Public Safety and Neighborhood Services Committee Regular Meeting - May 25, 2023
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Public Safety and Neighborhood Services Committee Regular Meeting - May 25, 2023
The Public Safety and Neighborhood Services Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors met on Thursday, May 25, 2023. Chair Supervisor Catherine Stephanie presided, with Vice Chair Joel Ingario and Supervisor Dorsey also present. The clerk was Mr. John Carroll. The committee considered four agenda items: a liquor license for a music venue, a health code amendment regarding conservatorship proceedings, a resolution supporting state behavioral health legislation, and a police code amendment to cease accepting new cannabis retail permit applications. All items were forwarded to the full Board of Supervisors with positive recommendations, expected to appear on the Board's agenda of June 6, 2023.
Agenda Item 1: Liquor License Issuance - 628 Divisadero Street - The Independent
Officer Salmuson from the SFPD ABC Liaison unit reported zero letters of protest and zero letters of support for the Type 90 on-sale general music venue liquor license. The location is in plot 6-4-2, which is considered high crime, and in census tract 164, which is considered high saturation. The Northern Police District has no opposition. Two conditions were recommended: (1) the petitioner shall actively monitor the area under their control to prevent loitering on adjacent property, and (2) between 12 noon and 2 a.m. or at any time the premise is providing entertainment, the petitioner shall provide at least one uniform security guard licensed by the California Department of Consumer Affairs.
John Gunton, general manager of The Independent for 10 years (with 5 prior years at the venue), spoke in support, noting the venue is approaching its 20th anniversary in February. He stated the license would allow them to compete in an increasingly competitive market and that they take the well-being of the neighborhood seriously.
The committee voted unanimously to forward a resolution to the full board with a positive recommendation.
Agenda Item 2: Health Code - Designating City Attorney for Conservatorship Proceedings
Jackie Thornhill, legislative aide to Supervisor Mandelman, presented the ordinance. Section 4121 of the health code currently designates the city attorney for most conservatorship proceedings but the district attorney for Murphy conservatorships (for individuals found mentally incompetent to stand trial under Section 1370 of the state penal code with outstanding felony charges involving great physical injury or death of another person). The ordinance consolidates all conservatorship proceedings in the City Attorney's office, noting these are civil, not criminal, proceedings. The District Attorney's office has informed the committee they support the ordinance.
Public comment: Ken from San Francisco commented on an out-of-state case involving a man released from custody after being ruled incompetent, and expressed broader criticism of the board's approval rating and public sentiment.
Supervisor Dorsey, who previously worked in the City Attorney's office, supported the ordinance and noted both offices are in agreement. The committee voted unanimously to send the ordinance to the full board.
Agenda Item 3: Supporting SB 43 and SB 363 (Eggman) - Behavioral Health Modernization
Jackie Thornhill presented the resolution urging the California State Legislature to pass SB 43 and SB 363, authored by Senator Susan Eggman. SB 43 would amend the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act to expand the definition of "gravely disabled" for conservatorship eligibility to include conditions that will result in substantial risk of serious harm to the physical or mental health of a person due to a mental health disorder or substance use disorder. SB 363 would require the State Department of Health Care Services to develop a real-time online dashboard displaying information about the number of beds available in different types of facilities across the state. The resolution is endorsed by the Big City Mayors Coalition, the National Alliance on Mental Illness California, the State Association of Psychiatrists, and the Psychiatric Physicians Alliance of California. Supervisor Dorsey added her name as co-sponsor.
The committee approved amendments presented with the legislation and voted unanimously to send the resolution to the full board with positive recommendation as amended.
Agenda Item 4: Police Code - Ceasing Acceptance of New Cannabis Retail Permit Applications
Supervisor Safai presented the ordinance to cease acceptance of new cannabis retail permit applications. He stated the purpose is to support the existing cannabis industry and address neighborhood concerns about saturation. He noted that Proposition 64 legalized adult use cannabis, and San Francisco built on an existing network of medical cannabis providers dating back to Proposition 215. He cited the equity program requiring at least 40% ownership by verified equity applicants, the backlog of pending applications, the need to focus on enforcement against the illegal market, and concerns about underage usage.
Nikesh Patel, Director of the Office of Cannabis, presented data on the retail market landscape:
- 33 equity-owned businesses currently permitted by the Office of Cannabis (31 storefront retail, 2 delivery-only)
- 47 legacy businesses (32 medical cannabis dispensaries permitted by the Department of Public Health, 15 delivery-only retail businesses)
- Approximately 100 pending applications from verified equity applicants (63 storefront retail, 9 delivery-only, 28 micro businesses)
- 71 pending applications from non-verified equity applicants (legacy businesses), of which approximately 24 are very unlikely to move forward because they have been inactive for a significant period
- 292 verified equity applicants who have not yet submitted applications for cannabis business permits, with 5 additional individuals currently in the process of being verified
- Office of Cannabis processing time has been reduced from approximately 18 months to 9-12 months
- The Office of Cannabis recommended including a sunset provision based on a metric or timeline, and providing additional runway for the 292 verified equity applicants to submit applications
Public comments in support included:
- Marlene Tran, community activist in Visitation Valley and retired teacher, thanked the sponsors and stated Visitation Valley has been "plagued" with several cannabis proposals, two of which were accepted, and "we really don't want that kind of services" in the low-income bedroom community.
- Hazel Lee, living in the Portola area, noted a short street already has one cannabis store and another is proposed near a children's learning center, stating "This is really ridiculous" and expressing support for Supervisor Safai.
- Jakari Donaldson, equity owner and CEO of California Street Cannabis Company, stated equity owners are "facing an extinction event," that "we simply have too many dispensaries and not enough customers," and that operators are not permitted federal bankruptcy protections, so if they cannot meet tax burdens they will be "financially ruined for potentially the rest of our lives."
- Ben Blyman, civilian and dispensary owner in the equity program, stated cannabis businesses were "sold a bill of goods" and are "in dire, dire straits." He suggested additional provisions including pausing licenses that have not received land use approval, asking the planning department to weigh saturation more heavily, adding buffer zones, and enforcing the 45-day permit shot clock.
- Bram Goodwin, Brownie Mary Democratic Club, rose in support but requested an academic-style study on retail as part of the moratorium, stating "we're really flying blind."
- Malcolm Joshua Whites, social equity owner of a cannabis club on Union Street, stated the equity applicant owner's portion is "worth nothing" due to oversaturation, and requested that social equity applicants with leases and approved building permits be granted up to a year from when the ordinance takes effect to secure new investors.
- David Hooper supported the measure, citing oversaturation relative to the number of buyers with disposable income and the time spent on contested cannabis applications.
- Johnny Delaplane, President of the San Francisco Cannabis Retailers Alliance, stated the alliance "100% support[s] this legislation as written" and would be open to further amendments limiting the total number of cannabis retail stores.
- Connor Johnston, co-owner of social equity retail locations, supported the legislation but expressed discomfort with "strange bedfellows" created alongside anti-cannabis reactionaries. He noted the illegal market in California is twice the size of the legal market, and recommended setting the trigger as whether an applicant has received land use approval.
- Nina Parks, representing Equity Trade Network, supported a moratorium but wanted more conversation on the timeframe, stating the market is oversaturated and cannot continue to support what exists.
Public comments in opposition included:
- Tony argued the city has fewer than half the dispensaries it had under the medical system in 2008, and stated cannabis is important for fighting nuclear and biological threats.
- Chris Callaway, described as San Francisco's first equity retail dispensary permit holder, opposed preventing businesses from opening in the city, advocated for a fair market approach, and requested that if the legislation passes, an exemption be carved out for 100% equity-owned businesses.
- Shauna Goknar, Executive Director of Access of Love SF, stated the organization stands in opposition until there is a fuller conversation, noting state grant money for medical cannabis research, arguing "we cannot use equity like a controlled crash," and reporting that very few dispensaries have compassion programs despite SB 34.
- Gilbert, a disabled veteran who uses cannabis instead of pharmaceuticals, argued the committee is being "gaslit and deceived," stated no data was presented, and questioned the saturation claims.
Supervisor Chan joined the meeting and proposed an amendment, to be considered at the full board, requiring the controller to submit a report to the Board of Supervisors no later than June 30, 2027, analyzing the financial impact of the moratorium on the city and the city's cannabis industry, the operational impact on the Office of Cannabis, and the impact on city neighborhoods. She noted the cannabis business tax will become effective again in January 2026 and the report would allow the board to assess tax revenue before deciding whether to continue the moratorium. Deputy City Attorney Ann Pearson stated the language was drafted but not yet approved as to form, and it is likely not to be a substantive amendment.
Supervisor Dorsey expressed support, noting the importance of supporting law-abiding businesses from unfair and illegal competition from the illegal drug marketplace, and asked to be added as a co-sponsor.
The committee approved amendments presented by Supervisor Safai and voted unanimously to send the ordinance to the full board with positive recommendation as amended. Supervisor Chan's amendment will be finalized and considered at the full board.
Key Outcomes
- All four agenda items were forwarded to the full Board of Supervisors with positive recommendations.
- Agenda Item 1 (Liquor License - The Independent): Unanimous vote to prepare a resolution finding the issuance would serve public convenience or necessity.
- Agenda Item 2 (City Attorney for Conservatorships): Unanimous vote to send the ordinance to the full board.
- Agenda Item 3 (SB 43 and SB 363 Support): Amendments approved unanimously; resolution sent to the full board with positive recommendation as amended.
- Agenda Item 4 (Cannabis Retail Permit Moratorium): Amendments approved unanimously; ordinance sent to the full board with positive recommendation as amended. Supervisor Chan's amendment requiring a controller's economic report by June 30, 2027, will be considered at the full board.
- Items acted upon are expected to appear on the Board of Supervisors' agenda of June 6, 2023.
Meeting Transcript
You are unmuted. This meeting will come to order. Welcome to the May 25th, 2023 regular meeting of the Public Safety and Neighborhood Services Committee. I'm Supervisor Catherine Stephanie, Chair of the Committee. To my right is Vice Chair Joel Ingario, Supervisor Joel and Cardio. And to my left is Supervisor Dorsey. The clerk is Mr. John Carroll. Also, I'd like to thank Jamie Ekiaveri at SFGov TV for staffing this meeting. Mr. Clerk, do you have any announcements? Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. The Board of Supervisors and its committees are convening hybrid meetings that allow in-person attendance and public comment while still providing remote access and public comment via telephone. The board recognizes that equitable public access is essential, and we will be taking public comment today as follows. First, public comment will be taken on each item on today's agenda. Those attending the meeting in person here in the chamber, room 250 will be allowed to speak first, and then we will hear comments from those who are waiting on the telephone line. The public comment call-in phone number for today's meeting is 415-65501. You'll be prompted to enter a meeting ID. The meeting ID for today's meeting is 259050 3212. After you've entered the meeting ID, press the pound symbol twice, and you will hear the meeting discussions. However, your telephone line will be muted in a listening mode only. When your item of interest comes up on our agenda and public comment is called, those joining us in person should line up to speak along the curtain wall. My left hand side, your right hand side, and we'll hear from those folks first. And those on the telephone line should dial star three to be added to the speaker line. If you are on your telephone, please remember to turn down the volume on your television, your computer, your radio, whatever listening devices you may be using to access today's proceedings that will help us avoid having any issues with feedback and echoes that may disrupt the proceedings. Alternatively, you may submit public comment in writing. I invite you to email them to myself. I'm the Public Safety Neighborhood Services Committee Clerk, and my email address is J-O-H-N, period C-A-R-R-O-L-L at SFGO V dot or G. Or you may send your written comments via U.S. Postal Service to our office in City Hall. City Hall's address is one Dr. Carlton B. Goodlit Place, San Francisco, California 94102. The clerk's office within City Hall is in room 244. If you submit public comment in writing, I will forward your comment to the members of the public safety and neighborhood services committee, and I will include your comments within the file on which you are commenting. And of course, if you need to consult the contact information that I've just read off, all of it is available for you to check on the front page of any of our committee agenda. And finally, Madam Chair, items acted upon today are expected to appear on the Board of Supervisors' agenda of June 6th, 2023, unless otherwise stated. Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Will you please call the first item? Agenda item number one is a hearing to consider that the issuance of a type 90 on-sale general music venue liquor license to the independent LLC to do business as the independent located at 628 devisadero will serve the public convenience or necessity of the city and county. Thank you. And I believe we have Officer Salmuson from the SFPD ABC Liaison unit. Good to see you. Good morning, members of the board. Okay. The independent LLC has applied for type 90 license, and if approved, this would allow them to operate an on-sale general music venue. I have zero letters of protest, zero letters of support. They're on plot six four two, which is considered high crimaria. They're in census truck 164, which is considered high saturation.
openpublica.com