and not housing or homelessness. the permit cap is where we need to keep it where it is at. the cap is discriminatory and it also does not apply equally to other operators. also, there is a permit amendment, that fee should be waived for equity applicants for that level. the transfer of ownership, i think ten years, is what it takes for an applicant to sell their business is also discriminatory because it only hurts accurate -- equity applicants and incubators. the limits that mandelman, i'm sorry, that peskin raised about the ownership of the storefronts , that is a step in the right direction. lastly, i want to mention about melia's amendment about the delivery. on the contrary to public comment, this amendment will not hurt equity -- [please stand by]

-- to completely sell without having to do away with their entire permit and have someone start over. the thinking behind that, because it's such a cash-heavy business, right? there's not an opportunity to get significant debt and there are tax liabilities for any

operator. you pay a significant portion of your proceeds and profits and taxes and it can cause liabilities, and this is what we've learned from talking to existing operators. to have the ability, just like in any business to sell and move on and to potentially resolve any debts that you have and/or make some profit. we felt that 10 years was appropriate so people were not flipping these but retaining them. so we put that amendment in intere there. please proceed. >> i would like to comment on keeping the income level at 80%. i, myself, wouldn't even fit that, though i've been impacted from the war on drugs.

we're try ing ing to protect a certain group of people. there should not be any other cap on equity applicants than others. you have dicotomy, where you cannot compete if you are limited in your ability to grow and on top of that, dynamic delivery allows the applicants to do more with less and we need to make sure it continues to be that way. limiting their ability in terms of making money, it should be aligned with the state's cap. >> thank you, sir. how many applications do you have pending? zero. great. next speaker.

>> good morning. i want to thank you for supporting the legalized cannab cannabis. i am longest serving driver for the dispensary. i got into the business because i could schedule my shifts around my passion work, a nonprofit art center and i can plan my schedule to accommodate my life and also allows me benefits of being a w-2 employee. customers get frustrated with the hour plus deliveries. i have not had any bad experiences. the random delivery patterns of dynamic delivery makes it a safe and effective way to believe

legalized cannabis products. >> supervisor safai: thank you very much. next speaker. >> hello, supervisors. i use cannabis for many different reasons. cannabis delivery has been a perfect way to get what i need when i need it. i have a short window of time to be at home when i receive a delivery. i'm here today to speak in favor of the proposed amendment that would allow for fast delivery, allowing cannabis companies to get to me quickly will improve my quality of life. thank you. >> supervisor safai: thank you. next speaker. >> good morning, supervisors. i was hired to launch about 1

1/2 years ago. i've hired hundreds of drivers, full time and part time and have 50 employees that work at making our operation as seamless as possible. we had used dynamic delivery and then switched to the less efficient manifest model. fast delivery allows for our organization to grow more quickly, making jobs more accessible to people looking for work. we work closely with success centers and others supporting the city. we're one of the hundreds of retailers that rely on efficient delivery men odds to grow our business. we continue to fight the illegal market. there's been no difference in safety issues from when we used dynamic delivery. a faster, more efficient model is used across the state. please allow us to go back to the dynamic model and to eliminate the illegal market. thank you. >> supervisor safai: thank you.

next speaker. >> thank you, supervisors. my name is roy leduke, verified equity applicant. born and raised in massachusetts and moved here 15 years ago from the state of pennsylvania, where i was prosecuted for growing marijuana, not selling it. but i was charged with a felony. convicted of a misdemeanor. i had job offers pulled from me. and last year, lyft would not hire me because of that. i was hired as a driver. but i want the freedom to be able to apply for multiple licenses under the equity program. being able to acquire multiple licenses, i can convince investors to invest in me so i can compete. a cap would handicap me from achieving my dreams. a limit of 20% limits me from raising sufficient funds.

it's hard to raise money, period. expecting me to raise money from three different investors is almost impossible for me. >> supervisor safai: thank you. >> i have one application. >> supervisor safai: thank you. >> hi. i'm kelly johnston. i'm the mother ofan applicant. i'm here on her behalf. we want to express our support for caps for investors, retailers from out of the city and state because what's happening is -- i just want to say, this is no longer a free market. this is an equity market now that it's been enacted by the city, so people cannot expect free market principles to apply to their business. the idea is to have as many people participating as

possible. you get a little piece of your pie. you do what you will with it. you can grow it. you can expand outside the equity system, but i don't think the equity system owes people a lifetime entrepeneurship. it's -- >> supervisor safai: okay. thank you. >> good morning and thank you for your time today. my name is tony bowls. i'm the president of the san francisco chapter of americans for safe access, national organization founded in 2002 promoting safe and legal access to cannabis and working to overcome legal barriers. we do not support a cap on equity or m.c.d.s. we support fast delivery. there are hundreds of thousands of people that struggle with

debilitating diseases that rely on cannabis to aid in their pain and assist with their treatments. and all major cities except season fran, patients are able to access through fast delivery. last year, it was slowed by restricting. it slowed for many people in my community, people that suffer from debilitating disease or use cannabis to prevent seizures or any other issues. it's crucial that fast, reliant access is available. we comment supervisor cohen for her efforts in trying to help those who need it the most. >> supervisor safai: thank you. do you have any applications? thank you. next speaker. >> hello, supervisors. i'm alexander fabian, verified equity operator with the city and here representing the san francisco equity group, a coalition of applicants verified with the city for notification purposes. we've verified 33 people with

our organization and have two locations with permits. we feel that restricting the ability of equity businesses to expand is inequitable and counter to the spirit of the equity program. we lack the ability to fundraise, similar to nonequity businesses and will not be able to raise the funds to expand in a world of consolidation and retail. thank you. >> supervisor safai: one point. again, i'm going to hear from everybody, but the idea that you can't apply in the nonequity pool. it doesn't limit your ability -- you can apply in terms of you have 33 verified people. does that mean for employment or does that mean for ownership? >> they've been pushed through the equity application process. so they would be verified for

ownership, however, we know that not everyone will be given a seat -- >> supervisor safai: you have two? >> we have two with processed locations. >> supervisor safai: and separate individuals? >> yes. >> supervisor safai: okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> good morning, supervisors. ryan patterson on behalf of san franciscans against traffic congestion. our primary concern is the potential for significant traffic to being caused by dynamic deliveries and i understand it's been split today or may be but i encourage you to complete proper environmental review under ceqa for that, which has not been done. no ceqa review, to my understanding, has been done whatsoever, despite the san francisco office of cannabis calling it "substantial amendments." it authorizes delivery vehicles

to circulate waiting for orders on san francisco's streets, which are severely congestions. this is a difference between waiting at a license taxi stand versus driving around waiting for orders there. will be an impact. no ceqa review has been done. thank you very much. >> supervisor safai: to come back to the conversation of dynamic delivery. for the record, that is true. there hasn't been any environmental analysis done on this legislation. this is new information. so we're going to talk about that later in the meeting, regarding the environmental review officer in terms of the impact of this legislation. please proceed. >> i'm morris kelly, san francisco native and equity applicant, founder of s.f. roots. it should be clear that these amendments are one-sided. they're not coming to the interest of the applicant, but to the powers at be.

for me personally, i see it as the only opportunity to create generational wealth in any family. this is why i'm concerned about decisions being made on my behalf that will hurt me. it was a slap in the face at the last hearing when a supervisor stated, "once we have a permit, we should be stable enough to be a general applicant." do you think if i had the money to be a general applicant i would be standing here in front of you? the equity program is supposed to balance the playing field. i stress to you the importance of taking all into consideration before you change the next wave of san francisco entrepeneurs. >> supervisor safai: how many applications? >> one. >> supervisor safai: okay. thank you. >> hi. i'm michelle and i have one application pending. i'm a born san francisco native. i was part of the b.m.r. program. as much as it helped me, i

couldn't afford to live in the program. there are so many things to consider when creating an equity program. it's really important to focus and acknowledge all different aspects and future aspects of how it will affect every aspect. so i think it's -- i really want to make sure that every piece is considered. i hope we can figure out a system that's helpful to all people who need it and are considerate to everyone who can benefit from it. thank you. >> supervisor safai: thank you. next speaker. >> good morning, supervisors, president cohen. i'm liz jackson simpson, c.e.o. of success centers. and we were established 35 years ago by superior court judges to support re-entry clients find employment, education, and to get back on their feet.

and we launch -- we're the only career center in the city that has a cannabis equity program and that works with a number of the licensed cannabis retailers to hire local community members and support training for equity applicants. we are here to speak in favor of the language that will allow for dynamic delivery. these are jobs that pay a living wage, as well as supports benefits for the drivers and also allows us to grow this budding work force and support the people that we care most about. thank you. >> supervisor safai: thank you. next speaker. >> hello, supervisors. i'm angela white. i'm a job developer with the success center san francisco. i will just cut to the short by saying, i am here to support the

language that allows the smaller businesses to use the dynamic system. the driver positions are -- i would say the number, hundreds of jobs that come through for equity applicants and it does pay a living wage and so i just hope that you can vote and have -- >> supervisor safai: thank you for being here. thank you. next speaker. >> morning, supervisors. i'm william dylan, equity applicant, resident of the sunset. i have three applications that i'm intending to proceed on. i want to make a couple of points. any retrospective application of this will have an inordinant amount of damage on the applicants and their partners. it will create legal liability, there will be breach of agreements that are in place. it's more than just

applications. they're projects that people are investing their lives in, life savings. you can't turn back the clock now and change the rules. we relied on the laws and that reliance would be extremely damaging and undermine the mission. any cap we proposed, it has to be fair, equitable and applied to everyone, including the existing m.c.d. operators. we're proposing a fair cap that's applied across the board. existing operators should be able to have -- >> supervisor safai: thank you. next speaker. >> thanks for your leadership on this important manner. cannabis is many things but simple is not one of them. i would like to talk about dynamic manifest delivery. we're requesting you remove the language to 16, 22b.

consolidation of the industry and public safety. if passed, it will allow for consolidation of the cannabis market by ease. ease is big tech. they raised $50 million since the launch in 2014. and poised to put 50 to 100 mobile dispensaries on the street and capturing up to 30% of all retail sales. 50 to 100 mobile dispensaries are not safe. storefronts are safe. we have security guards and cameras and safe rooms. mobile dispensaries with no security and no cameras. a driver in a car, load up on product and go location to location all day. they put their orders together out of a case in the back of a trunk. no one is watching their back. cannabis delivery drivers have been robbed at gunpoint many times.

dynamic delivery is not safe. please return section 16, 22b10 to its original form. thank you. >> hi. i'm jim freeburn. i moved here in 1989 and have been involved in the cannabis industry since the following year. i'm currently operating a micro business in the bayview and delivery is part of our business model and i would like to advocate that the dynamic delivery model creates an unlevel paying field for us. i would like it advocate that it's removed and that small time operators are allowed to access the market in a more fairway. thank you. >> thank you. supervisor safai, thank you for your comments on supporting homegrown businesses and that we're created by san francisco residents that are locals, natives, that have lived here. president cohen and everyone

involved in creating the equity program, it's an amazing thing, but it's a living, breathing thing that will be changing. it will take all of our commitment to make sure that it works. most of the cannabis industry is committed to and behind it200it. i will read a little bit of the san francisco charter. in the middle, "government will provide accountability and ethics in public sector to foster social harmony and cohesion to assure equality of opportunity for every resident." if that doesn't meet or spell out the equity program, i don't know what does. i hope and trust that -- >> supervisor safai: thank you. do you have any pending applications? >> yes. i have two cannabis retail pending that i'm a minority --

>> supervisor safai: in the equity? >> yes, two in equity and one under medical cannabis. i have a provisional permit from the department of public health, but it's been very difficult to get the project built based on the changes. >> supervisor safai: one provisional, one permit and two equity? >> correct. >> supervisor safai: thank you. ma'am, you cannot speak again. you can only speak once. sorry. you can tell someone else what you want to say that hasn't spoken. >> i'm martin olive, president of vape room, and board of the cannabis retailers association. i ask you to remove section 16, 22b10 that allows for dynamic manifest delivery. this amendment will benefit a large corporation that has not

played by the rules set form by san francisco and california. the rules that the rest of the community has been following to operate in this structure. i don't know why we would reward a large congomeration that skirts regulations. this amendment will undermine the equity program and allow consolidation to those with the highest budget, negatively impacting small delivery services and rules set forth this year. thank you. >> supervisor safai: thank you. any other members of the comment wish to comment? seeing none, public comment's closed. okay. so we can get back to the conversation. after 23 people speaking -- i want to wait for president cohen to come back. from this audience response and public comment, we had four out of 24 that had more than one

application pending. and i understand and i think one of the commenters made a strong comment -- and this is something -- we try to be as objective as we can in this process. we are constantly in this body and one of the roles we play is reviewing -- people talked about this in terms of the process of applications and projects. there are development projects that always come in front of this body on appeal, oftentimes ceqa appeal or conditional use appeals. in the same breath, it's millions and millions of dollars of money that's put forward and oftentimes either the projects are approved and oftentimes not or maybe changed. i understand the frustration dealing with an industry that is changing in realtime.

one thing i know for the record that no permit has been issued under the equity plan. i just want to say for the record -- supervisor cohen, tremendous leadership on all aspects of cannabis. she and my office work together -- she and i work together on certain aspects of the equity. i led on the amendment as it pertained to setting up the next pool of 50%, meaning that the next batch of applications would be equity. i am doing everything i can to approach this in a fair manner, to ensure as many people, as many applicants, as many opportunities are provided for as many different people. and i also understood that once we set that up, once we set up a program that created a pool of people that would be able to apply for this program, we understand also that there will

be some short falls, yes, there's a lack of social network and lack of accessing capital. but we're not in a free market. the money is coming to individual investors. they're coming and saying, i qualify under equity. you are an investor, venture capitalist, want to invest in this market, let's partner together and build a business. that is the reality of this market. and so the way i'm approaching it is, and i think the way many of us are approaching it, try to create as many opportunities as possible. in no way, shape or form, is anything i'm doing trying to discriminate against anybody but expand opportunities for as many people as possible. i am sensitive to the fact that people put hard-earned money, resources, time, equity, and blood, sweat and tears and tried to open up opportunities for their family, build wealth,

generational wealth. i'm sensitive to all of that. so i'm interested to hear president cohen what you have to say after hearing from a pool of people, as well as anyone else on this committee. because i think that overall, it sounds like this body is going to have a cap. and i know we have language here for a cap on retail regardless of industry, equity/nonequity on the retail side and we need to have a conversation about the next pool of 60 plus. at least in this pool -- can you speak to how many individual applicants besides the four we heard from today that have multiple applications under the equity program. do you have that information?

>> nicole elliott. i'm happy to do that math based on numbers we pulled about 1 1/2 weeks ago, if you give me a few minutes. >> supervisor safai: okay. president cohen? >> president cohen: my comments are simple. the cap is unnecessary. >> supervisor safai: no cap at all? >> president cohen: particularly if supervisor peskin's cap goes through, i think that cap is more equitable. >> supervisor safai: not any of the category, two or three, just none on equity, four overall? >> president cohen: correct. >> supervisor mandelman: i don't think i have super strong feelings on this. one seems low. i could live with four across the board. i could support something between one and four. >> supervisor safai: that was a very diplomatic answer because

it sounded like you said everything but nothing. [laughter] you will agree with everything and not take a position. >> supervisor mandelman: i think one is low. >> supervisor safai: i heard you. i'm teasing. it sounds like the will of the body would be to -- supervisor stefani, do you have a comment? >> supervisor stefani: yes. i agree that one is low and as i asked my questions earlier, i was worried about the retro activity of this amendment. i want to, of course, respect what supervisor cohen said. i have issues with that as well, but i think one is too low. >> supervisor safai: okay. sounds like one is way too low. then maybe we'll do -- are you okay with potentially doing supervisor peskin and -- do you want to add any comments on

behalf of your boss? >> no. only that it would be great if we could move this amendment today for purposes of tweaking it tomorrow. substantively not much has changed since last time except we raised it two to four. that's about all. thank you. >> supervisor safai: mr. givner, are we able to send it out as committee report to the full board? >> yes. >> supervisor mandelman: i think if we are -- i'm supportive of supervisor peskin's amendment, so i think we should increase the cap in 1606 to four. >> supervisor safai: was his amendment introduced last time? >> supervisor mandelman: no. >> a portion -- the nonbolded text in front of you was adopted last time and this is an amendment to the amendment that supervisor peskin made last time. last time the cap was two and this time it's four.

>> supervisor safai: i think it's clear that the will of the body to at least make this amendment right now. can we have a motion to accept the amendment as discussed open behalf of supervisor peskin's office? without objection. and then would we make a motion then to remove the -- and, again, i just want it say for the record. i want to reiterate my intent in the approach on this was to create as many opportunities for as many people as possible. i looked to president cohen for her leadership on this issue. we've had a lot of conversations on this. and i think she understands my intent was not to discriminate against anybody, but to open up as many opportunities as possible, but i think it's pretty obvious it's the will of the body to expand it in a -- to limit it in a different way.

would you agree with that, president cohen, in terms of my approach? >> president cohen: yes. >> supervisor safai: thank you. then we can make a motion to remove the amendment as it pertains to one equity applicant per application. can we do that without objection? without objection. i would like to make a motion to duplicate the file. mr. givner? >> no need for a motion on that. >> supervisor safai: okay. i would like to duplicate the file. the version i would like to send to the full board, i would like to remove the language proposed last week regarding dynamic delivery that president cohen put forward. can we do that without objection? without objection, moved. i just want to state for the

record, one, there is true concern regarding the fact that this document had not had any environmental review. i would like to ask that the environmental review officer give an opinion on the duplicated file. we can leave the language in the duplicated file so we have a conversation about the impact of additional automobiles being on the road as it pertains to this industry, not dynamic in general, but delivery overall. if we can have the environmental review officer give us an opinion on the -- is that okay, mr. givner? >> yes. basically what you would do in the duplicate, i believe, is remove everything except dynamic delivery amendment and add a ceqa finding section, which would trigger referral to the planning commission's environmental review officer,

which would determine if this is subject to ceqa at all and if it is what level of environmental analysis -- >> supervisor safai: do i need a motion to add ceqa section? >> yes. >> supervisor safai: okay. can we make a motion to find a ceqa finding section to the document? president cohen? >> president cohen: i want to acknowledge that you duplicated the file, but we did not change the a.m.i. levels. >> supervisor safai: we will come back to the one that will good to the board. we haven't finished with the document yet. you want to remove that as well? >> president cohen: yes. it should be in both files. i suggest that you rescind the vote to unamend the request to duplicate the file and then amend the a.m.i. levels in the file and then you will have to

go back and -- >> supervisor safai: what is your suggestion on the a.m.i.? where would you like to land on that? there was a conversation about 80% a.m.i. being either a requirement or just one of the items to be selected. so let's make a motion -- >> president cohen: that 80% is an option. >> supervisor safai: no income requirement at all? just a sole option? >> president cohen: correct. >> supervisor safai: as it was originally? got it. >> my understanding of what your plan a moment ago was to leave a version of the ordinance that only included dynamic delivery in committee. are you intending to put the equity criteria as well? >> supervisor safai: no. we can amend the version we send to the full board, right? >> yes.

in that version, the proposal to add 80% as one of the options -- >> supervisor safai: and no longer a requirement. >> and then you have to meet three criteria or keep it as two? >> supervisor safai: we'll do it as originally drafted. i don't think i need to rescind the motion to duplicate the file. we can amend the final version. the duplicated file that remains will have the language regarding the -- what was originally as proposed by supervisor cohen. we'll leave that in committee. before we go to the final version that we'll send to the full board, i want to say for the record, it's a debate about dynamic delivery and delivery in general that needs to be more fully flushed out. there is value for having a work force that's stable and identifiable that are employees and i think that's an important part of the conversation.

i do also believe if you are adding a significant number of cars to the road and using technology that has the ability to identify where the automobiles are, you should have access to that data. we should have an analysis of what the impact of the cars would be on the road. maybe there is an appropriate number at any given time. also the conversation around -- what's the language, supervisor cohen, about having it being an identifiable business and ensuring there is not any abuse in that, as well as not in any abuse in terms of the process in which the medicine in terms of c.b.d. or marijuana is distribut distributed. i think there's a lot of conversations that need to be have about delivery in general. i think there's a fuller conversation that needs to

happen and i think that will happen with rules committee in the coming year. that's the purpose of duplicating the file and giving the environmental to weigh in. that will remain in committee. if we can make a motion to amend the language back to the original portion of the criteria for the equity program as having 80% a.m.i. as one of the criteria, one of the five, and three must be select the. can we do that without objection? without objection. any other last -- thank you, president. any other amendments that need to be made or considered before we move on to the next item? >> supervisor stefani: i would like to ask a question around ownership changes in terms of whether or not upon transfer it would require an equity

applicant and why we settled on 10 years. >> supervisor safai: the 10-year program was to -- the 10-year number i proposed was so that -- to ensure, one, that individuals were not turning over their investments to outside of san francisco. we want to keep the retail portion equity and nonequity as san francisco as possible, as local as possible. 10 years is a fair amount of time to establish your business, build your business, and then at some point, cash out of your business. we have other protections built into the system in terms of how much ownership can be transferred to outside investors that are not, you know, large capital-owe owners. so that is the amendment to increase to 49%. there is a lot of outside capital, whether it's canadian,

australian, east coast venture capital dollars that are trying to come in and change it to a homegrown, local market. we're sensitive to that. it's important to allow people to cash in and 10 years seems to be a fair amount of time. if it's less than that, you are undermining the protections designed for investors to change the ownership structure. that was a number that came up when i had multiple conversations with those in the industry. any other amendments? okay. so we make a motion to send the amended file to the full board with positive recommendation? so moved without objection. since we have president cohen he here, can we do item 4?

would you like to do item 4 on african-american arts and cultural district? >> president cohen: yes, thank you. >> before we proceed, can we continue the duplicated file to -- >> supervisor safai: continue the duplicated file with the language regarding dynamic delivery to the call of the chair. thank you. >> clerk: item 4, amending administrative code to establish african-american arts around cultural to bayview neighborhood. >> president cohen: thank you for taking item 4 out of order. i will let the chamber settle. folks, we still have business we're trying to conduct here. >> supervisor safai: if you can please be quiet on the way you exit and take your conversations in the hallway, we have a very tight schedule. thank you. president cohen? >> president cohen: the legislation before you

establishes african-american arts and culture district in bayview/hunters point. it's clean. it's straightforward. it's a community that nurtures the cultural history that frames the story of the african-american experience here in san francisco. i would like to just highlight a few things. it's, quite frankly to, honor and recognize the contributions of african-american residents in the past, present and in the future of san francisco. i believe wholeheartedly that this honor is long overdue. the legacy of the community is in a fragile state and we continue to combat out-migration. this serves as an important response for the city to establish something tangible that will preserve the legacy of black populations in san francisco. with that, i'd like to propose

the following amendment for this item. i would like to pass these out to you. one for you, mr. clerk. one for the committeepersons. so, they are, in sections pertaining to the citizens advisory membership, deadlines for the report coming from the identified departments and duties of the c.a.c. i tabbed the amendments in the packet i've given you. colleagues, your copies have amendments highlighted. that's pretty much it. the legislation received overwhelming community support. it's also received support from the historic preservation commission. mr. chair, i would like to turn the meeting back over to you. i think that's it. >> supervisor safai: i think this is pretty straightforward. i want to commend you for getting this in front of us.

i know it's important to you as part of your legacy with the hard work you've done. >> president cohen: it's bigger than me. i'm just doing the work. >> supervisor safai: i understand, but it's important to recognize that it's part of a larger conversation, but at the same time, part of the eight years in office that you've been on this body. i appreciate your humility, but i wanted to recognize that. >> president cohen: thank you. one thing i would like to highlight before we take public comment. i want to highlight the -- there's a core group of constituents in the bayview neighbor that have been following this legislation ever since it was an idea that we floated over a year ago. they've come to every meeting in the neighborhood. they've come to meetings here in the planning commission, in city hall and now they're here in the chamber and i'm grateful. i wanted to uplift the folks that have been supportive.

>> supervisor safai: just so folks know, we're on a tight schedule. i said this to the other folks in the chamber previously. we're going to limit public comment to 1 minute. we have to have this meeting done by 12:30. in no way is it intended -- we're being even across the board today. commissioner richardson, please proceed. >> thank you. i'm speaking on behalf of dr. veronica hineka, who cannot be here. it's an thhistoric day. i want to thank you supervisor cohen. there is historic precedent in san francisco. a very multicultural community. we have latino, japantown, chinatown, great communities and people and now we have the

italian, with supervisor stefani. we know we are in good hands. we want to to put this forward. it's long overdue. the history of african-americans, it's a significant couldnntributiocont. we want to continue that. >> president cohen: next speaker, please. hello. >> director of community development mayor's office. we're the office tasked with overseeing the funding that came out of the prop e funds. so we'll look forward to having approximately $3 million moving forward. we're also responsible for overseeing the report to set up the roadmap for the districts and provide administrative support to the c.a.c., which was established with the

legislation. we're eagerly awaiting the opportunity to work with the community members. we think this is an exciting, unique opportunity to do so. and i wanted to put on the record our strong support for this piece of legislation. thanks. >> i'm tara fennell. i want to thank supervisor cohen for moving this forward and say that what the african-american cultural district will do is uplift the work going on in the bayview that many of us have been boot-strapping for years creating infrastructure and support of local businesses in bayview and the arts and culture community in bayview. thank you for hearing us. it's an important piece of legislation. and to give monetary support to what's been happening. thank you. >> president cohen: thank you. next speaker, please.

>> hello. i'm the founder and director of african arts academy. i'm a member of the bayview african-american art cultural district. and i want to say, first of all, president cohen, thank you so much for pushing this forward. we're a nonprofit that specializes in arts and crafts. and there wouldn't be a better place for us to be in the bayview. so please help us move this forward to help our kids stay off the street and to enjoy what they love and are good at, which is the art. thank you very much. >> president cohen: thank you. >> good morning, supervisors. i'm devin richardson. and i'm one of the co-chairs of the african-american art and

cultural district working group. we've been meeting for over a year, countless hours crafting the program and ultimately this legislation that's before you today. i will just say for all the reasons that supervisor cohen has stated, thank you for bringing this forward, we urge you to support this and the amendments that were given to you today and we look forward to working with you and other departments in the city to make this happen. thank you. >> good morning, supervisors. i'm the owner of two businesses along the third street corridor and also the chair of economic development on third street team. supervisor cohen, thank you for your help over the last eight years and today. we want to stand in great support of this. thank you so much. >> president cohen: thank you. next speaker, please.

>> good morning, supervisors. thank you for this opportunity to speak. president cohen, thank you so much for carrying us across the finish line. i'm very grateful this is happening and i just wanted to say thank you, supervisors, for your support creating the african-american cultural district. i'm the executive director of economic development on third. i see it every day, that we have an opportunity to preserve african-american residences and businesses. i hope you will support this. >> thank you, president cohen, and other supervisors. i'm april spears. i'm not only a business owner in bayview hunters point, but i'm a bayview native, born and raised. and this movement is really important to me because i would love to be a part of preserving

african-american culture not only in bayview, but in san francisco. so we really would love your support on this movement. and thank you so much for listening to our thoughts and concerns today. >> supervisor safai: any other members of the public wish to comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> president cohen: i have no further remarks. >> supervisor safai: we make a motion to accept the amendments. we can do that without objection. without objection, amendments are accepted. can we make a motion to send this as amended to the full board with positive recommendation as a committee report? without objection? without objection. great. >> president cohen: thank you. >> supervisor safai: let's see what we have left.

did supervisor -- supervisor peskin's office, okay. so we did 2. we continued item 1 to the end of the hearing. oh, 3. let's do 3 real quick. that's mine. >> clerk: item 3, ordinance amending the police code to require cannabis businesses to ensure that 35% of new hires shall be enrolled in state-approved apprentice programs. >> supervisor safai: this is my item. it's a proposal that we put in place. i think we made some amendments last week. the amendments now are solidified. we had put a place holder in as local hire percentage. we changed that local hire in this category, if they're

state-certified apprenticeship programs, but created to train a flourishing work force pool. we call it city grow. we're excited about this program. we think it's a pathway of opportunity for a well-trained work force. if we can -- i don't have any additional comments. i don't any there's any additional amendments. if there are no comments, i will open it up for public comment. any members of the public wish to comment, come forward. seeing none, public comment's closed. all right. so can we -- can i entertain a motion to send it to the full board with positive recommendation? so moved. >> as committee report? >> supervisor safai: as

committee report, yes. thank you. approved. okay. so i am -- hold on one second. >> supervisor safai: thank you, director elliott and your team and city attorney, for your hard work on the cannabis.

call item 5. >> clerk: item 5 is charter amendment to establish the free city college fund to defray certain costs of city college students and require annual appropriation to the fund. >> supervisor safai: thank you, president cohen, for your help and all the work with us today. it sounded like you were a permanent committee member today. thank you. there's a little confusion about this item. i just want to say for the record -- had some good conversation with the folks. i'm a supporter of free city college. i worked as part of the campaign with the janitors and many other members from the labor

community. oftentimes we're talking about budget set-asides or baseline funding without new revenue sources. the conversation around free city college was absolutely associated with the conversation around prop w, whiches with a property transfer tax. that property transfer tax generates $40 million a year and two main sources of funding in that are the -- two main targeted policy areas are free city college, and we're going into our second year on that, as well as street fee program. i'm prepared today to take a motion to send this out of committee with positive recommendation to the full board as a committee report. i've spoken with supervisor kim's office, met with free city college folks. there are a couple of amendments that will be made at the full

board, which of which -- we have some accountability language. after year four, controller can adjust the baseline and all we'll talk about is after five years to have the board -- 2/3 majority of the board and the mayor to adjust the baseline as necessary as well, as a second layer. and that provides for us to have a larger conversation as it relates to the general fund, as well as without having to go back to the voters or ask in the future any supplemental budget requests. and then i think supervisor kim said they would make a motion to move back from 20 years to 10 years. again, that's just two amendments there. so we'll ask for those amendments to be ready for

tomorrow. supervisor kim could not join us today. she's in interviews all day long with the m.t.c. we'll present those tomorrow. so for the general public's understanding, the way the process works with charter amendments, they'll be prepared for tomorrow and made at the full board tomorrow and because it's a charter amendment, they will go an additional week to the second board meeting of the month, which is the 11th. at that time, they will then be read into the record as the committee of the whole. we'll have a hearing on that. because of the -- because you don't have to have two readings for a charter amendment, they just have to be prepared and sit for one week. they will sit from the 11th and then we'll do everything we can to have a special hearing -- which i committed to making myself available for. i know supervisor mandelman has

said he would make himself available, and we would do that the following week. in case there is anything else that needed to be changed, if we missed a comma or a period or anything, we have five or six months to make adjustments and the board can do that in partnership with the coalition of free city klecollege. you would remove existing charter language and we have a good cushion of time to get all that done. to update folks on the conversation i had with supervisor kim, but that's the plan for today. we won't make any amendments in committee. we're going to make them tomorrow at the full board. >> supervisor stefani: yes, thank you, thank you for explaining that.

are we going to have a chance to ask questions of anyone tomorrow at the full board? i am definitely supportive of free city college. [please stand by]