institution will increase by 10,000 square feet or by 25% of its total square footage, whichever is less.

Exclude student housing from the definition of post-secondary educational institution, and remove the three-month hold on hearing conditional use applications after an institutional master plan has been accepted.

The ordinance affirms the planning department's secret determination and makes findings of consistency with the general plan in the eight party policies of planning code section 101.1 as well as planning code section 302.

Thank you so much.

Um welcome, Ms.

Sam.

Uh and I see that we have amendments before us.

Uh, and there's a two specific things that uh supervisor Chen and I had asked for, and you incorporated them.

So I appreciate that very much.

Um did you want to talk through this?

Yes, I'll just give a quick uh some quick remarks.

Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate you continuing this item to today's meeting and giving some uh further policy direction on what you'd like to see from this legislation.

So the amendment before you today would maintain the core intent of the legislation, but respond to the concerns about a permanent exemption for downtown.

So this amendment will sunset the exemption for the IMP requirement for universities locating in downtown on December 31st, 2032.

This aligns with the opt-in date for the downtown revitalization financing district, and after this date, the existing requirements would kick back in.

This amendment is non-substantive, so Supervisor Dorsey respectfully asked that you adopt this amendment and send this item to the full board with a positive recommendation.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Uh Ms.

Stam, I'm taking that these amendments are not substantive.

Yes, they are not substantive.

Okay, thank you so much.

Um, do we have any questions or comments?

Okay, thank you so much.

Um, let's go to public comment on this item, please.

Thank you, madam chair, land use and transportation.

We'll now hear public comment related to agenda item number three, updating requirements for institutional master plans.

If you have public comment for this item, please line up to speak along that western wall I'm pointing out right now.

Line up to speak along the wall.

Line up along the wall.

And then the first speaker can come forward to the lectern.

I'll start your time.

Please come forward.

Go ahead.

The first speaker, please.

Hi, my name is Randy Nakamura.

I'm the president of the union at the California College of the Arts that represents adjuncts and um staff.

Um so um so so my public comment is mainly um basically regarding the effects of this ordinance on the CCA community who live and work in the art and design educational special use district.

Um this ordinance would facilitate the structure of the CCA community, provides very little public accountability for how Vanderbilt uses the campus in the future.

Um institutional master plans enables a system of public accountability, feedback, and oversight um that guides how institutions develop land over a long period of time.

Vanderbilt should not have carte blanche develop CCA's campus any way they want.

Um just as an example, they promised um basically this month to give an update to the CCA community on how they basically were planning on using um essentially the campus and how they would honor the basic CCA's legacy.

This is now the 29th June is almost over, and we we've heard almost nothing from them.

Um, so to kind of so to emphasize, um, I oppose this this ordinance.

Um, and if the ordinance does does go to the full full board, I highly recommend that there are amendments with a clear sunset date and a forcible labor and community accountability language.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

So the next speaker, please.

Um, good afternoon, um, supervisors.

My name is Piper Aldridge.

I'm a resident of District 9.

I'm on staff at CCA and I'm the vice president of the union for adjunct faculty and staff.

I'm here today to urge the supervisors to require institutional master plans, including for Vanderbilt University, as they work to displace over a thousand students and lay off about 500 workers.

Vanderbilt's values are not San Francisco values.

In addition to their anti-worker stance, Vanderbilt recently announced an end to gender affirming care at their medical center.

On the heels of Pride Weekend, I demand that we ask for more.

Institutional master plans represent a modicum of accountability from large organizations to the communities they are a part of.

An exception must not be made for Vanderbilt.

Not only must Vanderbilt make good on their promise to provide art and design education, they should do this by committing to hire the workers who provide that education and recognizing our unions.

Thank you for comments.

Good afternoon.

There has been no other opportunity to add public comment on the change of use for this property and no message of mitigation for the closing of the California College of the Arts and 120-year-old institution.

I have counted 700 plus employees and displacement for over a thousand students.

This is happening in Matt Dorsey's district with both he and Mayor Lori's complete disdain for even addressing the loss to all art and culture of San Francisco.

This closing is devastating to the art and culture community, not just of San Francisco but of Northern California in general.

We are also objecting to the ban for gender-affirming care and all its facilities that Vanderbilt has announced.

It is hostile to the LGBT community in general.

What would help this situation?

Slow down, allow for public comment, vote no, vote no on item 3 260239.

This transition does not have to be so brutal as it is now.

It is brutal.

It is devastating to our city and and this district in particular.

We are tired of the wealthy Epstein class controlling the destiny of our citizens of the city.

We are demanding respect and the making whole of employees at the college.

We are also asking that Vanderbilt be asked to hire, rehire many of our staff who run those properties.

They bought the buildings, but not the people.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

So the next speaker, please.

Good afternoon.

I'm Owen Smith.

I'm the president of the CCA ranked faculty union.

For 120 years, CCA has provided the Bay Area with the world-class art and design education, offering degrees in fine art, animation, architecture, fashion, illustration, industrial design, and other creative majors.

When Vanderbilt announced plans to acquire CCA's campus, it it's it was said to honor CCA's legacy.

This so-called honoring so far has meant nothing more than a vague plans to support art exhibitions and presentations and maintain CCA's archives.

This is an attempt to put a positive spin on Grim reality.

Coming on the heels of the closing of the San Francisco Art Institute, the downsizing, the Academy of Art and closing of three galleries in Minnesota Street, CCA is the latest casualty of San Francisco's decline as a center for art design and culture.

Exempting Vanderbilt from institutional master plan requires requirements, enables Vanderbilt to perpetuate the false narrative by uh shielding its plans from public view.

Contrary to Mayor Lurie's claims, the deal is not a sign that San Francisco is on the rise.

The inconvenient truth is that 500 San Francisco workers will lose their jobs as a result of CCA's closing.

Vanderbilt is not an art and design school.

It is a private research university whose entry into the neighborhood is a radical departure from plans for the area to serve art and design.

Vote no.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Um, hi everybody.

Uh, my name is Ed Wong.

I'm a field representative with the California Federation of Teachers.

And I also represent the faculty at California College of the Arts.

Given Vanderbilt does not share San Francisco's values.

Vanderbilt opposed efforts by both graduate student workers and faculty to unionize.

They also took a hard line and suspended and expelled students who protested against the Israel Hamas war.

In March Vanderbilt ceased providing gender affirming surgeries for adults Vanderbilt has not earned the right to enter our community without disclosing its plans through an institutional master plan.

Given Vanderbilt's record our community deserves to know more about Vanderbilt's plans for its academic programs, students, faculty and staff, this should include a detailed description of the academic programs it will offer in San Francisco and how those programs will continue art and design education in our community and support the character of the neighborhood as an art and design district.

This should also include a commitment from Vanderbilt to hiring CCA faculty and staff recognizing their unions and supporting better severance pay and benefits for laid off CCA workers we urge you to vote no on the proposed amendment.

Thank you for your comments so the next speaker please hello my name is Linda Groce and I'm a professor in fashion design and critical studies at California College of the Arts where I've taught for 27 years and I'm a member of the ranked faculty union.

I've lived in the Bay Area for 38 years longer than anywhere else I've lived including my home country my husband was born in San Francisco.

My daughter was born in San Francisco.

The Bay Area is our home we want to know why special treatment for Vanderbilt is even being considered at all and specifically why is it good for our community we are tired of large moneyed organizations getting special treatment.

An institutional master plan simply puts Vanderbilt's thoughts and intentions on the record so that stated benefits and actual outcomes can be tracked and the institution can be held accountable.

An institutional master plan is the law and it's a basic expectation of any college and institution.

It's a low bar to meet it's reasonable and it's affordable.

More importantly requiring an institutional master plan from Vanderbilt is the least that you as government officials can do to represent San Francisco residents as your constituents we ask that you vote no on Article 260239 agenda item number three and require Vanderbilt to submit their institutional master plan per the law.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Thank you for your comments next speaker please.

Hello my name is Justin Hall and I'm a full professor of comics at California College of the Arts.

I just wanted to um add my voice to this to say uh we asked for transparency from Vanderbilt because of the loss of over 500 jobs.

We have no idea what uh if any of us will be hired by the new institution or not and we deserve this sort of transparency which is you know normally under the law.

We also don't know how many students Vanderbilt will be bringing in we have no idea about their programs so um uh we've uh had this wonderful wave of of young and emerging artists come to the Bay Area to the San Francisco um and contribute to the artistic scene here so we would like to know if that's still going to be possible and uh what the um uh how devastating this could be for our community thank you very much for your time thank you for your comments next speaker please good afternoon my name is Astra English and I am a student representative from California College of the Arts since me fellow students and staff and faculty found out that our school was coming to an end we have been largely in the dark about specifics with Vanderbilt's plan for their expansion and what their programs will include if students will be able to continue in programming or not.

And we deserve to know, as everyone has said, what this expansion will look like and have a lot more transparency about the specifics of their programs, their expansion, and what the new buildings and everything will look like.

I support my staff and faculty in their demand for Vanderbilt to hire CCA staff and faculty, recognize their unions, and support better severance pay and benefits for laid off workers.

So I urge you to require Vanderbilt to make a clear institutional master plan.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon.

My name is Christina LaSala.

I am faculty at CCA, the founder of the individualized program.

The unique creative culture of San Francisco is being destroyed by actions like this, by the actions of Vanderbilt.

I'm here to plead for a preservation of not only arts education, but the creative ecosystem that makes up the city of San Francisco.

Please vote no on this on this measure and require Vanderbilt to file a master plan in accordance with the law.

We need more transparency, and we need to support.

We need the support from our city to support our our people.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hello, my name is John Allman, and I'm a member of Indivisible SF, LGBTQ workgroup, as well as H the Access Network, part of the San Francisco AIDS Foundation.

I just started on this about an hour ago, so I usually prepare comments, but I'm just gonna sort of wing it for today.

More and more of the federal government's policies and and rejections against trans people are leaking out all over the country.

San Francisco has been known to support trans rights, trans healthcare, and it should not be influenced by something that's coming from Vanderbilt.

Um yes, Vanderbilt has a has a campus in West Palm Beach, Florida, uh home of Mar-Lago, and so I'm guessing that that has something to do with them being so adamant about cutting gender funding surgeries.

Uh, but I ask you to vote no on number three and um ask that we keep San Francisco the city on the hill that's gonna ref that's gonna support LGBTQ rights.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for your comments.

So the next speaker, please.

Hello, my name is Graham Plum.

I'm a professor of UX design at CCA.

I've taught there for 10 years, and by my reckoning, I must have taught about 800 uh students that have now graduated.

Um I want to say that one of the hardest things to, well, one of the saddest things about this uh story is that there is no way of auditing what is being lost as CCA's closing.

Um I know that many of my own students have gone on to work in the community, they have created companies, uh, they are leaders in companies, um, they are solving uh wicked and complex design problems.

Uh and I really want the uh tradition of art design to continue in San Francisco.

Um, CCA has attracted some of the best design talent internationally uh and nationally for many, many years.

When CCA closes, that will stop.

That will stop happening because Vanderbilt is not an art and design school.

Okay, that feeder of all of that talent will not come to San Francisco again.

How do I know this?

Because Vanderbilt is not accredited with the art design programs that take at least seven years before it can actually run uh those programs.

So, in the absence of that audit that is telling us what is about to be lost, I ask that you at least ask for a master plan so that we know that there will be something in it in to replace that, because that's gonna be a huge loss to business and the creative community.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hello, my name is Carol Batker, and thank you for allowing us to speak today.

I am a full professor at the University of San Francisco, and I was the vice provost for branch campuses and online education there, and I've also served in that capacity at uh Empire State College in the SUNY system, and also at Southern New Hampshire University.

So I know a lot about branch campuses.

I'm speaking on my own behalf today, and I'd urge you to vote no on this proposal.

Uh, I'd just like you to know that when a branch campus is opened, it can be very different from the original campus.

It's usually minimally staffed.

The services provided usually do not compare favorably with the home institution.

And there's a possibility for the institution to take to do uses that are not educational.

So in other words, to rent the space to non-educational places.

So this is why we really need to see the master plan, because both in terms of the employment, which is a huge loss, a huge impact on our community in terms of the services.

They don't offer Vanderbilt doesn't offer a BFA or an uh MFA in the arts.

They don't have professional arts programming, as the last speaker just said.

And also I just want to mention affirmative action.

So there's a lot of legislation that's uh affected higher ed in Tennessee that's been very anti-DEI, and I think we deserve to have that transparency.

Thank you.

Thank you for comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, my name is Rosemary McDermott, and um I'm a student at CCA.

And as you can see from my appearance, I'm old.

And CCA is old too, 119 years in this community.

I am um a retired nurse at the San Francisco VA, and I am a veteran of the Army Nurse Corps for eight years.

I have served my country and I have served my community.

I um became very ill three years ago.

I have a rare type of cancer that I underwent chemotherapy for.

And when I came to CCA, I was actively dying.

I went into remission there the end of the first semester.

Um, I wanted to go to art school because uh I am an artist.

I've been drawing in my kitchen for decades, and I wanted people to see my art.

And I found community and confirmation at CCA.

CCA is more than just a school, it is a community sitting on an honored land.

That community existed in ancient times.

I'm asking you to honor these people's uh dreams, to honor my dreams, and to honor the dreams of the students who are still trying to finish their programs, then allow us to remain there and um and graduate in 2027 as planned, and to encourage Vanderbilt uh university to um to the file a master plan so everybody is understandable on can understand what's happening.

I wrote uh, you know, when I was thinking about coming here that Vanderbilt is your hope, the city of San Francisco, but we also are your community.

For me, CCA is a community, a nation of artists gathered on an honored land.

Please let us finish our dreams concluded.

To say goodbye.

Thank you for sharing your comments.

We have to move on to the next speaker.

Can I to our dreams?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Thank you.

I'm Tom Barbash, and I've been with the CCA.

I'm a novelist and story writer, and have been teaching in the creative writing program for 20 years.

And I think it's important for you to know just how startled our community was with the first press releases when it was uh it was a great deal for San Francisco, but there was almost no mention of the faculty and the students.

And we're I have to tell you that I've been a part of the writing community for longer than that.

I came out to Stanford again as a grad student, and CCA has been such an integral part of what makes us special, what makes us better than New York.

Someone once said in in New York, everybody in San Francisco, everybody, in New York, everybody reads each other's reviews in San Francisco, everybody reads each other's books, and that's sort of the spirit of CCA.

Um, our students are now publishing like mad.

We've had 10 students with books out in prose.

We had a stood on the cover of the Times Book Review, but it's more than that.

We're part of Litquake, which is uh a literary festival, it's one of the biggest in the country.

We've hosted Litquake events.

You know, we we've had tons of students in it.

Our students become ambassadors.

We had one of the best, I ran one of the best uh reading series in the country that's continued under other people's supervision, where we've been bringing Pulitzer Prize winners, National Book Award winners, and they go out and sing the praises of the city they've visited.

A lot of people, the reason why a lot of people think San Francisco is a great bookstown, and it is a huge amount of that is CCA.

And I cannot tell you the outpouring, you know, of of people from all over the country and the world actually who've heard about this and are sad about about what's happened to the program.

And lastly, I would just like to say everything's been fast.

What we're asking for is a thoughtful process.

We have not felt like our voice has been heard.

I mean, I'm glad we have this opportunity, but we look forward to having more opportunities where we talk about who we are and and you know what we can contribute and and and what's lost when our doors are closed.

Thank you.

Thank you for comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hello, my name is Tobias Nodsmith, and I just graduated CCA this past semester.

And just what everyone has been saying here is exactly what's been happening.

We've been in the dark since the moment we heard Vanderbilt was buying our campus, which was right after the semester started.

So we've spent this final semester, my senior semester, just being so worried about what's gonna happen to our community and so scared for our teachers and our staff and everyone whose jobs just have gone all of a sudden.

So I'm just asking, please vote no, look into your heart and see that this community is worth way more than what Vanderbilt hasn't been giving us.

Uh thank you so much.

Thank you for comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon.

Uh Chair Mel Melgarn, members of the committee.

Uh, my name is Chema Hernandez Gill.

I'm political organizer with SEIU Local 1021.

And I'm here um on behalf of our union to amplify a lot of what you just heard.

Our members at CCA were shocked when they initially discovered about what was happening to their uh employer, to their institution.

Um, and uh there were they were also surprised to hear that this was moving forward, right?

So I I we would really appreciate more time to be able to uh engage with Vanderbilt to engage with the city on this process.

Um and I say that not just as an organizer for SEAU Local 1021.

I I am a former Nashville and uh my father studied at Vanderbilt.

I I am well acquainted uh firsthand with the experiences and practices and culture at Bandy, and I I think they would do well to have a bit more time to fully engage with the San Francisco community to understand how we do things in the city, and um more time is what we're asking.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Um can you hear me?

Yes, I'm on vocal rest, so but it was important that I wanted to say.

Um my name is Tea One Constantinidis, and I'm a resident of the mission district and a graduate of CCA.

And I've seen the wealth of inequality plague our so-called tech rich city.

And um, I've also seen a lot of people suffer, namely people of color, trans people, and all their marginalized people.

And I really urge you to not take the arts away from us too.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hello there, my name's Mara Holtzcove.

I recognize my supervisor Cheryl, hello.

Um, I am an associate professor at CCA, and I have been there for uh about 20 years.

Um I just want to put in a comment that um, you know, Vanderbilt is not, or at least they haven't shown us how they're replacing the value of a CCA education and its commitment to the values that San Francisco holds dear.

Um I want uh us to recognize the loss of the institution that has grounded the entire Bay Area since uh the 1907 earthquake or shortly thereafter.

Um, we need Vanderbilt to show us our whole community, our city, um, how they will fit within and support and uplift our community in the same way that CCA has endeavored to do through our teaching, through our support of our faculty administration and students, generations and generations of students.

Um, and uh please vote no so that we have more time for us to realize us, the Bay Area, um, San Francisco in particular, us to realize what Vanderbilt is bringing, and Vanderbilt to realize what they are getting into.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments.

Do we have anyone else who has public comment for agenda item number three from whom we have not already heard?

Okay, public comment on this item is now closed.

Um Ms.

Tam.

Um thank you for uh the presentation.

I want to start uh some remarks uh by saying that I do acknowledge uh the work that you put into this and that your uh office has engaged with multiple stakeholders and um myself and my colleague supervisor Chan to address some of the issues that we saw as overly broad in the legislation, and you have work to make it narrow in its scope uh and meet your goals.

So I do want to acknowledge that.

Um it seems that um there's still some work uh that needs to be done.

I um will say first starters because several, well, thank you to the community for coming and engaging with us uh and for uh giving us your perspective on this issue.

Um, uh, you know, the California College of Arts has been so important to San Francisco.

The California College of Arts and Crafts was so important to the Bay Area, to the arts culture of all of California and really our country.

Uh it has produced so much wonder and magic.

Um, and you know, uh the state was involved in trying to uh uphold the institution and support it, uh, until pretty recently.

So I do think that there is a conversation to be had uh going forward as um a former planning commissioner.

Um the uh institutional master plan is a tool that we use for all kinds of things to um match development uh of an institution, uh, educational institution or a hospital or healthcare institution to their growth.

Uh, that if they're gonna grow, are they adding enough housing for you know their faculty if they're gonna grow?

Is there adequate transportation to get people there?

It is a zoning and planning document, not necessarily an operational document that will tell you how many teachers, what kinds of teachers, what kind of program offering.

So it's a little bit of a mismatch in what is um being presented as the lack of transparency and information.

That being said, I do agree that there needs to be some uh discussion, and I will do what I can to encourage our mayor to also engage with the community because I think it's important to have uh some understanding of what we're doing as a city with an organization that is as um important as this institution has been and involving so many jobs.

But I also uh wanted to tell you that I I won't be voting no.

Um I am willing to give it more time because I do think conversations should happen, um, and I think that we could perhaps uh figure out a path forward.

Um, but I also acknowledge that it is important for the city to fill spaces to attract new employers to you know make progress forward when we have lost something because otherwise we just will not be able to move.

Um, so uh with that, um I don't know if my colleagues have uh questions or concerns uh before we make a motion.

I don't think we're yeah, go ahead and make a motion to amend.

I'll make a first make a motion to amend uh the legislation as read into the record by uh Supervisor Dorsey's office, and then a motion to continue the item afterward to the call of the chair.

Two motions, both offered by Member Makhmood.

The first to amend the ordinance as presented and requested by Supervisor Dorsey's office, and the second to continue the ordinance as amended to the call of the chair.

On those motions, Member Cheryl.

Cheryl, I.

Member Machmood I.

Makhmood I.

Chair Melgar.

Aye.

Melgar I.

Madam Chair, there are three ayes on those two motions.

Okay.

That motion passes.

Just to be clear, what we did, we made the amendments as requested by the supervisor, and then we um continued it to the call of the chair, which will give the supervisor and uh folks time to engage in a conversation and to get whatever is needed in terms of a process or transparency before this can come back to us for a vote.

Okay, thank you so much.

All right, let's go uh to our next item, please.

Uh, Mr.

Clerk.

Agenda item number four is an ordinance waiving the street encroachment permit fee and annual public right-of-way occupancy fee for a project sponsored to install and maintain a waste bin enclosure on the sidewalk adjacent to the Harry Street steps at the intersection of Ladley and Harry Streets in the upper Noy and Diamond Heights neighborhood.

It also affirms the planning department's secret determination.

Um, okay, we have uh Renil Bajoy here.

Is it you?

I thought Supervisor Mandelman was going to join us, but he's a question.

Uh he'll be here for cannabis cafes.

I'll be speaking on this item as well as the next one.

Okay, sounds good.

Thank you so much.

Welcome.

Well, thank you.

Uh good afternoon, Chair Melgar, Supervisor Mahmoud, Supervisor Cheryl, uh Renil from President Mattelman's office here.

Uh the item before you is an ordinance to waive the sidewalk encroachment permit fee and the annual right-of-way occupancy fee for the installation of a wastebin enclosure next to the Harry Street steps, which connect Upper Noe and Diamond Heights in District 8.

For years, both the residents of the Harry Street steps as well as Recology workers have had to carry trash containers up and down more than 100 steps on collection days, often as early as five in the morning.

This arrangement we think very clearly creates safety, accessibility, and operational challenges for residents as well as sanitation workers.

In collaboration with residents and recology, DPW has identified a fix, which is uh installing a waste spin enclosure uh structure on the Ladley Street sidewalk that can accommodate two way spins, which would spare residents and recology workers the climb up and down the steps for waste collection.

Installing that structure requires an encroachment permit, and this ordinance would waive the associated permit fee of just under $2,000 and the annual occupancy fee of $250.

As these enclosures will improve safety and convenience for both the residents and sanitation workers, we believe these fee waivers to be in the public interest.

So with that, I respectfully ask for your support and we'll stand by for any questions.

Good job in problem solving.

This is great.

Thank you so much.

Um I don't have any questions or comments.

I don't see anyone on the roster.

Let's go to public comment on this item.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Land use and transportation will now hear public comment related to agenda item number four, encroachment permit and occupancy fee waivers, Harry Street steps, waste bin and closure.

If you have public comment for this item, please come forward to the lectern.

Madam Chair, it appears we have no speakers.

Okay.

Public comment is now closed.

Um I would like to uh make a motion that we uh adopt the amendments as presented by uh I'm sorry, go ahead.

Come on in.

Oh, I'm sorry, I'm reading the wrong.

Those amendments I just circulated for the next item.

Got it, got it.

Okay, so uh just a motion to pass this out of committee with a to the full board with a positive recommendation.

Uh motion has been offered by the chair that this ordinance be recommended to the board of supervisors on that motion, member Cheryl.

Cheryl I, Member Machmood, Machmood I, Chair Melgar.

Aye.

Malgar I.

Madam Chair, there are three ayes.

Okay, that motion passes.

Thank you.

Let's go to item number five now.

Yes.

Agenda item number five is an ordinance amending the planning code to increase the number of guest rooms for hotel uses permitted as a conditional use in RH2, residential house two-family, and RH3, residential house, three family districts, from five or fewer rooms to eight or fewer rooms.

The ordinance also affirms the planning department's secret determination and makes makes findings of consistency with the general plan and the eight priority policies of planning code section 101.1, as well as findings of public necessity, convenience, and welfare pursuant to planning code section 302.

Okay, welcome again, Mr.

Bajoy.

Hello again.

This is an ordinance to modestly expand the number of guest rooms for hotel uses conditionally permitted in residential zoning districts.

Under existing law, hotels in most residential districts are conditionally permitted five or fewer guest rooms.

This ordinance raises that ceiling uh to eight rooms, and as amended, it would be 10 rooms.

The conditional use requirement stays in place, so the planning commission would still thoroughly review each application on its merits.

The immediate context for this legislation is a bed and breakfast in district eight operating in Noe Valley, uh Noe's Nest, which you may or may not be familiar with.

Uh it's been running eight guest rooms for several years now with very strong neighborhood support.

This ordinance creates the pathway for Noe's nest to bring their operation into compliance with the planning code.

More broadly, on from a citywide perspective, hotels and residential districts are small scale, so think bed and breakfasts, and they also tend to occupy converted historic buildings.

Allowing a modestly greater number of guest rooms can make these properties more economically viable to maintain, which would serve both small business owners as well as the city's historic preservation goals.

The planning commission heard this item in May and recommended approval with the following modifications, which we have adopted and I've circulated uh by email as well as uh just now physically the redlined versions as well as a summary attached.

Um to summarize, they would apply the ordinance to all residential districts with a five room conditional use cap for hotel uses uh currently, increase the maximum number of rooms permitted from eight rooms to ten rooms, and specify that when a hotel use is established in a single family home, the planning commission will consider the effects on the existing home's quality and viability as an independent dwelling unit to make sure there's no loss of housing that comes with the establishment of a hotel use.

These amendments appear on pages one, two, three, four, and five.

Uh, and as I mentioned, have been circulated with you all.

Um thank you to Hugh Kathy Shin from the city attorney's office and Joseph Sachi from the planning department for their assistance with this legislation.

Um, I will now turn it over to Joe to present on this ordinance.

But before that, I respectfully ask for your support on this legislation and the adoption of the circulated amendments.

Um, and I will note that uh the amendments are substantive.

Um, so they would require um that they would reappear at the next uh land use and transportation meeting.

Thank you.

Welcome.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

Joseph Sacky, Planning Department staff.

Uh Reneal always already provided a thorough overview of the recommendations, but as stated, uh, the planning commission heard this item on May 21st and adopted a recommendation for approval with modification.

Uh if you have any questions about the either the logic or the implications for the modifications that were incorporated, uh please let me know.

And this concludes the commission report, and I'm available for any questions.

Okay, uh thank you so much.

I don't see anyone on the roster with questions or comments.

Um let's go to public comment on this item, please.

Thank you, madam chair, land use and transportation.

We'll now hear public comment related to agenda item number five, hotel uses in RH districts.

If you have public comment for this item, please come forward to the lecture.

And it appears to have no speakers, madam chair.

Okay, public comment on this item is now closed.

Um, we uh will I will make a recommendation that we uh adopt these amendments and uh continue this item to our next meeting on Monday, July 13th.

13th.

Yes, so we don't have a meeting next, but on the thirteenth.

That's the next available.

Two motions offered by the chair.

The first that the ordinance be amended as presented and requested by the president's office, and the second that the ordinance be continued as amended to the July 13th meeting of this committee on those motions.

Member Cheryl.

Cheryl I, Member Mockwood.

Machmudai, Chair Melgar.

Aye.

Melgar, I, Madam Chair.

There are three ayes.

Okay.

Uh the motion passes.

Okay, we are down to our last item, and I think President Mandelman wanted to be here.

For this item.

Ms.

Should we go ahead?

Yeah.

Okay.

Let's call the last item, please.

Agenda item number six is an ordinance amending the health planning police and business and tax regulations codes to establish a new permit type for cannabis cafes to be administered by the Office of Cannabis that will authorize the permittee to sell cannabis and cannabis products only for consumption on the premises of the cafe.

Exempt cannabis cafes from the prohibition on smoking in business establishments, establish the prohibition on establishments with a cannabis consumption permit requiring employees to enter a designated smoking room as a condition of employment.

Exempt cannabis cafes in certain circumstances from the 600-foot buffer rule that applies to cannabis retail establishments.

Restrict eligibility for cannabis cafe permits for one year to businesses that currently hold a cannabis storefront retailer permit or that have the same owners as such a business.

Require equity applicants that apply for a cannabis cafe permit to pay the $2,000 application fee, any permit amendment processing costs, and a $3,000 license fee for the first year of operation associated with the cannabis cafe permit.

The ordinance also affirms the planning department's secret determination and makes other findings.

Okay, thank you so much.

We are joined just in time by President Mandelman, the sponsor of this legislation.

The floor is yours.

Uh thank you, Chair Melgar.

Um thank you, Supervisor Cheryl, for distributing my amendments.

Um the item before you is an ordinance that would allow cannabis businesses to prepare and serve food and non-alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption.

It allows cannabis cafes in the city and county of San Francisco.

And I believe that is common sense.

Cannabis cafes can uh and should be part of San Francisco's post-pandemic recovery story, which was a big part of assembly member Haney's interest in allowing them in the first place.

Along with entertainment zones, night markets, and other neighborhood activations, for like free or outdoor conference concerts, cannabis cafes can be part of San Francisco's revival.

Um, the uh legislation was a long time in coming.

We worked on it for uh I think at least a year.

Um, in late April, um the ordinance was heard by the Small Business Commission where it received a 5-1 vote of support, and in late May, it received unanimous support from the planning commission.

Now, since the ordinance was introduced, we have uh worked with the Department of Public Health, the Planning Department, and the Office of Cannabis on a series of clarifying non-substantive amendments.

Um, thanks to uh my colleague, Supervisor Cheryl.

You now have uh copies of the ordinance with the proposed amendment.

They've also been circulated to your offices, along with a line-by-line description of each amendment.

But uh, the generally the amendments do the following things.

One there is currently a rule that says that no two cannabis storefronts can be within 600 feet of another.

Um, our ordinance as introduced created an exception if an existing retailer wanted to open a single uh cannabis cafe location within 600 feet of its existing retail establishment, which is the way we think this will probably work, at least in some cases.

The amendment actually narrows that exception to prevent a retailer from opening a cannabis cafe if it's also within 600 feet of another uh existing retailer.

We think the original language with this amendment adds gives the flexibility that the vast majority of operators need, while also preserving sensible spacing standards.

The second amendment clarifies uh in the planning code that the 600 foot exception is permissible after an application has been referred by the Office of Cannabis to the planning department.

There is a history of litigation where cannabis retail applicants who've gone through the entire planning process uh get denied by the 600 foot rule.

The amendment clarifies that applicants will first be sent to the Office of Cannabis to confirm their eligibility for the exception before going through the planning approval.

The third amendment uh addresses um uh some uh what had been confusion about who can apply in the first year uh uh in the first year of the program.

The policy goal is not changed, but our amendment clarifies uh who can qualify to open a cannabis cafe within that first year.

And the final amendment was requested by the environmental health team, and it clarifies that cannabis cafes must comply with all applicable health code requirements as a condition of their office of cannabis permit.

Um we are joined to there he is.

We are joined today by Ben Van Houten from the Office of Economic and Workforce Development.

Um he has a brief presentation uh on the ordinance, but I do just want to um extend uh great thanks to uh Ben for um taking on the project of actually trying to figure out how cannabis cafes could happen in the real world, not just uh in law.

Um I there was you know versions of a local authorizing uh ordinance that you know could technically have allowed for cannabis cafes, but would not have seen them.

Um that may still be the case, but I think that uh uh Ben has um thought through a lot of the various sections in the various codes that um that need to be addressed.

We also have here representatives in the planning department, Department of Public Health's environmental health team, and the Office of Cannabis for any specific questions.

Uh I want to acknowledge and thank Assemblymember Matt Haney for um for uh passing the legislation and and championing uh this cause at the state level.

Um, and then locally, I want to give a lot of credit and thanks to Sarah Crowley and Heather Goodman in the city attorney's office.

This has been a challenging project, requiring a lot of meetings, multiple codes, um, a lot of creative thinking and lawyering, and they did it, and we're grateful for that.

Um, and then we have our uh friends in the office of cannabis who also were very patient with me as I needed to have some of the complexities of our cannabis regulation explained.

I know they've been very helpful to Sophie Marie, who's been working on this, so in particular um uh uh Nikash Patel, Ray Law, and uh Jeremy Schwartz all have been very helpful.

And then uh I want to thank the SF Cannabis Alliance, particularly uh Duncan Lye and Ben Blyman for speaking up for the cannabis retailers and helping uh add their perspective as well.

Uh in the planning department, Veronica Flores and Kurt Botten um were helpful.

Uh Ragda Kara Karaja and Jennifer Calwort from Department of Public Health all contributed.

So thanks everyone.

And lastly, but certainly not leastly, thanks to Sophie Marie in my office for um carrying this along over many months and getting it to this, getting it to this point.

Um so uh I ask that you accept the proposed amendments, which are non-substantive, and forward uh with the amendments to the full board for the board's consideration.

Um, and with that, I'd like to invite with the chair's permission, uh, Mr.

Van Houten.

Of course.

Welcome, Mr.

Van Hatton.

Thank you.

Thank you, uh uh, Chair Mulgar and committee members.

Um, Ben Van Houten from the Office of Economic and Workforce Development.

Um, appreciate President Manelman's optimism by calling my presentation brief, but I will hope to meet uh uh that expectation.

Uh thank you again to President Manelman and the uh many city staff that he acknowledged.

Uh, this has been a uh project for over a year involving at least a dozen city folks offering uh brain power to it.

Um but really the goal is through through amending all of these codes to expand opportunities for the cannabis industry to reimagine and create new social spaces for cannabis consumption in San Francisco, uh emerging out of the opportunity created by Assemblymember Haney's AUB 1775.

Um, San Francisco's legal cannabis industry has faced and continues to face significant challenges.

Uh lack of access to traditional banking uh is an incredible impediment.

Extensive state and local regulation and significant state taxation are a significant barrier.

I want to express appreciation for President Manelman's work to delay implementation of local cannabis taxation, assembly member Haney's work to delay the increase to the state excise tax.

And then compounding those challenges, there is a robust illicit market undercutting legal sales.

These are in addition to all of the other challenges that all small businesses and retail businesses are navigating, from escalating labor costs, impacts of inflation on consumer spending, all of which is to say that the cannabis industry has been extremely challenged.

Many interventions are needed to support the health of this industry, and one of them, we believe, is increasing access to social consumption spaces and empowering operators to make those spaces more inviting places that customers want to visit.

In 2024, the California legislature adopted AB 1775 from assemblymember Haney, which empowers local governments to allow cannabis retailers with consumption lounges to prepare and sell food and non-alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises and sell tickets to entertainment events.

AB 1775 also mandated new health and safety requirements in conjunction with these activities.

This is really a potential sea change moment in how we experience cannabis and cannabis consumption.

Historically, cannabis retailers have generally been confined to selling cannabis cannabis products and dispensary merchandise.

The implementation of this bill locally creates a number of new revenue streams and potential revenue streams for cannabis operators.

There are currently, I believe at our last count 11 cannabis consumption permits for retailers in San Francisco.

We believe that the ordinance moving forward today creates new opportunities for them as well as new opportunities for the broader industry.

Building on the existing local framework for cannabis consumption spaces, this ordinance would do three things.

It would enable food and beverage preparation and consumption at cannabis retailers, allow cannabis businesses to dedicate more of their space to consumption lounges, and create a new cannabis cafe permit through the Office of Cannabis.

In terms of food and beverage service, this ordinance would enable cannabis retailers with consumption lounges and new cannabis cafes to prepare and sell food and non-alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises.

It would remove the prohibition on cannabis operators requiring employees to enter into smoking rooms, and a requested amendment would make compliance with the health code a condition of a cannabis cafe permit from the Office of Cannabis.

Just to emphasize here, food and beverage service in a cannabis business would still require compliance with existing state and local health requirements, and it's our understanding from conversations with the Department of Public Health that there would be additional regulatory work that the public health department would engage in to implement these operations.

This ordinance would also expand consumption areas.

So under planning department guidance, the consumption of cannabis is considered an accessory use to the sale of cannabis.

This ordinance would amend the definition of cannabis retail to make consumption part of the principal use, enabling greater flexibility for operators seeking to design inviting spaces for socialization, dining, and entertainment.

Now, while it would increase flexibility in consumption areas, that there would still be layers of state and local requirements on the availability of space for consumption.

So under state law, the consumption of cannabis cannot be visible from the from places in the public.

Additionally, the existing rules around mitigating smoke transmission would prevent a smoking consumption area from occupying the entire storefront.

There would still have to be that strong air filtration system within the inside of the business and some separation from the front door.

At the same time, actually, just one more note is there are operators right now navigating the challenges of this limit to a third of the square footage.

So this providing this flexibility would have real world impacts immediately.

This ordinance would also create a new cannabis cafe permit through the Office of Cannabis.

So unlike existing cannabis retailers, a cannabis cafe would be permitted to sell cannabis and cannabis products for consumption on the premises only.

No cannabis or cannabis products could be taken off of the premises.

This is designed to empower operators to create new hospitality-oriented social experiences involving cannabis consumption without impacting the existing market for to go sales that cannabis retailers presently rely on.

So, in in practical terms, a number of retailers, you know, most retailers don't have on-site consumption, and that's surely for a variety of reasons.

But but one of those reasons is that they don't have enough space or the space is not uh well designed to have a consumption area.

Uh the new cannabis cafe permit would empower those existing retailers to open a second space focused uh exclusively on on-site consumption.

That being said, existing retailers would not be required to convert to this new permit type.

Uh retailers that have storefront permits can continue operating as they do right now.

Uh cannabis cafes would be subject to and would not change existing requirements for cannabis businesses.

These we're not proposing to change the zoning tables regulating cannabis uses and cannabis retail is uh frequently requires a conditional use authorization from the planning commission.

Uh no change to 600 foot buffer around schools for cannabis retail uses, uh state and local licensing requirements for cannabis retailers still apply, the existing public health rules regulating cannabis consumption still apply, and the state and local health code requirements for food-serving businesses all continue to apply.

The ordinance does propose a phased implementation approach to the introduction of cannabis cafes for the first year, only an existing cannabis retailer or an ownership group with the same set of owners as an existing retailer would be able to apply for one cannabis cafe permit for a new location.

And while cannabis cafes would still generally be subject to these 600-foot buffers preventing a cannabis business from locating near another cannabis business, there would be a narrow exemption for a cafe that shares the same ownership with an existing retailer.

President Mandelman walked through the requested amendments, but I'm happy to talk about them in any more detail.

And beyond that, yeah, request your your adoption of the amendments and your support and happy to answer any questions.

Okay, I do have a couple questions, if that's okay.

So currently, our code requires uh specific uh ventilation, both planning and building for consumption when it's smoked.

Um, and so the amendments that you just explain make sure that that continues, but it provides flexibility, and I am a little bit unclear about how the ventilation requirements apply to the flexibility.

So if folks are getting, if they have an existing design already where there is smoking consumption allowed in a lounge, and now you're giving them this flexibility of more than one-third of the space, does that mean that if they're using two-thirds of the space and consumption by smoking is allowed, do they then have to have ventilation in that additional third that they're adding?

Yes, thank you for the question.

Um the intention here is to not to uh undo or uh or change anything in the in the I think really it's the Article 8a health code requirements around the smoking and the transmission of smoke and the mitigations that are required.

Um the expansion of the permissible space for uh consumption is is really from a planning code perspective, right?

So it's just for the planning, just for the purposes of planning code, and any any new design or redesign of a space would be required.

Well, first of all, in many cases, they would be required to go back to planning commission to change the conditions of any existing CU on the on the proposed use.

Um but then no, are all the existing Article 8A that the there's no there's no taking a smoking space doubling the size and then not complying with the ventilation, the the existing ventilation requirements would continue to comply regardless of what the proposed uh size of the space would be.

Okay, thank you.

So uh another question I have is, you know, currently under our uh police and health codes in San Francisco, uh smoking of tobacco is not allowed when food is being served indoors.

Um did we uh, and I know that in the state legislation, enabling cannabis cafes, that is one of the things that is allowed is food with smoking of uh cannabis.

Um is there a reason why we chose to have the you know less strict standard uh allowing uh smoking and not just consumption um, you know, by ingesting.

Um I I think you know, just from a from a premise perspective, because cannabis uh uh smoking under you know approved uh health code standards is permissible.

Um that that the ability for patrons in those spaces to uh uh eat a little bit of food while they're in those spaces felt like a a reasonable uh extension without without seeking to undercut any of the existing rules and records.

I guess that was more a question for the sponsor of this legislation.

But so is it possible for an operator that currently uh does not have consumption by smoking or you know uh consuming cannabis by smoking, but just you know, uh edibles or whatever, to get a cannabis cafe license as well.

Is that possible?

That is possible, yeah.

So there are three different types of uh consumption permits that are that are issued by the Department of Public Health.

Um, only the tier three is the smoking one.

Otherwise, it's uh uh consumption of of uh prepackaged cannabis products or consumption and light prep, like warming up a brownie or something.

Um so there are there's certainly a universe of different ways in which a cannabis cafe could be could be designed or a consumption area could be designed that that some involve smoking, some some don't involve smoking.

Okay, thank you so much.

Uh thank you.

That's it for my questions.

Uh, supervisor Cheryl.

Um I just wanted to double check here.

The for the first year, it will be existing businesses, existing cannabis businesses that these licenses will go to.

That's correct, right?

That's right.

Each each existing operator would be eligible to apply for one cannabis cafe, and only only existing only existing operators, and each one could apply for one in the first year.

Great.

And they and they could be on a separate premise or they have to be on the same present premise of the existing business.

No, no, they could be on a separate premise, and that's one of the potential use cases we see is where uh I'm an operator with a very small footprint consumption, building a consumption space on site just isn't feasible.

So I could open, I know of an existing vacant retail space that's down the block.

That could be the consumption-only space, and then I could have my existing dispensary space as well.

Thank you.

Supervisor Mahmoud.

I just want to say I'm very excited for this legislation.

So thank you.

President Manelman and uh the office for working on this as well.

Um my only question is uh any line of sight on District 5 uh opportunities for where this might be leveraged?

That's a really good question.

Um it I mean, uh to get back to the one of the original uh uh observations about how complex this area is, you know, I think we're we're excited about opportunities for there's some existing retailers who see opportunity in the very near term and are they've been working on designs and plans that they haven't submitted because there's nothing to to permit them to submit to.

Um and we're excited about those about those operators.

I think um continuing to engage with other uh retailers about the opportunity to open up a satellite location is something that that would love to explore wherever it wherever it makes sense.

I don't really know how we can get it in as fast as possible outside of canceling.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you so much.

Um Mr.

Clerk, let's go to public comment on this item, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair, land use and transportation.

I'll hear public comment related to agenda item number six, making amendments to various codes related to cannabis cafes.

If you have public comment for this agenda item, you may speak uh first by lining up along that western wall, and then if the first speaker can come forward to the lectern, I'll start your time.

Please begin.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

My name is David Goldman.

I'm the former president of the Brownie Mary Democratic Club, served for the last 12 years ending last May.

I'm currently on the board of the uh Green Cross, the only city's only nonprofit dispensary, and also on the board of directors of California Normal, a statewide advocacy organization.

I'm only speaking for myself today, not representing these organizations.

While I support legislation to enable cannabis retail entities to have consumption lounges with food and entertainment, I have concerns about creating a new license type that permits a new true a new retail entity where consumption only allowable on site would take place.

Currently, there's a moratorium on new cannabis retail entities for 10 years.

Creating a new place to purchase cannabis in this new cafe permit appears inconsistent with the spirit and intent of that legislation.

Even with the moratorium in place, there are 32 brick and mortar applications and 30 delivery applications in the pipeline.

We have way too much retail access as it is.

The cannabis industry in San Francisco for retail entities is oversaturated.

Many of the new retail entities, including the recently permitted ones, have little business.

Currently in San Francisco, 23 retail storefronts have closed.

Our current dispensary Urbana with two retail locations in San Francisco has just gone into receivership.

Clearly, the San Francisco does not need more retail access.

Let the current retail entities show that they can be successful cannabis consumption lounges that are sustainable before you create a new license type that will impede retail competition and make it more and more difficult for the current retail entities to exist.

Please do not make that economic mistake.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, members and supervisors.

My name is Michael Cohen, and I also was a member and an officeholder in the Brownie Mary Democratic Club for a number of years, and also a man of the board of the Green Cross.

However, I am speaking completely for myself today.

I'm not opposed.

I'm not opposed to expanding opportunities for cannabis users.

In fact, I strongly support allowing existing licensed cannabis retailers to enhance their businesses through on-site consumption, food service, and entertainment opportunities.

My concern is with the creation of a new license type, entirely, a new license type that would permit entirely new retail entities to enter the market during a period when San Francisco cannabis industry is already facing extraordinary challenges.

The city currently maintains a moratorium on new cannabis retail storefronts, creating a new category of cannabis retail operation, even under a different framework, appears inconsistent with the spirit and intent of that moratorium.

More importantly, the current economic reality of the San Francisco cannabis industry cannot be ignored.

Many of the operators most affected by this proposal are not large corporations.

They are small business owners, equity applicants, longtime advocates, and local entrepreneurs who invested their savings, borrowed money, signed personal guarantees, and devoted years of their lives to building compliant cannabis businesses under the city's existing framework.

I respectfully urge the board to create a more measured approach and response.

Thank you.

Thank you for comments.

Next speaker, please.

My name is William Dolan.

I am a resident and business owner in District 4.

I operate a cannabis retailer called Yerba.

It's located at 46th Avenue in Judah, and I'm also an equity applicant.

I'm here today to support this legislation because it is good for San Francisco.

It's good for our local cannabis community and good for our local equity community.

This legislation creates opportunities for existing retailers, many of which who are struggling to remain financially viable, including new potential revenue streams from food and beverage and entertainment.

It's also a path to creation of a unique hospitality experience that cannot be replicated by our competition in the illicit market.

I have been working on a cannabis retail and cafe project at 560 Valencia Street in the mission since 2017.

And after nearly a decade of efforts leading up to the passage of Matt Haney's AB 1775 1775, the state cafe bill.

This local legislation will finally clear our path to creating a unique cannabis hospitality and consumption experience that features non-cannabis food and beverages.

This is about creating a legal regulated hospitality experience for cannabis and non-cannabis consumers alike to relax and unwind.

This is also about providing a space for our community members that want to enjoy the social environment of a restaurant, lounge, or cafe without the presence of alcohol.

This legislation effectively protects our existing operators with an exclusive period of one year to attain a new cafe permit.

It also maintains the 600 foot distancing distancing rules and equity program rules for new cafe permitties after the one year protection period expires.

There are very few remaining compliant locations that exist currently in San Francisco.

Most of those will require a CU and require years of due diligence, community outreach, and development process before opening.

I believe this legislation sufficiently protects our existing retail community.

Thank you for your comments.

Thank you very much.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon.

Thank you, supervisors for having us today.

Um I ask you to support this legislation.

Uh I'm a member of the Barney Mary Democratic Club.

Um, our history has been about increasing access, and that's what this is about.

This is about creating different kind of spaces.

Most of our spaces were created really in the 1990s and the early 2000s.

This is really modernizing the approach that entrepreneurs can take.

As has been mentioned, um the industry itself has been struggling because, among other things, there's only one revenue stream.

This would open up multiple revenue streams to allow them to not just be uh dependent on one piece.

Um, this is important for our tourism.

San Francisco is the cannabis capital of the world.

We attract people from all over at our pride uh di uh celebration.

Uh Mo Greens, right adjacent, right here, was mobbed with lots of people consuming.

Wouldn't it have been nice if they could also order food and enjoyed it that way, also.

Um I support the legislation.

I think many of our medical patients do and our consumers do.

And I'd like in final thing, think about the medical patients and consumers who have limited choices.

They deserve all the choices that every other consumer product has.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

I'm Nate Landau, the co-founder and COO of award-winning snow till one of the last two cultivators left in San Francisco.

I and I tell the board to please endorse this bill with the one exception.

If you can move the thing from one year to five years, as they say, it's gonna take a long time to find the right location, go through all the different processes.

One year you're probably if you're lucky you've gotten all your permits, you're not even open.

So that would be my recommendation going from one year to five years.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

I'm Liz Williams with Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights.

We focus on protecting people's ability to breathe air that's free from all types of secondhand smoke exposure, so we do not support the proposal to permit cannabis cafes.

San Francisco, as you heard, already allows cannabis retailers to have a smoking lounge.

By allowing these spaces to operate as cafes, restaurants, and entertainment venues, it will significantly expand where cannabis smoking and vaping is allowed indoors.

In practice, we'll have a new segment of restaurants and entertainment venues that allow indoor smoking again.

Is San Francisco comfortable with rolling back our smoke-free workplace law by 30 years?

These are protections that workers and patrons have been enjoying since 1998 in San Francisco.

Cannabis cafe staff will be exposed to increased indoor air pollution in order to do their jobs.

These workers, plus musicians, comedians, and other entertainers who perform there will need to make tough choices.

Will they pass up a work opportunity to protect their health or risk their health to get paid?

That's a difficult position to be in, especially in this economy.

The city's workforce should be able to breathe clean air on the job, and that includes people who work in the cannabis industry.

Research confirms that cannabis smoke contains many of the same toxic and cancer-causing chemicals as tobacco smoke.

And all types of smoke, whether it's from cannabis, tobacco, or wildfires, contains fine particulate matter that is breathed deeply into our lungs where it causes respiratory and cardiovascular health risks.

That includes asthma attacks and heart attacks.

Our lungs don't know the difference.

Breathing any type of smoke is harmful to health.

The city is touting the ventilation standards, but the fact is that ventilation systems and smoking rooms can reduce odor, but they cannot protect against health risks.

Researchers at ECSF measured harmful levels of air pollution inside a cannabis lounge in San Francisco, and when the retailer installed a ventilation system, it only decreased the air pollution levels by 12%.

San Francisco should be protecting and expanding work health and safety standards, not rolling them back by decades.

Thank you.

Thank you for comments.

Next speaker, please.

I'm here in support of this ordinance.

The legislation is needed to continue to destigmatize cannabis and advance our industry.

Licensed operators in San Francisco carry many costs that other small businesses don't, such as gross receipt taxes, permit fees, state licensing, the list goes on and on.

Uh, all while being locked out of such traditional business practices as simple as banking.

We carry all that and we compete every day with an illicit market that carries none of it.

A cannabis cafe creates a revenue stream that the illicit market literally cannot replicate.

Uh, a legal regulated hospitality experience.

That's the advantage here, and this ordinance will unlock that.

I also would like to be clear that this ordinance also would uh what it actually does is that consumption lounges exist here in San Francisco.

It's not a new concept.

Um what it does specifically is legalize food prep preparation in spaces.

Uh operators are currently running, uh, aligning us with the existing cannabis cafe at the state level, uh, the state law.

Uh current law uh treats the lounge as an afterthought, capped at about a third of the space, and this ordinance recognizes that hospitality experience isn't just an add-on.

Um for some, it's actually the business model.

Uh San Francisco's independent cannabis operators are rooted in the community and looking to adapt and grow.

So please support this ordinance.

Thank you.

Thank you for comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

My name is Heidi Hanley, and I'm here in strong support of this cannabis cafe ordinance.

Uh I come before you as a legacy cannabis operator who has worked in the industry for over 20 years.

Today I'm proud to be an equity partner with Soulful Dispensary in the Inner Sunset, District 7.

I've witnessed firsthand how regulated cannabis businesses can positively contribute to our communities while providing safe access for consumers.

The ordinance represents an important next step in the evolution of our industry.

Allowing cannabis cafes create a creates a much needed new revenue stream for licensed businesses that continue to face significant financial challenges.

It also elevates the consumer experience by bringing the cannabis cafe into a responsible hospitality setting, much like wineries and breweries have done for their industries.

Most importantly, it provides adults with a safe, legal, and welcoming place to consume cannabis.

Not everyone has the ability to consume where they live, and consumers deserve an environment that is regulated, professionally operated, and focused on education, safety, and community.

This is an opportunity for San Francisco to continue leading with thoughtful cannabis policy.

Supports small and equity-owned businesses, create jobs, and strengthen strengthen our local economy.

I respectfully urge you to support this ordinance.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you for comments.

Next speaker, please.

I'm Ryan Davis, co-chair of the San Francisco Tobacco Free Coalition and District Five voter.

Our coalition strongly urges you to oppose this ordinance, which would needlessly expose food service workers and performers to toxic secondhand smoke in indoor environments.

Here's a quote from Michael quote: I'm a musician who played in bars for many years.

I stopped smoking when I was 19 years old, but I have asthma.

During all of my doctor visits, they ask if I'm a smoker.

One Saturday I played in San Francisco at the cigar bar, and when I came out, I was reeking of cigar smoke.

That's when I realized that for most of my adult life playing in lounges that had smoking in the lounge, I was breathing in secondhand smoke, and that's part of why I am asthmatic to this day.

I am a secondhand smoke inhaler, unquote.

While legal cannabis businesses are understandably frustrated that the illegal market continues to undercut their profits.

The solution is not to return to 20th century era indoor smoking environments.

While some workers may be okay with that, it is not a choice that anyone should have to make.

Here's a quote from Lynn, quote: I used to work in the cannabis industry, and there was a smoking lounge at the dispensary I used to work at.

And it definitely aggravated my lungs a lot, being constantly exposed to smoke, unquote.

Cannabis secondhand smoke has toxic and cancer-causing chemicals along with fine particulate matter that causes respiratory and cardiovascular health risks, including heart attacks and asthma attacks.

Air quality studies inside cannabis smoking lounges in San Francisco and Los Angeles found unhealthy levels of indoor air pollution, and UCSF researchers found a ventilation system only decreased air pollution by 12% inside of San Francisco cannabis retailers smoking lounge.

Just as the San Francisco Tobacco Free Coalition supports smoke-free bar patios, we oppose this legislation.

San Francisco should be protecting and expanding work site health and safety standards, not rolling them back.

Thank you.

Thank you for comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

My name is Alex Marenkov.

I'm a Berkeley resident, and I'm speaking in opposition of file number 260281, the cannabis cafe ordinance.

This is crazy to me.

We do not need this in SF.

This is not about whether adults should be able to use cannabis.

They can.

This is really about whether San Francisco is going to carve a new hole in its smoke-free workplace protections and call it hospitality.

A cafe, restaurant, comedy room, or music venue is still a workplace.

Changing the branding from smoking lounge to cannabis cafe does not change that workers' performers' patrons and nearby residents may be exposed to this kind of smoke.

If employees are serving food, checking IDs, clean tables, performing music, or working security, they should not have to breathe secondhand cannabis smoke or vapor as a condition of getting paid.

San Francisco should be moving forward on clean air, not back toward the era when hospitality workers were treated as disposable lungs.

If the city wants cannabis cafes, then make them smoke-free and consumption by edible only.

But do not create an indoor smoking carve out and pretend it is progressive.

Please vote no on file number 260281, or at a minimum, continue it until it can fully protect workers, performers, patrons, and adjacent tenants from secondhand smoke.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

Dr.

Ryan Indigo Warman, San Francisco native.

I've just celebrated my 20 years of living here.

And I've been in the cannabis regulated industry for over 15 years and part of the medical cannabis community for over 25 years.

I'm here in support of this cannabis cafe bill.

I want to echo statements of some of my colleagues regarding the challenges faced by cannabis retailers here in San Francisco, including a number of closures that have happened over the years.

I'd also like to point out that we've successfully had cannabis consumption for the medical industry dating back to 1996 with no problems that I'm aware of.

This is a boon for cannabis tourism for San Francisco tourism, for San Francisco hospitality, provides safe access for people to consume their medicine safely, and most importantly, provides an economic relief that's very much needed by these retailers.

I urge you to support this bill, and I thank you for your time.

Thank you for comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon.

My name is Faison Shake.

Um I operate 268 Church Street, a new dispensary that just got established in November 2025.

As an equity operator, I personally experience how expensive and time consuming it is to open a compliant cannabis business in San Francisco.

And a cannabis cafe is an exciting opportunity, but without financial support and equitable access, many of us simply won't be able to participate.

I became a equity social equity in 2018.

I'll open up my business in 2025.

That's a very long time.

I say, narrow down the requirements for this cafe.

Give it to social equities, but also if they're 50% or more social equity partners.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Let's have the next speaker, please.

Madam Chair, supervisors, my name's Nick Caston, along with Heidi, I'm here on behalf of Soulful on Irvine Street.

I want to take a moment to thank you for this legislation and for considering this expansion within the industry.

I have absolutely no fears that this will do anything negative for the industry.

What it'll do is open up a use that will enable people to be introduced to some products that they may never see outside of a hospitality environment.

Right now, when you go into a restaurant and you're exposed to something you like, what do you do?

You go to the store and find it.

This leads to being able to have that type of synergy in this ecosystem within this industry.

So I encourage you to support this regulation.

Also, recognize that you already have assurances in place that we have found are going to meet the health standards that you want for this type of a use.

Because it happens today and it's going to continue happening with this new permit.

So we encourage you to support this legislation and give the industry lifeline that it desperately needs.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

I am Chris Calloway.

I was the first recipient of an equity dispensary permit in San Francisco.

And six years ago, I was handed this diploma by Marissa Rodriguez.

And unfortunately, that's it's an empty piece of paper.

And um it serves as a reminder to me as kind of some of the empty promises of the program.

And um, but it also serves as a reminder to me that it's kind of up to me to write this story of my participation in the cannabis industry in San Francisco.

Um my story is a cautionary tale, and um, while I fully support cannabis consumption, I do not support this bill.

And there's a lot of questions that just haven't been answered by our city with our current permitting process, is you know, I would ask the Office of Cannabis how many people have applied for a cannabis retail permit and been successful at granting one or getting one.

How many, if you look at the cannabis retail map, how many green dots appear on that map but are not functioning cannabis dispensaries?

How does a new operator come in and do it?

Pause your time.

Please please come back to the microphone and address your comments to the committee.

I understand, sorry.

How does a new operator come in and look at this cannabis retail map that's so outdated and determine where they can open a business?

I tried to activate a space at 19 Maiden Lane, the vacant store from been vacant for seven years, and there was a closed medical to cannabis dispensary at 49 Kearney and been closed for years.

For whatever reason, I wasn't allowed to move that forward without going through an expensive land use determination.

And that process took me a year to do in Hayes Valley.

This seems to be more of a way to circumvent our current land use zoning laws around the 600 foot rule, specifically in a place that I've battled for eight years to open a dispensary, and that's Hayes Valley.

This legislation should be, I think you should take a time to just pause and look at the where this legislation fails, where the city has failed its previous license grantees, and I would ask that if you're going to combine the planning requirement in DBI, you can buy the office of cannabis as well.

Thank you.

Do we have anyone else who has public comment for agenda item number six?

Madam Chair.

Thank you so much.

Public comment is now closed.

Okay.

Thank you so much to folks who came.

Uh, and I know uh Supervisor Cheryl is gonna say a few words and possibly make a motion um I will just say uh thank you supervisor uh President Mandelman for all the work that you have put into this and Sophie Marie I know uh thank you so much I in the five years that I was on the planning commission in the six years I've been on this board I have never voted against any cannabis legislation including um the extension of the tax break everything um but I will not be able to support this one um and that is because of the issue of smoking indoors which I think is um backtracking on our public health goals now I think that there's many ways to do this and when uh assemblymember Haney started working uh on this issue at the state I was actually quite excited I remember about a couple years ago uh listening to a story on NPR about um the wonderful creativity that was happening in Thailand of all places infusing um cannabis into the local cuisine because it does have some properties that mimic MSG actually and enhance the flavor of food so as a city that has hospitality and industry as it's uh as hospitality as its number one industry um I do see like the great promise that it can have for tourism um I just think that the creativity that comes out of it um can be wonderful and I don't think that exposing people to second hand smoke whether it's the workers or the owners or other patrons is a good thing it is counter to our public health goals and there is no level of safe consumption even if we have um you know uh great ventilation systems which are actually very very expensive so uh but I'm not gonna stand in the way I think that you know there is always room for innovation and I certainly agree that our um retail cannabis industry um is ailing and that we should be trying new things to help them out so I'm not gonna stand in your way for it but I cannot support this one as written uh okay so supervisor mahmood um I just wanted to thank everyone who came out and shared their perspective uh today as well I understand uh there's nuance here um I will share that um as someone who has never smoked marijuana in their life uh and is a non-smoker and as a result will probably not be able to participate in what we are voting on I do think it's important as a city that we continue to provide choice but the city does not pick winners and losers um and that we provide an opportunity to make San Francisco a destination for uh different types of cafes and different types of small business and provide that option we have to revitalize our economy and this is one really powerful way to provide economic diversity uh in San Francisco um and a way to continue to provide uh new opportunities for stimulus in our economy um and I want to thank President Mandelman for continuing to introduce legislation that I can never partake in but will always support so thank you.

Supervisor Cheryl um yeah I think we want to thank everybody who's out here um I'll basically say ditto to Supervisor Makhmood's uh comments on economic development um and giving businesses opportunity to thrive here I think it's very important I think we need to take a couple amendments here is that right um I'd like to make a motion to accept the amendments um that have been detailed by President Mandelman um and then after that I know there's been some discussion here but I'd like to make a motion after we take the amendments to uh forward this to the full board without recommendation uh at the full board I I do look forward to supporting this um but yeah, we'll we'll I'll make that motion.

I'm recording two motions, each of them offered by Supervisor Cheryl.

The first to amend the ordinance as presented by Supervisor Mandelman, and the second to send the ordinance without recommendation as amended to the board of Supervisors.

On those motions, Member Cheryl.

Cheryl I.

Member machmo Makhmood I, Chair Melgar, Melgar, I.

Madam chair, there are three eyes on those two motions.

Okay, those motion passed.

Uh thank you.

Uh congratulations, Supervisor.

Uh President Mendelman.

Um, do we have anything else on our agenda today, Mr.

Clerk?

There is no further business.

Okay, this meeting's adjourned.

Thank you.