responsibility of theirs. and mr. emblich started his presentation saying that most people wouldn't think the area in front of their home is taxable. well, most people in san francisco don't expect exclusive use of the sidewalk and the street in front of our homes. in fact, most people in san francisco pay for the roof to park their car, and most people in san francisco either do that by finding one of the very coveted spaces that exist in the garage, or they find if in some way, shape or form a mile from their house or they pay parking tickets, because that's what a person without a parking garage does, they pay regular parking tickets, and this is not the end of the world. you've been enjoying -- it does suck for you, and i get that, but did the treasurer act

unreasonably? i don't think so. and should we give a second bite of the apple to these homeowners when most people never get that? i don't think so. thank you. >>president breed: thank you, supervisor ronen, and again, remind members of the public, no audible expression is allowed in the chamber. seeing no other names on the roster, madam clerk on the motion, please call the role. >> clerk: [ roll call. ] >> clerk: there are 7 ayes and four knows with supervisors kim, peskin ronen and yee, in

the dissent. >>president breed: the motion passes. madam clerk, let's go back to items 8 and 9. >> clerk: we are discussing items amendments to the planning code and discussing -- >>president breed: i want to ask members of the public to please exit the chamber quietly. we are still conducting business. thank you. madam clerk? >> clerk: just to repeat that we are now discussing amidvarious amendments to the planning code to discuss the regulation of retail -- [ gavel ]. >> clerk: thank you, madam president. >> clerk: discussion of cannabis and the retail -- >>president breed: madam clerk, madam clerk? >> clerk: yes. >>president breed: i want to ask the members who are here who are going to remain, to please be quiet.

madam clerk? >> clerk: yes, for purposes of the members of the public who came late, we have already called items 8 and 9 together. these are various amendments to various codes regarding cannabis regulation. >>president breed: thank you, madam clerk, and as i said earlier, there will be no public comment on these items, and we will continue our discussion here at the board. we left off with supervisor cohen has introduced a motion to amend and i'm sure you're -- we've had sufficient time to review those amendments and colleagues, is there a second to supervisor cohen's amendment? seconded by supervisor sheehy, and just so you know, colleagues, i will list out these particular amendments and we can vote on them when we're finished at the end. i have a list of 34e78 berz who a

are -- members who are already on the roster, and supervisor cohen had finished her comments, and we left off with supervisor fewer. >>supervisor fewer: thank you very much chair. i, today, just want to make a comment on the amendment that -- one amendment that supervisor cohen has proposed, and that is amendment section 10.00-162, office of cannabis and changing it to office of cannabis community reinvestment fund. i just want to state that the original intent of this investment fund was to assist those dispensaries that would be equity operators -- that would be owned by equity operators financially to help them actually start their businesses, start -- have the

funds to setup a business skm to assist them in being a small business that can be really successful. the amended language here takes us to a different intent, so although i would love to work with -- although today, i am in favor of the other amendments because i think they're very good amendments, and i just want to thank supervisor cohen and her staff for this diligent work and this hard work to build this legislation and to ensure that we have equity and anecwhich tee progr an equity program when we roll out adult use cannabis, i don't believe the intent has changed with the establishment of this fund. this fund was not to provide assistance to organizations working to address the impact of racially disproportionate arrests and incarceration,

other burdens of the failed war on drugs. it was really intended to help, i think, those equity businesses that would need some financial help. i think that we will bring forward, props hopefully, a revenue measures and this in particular, but i think the real intent of the equity fund was to help these dispensaries and especially the -- the equity operators. and then, i just wanted to say that i have some amendments here to article 16 under the regulation cannabis, and it's section 16.02 and 16.05 and section 16.18, and i can either -- >>president breed: supervisor fewer, if you could identify the item number, as well, so that we can make sure that we do it to the right piece of legislation, that would be

helpful. >>supervisor fewer: oh, and there's a couple of others on the back, too. would it be possible to have miss elliott respond to this. >>president breed: so i understand, miss elliott, these are cleanup amendments, and if you could specify each amendment as well as whether or not they're for item number 8 or 9, that would be helpful. >> supervisors, nicole elliott, office of cannabis. these -- all of these amendments are for item 8. the first amendment is to section 16.02, definitions, which you can find on page 12, line 1, and it adds, relating to medal cannabis to the definition of preexisting nonkboermino conforming operator. section 16.5, transition provision -- i'm sorry. section 16.05, transition provisions, you can find this

on page 20, line 10, a cleanup amendment to strike medicinal, which was the intent originally, and it did not get struck, and for clarification supervisors, this is actually for item 9. the third amendment -- bred breed wait, i'm sorry. so 16.02 is the definition, is for item number 8 >> they're all for item 9, president. >>president breed: breed all of them? thank you. >> yeah, all of them are for item #. so the third amendment applicable to 16.18, we are removing suggesti removing -- suggesting that the board require that a business have a safe in which they store

their things, and then, this is a cleanup amendment which you can find on page 56, line 19 to strike health and safety and replace it with business and professions to then read california business and professions code. >>president breed: thank you. so just quickly, are there any questions about these cleanup amendments? okay. supervisor fewer, you'd like to make a motion to amend. >>supervisor fewer: to adopt these amendments. >>president breed: okay. supervisor fewer has made a motion and seconded by supervisor tang. and we will -- is that -- anything else? >>supervisor fewer: no, that's it, thank you. >>president breed: so next on the roster is supervisor yee. >>supervisor yee: thank you, president breed. first of all, i want to say that i appreciate supervisor -- the majority of supervisor cohen's amendments, and again,

i want to commend her for working on the equity piece. now that i've gotten a chance to go through it, the -- the one -- the one amendment that i don't agree with is changing the -- which is section 16 section 16.04 c 1, which is in regard to the local hiring requirement. i think it was during the rules committee meeting, i made a motion to increase it to 50% for local hiring, and the rationale at the time when i made it was that why -- why are we sort of having such a low bar in terms of local hiring when many of these jobs are not

what i call construction jobs, where you need a lot of training and it's harder to find people that's local. and so here's an opportunity to actually provide jobs for people that are living in san francisco, so i -- i'm going to vote against that particular amendment and keep it -- i would like to keep it at 50% for local hiring. but everything else, supervisor cohen, thank you, i appreciate it. i'm going to offer an amendment for item number 9. it's under -- let's see... >>supervisor safai: excuse me, madam president. >>president breed: i'm sorry, supervisor safai. >>supervisor safai: i'd like to ask him a question. >>president breed: i'm sorry, supervisor safai. >>supervisor safai: i'm sorry. >>president breed: go ahead, supervisor y.

>>supervisor yee: . >>supervisor yee: instead of having a one year deadline, it would be a two year deadline, giving people under the equity lens a longer opportunity to get -- get their life -- their permits because when i spoke to miss elliott, she said -- actually, it would take -- it's very unusual that somebody's going to go through the whole process in one year, so just by having it for two years, it's a greater opportunity, and am i saying it right, miss elliott? >> supervisors, when discussing this amendment, in order to further the goal of having more equity applicants and ensuring that they have time to get their foot in the door, one of the recommendations was extending the timeline to instead of january 1st, 2019

for new businesses to come in, january 1st, 2020. >>supervisor yee: being on. -- okay. so that's one amendment. i have other amendments -- >>president breed: okay. supervisor yee, just for clarity, you want to make a motion, and we have copies distributed of that particular amendment. >>supervisor yee: correct. >> teacher: is the-- >>president breed: is there a second on the amendment? >>president breed: okay. and are there questions on the amendment? supervisor yee. >>supervisor yee: i have others that i would like to offer, but i think i'll wait for the discussion. >>president breed: okay. thank you, supervisor yee. supervisor safai? >>supervisor safai: i actually have a question. you said you kept the local hire at 50%. can you just reiterate that because someone was talking to me? they were.

they were handing me an amendment and talking to me at the same time, so i was trying to -- >>supervisor yee: so basically, during the rules committee, we made an amendment to increase the local hire from 30 to 50. today's amendment offered by supervisor cohen is to bring it back down to 30. >>supervisor safai: but that was for equity. >>president breed: and just for clarity, just because of a conversation -- >>supervisor safai: through the chair. >>president breed: thank you. >>supervisor cohen: okay. through the chair -- >>president breed: i 'm sorry madam chair, can i ask supervisor cohen a question? >>president breed: thank you. supervisor cohen? supervisor safai, you are correct. >>supervisor safai: okay. so through the chair, then, she reduced the tlaesh held fhreshl

hire applicants from 50% to 30%. >>supervisor yee: the amendment we made during the rules committee was talking about local hiring. >>supervisor safai: from 30 to 50, yes. >>supervisor yee: from 30 to 50, and from what i'm reading here in her handout is section 13.04 c is this is local hiring requirement to 30% from 50%, so i was assuming this is the same numbers we talked about. >>supervisor safai: so through the chair, madam president, just to clarify, you were correct, we did -- on your amendment, what we support in the rules committee, we raised bar from 30 to 50% for the entire universe of new applicants, and supervisor cohen had the same number, at 50% for equity applicants, and she made a motion to reduce

that number today from 30 to 50 applicants, as i understand it. >>supervisor cohen: that's corre correct. >>president breed: supervisor safai, did you have any other comments? >>supervisor safai: i just had any own amendments to clarify that, but i just wanted to clarify that. i was confused. okay. i have two amendments. i think it should be pretty fast. i think supervisor fewer and i had a conversation after last week about the good neighbor and management security plan. i'm reducing that amendment today. we're going to prioritize the review of making sure that office of cannabis, unless there's any issues or complaints or flags that go up, it should be pretty pro forma for the majority of the existing applicants to transition to a temporary adult use permit. but for anyone who have been flagged or that might need additional review, they have to -- everyone has to resubmit

their good neighbor and management policy, so i'm resubmitting that today. you have a copy of that. that is for item number 9. the second one is going to require a little more explanation. >>president breed: i apologize, supervisor safai, so you're making a motion to amend item number 9 to include the -- >>supervisor safai: correct, which would be under article 33 of the cannabis act to require that anyone that's transitiontion fr transitionti transitioning from an mcd would be required to resubmit their management zp good neighbor plan. >>president breed: okay. is the there is a motion. seconded by supervisor tang. next? >>supervisor safai: okay. it builds on this idea of moving toward our new applications prior to the existing pool of people that are mcd -- current mcd

operators and delivery, and so it's a pathway that we achieve the goals that i heard are c t articulated from the majority of this body are those that we're giving an opportunity are those that have been disproportionately by the war on drugs, and those who have been incarcerated, and communities that have been skrim 2345i9e discriminated. what this says is this entire universe of our entire number, then 50% of that number, 23 or 25 25, the next 23 or 25 would are equity applicants only. >> does that include those in the pipeline. >>supervisor safai: it says those that have received their planning commission aful pro, so there are a few of those in the pipeline that have already

had their planning commission approval that might be either doing their buildout, that might be doing their last permitting phase of the process that would be allowed to proceed, but those that have not, that just submitted and have not been processed, have not gone through the process or have not had a planning commission hearing, those would not be included, so that is specifically called out. >>president breed: supervisor -- >>supervisor safai: and this has not been called out, and supervisor yee and i did not have an opportunity to speak prior to this, but it strikes the january 1st, 2019 date completely, and what it says is it gives us time to get to that 50% number, and after that time it goes 1:1, so after we received that over jaul number of 50% in our over jaul universe, we would go on a 1:1 basis, and we would proceed on that going forward, and i think that meets essentially what i've heard over the last couple

of months from people before this body, from members of this chamber, supervisor cohen and others, that we would have a strong base to build equity applicants in san francisco, so i make that motion to adopt that. >>president breed: supervisor safai has made a motion to amend. is there a second? seconded by supervisor tang. >>supervisor safai: i don't have anything else at this moment. i'll hold my next comments. >>president breed: supervisor tang, you're next, and then supervisor cohen, and then i'll go back to the roor. >>supervisor tang: there was a case that now instead of providing equity and businessmen toring to these applicants, that these applicants would submit

an equity -- basically help and encourage and establish the growth of equity operators. i'm just wondering kind of how often these plans are going to be evaluated, at what junctures -- how do we know -- this might be a question for the office of cannabis, but how do we know these people are meeting these benchmarks and helping other operate skbrors? >>president breed: supervisor cohen. >>supervisor cohen: thank you chair. supervisor tang, that's a good question, and we will be lending and looking to the director of the cannabis -- office of cannabis. i'll let her speak. >> supervisors, there are some moments in time where we can ensure that we are checking on the status of these progress reports, so of course, you have the plans submitted prior to the sale of -- temporary sale of adult use. and you will also have a

progress property submitted at the moment of application for article 16 permits. the vision is that these applicants have their own files that they are continuously updating, and this can be done on an annual basis, as well. that is not currently put in this legislation. it's something that i would -- i can do by regulation, so that is something that we can set on an annual basis for those updates moving forward. >>supervisor tang: okay. i do think -- thank you for that. i do think it's really important that i don't see the language in here, that these operators are just submitting these plans, and then, they just go into these records, and no one checks on them and no one meets them. i just want to make sure that they're meeting these benchmarks. >> to your point, supervisor, in thinking about it has been contemplated how we're going to share these updates on our

website, and of course they are all subject to public disclosure, as well. >>supervisor tang: okay. thank you very much. okay. great, so i don't know if this is the time, but -- so i have amendments i've circulated to everyone to item 8, the planning code legislation. these are amendments that were in originally the bulkier version of the legislation, and so i'm simply just trying to reinsert them in here, and one of them is regarding the 1,000 foot radius and including the daycare centers. this is something that i know we will have a full on discussion about, i'm sure, but i do know that at least the constitch we knco constituency that i represent wanted they to go forward with that. so one in a neighborhood in district 4, as well as expanding the green zone, that

was already included and adopted, but in that expanded area, which is west of sunset boulevard and south of golden gate park or lincoln way would be restricted to two in that specific area, so again, those are amendments that i have spoken on before, and i'm just simply trying to put them back in here. >>president breed: supervisor tang has made a motion to amend. is there a second? seconded by supervisor yee. and colleagues, before we move on, i know that there are a lot of amendments, and this is probably getting a little bit more complicated, and i was thinking we could probably vote on these one at a time and then continue because then i won't have to completely repeat exactly what they are, and we can probably just knock them out and then do the next ones, if that's okay with you. my biggest concern is there were names on the roster, but more importantly, there might be questions or other issues with regards to each of these amendments, so i'll do my best,

and if i see that there are questions or concerns about the amendments that are -- have been proposed, then we'll do what we can. i want to hold off on supervisor cohen's amendment because i know that one is a lot more complicated, and we'll get to that one towards the end, if you don't mind. and the next one we had, if we could do this one, supervisor fewer made a number of technical amendments, and so on those particular technical amendments, madam clerk, please call the roll. >> clerk: on supervisor fewer's technical amendment? >>president breed: yes. >> clerk: just turning the pages, madam president, to get back to that page. all right. this item was seconded by supervisor tang, correct, madam

president? >>president breed: yes. >> clerk: okay. supervisor. >>president breed: breed aye. >> clerk: supervisor cohen. >>supervisor cohen: aye. >> clerk: supervisor fewer. >>supervisor fewer: aye. >> clerk: supervisor kim. >>supervisor kim: aye. >> clerk: supervisor peskin. >>supervisor peskin: aye. >> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >>president breed: okay. those amendments pass nonly. the next propos -- unanimously. >>president breed: the next amendments were to pass the date to january 1, 2020. madam clerk, please call the roll.

>> clerk: [ roll call. ] >> clerk: there are four ayes and seven noes with supervisor breed cohen, safai, sheehy, tang, and yee in the dissent. >>president breed: yee is not in the dissent. >> clerk: oh, did he say no? supervisor yee said aye? >>supervisor yee: aye. >> clerk: i apologize. i thought i heard you say no, supervisor. okay, so madam president, there are

>>supervisor safai: do we have any advice -- through the chair, do we have any advice on why the previous mcd's were targeted? was it simply because they were within 1,000 feet of a school? >> supervisor: through the chair, if i can...

>>president breed: supervisor kim? >>supervisor kim: so in 2012, i know that at least three property owners were sent letters by our attorney general's office, melinda hague, threatening action if they didn't follow the federal law, which is the drug free zone which 1,000 feet of school and children serving facilities. i know that in this case, three dispensaries did shutdown in response to them, did not own their property, and so the landlord did not feel comfortable continuing their business relationship. in the third case, the mcd happened to own their own property. they did briefly shutdown, and it's my understanding after talking to miss elliott that they later reopened as a delivery service only and have completely reopened as a

retailer. >>supervisor safai: through the chair, can you -- can supervisor kim speak a little bit more about what her amendment was regarding notification? >>president breed: unfortunately, she can't because the conversation is about supervisor tang's amendment, so we can get to that later. >>supervisor safai: okay. >>president breed: supervisor yee, you have a question about supervisor tang's amendment. >>supervisor yee: yes. i actually have a question for miss wang -- is it miss wang? you mentioned school and child care centers? is it how the federal government sort of interprets...you mentioned schools, child care centers, or preschools or something, and youth centers. >> victoria young, deputy city attorney. your question is how does the federal government interpret that? well, i can't speak to the federal government with regard to the state law, which is the law that includes the 600 foot buffer zone, is that what

you're referring to, where it says 600 feet from school, daycare center or youth center. >>supervisor yee: or in this case, it's federal law, i guess it's 1,000 feet. >> oh, i see. >>supervisor yee: but does it include child care centers in which supervisor tang is making a motion to include? >> that's federal law. i don't know off the top of my head. >>supervisor yee: i thought you just said something. you mentioned chiel care, that's why. >> oh, i was talking about child care centers in the state law context, and child care centers are defined under state law, so we have a definition that we can look to for that purpose, but i'm not -- i don't know, as i stand here, about how the federal law would interpret -- would treat -- would treat that. >>supervisor yee: okay. >> yeah. >>supervisor yee: i guess my point is child care in general or the early education program, that's licensed through the state and should be looked at

as a separate education institution. i'm supporting supervisor tang's motion, that's all. >>president breed: okay. seeing no other questions regarding supervisor tang's motion, madam clerk, please call the roll -- oh, supervisor kim. >>supervisor kim: i just don't know how to put my name on the roster promotion, but i just wanted to ask supervisor tang if she's open to a friendly amendment -- and by the way, i think it is -- the reason why it's been x'ed out so many times, it's been changed to 1,000, and then it was changed back to 600, but i did want to see if the author of the amendment was amenable to a friendly amendment, which would grandfather in existing

operators that were less than 1,000 feet from an existing school, public or private or daycare center. >> mr. givner, is that even necessary? >> i assume this would apply to mcd operators that are in spins bspins -- existence but are within the 1,000 foot radius, that it would prohibit them from even applying for adult use. >> victoria wang, deputy city attorney. the existing mcd's that are currently operating already legal uses, so if this were to pass, they would become legal nonconforming uses, so they wouldn't be affected on that. >>supervisor kim: okay. i just wanted to propose that

friendly amendment. >>president breed: supervisor safai. >>supervisor safai: i'm sorry. i have an amendment and a question. how would that affect the ones that are temporary permitted mcd's or have had their planning commission approval, how would that impact those that are about maybe about to be mcd authorized zm victoria wang deputy city attorney, so in the absence of any particular grandfathering language, the permit would be decided based on the law in effect at the time that the permit is issued, so if this amendment were in effect at the time that the final permit were -- one second, excuse me.

>> okay. we do already have a current version in the ordinance, and that is at section 190 b, and so pursuant to that provision, a grandfathered mcd that was converting, this is actually converting to retail use permanently, would not be subject to locational restrictions, and temporary uses, as well -- i mean, as far as we're talking about if there is an amendment for a temporary conversion, that would be a separate issue. >>supervisor safai: just through the chair, point of clarification. i guess what i'm trying to get at is based on my amendment, there were about four or five that were almost permitted or given their permits as mcd operators, and my question is would this buffer -- would that apply to them? >> if they've already obtained -- i'm sorry. >>supervisor safai: no, all they've had is their planning commission aful pro, but they

might not have been given their mcd permit yet. >> so they would fall -- if they qualify as grandparented mcd's under section 190, then, their location wouldn't be restricted. >>supervisor safai: so i don't know if they would be grandfathered, then, if they have not been given their mcd permit yet. >> so the grandfathered mcd's include those who already have permits as well as those who have already applied for such a permit by july 20, 2017 and eventually received a permit from the department of public health. >>supervisor safai: okay. thank you. i have in other item. >>president breed: okay. no other questions, madam clerk, on this particular amendment, please call the roll.

>> clerk: [ roll call. ] there are four ayes and seven noes with supervisors breed, cohen, fairly, fewer, peskin, ronen, and sheehy in the dissent. >>president breed: the amendment fails. the next item? >> supervisor: thank you. is it possible to do an amendment to this to the prior motion? >>president breed: yes, but before that, i'm going to need to take a two-minute recess.

>> okay. thank you -- are we back? all right. we're back. thank you, everyone for your patience. we left off with supervisor tang, who wanted to make another amendment. >>supervisor tang: thank you very much. so colleagues -- so i have a couple of variations of this. so my next motion would be -- and i want to clarify that the version of the legislation you have in front of you only addresses khancannabis retail but my intention was for all, whether you're all, mcd or cannabis retail -- [ please stand by ]. >>supervisor tang: and so i would make that alternative motion. >>president breed: what we have right now, what we have

right now is 600. >>supervisor tang: i'm sorry. what we have for mcd's currently today. >>president breed: okay. supervisor tang has made a motion, seconded by supervisor cohen. >>supervisor cohen: . i wasn't seconding it, i was trying to speak to it. >>president breed: okay. so who's seconded it? supervisor kim, and supervisor cohen would like to speak a little more to it. >>supervisor cohen: i'm still kw confused. you would like to change it back to 600 feet? >>supervisor tang: no, 1,000. >>supervisor cohen: and your issue is. >>supervisor tang: the federal buffer zone. >>supervisor cohen: and the state buffer. >>supervisor tang: no, i'm talking about the federal 1,000

foot buffer zone, but it's really a reflection of what my community has asked for. >>supervisor cohen: let me make sure to make this an understanding, a lot of the reasons why we have the green zones problem that we have is the previous iteration of a commitment to a 1,000 foot radius, and not only do we have a problem that will perpetuate clusters, we will have them in poor working class communities where people of color are now living. i'd like to call on israel from the department of public health equity program -- it's a long title. i don't know all the details, but he is a front leader and has been working on cannabis related legislation since 2015 when the state passed this -- the three mersa laws, so if you

could speak a little bit as to why -- what the benefits or the effects could be to a 1,000 foot radius around the mcd's. >> sure. when we did the 1,000 feet, it actually moved the districts into, as supervisor kim has shown you, to the west -- to the east side of san francisco because that's where most of nonschool retail is, but what it did do from an equity standpoint, it placed it in the black and brown neighborhoods, that kids may not see it when they're going to school, but they see it when they're going home, they see it on the weekends. they're exposed to it over and over again, and if we continue to do it 1,000 feet, because of our zoning issues, because of our commercia d