>> and commissioner dooley, i'm sorry. >> so today, we're going to present the process. robert's going to go over the process we went through over ten months. okay it's condensed because you guys don't want to go over our work, but it's a very good overview how we engaged the community, how we engaged the businesses, and ultimately how we came up with the logo that's going to represent all the great businesses here in san francisco, so i'm going to pass this onto robert riley to do the process and i'll unveil the logo. >> thank you for having us. as going over the background today it's just a little bit of the process that we go through with our general logo development. this was done with the committee, and we go through a six-day process on our brand development. one of the things that we always start with whenever we're developing a brand is research. those cover our first two phases. we researched about the city of san francisco's culture and

program goals with regards to the legacy business program. we researched on the -- all the businesses that were inducted into the legacy business program by researching out to them through some different surveys and interviews, moving forward through that. we then go through a design concept and direction development phase. that phase is where we work directly with the commission -- or the committee that was put together to kind of decide on what we're going to do and then how we're going to move forward. through that, we get feedback from the committee, and the selections, revisions, until our final direction was selected, and then after that, we're going to be providing the final logos in all formats and files for not only the office of small business to use, but also the

legacy businesses that belong to the program, as well. a bill lit how we approached our research was trying to get a better understanding of the legacy business program, the city itself. you can kind of see, we went through wihat the origin of the program was, what made the businesses unique, why the program mattered, who the program could affect, how the program would impact the city of san francisco, its culture, the history of the city, and kind of some of the design aesthetics from the city. and we used all of that to present the initial design concept. and what we did was in addition to kind of doing that initial research is we did send out 156 surveys to all of the legacy business programs that were currently accepted into the program. that was back in february 2018, and we asked, you know, a series of 11 questions. i'm not going to go through all

of them, but the main goal was to really understand the uniqueness that these businesses provided to the city and how they kind of affected what we were trying to develop and how to help represent these businesses because they're so diverse and so unique. i mean, even the three businesses that were shared today are, you know, very diverse businesses. it's not all just one type of business, so that was a really unique challenge that we had to over come and figure out, how to represent all of these businesses. some of the really great responses we got is that, one, a lot of the businesses -- every business said that they really appreciated the recognition and help from the city and being a part of the legacy business program. and then, the businesses kind of had mentioned in some key comments that, you know, they are long-standing pillars of the community, and we really thought that that was a significant part to kind of build off of, as well. legacy business programs were looking for help from the legacy

business program and how to create awareness, and so that's something we've been working with committee on, in not only the brand and logo, but some of the development phase that we're going to be helping out with. one of the big things they were also trying to do is not only communicate with tourists that are coming to the city, but residents of the city, as well, so we really wanted to find something that would resonate with both of those demographics. i think the legacy businesses really makeup the soul of the city, and i thought that was a great thing for us to kind of build off of as we move forward. we did interview ten very unique businesses in addition to the surveys. went out and did personal interviews, went out to their stores, businesses, got a chance to go inside, look around, and get a real look and feel at some

of these different businesses that were making up the program. [please stand by]

. >> what we were able to do is come to a conclusion through working with that committee, and what i'm going to do is turn it over to kurt right now and he's going to go over the logo. >> so i got the fun part, the logo. you know, it's my pleasure and exciting to be unveiling the logo over ten months. a lot of people in the community and our design review committee, it's put a lot of effort, and so first of all, i want to talk about the inspiration, how we came up, you know, with this overview. it's about the history of the city, of course. the art, the deco, the architecture, and the influences of the san francisco, you know, the cityscape. all good brands and logos are simplistic, bold, memorable, but also very timely. you know, we come up with keywords that we sort of follow

throughout that process, and the keywords we came up with was diverse, colorful, historic, city, unique, and quirky. and that's what makes -- and that's what's great about san francisco, is the diversity of our city.

next element is the border, which is also like the badge, badge of quality which is known for distinction as a mark of achievement and membership. we felt the concept showed the city's willingness to protect the legacy businesses and representing legacy businesses achievement to see posted at their place of business. and what brought it altogether was the ribbon. the ribbon symbolize the city and commitment to the leg aseize

business. the color, the process we go through -- we go through a long process of color. the gold made sense. the color of gold symbolizes the 49ers. it also inspired the dome of city hall. gold is inherently tied to the origin, sewn in fabric of san francisco. the motion behind the gold is hopeful. so again, the gold also signals wisdom, courage, and passion. it symbolizes the optimistic courage it takes to start and maintain a business. the commission, we're presenting the legacy business logo to you today, and we are very proud of

the whole process and a lot of people were involved in it, and this is our logo that we're presenting that will represent all the great businesses here in san francisco. [applause] >> of course, it would be a symbol on different businesses, but you can just go through, i think, the applications such as retail bags. we're not saying these are things exactly, but just for visual purposes. banners, of course, window identification. certificate, and, of course, plaques.

thank you very much for your time today. >> okay. do we have any commissioner questions? commissioner dwight? >> well, no questions, just it w was -- well, this was a tremendous milestone. having this logo is the key to promoting this program. rick has done such a great job of bringing our first cohorts of legacy businesses into the program over the last two years, and this is really the milestone that allows us to start publicly promoting the program, and i'm really thrilled to be able to do that. and i want to thank my fellow commissioner dooley for participating in the process, and you know, as well as -- as our executive director dick andrizzi. also our colleagues in the office of small business and other offices and diane matsuda.

takes nine months to have a baby, we took a little longer to have this one. but the out come is tremendous, and i want to thank robert and his team who helped us bring it all together. this is a really excising milestone, so thank you. >> thank you, commissioner. >> do we have any other commissioner comments? commissioner dooley? >> i also just wanted to say thank you for your patience with us as we went round and round on all different ideas and projects, but i think you really listened to us, and we came up with really the ideal logo, so thank you so much. >> thank you so much, commissioner. >> any other commissioner comments before we go to public comment? >> and just 18 more years before my business can be one. >> okay. do we have any other members of the public who wish to make comment on item number 5? seeing none, public comment is

closed. okay. this is an action item. do we have a a motion. >> move to approve the logo as presented? >> second. >> motion by commissioner dwight, seconded by commissioner dooley. we'll do a roll call. [roll call] >> motion passes, 6-0, with one absent. >> great. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> and i also want to express my thanks to commissioners dwight and commissioner dooley and commissioner dick endrizzi, and rick, and everybody with sf heritage and oewd. this was definitely a group effort, and i want to just thank everybody. everybody was on the same page with the final, and that's awesome, so thank you everybody. >> and rick, yeah, thank you. you did a fantastic job of taking us through this process. >> thank you. >> thank you very much.

>> thank you. next item, please. >> oh, we can applaud that. [applause] >> item 6, it's a basis long to please bear with me. board of supervisors file number 180912, police and health codes. regulation of cannabis businesses. ordinance amending the police code by making a number of changes in the regulation of commercial cannabis activity -- >> oh -- >> -- including, among other things, one, defining ownership interest in a cannabis business, two, modifying the cannabis equity incubator program requirements, three, extending by one year the possible duration of a temporary cannabis business permit. four, authorizing the director of the office of cannabis to issue cannabis business permits to medical cannabis dispensaries forced to discontinue operations due to a no-fault lease termination before december 31,

2018. five, modifying the order in which the director may review and process cannabis business permit applications. six, requiring cannabis business permit amendments when a change in ownership results in a decrease in equity applicants ownership interest. seven, revising cannabis business permit application requirements. eight, requiring khanna business businesses to comply with all permit conditions whether or not they are currently engaging in the permitted activity. nine, modifying the amount of khanna business th cannabis business that may be delivered or sold to a customer. and reducing from four to three the categories of commercial activity required to operate as a cannabis microbusiness, and amending the health code by extending by one year the date

on which article 33, medical cannabis act, expires by law. discussion and action item. presenter is nicole elliott, director of cannabis -- >> director elliott, just one moment. >> commissioner dooley? >> i'm going to reaccucuse myse. i am very involved in the cannabis industry. >> this would be for item number 6 and 7. >> right. >> okay. so might as well ask for a recusal for both items. >> i move that you be recused from items six and seven. we do an all in favor. >> all in favor? [voting] >> you're recused.

>> welcome. >> nicole elliott, director of office of cannabis. it has been almost a year since this legislation was -- became effective. in that time, we have accomplished a lot of things, and we have a lot yet to accomplish. what this legislation reflects is some revisions to article 16 based on our experiences implementing the article -- the article thus far. it is currently sponsored by the mayor, cosponsored by supervisor mandelman and cohen. i'm going to walk you through the high spots of it, and then open it up for questions. so just quickly, the administrative requirements that we're looking at refining, and

you should have an f.a.q. in your packets, administrative requirement, changing the -- refining the definition of owner to clarify that an entity, is considered a person for purposes of disclosure to our offices to the point of clarification further clarifies that all owners, including the individuals that may be part of an ownership entity must be fingerprinted for the conviction history review portion of the application. clarifies that applicants must have a business account with our tax collector at the time of application and this is in large part we we have a digital application that is pulling information from our tax collectors database. it removes some duplicative requirements, clarifies some requirements around the community outreach strategy, and further clarifies requirements related to an applicant's

financial interest. we have, since the beginning of this year, been implementing the city's equity program, and based on that, we are requesting additional changes be made to the equity program to further strengthen an equity individual's participation in this program, so it adds a definition for ownership interest to make it very transparent and clear to investors what we expect when it comes to defining ownership interest and what we believe that equity applicant is due as part of this legislation. further, it requires a permit amendment if an equity applicant will see a dilution -- [inaudible] >> provide to us the terms of that saille or dilution.

it restructures the permit criteria and prioritization process based on things we have seen and speerpsed thus far. first, one example is it creates another eligibility category for existing m.c.'s and temporary permit holders who are losing their leases due to no fault of their own. we are seeing this in a couple of circumstances again both on the retail side as well as the temporary permit side, those applicants who came in through or am nesty process, so it allows him to find a new location and apply in a temporary process through next year. further, it revises the processing conformity to allow those operators forced to shutdown, moved them to third priority after our equity applicants and equity

incubators. you'll recall preexisting nonconforming with those who came in through or amnesty process, they agreed to shutdown their locations because of where they were located or what they were doing would not comply with the regulations. at the end of the day is it takes everybody who's not in operation and it moves them to the top, and then, it keeps our existing industry functioning on temporary status as we move in -- those operators were not operating into operation first. finally, and most timely, no pun intended, it extends some timelines so that we can see our existing industry continue to operate on a temporary status. so it allows for the extension of temporary permits through the end of next year versus the end of this year, it extends the time frames by which we may

extend temporary permits from 90 days to 120 days. just as background, my office is extenting about 200 permit -- extending about 200 permits on a rolling basis. [inaudible] >> this is an extraordinary amount of administrative work that's being done behind the scenes to ensure compliance, and we would like to just lengthen those time frames from 90 to 120 days from temporary permits to m.c.d.s. it extends article 33 one more year to align the temporary permit extensions through the end of next year, and finally there's a provision in article 16. it's moved this to september 30 -- no later than september 30 of next year to allow recommendations to be informed

by at least a year's worth of data. just to give you guys some context to why these permit extensions -- i'm sorry, timeli timeline extensions are being requested, this gives you a visual of the applications that are pending before our office right now. you can see we have 263 locations that are seeking 401 permits. and that is a lot of permits so with that, i'm happy to answer any questions you may have about this or any other questions about the trailing legislation. >> thank you for being on top of it, too, and this is not easy. >> questions?

>> no, simile, it's uncharted territory, and it looks like you're doing a great job of navigating us through the muddy waters. >> my job is massive, and it's a challenging one. >> you are tackling something that we are in uncharted territories, and i really -- i'm going to open this up to public comment. rick has a stack of cards here. >> so i have a number of speaker cards. some of them indicate item 6, some item 7.

>> here i am, please, asking you please, could we start-up medication for cannabis compassion clubs. i've been going through a lot of pain for past several years, and i've been -- need my medical marijuana to help me out with my pain.

i was -- [inaudible] >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm here on behalf of access love who i've been working with for about four years now, and i don't understand or i'm not up to par, i don't know what's going on with the cannabis here or not, but i would just like to ask and was very appreciative that you guys would consider to keep the program going to where whatever businesses are discarding of cannabis are still good, people who can't afford it for medical, medical, mental reasons. that's all. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is george ann ross.

i'm a member of access of love and a san francisco resident. it's a pleasure to be here with my fellow city residents in our historic and beloved city hall. i moved to san francisco in part because of its reputation in part for openness and acceptance. as i see the intent of prop 215 diminished by the emergence of retail sales, i wonder why are we no longer accepting the most disadvantaged among us. the intent of 215, which was passed in 1996 was that the most in need of medications were not forced to go to unreputable businesses. do we plan to put profit over people in this city? after working here as a paralegal and software q.a.

engineer in the late 90's, i moved home to do cancer care giving for my elderly father in virginia for a few years. i cooked for him, took him to appointments, arranged his medication and so on. besides the pain discomfort he experienced as a result of having cancer, and enduring radiation and chemotherapy treatments, he also had severe arg argumentati arthritis in his back. he took numerous medications. i know because i gave them to him. what a difference if i could have just given him a jaoint fo

the pain in his back. california is a leader in this nation for innovative responses. small business relies on tourism, right, these legacy businesses we're talking about. make some of their profits off of the tourists, so why not include medical patients in that tourist recruitment? why should it only be the tourist industry that gets attention now. i myself am a cannabis patient for various reasons, and i just want to thank you for the opportunity to speak today. >> thank you. [please stand by]

>> if it is a federally programmed thing, so those kinds of patients need a place where they can go and commune with one another. that is human nature wanting to get together and share and just

have a place to be so, you know, we need the compassion of programs to be able to continue here in san francisco and also to set up three or four places that low income patients can go and just be, medicate and get service. thank you. >> thank you. neck speaker. >> good afternoon. i'm the executive director of access with a love. it is a pleasure to speak before you. i will take off where we left off the last time we spoke before your commission which was about a year ago. i want to thank you, from the depths of my heart for including , in your recommendations commit -- compassionate care as a priority unfortunately, we are not a priority and we are -- we are looking at a crisis in compassion.

the state has vetoed a compassionate care bill that came through. it was basically a corporate welfare. it did not do anything for the current 5-7 standalone compassion programs that are historic. we talk about legacy today. these are compassion programs that go back over a decade that are now forced underground. we have patients not being able to afford their medication and turning to the streets. because opioids are actually now more affordable for pain then cannabis. i feel like we have lost our direction and our compass. while there is nothing that we disagree with with what is being presented today, it is what is not being presented. it is what is not moving forward that is a horrible situation because it is at the heart of the matter.

before the passage of prop 64, i took the risk of going onto the evening news and saying that this would, indeed, shut down compassionate programs. i am living through the worst i told you so i have ever lived through in my life. compassion programs have been shut down and patients are without access. this is the whole reason why all these 200 plus applicants are here, because patients fought for this and now we are told we are not part of this. so that needs to be considered in the equation of equity. in what lingo that is out there is called weed reparations. we are at the heart of weed reparations. the disabled communities of san francisco and we need to ask you today for the small business commission did not let this leave this commission without your emphasis on patients as a priority and we would like to

work with, in particular, the small business commission and the office of cannabis, i am getting these 5-7 programs a temporary permit as soon as possible. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. denise w. is here. victoria wong -- >> dory. my name is denise dory. i am a member of access of love. i am a 60 -- 63 years old and i am a oakland native. i am down in the bay area all my life. it cost me ten dollars a pound to grow this cannabis weed outdoors. it is a 5,000% markup. it is all profit. i'm not counting if you already own the property. 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.