having said that, i'm still on the fence of which one i'm going to vote for. i want to study it a little longer, but i feel small businesses and particularly large businesses have to pay their fair share of taxes and this building and the people in this building and city hall have to be able to spend those taxes wisely. and -- but first and foremost, i'm on this commission to defend and support small businesses in san francisco and have i to analyze this legislation and see how it affects small businesses. i don't want to scare away big businesses but big businesses have been leaving san francisco for a long time and currently as far as i can see, small businesses are the back bone of the city. we are the job creators and this building cares very little about us, and right now there's -- all of this attention being given to twitter, to various corporation tax breaks, tax break this and

that, what do we get? we're there day in, day out, providing bathrooms, helping people when they're getting robbed. i mean all -- people breaking into our stores. i had another break-in last week. did the police arrive? no. we're there on the front line all of the time. i appreciate this legislation. i'm kind off on a rant because something touched a nerve, but i want to see how this affects small business because that's what this commission is here for. thank you. president o'brien: thank you. just on a point of clarification, i didn't see we as a commission are against raising taxes, and i did say that san francisco is considered to be one of the most expensive cities to do business in. i think in a broad sense, people will agree with that expression, it is an expensive city to do

business in, from the permitting process through the red tape to open up a shop. just a point of clarification. i would not speak for the commission or presume to speak for the commission on a philosophical argument. so director, these are both action items, yes? >> correct. president o'brien: do we have an option to -- i just feel that not having the opportunity to get the controller's report on the impact of supervisor farrell's proposal over and above supervisor mirkarimi's, do we have the time to be able to hear -- to hear the -- his analysis? are we in the process of doing a study on supervisor farrell's proposal? >> thank you, commissioner, yes,

mr. egan is doing a study right now that will be available in a number of weeks. it is a little bit of a time step process at this point. president o'brien: would there be a serious impact on the world if we were to wait and give that the time to come back and -- and deliberate on this at that time when we have a more full picture of everything as opposed to voting on something with kind of half of the picture? >> i will leave it to your good zpwraces but i don't believe so, no. president o'brien: we won't have the snime >> you will have the time. >> point of clarification, supervisor farrell and your legislation may not be heard in committee until before or after our next commission meeting -- >> it will likely be before -- be heard before, in all honesty. president o'brien: i --

>> i don't think these are exclusive. these are mott mutually exclusive pieces of legislation. they are quite different. supervisor mirkarimi's is very targeted. i think -- if anything that we do to promote businesses of any size in san francisco is good for our small businesses, and particularly these young entrepreneurial -- you know, very interesting and people who like to go out a lot. threelly participate in our city. i think i have seen over the last five years -- over the last three years there has been tremendous participation in the city and the small business community from the small companies that are growing. and so i would like to recommend that we, because of the time line and our information -- the information that we have, that we -- i would like to make a motion to recommend supervisor mirkarimi's legislation going forward and make a second recommendation to support the

intent of supervisor farrell's legislation with, you know, with knowing it is a policy matter for the board of supervisors at this point, particularly if they're going to hear it before. and we would a chance to weigh in and public would have a chance to weigh in after the controller's report. would that be acceptable? >> that would be acceptable. president o'brien: would you like to do them both? >> we can do one at a time but i like -- i like both pieces of legislation, and both supervisor mirkarimi and supervisor farrell, you both should be commended for -- i feel like we're bringing the city now since the 21st century, and i have read both pieces of legislation thoroughly over the weekend. i like them both. and i think they both kind of complement each other. and i do believe it will help

small business just like you're keeping money in the city and that money is going to go. those people are going to shop at the flower shops and they will go to the restaurant and bars and small boutiques. these people live here in the city. and i really like both pieces of legislation. and i support both of them. president o'brien: i would like to be clear, are we agreed that they are -- if we approved supervisor mirkarimi tonight as commissioner clyde suggested, an open end to hear back from the controller's office, would we still have the option then to make changes that would maybe reflect a bigger picture that we might have after the second report? could we do that? >> thank you, commissioner, i believe you could, depending on when your next meeting is scheduled here. i believe the intent is to continue to move mine along, along with the controller's

report so depending upon when the next hearing may be, maybe after we have decided upon it at the board. president o'brien: will we have the time to, director? >> our next hearing, next meeting is june 13th. so factor that into your time line. president o'brien: will that work? >> his report is -- my understanding is we will be out in a matter of two weeks, so well in advance of your next meeting. >> i would like to second, missioner clyde. >> i would like to move yes, we could and if there was a concern, we could call a special meeting if we felt we needed to. we certainly would be able to review the controller's report in legend policy, i believe, which would be a good place for it. it's my suggestion. president o'brien: so -- could you just --

>> we will call each individually and you can make the motion. did you want to restate what your intent will be, though, since there will be two motions? or did you want to just restate though, intent you would like to make? >> i would like to support supervisor mirkarimi's legislation. that's the first motion, to support -- recommend approval of item number seven. >> second. president o'brien: all those in favor? >> aye, aye. president o'brien: any opposed? seeing none. motion passes. >> and then i would like to recommend approval of the intent of item number seven with our -- we did -- i expressed some concern about the cost of the legislation and, you know, to recommend approval with the intent, however, the economic impact is unknown at this time

so we would like to leave this until we have the controller's report and if we don't recommend it, i guess we'll have to leave it as a policy matter for the board. that's not well stated. >> that's kind of vague. >> it's too vague, isn't it? >> i think you want to recommend approval of the intent. what does that mean? >> i think the intent -- commissioner clyde, if i can just say, is the direction i think what i'm hearing from the commissioners is that there is some -- there is some support for the direction that supervisor farrell is going in with his legislation. and maybe if you're going to be supporting the intent, be specific of what that intent is in your relleding -- in your motion. >> you want to recommend approval or do you want to continue it?

>> i think maybe we should continue it. >> until we have the controller's report. because i think that's the only way we can make an informed comment. president o'brien: it's kind of hard to recommend approval without really knowing the facts and having had the report back. please. >> we made that suggestion before this evening as well about not even potentially appearing here. but given your time frame, we were asked to appear. that's why we're here tonight and understand the point of view from this commission. >> supervisor farrell, to articulate the intent, i think to get some wrapping around the stock options and what is fair and what is fair compensation to the city from any company is a very important discussion to have. so my concern is if we're going to take a chunk out, how are we going to replace it and how is it really going to look?

>> i would like to see a yes-or-no vote on this legislation. this is what i did all weekend was read this. this is my business, so -- and i support this legislation 110%. i could -- economic impact of it is just so great and this is so important for the city. president o'brien: i do, too. >> i just -- i would recommend -- because time constraints, i would just like to have a yes-or-no vote on this. president o'brien: ok. can we have -- so i guess the motion is to recommend approval of supervisor farrell's proposal as well. >> i will second the motion. i make the recommendation. >> i make a motion to approve supervisor farrell's legislation. >> second by commissioner kasselman. would you like a roll call?

president o'brien: yes, please. >> commissioner adams? >> yes. >> commissioner dooley? >> no. >> commissioner o'brien? >> yes. >> commissioner clyde? >> oh, this is hard. i'm going to say no. >> commissioner kasselman? >> yes. >> commissioner o'connor? >> abstain. >> commissioner yee riley? that motion carries, -- >> commissioner riley has not responded yet. commissioner riley: not yet. i'm thinking. i have a little problem approving something without seeing all of the facts. >> pardon me. that motion does not carry. >> commissioners for a point of clarification, are you interested in revisiting supervisor farrell's legislation once --

>> yes. >> so we're not -- i just want to be very clear in terms of we're not supporting, you're not recommending -- or the vote doesn't carry to support it at this point, at this time, but we do want -- the commission does want to revisit supervisor farrell's legislation once the economic report is in? >> yes. i appreciate that, director. the clarification is we're not voting down this measure because we think it's not a good measure to support. we're voting it because we don't know enough facts about it. >> that's right. thank you, commissioner riley. president o'brien: ok, so do we need that written in? do we need to modify the proposal or do we have it covered? >> you're not retired to take action at this point. there is no action unless somebody would like to make an alternate motion. president o'brien: is it anticipated we're going to hear

this again? >> i would like for the commission to -- >> i would like to make a motion once we get the controller's report, if we can hear this again in june. >> second. president o'brien: all of those in favor? >> aye. president o'brien: opposed? seeing none, the motion carries. next item. >> commissioners, you are now on item number arktse discussion and possible action to make recommendations to the board of supervisors on board of supervisors file number 110025, environment code safe drug disposal information, order nantz amending the san francisco environment code sections 2250 through 2254 to require any business selling prescription drugs to the public to post display materials explaining how to safefully and lawfully dispose of unused prescription drugs. and we have a presentation by

supervisor mirkarimi. >> taxes to drugs. thank you. i have a piece of legislation before you that comes after about a year ago. i had submitted draft law, which is not before you, that would require the private sector, pharmaceutical companies and the retailers to shoulder the cost of us being able to create an infrastructure so that our san francisco citizenry would have somewhere to adequately and effectively discard medications and unused pharmaceuticals. this type of legislation has been attempted in over ten states in the united states, but due to the fourth strongest lobbyist in the united states, the pharmaceutical industry, it

was very effective in combating back efforts in those state legislatures. no law like this exists in the united states. meanwhile, our own city department of environment, through our own city money, has been providing opportunity for our citizenry to dispose of pharmaceuticals. upwards of about $50,000 was spent just in the two-day project, where san franciscoans donated over 1,100 pounds of pharmaceuticals just in that two days at city expense, which is derived from rate pair expense, money that came from discretionary use to the department of environment of water are garbage rates. since i believe that there should be a practice of shared responsibility with good corporate partners, i legislated

that we should insist on there being a public/private collaborative effort. pharmaceutical industry, like in the legislative examples, depeffeded on city hall with great -- descended on city hall with great might and i believe was able to influence previous administration to not go down this road. i held a number of meetings with representatives of the pharmaceutical industry and with representatives of the city government, and we decided instead of legislating this particular mandate, that we would try an 18-month pilot program. the industry has agreed. they are shouldering the cost. that cost is being generated by a consortium known as pharma and then genentech of $ 110,000. we're very appreciative of this pilot project that is likely to commence in about three to four months, september/october hopefully, when it would

commence in san francisco. the legislation that is before you is signage. we have used the previous laws that had been adopted by this commission and by this city, known as prop 65 signage that directs people as you would go to a grocery store or somewhere or restaurant about mercury poisoning, that we used similar templates for signage for informing the citizenry at retail outlets where you buy pharmaceuticals, medications of where you can discard your pharmaceuticals. those were the repositories will be, will be at five district neighborhood police stations. we have ten so five out of ten. and then in a number of independent pharmacies have volunteers to be at those locations. the point of the money is so there would be a proper chain of custody so that when is when it is being picked up, it is being

picked up since it is considered biomedical or hazardous waste and that is being properly disposed of and it would take some money for the purchase of those boxes so that they are secure and safe. so that it wouldn't be compromised. this legislation with the support of mira lee and a number of my colleagues is direct the signage so it informs people where to go. we're hoping it would help with the robust pilot program so after the 18 months, based on what we learn and gage about those who contribute back into the repository, then it's something we might make more permanent and hopefully still a public/private collaborative. my goal is to make sure we're not using general fund dollars, which we are not, for any one of this, including the signage. so that is what is before you, the department of environment, which has done outstanding work

in helping shepherd the program in the past of city expense, which i'm hoping to alleviate through this pilot program, can speak to this and i recommend that they do as well as others who might be here to speak in support of this. i would be more than happy to answer any questions. president o'brien: commissioners, any questions? >> i'm just wondering about implementation, the future in that there's not very many places in the pilot program. i know how people are, if it's not convenient, they're not going to do it. so i would just like to see if this becomes a permanent thing, that it becomes something that is easy for the pharmacies to direct people to a nearby location, that we would need to have more locations or perhaps more pharmacies. >> what i didn't say is those who are not participating, which i think is kind of uncool, is safeway and walgreens, who are the largest retailers that

generate that business -- over-the-counter business. so what we have is designed the law, and they were at the table but they did not provide dollars and they are not providing the volunteer locations in order to cite these. so we decided to still endeavor on and put them in the five police stations, since we'll have more regulatory control over that but then in the independent pharmacies, and good for them because there are quite a few of them around and several dozen have elected to participate. so i'm hoping that the net benefit is people may actually do business at those. meanwhile, it is walgreens and safeways and others who charge upwards of $3.75 and higher to the citizenry who want to come in and do the responsible thing instead of flushing down the prescriptions in their toilet, which they should not do because it could compromise the waste water structure f you ask the

p.u.c., we do not have the infwra structure to filter out contaminants that reaches into our stream system. if you look at health reports, both federally and state, one of the highest causes of suicide and drug abuse are young people who get ahold of unregulated medications or disdiscarded medications and take them and, of course, become sick or die. that is a well-known statistic nationally speaking. so while this may not seem like the kind of pressing problem that any one of us may think in this time of economic crisis, it is a public health -- it is a public health and a public safety response that a city like san francisco should enact. and san mateo's been doing this for quite some time at san mateo expense. the only difference is we think it should be shared expense.

president o'brien: commissioner o'connor? commickser o'connor: i just wanted to thank you for crafting this legislation. it makes a lot of sense. i was going to inquire about the corporate pharmacies but you answered the question. so thank you very much. >> thank you. president o'brien: commissioner kasselman? >> commissioner kasselman: the fees are outlined in the legislation, are those for small pharmacies who aren't posting the proper signage? >> the fines -- it's the fines for anyone. for anyone. president o'brien: commissioner adams? >> commissioner adams: i want to thank you also for putting forth this legislation. i know people who do use it down in san mateo and from personal experience where i do know some teenagers taking grandma's drugs after she's gone and that. and there was a bad consequence. so personally, i'm very happy that you're doing this. >> thank you. president o'brien: commissioner clyde? commissioner clyde: yes, was

costco at the table? >> no, they were not. commissioner clyde: they have a large pharmacy as well. but thank you for crafting this legislation. it is fair and i actually participated in the drop your which is a little bit surreal, but it was an easy way to get rid of things. supervisor mirkarimi: i really would like to talk about the department of environment. they really spent a lot of time on it. is there any more questions? >> good evening. from the department of environment here in the city. we were very closely with the city garbage company to keep hazardous waste and toxic products out of the garbage. so just to address what the commissioner said, we know that the more convenient to make it for the public, the more likely they are to do the right thing, and we have that great results

working with small retailers to serve as drop-off points. latex paints. we had about 120 small stores, many small retailers doing that for us, the largest program in the country, and i believe with this program we have about 15 of the local pharmacies out of 22 of the independents that want to participate, so maybe we will get all at one point. that is a great response, but it does not cover the entire city. as supervisor mirkarimi noted, we have been fortunate in that the pharmaceutical industry has come to the table and are providing funding for this private collection program, which lasts about 18 months. a large portion of the funds will be spent on outreach, and we know from experience that the point of purchase out -- is key, so very often, a resident will take this back to the place they

bought it to ask," how do i dispose of it? how do i recycle it? many calls that the garbage company gets or the puc gets are a referral from a walgreens or another pharmacy because they do not know what to do with them, so we know that the place you bought the pharmaceuticals is the place you're going to return to ask questions, and that makes sense. the outreach we will be helping to develop for this ordinance will be very similar to what we will be doing what the farmers and collection pilot, and as a side note, we have a lot of experience in developing materials for them, so i just what does show some examples of what we have done in the past, and i mention something simple. this will go through a public process that we will take three retail stores. this is an example.

we call this a point of purchase tear off pad. we did this at walgreens, 13 locations. after the collection at walgreens, we have to continue to inform the public about where to take their medicines in the future. this essentially was a piece that was left behind after the event that walgreens was in support of developing. this is very similar to what we're going to be asking for this, which is to direct the public to those other pharmacies or police stations where the drop off or collection will take place, so this is, again, does this small example of something we have done in the past and another one to show you. we developed this for a small independent pharmacy that was in the valley that was in the collection program for a period of time. hopefully, we will get this back in the program. barry simple. it is a drop-off site. we do not envision something

much larger than these two for what we would be asked to implement. any questions? president o'brien: we used to always bring our bottles back to the shop for our four pennies. is that something we could consider proof in those days, there was not a deposit. you paid for a bottle, you know, a set fee. but you got a refund when you brought the empty bottle back. is there something like that at all remotely possible, or has it been tried? >> i do not know if it has been

tried. i know some are a little tricky because you cannot predict how much will be left over. we prefer that there are no left over pharmaceuticals, so they do not end up in the environment, so people are being prescribed the right amount and you would not have leftovers, so maybe we are talking about the container and not the drugs themselves. no, i have not thought about it. >> maybe they would take back the drugs with the container, as well. just a thought. ok. commissioner: walgreens, did they have a reason why they did not want to participate could i find that kind of shocking. >> they do sharp collection for our department, so we utilize them for many things. i think they had some concerns about what program like this