ensure there's fairness to those seeking a permit and having access to the temporary adult use permits. president cohen, did you want to say something? >> president cohen: yes. i need some better understanding around the 1:20 a.m.i. can you talk a little bit about that? >> supervisor safai: did you get the handouts that i handed out? >> president cohen: yes. i -- >> supervisor safai: okay. what it says as part of the requirements that you have that we talked about under the categories of qualifying for the equity program, that one of those would be one that would be made permanent so it's on -- it says as member of the household that earns no more than 20% of area median income.

we wanted there to be a little bit more for more working families, lower middle-income, and we made that a requirement as part of the equity program. so the remaining three -- so everything else stayed the same. so it would be two of the following criteria, that had lived in san francisco, either had lost their housing, lived in san francisco 1971-2016, has a parent sibling off child during 1971-2016 that was arrested or convicted, had attended school. so the remaining was two of the categories. >> president cohen: is there still -- is this still retroactive? is that language still in your amendment? >> supervisor safai: we had -- that's the way we were approaching it. we wanted to have the conversation today. the way we were looking at it was essentially when we got the information from the department of the office of cannabis,

right, is that what it's called? >> president cohen: yeah. >> supervisor safai: sorry. so many names going through my head. that 75% of the people that had applied had chosen the income category, 76, so there were 24% that had not checked that off. they looked at income, they looked at assets, so forth, but we contemplated many of those would be over income. what i'm saying is it's designed to be a socioeconomic program to provide for opportunity and access to those that have been -- fall under those other categories. >> president cohen: so the answer is yes, it's retroactive. >> supervisor safai: yes. >> president cohen: okay. so i -- >> supervisor safai: since we have -- i'm sorry. i don't mean to cut you off. i just want to clarify one thing. since we have not issued any permits, since no permits have been issued, there's been a

processing -- have equity permits been issued? no? director elliott? >> president cohen: why don't we invite the director -- >> supervisor safai: yeah, that's my -- so my understanding was no equity permits had been issued yet, so that was why we did it that way. director elliott? >> supervisors, nicole elliott, director of the office of cannabis, on this issue there is a process that the office of cannabis has in place to verify equity applicants. it's a multistage process, if you don't mind me, walking you through. the first is requesting interested equity applicants to submit information about their assets. we verify that they meet the asset test, and then, we verify that they meet three of six criteria. at that point, we provide the equity applicant with a verification, a number, and access to the application so that they may seek investment, submit an application at which

point, we verify the final portion of their eligibility, which is the ownership criteria. of the approximately 220 individuals who have been verified for the asset test and three of six criteria, approximately 60 of those individuals have not been verified due to their income status. so we would have to go back and seek to reverify them. i am not clear of how many of those 60 have or have not submitted applications at this time, but that would require us to go back and reverify approximately 60 people. >> supervisor safai: thank you. so those are my amendments that i'm proposing today, but we can come back to them, and we can move to public comment, unless, president cohen, you have any other questions at this point. >> president cohen: yes, i think i just -- i will listen

to you believe approximate comme-to public comment, but i'm a little uncomfortable with it. retroactively, i think we should not move the goal posts. i think we should not require that the office of cannabis revoke and go back and do that extra type of work. but i also want to recognize our colleagues. supervisor mandelman has stepped out of the chamber, but his assistant has amendments that he's introducing. before we go to public comment, we should probably go to they see gentlemen in here. >> supervisor safai: before we call tom and lee up -- thank you, i was going to recognize them. i appreciate that. i just want to be clear about one of the reasons why we're doing is, because no permits have been issued, is the thinking behind it -- and i know we've had some conversations, but the thinking behind it is -- and i just want to get it on the record more clearly. if we're truly doing a

socioeconomic program that's giving access to people and giving them opportunity in this equity program, the idea is if you have wealth, if you've already created wealth for yourself, if you're already financially stable, then the idea's why are we -- why are we allowing you into this program? because it's not stopping anyone accessing other facets of the cannabis industry. we're going to go through the equity program, and we're going to review it at some point. but i think the concern -- and i heard from those in the industry as well as those that fall, i guess, under the equity category, they're saying if this is really giving someone an opportunity to build wealth or get a foothold into an industry where we're designing a specific set aside, for lack of a better word, then why are we doing it for folks that have

significant income already? i just want to say that for the record, and then, we can come back to it. tom, did you want to come up and speak on behalf of your boss, please? thank you, president cohen. >> thank you, chair safai. so as supervisor mandelman has mentioned, he has distributed four amendments to you all. i'm just going to quickly run through those. the first is an amendment to section 1608-c-5 which clarifies the amendment that you proposed at the last rules meeting to allow ownership changes of no more than 50% applies cumulatively across any permits whether temporary or permit issued under article 16. it essentially means if a business is operating on a temporary article 16 permit now, and they transfer, say, 20% of their ownership, once they get their permanent

permit, they are still held up to that 50% mark cumulatively. the next amendment is to section 1608-c-9, and this is if a change in ownership results in a decrease in an equity applicant's ownership or a change in an equity applicant's management role. there's also an amendment to section 1622 which clarifies the director of the office of cannabis's ability to deliver standards consistent with the purpose of article 16, effectively standards that ensure that anyone involved dire directly or directly with deliveries are acting in a manner consist with article 16. and he has given you amendments to section 3311 a and b that will basically allow businesses who are currently operating under the article 33 permits the same ability to transfer or change ownership that we are

proposing for article 16, permittees. it would allow for transfers of up to 50% to be done via permit amendment so long as the permittees agree to 15 months of equity incubation. it further states that no ownership interest of 50% or more can be transferred. there is also at the end of that an amendment to section 331022 that will allow existing medical cannabis dispensaries to change their form from a corporate form to another form so long as they provide notice to the director of the office of khanna kbis. happy to answer any questions. >> supervisor safai: -- cannabis. happy to answer any questions. >> supervisor safai: that was quite a bit. so it's on here? >> so the first three amendments to article 16 amendments are all on one sheet, and the article 33 amendments are on a different set.

>> supervis >> president cohen: mr. chair? >> supervisor safai: yes. >> president cohen: may i be recognized? >> supervisor safai: sure. >> president cohen: i'm not a voting member on this body, but i do have a couple of questions on the amendments that are being introduced. my understanding is we're looking for diversity and ownership -- oh, i'm sorry. sorry. my question's for hepner, not mandelman. >> supervisor safai: so president cohen, do you have any questions -- >> president cohen: with handle man? no. i'm in agreement with mandelman. we've worked together on certain aspects of the legislation, so i'm comfortable with what supervisor mandelman is proposing. >> supervisor safai: so it's essentially about ownership, and the one over here on

article 16 is -- can you just repeat that again? >> sure. so the article 16 changes that we're proposing, the first one just clarifies that based on the new transfer threshold of up to 50%, kind -- it prevents someone who is operating on a temporary permit transferring, say, 30%, and then once they get their permanent permit transferring another 30%. >> supervisor safai: got it. >> so it just saves for that. >> supervisor safai: and the 33.01 -- is this about the chain? >> yeah. the language in the amendments to section 33.11 really mirrors the language that this committee discussed on october 24 around ownership changes and percentages to article 16 businesses. this would simply extend that same language to businesses that are operating on article 33 permits.

the -- the difference being that there would be an equity incubation requirement of article 33 businesses who wish to make changes to their ownership structures. >> supervisor safai: okay. great. why don't we bring up lee from supervisor peskin's office. president cohen, do you have another question or were you still on there from before? [inaudible] >> supervisor safai: okay. lee? >> thank you. the amendment i have before this committee today is the same amendment that i brought when this was last before this body. i think it's in the spirit of the first amendment that chair safai was presenting. what this amendment would do and it has not changed the last time it was before this committee, it would put a two-dispensary cap at a retail

level. functionally, what that means is if you are an owner, if you have an ownership interest, which in the lemgislation is defined as a 20% interest in two store fronts, and you have applications before the office of cannabis, those additional applications would be put on hold. they would not be denied, just put on hold pending other applications in the cue. my understanding is the applications are heard on a first applied first processed basis, so if you're the possessor of a storefront cannabis retail permit, that third application that you've submitted would be moved back to the cue pending consideration of other applicants. >> supervisor safai: i'm sorry. can you clarify that, so it doesn't outright deny you, it just puts you in the back of the cue until when? >> that's correct. they are put on hold pending consideration of other

applicants in the cue who ostensibly would not have two other retail cannabis storefronts? >> supervisor safai: for how long? >> pending consideration of the others. at some point, i assume there is sort of a max number of dispensaries that are allowed in the city just by virtue of our land use controls, but, yeah. maybe the director of cannabis -- >> supervisors, nicole elliott, director of the office of cannabis. the concept of on hold, we've been mandated by article 16 to show the process of applications as they move through the permitting process in our office and other offices, so we have an on-hold status that we've used for multiple purposes but mainly for those who have applications pending before us where we want to communicate that that application is not being processed, is not moving forward, and i think what lee's

expressing here is for that third application in that category, that application would be put on hold until if there are two permits issued in that category, that application would no longer be eligible for a permit. >> supervisor safai: when you say two -- two applications are issued in that category, what are you -- oh, okay. so basically, they -- two, and that would be it. >> two and that's it. and then, the other -- the only other caveat is that we have in discussions with industry stakeholders and the office of cannabis decided to exempt existing retail cannabis storefronts that have already received their land use 60 stot

holders that are not equity, my amendment would say, for

example, that we want 60 independent additional equity applicants, not one person to have four, five, so that it reduces the opportunity for everybody else. in this instance -- i understand where you're going. i just want to say in the industry, i've seen often times you'll have existing businesses work with equity applicants and other owners to exist and expand. how do you control for that? do you define -- and i'm looking for -- did you hand me -- >> i distributed copies to your offices. i have additional here. >> supervisor safai: does it talk about the percentage of ownership? what if somebody is 20% owner in a business and they want -- does it talk about levels of ko ownership? >> it does. ownership is defined as -- we

are

>> we don't necessarily want, i don't think it's good public policy for one equity applicant to be the designated equity applicant for the entire array of storefronts in the city. >> yours is not about equity. it is about pure storefront ownership. >> owners need as much as 20% of equity. it is not specifically t. equity owner. >> i just wonder if there is a way we could compromise in terms of controlling for more than, if you raise the bar a little bit, at least from my perspective, may beat you can allow for an

opportunity, if it's 40% in equity, 20% in owner, and limited, limited in a slightly different way than the same way it is to find right now. >> we are talking in the same spirit, i think there is probably room for collaboration and working on that language. the request is that from supervisor peskin's office as the amendment be included today in some form so we can discuss this before the board. >> we will do that's. we will make amendments today and we will accept those amendments and they will be discussed again and finalized on monday. >> thank you very much. >> for the record, that's why we schedule a door scheduled monday 's special meeting to make sure we are meeting all these deadlines. supervisor he co-opted you press the button? did i miss that? >> i think i'm asking the same questions, but are we talking

about applicants or are we talking about the fact that they already have their permits? you mentioned two or more. >> write. if you already have an ownership , a defined ownership interest in two permits and you are the applicant on a third, that third application would be put on hold. >> right. so right now, there's nobody there that exists in this category. no one has gotten a permit yet. >> on the contrary. there are owners to the extent that they had received their approval and entitlements from the planning department through their commission. they would be exempt from the two dispensary count in this. that is not to say that it applies retroactively to existing storefronts. that is prospectively.

i think that was designed as -- out of fairness and punctually does functionally going forward. >> okay. >> thank you. my apologies if i will ask a question you've already answered but could you talk to me about the specific number on the up and how you came about to select that two be the number. >> yeah, and thank you. i don't think there was a whole lot of science behind the two. i think the idea was to pick a threshold at which you have a stake in the industry and then we want to give other owners an opportunity to also establish a stake in the industry. the same reason we didn't say that your other applications would be deemed denied, instead

they would be put on hold. we do not want to adversely impact those that already have two, but we want to open up the rest of the industry to owners that are applying to get their share as well. but to answer your question more directly, that number could be one, two, three or four. two is what we determined to make sense and sat well with the industry stakeholders that we were discussing with. >> that leads me to my second question. i want to make sure i heard you correctly. you have spoken to industry and stakeholders who have a vested -- of vested interest and there is agreement on this number? >> i want to represent the entire industry, but to the stakeholders that we have spoken with, this is amenable to the stakeholders that had approached us and have been discussing amendments with each of our offices. >> if this committee made a decision to change to go 2-3 backward supervisor peskin be comfortable with that? >> i would be happy to take that

back to him for consideration. i don't know i can make that representation. >> i understand. thank you. i appreciate that. >> that was a good point. thank you. >> i have a question based on your note to the city attorney based on what president cohen just said. if we were to make an amendment that said from 2-3, is that a substantial amendment? >> this is on supervisor peskin 's amendment about a two dispensary up based on the definition of ownership. if we were to say let's raise it to three, if he did that on monday. >> if you adopt the two today, and increase it to three on monday, that would not be a substantial matter. if you made it three today and went back to two on monday, that would be substantially.

if you want to leave your options open, you should keep it at two today and potentially amend to three on monday. >> okay. thank you any other questions from the committee before we open it up to public comment? i guess we can come back to some of the questions and amendments. we will go ahead and open it up for public comment. any members of the public that wish to comment on this item, please come forward to. you have one minute to speak. >> good afternoon. i am the owner of the collective i am here to speak on some of the amendments today. first of all, i did helped consult with the equity program and you are right. we did get --dash we didn't get it totally right the first time. that being said, putting a up on equity applicant his, retail dispensaries is being discriminatory. if we will put a up, it needs to be on a up for everyone. when they said two retail

locations, that is viable for everyone, not just equity, not just regular business owners. two should be the limit so everyone can be part of this business. having three dispensaries and not enough green zones is not working for us. i know i am over it might minute >> you are not. you have a second. >> that is the first thing. i think it should be everyone. it should not just be equity. it should be two up her retail per person. [indiscernible] >> thank you. thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. thank you for the opportunity to speak today. i am the president of hometown heart which is a delivery only cannabis retailer operating in

district ten. the office of cannabis in san francisco and board of supervisors have done excellent work and creating a regulatory framework that allows for businesses like mine to operate and create job opportunities for local people trying to enter the legal cannabis industry. we support the proposed regulations and programs that will assist equity applicants and help create a fair and sustainable market for all. as a business operating in an underserved community of san francisco, we are ploughed just proud to be allies in the space and work diligently for folks in our community. the proposed amendment allowing for delivery of cannabis and cannabis goods firm manifests received outside of the dispensary will further support our work in combating the illicit delivery market in the city. medical -- medical cannabis patients and adult consumers expect fast delivery. with this change, we can streamline operations to allow for a quick and safe and reliable model that reduces -- >> thank you. next speaker.

>> good afternoon. name is doug. i am with the team start's at union. i will try to keep this brief. let me thank president cohen for bringing the amendment forward on dynamic delivery. i know there are a lot of questions about delivery and i hope you all read today's chronicle which noted state requirements that we push for that everybody doing delivery be an employee of a dispensary. so there's no pot in california. and they are supporting that employee requirement and other places outside of california now i will also note that on this question of dynamic delivery since the last time he came up, we negotiated labour peace agreements with hometown heart which will allow hundreds of workers in san francisco to organize with the team start's union.

i'm very happy to report that and urge your support on this amendments. thank you. >> hello. i am a longtime member of access of love s.f. gives free cannabis to folks that need it. and it was said in the constitution, unless we put medical treatment in the constitution, the time will come will judge when medicine will organize a dictatorship to restrict our hearing to one class of men to deny equal privileges to others. the constitution of the republic should make a special contribution. what we need to know is i can grow a pound of cannabis outdoors absentee eva that cures cancer and alzheimer's because all use is medicinal, for ten dollars a pound. when we say that is a 6,400-dollar mark up that they are charging, and i can't afford it.

i have catastrophic illnesses. i will not shop in dispensaries because it is too expensive. it is predatory. my cousin, i had to pay for his medicine and it was way too expensive. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. i am the chief compliance officer. we operate a licensed non storefront retailer and also cultivation manufacturing and distribution businesses located in san francisco. i want to thank the committee for allowing me to speak on this ordinance today. my business currently employs 220 people in san francisco and we have been operating since 2015. we are excited to continue growing our business in san francisco and thank the board of supervisors and the office of cannabis and all city staff for the work and allowing the extension of temporary permit. we support the proposed amendment that would alleviate the delivery employees from only being able -- it will create

more efficiency into the delivery model, reduce vehicle miles travelled in further the work in combating the illicit market. we are dedicated to being good neighbours in the area and anything we can do to create more tractors less traffic will be welcomed by our neighbours. your work for allowing and fast delivery allows cannabis to be provided to patients who are homebound. >> thank you. thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am a resident of the sunset district in san francisco. i am in equity applicant. one thing i would like to mention is to please consider these amendments related to existing applications to be applied not to apply them retrospectively. myself and my fellow equity

applicants have been working on our projects for over a year. some with our applications being submitted in the month of may and this year, 2018. for the last six months, we are trying to maintain control of real estate through a lease and spending money and putting our lives and our energy and as much effort as we can into these projects and if our applications are denied by current amendments , retrospectively on applications that are submitted, it would be extremely financially damaging to me and to many other of my fellow equity applicants. the amount of time and energy and money that we have to put into getting our application submitted is substantial. i would request to please only -- >> thank you, sir. next item. >> i represent the san francisco cannabis equity working group. i want to thank you for your help.

we want to ask for education and business assistance for equity applicants to prevent the exploitative partnerships. we think that the incubator should not receive their permits before equity partners are able to be operational as well. we feel that the incubator partnership should be extended from 3-5 years. that no equity limit should be put on equity businesses and that there should be a pathway to expedite equity businesses through the planning department. it has been over a year and no equity applicants. none of them have been approved. we think it is vital that it gets put forth before increased amendments and increased ownership is put on the financially distressed equity community and we also need the city of san francisco to --

>> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am in equity applicant born and raised in san francisco. i qualify because i was arrested for marijuana, and so was my father. i have multiple applications in it right now. i stand firmly against any retroactive up. in my opinion, retail storefronts are the most viable way for an equity applicant to achieve equity with current m.c.d. and in a city like san francisco which has extraordinarily high price per square foot, one bite of the apple just doesn't make sense for vertical integration. it help to one at-bat they weren't. so in my opinion, in order to make the program the most competitive and give equity applicants the best shot at achieving equity, you can't make

a up for them. you cannot make it retroactive." be very damaging. all of us have already submitted deposits on this big money has already been put out. >> thank you. next speaker. >> how is this quad is this okay is this good? i am the cofounder and former chairman of the first or dispensary that closed in 2011. i want to thank this group for their attention to equity. this is really important and your considerations for the 5-8 people who have not reopened. you cross a lot of teas and dotted a lot of eyes. is a lot more to discuss. it is unacceptable. it is still not open.

kudos to the office of cannabis. i had great interaction with them. i say spam them more. >> thanks. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am a san francisco equity verified applicant. i'm also a native and also the founder of san francisco roots. i find it incredibly disturbing that when it's our turn to get applications that there is a limit to. when this law was passed in san francisco, there was a rush of current m.c.d. his to get pushed forward for multiple locations and i did not hear any uproar over that. now when it is time for the economically disadvantaged to have a shot at owning multiple businesses in san francisco, we have amendments put against us.

>> good afternoon. i'm edward brown. i am also opposed to the retroactive for the increasingly 80% a.m.i. to 120% a.m.i. is already 193,000 top -- tests that are already there. i heard your comments about people getting well and i disagree with that. 193,000 for the asset test is not really well. second, i'm also opposed to the 12 or dispensary limit. as many people have said already , they have been waiting to have their participation. it also seems discriminatory that the existing m.c.d. owners who have been allowed to open as many as they want our, it is discriminatory for them because they are not opposed. and lastly, page 29, line one, i

would like that to read for review and for approval. that is for m.c.d. his so the current existing plans. >> thank you. >> i will clarify some of my comments after public comment period please come forward. >> good afternoon. i am with the people at's dispensary. in regards to the limit in the city that has less than three% black population, i feel that is blatant discrimination. we need to have a level -- a level playing field. we are almost at a year of legalization and not one equity license has been issued. with every regulation in every change that you all make, it puts us out more and makes it even harder for people to have access. canada got it right. some other places have gotten it right. california, 215 past 20 years

ago. we should have been the first one in line with applications for equity people at the forefront. so what we need, we need for you all to work with people here in the community, people here in this room who have been working for decades -- [indiscernible] >> thank you. next speaker. >> thank you for allowing me to speak. i want to thank their supervisors for all their consideration. everyone is working extremely hard. these are new regulations and a new and emerging industry and the legal framework we have to remember the purpose of the program is to benefit those who have been disenfranchised by the

process dating back many years. the problem with what we are doing today is retroactively changing the rules. it is great we think about this and that we find solutions and make things better, but inherently, retroactively changing the rules delays the process. that harms equity businesses in equity applicants. that favours the well-capitalized. while i appreciate the time you're spending, and i know the office has been working hard to, the changes at this stage in the game just slow the process and make it harder for them and harder for equity applicants and go against the good intent of the program we are working for. think about that. thank you for your time. >> thank you. any members of the public wish to comment on this item? scene none, public comment is close. i want to respond to some of the public comments because i want to be clear that the intent is not to discriminate in any way. if you look at any process for

permits in this city, whether it is construction, whether it is business, whether it is alcohol, restaurants, whatever it is in the city, we are constantly amending and changing the programs. and unfortunately, in this industry, it is an industry of risk. it is a risk when you are applying for any business and i have a lot of respect for people who are putting their hard earned money on the line. i am very sensitive to the historical discrimination and understand the war on drugs and the way communities have been impacted and communities have been disproportionately impacted and incarcerated. i am very, very respectful to that. the amendment that i am proposing today are trying to address that in a better way. if you have 60 equity applicants , there is a finite pool of equity permits right now right now there is.

there are 63 or whatever non equity permits, the next 63 will be equity. so what we are trying to do, at least with my amendments today is increase the number of opportunities for all of the people that want to get into -- there are some that rushed and moved forward and may have put their name on three or four different applications are two or three applications that you saw supervisor peskin's office trying to control for and allow for more people to be able to access the nonequity and the storefront business. it is the same that is true in equity. it doesn't mean that there won't be more equity applications. of course, there will be but right now we have a finite pool and we are trying to increase the opportunity. once you've gotten into the industry, it doesn't prohibit you from applying for a nonequity. it doesn't. so the truth is, right now, the ones that the department his

processing will issue and will go forward are the equity. after that time, they will be issuing nonequity and then it will go one bar one going forward. this is really about opening up as many, from ice perspective. i can hear the argument about having it be prospective. i understand that in terms of the income requirements. i will just say, the thinking behind that amendment to, and may be my colleagues don't like that amendment. may be they want to leave it the way it is in terms of how you qualify. but the truth is, if you have already achieved a certain level of wealth and it doesn't mean that it's 193,000-dollar asset test, in this instance, you don't even half to qualify under that bullet. you can be above income and have all of those other things happen you can have been arrested or lost housing or going to school in san francisco.

you could have lived in certain zip codes over a percentage of time, and nunavut would be that you would qualify under the income category. right now, 24% of the applicants do not qualify based on income. that is not a box that they checked. i was trying to adjust for that in that amendment. and i agree. we want to facilitate and move forward. this is a new program. we are trying to get it right and we are trying to be as fair as possible and open up opportunity for as many people as possible. that was what my amendments that i propose today were all about. did you have something to say supervisor yee? >> as i started with this item, i mentioned that there is a lot of amendments that were just brought to us today so i think it would be easier if we just go one at a time.

i could see there are some that are pretty straightforward in terms of standalones and there's a few, between supervisor peskin 's amendment and at least one of yours. we had to make a decision if we want to support one of them or none of them. >> )-right-parenthesis i would say, as a compromise, what i would say in terms of the income requirement, the deputy city attorney, can i jump in for a second, i just want to ask a quick question. if we were to say the amendment that i am proposing as it pertains to a household income, if we were going to say to make that as a perspective, it would not apply to the current pool of applicants that are currently being processed, but it would go after the next round. once we got to the 1-1 and going one equity to one, it would make it applicable at that point, verses from the pool that have

already -- from this current pool. >> deputy city attorney, john given her. the amendments changing the a.m.i. level and changing the menu of three to a menu of two, if you would leave that in place for not only for people who have already been verified as equity applicants by the office of cannabis, but you would leave it -- leave the existing equity criteria as a law until -- until we achieve -- until we went through the entire pool of 50%. it would be prospective after that point. does that make sense? so the way that the rule is written right now is until we achieve 50% equity, 50% nonequity, we are only issuing

equity permits. once we achieve 50% parity, at that point forward, it goes 1-1. one equity, one nonequity does that make sense? that way we would be prospective at that point. >> let me look at the ordinance. >> the idea would be to make it perspective in that regard. >> sorry, supervisor yee. >> again. my suggestion is let's take them on it one at a time and my suggestion is we take supervisor mandelman amendments first. they seem to be pretty straightforward.

i would then suggest we take, sorry. i don't want to repeat myself. i will wait. >> okay. we will go ahead and make a motion to accept supervisor mandelman's amendment, and supervisor -- can we do that without objection? okay. without objection. and then, i guess, can i jump in for a second quote what i would suggest is why don't we go ahead and accept my amendment, supervisor peskin's amendment and ask the city attorney to work on language. if we don't have consensus on monday, please don't make noise when we are talking in the chamber. it is not appropriate. if the amendments are not agreed upon on monday, we can edit them out. so the idea would be to accept

the amendments today. it will be continued to the meeting on monday and we will make the final decisions on monday as to where -- what direction we are going. is that amenable? >> no. mainly because you have these amendments and, you know, i'm not necessarily in favour of everything. >> do you want to make the amendment -- i'm sorry. >> we made the amendments for supervisor mandelman already. i guess i am not willing or may be a doesn't make any sense for one of your amendments and supervisor peskin's amendment because they seem to be trying to get to the same thing and they're conflicting with each other. you have three, right? and we could take them one at a time. >> we will do it one at a time.

>> is president cohen still going to be here? >> she is gone. she has her amendment here for us. >> why not we take that one up. >> this is either to director elliot or to the city attorney, deputy city attorney mr gibbon are. on supervising door supervisor cohen's amendment, i have a question on how can we restrict delivery companies from delivering from unlicensed operators? >> great question, supervisor. that is one of the big questions is ensuring that we are not seeing unlicensed delivery occurring within the boundaries of the city and county. as far as ensuring that license delivery operators are not conducting business with other licensed operators, that is a provision and state law and a provision within our local code.

they are mandated to do so paired there are civil enforcement procedures as well as criminal procedures that can be pursued if an operator is not operating in compliance with local law. in this instance it would require them to have a permit. >> okay. just on that point, i will make a motion to duplicate the file so we can have further conversation about delivery. in general, there are issues, not just with unlicensed operators, but how we are controlling for bad actors, also how are we sharing data, as this industry moves towards a larger model of delivery, there is apps out there that allow for people to use, depending upon the business and the delivery model, to share that information and the delivery person is tied to the dispensary. this will be a proliferation and a growth in delivery. so we need to talk about how many cars are on the road, how

are we tracking those cars, how are we ensuring the manifests are being appropriately followed so right now, we don't have the staffing or the ability or the oversight to do that, but we can require as part of the process, do have data sharing as the industry begins to expand. i am fine with the amendment that is proposed today by supervisor cohen as it pertains to delivery services. but i would like -- i would like to duplicate the file and have further conversation about delivery in general. we can do that at a later date. >> process wise, where do we duplicate the file? >> once we made the amendment. >> on the duplicated file. >> is that how we do it? >> city attorney? >> should we make the amendments and then duplicate the file?

>> if you are considering duplicating, i would recommend doing it on monday. by then, you will have a final version and it may make more sense process wise to introduce a separate ordinance instead of duplicating, but i'm happy to discuss that before monday. >> okay. great. do you want to make a motion to accept that, the delivery? >> to accept the amendment? >> yes. president cohen's amendment. >> i am inclined to make a motion not to accept it and that whether -- deputy city attorney, can you restate what makes sense >> on the duplication issue?

>> to have further discussion on this particular amendment. what is the best process? to continue this particular thing? >> it is really up to you. this amendment that supervisor cohen proposed regarding one manifest needs to be created for delivery, you could include that in the ordinance in duplicate and discuss all the other policy questions that are being raised in the future. or you could not adopt the amendment and include that in a larger discussion in the coming year. it is really up to you whether to include this amendment or not >> i guess, i will make a motion to not accept the amendment. >> can we have further discussion before that? >> i will hold off. >> thank you. >> what i was going to say, my

preference would be to accept the amendment today to allow for the process to begin for delivery and dynamic delivery in general. that process can move forward. i know that there is a whole host of folks in the industry who are trying to move forward with delivery and accessing delivery and processing dynamic delivery. this is about dynamic delivery today. but what i was intending to do was accept the amendment, and on monday duplicate the file so we can continue the conversation to add in additional safeguards. allow it to begin to move forward, and then amend it further so there will be some really clear additional oversight in terms of sharing data and observing bad actors or unlicensed operators and really getting an idea of setting the framework for this. that would be my preference to

allow this to move forward. >> supervisor stephanie? >> thank you. i am inclined to have this move forward as well. we can look to our state regulations in terms of not allowing unlicensed operators to deliver. there is a lot that we can do if we do duplicate the file in terms of continuing the conversation. i am inclined to move this forward with regard to deliveries. >> it is about delivery services >> in terms of the question that i asked, that was my concern that i brought up here i am supportive of the amendment. but my question alluded to the fact that there are unanswered questions and that is why i believe that the supervisor wanted to duplicate the file. we can continue to look at the issue, but for me i am fine with the amendment as is right now.

>> okay. >> i will duplicate the file. okay. we will make a motion to accept this amendment with the understanding that the file will be duplicated on monday to further the conversation. can we do that without objection okay. without objection. that would be president cohen's and then that leaves us with supervisor peskin and my list of amendments. >> and i have clarification. may be i am hearing you wrong, but it seems like supervisor peskin's amendment tries to get to one of your amendments and we should figure out which one makes more sense.

>> mr gartner? do you want to weigh in on that, or maybury -- maybe director elliot? the intent of mind, i just want to be clear. the intent of mind the way i was approaching it was to allow for as many equity applicants as possible to be able to apply, at one time and then once they achieved an equity permits they could go and apply in the nonequity category. but this is the first time i had seen this dispensary capping general. i don't know how i feel about that. i'm not particularly -- i guess i need more conversation and thought about the over all kak. are they conflicting from your interpretation? or are they prior to -- potentially complementary? what is your read? >> i want to know how you see it

if you are not comfortable with supervisor peskin -- >> i don't mean it like that. i'm not sure i am convinced that having a limit on dispensaries is for the industry in general. i want to have further conversation. that is what i am saying. i can understand the intent. the intent is if you are going to say you want to open up as many opportunities for everyone in general, the idea is may be two is not the right number. may be it is three. if we were to accept it today, we could have further conversation about it on monday is what the deputy deputy city attorney said. >> do you want to jump in for a second? >> to the extent that they differ, i would say that the amendment looks at the entire supply chain, as well as restricting that to one in each

category. it focuses on the equity applicant as the individual and that permits. supervisor peskin focuses only on storefront retail and it looks at instead of an equity applicant, an individual owner in every application, regardless if they are equity or nonequity. i think it captures a broader group of people. >> i just want to make a point of clarification. my amendment, and i'm glad you pointed that out again, it is in each category. it would limit one applicant in each category. it is for cultivation, incubation, delivery, storefront , you could still, one equity applicant could have multiple permits on the vertical chain. it is just, again, it is designed to open up as many opportunities for as many equity applicants as possible. that is what mine is about. >> for clarification,