add partner in this section, but it's not in this version that i'm looking at -- who was convicted -- arrested or convicted -- arrested or convicted during the period 1971 to 2009, provided the arrest or convictions meets any other criteria set forth in subsection a of section 4904 of the police code, and lastly, you attended a school in sfusd for at least five years, either consecutively or in total. so that is the criteria to be an operator. we also wanted to touch on the workforce component because we don't want to make presumptions about -- because -- because we don't have all information about the informal market. we can only presume how many folks are really be up and ready to

run as an operator, so as currently written, allowed equity applicants, folks that were shutdown in 1996 -- those are the only two classifications that are allowed to go move forward for a permit in 2018, so we wanted to widen that pool, and also creating the opportunity for nonequity operators to be equity incubbators, which means they would help to procure a local, diverse workforce and have the privilege of applying for a permit in 2018, so the equity incubbators must have at least 50% local hire, 50% of their employees must satisfy the residency requirement, the

limited assets, and two or more from the list that i just read, so it could be someone who went to public school and whose parent was arrested or convicted; and they must provide a community investment plans, demonstrating engagement with businesses and residents within 500 feet of the proposed cannabis businesses, and the objective of that is we wanted to not be super predescriptive, but that the cannabis business does respond to the needs of the community or community concerns in that place, and then one or more of the following which is committing to technical assistance and businessmen toring business mentoring by an equity

operator. >> so this gets to another part of this legislation, which is about colocation of businesses, so are we going to allow colocations. >> so that was an amendment that the supervisor introduced today, a colocation amendment, which allows for multiple business -- multiple retail businesses to be on the same premise, as long as they have at least 300 -- or no more than 350 square feet. >> multiple retail businesses? 'cause the important thing, actually, here is colocation for -- well, neighbor for retail businesses, but equally important, if not more important, is colocation of manufacturing businesses, because like a shared kitchen, they need to share -- they need to share the -- the capital

assets required to formulate, cook, run a business, and those facilities will have, you know, very strict compliance requirements, just like a gluten free kitchen. >> it's going to be addressed in the emergency regulations, which is why we can't touch it in this iteration of amendments. >> so that's still a state limitation. okay. got it. >> correct. >> but the retail aspect, the state allows colocation of retail? >> they are silent on it, and so we are addressing it. >> so we're getting out ahead of it. >> mm-hmm. >> so this would -- then, that would be -- so if an edibles company wanted to colocate with a topicals company, they could

colocate in the same space. >> mm-hmm. >> okay. and i think the idea is for smaller retailers, they could go into a space -- >> we should be enabling people to share space, and having them colocated makes it easier for the customers, as well. they're not going over here for that, and over here for that. >> and did you want to add that the -- i thought was very important what supervisor cohen provided with the colocation of the retail space is that each of those individuals are not necessarily subject to the conditional use or the criteria of number of cannabis retailers in a particular area. so the master location -- >> right, right. >> is the conditional use, but each of those retailers going

in. >>president dwight: okay. as long as that retailer does not violate the conditional use. for example, if the conditional use does not allow for smoking, i don't believe that a smoking use should be allowed to come into that space in violation of -- i mean, that's conditional use by the surrounding residents and businesses need to contemplate the uses, because the topicals and edibles don't have the same externalities. that's my biggest concern with all that stuff are the externalities of both cultivation and use in the form of smoking has an impact on residents and business owners or, i should say employees of businesses adjacent to that facility, and we know of businesses where there are complaints from adjacent businesses that, for

example, being located next to a grow house causes the employees of the adjacent business to experience nausea, headaches because they aren't -- they're being subjected to the odor, just as if you were allergic to coffee and were colocated next to a coffee facility that -- so i think that in this particular case, this is going to be a big issue with the public. it's several issues: it's odor, it's security, and then -- and then, there are no -- just the amount of traffic that comes in and out of a facility like this versus some other use which might be less intense. any way, but i think it's -- i do agree that conforming uses should not have to reapply to -- under the conditional use, as long as they're

complying. >> precisely. any other questions on the incubbator? >> so just to clarify, so these equity requirements, they are for businesses that are applying for equity status. they're not for all businesses, so if you're a nonequity, these requirements do not apply to you. they're strictly for accessing the equity permit. >> right. >> okay. got it. >> and then, if i might add, it's in the document, but it -- it outlines -- there is a priority -- so for 2018, there's an outline of the types of permits that the director of cannabis will issue. priority one is the equity applicant, the prior two is the equity incubbator, and then, priority

three is the equity applicants, including the existing nonconforming nonconformi nonconforming applicators, so there's a priority who gets processed. >> you have a question? >> ye >>commissioner ortiz-cartagena: i have a lot of constituency watching. if you get arrested, just, like, if you get a client, they're here in san francisco. they got arrested by the fbi on a drug related crime, they are able to apply for the equity application? >> correct. >>commissioner ortiz-cartagena: okay. that's it. just -- >> you are right, commissioner

or teez cartagena. >> they can change it bathe television back to monday night football. >>commissioner zouzounis: i have a question. if you can tell me about the corporate applicant and the incubbator. >> if you're one of the equity owners, or you want to apply for an equity operators, you would have to be a 40% owner and the ceo, or you would have to be a majority shareholder, or 51% as a corporate applicant and not the ceo to qualify. >>commissioner zouzounis: so this, like, similar to kind of, like, the sponsor idea, where it's just, like, if some -- if

you want to provide space, like, a 1,000 square foot space to the applicant -- >> the corporate applicant, that title works in conjunction with all of the other prewe can whican -- prerequisites that we work out. it's also based on the residency and limited access requirements. >>commissioner zouzounis: okay. so that's what i didn't understand. i remember in the earlier drafts, it was -- i guess that that role kind of switched to the incubbator role, where you didn't have to be sponsored as an equity applicant. so my question with regard to the incubbator, would you be applying with already someone in mind that you're going to be working with as an equity

applicant and you would be already working together when you apply with the office of cannabis? >> so that isn't spelled in here, and that would go into the directions that the director writes, what the process would be, if you have to come hand in hand with an equity operator, or what the method of matching you with the person that -- the business that you're incubbating would be. >>commissioner zouzounis: well, because yeah. i feel like people would want to know who they're going into business with. that's something you could choose: i'm volunteering my business here, and i want to partner up with whoever, but my understanding, the legislation process, you would have the option during this first phase of having somebody who would sponsor an equity applicant.

>> offer them physical space on their premises? >>commissioner zouzounis: yes. >> that is -- yes, that's an option. >>commissioner zouzounis: so which one does that fall under? >> that's the equity incubbator. >>commissioner zouzounis: corporate applicant is if they're multiple -- okay. i got you. okay. thanks for that clarification. and then, another clarification, i know that supervisor fewer is, you know, sponsoring that amendment for nonconforming cannabis operators? is that defined what a nonconforming cannabis operator is, or a preexisting -- >> it's not in the equity section. i did not prepare today to review that. >> i'll review that. brittni

is just going to cover the amendments that supervisor cohen did. so since she was here fore the first item, i asked her to stay because the equity was the one key element that was -- when you heard the -- the ordinance, that was just referred to but did not have any definition to it. >> is that supposed to vote tomorrow or has it already been? >> yeah, tomorrow will be its first reading. >> oh, first reading? >> awesome. >> progress. >> and so -- you know, you can if you want, on this particular element, decide to take any sort of specific action since this is one specific item or, you know, it's an informational hearing, but we can decide that, just so -- in case you want to be on record for anything in regionship to lati. >>commissioner zouzounis: another question i had, because i know it's going to be difficult bringing people out

of the wood work in response to the criteria and workforce piece, are we going to outline anything for the folks that have been in the cannabis industry before. you're not a fan of the smoke shop, but i know that a lot of people that were in that industry -- >> the informal market? >> yeah, because i know a lot of folks that had juvenile records weren't able to work in that sector, and i was thinking that we would have some kind of terminology regarding, like, workforce, and where they would have been in the informal market -- >> that certainly would go into the directions piece that the director would create for, like, implementation language, so this is -- this is the proposed legislation, and then, if adopted, the director has

the responsibility of creating the regulations which is essentially how to make this work, how to make this function, how it would happen in practice. >>commissioner zouzounis: you mean, the criteria would be turned into regulation? >> exactly. exactly. >>commissioner tour-sarkissian: i have a -- can i? >>president dwight: mm-hmm. >>commissioner tour-sarkissian: i would like to come back to what my fellow commissioner, ortiz-cartagena, talked about, the convicted person who has a -- potential applicant who -- he or she has an conviction, and that is relating to 5b, where you say one of the two criteria should apply, and b provides was arrested or

kwirkted durikwirk convicted during the period of 1971 to 2009, provided it meets that section, so i kind of took the liberty of reading section 4904, and i don't think that the answer that you gave is so clear about every convicted person could apply -- fall under this -- >> so i said any arrest or convicted as outlined in the fair chance ordinance. >>commissioner tour-sarkissian: the question is -- not that i am trying to kind of find a -- fault you in any way, i just want a clarification because there's so many people listening. >> and watching. >>commissioner tour-sarkissian: and watching because i want to make sure that clear answer, that any convicted person would fall under this program. the answer is no. the answer is no. >> the answer is -- okay. >>commissioner tour-sarkissian: okay, or maybe i'm wrong, because there is a seven-year

requirement, and frankly, reading the section 4904-a, and reading this document, b, to satisfy those who are listening, it's not that clear. i still want to understand, if i am -- what does it mean, was arrested and convicted? what i'm saying, the answer's not that clear and should be looked at, and i'm not supposed to make recommendations as a -- >> so which part is unclear to you? >>commissioner tour-sarkissian: 5b, so let's look at your equity applicants, and it says meets two or more of the following additional criteria. >> yes, and it references the police code. >>commissioner tour-sarkissian: and then, to the question, any convicted applicant could aspire to be under the equity applicant, and the answer is no. it's not yes.

>> that any conviction -- >>commissioner tour-sarkissian: yes. >> so this -- well, the intention is not to be no, the intention is -- >>commissioner tour-sarkissian: well, that's what it's saying -- >> and that's not what our city attorney feels, so i can't -- >>commissioner tour-sarkissian: well, my reading of five minutes, i may be completely wrong. >> okay. i generally defer to the city attorney. >>commissioner tour-sarkissian: okay. the city attorney should give us the assurance. >> she's given us the assurance. >>commissioner tour-sarkissian: the one of our fellow commissioners that that's the case. >> well, it was changed in response to the supervisor's meeting with your fellow commissioner, and written to intentionally address his stated concerns about the limitations of the first iteration of legislation, and so this, according to our city attorney, does cover jurisdiction -- any jurisdiction and any arrest or conviction that's acknowledged in the -- this section of the

police code, which is the fair chance ordinance. >>commissioner tour-sarkissian: so it basically says that if it is ae a conviction more than seven years -- let me just read to you, and maybe we should ask the city attorney about this. >> correct. well, i just want to make sure that you're not conflating the time period with the conviction history, so the conviction history being the crime for which someone was convicted, and you're saying seven years, so that's in reference to the look back period in the fair chance ordinance. >>commissioner tour-sarkissian: that's okay. let's tie the two together. so if you have a -- it's -- here, it says, was arrested and convicted -- or convicted during the period 1971 to 2009, provided the conviction meets these criteria.

the krugs in my miconfusion in you were arrested, and you were arrested in the last seven years -- let's say i'm arrested during that period of time of 200 -- 1971 and 2009, and i am arrested during the last -- >> oh, i hear what you're saying. so that is correct. up to this timeline, that goes up to 2009. is that what you're asking? as far as timeline, you're correct, so as written, this is only considering people within this distinct period of time and that is for reasons that i described about specific things that were happening in san francisco between that time period related to the drug war. >>commissioner tour-sarkissian: if i am arrested the last seven years -- during the last seven years, addition to the fact that i was arrested during the

times that you setup for historical reasons, which were well founded, would i be affected or not? >> if you were arrested in the time period, yes. if not, you would have to find two other criteria in this section to qualify. >> th >> -- >>commissioner tour-sarkissian: then i would not qualify. >> no, that's not correct. this is a subsection that you have to meet fwo or more of the following. as you asked me -- and correct me if i am misunderstanding your question, if i was arrested between '71 and 2009, and i was arrested after 2009, would i qualify. waf that your question? >>commissioner tour-sarkissian: the question is regardless of what i need to meet to qualify. without taking too much time, 5b says you have to be arrested between 1971 and 200 9, is tha

correct? >> that is what it says. >>commissioner tour-sarkissian: and then, you have to meet two criteria, so to add another set of facts that the applicant was arrested between 2010 and 2017, with that criteria, that b -- >> you would not meet that criteria. >>commissioner tour-sarkissian: exactly, so that is the answer -- >> if you were arrested after 2009. >>commissioner tour-sarkissian: so not any convicted person would qualify. there is an exception. if you are -- you have to be -- >>commissioner ortiz-cartagena: see, i understand you. me and you, i don't know -- this is crazy. that's not a good thing sometimes, but i understand what you're saying. >>commissioner tour-sarkissian: you got it. >>commissioner ortiz-cartagena: i totally got you. >>commissioner tour-sarkissian: so we have to exclude every applicant that has been arrested the last seven years,

okay? >> you don't qualify for this one of five. >>commissioner ortiz-cartagena: criteria. >>commissioner tour-sarkissian: but that's in response to -- >>commissioner ortiz-cartagena: exactly, and maybe it needs to be more specified. >> i'm sorry, and i apologize. i was responding to the question about jurisdiction, so i apologize if i did not answer your original question. >>commissioner ortiz-cartagena: no, no, you did. i'm sorry. it's my fault. up to 2009, jurisdictions don't matter, that -- on a technical, and i already understood you. >>commissioner tour-sarkissian: okay. you got it. >>commissioner ortiz-cartagena: i got you. >> and if you went to a public school in a neighboring city, like, oakland or something, and then moved here after that period of time, it wouldn't count, either. >>commissioner ortiz-cartagena: five years. >> unless you have five total years of school in san francisco, no.

i got that one. that one was clear. >>president dwight: okay. so shall we -- where are we, now. >> so any other questions about the operator or incubbator? i have a couple of other amendments. >>president dwight: okay. >> so additionally, the supervisor changed the employment eligiblity aids to allow for 18 year olds or older to work in spaces that have m-licenses only perstate regulations, and so places -- businesses with a and m licenses or a only licenses, you must be 21 plus. >> and that was one of the recommendations the commission made. >>commissioner ortiz-cartagena: correct. >> we also -- supervisor cohen also introduced a public health education campaign directing

the department of public health to do outreach and education on cannabis safe consumption, health risks, etcetera, because that was not addressed in the original legislation, and lastly, supervisor cohen introduced a fund for equity operators to support infrastructure, improvements, things like odor mitigation to commissioner's earlier comments, and technical assistance. now, this creates the fund. this does not fund the fund. that has to be done in separate legislation. >>commissioner zouzounis: quick questions on that. so i know that loans were alluded to as part of that, as within equity incubbator, so would that mean if you are

an en wick tea an equity incubbator, and you're going into business with an equity applicant -- the source of that isn't established there? >> correct. >>president dwight: okay. are we there? >> are we there yet? >>president dwight: public comment? >> i'm there. >> i have a few additional items to review, but if there's no more questions for brittni, then, we can move on and -- >>president dwight: shall we call for public comment? >> did you want to take action on the equity program? if we do, then -- then we should just go ahead and let me finish on

providing the updates to you just so that you're apprised where things are and what's being voted on. >>commissioner ortiz-cartagena: president dwight, after updates are done, i just want to make comments, and recommendations, after your comment. >> okay. so this is just to inform you. >>president dwight: well, we have two items here for which brittni is presenting. i think if we are to take action on these items, we should take action on them, unless your editorial comments are useful to taking action on these so we can close out these items. >> then i would say for you to take action because what i'm going to provide you is updates separate from what brittni has presented. >>president dwight: and that action might be that out of this discussion if we have developed any recommendations or have we convinced ourselves that we are supportive of the

legislation as it will be proposed tomorrow in its first reading, correct -- the amendment? >>commissioner ortiz-cartagena: it we he can we hear public comment? dwight quite no, i'm just trying to figure out if this is the course we're on and then, we'll take public comment. >> so the option for you is since equity items was one of the things that were not in the legislation, and any other amendments that have resided specifically in relationship to the commission's recommendations, you may want to hear and take action on, so you could daeal with just the specifics of the equity program and the total equity program, take action on that, and then, i can present on the other items, amendments. some of them are still -- there are some that are still kind of in moving parts, and i wouldn't -- you know, unless you wanted to provide some

direction, but -- >>president dwight: i mean in general, i would say that we are supportive of expediting the definition -- at least the initial definition of the equity program because it stands in the way of the entire universe of small businesses to move forward, okay, so we have to get this piece done, and if we feel that the supervisor has a reasonable proposal for that equity program, then, i'm supportive, because i want to see it get done, and i mean, we can talk about this forever, and -- and you know, twist and turn on the minutiae of the program, but we need to get something in place to define one, who are the equity candidates so that they can move forward, and also so that we get this road block out of the way, that we won't arrest any other applicants until we've got an equity program in place. and it sounds -- i have the

utmost respect for the supervisor and her ability to craft something that meets the requirements for the constituents that it's supposed to address, and she's better qualified to determine that program probably better than any of us here. we like the framework and the fundamental premise that she's putting forward; then, the board of supervisors is going to parse out the details, so... >> and i think for historically, for the record, i can forward anything that you decide to take action onto the board of supervisors right away, but this might be an important thing just to go on record in terms of just for future -- the equity program to go on record in terms of where the commission weighs in on it, and we can do quick public

comment and if you want to do action on that particular item, we can do that, and then, i can just review with you the status of where the rest of the two pieces of legislation -- >>president dwight: yeah, i would like to do that because it is the important thing in the moment that will be discussed tomorrow, so i believe we should be on record as to our position on it, and, you know, for the sake of being supportive or not, and so i'd like to take public comment, and i'd like to open it up for whatever comments that any of the commissioners, including commissioner ortiz khanna he commissioner ortiz ca-cartagen would like to make, and then, we can see where we stand. all right. is that acceptable to everybody? this is thank you, brittni. this is a really important piece of legislation, and thank you for presenting it to us. is there any public comment on

this? seeing no public comment, public comment is closed. we'll open it up for comment. commissioner ortiz-cartagena. >> -- >>commissioner ortiz-cartagena: this is it. this is it. i think we're doing a little bit better than other counties, and i think supervisor cohen was the only one that kind of got it, you know, so it carries a lot of weight, you know? i was a victim of the war on drug. a lot of people i was growing up with of the war on drugs. gentrification was an aspect of the war on drugs. the area that they proposed on zip codes and the arrest records, it's math. you know, like black and brown, we were

disproportionately arrested, so i get it. and then, also, i want to give a shout out to mina parks, because she's been campaigning for small businesses, and she's taken a lot of her time campaigning for small business in this particular industry where it's predominantly white male, she's a latina female, and i just commend her for all her efforts and all her time, and just campaigning for all the true small businesses in the industry. and last and not least, hopefully, we can do something about consumption, because to me, that feels silly. we're going to have this big industry in the city that we can't consume. maybe we're not that tech savvy, so maybe we can build an app or something. thank you. >>president dwight: commissioners, any other comment? >>commissioner tour-sarkissian:

i would like to comment about the equity applicant definition. in looking at it, it talks about natural persons, excludes businesses, people who have been disadvantaged economically, in the city and county of san francisco, those who have been disadvantaged in general, subject to criminal prosecution. i think that covers it all. i think it deserves at least an action on our part and if it is ripe, i would like to make a proposal, a motion to recommend the definition proposed by supervisor cohen, section 1604, about equity applicants, to be seriously considered by the board of supervisors. >>president dwight: okay.

>>commissioner zouzounis: and i would second all that and just like to add, if explored in this phase or once it becomes regulation, the criteria also looking to including some kind of reference to workforce and where people were at in the informal market, and if that can be considered part of a criteria, too dwight i am dwight i -- >>president dwight: i'm sorry. i don't understand your --- >>commissioner zouzounis: you know, what parts of connection before cannabis was legal, some reference to those operations as part of the criteria, if that's possible, too. >>president dwight: equity? >>commissioner zouzounis: yeah. >>president dwight: okay. i guess whatever -- i don't understand that addition to the criteria. >> under the incubator section? >>commissioner zouzounis: no, i'm talking about as an equity

applicant. >>president dwight: that they were previously engaged in the industry. >> oh, they were previously engaged in the industry in the workforce. >>commissioner ortiz-cartagena: commissioner, are you talking about businesses that were previously engaged in peripheral agencies, like smoke shops? >>commissioner zouzounis: i think that's a question that i need to talk to supervisor fewer about that because it's nonconforming small businesses that sold small plastic bags or cartridges to smoke shops, but i'm talking specifically about equity applicants, and if they worked in the industry prior, how can we also have a correlation to that as a criteria. >>commissioner ortiz-cartagena: i think if they got arrested -- >>commissioner zouzounis: yeah, but not everybody that worked in it got arrested. >>president dwight: if these people in the business and flew under the radar and were

operating perfectly happily, they don't meet equity criteria. the equity criteria is to help those who were subject to injustice, so merely being an operator, in my opinion, is not in and of itself, some injustice. it was the people who were incarcerated and/or lived in conditions that represent an opportunity for some form of correction of justice, so i'm not -- that's why i'm not understanding your addition to the criteria. >>commissioner tour-sarkissian: these people are going to have an opportunity to get into the business, but they're not going to have the head start that the equity applicants are entitled to because of the discrimination, economic difficulties, and prosecution they were subjected to. >>commissioner zouzounis: okay. i'm just trying to think of how we can provide more

pathways for people to come out of the wood work and have the explicit -- >>president dwight: that's not the intent of the -- >>commissioner zouzounis: thank you. i got it. >> i'll address. supervisor fewer did take up the commission's recommendation. we call it the two step process, and i'll go through that so those businesses that have been in operation, supervisor fewer's created a path. >>president dwight: yeah, that's a totally different element. >>commissioner zouzounis: okay. okay. >>president dwight: go ahead. >> i think there might also be opportunities for the commissioners that you're referring to through the city college cannabis and horticulture program. >>commissioner zouzounis: okay. >>president dwight: -- >> t. clarke >> clerk: we'll have a motiod

second. so we'll do a roll call. [ roll call. ] motion passes, 6 to 0. >> so recommend approval for the equity program. thank you, brittni. >> thank you. >> thanks so much. >> so commissioners, just to -- so in the document that i handed out, supervisor fewer has sponsored an amendment based upon your recommendation for what i'm calling the two-step process, and what they're now calling preexisting nonconforming operators, so it does allow preexisting nonconforming operators to start the registration process

through the temporary registration process, and -- but they will need to cease operations until they are in a zoned compliance space, so -- and then, once they're in a zone compliant place, then, they will be able to complete their application process, so this will put them in the queue of being able to get their permits. >>president dwight: but they do have to move to a compliant place? >> but they do have to move to a compliant place. and the challenge -- this will definitely be a challenge for some of our manufacturers because of the issue at the state for colocation, so -- but that was talked about a great deal, and director elliott is consulting with the state in relationship to that, so -- >>president dwight: and one opportunity to be to take an

informal poll of those operators who are candidates for this, because we don't know, right? they're afraid to come forward, so if we could create a safe -- an ability for them to safely raise their hand and say i want to continue doing business. i'm in a noncompliant space today. i want to get in a compliant space, and i want to get in the queue, and if the office of cannabis could work with someone who has property and create a colocation place where we could get all these people into a compliant space because it's going to be a scramble. there's going to be a limited number of compliant spaces. people are going to be competing for them, so if basically we could create an incubator, a good sized incubator for -- that we could use to bundle all of these people in to give them a

fighting chance. but you come here first -- it's your halfway house, basically. you come here first, and you can apply for six months and rh rerep reapply for six months. >>commissioner ortiz-cartagena: president, it's difficult for a private sector to incubate another competitor in essence i was in parking, and you're telling me i have to break off ten paces to my competitor that one day is going to swallow me? i'm just saying, like, if we think past this in the -- you know, in the different phases, i think this should be left up to the nonprofits, and they should incubate like cocina. like a restaurant, if i sell pupusas, i'm not going to put

my commissioner here, and she sells pupusas in a corner. >>president dwight: you could share the same kitchen at la cocina. >>commissioner ortiz-cartagena: but what i'm saying, president dwight is let me make some bags -- break off 1,000 square feet, and hopefully, i can someday take over your business. >>president dwight: no. what i'm suggesting is there be a dale with a real estate owner that has a compliance -- let's say they have a warehouse in a compliant location who would be willing to work with the city to look, i've got 10,000 square feet here. i'm willing to provide this space at x dollars persquare foot, agnostic to who comes through the door. let the office of cannabis moderate

that space, and say we've got ten candidates. and we're going to regulate the space so that the candidates feel safe talking to the office of cannabis, so i'm not asking an established operator to provide space in the corner for a -- for an up and coming operation. >>commissioner ortiz-cartagena: but you know that's part of the process right now, and they just copied oakland, and it doesn't work in oakland right now. >>president dwight: no, i wouldn't -- >>commissioner ortiz-cartagena: you want to give me 1,000 square feet? >>president dwight: i wouldn't invite a start-up competitor into a space in my small business. >>commissioner zouzounis: that definition kind of changed where it was a traditional sponsor relationship where you could go into business with a said person, and now it's going

into an incubator, which is kind of an open-ended question, so it was if you go into business with an incubator -- >>president dwight: don't mix-up the two things. the equity incubator is different. that was anecwhich tee issue. what we're talking about now is the broader issue of enabling -- bringing those out of the shadows, in noncompliant spaces, and i think it's ripe to require that they become geographically compliant, because that's just -- >>commissioner zouzounis: but i'm not the one conflating the language. they're the one conflating the language, so that's what i'm trying to understand. >>president dwight: what we want to do is provide a safe haven and really, a two step process they can come into this incubator and feel safe and be compliant, and move onto a space maybe colocating with

others, that this would be kind of the ellis island, right, the clearinghouse. >>commissioner ortiz-cartagena: i know. >> right, and i think just to go back, so this is what director elliott's trying to sort out with the state is just that ability in the nonretail environment. it's like our commercial kitchens. you have somebody who owns the kitchen and then leases out the space to different individuals, and that seems to, you know it seems the way the state legislation is written is that's not allowed. and then, the question is somebody who is not growing enough, who might be a copacker -- i'll get to some of these things, but some of these

things might be trailing legislation judge ust so we can get something done and passed so we can bring a certain number of existing operators, the ability for them to start functioning in their adult market come january 1. >>president dwight: no, i totally agree. >> so just -- in terms of the preexisting nonconforming operators, just a point of clarification. so they will have to -- and you heard this, but to provide proof that they were in business prior to september 26th, 2017; you know, provide, you know, type of cannabis business, but they'll have to provide an affidavit or clargs made under penalty of perjury by the owner certifying that the preexisting nonconforming operator will not engage in commercial cannabis activities. so there wasn't the will or the

band width to allow nonconforming businesses to continue to operate, so that is that, but it allows these businesses to come and register, so once they do that, they will be able to get their permit in 2018. also, there is a process for existing mcd's that have their article 33 permit, a direct pathway to turning over into article 16, retailers, they will not have to apply for the temporary permit as was in the original legislation, so it reduces one additional step that in ishlitially that they going to have to go through. much discussion at the board of supervisors that these businesses, they have their permits, they've been inspected, they're already gone through conditional use, so...

so that process has been stream lined and improved for the existing mcd's, and then creating a path, a pipeline process for the mcd's that have applied for a permit. currently, supervisor sheehy wants to amend the legislation -- or it was amended from may of 2017 to july of 2017, that those applications were in the department of public health. there's some discussion by the board of supervisors about that time period, but right now, the legislation was amended to extend out the period to july 2017 for those who have submitted a permit at the department of public health. but have either, you know, gone through the process of planning or still have yet to go through

the process at planning. >>president dwight: right. >> and then, supervisor safai submitted an amendment that was accepted at the committee for portable permits for cannabis businesses, and there is to allow businesses who either -- their leases may not be renewed, there's a way -- 'cause usually land use entitlements stay with the land, and so many businesses, either the property owner is taking advantage of this or larger entities are coming in to take advantage of that land use space because it's a fairly premium commodity, so the portable permits will allow the owner to be able to transport that permit to another location. there, of course, are a whole set of criteria to ensure that it isn't a new owner-operator

during that process, and they have 18 months to find a new location. also, consumption, so the definition of consumption was changed, so now, consumption does mean smoking and edible consuming or other ways of consuming -- drinking -- and will allow the retailers the ability to add that on. there are going to be specific criteria. right now it's being proposed as you have to have a separate consumption room, so again, this is going to be, you know, a bit of a challenge because there are some mcd's that are small, and if -- when they transfer into a cannabis retailer, they won't have the room to create that space, so it'll be interesting to see what the director comes with in terms of how the portable

permits may be able to be used if a current operator wants to relocate to be able to allow on-site consumption. and there will be, of course, a whole set of building code and health code regulations to be able to ensure. >>president dwight: and any mcd should be affordable operator, right? >> the retailers, as i understand it, but i will clarify if it extends beyond the retailers. >>president dwight: okay. does that sound good? >> and then, there is a local hire requirement that has been established by supervisor safai. unfortunately, it was not -- he initially -- he initially submitted the amendment to a 30% local hire requirement but then, it got amended at committee to 50%. >> for all operators? >> for all operators. >> that's outrageous. we cannot be mandating the hiring

practices of small businesses, any businesses, to that level of specificity. there may not be that many qualified applicants in this city, and you're going to hamper the city before you even get to that point. >>commissioner ortiz-cartagena: oakland's having that problem right now. >> who can live in this city anymore, and so you're going to -- you're going to hamstring this industry right out of the gate, and any -- i can't support any -- frankly, i can't support any local hiring requirements, because businesses -- i have tried to hire people in a retail space. i can't find candidates. people can't afford to live near here. they don't want to commute four hours from livermore, where they can afford to live, so to make that a requirement on anybody's business, whether they're in cannabis or sewing or any kind of retail, i think, is an

absurd requirement. >> we have the lowest employment rate in the entire country. >> this is a nonstarter. >>commissioner ortiz-cartagena: and if i could just shed light is because people thinks it's going to be a bonanza. once it becomes illegal, it's not. that's why prohibition happened. so, like, i'm just -- >>president dwight: well, i don't see why this industry should have its own hiring requirement that is not foisted on any other industry in this city that i'm aware of. if you have a local hiring requirement for a city and county funded project, that's entirely different.

one, it's a job, you know, it's a defined job. it's not an industry, it's not a business. it is a contract, right? that's totally different, having requirements like that for contracts, but to subject a business owner, an entrepreneur -- any small business owner, our equity owners, to subject them to this requirement, it is -- >>commissioner tour-sarkissian: it is failure right out of the block. >> and if i may, i think it was sort of pushing toward the hiring of the harder to employ, but that is better done through very specific workforce programs. >> they have workforce programs that channel people into this industry, not make a mandate on the otherwise that said we must hire thus. we don't run those programs. >> so that may be something that you might want to take some action on, so those are

the core elements of that -- i think, the highlights from -- >>commissioner tour-sarkissian: how do we take action on this very specific requirement tonight? >> you could say that because of this local hire is currently in the legislation that is before you, on page 48, and so you could take specific action on that item. and then, let me just quickly say additional -- so staff -- >>president dwight: pardon me, commissioner adams need to leave because he has -- >> i have a 9:00 flight. >> so what i just proposed to you is going to the board of supervisors to take action on. they divided the file so they can keep this document in

committee to the call of the chair, and so they're going to be continuing to work on adding a section on compassionate -- compassionate program for medical, allowing patients to have access to those products, and that items sold in the cannabis for -- or medical cannabis is -- it's -- the patient is able to access the product in a loose form, so what that sounds like to me is in the regular retail environment, i was not able to hear this first section, but because of that section, what this says to me is then all items sold in cannabis retail is prepackaged. so -- and then there is, again, sort of developments on criteria to develop more criteria around delivery, the commissary and commercial kitchens, and then, there was much discussion, commissioner

tour-sarkissian around the percentages of ownership, and so that is being continued to -- to be worked on. and then, for land use -- so there were two files that were created, and i had to agendaize both of them to be able to talk to it. so summary is they whittled it down to one file, so the file was continued to the call of the chair, but where things are landing with land use is 600 feet initially in the legislation and zero in file 170141, 600 feet was the orbit. it was amended in committee today with 600 feet for the radius, and then 600 feet for a buffer zone. so i anticipate that there will

be much discussion amongst many supervisors tomorrow, and that's not -- that may not be a final outcome. again, brittni talked about the small retailers colocating and not subject to individual use or clustering codes. what was proposed today or amended today was to require a mandatory 312 notice citywide for any mcd converting to article 16, cannabis retailer, and to delete a mandatory dr for districts 4 and 7. supervisor tang expanded, allowing cannabis retailers in the mc-1 district for district 4, but is limiting one mcd for the neighborhood commercial districts for district 4. and supervisor safai has limited his nr