applied differently to different types of businesses. >> i get it. i just wanted to jump in because that was one of the items that i had drafted specifically so i wanted to -- while i have both president cohen and supervisor kim here, i wanted to jump in on that. please proceed. >> thank you. so i think now we get to 1609, permit applications. that is on page 13. my first change is at b-23. a minor change removing references to signature, correcting for nature of the digital application process. and then this change is repeated several times throughout the section. >> that is the good neighbor policy. >> what?

>> 1609-b. >> i think it is 23. >> there is a lot of bs. >> is that right? >> supervisors, it's page 17, line 14. >> ok. got it. ok. b27 on the next page. would provide discretion to the office of cannabis to determine the level of financial disclosure for ownership interests at under 20%. b-28 would provide discretion to the office of can bills to allow an applicant to modify information as part of their application within reasonable limits. my next proposed changes are to section 1613, limits on permits. and in section -- subsection c,

this comes at the request of the request of the controller who's asked that it be no longer than september 30, 2019 to make well-founded recommendations. section 1615 all right. changes to subsection d1, d2 and d3 would clarify that every owner and financial interest holder must provide accurate information within the application and apply as mandatory grounds for denial to all owners within an application if false ?ftion provided. not just the applicant. provision d4 makes it clear that any person discovered can never receive a cannabis permit in the city and county of san francisco to show the importance we're placing on compliance.

and then section 1622, oops. i went past it. on page 22 and then 23, and actually 24, 25, b12 provides discretion of the office of cannabis to set delivery limits as changing acknowledges that the ever changing knowledge of these rules on the state's end. 1628 -- 1622. >> ok. so, you added on page 24, it says number seven. did you -- .7. did you -- >> yep. let's go back. section seven. >> that is, i think, the same issue. is that right?

>> quantities of cannabis or cannabis products ahow for delivery under state law. >> yep. this is aligning this provision locally with what is allowed by state law. >> do you still have the area in here that talks about a manifest that talks about what the delivery originated and shows what is in the -- is that still there? >> so currently right now in san francisco, only static delivery is allowed. >> great. ok. go ahead. >> 1628, dealing with storefront cannabis retailers. the change to b3 would clarify how cannabis retailers make available a safe consumption fact sheet to customers. 1634 on page 28, additional

enforcement orders, subsection a two and three lowers the period of time that a potential illegal actor has to resfonld the office of cannabis's request for proof of a permit from 72 hours to 24 hours. thus allowing the office to enforce more swiftly against cannabis businesss that are operating illegally. and then section 3322 is a transition provision with d7 requiring that n.c.d. create separate and distinct equity plans for each. and then for e, we're proposing to strike subsection e and make conforming amendments and what this action would do is apply the transition provisions in 3322 to all m.c.d.s regardless of when they receive their m.c.d. permit. so for instance, any m.c.d. receiving their permit this year or next year receives the ability to temporarily sell adult use and acknowledges new timeframes and ensures m.c.d.s have ability to sell over what will be a lengthy process for

reviewing 400 permit application. >> what page is that on? >> that is another one that i wanted the director to speak about. >> on page 29, starting on line eight. >> ok. yeah. you want to talk about that for a second? >> i have nothing to say about that but i'm happy to answer questions, supervisor. >> ok. where is the part that you and i talked about? did the order talk about that? >> supervisors, nicole elliott. on page 29, starting on line 10 -- i'm sorry, starting on line eight through line 20, this proposes to strike subsection e which would therefore apply the transition provision in this section to all m.c.d.s regardless of when they applied and when they get their permit. it is my understanding you guys have some discussion. >> right. on this point in particular,

this was their -- i feel like this was a drafting error. in my opinion, since we -- since on the -- this language is in the pipeline that had that put in applications so there was a lot of discussions at the board about that and there was some that have been affected previously by federal operations. so it's opening it up for anything that had been in the pipeline and that was not my intents when we were drafting it. so my intents was specifically to have this date there. but not there be an and. it wasn't specifically designed for one twoeer that had been shut down because of a threat of federal prosecution. but there were a few in the pipeline that we had had discussions with that we knew about that had put in a

application at the department of public health prior to july 20. anyone after that, was not our intents to capture and allow for specifically because we were trying to allow for the next batch dhos allow the equity applicants to go through the process. if we were to strike this whole section, then you open it up for the five or six we were intending to try and get that were in the pipeline. and director elliott, do you have the number of how many more on top of that? five we were trying to -- >> we're seeking to reconcile that list right now. but i do not have >> ok. we can come back to that. that's fine. i just wanded to say that. that i'm fine with helping the number that we're in the pipeline that meant submitting their public health application prior to july 20, 2017. in those but not exclusively the one or two that were shut down because of threat from federal prosecution.

are you still on the list? i just saw your name come up. >> just working my way through. [laughter] >> we can come back to that. >> although i think that -- >> we're done, right? >> i'm pretty much done, yeah. >> ok. any additional comments from committee members or -- oh. ok. so are there any other amendments we want to talk about today? again, just to remind everyone, we'll duplicate the file and move forward the entire file that deals with the deadline for temporary doesn't use permits and then come back at an additional meeting in the future to talk more in depth about the different amendments on the table. supervisor kim has handed out an amendment. i do want to highlight one amendment that i intend to -- we want to essentially deal with what would qualify someone

as an equity applicant and the criteria to qualify as an equity applicant on page three and four. acceptsingly what we'll redraft because it is not drafted appropriately here. at the time of application that is a member of a household that earns no more than 100% of area median income adjusted for household size. we'd like to make that a required criteria. that one in particular and the reason i'm proposing that is because we want to ensure that as i said, when we created this and i know supervisor cohen spent significant time on this portion, we came up with the idea that wasn't we have our universe of nonequity applicants, that our next batch of applicants as we created this would be 100% equity applicants f. there were 57 in the universe or 60 or however

many, and the purpose of that is a social equity program. we're intending to help people create a business and an industry that they might have been a victim of for all the thans we talked about in the past. and i think it is important that at the time of application, that the applicant themselves must be someone that is in need of n many ways, of trying to get a foothold in this industry. if you are financially stable or financially successful, i have no issue with that. but it should be that -- that applicant should wait until the next round once we've made it through the equity applicants and i think that that person should be someone that should blow into the next round. that's why i'm proposing it as a required criteria. we'll draft it up and then have further conversations with interested supervisors and the director of office of cannabis. but this was drafted slightly different than i had proposed

so i'm not going to propose that today. i just wanted to talk about it on the record. supervisor -- i mean president cohen. >> thank you. i look forward to seeing your language. i'm not quite following what you're trying to do, but i think once i read it i should be able to understand it. i have a more procedural question to this committee. you mentioned you are going to be duplicating a file. i'm trying to understand procedurally why you will duplicate the file instead of keeping everything in committee, work on it and send it out. >> what director elliott and what supervisor mandelman said there, we have, by tend of the year, there are some required timelines to meet the existing operators and we need to renew their temporary adult use permits. we need to meet that timeline. so, to meet that timeline we need to move that portion of this -- these proposed amendments and just that -- for the remainder, all the amendments that supervisor mandelman talked about that i

talked about and will talk about at a future meeting. >> i was asking for the folks that were listening and in the chamber that may not be able to follow procedural gymnastics that is going to be taking place on this particular topic about duplicating the file. when you duplicate it, it means one version will continue to move forward and satisfy dates and honor deadlines that we need to honor by tend of the year. and then the other portion will remain in this committee which is where we will continue to take amendments and how to shape and continue to shape this legislation. >> supervisor? >> on behalf of two colleagues

that will also have amendments, i know supervisor peskin is probably the next time this is heard will be introducing amendments related to limits on store front campus retail ownership providing that prospecttively there would be a limit on the number of storefront cannabis retail businesss to two per owner. >> you pulled away from the mic. so, supervisor peskin wanted -- >> limit the number of equity applicants? >> no, store fronts. limbses on store front retail ownership. he is going to propose -- or floated these amendments that he would come forward to prospectively limit to them to two per owner.

>> and there is the housing and security application for equity applicants to provide for folks that had resided in permanent supportive housing or stayed overnight at a navigation center, stayed overnight at a shelter or resided in a city-funded single room occupancy building would meet the housing and security criteria for equity applicants. >> ok. >> mr. chair, may i speak to that? >> yes. president cohen. >> supervisor kim coming back because i have questions a little bit more about it. i'm going to push back a lick on what she is proposing.

this is and of itself a qualification and we added it because they recognize there were people who were targeted by the overpolicing in san francisco and have since been priced out of the city and may not be here anymore. a large number of bayview community members, for example, have moved to oakland, they've moved to antioch but still may work in san francisco and may have children coming to school here. their family could still be using san francisco as a base and still a part of the larger community. i'm looking forward to the

ongoing conversation. this is the first time that i've seen the language of the suggested change of the equity program and i have to tell you it is a lick out of scope for the spirit of why the program was created and who we are looking to target to bring in. i just want to be clear. you have housing and security doesn't mean that that should necessarily mean it should qualify you. >> ok. well, ok so we've kind of introduced it and we can talk about it after. i guess we've taken the gist of the conversation in terms of proposed amendments. just on supervisor peskins, we'll get some clarity. i think there is a desire to look at the number of people that are applying in the equity

pool and potentially leaving those opportunities open for as many people as possible. >> and i'll continue this conversation k. i don't fully understand what supervisor peskin is trying to do. so i'll reach out to him off line. but you said he is trying to limit the equity program. >> i will follow up with you. i think the idea is just to clarify for the record,if we've created a pool, a social equity program as you said to rectify the injustices of the past, we want to keep it open to as many people as possible. so if there is another -- we have a defined number of equity. applicants that will be in this next batch, whatever that number may be, 60, i think it behooves us to try and have as

many people as possible, individuals or businesses to create. so we'd like to create 60 separate equity, not one person applying for an application on investors for 10, for example. that was my rationale. but we can follow up more to try and limit the number of equity because then once someone is created and has more financial stability back to my original point, then i would be fine with them applying for as many opportunities that present through this equity pool but try to create as many opportunities for as many people in the equity pool. that was my thinking. ok. so i don't think there's anything else we can open it up for public comment. any members of the public wish to comment on this item? please come forward. >> and this is to benefit not

only you but to explain to you that you're sticking your neck out and taking a chance because, just like i explained about breed opening up a safe injection site, so far you completed about 75% of the requirements in order to sustain a corrupt and organized enterprise complaint against you pertaining to the rico act. now the justice department is not pursuant to sell marijuana because people are not dieing from marijuana. but as far as that drug called heroin, if you let somebody come into the memorial church and let them flick that bic and mail down the narcotic from a solve toyed a liquid state and victim addict injects it into their arm, you complete the requirements and you be looking at up to about 20 years in the federal penitentiary. now as far as this medical marijuana is concerned, you're also taking a chance on getting

prosecuted by the trump administration. they've been pretty light on enforcing that law and that is one of the reasons why no one has been prosecuted on it. now you have the city attorney caught up in it because he is going along and agreing with you. but as a result, you might have an opportunity to demonstrate that there is a white skinned colored female child who had epilepsy and seizures and she was permitted to use hash oil which is a derivative for marijuana in other words to stop her seizure attacks and after being in front of a judge, she was permited to do so. but a prosecutor can come back against you and say that you are not using the drug for that, you are using it for recreational use and prosecute you accordingly with federal law. your state law doesn't supersede federal law.

>> good afternoon. i know everyone is doing a lot of work. i wanted to emphasize the sunset of article 33 getting that extended the probably the most mission critical thing for the existing retailers right now. we thank everyone for duplicating the file so that extension can get through as planned while the other amendments are robustly debated as they well should be. we just want to say we thank the city and we are all partners in the success of this industry and woe know that it's a monumenttal task and we thank everyone for taking meetings and listening to our feedback and trying to tailor at leasting will let this industry grow and thrive. finally, i always put in a plug for more funding for the o.o.c. they have a mountain of work

and they could use a little bit of extra help. thank you very much. >> next speaker. >> i want to thank everybody for working through this. it's a very complicated, time-consuming issue. and i want to express my experience to all the members of committee and the board of supervisors, keeping in mind that each decision affects san francisco citizens and small business owners intimately and very differently depending on their situation. i also appreciate supervisor safai's cognizance of big money coming into the industry and trying to support the home-grown industry that is struggling to create an industry here in san francisco. and encourage all the members of the san francisco government to bear in mind that this is a complex and very uncertain process, it is very lengthy and

when things are more complicated and take more time, they take more money and that favors big business in. many cases, we're seeing that helping -- to work against that which we're all trying to foster which is a home-grown industry that will benefit the citizens and the greater community of san francisco and the bay area in general. thank you. that's all. >> mr. speaker, i wanded to advocate for one amendment to be changed, the 50% ownership is seriously detrimental to equity applicants to waste funds for a company they just started. if i'm running a companies that prerevenue and i'm an incubator and trying to raise money to start the company essentially. the first years of operation for even a retail delivery is in excess of $100,000. there is nothing to raise against that. if i want to raise capital from an investor who's willing to come in and fund my company, he

is not interested in buying 50% of the companies that prerevenue and not going to show him any money. he is interested in capturing the entire financial interest and runing the company with you at the helm. in essence, it is not possible for a small incubator business to raise enough money at revenue at 50%. the only way to do that is to sell the financial interest of the business. i'd like to advocate far separation to be drawn between the financial interest holler of the business and the holder of the license. that way we can keep business small, we can keep it local and the license holder still can operate the business, but they will have to operate and raise funds properly. which they're not able to do right now. thank you. >> thank you, supervisors. my name is richard dao. i'm a resident of chinatown. as i understand it, the legislation, the state legislation 64, it give the authority that the board of

supervisor and the local authority that you can regulate who going to sell marijuana. supervisor peskin, district three earlier, a few months ago, he has a resolution that no marijuana permit will be issued in china town and i believe that supervisor go along with this motion. so i think every supervisor should, you know, act accordingly. every supervisor should think that in line with supervisors peskin's niecing no marijuana in chinatown. or district three.

earlier, last year, the planning department have a long hearing on this issue of issuing permits and location at marijuana shop. there is hundreds -- hundreds of people g*ns it and they say in the meeting and they stay until the early morning to protest [inaudible] marijuana in the neighborhood. i ask you to consider -- you have final authority issue permit or not to opening marijuana shop in any place in san francisco. thank you. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisor. my name is sonia ing. marijuana cannabis is illegal in the federal law.

we are the taxpayer. we don't want our tax dollar for the people they want the marijuana make high or happy. our tax dollars should be take care of the citizens. quality, life. san francisco, marijuana. [inaudible]. no more permit for marijuana. look at not far from away from here, look at [inaudible]. if you destroy their whole life. our tax dollar has a pay for our [inaudible] give them the

medical take care. the medical patient. they have lots of service there, like delivery. the medical marijuana. and they can order online. so, we don't need anymore permit for the marijuana. we will continue to fight. we will continue to fight. no more marijuana. the taxpayer [inaudible] money to take care of those problems. thank you. >> next speaker. >> i'm sherry. thanks for letting me have the chance to express what i concern -- what i concern about the cannabis.

cannabis, you see, is [inaudible]. ok? and you said san francisco. you said sunset. no. this one is addicting. [inaudible]. so we are talking about money. we are talking about [inaudible].

not in san francisco, not in california, not in united states. and we don't want to make a damage to everybody. to next generation. for the whole entire world. so top doing this. thank you.

>> how is this, everybody? good afternoon, supervisors. and city worker and i have met with you, gene. appreciate their work. i'm charlie papas one of the dispensary owners in 2011. i believe there's -- i believe there's at least three other ones. maybe more, but not more than five or six. three have re-opened. i really want to appreciate -- tell you that i appreciate the political oversight that san francisco is offering now, has offered in the mid 200s that's so important. at that time, san francisco was the -- medical cannabis is more

well regulated anywhere on the plan . hi, jane. nice to see you. haven't seen you in a while. what i wanted to say is i appreciated the discussion on funding. i think that is important. i've heard lots of numbers thrown around and when i suggest in that is perhaps a slying scale and at least 20%, maybe to 40% and maybe that could be decided by the planning department. something like that. like i said, appreciate your political oversight. thanks. >> any other members of the public wish to comments on this item, please come forward. >> supervisors, can i translate for mrs. wong? >> sure. >> because she already wrote something so i can look a it. i'm not certified translator or interpreter, but i can help. >> that's ok. you can use the other microphone so you don't have to share.

we have two microphones. [speaking mandarin] >> >> interpreter: cannabis is not legal in federal law. [speaking mandarine] [speaking mandarin] >> one of the states has legalized marijuana, such as colorado. >> interpreter: people in colorado start smoking marijuana, at least they legalize the marijuana. now they started to sue the city and sue the government. because it has been damaged their health.

[speaking mandarin] >> so, the cannabis industry is suing the city as well because they said that they allowed them to operate the legal business but yet they got sued. [speaking mandarin] >> interpreter: ucsf has studies showing that marijuana has been damaged, brings especially teenagers, youngsters. [speaking mandarin]

>> they are neglecting our opinion and our voices. [speaking mandarin] >> on freeway and highway and public area, we saw the advertisement of marijuana. those advertisements have been misleading the public and that is dangerous and damaging to public safety.

you are the elected official that you received money and you also vote for them and this is completely and truly a conflict of interest. >> you vote for them, that's what she meant. you need to help the public health. >> for little money that you received, you neglect our voices and you allow them to open cannabis industry in city of san francisco. you are the advocated elected official. you should understand better. for the little money that you received you should not help them assist them to open the business.

>> instead, you should get the funding to educate the public stay away from drugs. >> thank you. no. no. thank you. next speaker. >> today i want to say that i'm [inaudible] commission, many of you received money donation from cannabis operators. especially the mayors. it is called conflict of interest. that we the residents live by cannabis. many of you board of supervisors continue to allow cannabis stores open. also set up [inaudible] to

allow more and more cannabis stores open. can sbis an illegal drug. in florida, they have [inaudible] cannabis just to patients and florida has hundreds of thousands of people died. and they put this in for 157 years already, so they're already proving that cannabises a serious, poisonous drug. therefore, i against cannabis on the market. i appreciate you people listen our citizens voice. thank you.

[speaking mandarine] >> interpreter: good afternoon. my name is sung wong. >> interpreter: the cannabis industry operators background and the cannabis business is not at the public's advantage. [speaking mandarin] all san francisco official, including the mayor, the elected supervisors, the prosecutor, the police officers t district of attorney should be firmly execute and force the federal laws. [speaking mandarin]

trep all of you here should protect the quality of life of our residents and to our good neighborhoods. do not easily issue the permit to those -- to those felons who is going to be the operator of the cannabis industry. thank you. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen on government channel, which i helped create. my name is ace, i'm on the case. this is nothing personal to the asian community, my sisters and brothers from another country. and i say this before when y'all was hear in droves. so translate this to the people so they hear what i'm saying. i'm appalled but i'm also not upset because you guys come from your community and you're doing what we as black folks should be doing, uniting. y'all came out here in numbers to stop the cannabis.

but hold up, y'all. this law is legal. my only question is i'm 64, about the age of some of y'all. what about y'all grand children and great grandchildren, brought in heroin and cocaine into our community? you didn't say anything about that then. so why are you talking about cannabis. see, that's used for -- >> ace, ace, ace, ace. hold on. direct your comments to the panel, not to the audience. >> they translate so they know because the last time they gave me this and i haed to go like that. >> i get it. >> you know what i'm saying? ok. i'm talking y'all. my name is ace, i'm on the case. been here in a years. but i'm also here to say special bulletin, dog gone it! a letter that's going to come out from the city and county with the mayor that happens to be black and the c.s a.o. happens to be black and y'all are up there, i'm black. i'm here to tell y'all in the city by the bay, there must be some kind of overhaul investigation of what this city

and county does. the departmentses and doing this and that without nobody knowing nothing and i'm not mentioning no names. what i'm going to say is it's administration, this current administration has appointed some people to certain positions. their appointments has been disappointed to our community. so i'm here what y'all to say -- whatever y'all say i'm supporting it. i'm saying dog gone it, can sbis legal. it goes back to y'all. what happened to y'all great grandkids. they're bringing in drugs. let's looking at the fire crackers. >> all right. >> hold up. my time wasn't up. don't disturb me. i'm not trying to be --

>> i definitely felt that housing and security. i was in a shelter for two years and i was placed in an s.r.o. i would like to see ha maybe it

could change to where it's just if you have the housing and security, even if it didn't happen here. i would appreciate if you would look at it and hopefully approve it. thank you. next speaker. >> i believe in san francisco for 60 years. in the last 51 years in the sunset district. i am against open a spa in my neighborhood i believe we have criminal activity and on desirable people and you hangout near the store.

also, there is a health concern. it's not safe for everyone to play. i will not feel safe anymore in my neighborhood. as i believe, there will be more crimes such as stolen purse and assault. i don't want to be knocked down for my purse. in sunset direct, has always been a family neighborhood. with kids and seniors. with this spa, it will not be safe anymore for families and their kids to walk in our neighborhoods. thank you. >> if you would like to speak on

the record, if you could stand up and stand in line. if there's no one else. it looks like this will be the last speaker. >> hi. marijuana is illegal and is a drug. an illegal drug. it has been legalized so long and it's proven it's damage to our health. even second-hand smoking is damaging our health. >> even though cigarette is legalized, the advertisement is

not allowed to the public area on freeway as well as in public area. marijuana is illegal drug in federal laws, why answer all these advertisements in public area in freeway also have trucks driving around in the neighborhood. those advertisements on the truck, driving around in the neighborhood and also nearby school districts and the misleading the teenagers. i sincerely hoped that the elected official will execute or will do their job to protect the

decent neighborhoods and decent people of san francisco. >> the elected mayor, supervisor, and also all the officials should not take sides of cannabis industry and then have the conflict of interest to vote for them. >> please, do not take their donation, their contribution and then you vote for them. this is totally conflict of interest and this is against the law. >> i a

>> marijuana is legalized and it has consumed as recreational. it will damage our next generation and also as parents, this is something that will be broken heart in the long-term. >> if you open the door for our children to get illegal drugs in the first place, early stage, they will go on and have the structure like heroine or cocaine. this is gateway of the drugs. >> we should be the role model

to obey the law. >> public comment is closed. ok. >> sorry. we'll just open back up public comments for one more person. >> sorry. >> good afternoon, my name is wendy wong. i am the spokesperson of san francisco coalition for good neighborhoods. recently, i came out to speak a lot against the marijuana, especially drugs in federal laws. san francisco, we have so much opportunity to get revenue from such as convention, last year, we have less than 38 conventions coming to san francisco.

last year we had 15,000 people coming to san francisco. why? the dirty, filthy and we spend even more money to clean the streets. we also double using the funds public money -- i hope that our district attorney, and the police officers, and also our elected officials will obey the law to enforce all of these strict regulations to handle how the cannabis industry and also the user who is are going to be recklessly driving on the streets and i know that our law has been very loose to entertain this cannabis industry.

i hope our elected officials, please, take our recommendations and our advice and our speeches seriously and this is not fun. we should encourage legal business and legitimate business to help the city but not helping the illegal drugs and open the business. >> thank you. public comment is closed. >> supervisor mandelman. >> thank you, chair safai. as i previously mentioned, there are time sensitive elements of this legislation. and so, i'd like to do duplicate the file and allow us to move forward the most pressing items about which i don't think there's division. i'd like to move to amend the original file all but 1605 and 3322f. there's a motion to do that.

>> supervisor yee. >> just a quick question. >> supervisor mandelman, all of the amendments you spoke of earlier is that included in the one. >> i don't know which one is which. >> so what he did was he made a motion to remove everything other than one section. one main area. >> which one is that? >> the stuff i would like to i would like 1605 the transition provision. >> what page is that? >> it's on page 6. >> then 33231605 is the

transition provision. 3322 you said? >> 3323. >> 3323. >> supervisor yee. >> i just found it. >> the sunset provision and 3322f which is on page 29 and it deals with the period of -- the extension of the authorization to sell adult cannabis for an additional 90-day period and i'm going to propose to amend that to be 120 days. >> i'm ok with those. >> ok. >> we're going to move forward those three provisions with a motion to strike everything other than what you want to move forward. >> right. >> so can we do that without objection?

>> yes. >> what are we continuing? >> so, right now we duplicated the file. there was a motion to duplicate the file. we're sending forward the amended parts he highlighted. that's what we would be sending forward with one further change that i would like to move. >> so you want to make an amendment? >> we duplicate the file and stricken all the things we want to strike. >> we can do that without object sex. object. >> additional amendment to pull everything out and 3322f, needs to be voted on. >> that's a motion we need to take. >> we're making a motion to accept all of those amendments? can we do that without objection? >> you want one more amendment. >> we just replaced the reference from 90 days to 120

days. >> i'd like to move the amended file be sent to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> we were going to strike one section on 33 -- >> the other amendment was the change the 90 day references. >> we did that. >> supervisor mandelman. >> i would like to move it be sent to the full board with positive recommendations. >> before we do that, once that motion is made he can't speak about the duplicated file that is still in committee. >> ok. >> i'm good. >> supervisor kim, any additional questions? >> i want to speak to the duplicated file when we come back. >> all right. >> now there's a motion on the floor to send the amended file. can we send that with positive recommendation to the full board

without objection. >> we have the remaining file that is all the different things that have been discussed today. supervisor mandelman. >> so, i know there are going to be other amendments as well but i would like to move the amendments that i spoke of, the portion of 3322 that you had an issue with, chair safai, and we'll have before us the next time this comes up, the duplicated file with the non controversial amendments before us. >> the section that i'm talking about is on page 29 lines 8-20. we need to come back to that. we need to get better language around that. now you are making a motion to accept all your other amendments on the duplicated file other

than that stricken file? >> procedural question. if we do that, then when we have a discussion when the next time we meet, i guess, we can -- so at that point, we can also amend anything we don't like. that is correct. >> i don't have enough time. >> i get it. at our next meeting is we can further amend it. >> there will be further amendments. the amendment today that had to do with household income and making that a required criteria i talked about that. one point of clarification it would not be the remaining three criteria because it will be required. it will be two of the remaining five. so that's the amendment that i talk about today. they will have to ready next time. supervisor peskin has one he wants to talk about with regard to limiting the number of

applicants. we need to get clarity whether it's about equity applicants. i believe it's equity applicants based on my conversation and reading what he has given us today. we can get clarity on that. and i know supervisor kim has one she wants to talk about. we're not -- supervisor mandelman has made a motion to accept his amendments on the duplicated file. not the additional ones that supervisor kim, myself, supervisor peskin have talked about. we have the ability, if there's things in there, because you are saying you haven't had time to review them all, and i've only had a little bit of time to review them. we have the ability to take them out and amend them out. as well as amend additional things at next rules meeting that we have this