affect the vitality of small businesses in san francisco. if you have questions, you can start at the small business commission. >> clerk: this is the small business commission, regular meeting on november 13, 2017. members of the public, please take this opportunity to silence your phones and other electronic devices. public comment during the meeting is limited to three minutes perspeaker unless otherwise allowed by the director of the meeting. completion of a speaker card, while optional will help ensure procedure spelling of speakers' names in the written record of the meeting. please place speaker cards in the basket to the left of the lectern. names will be called in the order they are on the cards in the basket. item one, call to order and roll call. >> clerk: [ roll call. ] mr. president, you have a quorum. >> all right. next item. >> public comment. allows members of the public to comment on matters that are in the small business commission's jurisdiction, but not on the agenda and address future items for consideration. discussion item. >> do we have any members of the public wishing to comment on any items that are not on the agenda? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> clerk: the presenter is me, rich kurylo legacy program business manager. >> all right. that, which we look forward to. >> good evening, president dwight, commissioners. rich kurylo, legacy program business manager. i have a slide presentation for you today. before you today are two considerations for your consideration for businesses to be included on the legacy business registry. the applications were reviewed by me for completion and submitted to the planning department staff on september 22nd for their review. for each applicant, your commission packet contains a staff report, a draft resolution, the application, a case report from planning department staff, and a resolution from the historic preservation commission. there are copies on the table for the public. >> item 3 a is ellory owe, y r your -- is elrio -- benefits, fu fundraisers, and community bar. it's become an anchor to the mission district, lgbt community of color and under served communities. item 3 b is hwa rang kw hwa rang kwan martial arts center. they offer their space to outside martial arts groups that cannot afford to rent premises of their own, each renting space on a month to month basis. it is an educational institution that caters er everyone regardless of ability to pay. both businesses received a positive recommendation from the historic preservation commission. after reviewing these applications and the recommendations from the historic preservation commission, staff finds the businesses have met the three criteria to qualify for listing on the legacy business registry. there are two draft resolutions for consideration by the small business commission: one for each of the legacy business registry applicants. note that a motion in support of the businesses should be a motion in favor of the resolutions resolutions. in the resolutions, please pay close attention to the core physical traditions that define a business. once approved by the small business commission, businesses must maintain these features of commission in order to maintain on the business registry. for el rio it's 4, and for hwa mang kwa, it's small business training. >> richard, i have a question about the martial arts center. is this a nonprofit or for profit? >> for profit. >> for profit? mm-hmm. >> it was ran by the church and eventually became for profit? >> that's my understanding. >> commissioners, any further questions before we open it up for comment? all right. let's hear it, folks. come and sing your praises. this is your chance. open mic. all right. richard will call the names in order of speaker cards. >> we have carol hill and jasmine johnson, and then, pablo espinoza. >> commissioners, supervisors -- >> no, commissioners. >> commissioners, i am carol hill, and i have to say that until i -- so i moved here from the east coast like 20 something years ago, and -- and there was, really, nothing that -- that i felt like was here for me until i came to el rio. el rio had, like, a women's night, and i don't know if you guys remember this, but it was a lesbian night, and they were doing something that was being done constantly that i wasn't seeing in the community, especially around women getting together socially. so i am specifically involved with mango, and it has been going on for 21 years, and it would -- it happened -- and speaking of equity, it happened because lesbians of color couldn't figure out -- or couldn't find a place where we would hear the music, hip-hop or latin grooves, and el rio offered up that space. almost 21 years, there have been lesbians in el rio the first saturday of every month. at mango, there have been break ups, there have been marriages, there have been children; anything that you can -- you can think of that could happen in the life span of 21 years has happened, and we have all done it through mango and el rio, so as far as it being a legacy, it's a club that has lasted through almost all of the other lesbian clubs here. we were trying to do some research on it, but i think it's the longest running lesbian event in the world, but that's just me. i'm saying it and putting it in the record, but i'm saying at least in the area for san francisco, and i think it is part and parcel because el rio had that lens, let us start it 21 years ago, and just keep going on for 21 years, so my god -- am i over time? >> no, you have 20 more seconds. >> oh, 20 more seconds? so yes, it should be a legacy business for san francisco because it is important, so important to keep that going. it start -- it's done a bunch of ground breaking work and has done it for 20 something years, and it could definitely keep going and get all the benefits for that fantastic work. >> what a nice testimonial. thank you. all right. who's next? >> well, my name is jasmine johnson. i work enough to experience el rio on both sides of the bar. i remember before i starts working at el rio, i didn't feel like i had much of a community, i didn't have much of a support system. i walked in, and instantly i felt loved, supported, every positive feeling you could imagine, i got from el rio. it's so much more than a bar. the people that work there are so much more than our employees, and the people that hangout there are so much more than customers. the past few years i've gone through so many things: highs, lows, and everything in between. i've cried, i've laughed, i've loved after el rio. we went there for comfort after florida, we went to drink there a lot during the election. i'm confident i'm not the only one who feels this way about the bar, and i'm confident it will continue to be there for me, and it will continue to be there for everyone else who comes through its door. thank you. >> thank you very much. that was really great. next, please. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is pablo espinoza, and i come here today to ask that the commission approve el rio's application and designate it a legacy business. i've been a part of their community for 20 years. i came to san francisco for life and social spaces that spoke to my experience in a multicultural event and environment. and i found a big part of that at el rio. for many lgbtq and kaliedo scope of people like me. you see yourself reflected back in the people, the parties and principles held by el rio. it's more than just a neighborhood bar. you'll hear that from just about everyone in the bay area that's been there. it's an institution. it's also a hopeful place, a representation of so much that we love about san francisco. it is a place run by and for people who want to be surrounded by a genuine mix of folks, people of color, artists, political activists, folks committed to ending racism, sexism, homophobia. it's a people who want to be in communities with white folks, lesbians of color, day men and folks who just turned 21. braf paragraph we live a lot of our lives in groups socially, outside of our homes, outside of our solitary comforts, and a safe inclusive space is part of that. el rio is one of those public spaces that gives back so much more. please honor el rio and the city of san francisco today by naming el rio as a legacy business. thank you. >> thank you very much. all right. do we have any other speakers? clerk clerk o >> clerk: no other speaker cards. >> okay. that was awesome. i want to thank both of these legacy business candidates for going through the arduous process of filling out the application. it is a lot of work, but i think it's very rewarding because too often we don't reflect on our legacy until it's too late. either there's a fire and all the records get burned or someone passes or whatever, and we lose the did shall-we lose the tribal knowledge, so i think this has been cathartic for all the businesses that have been through the legacy and brought them this far, and we heard some great statements on behalf of el rio, so thank you very much for coming out. appreciate it. commissioners, any comments? >> i -- i already thought el rio was a legacy fwbusiness, b i have to give my shout out to el rio because i saw a couple of familiar faces there. i spent many sundays salsa dancing, and when you talk about inclusiveness, it really is. it's the rainbow, and it's awesome, and i've been to enough hard frenchs, and you guys know what i'm talking about, you know, those are fun, and when you go to hard french, the crowds with the diversity, and -- and it really does speak of san francisco, so yeah, i'm a frequent visitor to el rio. whenever i bring people in from out of town or they're from out of town, and they want to experience san francisco, we always bring them to sunday at el rio, and then, we can't get them to leave. so just the bartenders and everybody who puts on the events there, mango, good for you. you know, i know a lot of women who do go to attend, and they love it, so thank you for doing what you do for our community. >> thank you. procedurally, i left out a step because i was still reflecting on your great comments. are there any other members of the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. got to do that for the record. any other item? action item. >> i motion that we approve el rio and hwa kang man for legacy businesses. >> we have a motion. [ roll call. ] >> that motion passes 5 to 0. >> yea! >> thank you for coming to city hall. much appreciated. don't feel obligated to stick around for our proceedings. sometimes they're interesting, sometimes they're not. >> clerk: item 4, board of supervisors file number 171-170, police administrative codes, considering criminal history and employment and housing decisions. ordinance amending the police code to prohibit employers and housing providers from inquiring about requiring of disclosure of on convictions of criminalized behavior including the noncommercial use and cultivation of cannabis, reducing from 20 to five the number of employees required for an employer to be covered by the fair chance ordinance, article 49; authorize the city to impose penalties for the first violation of that ordinance, increase the penalties for subsequent violations, and authorize the payment of penalties to the victims of those violations. create a private right of action for the victims, and amend the administrative code to, among other things, as defined herein, require city contractors and subcontractors to adhere to the above requirements when making decisions regarding employment of persons for work on city contracts and sub carrs. the presenter is britt brittni chacuata. >> good evening. my name is britt brittni chacuata, and earlier this year, the citypassed ab-2008, and in some ways, it surpassed our legislation, so this is really an amendment to the local ban the box to update and come into compliance with the state law, nsu, key wave, and then, tighten up some language where there wasn't clairity in others, so as mentioned right now, now, we will be covering things that are -- that have been decriminalized, such as possession of -- misdemeanor possession of cannabis, so even if you were arrested and/or convicted for that in the last seven years, which is a part of the look back period written into our legislation, an employer -- a prospective landlord can't ask anything beyond seven years, but even if those seven years, you've been convicted of something that's now decriminalized, that's something that's covered in the fair chance ordinance. we are reducing the number of employees an employer must employ from 20 to five. we're unbundling the convictions, so for example if llc did their investigation and found that 20 other people filled out that application, that would be one violation, but to unbundle it, it would be 21 violations. and the payout would go to a victim upon determination that their rights were, in fact violation, increasing from a warning on the first one, 50 on the second, and up to 100 on the third, and up to 500 on the first violation, 1,000 on the second, and 2,000 on the third. and lastly, the measure authorizes the right of action, so it's not only that the city attorney can sue, now, it also authorizes the victim to sue. and with that, i'll entertain any questions from the commission. >> great. commissioners, any questions? >> i do. where -- these amendments, are they provided in the state law, and to what extent we go beyond the state law? >> so the right to sue is in the state law. the penalties are different from the state law. we use los angeles as a benchmark for the development of the penalties, and they passed a similar ordinance in january of this year which went into effect in july and used their minimum wage penalties as a guideline for how to -- for what to fee out to the victims, so that's the same thing that we're doing. >> do you know what the state provides? there may be other ordinances in cities, but what does the state provide, and to what extent we go beyond the threshold set by the state? >> i don't have the number of what the state provides for violation. >> okay. are we above what the state provides? can you -- can you give me that information, please. >> i can't say because i don't remember the exact numbers off of top of my head. i apologize. >> no, no, i just want to know -- you said at the outset that we're kind of aligning with what the state of california provides, but -- and now, you told us it was different, so it would be nice to find out -- >> what that difference was. >> -- what that difference is, and to what extent we are exceeding what the state provides. to your knowledge, does the state lower the -- the requirement as to its application to five employees? >> they do. >> okay. so for that, we are in line with the state. >> correct. >> but in the penalties, we may be above, correct; and the right to sue, is that the same? >> correct, and i can't say the penalties because i don't have the numbers in front of me, so i can't say up or down. >> so we will wait for at least me for that clarification, but thank you for your answers. >> thank you for your questions. >> let's just use the question you posed. so there's a question that's on this application that's in violation of asking about your history. is that in and of itself a violation or do you have to show that that -- the answer to that question caused you not to get the job versus another candidate? >> i -- frankly, first of all, the question is if i look at the -- if i may, ju just look the law itself -- i'm on the right page. >> yeah, it's a good question. >> there are probably a ton of outdated application forms floating around in the world. >> and i'm talktiing about the- its date of -- of -- applicable date or the date it goes into effect and to what extent the business community in our county is going to be aware of this to tell you that employer people -- like myself, a lot of people wor businesses who have employees, and they may not be aware, we haven't talked about the outreach, but to respond to your question, is it just putting it in the application that you're injured or when your job is -- when you're denied employment, you have to prove that -- >> my understanding is it's the latter: you would have to prove that the denial of employment was due to the background of the conviction history. >> where is that? >> that's the osc. >> osc is the adjudicating body. >> but we should see -- we're talking about penalties when it talks about the violation. it says the violation is not relating to a job granting or lack will have, it's just putting it. >> right. >> in the application. >> 'cause my follow up question would be if that's the case, then only one person -- if you have one opening, and say you've interviewed ten people, and you ask that question of all ten, and you hired someone, and then, someone said hey, i think i'm better qualified because of that people. i think i was disqualified because of this question, and then all the other nine people lined up and said oh, me too, that's kind of the law, right? if you parse it down, only one applicant, ultimately could be the one that was discriminated because i think you're just saying okay, let's look at the list of candidates. we didn't pick the most qualified person. that person was harmed. those other ones weren't harmed. >> that wasn't the question. in my opinion, it's a strict liability. my question is if you put anything in your application violation, then, you have -- to take your example, if you have 20, that's $10,000. >> potentially, yeah. >> potentially $10,000, and the person who got hired has a right to claim the 500. has that person -- so is that true, in your understanding of the law? >> my understanding is that the violation has to be proven, so if it is a violation to ask the question on the application, then yes. >> okay. then -- then -- >> but if it's -- if the violation is proving that you were adversely impacted by the question, then no. >> that's an additional violation. the question -- or discrimination, but the question we're asking ourselves, does the penalty apply -- does the penalty apply if you make that requirement of disclosure or should you prove injury because that 500 is a set amount. you have additional grounds to sue, i assume, and that is a very important point for us to understand. >> for example, what if you did -- what --- in this proces, what if you ended up hiring somebody that had previously been convicted? do you have experience with this? >> yeah, i do. that's why i was waiting to talk. >> so when you get new -- state of california has job applications that you're supposed to use, and on the new job applications, it's not on there. there's no box to check. >> it's an updated form. >> yeah, if you work in a financial institution, though, you do have that right to ask because you follow fdic and federal regulations, but for the -- but -- like, 'cause we got -- i'm hiring now, and on the new application, there's no box to check. >> right. >> so what -- this law is pretty much targeted is small businesses who aren't like a big business, who don't change out their forms and use the same form. >> right. >> you know, that's who they target, so -- but the new forms that you get from the -- that you ordered through the state or the hr thing that gives you, you know, all the stuff for your wall that keeps growing, they -- there's no -- there's no box on there anymore. it went away. >> okay. commissioner riley? >>commissioner riley: yes. my simple question, so if you use an outdated form, the question's still there to inquire about the criminal records. is that a violation? >> yes. it's the responsibility of the prospective employer to either delete that question from the application or use a different form application. >>commissioner riley: so now, we're down to five employees, and it's a mom and pop, and they want to hire two people. >> yes. according to state law, we're moving down to five. >>commissioner riley: so how do we make sure they're aware and informed of this change? >> so as you know, in response to feedback that we received from people, we pushed the onset date out to lineup with when pay parity and minimum wage are also being raised in the city, so giving an additional six months for all that outreach in the city, to notify all employees, and make sure that they're properly notified about this change. >> that makes sense. >>commissioner riley: now, i know that finance institutions like banks, they have to bond the employees -- >> yeah, there's a separate form that banks now use, separate from the regular california state application. >>commissioner riley: but would you still inquire about the criminal rights -- >> yes. you have to because it goes to the feds. >> is that exception probably in the code? >>commissioner riley: so you said it's a violation, what the banks are doing? >> no, because we adhere to federal laws. >>commissioner riley: you can still ask. >> not on the main application, we can't ask. we can ask on a separate form. >>commissioner riley: mm-hmm. i know we used to do it on the same form. >> yeah. we have to use the state of california application, because i'm going through this now for next year, so we have the new application, and then, we have a separate form on top of that that the prospective employer has to sign for the brown check. >>commissioner riley: after you hire? >> right. >>commissioner riley: it won't be -- >> yeah. >>president dwight: mi miss endrizi. >> the city does not have the box on its application, but before we offer a job, we do a background check, so my understanding is that the employer still can do a background check to ensure -- 'cause there are some jobs where you're not going to want to have -- like, if you're in child care, you're not going to want to hire somebody who has a record or inappropriate, so there's that ability to still be able to do background checks, but it's just you're not filtering out individuals up front. >> okay. >> correct, and so this is just after the conditional offer can you do the background check and ensure that nothing in that person's history would preclude them from the job that they're applying for. >>commissioner riley: what about if you do the background check and find out this person has a criminal conviction relating to cannabis. would you still hire that person or can you not? >> if it's cannabis, that's not -- it would be something we would still hire. >> if it's still legal under prop 64, something that's been decriminalized, then you cannot consider. >> commissioner. >>commissioner zouzounis: similar to the page gap ordinance, and they disclosed their information voluntarily, that wouldn't be used against the employer or some regards like that, is there any safe, you know -- any language that refers to that instance where someone is just talking, interview, and says oh, by the way? >> i don't believe that there's explicit language that says, you know, if a person volunteers this information, that it would protect the business owner, but i can double-check that and if not, i can look at the pay parity language that you're referring to and i don't think that that would be a problem, adding that in, if an applicant or prospective tenant released that information. >>commissioner zouzounis: okay. in that instance. and then -- and then -- so the -- what -- if you could provide a little context to what state's rationale and now the city's provide right to the extent to sue. >> this is just an additional measure for the victim if they're identified as such, and it's really boilerplate language in antidiscrimination law to allow someone who has been discriminated against to sue. >>commissioner zouzounis: okay. and just a similar question i brought up also with the gender gap legislation, and it's unfortunate that there's always, like, third parties that exploit this kind of important protection, so, is there any language or any -- any safety for, you know -- to preclude a situation where a lawyer -- a predatory type of lawyer would try to come in anden trap people tha and entrap people where they would have a legitimate place to sue, and i think the way the gender gap addressed that, they took out the third party. it has to be the applicant directly. >> ours says applicant directly. it doesn't say a third party. >>commissioner zouzounis: okay. coal. >> any other questions? sk >> just the private right to sue, does it exist under the state law? >> it does. >> so what we don't know today is whether the penalties are higher at the county level, and what i would like to know -- of course, as advocates of small business, not my opinion about the law, having higher penalties in this county compared to other surrounding counties or the state is a concern to us every time legislation comes before us. i -- i would like to know whether the penalties are higher in -- in our county, and if so, why? why would we pe l penalize our businesses, especially our businesses with five employees? that is the question i'm presenting to you, and i'm hoping you would present it next time, if there is a next time. >> well, just to be clear, we models that section of the amendment after los angeles which is using the same penalty structure, and again, we have the protection of it having to be found as a violation, and it's up to $500. it's not an outright payout, but there has to not a full investigatibe a t a person was discriminated against because of their conviction history. >> commissioner ortiz-cartagena. >>commissioner ortiz-cartagena: i just want to actually just thank you, your office, you and supervisor cohen. i appreciate it. you really understood. you understand the constituency behind this, and me being formerly incarcerated, you guys truly understand what this is about, and this is pretty awesome. seriously, for what they've done. they've really listened to the constituency, so i just want to say thank you. >> thank you. >>commissioner ortiz-cartagena: thank you. >> thank you, and i will take that warm response back to the supervisor, but at the end of the day, we want to introduce something that all parties are aware of the changes, and what the goal is is to widen the workforce, give people an opportunity to have retirement benefits, health benefits, and access to the things that keep our streets safe, that keep our city's employment numbers up and that, you know, push back against recidivism, people folks from putting themselves in situations that might put them back in jails. >> good goals. all right. if there's no other comments, we'll open it up for public comment. >> oh, i can wait till after public comment. >>president dwight: do we have any members of the public who would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. any other comments? >> so commissioners, while this may not be a recommended amendment to the legislation, but in terms of the commission staff writing a response that gets forwarded to the board of supervisors, you're certainly welcome to add an additional statement that says, you know, we want to ensure that our small businesses, those between, you know, five and 20, are adequately outreached. we're applying more and more sort of legislation onto osc, and so just to ensure that there's adequate funding to ensure adequate outreach and budget time, so you can kind of make that recommendation to the board of supervisors to consider that. >>president dwight: yeah, and i think also that asking -- that the penalty about no more than that which is mandated by the state so that we're not being extra punitive when it comes to that. >>commissioner tour-sarkissian: considering the examples that our president gave, if a small business introduces 10 potential employees and potentially be facing $5,000, some small businesses can go belly-up. i mean, it can add up, so i think these issues -- i think we need to kind of think it through because as a small business commission, we are also in charge of preserving the employment sources. not only employing people, you need businesses around to employ people, so obviously, that aspect should be brought up, brought home as to the penalties, and they should not be higher than what our state provides, in my opinion. >> right. >> -- >>president dwight: right. >>commissioner tour-sarkissian: so i would like that to be brought up. >>president dwight: in general, i favor harmonnizing with state law so we're not at odds with it, so the objective is to harmonize with state law. >> and just to be clear on the fees, it's not a hard 500, it's up to. >>president dwight: so it's just a determination of all -- >> correct. >>commissioner ortiz-cartagena: it's the spirit, but it's not black and white, like, you're not going to get fined. >>president dwight: maybe our office could contact our director and just put us at ease that the fines are the same, and if not, let us know. >> i'd be happy to do that. >>president dwight: cool. i don't think we need to -- unless you want to make a recommendation. >> is this a motion? >> it's an action item. >>commissioner ortiz-cartagena: so i'll make a motion, and -- and i'll go with this, as long as we find, too, that the fees are the same as the state. >> in addition to making sure that there's funding allotted to outreach. >> so as we normally would word it, that you're recommending approval under the condition that the fees lineup. >> yeah, and that there's ample outrea outreach. >>commissioner tour-sarkissian: considering the purpose behind it is compliance, not in sinking small businesses, so not only the fee should not be penallizing more businesses in the small, making sure that we're busy making money and not go into how their application forms are drafts so that during the six month period, businesses can comply and not have to face penalties, whether 100, 200, 500, 1,000, or thousands of dollars, so that's the logic in my opinion, and in that spirit, i would be voting. >> without question, we do not want to sink any small businesses. >> okay. >> we have a motion. >>president dwight: we have a motion, do we have a second? >> what was your motion, again? >> i move that we approve this, as long as the fees are the same as the state, and that there's funds, and there's adequate outreach to small businesses. >>commissioner riley: i second. >>president dwight: ok >> clerk: so we have a motion by commissioner yee -- and seconded. [ roll call. ] >> how long have you been with the supervisor's office? >> it'll be a year by the end of this month. >> oh, congratulations. >> thanks so much. >> thanks for coming to see us tonight. >> oh, i'm not done. >> let's move onto the next item. >> item number 5, brittni's going to present the equity amendments that supervisor cohen had sponsored and any other amendments that you might want to review, and you might want to go through the onces thonces -- ones that she introduced, so can we call items 5 and 6 together, since brittni's going to present what the supervisor's have done and million those are land use, as well. >>president dwight: yes, please. >> clerk: item 5, board of supervisors file 10102, regulation of cannabis businesses, ordinance amending the business and tax regulations, health and police codes to comprehensively regulate commercial activities relating to the cultivation, manufacture, distribution, testing, sale, and delivery of medicinal and adult use cannabis. discussion and possible action item. item 6 a, board of supervisors file number 171041, planning code cannabis regulation. ordinance amending the planning code to regulate cannabis land uses, and item 6b, board of supervisors file number 171187, planning code, cannabis regulation, ordinance amending the planning code identical to item 6a, with the addition of the following: number 6, limit the number of medical cannabis dispensaries and cannabis retail uses in various neighborhood commercial districts and other commercial corridors. number 7, allow medicinal cannabis -- medical cannabis dispensaries and medicinal cannabis retail uses with additional authorization south of lincoln way and west of sunset boulevard, and number 8, prohibit medical cannabis dispensaries and cannabis retail uses in the mixed chinatown retail district. discussion and possible action item. the presenter is brittni chacuata, legislative aide, supervisor malia cohen. >> i think you practiced. >> clerk: i did. >> thank you again for letting me discuss this item. so as you all are aware, on september 26th, the city dr introduced its proposed regulations for cannabis operations in san francisco, and i just want to begin by truly thanking the small business commission for your really in depth discussion, your comprehensive package that came out of this commission, detailing which items you supported, and what you had question questions on, and what you had recommendations for. that was extremely helpful, and on behalf of the supervisor, i appreciate you all for taking the time to dive deeply into this legislation and really embrace your siblings in the small business struggle who are now selling a legal commodity and just want to get on-line and do what voters have approved, so thank you. >> thank you. >> so to begin, supervisor cohen introduced anecwhi equit permit proposal that outlined some provisions on who would be considered an equity operators. if you remember in the original legislation, it says no permits would be approved until we first defined equity crate real esta estate -- criteria, and after much discussion about what that met in the initial legislation, the supervisor proposed a program, but just to be clear, this is really intended to help those that were disproportionately affected by the failed drug war, so the equity that the supervisor proposed is stating that between 1971 -- this is the criteria to be anecwhich t equ operator, so between 1971 and 2009, you've lived in a low income census track. so 1971 is the year that nixon announced the war on drugs, and 2009 is the year of a few things, so one, marijuana, cannabis was decriminalized by mda kamala harris, so it was decriminalized, and after that, you see a number of precrpitips drops in that. in 2009, that number goes down to.7% of the black population in san francisco, and the number for the other races fell by 85%, but it was cannabis arrests that were really drive those arrests and disparities. where also in 2009, seeing an kp exodus of low income peoples from san francisco, and then, for the census tracks, our office got census tracks back to 1970, and essentially aggregated priority tracks that had a consistent federal -- a consistent number of households above 11% of the federal poverty level. then, we took the median of each decade and weighted the decades where there was heightened drug arrests in san francisco, and that's how we get to 17% of households with federal -- excuse me above the federal poverty level, and that's very confusing methodology, but i'm trying to -- >>commissioner tour-sarkissian: what was the poverty level? >> it varied. >>commissioner tour-sarkissian: on the number of family members, correct? >> yes, but there were 197 census tracks in san francisco, and after our calculations, we pulled out 91. >> are those available, like, publicly? >> yes. >> yeah -- well. >>commissioner zouzounis: they're public. >> well, you can pull them from the national historical gif website to get it all -- >>commissioner zouzounis: no, i mean, like, specifically, the areas in which the -- 'cause it says as determined by the director, so is that now within the auspice of cannabis -- >> no, because it's still a proposal, but the plan is to map this and make it available on the website so that you can literally go in and see -- >> if you fall under. >> exactly. >>commissioner zouzounis: and is the plan to have that mapped out 1 out and available by january 1st, too? i'm just thinking because if you're anecwhich toe applicant, you might be thinking, how do i -- >> yeah. >>commissioner tour-sarkissian: i have one question before we move on. you've given us very interesting statistics. between '71 and 2009, you mentioned there were a number -- bear with me. i think it's relevant for -- for the proposal. what was the percentage of arrests based on cannabis sale? you mentioned it, but i didn't -- it did not register. it's important for i. >> so i mentioned total drug arrests because part of the failed drug war's impact was it didn't only have to -- it didn't only manifest in cannabis arrests, so the numbers that i used were that in 2008, before this changed from the da's office in decriminalizing cannabis in particular, nearly 1/10th of the black population in san francisco was arrested and convicted in 2008; and then, once this change happens in 2009, that amount goes down to.7% of the african american population, and for other races, total drug arrests fell by 85%, so there was still a disparity between blacks and other folks being arrested for drugs, but a very precipitous decline in the drug arrest rate because of that one change. >> and then your equity as to the first point is people have been arrested for drug -- any drug conviction or cannabis conviction? >> it's not specific to a drug crime. >>commissioner tour-sarkissian: none? so remind me, i'm sorry. i'm slow. >> no, you're not slow. >>commissioner tour-sarkissian: so what is the first element that you have to take into account. >> well, i'm going to get there, if you don't mind. >>commissioner tour-sarkissian: please, continue. >> okay. so the first part is the residency, right? next, we have limited assets, so essentially, we want applicants who have experienced host a poverty and hardship to be able to move through this program. next, we can find anecwhi equi owner in this section, so you're either the sole owner or operator, you have at least 40% as a corporate applicant, and you're also the ceo, or you're an individual with at least 51% if you're not the ceo, and this is really to get at ensuring the folks that we are empowering actually have decision making power, that they're not just someone who is pushed forward to get in through this program. and then, if you're part of a nonprofit, the majority of members of the board of directors satisfy the residency requirement, the limited assets, as well as two or more of the following, which i will get to in a second, or lastly, for the ownership section, you're an individual with a membership interest in a cooperative, so this is to get it dpsh-varying forms of ownership in the cannabis industry. >> sorry to interrupt, and these are outlined, if you want to be able to take a look at it, on pages 14 through 16. >> so i have a question on that. so this is to qualify to get a permit to operate, correct? >> as an equity operator. >> so is it -- what's the renewal process? do you have to renew annually or how do you -- are you renewing your status periodically? >> yes, annually. >> annually. >> so if you, as we hope, grow in a way that disqualifies you from this, then you are no longer qualifies as an equity operator. >> so -- and could you have your equity operator's license revoked? it is very common for founders to be deluded -- if you look at traditional ipo's or mature venture financing, the founders are typically diluted down into the double digit, single digit percentages because a lot of new money comes into the dale, so we wouldn't want an owner to be penalized unintentionally. it wouldn't revoke the permit, but it would say you've matured, and now you've got a player in the game, and so you have to play by everybody else. >> okay. so in addition to those prerequisites, you have to meet two or more of the following: at the time of application, you're a member of a household that makes no more than 80% of san francisco's rmi. you were arrested during the period of 1971 to 2009, provided the arrest or conviction meets any of the criteria meets section a of section 4904 of the san francisco police code of the fair chance code that we were just talking about, so any of the arrests or convictions that were in that code, it's the same consideration here in the equity operator ordinance. which essentially removes jurisdiction and limiting it to drug crime. since 1 # 95, he experienced housing and security in san francisco, and then -- in 1995 is when we really start to see the acceleration in housing prices in san francisco, so that's where that date comes from. and then, you have a parent, sibling, or child -- and i actually think we were asked to add partner in this section, but it's not in this version that i'm looking at -- who was convicted -- arrested or convicted -- arrested or convicted during the period 1971 to 2009, provided the arrest or convictions meets any other criteria set forth in subsection a of section 4904 of the police code, and lastly, you attended a school in sfusd for at least five years, either consecutively or in total. so that is the criteria to be an operator. we also wanted to touch on the workforce component because we don't want to make presumptions about -- because -- because we don't have all information about the informal market. we can only presume how many folks are really be up and ready to