That in 3 years after the passage of this legislation there will be an evaluation as to whether this is really solving the problem. Because a possible outcome is its not solving the problem and lets put more regulations in place or this is not working or maybe at that time there has been developments at the state level about making a division to exception or Something Like that to come back and look at the legislation. If im still around, i will be happy to reevaluate. Maybe this is a way to help that. Okay. So, commissioners, a couple things. So supervisor tang had, if we go with the department the health code legislation, shes proposed two amendments, correct, two amendments which are the requirement for the education be 500 hours so eliminating the 250 requirement and making the set standard of 500 hours and also to revoke a permit for 3 years from being able to reopen. Those are two things that will be amended in the Health Code Regulation and apart from that, other than than not h
Department of building inspection and ask are they going to be requiring blueprints for these very small entities. I shouldnt say small, but some of the places are not that big or their tenant improvements. A lot of the tenant improvement dont involve major construction. What are going to be the requirements to help these business through but you can provide some direction to the department about some expectation you would like to see to help the businesses through this process. I mean its a universal truth that conditional use is a burden of both time, money and effort on any Small Business regardless of the profession. I think as commissioners here we would never advocate for increasing the burdens on Small Business to open and operate. That being said, the conditional use process exist for a reason and there are good reasons for it. And i think there is, you know, this is not great consolation for any specific group, but there is general acknowledgment here in city hall that the con
Supportive of that. The question, the crux of this is the conditional use for certified legitimate practitioners. We have had a lot of discussion about that and there is a lot more discussion outside of this room with that and it sounds as though its intractable at this time that there is not going to be accommodation. We can object that here just go on the record to saying that we wish it would change, but again we are a recommending body. We dont do anything other than make a recommendation. If we want to make a recommendation we can go ahead and do that. Is there a commissioner that wants to propose a motion . And again, sort of with kind of an over arching and some specifics, i think it would be helpful to be on record to support supervisor tang because there was discussion at the Planning Department for the sole practitioner establishment to have it be just one but to support supervisor tang on the conditional use exemption for the sole practitioner with four and then also to supp
Commissioner sarkissian . Yes, commissioner white . Yes. So we have 5 in favor aye and two nos. So that recommendation to the direction of the legislation is going in passes but then the commission is going to review the final draft at the april 27th meeting. Correct. With that, i think that concludes items no. 3 and 4. Yes, thank you all for committing the time you did and efforts before this meeting we received a number of very thorough letters detailing this issue and i appreciate that from the community and also appreciate the engagement of the Supervisors Office and the department of Public Health and so, it goes on from here. So thank you all. Commissioners we will move on to item no. 5 which is the directors report. So in your, i do not have a written report for you tonight. In your packet though i do want you to know that, in your packet, i dont have a copy of it myself but there is a calendar of events for Small Business week. Hang on just a moment. Maybe item no. 5 or 6. So v
Illegitimate ones well apply different standards for you. Did you talk about that or in general agreement . Yes. Weve explored. I cant tell you how many different permutations of this legislation already. Okay. Now build into legislation is the notion of a 3year review, is that correct . Thats correct. So this is not, i know we got some calls where people were concerned that this meant you are on a probation period for 3 years, thats not the case. If you were granted a permit from the Planning Department you are subject to after 3 years they look at check to make sure there are no violations in place and make sure you are up and up and its not that you are on probation for 3 years. Is there a contemplation that in 3 years after the passage of this legislation there will be an evaluation as to whether this is really solving the problem. Because a possible outcome is its not solving the problem and lets put more regulations in place or this is not working or maybe at that time there has