it's not falling on deaf ears, and i don't want you to think that i'm leaving here saying well, i told my side and you told your side, and it's going to be business at usually. believe me, we're taking what you said seriously. we're always looking at how we can do things better. we balance in the moment -- you know, we evaluate, we try to debrief situations. i hear you loud and clear. it's how can we do things better, how can we improve? we can always improve in so many areas, from the largest of policing to these areas. so your message is loud and clear, and we take everything that you've mentioned today seriously. i know you felt underwhelmed. we covered a lot of ground here today. we answered a lot of questions. if there's follow up, maybe we can get together and go over

everything point by point, so i'm hopeful that that happens. >> supervisor ronen: okay. well, i will take you up on that offer, and i will be talking to you, and the family will, as well, so we will have that follow up conversation. do you have any other comments? >> i mean just to thank you for bringing this forward. i was not aware of what happened, and this is enormously disturbing and this is enormously disturbing, and i thank you, commander lozar for taking this seriously and for being here and for your openness to continue working with supervisor ronen to work on this. this was an extraordinary and we hope unusual situation, but i -- the united states being what it is, this is probably not the last time that a gun will be found or even discharged in a san francisco public school. >> unfortunately. >> supervisor mandelman: and i think that we need, you know, next time, if some of this is, you know, what folks are

believe it to have been, then we need to do better. so thanks for taking the time, thanks for bringing this to us, and i'm super impressed by the youth commission and by this family. >> thank you. thank you very much. >> supervisor ronen: and i just want to -- this is just hillary ronen, supervisor of district nine, i want to apologize to the pena family, because everything i've heard and read about your experience, mr. pena, you and i act very similarly. that would have been exactly how i would have acted in the situation. i would have been going nuts if my daughter was being held, i didn't know what was going on, and i wasn't allowed to be with her. so i just want to apologize to you for this incredibly traumatic experience and just tell me how much i feel for you as a parent. i'm choking back tears a little

bit because as a parent with kids, it's our job to protect them. i just want to commend you for the work you did to protect your son. thank you. [applause] >> supervisor mandelman: all right. so i guess i'm going to ask you, vice chair ronen, what is your pleasure to this item? do you want us to continue it or do you want to have this heard and filed. >> supervisor ronen: if we need to reintroduce it, i will, but for now, i would like to make a motion to file the hearing. >> supervisor mandelman: okay. we'll do that without objection. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor mandelman: and thanks, everyone, for coming out today. mr. clerk, is there any other items before us? >> clerk: there is no further business. >> supervisor mandelman: okay. then we are adjourned.

. >> happy holidays, san francisco. hundreds of festive lights are illuminating san francisco streets using 100% greenhouse gas free hydroelectric power. this year, the city is celebrating 100 years of providing this power from hetch hetchy system which powers muni, our schools and libraries, street lights, san francisco international airport, city government buildings, private developments, and more. look for holiday bell lights along third street, and illuminated snowflakes on market street. the san francisco public utilities commission and the san francisco public works

welcome all to enjoy the magic of the >> good morning. the meeting will come to order. welcome to the december 3rd, 2018 meeting of the rules committee. i am chair of the committee. seated to my left his supervisor catherine stephanie, and to my right to, we are joined by supervisor rafael mandelman. the vice chair could not join us today and is excused. colleagues, may we entertain a

motion to soup -- to ask you supervisor the clock so moved. okay. also we will try to be as efficient as we can today because i also serve on the land use and transportation committee , so this meeting today will end promptly at 12:30 pm because this chamber is going to be used by the land use and transportation committee. i want to put that on the record now so folks don't think we are trying to rush through everything. public comment will be available but we will try and be as efficient as possible. mr. clerk, any announcements before we get started quad. >> silence also phones and electronic devices. speaker cards or any part of any documents should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will be on the december 11th board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> thank you. i want to recognize s.f. gov

staff. for item number 1, we will move it to later in the agenda. there is an amendment that we are waiting for. if you can call item number 2. >> item number 2 is an ordinance amending the police code by making a number of changes in the regulation of commercial cannabis activity. >> thank you. okay. let's see here. unless we have any additional -- some initial comments, do we want to hear directly from mrs. elliott first caught ? >> i want to recognize our president of the board, supervisor malia cohen who has joined us today. would you like to start? >> just some high-level remarks. i want to say thank you to this committee and to the supervisors

and to director elliot for working through this. we have come a long way creating the regulations on the legislation and supervise amounts of many, i am delighted you will be carrying a lot of the work, the foundation that my office has laid as it relates to cannabis, specifically to the equity program. i'm very grateful to that. i'm looking forward to the discussions this morning. thank you. >> great. if we can do something, may be the city attorney, i want to go ahead and duplicate the file. should we do that after, or can we do that in the beginning? we need to deal with the issue of some of the amendments that were made around dynamic delivery. mr given her? >> deputy city attorney. you should do it after a public comment to make any amendments you want to make following public comment. >> great. >> i will save might -- see my comments for the record around the amendment we will make

regarding dynamic delivery. why don't we go ahead -- unless supervisor mandelman, do you want to say anything before we begin? >> sure. thank you for your work on this and president cohen for your work on all of these issues over the last couple of years. i have a couple of questions on a few sections. i don't know whether you want -- >> why don't you go ahead. let's determine how in-depth they are and if we can open it up for public comment, and come back to them or may be we can answer them before public comment. >> the questions and issues that i would want to get a sense from colleagues on this committee are around how to deal with the limit on the equity applicants, whether there would be a willingness to do two things. to make the limit prospective only and whether they would be -- there would be willing -- there will be willingness to go from 1-2. i wanted to talk about the a.m.i. requirement. not the notion that there should

be an absolute up because i think -- absolute limits, because we don't want the equity program to be for folks who are rich, but i thought as an absolute limit, it might make sense to raise that 120 up to 150. we have seen in the housing context that there are folks who are well above 120 who are struggling in san francisco. but i also like the notion of having the 80% in their as one of a number of criteria that could qualify you as an equity applicant. and absolute limits of 150 to apply to everybody. >> so there would be a range? >> of the 80 would be something that would get you in the mix. it was just an idea i wanted to float the third idea i wanted to see how my colleagues are feeling is whether or not that -- whether that limit on retail storefronts might go up a little

bit above. >> okay. we also have from supervisor peskin's office. they have some additional thoughts since we had our meeting on the absolute limits. let me respond to your request. i understand the frustration for folks that are working with and waiting for this program to come online. we have been trying our best. we were given very tight circumstances. i know president cohen and myself, prior to you being on this board spent significant hours both in the rules and the land use and transportation committee drafting what we felt along with the office of cannabis -- thank you director elliot for your hard work and your staff's hard work, and the department of health and planning, to draft the best guidelines that we could. nothing in the amendments that i was putting forward were intended to -- let me choose the

right words. discriminate against anybody, give anyone a disadvantage to anybody. the approach of that i have, and i've had this conversation with colleagues and many of you in the room, is when you are doing a socioeconomic set-aside program, which this is, and it isn't an attempt to rectify some of the injustices of the past, whether it be through the criminal justice system, or any other aspect of our history, we are trying to create something that gives people a significant opportunity. so my attempt was if the next batch of permits that we are looking at roughly around 60, is going to be solely equity, the idea that i had was we would want to try and maximize as many equity applicants as possible. so the idea that there would be an equity applicant with three, four, five applications of

potentially taking away three or four or five opportunities from other equity applicants, and then the narrative that -- the narrative for the nonequity to own more than -- have more than one permit, there is nothing that stops anyone on the equity side after we have gone through the first batch to apply in the nonequity pool. we are going to have a nonequity pool again. it will go one for one at that time. that is the way we designed it. and supervisor cohen and i worked really hard on that together in terms of coming up with a concept of what the number would be and how we would control for the next batch of people. so that was my approach. i am open to a conversation. i'm willing to hear what members of the public have to say. i would like to hear what president cohen and others have to say. i think it makes sense to try and have as many opportunities for those in the equity community to access.

that was my approach. i like what you are thinking about in terms of mirroring the a.m.i. with some of the other programs that we have in the city. whether it's housing or other -- 150% or having the 80. i don't know how we would do that as part of the process. and then i know supervisor peskin would like to have another crack at it. his approach was an absolute number, patrolling for an absolute number. whether it is equity or nonequity. line was about having an opportunity to expand as many opportunities for equity applicants. i don't think is mine as a cap on equity. i think of it as expanding on opportunities in the community. that was my approach. i am open to the conversation. may be we can hear from lee hepner and he can share some of the thoughts from supervisor peskin's office, and president cohen --

>> i will wait to speak until after lee. >> go ahead. >> thank you, committee members. to address supervisor mantle menchaca question and explain the interplay between these two concepts, we have moulded this over the weekend and have arrived at a version of this that resembles more of a formula retail cap on the number of storefront retail permits and the way that our amendment currently is being proposed but has not been amended into the legislation yet would eliminate the percentage ownership thresholds that triggers it. basically any ownership interest in the storefront permit would count toward the cap. and then we would increase that cap. this is to supervisor mandelman 's question, increase

the cap from 2-4. if you have any ownership interest, legal or benefit -- beneficial in a storefront permit in four storefront permits, and you have an ownership interest in a fifth pending application, that fifth pending application would be placed under pending consideration of other applications. it is not restricted to equity owners or any specific class of owners. it is talking about any owner of a storefront permit and then placing the trigger for placing additional offers on hold a little bit higher. it should allow a little bit of scaling in the markets but still puts a finite soft cap on the number of permits per owner. i'm happy to answer questions about that. >> president cohen? >> thank you. i appreciate you coming in. you were here last time we met

and we talked a little bit about this. you remember i asked some questions. originally were proposing to watch while. supervisor peskin was posing two as a cap. i'm wondering how we came to the figure and if there is any room. i was initially thinking three was a nice number. four that you are proposing today is very generous. i am grateful for it. i like the idea. i think it is moving us in the right direction. one thing i do want to speak to is something that supervisor mandelman was talking about about the equity planning and a.m.i. kak. the plan was to target people on the war on drugs and people whose communities and opportunities who were cut down by generations of over incarceration, over policing, which comes, also with money bail, it deals with fees and fines associated with the

criminal justice system. it is quite a comprehensive and layered situation. people from these communities are not monolithic. and that means that i am interested in seeing an equity program that allows -- that is larger than just low income people being able to prosper. what i created in the equity program, division was to ensure people were not stifled or suffocated or their ability to create a business was impeded upon because of the war on drugs however, when we wrote the equity plan, we wanted to ensure the wealthy individuals didn't get to the front line, and those who had access to resources weren't able to take advantage of the permitting program that we were in the process of building as we were accepting applications. so that is why we put into place the asset test. and i wanted to ensure that low

income folks had an opportunity. that is why we put this at 80% a.m.i. and the 80% a.m.i. qualifier. what i am interested in seeing is that individuals have an opportunity to succeed. the individual companies have an opportunity to succeed. so i hope that bring some clarity. i think what supervisor mandelman is proposing, if i'm not mistaken, you mentioned anchoring back down to 80%, and maybe reiterating a touch of 150 a.m.i. i am a little unclear on that portion. >> yeah,. conceptually, the idea would be to restore the 80% as one of the dose you have to mix and match the criteria to get several of them. i do take the chair's point, we

do want this to be benefiting folks who are not socioeconomically at the top, at least. but 120% as an absolute cap seems low to me. it made sense to me to lift that up a little bit to say 150 in line with what we have thought about for housing. they would be two different kak -- limits going in. i would lift that to 150. i would restore a.t. as one of the criteria that would allow you -- would have to put several of them together. if you were below that income level you would have met one of the requirements. >> who are you solving for when you are talking about raising the cap to 150? why would we do that. >> will be solving for people

who have been harmed by the drug war. they show that somehow by meeting these criteria. but last year they happen to earn 140 of a.m.i., but it doesn't mean they're rich. they might have had a good year. but i thought it made sense -- in the same way we thought about housing to lift that number a little bit. >> okay. >> can i add something to that? i think what i hear you saying, i think right now we originally had five criteria. five boxes before my amendments. is that right? it was either they had to go to school in san francisco between 71 dose you had to have been arrested during a certain year, you had to live in certain census tracts, you had to be of a certain income a.m.i. and i think there was one more, right? >> there was one more. i don't have it all committed to

memory. >> what i had requested was we make the income a requirement and then all the rest were options and you had two of the remaining four. what i hear you saying as you can put the 80% back in as part of the ones you can check, making the 150%. i understand what you are saying with that in the sense that if you have two teachers, not necessarily that, but comparable salaries of two teachers, or someone in the middle income range that might be middle income at the 150% a.m.i., i could potentially see why you would want to have it synonymous with or equal to what we have in our housing if that were an approach. >> correct. that is why we have the asset test. that is why it is built in to help distinguish that. >> so the only thing that i would say about the asset test, and everything i think we are trying to have as tight criteria

as we can. but one of the things that i know you potentially could do is you could have a piece of property, for example, and you could take an equity line on that piece of property. and it changes the valuation of that property. so you could figure out ways to get below the asset threshold based on your income to debt ratio. that is one way. i appreciate the approach on the asset test. but the other way that is a hard-earned and faster line when you are looking at someone's household income, again, i'm sure there's ways you could do it. there is a way around that. you could say this person doesn't live with me, i don't count them on my taxes, every single way that we come up with, there will be a way that you can get around it. it was just something that i'd put out there into the realm of conversation to see if we are coming up with the right

approach. with assets, there are ways you can put assets and other people 's names. when you file your taxes, for the most part, you are filing your taxes in your name. that is the only reason why i infuse that into the conversation. >> director elliot, i would like to -- i assume you are following the conversation about asset testing, the application permitting process and some of the trends you are seeing. could you, briefly without sharing any confidential information, share with us -- either one of you can answer the question. either one can answer the question. but what you are seeing under the asset test as it relates to a.m.i. we are particularly concerned about, at least from what i understand, people skirting the rules and readjusting their assets on paper.

>> supervisors, director elliot from the office of cannabis. i would like to hand to the mic over to my deputy director who has been implementing much of the equity program criteria verification process so that he can speak to this question. >> thank you. >> there is a fair amount of selection bias. people who read the asset test and decide to apply. if your specific question is that do we have a sense of people are manipulating their assets to qualify for the principal priority permitting? i would say it is a relatively low number of people have been modifying the application after it has been submitted. may be 1% or 12%. >> thank you. so it is not a problem. >> one of the things that i had asked director elliot to -- that is what we know about so far. by the other thing that i had asked director elliot to look at ways when you take the total universe of people who qualify under the equity program, and

you see how many actually qualify under the income category, there was 24% of the applications that did not check that box. that doesn't mean that they couldn't check that box, but most likely, the reason they did not, that box is because they did not qualify under the income quick category. that is part of the reason why i reacted. because i didn't do it without asking them for the data. when they gave me the data, it raised my suspicion even more based on everything that you just said, which was part of the reason why we created this was because of historical discrimination. because of the war on drugs. because of communities who were trying to lift an opportunity. if you have someone in the pool that is over income, then how are you really helping them in that regard? just from the income sprit -- perspective. and you speak about that for a moment? the percentage of people who did

not check that box and what your interpretation of that, or yourself? >> fisher. your original interpretation of the number was correct. about 24% of applicants did not give just get verified using the income criteria. does not mean they would not have been able to. just the information that they submitted to the office. >> the point i want to underscore is we are looking to create an environment that will be successful and that everyone can prosper under. whether you have an m.b.a., or you served time. there are a lot of lessons that we have learned from canada, from colorado, from other cities and entities that have legalized and one of the things that is most challenging is access to capital. the process, the whole process

is daunting and expensive. and i want to make sure that everyone is able to compete on an equal -- are out in this case , and equitable level. i don't quite understand or more importantly what it solves or hopes to achieve. i believe what you are trying to do is exactly what i am trying to do. frankly, i want you to leave it alone, so to speak. leave good enough alone. bring it back down to -- >> leave it at no income requirement and leave it the way it was originally drafted? >> when and if that proves to be a problem, then, you know, we will make adjustments to the legislation at that point. >> i'm sorry. go ahead. >> i am basing my ask just from what i've heard from the

department's leadership on what they have actually seen. from what i understand, they are saying it is not a problem. i'm not trying to create an onerous or difficult and challenging process and making it more difficult for people. i want to keep it straightforward and easy. >> got it. for your consideration, one of the things we said at the last meeting was that if we were to do this, and i said this on the record, if we were -- if it were the well of the body to do this, we could potentially make it perspective so the income would not count until the next batch -- after we've gone through the first round -- >> perspective makes the deal a little bit easier for me to vote for. >> okay. all right. >> just to jump into clarify, without being recognized, jumping in. [laughter] >> thank you. the amendments that were made last week our perspective. so no need to make an amendment.

>> i had asked for that on the record last time. >> i just want to make sure i don't do anything crazy when it comes to the full board. apparently i am unpredictable. [laughter] >> he is just covering his bases >> actually i was not clear that you had already made them and that i had done that. i'm glad you are clear. also, respectfully, i do look to your guidance and leadership on the issue. i wanted to ask what your opinion was on that. i think the fairest way to go on that particular amendment was to make it perspective, for sure. >> greats. thank you. >> any other comments before we open up to public comment? supervisor stefani, sorry. >> thank you. i have a quick question regarding what supervisor mount lemmon brought up in terms of the perspective -- whether or not we should have the equity permit cap be perspective. i'm wondering since it is

retroactive, whether or not to director elliot and to the deputy city attorney, whether or not to retroactivity presents any challenges to the department and any legal challenges given the fact that people have been relying on this, and i am just wondering if any changes to make this retroactive would hurt in any way. >> supervisors, currently the retroactive application of this ordinance would have the potential to impact a number of applications in the pipeline. it is not -- there are no permits issued. they went not be any permits that would otherwise have to be revoked because of this type of

amendment. however, how we would apply it to the number of applications that are in the pipeline that may exceed that cap is unclear at this time. >> anything else? >> yes. >> i am just following up on the practical implementation point. it would not be legally problematic to strike that perspective retroactivity peace of the ordinance and make it retroactive. although it might be practically problematic in terms of implementation for parties who have already submitted applications or been verified as equity applicants. >> thank you. >> president president cohen? >> thank you. the other item we need to

discuss that we dealt with last week, is the one bite of the apple. and currently, it does two things. it limits equity permit holders to one permit at each stage of the industry. the feedback from much of the community that i have heard from him is that is limiting specifically in the communities of colour. the equity program we know was designed to allow those who were targeted. what is important to notice a war on drugs, what it has done to community has had a long-term residual effect that we are still feeling today. it has marginally -- materially reduced the wealth and the success of communities it has targeted. it has been long-lasting. but what is more than just a golden ticket to permitting works to overcome the long-standing inequities of

injustice. say for example, you need to start to pay rent on a building for a full year because you get a permit, which is the case for least one verified equity applicant who is still waiting for authorization, then you need to massive amounts of money and capital. this is the fuller picture that i am trying to create here. it is not just about get a permit and you are off and running. there are other built in, very heavy costs. again, i want to highlight the black and the brown communities that i represent who don't have the privilege of long-standing social networks of wealth, family, friends, that they can have help them raise hundreds of thousands of dollars that are needed in capital. we are talking about banks who are not loaning loading for this industry just yet. the equity program is meant to

level the playing field for those who don't have the resources, not just to give a single chance or first bite of the apple when it comes to the permitting process. i wanted to go on record and let you know i am uncomfortable. i would like to revisit this elements of the legislation as well. >> goods. i appreciate that, president cohen. i would just say, i don't want to do anything to hamper any opportunities. the idea was if we have 60 in the first batch, under a perfect scenario, we would have 60 equity applicants having that opportunity and an opportunity to access a golden ticket or a potential golden ticket. if we don't, that was the way i was approaching it. having as many people as possible. under the current scenario, we did not have any restriction on the amount of applications. you could have one person taking away other people charge opportunity because they would not have that chance. that is all -- i don't want you

to be uncomfortable. i don't want the community to be uncomfortable. there's a way we can get to the right number. supervisor mandelman said we could do two per equity. i don't know what you feel about that. and supervisor peskin's office, maybe redo four overall. if we did four overall, whether you are a minority partner category majority partner in any application, you could have a scenario where you could have far less equity individuals in the entire first universe. that is why pairing it from one end doing two and then four overall, maybe that is the right number. the committee should hear from the public. i am happy to more from your opinion and the rest of the committee's opinion, and then we can get to the right number so we all feel comfortable. unless there's other comments, why don't we open it up for public comment. members of the public that wish to come forward, you will have

one minute to speak. thank you. >> start my time and i need a little screen time. i'm not one of these people here i do not have a horse in the race. i don't even have a puppy in the race. but i do have my black folks in the race and today, from here on out to, my platform is about somebody that looks like me. i go to sleep and i am black and i wake up and i am black. they had a very important meeting here last week about equity. it came out that meeting where supervisor suggested there be a department of equity. they may want to look at me. my name is ace and i am on the case. what we have here is so much racism. last week we had that meeting, and i suggest you set aside to give us a jumpstart as black

folks. most of us are in jail for weeds if we had young people out here they would become millionaires and two years. we need a set aside. we can talk about that later. i want to give attribute to a supervisor who is going out to. thank you for bringing us out. you helped us with the cannabis act. >> thank you, ace. ace, ace. next speaker, please. thank you. >> hello, supervisors. thank you for hearing this. i am one of the verified equity applicants and my biggest concern is from the time i was first verified five months ago, i'm still facing a barrier by supervisors, which is getting commercial property. i was one of those impacted by the war on drugs when sfpd put me on leave when i was 19 years

old. it forced me into accepting the d.a.'s offer by scare tactics that were each -- were each bag they shoved carried three years. and i quote them, that who do you think you are? will believe caught your word or hours classing set time, it has impacted me. they put me -- selling in 19 years old, i spent the next ten years job to job because i couldn't put down that i had jail time. >> thank you. thank you. got it. can i ask you a question before you leave cloth, how many applications do you have in pending? >> it is not even finished because you are asking for location. >> rates. beside that, one? >> one. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good morning and thank you,

supervisors. i work for an equity applicants. the definition of equity is to be fair and impartial. that means regardless of how they arrived at the game, the player should play by the same rules. i ask that there be no cap for us if there are no cap for m.c.d. his. decisions made at the tables affect the lives of those not at the table his. exclusion by those of the tables does not depend on wilful intent we do not have to intend to exclude for the results of our actions to be exclusions. implicit bias is already at bay because -- i play because all human rights have bias. if i'm not aware of the barriers you face, i will not be motivated to remove them nor will i be motivated to remove the barriers if they provide an advantage to which i feel entitled. thank you we might thank you. before you leave. excuse me, the person you are working for, how many applications do they have? >> i'm not sure. >> okay. thank you.

>> good morning, everyone. i am from posh green collective. i am an equity verified applicant and i want to say thank you for redoing this and bringing them back to the table. bringing the cap will not help. i was really affected by the war on drugs. my grandparents died when my mom was 16, and a lot more of my uncles and aunts. i don't have support. we cannot raise money. we do not have rich friends. we do not have venture capitalists. we don't have those having a cap will not help us just for the simple fact that we cannot fix this. there are kids out there who are affected by the war on drugs. i want to create programs. i cannot create the programs that i want to do to give back so we can be more powerful and get our confidence back and so we can see our black and brown people do more and do better and be able to carry on something that they never thought they could because they have a disadvantage. with that being said, putting a

cap will not help because there is no programs out there. >> thank you. thank you. before you leave, how many applications do you have. >> one. i still need to go to the board for my hearing and i don't have money to keep paying rent. >> thank you. >> good morning, supervisors. i am a verified equity applicants. i have more than one application for retail. i have four and any retrograde changes to preventing equity applicants from applying for multiple licenses in a priority category would make me a victim of the drug war policy all over again. i have taken on an extremely large financial burdens because the only space or any applicants to achieve competitive scale are m.c.d. businesses in the retail space and that is in a retail capping us at one priority permit. equity applicants will never have equity with the current m.c.d. operators and will not be able to incentivize investors like the current operators. further, i ask that any changes

to the program be made prospectively and not retroactively. any prospective capital licenses will dramatically hurt our chances to source investment. i ask that if there is a up that we be -- cap we be made equal which would be five licenses. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, supervisors. my name is john. i work with malcolm and nina parkes at mirage medicinal. we have expended blood, sweat, tears and a lot of money over the past year building this opportunity for mirage. through our hard work, we secure some investment and personal loans allowing us to acquire leases for our planned retail stores and distribution business the proposed retroactive cap on equity applicants, the cap on retail store permits, and the limitation on partners would nullify all of our hard work and

sacrifice over the past two years. will also expose malcolm and myself to personal liability, to landlords and creditors. as stated in the report, a program well and policies that continue to burden our communities that have been disproportionately impacted by the war on drugs. and ensure investment in communities that are disenfranchised. these proposed amendments were contrary to the spirit of the equity program. these amendments lets us and but only with -- it is not true equity. >> before you leave, did you say how many applications you had in class. >> four. i work for mirage. >> okay thanks. >> supervisors, thank you for your time today. i work at the mission control for hometown heart where i oversee driver shifts in realtime, live tracking of drivers making deliveries and customer concerns. i have been with hometown heart for over two years. i worked several careers over the years including working as a

delivery driver for insta car, but working for hometown heart has allowed me to professionally grow in the legal cannabis industry which i had never considered, but now is such a great opportunity. i am able to speak to -- and move from driver to mission control to deliver the best service to customers and patients. i have seen how demanding -- demand and delivery has created more satisfied customers which has made our business grow over time. i strongly urge you to support dynamic delivery so dispensaries like mine can grow and hire more people like myself who want to grow in the industry. thank you for your time. >> thank you. next speaker. >> supervisors, thank you for your time today. my name is. james and i am the general manager for hometown heart san francisco. i started out as one of our drivers. i am a nine year veteran of the u.s. air force. i used the g.i. bill to get my

masters degree of photography in the academy of arts. good quality jobs with growth are hard to come by. i tried many different types of jobs from uber and being an e.m.t. none of these career paths clicked with me, however when i started as a driver for hometown heart, i loved it. i loved getting medicine to those who needed it most and could not get to a dispensary. over the next three years, i worked my way up in the company. my job as a driver was a stepping stone into this new industry and has allowed me and others to work our way up in the company. delivery is better model because it is more efficient and better for the customer and has always -- it has allowed us to grow and hire more people at our company. i hope you will support this. >> i have comments i would like to submit.

>> i will come in a moment. please leave your comment. >> excuse me. before you speak, the individual that just spoke, can you come back up for one second? i want to ask you how many applications you have pending. is it more than one? >> honestly, i'm not sure. >> okay. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> afternoon, supervisors. my name is ed donaldson. i'm a verified equity applicants applicant in san francisco. a lifelong resident of bayview hunter's points. i am the director of community development for the depot which is a delivery service in san francisco. i have four amendments that i would like to offer comment on. the first of which is a dynamic delivery model. in particular, i am in support of dynamic delivery because it mitigates traffic congestion in a north-south fashion or south to north fashion across the city

it ensures efficient access to cannabis for seniors. unfortunately, since the state no longer allows for cooperatives, and we have the centralization of business, the notch -- the natural next step is dynamic delivery. the other two issues pertaining to limitations on permits, i say with the centralization issue on the state level, prop 64, no cooperatives anymore, no private businesses -- >> thank you, thank you. if you could answer the question that i've asked everyone. how many applications do you have pending? >> i have plans for several applications. the document that i provided provides a detailed plan around what we want to do with those

licenses. >> have you submitted any class. >> we have submitted when. >> okay. thank you. >> please take your time to read the information. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> good morning, supervisors. it seems from this conversation and last conversation that the city cares more about keeping out undesirable equity applicants that have been benefiting true equity applicants. i like the 80% cap to stay as it is. this is about the war on drugs 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, simila