it can empower us instead we live in poverty trying to afford it. my cousin spent hundred $27,000 on products because he had a rare heart condition. he was bleeding from the mouth. practically every day. sometimes it was a lot of blood and sometimes it was a little. if he smoked hash, which was expensive, he had to have to watch what little blocks -- boxes a day to stop the blood. when he ran out of money, i had to help him. i only got 400 spending dollars a month. i had to help him afford the dispensary weed. the v.i.p. weed to. even before prop 64 it was too expensive. he spend 120 grand on dispenser products over a ten-year period. we couldn't afford to go anywhere together to enjoy the rest of his life. we couldn't afford to go anywhere to do anything fun. and he -- cannabis concentrates

kept him alive. now that compassionate care is sunsetting in 2019, i had to help him buy it. the prop 64 trump in politics did not regulate the weed factor of this 5,000% markup. i have grown it myself. it is, i know. a pound is ten dollars to go outside. don't let anyone tell you anything else. i refuse to participate in an unjust and predatory system that further enough enables the privilege. business has different interest in low income people and that is putting it mildly. we had committees where we thought we were in power and we weren't. we had a voice and we didn't. it was almost like windowdressing. you have a committee but we are not listening to you. the industry has shown time and again, and that is putting it kindly. we are regulated to death. method, her when, pharmaceuticals, opiates, crack and heroin are all cheaper than come -- then cannabis. they have made it a v.i.p. commodity. they act like they invented it.

it is really arrogant. we can and should do better in this city. we are the experts. i am dealing with lyme disease. i have to pay $350 for a dr 's appointment because the general medical community does not believe that lyme disease exists so they can make money off of all the pharmaceuticals to prop us up even though we die of heart disease all the time. my heart almost stopped three times a week from lyme disease. i can't even drink coffee. thank you. >> thank you. next speakers. >> next i have is victoria wong. carrie toe and sonia ng. and there are two speakers that want to speak together but i don't have their names. you can come up, both of you. >> my name is victoria wong. i'm i am a resident of san francisco.

hello, everyone. my name is victoria wong. i am a longtime resident of san francisco. today i want to say that i am against cannabis because it is not good for the young people's mind and it is also affects their studying. also, just for one example, in florida there is a doctor who prescribes so much cannabis to the patient's and there are tens of thousands of people dying already in florida. so they start to have incentives to 157 years of presence. so he will stay in present for his whole life. therefore, i am truly against cannabis. also, cannabis is not really

helping people. it is very disjointed people. for the future. also, the money that they make is not going to go back to help the people. it is just going to go back to individuals pocket. they are the one who make money. it is not good for the people. it is not good for health. therefore i am truly against cannabis. thank you. >> next is cherry tow, sonia ng and followed by. [singing] paying ling -- singh paying ling >> i am also against cannabis. the reason does not matter how it is described as creative or entertainment, but this is cannabis, we understand cannabis is addiction.

and therefore all we are going to do is we need compassion, also we need -- we need to know why we are against it. why it cannot be sold in the public. no matter how people convince you guys. it cannot be sold because it affects the people's health, mentally, physically and eventually, those people who take this cannabis, this is just like -- they will be homeless and it is your responsibility. it is our responsibility. it is taxpayers' responsibility. we understand there is $400 million per year going to spend on the homeless people. and why are they homeless? because most of them, they are young homeless. they are the young homeless. and gradually if cannabis really

helped, they should, after they take it, they should be able to quit it in three months. because they are so effective as people are saying. but it didn't. it turns out people rely on it. it turns out people have to open a store to make a profit because just like cigarettes, people smoke cigarettes and it is addiction. they smoked for years later and it turns out it is lung cancer. we already did information and research knows that cannabis eventually will cause brain damage. the brain damage. who responsibility? responsibility is the people who allow -- it turns out we know compassion. we know those patients need cannabis because they are

patients. they need compassion but we make a decision that we need to waste it. there is cannabis on the ground so this cannabis cannot be sold in san francisco or in california or in the united states. everywhere in the world. it is everybody's responsibility i ask you, if anybody needs cannabis needs to have a dr prescription. they need a dr prescription and -- >> ok. your time is up. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is sonia ng. today, not many people came.

we come from different districts in san francisco. we are here today and we are against marijuana open anymore in san francisco, especially the cannabis. enough is enough. today we represent thousands of residents. if they cannot attend this property hearing. they have to make money for life cannabis and marijuana, it is illegal in federal law. our hard-working tax dollars, not only for take care the people that you want to hide and want to enjoy it marijuana. not far away from here look at civic centre.

what is the reason? those people are on the street in the beginning. they took marijuana. after a while, they take the job so our hard-working tax dollar for the people to keep the quality alive. not the reason by civic centre to spend nearly a million dollars to take care of the people. they want to enjoy marijuana. give them a affordable housing, healthcare. how about our health? because when they smoke marijuana, the air forces us to smoke the secondhand marijuana. i know many patients need medical marijuana but they had a lot of service deliberately.

so please listen to our voice. we are from different districts in san francisco. we are the residents. we want to clean air and to keep our quality of life. looked at canada. they just passed the marijuana legal. the whole country. look at them. the air -- please help our health. no more marijuana. enough. thank you. >> the next speaker, please. hello, everyone.

marijuana is not legal in the federal. when the public system 54 past, they gave the marijuana report past the mayor. it went through 11 supervisors who told them marijuana is no good if you already -- if you always smoke marijuana, no good for your brain. just a people can study and if you try, then exit them. tell them, don't let people open marijuana stores. i don't know if they give the report to all of them. they still left them open. they still have one more open, you know,. we need to keep people healthy. the brain is very important. if all americans if you don't

teach them the marijuana, this problem. the young people, they don't know. the whole -- the people, you know, a lot of trouble. so i think, don't let them open the marijuana story. make each people about marijuana , no good for your brain. no good. it is a big problem. may be you can study. let everybody start to there peerk just make people healthy. thank you. >> next speaker, please.

>> good afternoon, commissioners my name is jackie and i actually intended to submit the card for the apprenticeship item which i thought was number 6. i come back for that. >> ok. >> thank you. >> my name is richard. president, and commissioners, i'm a resident of chinatown. i am talking about the state law passed. it gives the responsibility, the local authority, board of supervisors whether to open a marijuana shop or not. and for the last year, even in this room, this 400 in the planning commission, there are many sessions. night sessions. and people are still terrified

in the early morning. no marijuana. hundreds of people are lining up on the doorway and some of them even in the night court testifying against recreation marijuana. if the doctor give a patient to relieve the pain, that is between the doctor and the patient. but please don't permit for recreational marijuana. earlier in this year, a few months ago, supervisor peskin, supervisor representing the third district, chinatown, he had legislation in the board of supervisors, no marijuana in chinatown. and it was passed by eight supervisors i have a message for

our executive director. please study the passage of 64, the state legislation. the final authority, whether a permit of whether it can be given to any neighbourhood and be stored in the city for marijuana is up to the residents of their respective labour ward. and, you know, we have proof enough that hundreds of people are testifying in the plant -- planning department in the department of supervisors. that the neighbourhood don't want to marijuana. i ask your commission. as the executive director again, pay some attention to the neighbourhood. think you.

-- thank you. >> good afternoon commission. my name is johnny. on the draft of the san francisco cannabis retailers alliance. i am also a medical cannabis patient. i have been involved in this industry for the last 20 years, if i can -- if you can believe that. i'm here to speak and support about all the amendments that the director has brought forward they were all mission critical to this industry, specifically the extension of the sunset of article 33, if that is just absolutely a must-have for the industry. the only little clarification i would like to make is in 16 '04 c., they had a little clause. whichever is greater applying to to equity incubators when you're looking at an 800 square-foot space or ten% of your space. we know an equity applicant whose project would be shut down retroactively to him. i'm asking for that to be applied to any equity incubator. the other things i would like to talk about are the difficulty in

finding capital for cannabis businesses. creating some sort of fund for equity applicants to get traditional loan so we are not at the behest of predatory hard money lenders or large institutions like public companies from canada that can give us the money to go forward. we would like to have more flexibility in finding our businesses. i would like to give a nice pitch for additional funding for the office of cannabis. they are doing a fantastic job but they have a mountain of applications. if we could redirect resources to them that would be absolutely super until this whole thing roll out faster and get taxes into the city's copper that's much quicker. let's talk about prop d. it was crafted smartly by president cohen that it gives us 2019 and 2020 to lower that tax down if we get the data that shows we should.

in oregon they noted that a 41% decrease in the price of cannabis flower increased sales by 1500%. there is a push point where we bring everybody to the unlit regulated market and into the regulated market. let's run -- let's work together currently prop d. has cannabis retail as a harvest of five% growth. receipts tax is 50% higher than any other retail situation in the city. cannabis is special but we are trying to normalize it. the tax is something that is a bit beyond normalization. so those are all my points. i would like to thank you all for hearing me today and thank you for your support. >> thank you, very much. any other comments on item number 6? >> hello everyone. i am margin from the vape room in san francisco. i have been an activist and

dispensary operator since 2003. i really wanted to speak in support of the amendments here. nicole and her office have been doing an amazing job and it's very clear that the scope of work and the amount of work that they have to do, there needs to be a buffer. i'm currently applying to reopen after getting shut down by the federal government in 2012 in their crackdown. i can definitely attest to how long the process is taking. i applied initially just over two years ago. it is definitely a long process and now with the influx of new applicants, it will just get longer for everyone. i am in total support of that and i would like to echo the access of love statements that i think san francisco san francisco can take the lead in coming forward in creating a compassion program. we took the lead originally and this is something that the city can take a stand for and figure out some system that works to create compassion for our patients. thank you.

[applause] >> thank you. next speaker. >> thank you, commissioners. i just want to urge you to support this legislation. we have been working very closely for the past year and a half with our cannabis working group with the city and with nicole and her department. this is another step in the process of rolling out a reasonable, legal and appropriate regulatory framework for adult use cannabis. we appreciate the time you take in today to hear this and urge you to support and recommend to the board of supervisors adoption of the legislation. thank you. >> thank you, very much. and the other members of the public? seeing none, public comments are close. i definitely agree we need more resources for the office of cannabis. i think i really, really appreciate what they've done here.

i think, extending out the medical marijuana another year helps a lot. i would like to be more compassionate. i hear that loud and clear. i totally get that. you just keep doing what you're doing. do we have any other questions or motions? commissioner dwight. >> i have one question. the one speaker had a comment about the 800 square-foot limit and that retroactively and may affect one known operator. is that something you can drastically. >> that is something we will seek to address. we will be seeking amendments to apply that respectively as well as to apply off-site and not for on-site which is part of the reason why it impacts the equity impact. >> that is on your radar screen -- screen? >> very much so.

>> thank you. we have a motion. >> move to approve the changes as presented today. >> i second. >> motion by commissioner dwight and seconded by commissioner adams. we will do a roll call. [roll call] >> motion passes 5-0 with 1 absent and one recused. >> commissioner riley? >> president, i heard a lot of public comment. some of them were against cannabis altogether. but i want to -- may be you should clarify this that the items six and seven is not about whether or not we approve this to get the shop to be open. it is specifically for the

classification, the extension. >> yes, i will agree with that. this is, we do hear a lot of speakers talking against marijuana. the fact of the matter is, medical marijuana is legal in the state of california. and recreational marijuana is legal in the state of california we have an office of cannabis here that we work with and they are here to present so we can work on the laws going forward. so if you have an issue -- put something back on the ballot. as of right now, it is legal in the state of california and it is our duty to work with the office of cannabis to ensure that the people who would need the medical marijuana are taking care of in recreational equity owners and everybody else in the industry. we hope they get their fair

share of the pie. >> i also recommend that -- just like to stick three, the residents can work with your supervisor to determine whether or not your district allows to have additional cannabis shops opened or not. it is really not up to us. >> right. ok. next item. >> item seven. board of supervisors file. the police code. agreements between cannabis businesses and labour organizations. hiring graduates of apprenticeship and pre apprenticeship programs. ordinance amending the police code to require cannabis businesses when entering into a city mandated labor peace agreement or collective bargaining agreement to agree that 35% of new hires should be graduates of state approved apprenticeship programs or of city certified preapprenticeship programs. if a relevant program of either type exists. discussion, action item. presenters are here.

>> welcome. thank you. >> good afternoon. i am legislative aide to district 11 supervisor. the author of the legislation before you. i would also like to point out i am joined and i am thankful for the office of cannabis director who is here and also director of workforce,. they will be speaking as i give some broad strokes on what led to the inception of this legislation. this ordinance is meant to expand the existing city builder job training programs into the burgeoning cannabis industry. by starting a preapprenticeship and apprenticeship program that we have the city grow. we envision city groping a hands on cannabis cultivation program that would provide job training and placement for economic district manager job seekers. this program would create a pipeline of employees to exit

the program with industry level training and withdraw guarantees or placements just like it is the case for city build. for example, city build, for the last ten years has graduated more than 400 -- 1400 workers to the state approved apprenticeship program. these straps provide living wages, the benefits, healthcare, job security, among other things how does it work? here again, this is broad strokes. the director of workforce is here. it is a preapprenticeship program in which the city partners with community-based organizations or c.b.o. to recruit workers from economically disadvantaged communities. participants receive an approved curriculum that is developed by employers and labor organizations jointly. this is a model we envision for city grow. plus, city grow, because it overlaps the targeted community specified in other ordinances, local higher, first source and equity, will also help capture and further our goals of writing

some of the many wrongs that have been incurred and are shouldered disproportionally by our black and latin communities. on september 18th, the statewide cannabis industry employers a joint apprenticeship committee filed an application to establish state apprenticeship programs in the near future for pharmacy technicians, cannabis nursery specialists, manufacturing technicians, and cannabis distribution drivers. the groundwork is being set as we speak. these are all expected to be approved at the end of this calendar year. i'll pass it over now to the director of workforce. thank you. >> great. >> thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. thank you for the opportunity to be here. i'm the director of workforce development in the office of economic and workforce development. we are excited about this proposal. we are excited, not only to share with you, but to get your feedback and your thoughts and

your input. feedback from the public. what we learned tonight will continue to shape this process. i think this conversation is critical to be here at the small business commission because you not only looked out for the interest of the small businesses who are seeking to get involved and advance equity but you've also acknowledged the importance of workers. is a hatch that a lot of you wear in your day jobs as well, apart from being commissioners. it is very important to make that clear that we are looking for your feedback as this goes forward in the legislative process and some experts from our staff here at the office of workforce development will be speaking after me. i want to say some broad strokes about the proposal and our work with supervisor safai in his office and community, labor and employee stakeholders to get us here to where we are today. we look forward to your feedback and that from the public. in a moment to, our city build compliance team will talk about the policy and some of the changes that we have proposed to the ordinance.

we understand he has taken it under consideration and may very well soon become part of the evolution of the policy. and then also, the city build employment liaison will talk about programmatically, how this program will work to advance interest to equity and deliver for the employer needs as well but certainly for workers. that is one of the things that we start with when it comes to workforce development. what we like about this proposal when you learn some of the details from it, it is great. this policy takes a lot of feedback about the program to date and builds upon some of the successes that have happened in the workforce program. one of the things that is interesting to employers is that program requires 50% local higher requirements. this program is a little bit different. it is a 35% apprenticeship requirement where there is a state approved apprenticeship policy or program that has been connected to a city certified preapprenticeship. that will be discussed a little bit.

when i introduced ms. miss gray in a moment, she will walk through some of the three main changes that we have proposed and she will present along the lines of what we have proposed to take the program. and may differ a little bit from the page in front of you but being part of the legislative process of which we are very thankful to have the guidance of supervisor his fid and his team, he has been very forthcoming and open with community input and input from our agency and other stakeholders. we know it will be a process that continues. what you will find, and i will make myself available for questions when we conclude and turn over to the commission on the public, i think what you will see is the program streamlines the process of workforce development compliance for employers and as a whole lot better for workers. it advances the equity goals and expands the notion that equity should -- time and time again,

it should include compassion and candidates for workforce development and policies as well [applause] >> without further ado, i would like to introduce ms. miss gray from city build. >> great. >> welcome. >> thank you. good afternoon. welcome -- thank you for the opportunity to present. i am a compliance officer with the office of economic and workforce development. today i will speak specifically about what the ordinance does. when what the proposed amendments are thus far. we just talked about the state process and where they cart -- they currently are apt. if you have any follow-up questions with regard to that process, i will be here to answer those. in terms of what the ordinance does at this -- if the state of california approves the apprenticeship for cannabis which is currently being considered by the division of apprenticeship standards, if the

city and county of san francisco certifies relevant pre apprenticeship programs by developing a criteria to meet the industry, also taking into account employer standards and the connection that organizations have with these preapprenticeship programs with regard to equity or disadvantaged candidates. if that is the case, under the current proposed legislation, cannabis businesses will be required to ensure that 35% of all new hires be registered apprentices enrolled in any of the relevant state apprenticeship programs that have a memorandum of understanding with any of the relevant city certified pre apprenticeship programs. next i will talk about the three proposed amendments. the first proposed amendment

makes the preapprenticeship and apprenticeship relationship and and and not in or with respect to jobseekers. in terms of the original legislation -- new hires may be graduates from any relevant apprenticeship program. the amended language would state that the requirement of 35% does not kick in until the state establishes apprenticeship programs and the city certifies those preapprenticeship programs this provides flexibility with respect to the terms and conditions of the memorandums of understanding but also safeguards the city's investment in preapprenticeship programs by assuring that graduates that

graduate from these programs have high benefits to going to work at state apprenticeships rather than ending up as trainees. amendment two would simply clarify that workers are technically registered apprentices enrolled in a state approved apprenticeship program and not graduates of a state apprenticeship program. so the language simply clarifies the distinction between registered apprentices enrolled in a state approved program and graduates of city certified pre apprenticeships programs while affirming the connection between the concept -- to the extent that we wish to continue

to analogize our cannabis workforce objectives in areas in which apprenticeship programs are currently pending state approval and contemplated for application. our success in construction with city build, which we will talk more about specifically, we want to model the concept that jobseekers see graduate from city certified preapprenticeship programs and then enrolled in state approved programs in order to go to work with participating cannabis employers. the last amendment is a decoupling of the proposed legislation from the labor peace agreement. this amendment would decouple the proposed legislation and make it a standalone requirement triggered by the existing -- of the existence of a state approved apprenticeship program for the type of work performed and a specific recommendation

was discussed and recommended by director elliot and oewd agreed with it. those are -- that is the gist of the legislation on the proposed amendment. thank you for your time. >> great. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. again, we are very thankful to the collaboration with the office of cannabis. i have to say that because we are all working together to get to the same place. i will now introduce another speaker to show in realtime what it looks to have a pre apprenticeship program that connects with community-based organizations to recruit equity candidates to then refer into apprenticeship. >> great. >> i like this. >> thank you for having us here today and allowing us to present good afternoon.

we are passing around some of the training packets. you can see on the conceptual -- thank you. >> this had been previously mentioned. we work with city build which is our construction pre apprenticeship program which has been running in the city for over ten years. we would like to replicate the success of the model that we have for city build into this preapprenticeship training. so we would like to focus on the key six components of the city grow training program which will be focused on outreach and to decode meant which would help our community-based organizations to conduct the recruitment strategy to help disadvantaged people to gain entry into the program and as it is outlined in the cannabis

section and the police code. and secondly the community-based organizations will be conducting intake and assessment strategies which will help us to assess individuals and get them entry into the program. we will be recruiting candidates in the job readiness program which will be an intensive 1-2 week training program which will focus on the major components of the cannabis industry overview. clear explanations and career pathways, life skills caps off scale developed in job readiness and job skills. later on we'll be conducting a process in combination with the community-based organizations. and later our candidates will be able to access the pre apprenticeship program which will be an eight week program which will give them entry into the cannabis industry and some of the curriculum components will include and grow marijuana growing, rules and regulations,

as well as cannabis overview and equipment and safety practices. upon graduation from the program , we will be working with labor relations and community partners and utilizing our share agreements with safe approved benefit programs to get them entry into the industry. we will be working closely with the labor part needs and community organizations, and employers and stakeholders as well as employers to ensure that we can successfully implement and develop a training program which will allow disadvantage residents to gain industry -- gain entry into the industry and jobs which will be developed in the future. if you have any questions, please feel free to let us know and we will be happy to answer them as well. >> thank you. if you want to drill a more into the concept, you have what it looks like in the city build model that is a pre apprenticeship going back 12 years and also the proposal on

city grow. again, to summarize, the way we see the ordinance and the ideas we have given back to supervisors and conversations, it really builds upon what is in place with city build in partnering with organizations. one of our core partners is here they have been a partner with city build going back to the beginning of the program. working to recruit equity candidates and the kind of event that would make this a policy with respect to cannabis employers would be, two things. the state approving one or more apprenticeship programs, and the city certifying one or more of those programs as city certified equity programs. because they are recruiting equity candidates for employment , but also because it is working a system that also works with the employers as well i will turn it back to my colleague and i'll be available to answer questions should they come up. thank you for the opportunity to present to the commission today.

>> thank you. >> thank you. that concludes our presentation. as you can see, this has been a labor of love and in transparency and collaboration. we look forward to hearing your feedback. supervisor safai supervises he cannot be here. it is extremely important to him if he could have been here he would be. he is in another commission right now. we will all do our very best answer questions and we will definitely listen to your feedback and recommendations. >> great. i first want to say, thank you to supervisor safai. i really like this legislation. i'm very happy that they are working with josh in oewd. that is great. and the city build's program, i'm really happy. you guys are all working together and the program is very successful. a lot of the building you see her in san francisco -- i was just reading an article in the

san francisco business times that a lot of our workforce and a lot of these projects are coming from the city builds academy. you know, with the advent of recreational marijuana, this is a great thing. i am happy you are working with the office of cannabis because it will put together the workers , the operators, everybody together. this is a labor of love and i am really impressed with everybody coming here today. i'm really excited that they are working with city academy. you guys do really, really good work in your outreach and with people in the community. this is another industry that we can tap in for local employment and help people in the low income and median income communities get jobs and good paying jobs. i really appreciate the effort on everybody coming together and working on this.

my congratulations to everybody. commissioner questions? >> thank you. >> we will do public comment first. do we have any members of the public who would like to opine on item number 7? >> i do have jackie who came up earlier. >> good afternoon, commissioners commissioners. i am the executive director of the philip randolph institute in san francisco. our organization has served low income families and youth of the city. historically we have provided voter registration services and public housing, but in response to going in for years and figuring out why people don't vote, we provided public resources including workforce development, youth programs, and so we are here because we are

very happy as well. and commissioner adams, those were really great comments that allowed -- that a lot of people don't talk about when we come to these commission meetings. equity is the key word here. but historically, cannabis and the war on drugs has negatively affected the black and latino communities. with the population in jail being over 30% people of african-american descent and only being four% in the city, there is a huge disparity that i think this can provide an opportunity to address. and you talked a little bit about how city build is a program that really helps families. it absolutely does. we work with folks that have had criminal histories that think they can come out and never get jobs again. a couple years later, after their internships and after their apprenticeships and as they journey out to, they start making 40 plus dollars an hour with benefits and they start to realize they can own homes.

this is a huge opportunity. this a lot of people that are working together and i brought on my community members. if they can stand up for me so you can see that all these folks are very hopeful for a program like this. as you can see, i brought my youth, my elders, it is a culture change. there is an opportunity for education that comes out of all of this. we are very much looking forward to seeing how this goes and we are very much in support of this >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm speaking as a person who entered the cannabis workforce as a disabled person. i started at a security desk at one of the historic clubs. and eventually became part partner in the club in the tenderloin district that was run by lgbtq people that were

disabled. i really appreciate all of the work that has gone into this. i want to remind us that we started, many moons ago, in 2002 with prop s. which was a policy question if the city should grow medical cannabis for low income patients. i think there is a lot of labor of love yet to happen with all of this and a lot of ideas that can merge. i also want to speak to the devastation happening currently in the cannabis community with job loss, with -- we are losing master growers. we are losing adept and journeyman people that have been working at different cultivation sites and farms all over the state. the loss is tremendous. it is at 880-90% rate. we have very affluent and delete companies controlling the means of production. with that acknowledgement, i

would like to see a way to bring the people that are experiencing the devastating loss across this state into the workforce in san francisco. we are a sanctuary city. that should provide disabled employment. i would really like to see disabled workers of san francisco in the state of california that have lost their cannabis jobs due to prop 64 to be able to regain those jobs. to be able to share their skills that they have learned along the way. i really support this effort. i really support supervisor safai's staff and all the people they are all tremendous with a lot of heart. i hope that we can move this forward in a creative manner to take into consideration the devastating loss of the cannabis community since the patches -- passage of prop 64. thank you. [applause]

>> any other members of the public? seeing none, public comment is closed. do we have any more commissioner questions? >> i want to thank everyone who presented today. it was really insightful. i had questions going into it at first. you guys were answering it. that is always awesome. i too agree with my president here on -- i love city build. for me it has been excellent. a lot of people that i know are coming home from prison have been helped through city builds. it touches my heart personally. i did have a couple of questions more technical questions. you mentioned the decoupling regarding the ordinance. so the 35%, once you meet 35%, he will take 50% of the local hire but does that also trigger under ten what does that still apply to ten and up? >> thank you, commissioner. one of the proposed changes would be to have this

apprenticeship program separate from the labor peace agreements component of the ordinance which is different than the one you have in front of you. we understand that is a change we expect will take place. so the triggering -- this situation that means apprentices are part of the program is not the over ten. it would be whether the state first approves an apprenticeship program and then second, if the city and our office certifies a preapprenticeship program that recruits equity candidates to that apprenticeship program. essentially if the city certifies the program, then that would replace every other component of workforce requirements. employers have said, i think there has been a lot of feedback that you have gotten, that there is first a source, local higher, there are all these different components. it has a 50% requirement. what would happen if the state approves an apprenticeship program and the city certifies it as connected to inequity pre

apprenticeship, that would be the single requirement making this process a kind of one-stop shop to satisfy the equity workforce objectives that we are committed to. >> the second question is, it says recruitment through c.b.o. i did not see in the legislation but will it be a -- will it be an amendment that it has to go through c.b.o.? i wanted to go through c.b.o. i agree with that. but the recruitment, i prefer a language saying it is a mandate that you have to go through c.b.o. >> i think that would be something that if if it is a direction that you and the commission would like us to go, that is someplace we can definitely go. i think the reason that city build works is because there are certain things that we, in the city, can and can't do. we count on c.b.o. to do because of their relationship with the community. they are -- [laughter] >> rates they are.

a good example. >> a good example where the men and women who are getting out of the system after experiencing the impacts of the failed war on drugs, the compassion clientele and the patient community who is the heart and soul who brought legalization into the conversation so many decades ago who will be the place that they turn to? as much as we like to think that we work hard on behalf of the community, government can only do so much. community members go to c.b.o. his. thank you for the things you said but city build, as an agency would not be able to have the success stories but for the work that community-based organizations did to recruit men and women and workers of colour, formerly incarcerated workers, limited english speakers, we are working on, as we do, our partnership with the c.b.o. is everything. we would be more than happy to work with supervisors to make up something required in the -- in the ordinance.

we would see nothing wrong with putting that in the ordinance. >> thank you. >> the decoupling from the labor agreement is just something that we concluded after talking to stakeholders about something like city build. something like this also warrants a standalone legislative item. that is primarily the impetus behind that coupling from that. and most definitely, we can have follow-up conversations. as we are speaking, the city attorneys are hard at work. i would like to think people from the city's attorney office. we can most definitely have more follow-up conversations to make sure that the nuts and bolts add up and that is the intention. we will triple. thank you. >> overall, i want to thank everybody. nicole, this is not a fun job. she says is is fun but i wouldn't want it.

she is really working hard with limited resources. i want to acknowledge everybody. it is hard work and it is trailblazing work. thank you for your hard work. >> any other commissioner comments? seeing none, would we like to make a motion? >> i think i would not move to approve everything as stated with a condition to request that they mandate c.b.o. participation. just the language. i know that is the intent, but just to have it right into legislation. >> i second that. >> motion. seconded. we will do roll call. [roll call] >> the motion passes 5-0 with 1 absent and one recused. [applause]

>> i want to say thank you for everybody who came out today for this. this is really important that you come to city hall and show and let us know what is going on i am really excited -- i really like this program. like city build, i have to tell you, i am very impressed with that program. it is employing people. i love it. i am a fan. thank you. >> i also want to thank those of you who were here and two are respectful who do not agree to -- knew not agree with your opinion. that was very kind. thank you. >> next item. >> item eight is board of supervisors file 180646-3. environment code. refuse separation compliance. ordinance amending the environment code to require audits every three years of large refuse generators for compliance with refuse separation requirements. to establish enforcement measures applicable to large

refuse generators found not compliant and affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act. discussion and action item. presenter will be the aide to supervisor safai. >> just a second while we get commissioner dooley. >> welcome. thank you, again. >> good afternoon. and the legislative aide to supervisor safai. the sponsor of this legislative item in front of you. i will start with a backdrop of what led to the inception of this piece of legislation and then i also have jack macy and charles sheehan for the department of environment you are here with me to answer any other questions that you may have. very briefly, in 2003, san francisco embarked on a endeavour get to 20 waste by

2020. earlier this year, unfortunately we learned that not only would the city not be meeting its lofty goal, it was not -- it was , in fact, behind. specifically, 60% of waste is not be diverted from our waste stream and is being sent to a landfill. this -- i have the slide here by the department of the environment director. >> overhead. >> overhead, please? there you go. >> the 60%, when she announced we are only diverting 40% of our waste stream. so it was this backdrop that govern iced supervisor safai into action and what led to the inception of this legislation. we have lead on other environmental endeavours before.

for example, we had the banning of recyclable take-out containers in 2007. the styrofoam band, also 2007 and revisited and expanded in 2016. it went into effect in 2017. we have the mandatory recycling and composting in 2009 and this year, the ban on plastic straws. this is in the spirit -- this has been on the books since 2009 so folks who aren't impacted by this have had almost a decade to get in line and really meet our goals. but i will turn it over now. again, in broad strokes, this modifies existing law and establishes additional refuse separations compliance and enforcement -- enforcement measures that apply to large generators. this will be administered by the department of environment and their specific needs.

to the nuts and bolts, before i turn it over. once enacted, this legislation will go into effect july 1st, 2019. that is something that we conceded and. initially we would start it sooner. the operative day is july 1st, 2019. the trigger or the capture is an account holder that generates 3n compacted refuse per week or has a rolloff compactor service. of course, we have the requirement within 60 days of being served with a notice of noncompliance, the property manager or the building owner can then either, in conversation with the department of environment, adopt a plan and higher serial waste facilitators , or challenge the notice of noncompliance.

with that, i will turn it over to jack macy from the department of environment. we have been working with director raphael. she cannot be here because she was at another committee meeting as well. apologies for that. thank you. >> who would be the large users? who are the people violating? >> so it it would be buildings that generate 30 cubic yards or more of an compacted refuse per week or that have a rolloff compactor service. so the universe right now is a little bit over 500 buildings. we envision that these 500 buildings will be audited in three year cycles. in three years, the 500 and some change would be audited. >> ok. do you have a typical profile of these? i don't have any idea of what the scale is. >> i will turn it over to jack.

>> cool, thanks. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners i want to show you a summary. of the properties that are covered by the proposed ordinance. >> i thank you can adjust that so you get more height and it will give you a better view. >> so what we have is either rolloff compactor, and you start at 10 cubic yards, or those who have 30 cubic yards or more weekly. refuse means trash, composting and recycling combined. so we have hundred 43 office buildings. is also another six federal estate office buildings. there are 54 hotels. 128 apartment buildings