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 commercial district being

very east side, you're going to see much more on east side. so as supervisor kim has shown you, she not only has 16, but she has six in the pipeline and so again, it is just an opportunity of where you can be, not necessarily the question. the rules that we have for tobacco are 500 feet, so if you are going to look at a framework around access how we grant equity to tobacco access, it would be that. >> supervisor: thank you, israel. i appreciate your expertise that, and colleagues, would ask that you not support this issue. >>president breed: supervisor tang, did you not have any other comments? >>supervisor tang: no. i certainly hear what dph is saying. we certainly want this geographical equitiable

distribution. on the other hand, i hear that these dispensaries are not harmful to anyone. we want more of them in certain neighborhoods, so i just feel this huge push and pull between well it's harmful if they're in this one area, but at the same time, they're not going to harm kids or youth. i'm just bringing out these amendments because i think, again, my constituents have advocated for this very strongly, and as their representative, i do need to do that. >>president breed: thank you, supervisor tang. madam clerk, on the motion of 1,000 feet, please call the

rol roll. >> clerk: [ roll call. ] >> clerk: there are five ayes and six noes, with supervisor's breed, cohen, farrell, peskin, ronen, and sheehy in the dissent. >>president breed: the motion fails. supervisor tang? >>supervisor tang: i prams this'll be the last one on the buffer zone. my last motion would be 600 feet suffer zone including daycare centers. i have looked at maps comparing the maps 600 feet with or without daycare centers, and i think it's very reasonable, so i think since the other two motions failed, this might be a good compromise. >>president breed: supervisor tang has made a motion to amend, so is there a second, first of all? seconded by supervisor yee, and then, supervisor peskin and supervisor cohen, you both have questions about this?

>>supervisor cohen: yes. again, i'd like to defer to israel to talk about the state definition of daycares. >> we would have to look that up, but it's pretty extensive including preschool, daycare, not just little daycare, it's after school care for kids. it's pretty broad, so i just want you to understand what you're voting on when you say daycare, because a lot of people are saying it's just little kids, like little babies. >>supervisor cohen: thank you, i appreciate that. supervisor tang, through the chair, could you define dare care, are you working with the state definition or are you working with a different definition? >>supervisor tang: through the chair, we refer to health and safety code 1596.76. >>supervisor peskin: so those are licensed facilities of 25? >> supervisor: i don't know if our city attorney wants to

speak if it is consistent with what the state, i guess, buffer zone entails. >>president breed: so while we wait -- oh . >> victoria wang, deputy city attorney, so the use of the term daycare center in the state law, in the cannabis law is with reference to the state definition here in the amendment that you have proposed. >> supervisor: thank you for the clarification, so i think that's the point of the clarification through the chair and to supervisor tang, that it's the larger more comprehensive definition of daycare, it's not just your neighborhood daycare program, but it includes after school programs, latch key programs,

and the specifics, i do not have in front of me, but again, leaning on the expertise of israel, just want to throw that in there. >>president breed: and supervisor tang, you wanted to respond to that? >>supervisor tang: yes, so through the chair, and correct me if i'm wrong to the city attorney's office, but i believe that it means daycare center means any child daycare facility other than a family daycare home and includes any did i care facilities, extended care facilities, and older child centers. >>president breed: thank you. supervisor peskin. >>supervisor peskin: through the president to supervisor tang, do you have a copy of that map? i've got a whole bunch of different maps, but i don't have a copy of that map. >> supervisor: spiefr fewer will run that over to you now, or if we could ask someone to put it up on the screen.

>>supervisor peskin: and maybe we can compare it to the buffer zone that i have here, which is the 600 feet without daycare centers so we can just look at both of those. provider provid >> supervisor: yes. >>supervisor peskin: they look very similar, by the way. >>president breed: we'll put them on the overhead. >>president breed: supervisor yee, you had a comment about the proposed amendment? >>supervisor yee: well, probably only thing i'll say that for the school-aged piece of it, probably it's more in school sites. that's why you're not going to see a big difference there. it's mostly the 0-5 age

bracket, where there's many that are not in public school sites that might have impact. but actually, when i looked at the map, when i switched it on, it didn't really do much. it helped a little bit for certain areas. >>president breed: okay? >> so this one shows 600 feet around child care centers and 600 feet around schools, and i can turnoff child care centers just so you have an idea, or facilities. >>president breed: okay. supervisor peskin, were you done? okay. >>supervisor peskin: yeah, just to mr. starr, the gray areas wi areas are the exclusions? >> that's correct, so the gray areas indicate a buffer either around a school or the child care.

>>supervisor peskin: and then, go to the other one. >> that's just schools. >>supervisor peskin: okay. >> at 600 feet. >>president breed: supervisor ronen? >>supervisor ronen: yeah, i just wanted to add a couple things. you know, i didn't want to get into the big philosophical conversation yet, but i think by expanding the limits around schools and daycare centers, what we're saying is that there's something inherently dangerous or bad about these shops, and i just -- i just really disagree with that premise. i actually think that the war on drugs has been what has been dangerous for our society. there's documented evidence, plenty of it, showing that where you make drugs legal and regulate them and prevent kids from getting access to them and allow people who are already addicted to substances, you

know, to not penalize those individuals, that they use less drugs and get better, and that neighborhoods get safer, and you know, in portugal where all drugs are legal, they've seen the society transformed and crime go down, and i feel like we're somewhat having this conversation in a vacuum and pretending that there's something inherently bad about -- about this, what i think is an exciting moment in our country's history of finally waking up and saying we have been mistaken on how we handle drugs in our society and it's time to start with cannabis and legalize this drug. but with this board -- i'm just shocked with my colleagues, quite frankly, on this board, and i don't understand why this is so dangerous for children. i have a five-year-old

daughter. if i thought something was dangerous for her, i would be fighting tooth and nail to protect her, but she doesn't even know if she's passing by a cafe or a cannabis shop or a library. she might notice a toy store, but she doesn't -- i i understand maybe high school students, we might want to have a broader conversation, but daycare centers? five yearlies and three-year-olds and two-year-olds don't know a cannabis shop from any other shop, so i just find this conversation a bit nonsensical, and i also think we're just as a board moving in the wrong direction in this discussion, and that we're not looking at the evidence and we're not looking at the bigger picture. and i know that my colleagues are trying to be responsive to their constituents, and that's a very important part of our job, but i also think that we are elected to understand the science to read the history, to look at the big picture and say, you know, what as your

elected representative, i know your concern is public safety, but what i'm trying to do is increase public safety by righting decades of wrong. and i just had to add that in there because i just don't like the direction we're going. i just don't like the direction that we're moving on this discussion. >>president breed: thank you. so on the item, madam clerk -- supervisor tang? >>supervisor tang: i hear you, supervisor ronen, while i agree that a child walking by a dispensary is going to be asking for product, some places, smoking will be allowed, and no matter how about your ventilation is, and there are some studies in younger age children and brain development. in terms of adults, that's a whole different issue, so again, i don't think that dispensaries are going to sell,

and they're not going to let children in. there's going to be ample security. i'm not worried about that, frankly. i think parents will be walking with their children and not let them go in, but there are some concerns about development of young minds so, i will, as a compromise, propose a 600 feet with the daycare centers. >>president breed: supervisor sheehy? >>supervisor sheehy: yeah, i thought through the chair, the buffer was a stretch. at san francisco general, they have a smoking space where studies are conducted, so if doctors and nurses can be in the same space, including maternity wards, you know, i just -- i think -- and having seen the space and having seen cannabis study done at that space and smoking studies are

done there but neal benowitz, i'm very troubled by small children being dangled in front of us as being particularly threatened, which they're not. and as a parent and a medical cannabis user, i almost feel like -- i wouldn't say that i take it personally, but it is something that i'm having trouble finding adequate justification for. and for people in my community, it's very reminiscent of, you know, these people can't be near children, you know? it's not that long ago that we would not -- i would not have been able to be a parent, and so feeding that narrative is -- and for this board to reinforce that narrative is very challengin challenging, i know for myself

and many in our community. and i know that's not the intent here, but sometimes, when things are done, they do have an impact that may not be anticipated. >>president breed: supervisor kim? >>supervisor kim: i just feel like there's a lot of arguments that are getting conflated together. first of all, i think we have already righted the wrong bypassing proposition 64. i believe that we should legalize cannabis, and i'm really glad that we did it. that is a civil rights issue is the incarceration, the over incarceration in minority communities in neighborhoods of black and brown, particularly with the use of cannabis, so we have righted that wrong with the passage of proposition 64. what we're talking about is the framework where adult cannabis is allowed, and i think it's okay for us as a city to have some regulations. there's going to be access. it's not going to be an issue.

everyone is going to have access to adult use, because there's going to be i imagine, at least 30 operators opening in san francisco and a number of delivery operators. it's already not even an issue today, so i just flip the question. it's not about whether there is dangerous to children or not, it's whether access is an issue and if it isn't, i'm okay with putting some restrictions around where adult use cannabis can go. if the argument is, is this dangerous for it to be near children, i agree with supervisor ronen and sheehy, but then, we shouldn't have any 600 foot buffers, schools or child care centers. i think the reason i've held strong to that is i truly don't understand the distinction between 0 to 5 and 5 to 17. i know i'm not a parent, but if we don't believe there should

be a restriction for 0 to 5, then there shouldn't be a distinction for 5 to 17. these shops aren't going to let them in. i'm sure we're going to spend a lot of time mikiaking sure sho don't let anyone in under 21 unless they have a medical prescription from a doctor in these shops, so if we're not concerned about 0 to 5. we shouldn't be concerned about 5 to 17. but if we're going to have a buffer for 5 to 17, we should have a buffer from 0 to 17. i just don't understand the distinction. i just want to point out that my reason for voting for this is not the reason that they're going to be allowed to go into these shops. in a year or two, if you want to revisit it, i'm okay with that. i just don't think people are

going to be able to access recreational cannabis for adults in san francisco, and so being that that's the case, i'm okay with putting in a higher set of restrictions when we first put legalization in. >>president breed: so before i call on another supervisor, i just want to remind you all that we have a pile of amendments to make, so we can continue to argue this one particular issue or we can vote on it and go into details with some of the others, but supervisor ronen, you had your hand up, and then supervisor -- okay. supervisor safai, and then, supervisor farrell, but just to be clear, this is one small issue in comparison to, again, a lot of amendments that we have proposed today. this item has been discussed over and over again in committee, and that was the opportunity honestly for any amendments. they should have been made there, but that's just my two cents. supervisor safai?

>>supervisor safai: madam president, all due respect, this is the issue. i mean, this is the issue that divides this board. this is the issue that divides this city, this is the issue that defines this legislation in so many ways, and it informs all the other decisions that we made. i think there's been a really strong spirit of compromise in advancing this conversation. i think there's been a whole host of people that have tried to put issues forward that would make a good piece of legislation, but we've been asked to put something forward -- let me just say this on the record, okay. >>president breed: i'm sorry, could you stick to the amendment? >>supervisor safai: i am sticking to the amendment. i'm doing it in a long sort of way, but i think it's important, if you would allow me this opportunity. i think we have been asked in a very short period of time. i don't buy the narrative that we've had years and years and years to do this. we were given a piece of

legislation after our summer recess. we've been given two months to have this conversation. there have been a lot of people in the audience that have spent a lot of time. the press has been covering this extensively. we've had a few committee meetings and we've tried to move this as quickly as possible to meet a deadline that was kboesed on us by the state and the voters of the state of california. i agree with what supervisor kim said. the voters of san francisco voted to legalize. i firmly voted for legalization, but this barrier in terms of where we're going to position this, it is eat 'se as you, supervisor ronen trying to come in and saying, we want to have controls. supervisor tang, myself, supervisor kim, others, we have other issues that we're dealing with in our district, and i'm not saying that i understand your district any better than

you understand mine, and i am not using -- i have two young children, and i fundamentally believe as you do, that a five-year-old does not know what they're walking by, they have no consciousness of that. a four-year-old, a three-year-old, a two-year-old, and i think there is a determination. but if any of us had been in this room when we were in high school, maybe we had someone buy us alcohol when we were not old enough, right, and that begins to happen in thesitionuations. some parents are okay with that. some parents are okay with their children having access to marijuana, and that conversation has been accessed and opened up and there's going to be a full blown conversation. there's a lot of people in a lot of families that are having that in this day, and we are creating more access. we were bombarded with 1,000 e-mails on thanksgiving until the end of the day with predictable -- whatever it's called, they want to be able to deliver it in your house in ten minutes because they're not included in this legislation.

this is the defining issue, and so for me, i'm not using my children as a pawn in this conversation, but i would say i do fundamentally believe that we should allow the districts to determine how this is, and the voters of california didn't say we were going to put an mcd on every corner, and as supervisor kim said, there's no issue with access in this city, where there are some districts in this city that have more than others, because even if you removed every single buffer in here, the green zone would still be concentrated in the downtown core, just like all the business and wine and food and tobacco and entertainment, they're all concentrated in where the commercial kbrarea in this city, so i am personally okay -- i know that this body is not going to vote for this amendment, but me personally, i'm okay with the districts having an opportunity to define what that buffer zone it. that doesn't mean that in any

way, shape or form -- and some folks have taken the conversation in a whole other direction trying to divide this city, and i don't agree with that, but being able to determine where we're going to place these, i think we have tremendous precedent in this building for that. thank you. >>president breed: thank you. so seeing no other members -- oh, sorry, supervisor farrell. >>supervisor farrell: sorry. not to belabor the point, i want to agree with supervisor safai, and the reasonable discussion we'll have about people talking about their own districts. i do want to say, though, because this supervisor's coming up, and again, supervisor safai mentioned, and i think contrary to what supervisor kim mentioned, that nobody under 21 is going to get access to cannabis. we have alcohol, and most of us have done it before we were 21, and so i don't believe that's not going to happen. i believe people have different levels of tolerance for that,

and that is fine. i do want to make this distinction: i do have three small kids, and i do have one still in preschool, and i think it's different to talk bh tabo the high school kid that may be tempted to do this. maybe, maybe. i think that will happen to a agree. how strict we will be in monitoring and regulations is up to the city, but i don't think there is a chance that my five-year-old is going to tell his principal of his preschool that he needs to time out and walk down the street. it's not happening, and if it happens, he's with me, and i'm not going to let him, and so i think there's a very big distinction, i actually think there's a huge distinction between 0 and 5, and it may be counter intuitive, but there's no way that i feel risk that my

five-year-old will be exposed to this. because if you see a five-year-old walking down the street by him or herself, that's neglect, right away, let alone walking into a cannabis store. and there's no way a cannabis operator's going to entertain them coming in. i do think it's different, though, for -- maybe not 6 to 17-year-olds, but as you skew that age bracket, i do think that's a fair risk, and i think that's fair to talk about. >>president breed: okay. so madam clerk, please call the roll on this particular amendment made by supervisor tang. >> clerk: [ roll call. ] >> clerk: there are five ayes

and six noes, with supervisors breed, cohen, farrell, peskin, ronen, and sheehy in the dissent. >>president breed: the amendment fails. supervisor tang, you want to continue with your proposed amendments? >>supervisor tang: okay. thank you, so i'll do this as a bunch now. so the rest would be that for the noriega, tervell and judah, mcd corridors, that there would be a maximum of one retail khanna disestablishment permcd, and in the cannabis green zone which is mostly west -- or sorry, yes, west of sunset boulevard and south of lincoln way that there'd be a maximum of two in that particular area proceeded breed supervisor tang has made a motion. is there a second? seconded by supervisor yee. madam clerk, on the amendment, please call the roll. >> clerk: [ roll call. ]

there are four ayes and seven noes with supervisor's breed, cohen, fewer, kim, peskin, ronen and sheehy in the dissent. >>president breed: okay. the amendment fails. supervisor tang, was there anything else? >>supervisor tang: that is it. thank you. >>president breed: okay, and so next up, to propose an amendment is supervise sheehy. >>supervisor sheehy: i have a single amendment that's related to compassion -- to expand and enhance the compassion program,

and it's 1618, and bha it dowh does, it allows the entire supply chain to participate in the compassion program, and it states in addition, cannabis manufacturing facilities may provide medicinal cannabis and/or medicinal cannabis products at no or reduced cost through a compassion program. >>president breed: supervisor. >>supervisor sheehy: -- sheehy has made a motion and seconded by supervisor cothen. that amendment passes. okay. the next amendment will be supervisor ronen. >>supervisor ronen: colleagues, i have two amendments, and both of them are related to this idea that i

would love to see san francisco welcome legalization and welcome opportunities for people and especially equity applicants to open cannabis retail shops and other businesses throughout san francisco in the broadest possible places. i -- i -- the two amendments, the first one would strike the provision that offers a 600 feet orbit between cannabis retailers or -- between cannabis retailers, basically, and the second provision would strike the limit and i want to talk a little bit about my thinking behind both of these amendments. they're somewhat related. i think that we have a process in place in this city that we often refer to as being too

burdensome for our small businesses, for our developers, for anybody that wants to add a deck to their house, that we have this process called a discretionary review and a conditional use, that after an amendment that i know my colleague, supervisor peskin is going to make, will mean that wherever a new business will go, anywhere in the city, there is a process for neighbors and residents and individuals to come and say, this particular business in this particular place is not appropriate, and here's why. and this board, about a month ago, had that happen, that a cu came to us, and this board upheld the cu, saying that the majority of residents made sense on why they didn't want this particular cannabis dispensary in their neighborhood, and the supervisor agreed with them, and so the majority of this board -- eight votes, because you need a super majority,

uphold that cu, so it's not theoretical. we just did this about a month ago. we upheld the cu by carefully listening to neighbors, and there won't be anyplace in the city that doesn't have that review process, and i think that's appropriate. last week, i did not support supervisor safai's amendment to create more neighborhood notification. i decided to support it this week because that's my compromise. i want -- you know, i want the processes to be robust where neighbors can come and protest and that they know about what's going on, and they can make their case, and then, decision makers can decide in each circumstance whether or not for some particular reason that cannabis retailer or business is not appropriate for the particular place. excuse me. i have a horrible cough. and then -- and that's not the only check and balance we have.

let's be real. it's -- there's only so many of these businesses that are going to thrive in san francisco. there's going to be a point where there's going to be too many of them, and so people won't want to open them anymore because it's not going to be profitable, and so i'm really glad that we supported supervisor safai's other amendment, and that is ensuring that 50% of applicants have to be equity applicants -- excuse me -- because that's the right thing to do. and finally, i think this -- this -- this 600 foot requirement from one dispensary to another, i get the intentions that there's not too much clustering, and then, there's different thoughts about how it might impact rents and people have different thoughts about that, but my worry is it -- we all know in this city, opening and operating a small business is a headache, it's difficult, and many of them fail because

finding appropriate space that one vacant storefront that has enough square footage that is the right setup for you to be able to open your business that you can afford to -- to rent, if that's 580 feet -- foot -- or 590 feet from another dispensary, that means you can't open there? that doesn't makes sense, and it's just arbitrary, and i feel like the overall cu that we have is enough for people to make their case. i just want to say i know there's a lot of difference of opinion. people have their own personal experience and historical and cultural experiences that have impacted this debate, and i very much respect -- respect that, but i also think that this is a really exciting opportunity. when do you get a brand-new

industry that's coming into our city that's going to offer blue collar jobs to residents of san francisco? let's be honest, the industries that are coming into our city until now, they have not been a boon for poor folks, they have not been a boon for people of color. this finally offers an opportunity where we finally have a new industry to come in that's going to right historical wrongs, and the way that we've been treating this issue at the board of supervisors, i find really problematic. i don't agree with, and i think we should have the fewest amount of restrictions on where these stores go in with a robust ability for neighbors to weigh in and explain why a particular store or owner or location or type of business

doesn't make sense, and i will be open and neutral to any one of those appeals that come before me just like i was in the appeal that came before me about a month ago, but i supported, not because i agreed with -- with many of the fears of the residents, but because i thought that the majority of people felt that way, and it was important to respect their will and their opinion about their neighborhood. so with that, colleagues, maybe we could take each item separately. i would ask that you support these two amendments. >>president breed: supervisor ronen has made the first motion to amend to remove the 600 feet buffer around the restrictions around cannabis dispensaries, and is there a second for that particular amendment? so there is no second, so unfortunately, i can't move forward with a vote on that.

so for the next item, you would like to make a motion to... >>supervisor ronen: to strike the provision that -- i'm sorry -- the provision -- nope, to strike the provision that creates a limit of three cannabis medical dispensaries in the outer excelsior district. >>president breed: supervisor rope has made a motion, and supervisor cohen has made a second. >>supervisor peskin: this particular control was ten years in the making. this body has a lot of important issues that we deal with on a weekly basis that pertain to housing, that pertain to homelessness, that pertain to transportation, all different types of issues. we put controls in all types of areas. we make land use decisions based on that.

in the spirit of compromise, we did open up additional space in our district, so there's not a district cap. there's room or one or two more. i think this body needs to have a serious conversation about also protecting our existing industry to make sure that outside influences in terms of large corporations and large amount of moneys is coming in that will not take away from this home grown industry. that was my proposal in terms of compromise and also we can be proud in terms of this city, the pathway for equity and how we achieve that. so i think this flies in the face -- first of all, i didn't get this amendment until an hour ago.

bro breed thank you, madam clerk, on the motion, please call the roll. >> clerk: [ roll call. ] there are six ayes and five noes with supervisor's farrell,

sheehy, tang, safai, and yee in the dissent. >>president breed: all right. next up, supervisor peskin. >>supervisor peskin: i rise to offer an amendment that provides for section 312 notice which, of course, would then, as supervisor ronen said, would allow for planning commission discretionary review if requested by any party, and this amendment was discussed at length in committee -- and finally, the amendment, which i've circulated to all of you includes at the request of the planning department on the last

page, a clarifying amendment eliminating language from section 890.125, the cannabis retail definition related to consumption of cannabis. consumption regulations are properly addressed in section 202.2 of the code, and this amendment has no substantive impact but to bring the definition into conformity with section 102 of the code, so i rise to make that amendment. >>president breed: supervisor peskin has made a motion to amend, seconded by supervisor kim. seeing no hands raised -- madam clerk -- oh, on the amendment, madam clerk, please call the

roll. >> clerk: [ roll call. [ roll call. ] there are 11 ayes. >>president breed: the amendment passes unanimously. supervisor kim? i can remove you. we're just going through amendments. okay. supervisor yee, you have done your amendments already. you have additional amendment? >>supervisor yee: yeah, i do. >>president breed: okay. >>supervisor yee: thank you. i was just going to make a motion to make some amendments and basically, i'm asking that -- and this is for item number 8 -- that there only be two mcd's or cannabis retail use be allowed on ocean avenue in my district, and only one mcd -- no, for no mcd's in retail use along the we

west portal corridor, and also on the tervell street along 19th avenue. all i can say is my constituents asked me to support this, and i'll just have a vote. >>president breed: supervisor yee has made a motion to amend. is there a second? seconded by supervisor tang. madam clerk, please call the roll. >> clerk: [ roll call. ] there are three ayes and eight noes with supervisors breed, cohen, cothen, farrell, sheehy,

in the dissent. >>president breed: okay. that looks like all the amendments except for the amendment that supervisor cohen proposed to equity, and supervisor cohen, did you want to make any further comments because i know that supervisor yee had expressed concern and we're probably going to separate the files so he can get on that one separately -- supervisor yee? >>supervisor yee: no. since then, i found the place that supervisor cohen was referring to, and she's absolutely correct, and i was incorrect in pointing out. it was a different section. >>president breed: okay. >>supervisor yee: so i'm okay agreed. >>president breed: okay, and supervisor cohen, you have the floor. >>supervisor cohen: thank you. i appreciate that, and i think i introduced several amendmented that i read into the record. i've got a few more that i'd like to talk about. i'd like to strike the word out exclusively from section

10.100-162, subsection(b), and this is in reference to the use of community reinvestment fund, and this is at the suggestion of supervisor kim. thank you for bringing it to our attention. >>president breed: breed i'm sorry, supervisor cohen, i want to follow you, so can you give me some -- section 10. >>supervisor cohen: sure. section 10.100-162(b). we're just going to take that out, exclusively, and that was in recommendation of supervisor kim. >>president breed: okay. >>supervisor cohen: i would like to say i've been in discussion with the mayor office of economic and workforce development and recognize that first source, the city's workforce program may be an equally effective way for us to also achieve our equity incubator hiring goals, so in that plan, i will work with the city attorney's office in trailing legislation that

captures and creates an option for nonequity operators to hire through the city's workforce system. that way, we're covering all of our bases, okay? finally, my last amendment is to change section 1618 to say that no cannabis business may employ an individual who is not at least 21 years old unless authorized to do so by the state law. and this is because the emergency regulations that the state recently released raised the age of employees to require -- for employees -- employers to require that employees be 21, so we're just being in compliance with that, okay? and if the state changes anything in the future, we won't have to amend our legislation again to follow people -- again, to allow people younger than 21 to participate in employment related to cannabis. and with that, colleagues, i'd

like to move all of these amendments and ask that you support them. if you have questions, i'm happy to discuss. >>president breed: thank you. supervisor, it's been moved and seconded, and you're adding some additional amendments, so you would like to move those? >>supervisor cohen: yes, ma'am. >>president breed: it was seconded. i don't remember, it was so long ago. >>supervisor cohen: i thought supervisor farrell. >> supervisor: was it sheehy. >>president breed: okay. and supervisor cohen is making a motion to amend those now, and seconded by supervisor yee, and then, we will take questions on this particular item, starting with supervisor peskin. >>supervisor peskin: i have another -- a separate amendment. >>president breed: okay. and supervisor safai? >>supervisor safai: just a point of clarification on these particular amendments. are they amicable -- there's a reference in here that talks about equity plan and other --

is it for existing mcd's or all new mcd's, or what universe of people are we talking about through the chair to supervisor cohen, or maybe even the city attorneys? i know you didn't hear what i said, madam supervisor. >>supervisor cohen: i'm sorry. through the chair, could you please repeat it? >>supervisor safai: yeah. some of these requirement -- what universe are we talking about that they're applicable too? equitiable applicants, and then, it talks about existing mcd's would have to did some of these? are you talking about how they transition into temporary or in the permanent process? >>supervisor cohen: thank you, well, the handout specifically should break it out, but to

answer your question on the fly, it's on the fly, as they transition from medical to recreational. >>supervisor safai: to permanent. >>supervisor cohen: correct, and for further clarification, i'm happy to defer to our city attorney. >>supervisor safai: i'm reading requirement 1609, anyone applying for a permit will support the establishment and growth of an equity program, is that for the permanent or is that for the temporary period, as well? just clarification through the chair to the city attorney. >>supervisor cohen: well, it means in all perp there perpet all permanence, supervisor safai. >> section 1609 applies to

applications for the permanent cannabis business permits, so every applicant would be required to submit a community benefits agreement that also describes how the applicant will work to encourage and help equity applicants. and that 1609 applies for applications for the permanent permits. >>supervisor safai: okay. thank you. >>president breed: okay. no other -- supervisor kim? >>vice president brandon >>supervisor kim: yeah, i had a few questions. first, i want to thank supervisor cohen of taking out that exclusively by the office of director of cannabis, and i just want to explain that by being these community reinvestment funds can be used to help people start any type of business, not just a cannabis business, it would make hence that other departments would be able to work on how these funds get

invested or diverted, so including, for example, mayor office of economic and workforce development, so i just wanted that to be stated on the record, because these reinvestment funds could be used to help individuals that had been negatively impacted by the war on drugs, to open any type of business. we're not going to limit them to being forced to just open a cannabis business, so thank you for that change. i'm so sorry. i'd asked supervisor cohen a number of questions during the meeting, but there were two more that i flagged that i just had missed when i was talking to her, and so one under section 1604, under the requirements for equity applicants, under b 2, it says, at the time of application has assets, including nonliquid retirement and asset accounts that do not exceed limit does established by the director, and so maybe this is a question for miss cheaton, but how are

we going to determine that? it feels a little bit intrusive, to be honest, to require that level of information from our equity applicants. >> supervisor kim, if i could take a stab at it before you go to the director, i just want to say that's a portion that's going to be developed during the further development of the regulation, so -- ja >>supervisor kim: i guess i don't feel comfortable with that requirement. i guess it's three out of -- well, actually, do they have to meet all of them? it looks like they have to meet all of these, right? miss wheaton? it feels intrusive to be asking about all your assets, but maybe i can get an explanation -- or supervisor

cohen. do very to to meet that requirement as an equity applicant? >> let me try to speak to the spirit of what we're trying to do. there may be people that look like they're living in a will he -- low census neighborhood, but the truth is they could have access to other levels of income that is, on the surface, something that we're not able to review. does that answer your question? >>supervisor kim: okay, but do we have a sense of what this might look like, miss wheaton? >> supervisors, this provision would be developed through rules and regulations that have not been implemented yet. all rules and regulations will be subject to public review as well as comment, and in completing this regulation, i was intending on working with

the human services agency. >>supervisor kim: okay. all right. i have some mixed feelings about it, but i'm going to just trust that that's going to be administered correctly. the second was actually on the lines that sfriefr safai just brought up, information required of all applicants, and while i agree they should provide income opportunities, and also talk about how they want to further the city's equity goal, i'm just curious why we're asking applicants to encourage and support equity applicants who have been awarded cannabis business permits. doesn't that seem a little -- so we're going to force business owners to help other business owners that help --

already have permits? once they're in the business, why would we force them to help their competitors? >> can you tell us what section you're referring to. >>supervisor kim: so this is the section 1609, the section that supervisor safai had just asked a question about, so under 1609, this is b21c, it says describe how the applicant will work to encourage applicants who have received cannabis permits, and otherwise further the city's equity goals, which i also agree with. am i misreading the first part? it seems to me that all applicants will have to talk about how they're going to encourage and support equity

applicants who have been awarded business permits. >> it should read equity applicants, not permit operators. >>supervisor kim: so to take out who have been awarded cannabis business permits? >> supervisors, one opportunity to address that concern, maybe to say, instead of who have been awarded, to instead say, who are seeking? jap ja >>supervisor kim: i think the goal is who help those get into the business, but i wouldn't want to force people to help their competitors. okay. so -- excuse me? is that okay. >> yeah, that is okay. that was an error. we're not looking to help

people help their competitors, help people get into the business. >>supervisor kim: okay. >>president breed: so you want to make a motion to make that amendment? >>supervisor kim: yes, so i'll make a friendly motion to strike -- sorry to close this -- in section 1609 who have been awarded cannabis business permits, in parentheses, permit operators. >>president breed: can we take that without objection? without objection, the amendment passes, and supervisor cohen made, can we take those to the amendments without objection? without objection, we pass. we are now working with one amended document, and there are other members of the board that have any questions or concerns specifically about this particular amendment around equity? supervisor safai, you had -- >>supervisor safai: i'm sorry, is your question regarding the entire list of amendments that

supervisor cohen has made or this specific one? >>president breed: yes. this is for everything in this amendment. is there anyone else on the roster to talk specifically about the amendment that we're talking about right now? supervisor fewer? >>supervisor fewer: yes, thank you very much chair. i just want to remind my colleagues since it's been hours since i last reminded my colleagues, that the equity fund created in this document is merely meant for a fund to help those equity operators. it isn't a fund to, i think, go to different organizations to help mitigate some of what's happening in those areas, it is really about, i think t-- the spirit of this was to help those equity operators with some revenue and some resources to get their business started, so i just wanted to remind my colleagues, because i know

it's, like, six hours since i last reminded everybody about this. thank you very much. >>president breed: thank you, supervisor fewer. anyone else about this particular amendment? seeing no one else, we will vote on this. madam clerk, on this amendment as amended twice, call the roll. >> clerk: [ roll call. ] there are 11 ayes. >>president breed: okay. the amendment passed unanimously. supervisor peskin? >>supervisor peskin: thank you, madam president. the clerk is in the process of printing out -- >> clerk: making copies. >>supervisor peskin: and will

shortly circulate some amendments that i intended to make at the last meeting with regard to how we temporarily or how we treat temporary permits during the transition period, and i'm going to ask deputy city attorney victoria wang to speak to that amendment as it is being circulated to you shortly. >>president breed: so do you want us to come back to this when it's in front of us or would it be a simple -- >>supervisor peskin: it's pretty simple. i think miss wang can explain it, and we it can delay voting on it until it's in everybody's hands, but maybe we should use the next few minutes to talk about it. >>president breed: okay. miss wang? >> victoria wang, deputy city attorney. the amendment would be an amendment to parallel the amendments to the health code section 3322 in item 8, and the purpose would be to create a land use approval for a temporary cannabis adult sales, so the first part of the

amendment would be to amend section 102 of the planning code to add a new use category -- land use category, which would be called temporary cannabis sales, and that would be defined as a temporary use, but sells or otherwise provides cannabis or cannabis related probable causes for adult use, and that may also include the sale of cannabis for medicinal use. any authorization for a temporary cannabis sales use shall expire on january 1st, 2019 pursuant to section 205.2, which will also be amended, so the second part of this amendment would be an amendment to section -- sorry, the creation of a new section, 191, in the planning code, which would authorize grandfathered mcd's to become temporary cannabis sales uses on january