Run as an operator, so as currently written, allowed equity applicants, folks that were shutdown in 1996 those are the only two classifications that are allowed to go move forward for a permit in 2018, so we wanted to widen that pool, and also creating the opportunity for nonequity operators to be equity incubbators, which means they would help to procure a local, Diverse Workforce and have the privilege of applying for a permit in 2018, so the equity incubbators must have at least 50 local hire, 50 of their employees must satisfy the residency requirement, the limited assets, and two or more from the list that i just read, so it could be someone who went to Public School and whose parent was arrested or convicted; and they must provide a Community Investment plans, demonstrating engagement with businesses and residents within 500 feet of the proposed cannabis businesses, and the objective of that is we wanted to not be super predescriptive, but that the cannabis business does respond to the needs of the community or Community Concerns in that place, and then one or more of the following which is committing to Technical Assistance and businessmen toring business mentoring by an equity operator. So this gets to another part of this legislation, which is about colocation of businesses, so are we going to allow colocations. So that was an amendment that the supervisor introduced today, a colocation amendment, which allows for multiple business multiple Retail Businesses to be on the same premise, as long as they have at least 300 or no more than 350 square feet. Multiple Retail Businesses . cause the important thing, actually, here is colocation for well, neighbor for Retail Businesses, but equally important, if not more important, is colocation of manufacturing businesses, because like a shared kitchen, they need to share they need to share the the Capital Assets required to formulate, cook, run a business, and those facilities will have, you know, very strict compliance requirements, just like a gluten free kitchen. Its going to be addressed in the emergency regulations, which is why we cant touch it in this iteration of amendments. So thats still a state limitation. Okay. Got it. Correct. But the retail aspect, the state allows colocation of retail . They are silent on it, and so we are addressing it. So were getting out ahead of it. Mmhmm. So this would then, that would be so if an Edibles Company wanted to colocate with a topicals company, they could colocate in the same space. Mmhmm. Okay. And i think the idea is for smaller retailers, they could go into a space we should be enabling people to share space, and having them colocated makes it easier for the customers, as well. Theyre not going over here for that, and over here for that. And did you want to add that the i thought was very important what supervisor cohen provided with the colocation of the retail space is that each of those individuals are not necessarily subject to the conditional use or the criteria of number of Cannabis Retailers in a particular area. So the master location right, right. Is the conditional use, but each of those retailers going in. President dwight okay. As long as that retailer does not violate the conditional use. For example, if the conditional use does not allow for smoking, i dont believe that a smoking use should be allowed to come into that space in violation of i mean, thats conditional use by the surrounding residents and businesses need to contemplate the uses, because the topicals and edibles dont have the same externalities. Thats my biggest concern with all that stuff are the externalities of both cultivation and use in the form of smoking has an impact on residents and Business Owners or, i should say employees of businesses adjacent to that facility, and we know of businesses where there are complaints from adjacent businesses that, for example, being located next to a grow house causes the employees of the adjacent business to experience nausea, headaches because they arent theyre being subjected to the odor, just as if you were allergic to coffee and were colocated next to a coffee facility that so i think that in this particular case, this is going to be a big issue with the public. Its several issues its odor, its security, and then and then, there are no just the amount of traffic that comes in and out of a facility like this versus some other use which might be less intense. Any way, but i think its i do agree that conforming uses should not have to reapply to under the conditional use, as long as theyre complying. Precisely. Any other questions on the incubbator . So just to clarify, so these equity requirements, they are for businesses that are applying for equity status. Theyre not for all businesses, so if youre a nonequity, these requirements do not apply to you. Theyre strictly for accessing the equity permit. Right. Okay. Got it. And then, if i might add, its in the document, but it it outlines there is a priority so for 2018, theres an outline of the types of permits that the director of cannabis will issue. Priority one is the equity applicant, the prior two is the equity incubbator, and then, priority three is the equity applicants, including the existing nonconforming nonconformi nonconforming applicators, so theres a priority who gets processed. You have a question . Ye commissioner ortizcartagena i have a lot of constituency watching. If you get arrested, just, like, if you get a client, theyre here in San Francisco. They got arrested by the fbi on a drug related crime, they are able to apply for the equity application . Correct. Commissioner ortizcartagena okay. Thats it. Just you are right, commissioner or teez cartagena. They can change it bathe television back to monday night football. Commissioner zouzounis i have a question. If you can tell me about the corporate applicant and the incubbator. If youre one of the equity owners, or you want to apply for an equity operators, you would have to be a 40 owner and the ceo, or you would have to be a majority shareholder, or 51 as a corporate applicant and not the ceo to qualify. Commissioner zouzounis so this, like, similar to kind of, like, the sponsor idea, where its just, like, if some if you want to provide space, like, a 1,000 square foot space to the applicant the corporate applicant, that title works in conjunction with all of the other prewe can whican prerequisites that we work out. Its also based on the residency and limited access requirements. Commissioner zouzounis okay. So thats what i didnt understand. I remember in the earlier drafts, it was i guess that that role kind of switched to the incubbator role, where you didnt have to be sponsored as an equity applicant. So my question with regard to the incubbator, would you be applying with already someone in mind that youre going to be working with as an equity applicant and you would be already working together when you apply with the office of cannabis . So that isnt spelled in here, and that would go into the directions that the director writes, what the process would be, if you have to come hand in hand with an equity operator, or what the method of matching you with the person that the business that youre incubbating would be. Commissioner zouzounis well, because yeah. I feel like people would want to know who theyre going into business with. Thats something you could choose im volunteering my business here, and i want to partner up with whoever, but my understanding, the legislation process, you would have the option during this first phase of having somebody who would sponsor an equity applicant. Offer them physical space on their premises . Commissioner zouzounis yes. That is yes, thats an option. Commissioner zouzounis so which one does that fall under . Thats the equity incubbator. Commissioner zouzounis corporate applicant is if theyre multiple okay. I got you. Okay. Thanks for that clarification. And then, another clarification, i know that supervisor fewer is, you know, sponsoring that amendment for nonconforming cannabis operators . Is that defined what a nonconforming cannabis operator is, or a preexisting its not in the equity section. I did not prepare today to review that. Ill review that. Brittni is just going to cover the amendments that supervisor cohen did. So since she was here fore the first item, i asked her to stay because the equity was the one key element that was when you heard the the ordinance, that was just referred to but did not have any definition to it. Is that supposed to vote tomorrow or has it already been . Yeah, tomorrow will be its First Reading. Oh, First Reading . Awesome. Progress. And so you know, you can if you want, on this particular element, decide to take any sort of specific action since this is one specific item or, you know, its an informational hearing, but we can decide that, just so in case you want to be on record for anything in regionship to lati. Commissioner zouzounis another question i had, because i know its going to be difficult bringing people out of the wood work in response to the criteria and workforce piece, are we going to outline anything for the folks that have been in the cannabis industry before. Youre not a fan of the smoke shop, but i know that a lot of people that were in that industry the informal market . Yeah, because i know a lot of folks that had juvenile records werent able to work in that sector, and i was thinking that we would have some kind of terminology regarding, like, workforce, and where they would have been in the informal market that certainly would go into the directions piece that the director would create for, like, implementation language, so this is this is the proposed legislation, and then, if adopted, the director has the responsibility of creating the regulations which is essentially how to make this work, how to make this function, how it would happen in practice. Commissioner zouzounis you mean, the criteria would be turned into regulation . Exactly. Exactly. Commissioner toursarkissian i have a can i . President dwight mmhmm. Commissioner toursarkissian i would like to come back to what my fellow commissioner, ortizcartagena, talked about, the convicted person who has a potential applicant who he or she has an conviction, and that is relating to 5b, where you say one of the two criteria should apply, and b provides was arrested or kwirkted durikwirk convicted during the period of 1971 to 2009, provided it meets that section, so i kind of took the liberty of reading section 4904, and i dont think that the answer that you gave is so clear about every convicted person could apply fall under this so i said any arrest or convicted as outlined in the fair chance ordinance. Commissioner toursarkissian the question is not that i am trying to kind of find a fault you in any way, i just want a clarification because theres so many people listening. And watching. Commissioner toursarkissian and watching because i want to make sure that clear answer, that any convicted person would fall under this program. The answer is no. The answer is no. The answer is okay. Commissioner toursarkissian okay, or maybe im wrong, because there is a sevenyear requirement, and frankly, reading the section 4904a, and reading this document, b, to satisfy those who are listening, its not that clear. I still want to understand, if i am what does it mean, was arrested and convicted . What im saying, the answers not that clear and should be looked at, and im not supposed to make recommendations as a so which part is unclear to you . Commissioner toursarkissian 5b, so lets look at your equity applicants, and it says meets two or more of the following additional criteria. Yes, and it references the police code. Commissioner toursarkissian and then, to the question, any convicted applicant could aspire to be under the equity applicant, and the answer is no. Its not yes. That any conviction commissioner toursarkissian yes. So this well, the intention is not to be no, the intention is commissioner toursarkissian well, thats what its saying and thats not what our City Attorney feels, so i cant commissioner toursarkissian well, my reading of five minutes, i may be completely wrong. Okay. I generally defer to the City Attorney. Commissioner toursarkissian okay. The City Attorney should give us the assurance. Shes given us the assurance. Commissioner toursarkissian the one of our fellow commissioners that thats the case. Well, it was changed in response to the supervisors meeting with your fellow commissioner, and written to intentionally address his stated concerns about the limitations of the first iteration of legislation, and so this, according to our City Attorney, does cover jurisdiction any jurisdiction and any arrest or conviction thats acknowledged in the this section of the police code, which is the fair chance ordinance. Commissioner toursarkissian so it basically says that if it is ae a conviction more than seven years let me just read to you, and maybe we should ask the City Attorney about this. Correct. Well, i just want to make sure that youre not conflating the time period with the conviction history, so the conviction history being the crime for which someone was convicted, and youre saying seven years, so thats in reference to the look back period in the fair chance ordinance. Commissioner toursarkissian thats okay. Lets tie the two together. So if you have a its here, it says, was arrested and convicted or convicted during the period 1971 to 2009, provided the conviction meets these criteria. The krugs in my miconfusion in you were arrested, and you were arrested in the last seven years lets say im arrested during that period of time of 200 1971 and 2009, and i am arrested during the last oh, i hear what youre saying. So that is correct. Up to this timeline, that goes up to 2009. Is that what youre asking . As far as timeline, youre correct, so as written, this is only considering people within this distinct period of time and that is for reasons that i described about specific things that were happening in San Francisco between that time period related to the drug war. Commissioner toursarkissian if i am arrested the last seven years during the last seven years, addition to the fact that i was arrested during the times that you setup for historical reasons, which were well founded, would i be affected or not . If you were arrested in the time period, yes. If not, you would have to find two other criteria in this section to qualify. Th commissioner toursarkissian then i would not qualify. No, thats not correct. This is a subsection that you have to meet fwo or more of the following. As you asked me and correct me if i am misunderstanding your question, if i was arrested between 71 and 2009, and i was arrested after 2009, would i qualify. Waf that your question . Commissioner toursarkissian the question is regardless of what i need to meet to qualify. Without taking too much time, 5b says you have to be arrested between 1971 and 200 9, is tha correct . That is what it says. Commissioner toursarkissian and then, you have to meet two criteria, so to add another set of facts that the applicant was arrested between 2010 and 2017, with that criteria, that b you would not meet that criteria. Commissioner toursarkissian exactly, so that is the answer if you were arrested after 2009. Commissioner toursarkissian so not any convicted person would qualify. There is an exception. If you are you have to be commissioner ortizcartagena see, i understand you. Me and you, i dont know this is crazy. Thats not a good thing sometimes, but i understand what youre saying. Commissioner toursarkissian you got it. Commissioner ortizcartagena i totally got you. Commissioner toursarkissian so we have to exclude every applicant that has been arrested the last seven years, okay . You dont qualify for this one of five. Commissioner ortizcartagena criteria. Commissioner toursarkissian but thats in response to commissioner ortizcartagena exactly, and maybe it needs to be more specified. Im sorry, and i apologize. I was responding to the question about jurisdiction, so i apologize if i did not answer your original question. Commissioner ortizcartagena no, no, you did. Im sorry. Its my fault. Up to 2009, jurisdictions dont matter, that on a technical, and i already understood you. Commissioner toursarkissian okay. You got it. Commissioner ortizcartagena i got you. And if you went to a Public School in a neighboring city, like, oakland or something, and then moved here after that period of time, it wouldnt count, either. Commissioner ortizcartagena five years. Unless you have five total years of school in San Francisco, no. I got that one. That one was clear. President dwight okay. So shall we where are we, now. So any other questions about the operator or incubbator . I have a couple of other amendments. President dwight okay. So additionally, the supervisor changed the employment eligiblity aids to allow for 18 year olds or older to work in spaces that have mlicenses only perstate regulations, and so places businesses with a and m licenses or a only licenses, you must be 21 plus. And that was one of the recommendations the commission made. Commissioner ortizcartagena correct. We also supervisor cohen also introduced a Public HealthEducation Campaign directing the department of Public Health to do outreach and education on cannabis safe consumption, health risks, etcetera, because that was not addressed in the original legislation, and lastly, supervisor cohen introduced a fund for equity operators to support infrastructure, improvements, things like odor mitigation to commissioners earlier comments, and Technical Assistance. Now, this creates the fund. This does not fund the fund. That has to be done in separate legislation. Commissioner zouzounis quick questions on that. So i know that loans were alluded to as part of that, as within equity incubbator, so would that mean if you are an en wick tea an equity incubbator, and youre going into business with an equity applicant the source of that isnt established there . Correct. President dwight okay. Are we there . Are we there yet . President dwight Public Comment . Im there. I have a few additional items to review, but if ther