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, director elliot, we will just take the

amendment and if it were to pass , would impact any of the applicants at this point? >> should either of these amendments pass, existing applicants would be impacted, yes. different numbers for each version, and i don't have perfect numbers for you guys. should either onepass, existing applicants, one would be impacted. >> can you shine some light on when one applies, how much investment they put in in terms of their time and so forth into each application?

>> unfortunately, supervisor, i don't know if i can speak how much time an individual puts into each application. that depends on the individual and the technical assistance they receive and the investor, the additional investor activity in preparing the application if that is a question you are asking. >> yeah. it weighs heavily in terms of -- somebody just filled out the application and submits a bunch of them to you. it is different from, i have to hustle and do this and you spent almost three months doing this. >> for part one of the cannabis business permit application, the contents that is required is significant. this is only part one of the application but we require a business formation, registration with the tax collector, we require them to have their formation documents filed with the secretary of state. we require proof to occupy. they have to have a deed or letter of intent from the landlord, explicit operate -- authorization for the activities

for that they are seeking, we require every owner to do a background, mac, and we require disclosure of all material agreements of that operation, including bylaws and operating agreements. those are things we require for part one. that checklist is also on our website. >> i have a question. >> when people submit, are they under the impression that if they meet that checklist that they are automatically going to be able to open up a business class. >> i hope not. this is a long process, as many people know, and there will be more requirements similar to the state license application process. this is just the beginning of that process. this is what allows us to review the application to ensure that the equity applicant is realizing their ownership interest in that operation and ensures that their space is ready to move forward with land-use entitlements.

>> the other thing i wanted to say is also i know there are still conditional use requirements for certain neighbourhoods. i know that on some of the southern parts of the city there is still conditional use regardless of changing the green zone. i would say i know for the record that even if all of those things have been done, even if investments have been made to, ultimately the final decision is through the land use permitting and the final article 33 permit and all the other premise that you have to issue. there is still significant risk involved ultimately if a neighbourhood comes together and convinces the planning department and the members of the board of supervisors that that's not the right location. it is still a risk that is out there. those conditional use requirements exist and are still in many neighbourhoods. >> for those operations that require conditional use approval , it if i'm not mistaken , include storefront retail and the outer

neighbourhoods. some indoor agriculture as well as volatile manufacturing. it all require conditional use approval and some micro businesses including on their activity. those permits are appealable as well as the office of cannabis permit. >> okay. >> a member of clarification a number of clarifications. if we were to support both of these amendments, if they were to allow for one storefront for equity, correct? >> as drafted, it would allow an equity applicant to qualify a permit application in each permit category. they would be eligible to serve as the equity applicant on a storefront retail application as well as cultivation, manufacturing -- >> they would be allowed only one. >> they would be allowed to

qualify for one. they would be allowed to invest in others should they be able to , but they could only qualify one permit application as an equity applicant. >> and supervisor peskin's that would allow for two storefronts as an applicant for equity. >> for all owners, individuals. >> i'm just talking about the equity piece. >> equity included would be eligible to seek to seek or seek two for door storefront applications. >> we passed an amendment and that would be the bar, i guess. we wouldn't need supervisor peskin's. >> i defer to the city attorney on how they would interact with each other if you put both in.

>> i think that they could both apply, that you could have a person who is an equity applicant in one storefront retail, and an owner in a second , not an equity business. >> thank you for the clarification. i guess both of them can exist. >> would you be okay -- >> i would be supportive of both supervisor peskin's amendment and the one amendment. >> we can still have further discussion and make a further decision on monday. i would say, can we make a motion to accept all the amendments and finalize on monday or did you still want to go through them one by one? >> i have a question about the income. >> that is the only one that i think -- go ahead. >> should we just have a discussion on that right now?

>> so director elliot, how do we determine, in terms of the income eligibility, do we have any determination right now? >> would you mind asking that question again, please. >> when it comes to income or what other equity you have, how -- is that a factor? is the thing that exists now -- >> for the asset test, we brought together roles that allowed for three times 80% a.m.i. in assets but for income, the 80%% a.m.i. income criteria is one of six criteria and an applicant only needs to meet three of those criteria. so to the supervisor's point earlier, we have a quarter of applicant his equity applicants

who have not become verified using 80% a.m.i. as their eligibility criteria. >> all right. >> again, i am fine with making -- just for clarification, deputy city attorney, if we were to not accept that particular amendment, but then inserted on monday and drafted in a different way, making it perspective or would we need to leave it in and make it prospective at that point. >> is it better to leave it in and then make it perspective or take it out and then put it in as perspective on monday. >> to leave your options open on monday he, it is best to make the amendment today and add the prospective amendment on monday.

>> would prospective amendment on monday make it substantive? >> it would not. >> okay. >> so basically you are asking to increase the threshold from 80-120. >> that is one piece of it. the other pieces to make it a permanent requirement. making the income portion a permanent requirement, but again , i am not stuck to that amendment as i am the other ones the other ones i feel strongly about and i am willing to make this perspective and still have conversation about it on monday. >> okay. >> are you fine with all the other ones? okay. can we make a motion to accept as amendments? >> i move. >> without objection? without objection. we don't have any other amendments before us. can we make a motion to vote?

we both stood up at the same time. do we have other amendments to a make -- to make? >> just to clarify, you adopted all of the amendments that you proposed, supervisor, including the a.m.i. change to the equity criteria and made that a.m.i. change perspective only. is that right? or did you -- or are you leaving the prospective out. >> i want to make, can we make it perspective only today without it being substantive? will it be ready? we don't want to make that today , then. >> if you want to leave your option open on monday to remove that, you should leave it out today. >> that is not what we do. we made all the amendments as proposed and discussed and we were going to make, if we make it perspective on monday. >> and one other clarification, supervisor cohen had proposed another amendment around the housing stability criteria. >> is that on her --

>> there is nothing written that was circulated. she indicated that she is asking the committee to remove the amendment that the committee adopted at its last meeting and changing the housing stability criteria regarding housing stability and back to the original. >> okay. if we were to make that amendment as proposed and if we had to make any adjustments to that on monday, with that not be substantive? >> you can make it today and it would not be substantial if. you could make the amendment on monday and it would not be substantive. >> i am fine with making the amendment as supervisor cohen has -- can we -- who made all the other amendments already. this is the last amendment that needs to be clarified okay. can we make a motion to accept the supervisor cohen's amendment in regard to the housing instability? we accept that -- supervisor peskin's amendment.

okay. can we accept supervisor cohen's amendment regarding housing, can we do that without objection? now can we make a motion to accept the entire item and continue it to the discussion on monday? >> december 3rd. >> yes. >> can we do that without objection? thank you. >> the matter is continued as amended to the december 3rd meeting of the rules committee. >> okay. >> please call item number 5. >> item number 6? >> six, please. >> item number 6 is an ordinance amending the police code to require cannabis businesses when entering into a city mandated labour peace agreement or collective bargaining agreement to also agreed to 30 5% of new hires who shall be graduates of the state approved apprentice program or of the city certified preapprenticeship program.

>> great. thank you. this item -- that is item number >> six. >> okay. >> great. i will say a couple opening remarks and then i know that the director is here, along with director elliot. the intent of this amendment is designed to clarify a pathway for employment opportunities for those in the business of cannabis and in the cannabis business. we are looking for opportunities for all different employment, whether it is equity or nonequity. we had a provision and put a placeholder in the past regarding local higher. but through the work and direction and collaboration with the office of workforce and economic development along with the office of cannabis, we looked at the opportunity to really have a trained and well focused pool of workforce staff

to enter into this industry and be the future of this industry and to be a stable force in this industry. we are calling that city grow. we have the opportunity to work with state approved apprenticeship programs. those state approved programs within work at the local level with our city bill and with our other preapprenticeship programs that would then cultivate the next generation of those in the industry and have opportunities to work in the industry. i want to hand it over to the director. i appreciate the collaboration on the grow program. it is a wonderful name. i want to give credit to you for coming up with that, and i want to hand it over to you. thank you for joining us. i'm sorry for the wait. >> thank you. i'm the director of workforce development in the office of economic and workforce development. i'm here representing members of our team who put a lot of work

into helping to realize your vision, of which we are very grateful for your leadership here in the partnership with the office of cannabis and the partners that i will name when we get some of the background. but joanna gray, esquire, has been leading our policy work. she's typically here to present a policy component for the committee and for the public to better understand where the proposal does what the proposal will do. but i will present those today as her team is working on some other projects right here. i'm proud and honoured to be here to present directly on part of the agency. the idea, and i think, again calculated out very well from our perspective when we were brought into this conversation to help think about doing something that is really and truly first of its kind. something like this doesn't exist. that is to pair all of the great work about cannabis equity, work that supervisor and the president of the board has

advanced in concert with members of the board. the idea of equity that cannabis when we roll out the business opportunities from item five in the workforce opportunities here , should benefit those communities and representatives and community members and the communities of colour it most negatively impacted by the failures of the war on drugs. the prohibition and cannabis discriminated heavily picket also impacted the compassion community. you heard from members of the cannabis compassion community where some of the first trailblazers of legalization who are now unable to get some of the support from the regulators to advance their programs. i will talk about why this is a win-win for cannabis equity and compassion. the thing i would like to share is, before giving some of the elements of what is in front of you, colleagues, or members of the committee, what is the components of the cannabis apprenticeship ordinance, i just want to let you know and hear a

little bit of our perspective of what this does. it not only advances the ideas and goals and objectives of workforce equity cannabis, it provides clarity in terms of some of the feedback we've gotten from employers and building on early success of first source using equity analysis for job opportunities and local higher components that builds off of some of the earlier experiences really takes a the workforce development objectives of the cannabis goals in the industry in san francisco to a whole new level. that is because it provides training. it provides labour standards and provides safeguards and wages and benefits and the ability to earn while you learn. i think i saw the philip randolph institute director here who is one of the best advocates for how equity plus apprenticeship is really the best thing going for equity community members and workers seeking to enter the cannabis industry. we have had the opportunity to talk with stakeholders on this model in and the human rights commission including director cheryl davis and members at the

cannabis equity coalition and access of love and we are excited to share with you this model recently earned the unanimous support of the small business commission based on the amendment that supervisor his fid is proposing to tighten up our partnership. organizations including apr i and young community developers and labour organizations. this model is earning support from labour organizations including the northern california labour district council and we just learned today the teamsters joint council seven for this program. what it does is this. it simply says that there is an existing program in place with respect to workforce development requirements of cannabis businesses in the various sectors of this industry segments or segments of the cannabis sector and that is in place today. if the state advances and approves state apprenticeship programs, of which there is a proposal currently in from the

state of california today which was submitted in september and could be approved as early as a few weeks from now, if the state does approve a cannabis apprenticeship program for the different elements of the work that is involved in cannabis, that triggers a second step in the ordinance. it triggers the role of our office working with the office of cannabis to certify pre apprenticeship programs on the basis of their advancing equity objectives of policymakers here at the board and the mayor and it also certifies those programs on the basis of their ability to really deliver for workers who train in a preapprenticeship to have the chance to enter the state approved apprenticeship. the moment that that state approved apprenticeship program enters into an agreement with the city certified state apprenticeship program, it means that the employers who are doing work in that type of aspect of cannabis industry are required to hire at least 30 5% of their new hires from the apprenticeship program. to give you an example of what that could look like, the

apprenticeship proposal that is in front of the state of california is called the statewide cannabis industry joint apprenticeship committee. it was established by a statewide committee of which our representative for san francisco is here today. i saw teresa with a member of that committee. and the four aspects of that program are, and actually i can differ to her if she does speak later, it is everything from the cultivation to the distribution, to the manufacturing and packaging and retail component which is called the pharmacy technician aspect of the industry. if the state certifies this program, it would be incumbent upon our office to replicate city built in the world of cannabis. that means we are working with organizations specifically community-based organizations by virtue of the amendment that is before you today to recruit outreach and identify those workers to bring them into the

industry and give them the tools and skills and elements to be successful in the world of cannabis and for employers who are able to hire those workers as they graduate from pre apprenticeship, to apprentice , gifts as employers access to a skilled and trained workforce to be successful. it is a win-win in that sense as you might say. the thing i won't -- i know it has been a long day. i will give you the high level, did you have a question for me before i showed the slightest class. >> you can show first. >> okay. if we can go to the slides. this is the city grow concept. we start -- that is small writing. >> can you make that a little smaller cloth. [laughter] >> press the shrink button. it looks all right. this is what the city built academy stands for. it has become a national model with four preapprenticeship and construction and community labour partnership. employers are brought in because the same concept. you get access to workers who advance to workforce development

equity goals and community expectations but also a really good skilled and trained workforce who enters into union apprenticeship and goes after working construction. this gives you the flow of how you go through the program. it starts with outreach and recruitment with community partners and community-based organizations. you are then brought in to the program for application interview in step two. you have job training with the fundamentals to be successful as you go into the new career. you are selected in the program. in your training, you get the core elements and cultivation. you learned track and trade which is a state requirement requirement that a lot of lawyer -- employers or have -- desperate to have with their program. same thing in what supervisors have labelled city grow. it is the same model. there is a great precedent for

this type of approach. linking preapprenticeship that targets opportunity in our most disadvantaged communities to apprenticeship and employment with a policy hook that obligates employers to connect up. we say it is really an opportunity. there is no level of training happening like this in san francisco and the bay area and beyond. that is the last slide. so i think i said everything that we want to say other than to respond to questions. but one thing that is exciting, the eye know there is an amendment to follow through the obligation to make sure it is enshrined in the ordinance. i also wanted to say we are so ready to move this program. we are so ready to move the pre apprenticeship. we have already had great conversations with the cannabis equity coalition. we would very much like to license -- would like to license their equity sessions and curriculum. is is a state-of-the-art way of advancing equity throughout all sectors. we have been really excited about those conversations with nina parkes and edward brown around that opportunity and seeing where that goes. with that, i conclude and answer

any questions. >> i wanted to add one thing. i want to overemphasize one part i appreciate you being here. i want to overemphasize that this legislation requires that 30 5% of the workforce and the cannabis business for be graduates of apprenticeship programs. if they become available and when they become available. i know you said that in september of this past september , the cannabis -- the statewide cannabis industry employment joint and apprenticeship committee and started -- they were very close to having a state approved apprenticeship program in cultivation. will also have delivery and storefront in all of the different aspects of the industries. this allows for that percentage set aside for real well trained workforce. the second thing that i want to overemphasize and appreciate your presentation is that the

model that we have used with city built, working with community-based organizations and the expertise and relationships that they have working with the community. we will use that model. city grow will work exclusively with community-based organizations on the pre apprenticeship side and that has been one of the most successful aspects of what we have been able to do. we are able to truly penetrate a community and work with the strength of that community and give opportunities to that community. thank you for your presentation. i know you wanted to ask a question. >> so. i would -- i like the concept, of course. i have always been a big supporter of apprenticeship programs and especially getting an opportunity for people living in san francisco to continue into the workforce. my question is about timing on this. when you are waiting for the state to pass something, and once they pass something, there

should be a training program, and the businesses would have to -- are required to hire 30 5% of the workforce through this apprenticeship program. do we have that program right now in terms of the training? >> thank you. what we have is a pre apprenticeship curriculum. an eight week curriculum that came out of the committee with respect to cultivation and with respect to the other components of cannabis. the curriculum exists. that there are a couple of questions before we could advance. it is certainly not about the interest of community members and folks in our equity communities who would be interested. definitely folks want to participate. the question is, navigating some of the legal dynamics around training for this industry. i think if we solve for that and i think we are on our way to ideas to solve that and we would be ready to start training in the spring.

>> i guess, are we going to have , do this in time so that there would be a pool of potential workers for the industry to hire, is there a timeline for the industry to actually get up to the 30 5%? >> yes. the 30 5% requirement what happened upon two triggering events. state approval of apprenticeship , which could happen in december, and the second event is our office working with the office of cannabis to certify a pre apprenticeship program that enters into an agreement. that is important because in the world of construction, it is direct entry. is as a community member is that if you train as a preapprentice, if you do all the components of this class, you have a guaranteed spot for you. a guarantee pathway into the apprenticeship and that is a real incentive in terms of workforce development. you don't want to offer training unless there is connection to a

job. the second event is what we would have to do the legwork to make happen. it also gives us the time to get more and more employer buy-in exist and feedback from employers with a lot of questions. a lot of things are incorporated in this document and the couple rounds of amendments that even perceive the hearing today. one of the things that employers have said is this option does have some nature of certainty and streamlining with respect to satisfy all the workforce objectives and policy markers dressmakers through this model. >> if the program weren't up and running yet and people hadn't gone through the training completely, the businesses are not going to get dinged because there isn't really a pool of applicants. >> that is correct. >> i just wanted to make sure everything will work. >> in other words, unless state approved and we certify the current rules, any other

components would be put in place today. >> thank you for the clarification. >> thank you. do we want to open up for public comment? i know there have been folks on the industry waiting to speak. i also want to thank local 261 and they want to thank a p.r.i. for their hard work and support on this and other members of the community that have been working hard with us. the office of cannabis and the director of economic and workforce development and city built and working directly with the state to get us the information. i know we are really close. i think we are going to, once he make the amendment today, we will continue this item and we will try to hold it to lighten -- line it up with the state approved apprenticeship program. we should be finding out in the coming week. i think that is the appropriate step to take. if we can open it up for public comment, i'm happy to do that. if folks want to line up, and if we have any further questions, we will call you back up.

please step forward. >> one minute or two minutes. >> hello. thank you for allowing me to speak today. i am a business agent and safety representative for 261. i also have the privilege and honour of sitting on the california statewide cannabis industry joint apprenticeship committee. that is a mouthful. we strongly support the proposed ordinance and urge you to do the same character i don't think there's anyone that deserves to get rid of the negative impacts on the failed war on drugs. destroying families, difficulties in obtaining employment and much more. providing jobs to local residents and those negative does negatively impacted by the war on drugs is great. providing meaningful lifelong opportunities is what is just. apprenticeship revising necessary training for a lifetime career opportunity that is transferable from employer to employer and from city to city.

while he can never take those impacted and make them whole, approving this ordinance would be a start. thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is hugo. i am the apprenticeship coordinator for the union local 261. i went directly, with the city built, i see the positive impact that it has on the community, particularly people of colour and so to expand on that and incorporate cannabis into that and provide training, as well as career pathway opportunities is a win-win all around. i strongly support this. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is jackie flynn. on the executive director of the philip randolph institute of san francisco. i want to take the time to thank you all for drafting policy that

provides an incredible opportunity to the city to establish equity in the cannabis industry. we all know how important it is to create families sustainable jobs and for years, our unions have built out ever san francisco middle income and working-class families. as a -- as a city evolves and provides opportunities for the cannabis industry to thrive, a career pathway program like city grow can benefit businesses that want to operate as well as create opportunities for equity and making the industry accessible for communities of colour and ensuring an effort to reinvest in those communities. our black and latino communities have been historically impacted by the failed war on drugs. many dreams, many lives, many families have been destroyed. the dreams and lives have been lost in the families have been destroyed. and an apprenticeship program like city grow can provide opportunities to not only educate but establish a career pathway and allow our folks to participate in a cannabis industry, especially our youth.

i have brought youth to many of the committee meetings as well as the small business committee just so they have exposure and they learn about what is going on. i just want to continue my support for this effort and i applaud you for your work. thank you. >> good evening. my name is ramon. i member just one of the members of the san francisco cannabis equity working group. we develop the workshop series for education and technical assistance for equity applicants and the equity community in general that we spoke about. we felt that there was a need that was not being met with the equity community and the equity businesses in general. we just try to build a pathway to make sure that the need is met. when we talk about the war on drugs, we are talking about economic opportunity. were talking about people who have been disadvantaged in that

way. and this type of training program is a way to get those disadvantaged people into this market and give them opportunities, economically and careerwise to do that and the training, well-formed training program that keeps in mind the equity community and to their needs. it is what is necessary. i just want to thank you guys for your work on this. i want to thank city grow and the office of workforce development to help support what we are trying to do. we hope you do pop -- pass this and allow for those opportunities to reach the much needed communities that have been severely impacted, mostly economically by the war on drugs thank you. >> i appreciate this comments. next speaker. >> edward brown, san francisco cannabis working group. i would like to suck into those comments that ramon just left. this program, can do a lot of

good for the san francisco community being able to do well in the workforce. the model that myself and nine other people have worked on for the last ten weeks is a comprehensive program that we think will really prepare people to compete in this industry and to be able to have some kind of guidance and direction here. and the last part i wanted to thank the office of cannabis for the work they have done. ray, eugene, director elliot, you guys have been just listening to the equity community and lifting the entire cannabis program. i wanted to put it on the record and thank you for all the hard work that you do. and looking forward to working with josh at the office of workforce development and being able to get this forward to. if you can support this, i will be appreciative. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello. a lot of people know that

cannabis is one of the main antibiotic alternatives that we have for our society. without cannabis, things like -- would be a huge catastrophe to many people that are antibiotic resistant. it is not a joke. these are things that can devour a limb or any part of flash that could be garden glands or whatnot that protect our bodies from -- continue to keep our bodies functioning. it is not a joke. skid row staff is very scary. you cannot have things like that in such a dense community. it is the densest city in the second densest in the country after new york. you do not want these sorts of things to break out without cannabis around. this was actually one of the more hit cities with that.

it is something that shouldn't, we can't afford to contain it. it has to be accessible to people for these sorts of things thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> one other thing. cannabis is the only food that we have that protects the body from radiation. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. and from local 648. also back just completed my third year as cochair of the legalization task force. during that time, we have made recommendations that we would like to have programs that should increase opportunities to individuals to enter the cannabis industry and we believe that this is a path the apprenticeship program is a good way to do that and it would be, it is very important to work with the state registered apprenticeship committee and

that will provide opportunities for residents, including veterans, disabled lgbtq and people of colour and women and people who have economically displaced by this war on drugs. i would appreciate that we look at this and move this forward so that workers can get in this program and we can start getting some change as far as helping the people in this industry and in this city. think. >> thank you. i was remiss to not point out the cannabis legalization task for us and their support and work with us on this, along with other members of the labour community, both ufcw and teamsters who have all been involved in this conversation and are very supportive of promoting, supporting and encouraging state approved apprenticeship in their respective areas of

concentration. thank you, jennifer for your task force hard work and thank you for your support and work on this with us. we really appreciate it. any other members of the community who wish to comment on the this item, please come forward. seeing none, public comment is closed. we wanted to bring you up one more time if you had any final comments. just again, i want to say, i really appreciate all the community's work on this. the support for this, the labour community, the task force, the office of cannabis, the office of workforce development, with your collaboration, i think we are really moving away from just a local higher and name only or just the san francisco resident type. if we put that in as a placeholder and what we really wanted to do was to put just give a pathway for opportunity for folks, as was pointed out by many of the speakers here, they still come from the same communities that have been historically discriminated against or impacted by this war

on drugs. we really appreciate those participating and working with your office. this has the potential to be a national model and if not a state model to how this industry continues to expand and grow. that is why we are calling it city grow. >> please. if you have any final comments. >> we are just very excited. the thing i wanted to say it since i know i will not be continued because of the amendment today, it does give us the opportunity to continue conversations. we are an open door for any feedback. we would like to have more conversations with the governor 's association and employers and anyone who has feedback. it is worth taking the time to get it right. again, big props to director elliot. she is taking on so much and done so well with all of this. one more seconds second for the men and women of the cannabis legalization task force on the work they did for three years. and all the members who did so

much work. it was the last meeting today and we incorporated lots and lots at their feedback. >> thank you for pointing that out. thank you, terrence and all of the members of the task force for the hard work that you did. i will say that my office is open, as you make yourself available, we are happy to sit back or sit and talk and get feedback from anyone who wants to add anything to this conversation. >> we would also like to report how this equity program can create opportunities and state law that allows compassion programs connected to equity programs. >> that would be great. we don't have any amendments prepared for today. we do because they are ready, i don't have them. do you want to talk about them clock i don't think i have them with me. it is a small change, correct? >> as the ordinance was introduced and agenda eyes it was an amendment to the labour peace agreement provision in the

existing article 16. the amendment today would take this city grow portion and the 30 5% requirement out of the labour peace a crime just requirement as a standalone. so you would be making those amendments today and one little tweak to the written amendments we have prepared to do you is referring to a community benefits organization that the draft should refer to community-based organizations. >> i'm sorry. i was thinking about the last one. that was the big change. we are moving it out of the labour peace. if we can do that, there are so many deadlines to meet. essentially, it is moving it from one place in the code to another place in the code and the small change over emphasizing community-based organizations. can we do that? >> i move to make an amendment.

>> can we do that without objection? thank you. on the amended item, if we can continue that to monday, december the 3rd, as amended. >> it is amended so we need to continue it for one reading. it is a substantive amendment. we are going to make a decision on monday whether we will send it out on monday or not, given the fact that we are waiting to hear about the state approved apprenticeship programs going into law. we are going -- we will have better information on monday. if we can continue the item is amended to december the 3rd, that would be great. >> yes. >> great. >> without objection? >> without objection. >> okay. thank you everyone for coming out and thank you for being patient and participating. if you can please call the next item.

>> item number 7 is an ordinance amending the campaign of governmental conduct code to provide additional retaliation does retaliation protections for city contractors, increased remedies available for whistleblowers who are just have settled retaliation and have greater protections. >> thank you. >> is sylvia here? from supervisor cohen's office. do we have anyone to speak on this item? may be we can skip and go to item number 8 and see what is going on. someone is here. wait. are you from the ethics commission? one of you can come speak. that would be great. >> thank you. i am a senior policy analyst with the ethics commission.

i just saw supervisor or president cohen and sophia come in. i don't know if you want to speak on item seven or it may be i can queue it up. >> does anyone want to speak on this item? >> i'm back. the audience has whittled down. okay. hello, public. nice to see you all. thank you for hanging in here colleagues. supervisor you, how are you doing? >> yes. thank you very much for your thoughts. >> all right. just making sure that everyone's life over here. thank you for hearing this legislation. it is important. the legislation strengthens the integrity of our bureaucracy by improving how complaints of corruption, misuse of funds and poor services are handled as you may recall. we spent almost three hours yesterday in the chamber as a committee as a whole listening to similar issues.

this legislation was spurred by the civil grand jury report titled san francisco whistleblower ordinance is in need of change. which was published back in may of 2015. the report found that a number of whistleblower files were not being processed because they were not being officially filed with the appropriate offices. so what this legislation does is it is attempting to do four very straightforward things. first of redefines and expands which agencies and organizations can receive an official whistleblower complaint. second, it substantially increases protections for whistleblowers, third, increases the civil penalty for whistleblower retaliation. the fourth element that is -- to protect the identity of whistleblowers and keeps their reports confidential. this legislation was originally

introduced by then supervisor, london breed, in a different form which triggered a meet and confer for several months. this version that i have before you is very clean and very elegant. it reflects a delicate compromise between the department of human resources, the ethics commission and of course, the talented controller 's office. i would like to request a single amendment on page 12, line three i want to change the effective date from january 1st, 2019, to january 1st, 2020. i would like to thank susan gard from the department of human resources, pat forward from the ethics commission, the city controller and his entire team, everyone who participated in the meet and confer legislation. i also want to acknowledge mayor breed for advancing this issue and the advocates, particularly patrick.

is he here? he may not be here. i know he is watching. this is for you, patrick. and also want to acknowledge the hard work of our legislative aides on this issue and collectively, this is putting our city and the right direction i hope this recognizes susan from d.h.r. she will be speaking. no? she has nothing else to say? thank you. this is pretty humble and simple the amendment his changing of the date from january 1st, 2019, to january 1st, 2020. thank you for your consideration is there a vice chair on this committee? >> there is but i think they disappeared. >> okay. >> are you done? >> yes. >> thank you very much. any questions? any public comments on this item

>> good afternoon, supervisors. i am a whistleblower. several years ago, i had to sue the department of public health for retaliation. the outcome was a 750,000-dollar settlement. if you include city attorney fees, the cost to taxpayers was well over $1 million. i didn't want to sue the city, but i had no choice. the ethics committee denied my claim, and it turns out, the ethics -- ethics has never substantiated a whistleblower retaliation claim. zero and 25 years. in other words, there is no mechanism for redress within

city government. on the other hand, there are many mechanisms for smearing and crippling whistleblowers. if you are serious about protecting whistleblowers, please find out why ethics hasn't validated a single retaliation claim since its founding. thank you, very much. >> any other public comments? seeing him, public comment is closed. >> thank you very much. i would like one of the committee persons to make a motion to accept or to -- >> can someone come repeat the whole presentation? i'm just kidding. [laughter] >> i will make a motion to accept the items as proposed by supervisor cohen cohen.

can we do that? >> as amended. i'm sorry, dr gartner? >> yes. she propose an amendment to the date. >> that's what i said. i make a motion to accept the amendment that supervisor cohen has proposed. can we do that without objection thank you, supervisor stephanie. and now, can we send this item to the full board as amended with positive recommendation? great. please call item number 8. >> item eight is motion approving or rejecting the appointment of jeffrey joshua panzer to the residential rent stabilization and arbitration board for a term ending september 1st, 2022. >> great. unless there is any initial comments by the committee, if you can please address the committee and keep your comments to three minutes or less. >> absolutely. thank you for your time. i am a san francisco native and

a rental property owner and manager in san francisco. i have lived here my whole life and being in the business for 15 years. i look forward to the opportunity to serve the community as a member -- as a commissioner on the rent board. my business includes a lot of work bringing petitions in front of the rent board and i'm proud of the work that i do and i look forward to helping the community by helping to foster constructive solutions to difficult problems at the rent board and hearing the cases on the merits. i see this opportunity as continuing a commitment to community service that i have had for my whole career and even going back before i went into the working world. i currently serve as the vice president of the board for building together san francisco, helping to keep a low income seniors and disabled people in their homes and to renovate community facilities for people of all parts of the community.

i also do a lot of work as a board member for the san francisco apartment association. i teach property management courses as part of that work. finally, i am also the president of the professional property management association, helping other property managers doing property management work to stay professional and educate themselves and to network and to learn the best practices for managing rental properties in san francisco. i look forward to the opportunity to answer any questions you may have. thank you very much. >> great. supervisor he? >> thank you. i was wondering, can you say again what the nature is of your business? >> i own a rental management company. i have 600 units in san francisco and some in the east

bay and we have approximately 125 clients. our building size that we manages about five units. >> and you are probably very familiar with how petitions work >> absolutely. >> okay. how do you assess and document the value of the work you are doing as necessary and critical to the life and safety of the tenants? >> it depends on the petition, but it's typically the work is documented by getting multiple bids for the work so you can have a comparison of the work work that is being done in making sure that the contractors who are bidding on it are giving you their assessments are typically the lower builder darth vader is accepted and all the work is documented by getting create copies of invoices and copies of cancelled checks to make sure the money that is spent is according to the original contract and work is not being inflated unnecessarily