problems with someone getting medication for them. there was an instance where i supported that and there was no on-site consumption. i do not see the need to have another dispensary with this many dispensaries in close proximity to this one. those are my reasons i would like to take discretionary review and deny. i will see what the other commissioners have to say. commissioner borden: i think this is interesting. i would love to talk to staff about what the policy says around vaporizing versus not vaporizing. i do not know if the code has anything in that that you could eliminate us on, regarding discretion in that point. i think there is a difference between vaporizing and not vaporizing. at the same time, i want to understand better what our

discretion is in that space. if you take away the vaporization, the bigger issue is not exceptional or extraordinary. the location is not exceptional or extraordinary. with the are you the vaporization is, but the location itself is not. -- we could argue the vaporization is, but the localization is not. being silent on the point about the vaporization, i spend a lot of time on this block. the red cross -- the red cross, where i volunteer, is right across the street. the killing and cravaack issues have been primarily -- cueing and traffic issues have been primarily around academy of art. if people are vapor rising, i would hope they are not than driving a car. i would think that would not be

wise. i would like to get feedback about vaporization. i do not know how many other medical marijuana dispensaries allow vaporization. maybe you could provide insight on that. commissioner moore: i am not concerned about the mcd being here. the issue of clustering is still out of our hands. we have repeatedly encouraged the board to engage with us in a policy discussion about clustering being somewhat undesirable. at the same time, i am concerned about our consistency in 628 approvals were vaporization was not an issue. -- 6 to 8 approvals where vaporization was not an issue. i will support the mcd, but only without vaporization. i want to be clear about that. vice president wu: i also have

questions for staff around the vaporization, and specifically whether or not it requires ventilation. secondly, on the issue of the windows -- if the windows can only be obscured 25%, is there any requirement that the vaporization is not visible from the street? is that in conflict with one another? >> commissioners, i can respond to some of your questions. one of the criteria in the planning code, as you know, is whether or not there will be smoking on the premises. the primary concern is the ventilation required. i do not know the details of the difference between ventilation -- between vaporization and smoking. i think he should treat them as the same as far as requirements for until the station.

-- fort ventilation. perhaps the sponsor can address this. as far as a court -- as project with requests to smoke or vaporize on site, most do not make that request. commissioner sugaya: commissioner wu, did you get your questions answered? vice president wu: the transparency. >> we see this as a vacant retail space. we do not want permanent alterations to the building. we want it to continue to be primarily transparent. the plans show an interior vestibule area, from which people would enter. perhaps the sponsor could address this. the vaporizing would take place further in the back of the floor plan. i do not see that as being in conflict. our main concern is that they're not the floor to ceiling curtains drawn, applied to the windows so it is obscured. commissioner sugaya: i think the

commission, as long as i have sat on it, have dealt with -- the issues that keep coming up some fairly regular. we always have the same kind of answer. i think if we wanted to somehow ask the board -- i do not know if they are ready to take up the subject again. looking at the whole issue of where mcd's should be located, the distances between dispensaries, the distances to certain particular uses, expanding the kinds of uses or diminishing numbers or types -- that whole issue seems to be something that we might want to ask someone on the board, maybe

through president chiu, to take up as an issue. i think it would extend also to things like the kinds of security that should be required, whether or not any kind of vaporization, smoking, or consumption would be allowed on site, following commissioner antonini's analogy with a pharmacy -- i guess you could take a pill on the way out. there are a host of issues like that which could be taken up again by the board. i am not saying that we should -- it is not part of the motion. but i think it commissioners are in agreement we might have staff draft something up expressing our concern and recommendation. commissioner moore: these concerns, in support for commissioner sugaya, are coming

into focus. we are still observing the federal government cracking down on existing mcd's. we are permitting, but simultaneously there is still a push back from the federal government. the state itself, at this moment, is actually taking the point that the justice .wr? so we are approving and then something gets closed. we are approving again. i had that conversation with the supervisors' office, looking for guidance in a district with a high number of mcd's. she did not comment on that issue. but i reminded her we would like some time to open up the discussion on a larger policy. it is not good that we're

promoting discretionary applications here, simultaneously knowing it is going to be closedi just want ta thought. assembly member amiano is working on legislation defining what else could be described to protect or more clearly understand mcd's and the protection of mcd's. i am not sure i fully understand the legislation. the property addresses itself more to the push back from small towns. he says there should be one mcd for every 50,000 people. i am not sure if that has any bearing to what we are doing in

san francisco. the other thing i wanted to raise -- the majority of mcd's we have approved have security bars, mostly on the outside, which gives the appearance of a somewhat more foreboding use inside. i was wondering about perhaps asking whether or not the was an issue in the discussion here. >> commissioner moore, as i said before, i think we like this retail space the way it is. we did not feel there was a security concern serious enough to warrant additional treatment. we would not support the bars. commissioner antonini: again, on the issue of clustering, the fact that there are so many mcd's in a relatively small area -- given for the moment the

premise we want medical cannabis for patients who have medical reasons to use them, it is alarming to see there is such a concentration. either we have an awful lot of people in a small area with very serious medical problems that have to be that close to an mcd, or some of the uses may not be exactly what is prescribed. but that is something we cannot really -- that is not our place to take care of that. i think some sort of discussion by the board of supervisors, i would support. other jurisdictions are a little bit more judicious about how many mcd's they have, how far apart they are, and try to be reasonable based on the assumption of how many people within a jurisdiction would have to avail themselves of it, and what is a realistic distance for them to expect to travel.

the biggest part of this -- i do not know if i will get a second. on-site consumption does not work for me. if we did approve one with on- site consumption, it was quite a long time ago. almost every emceed the that has come up to us -- almost every mcd has come up to was saying they do not allow consumption on site. i am going to move to take d.r. and disapprove. >> in the absence of a second, the motion dies. is there an alternate motion? commissioner moore: the alternate motion is to approve with the condition that onside vaporizing and consumption will not be permitted. smoking, vaporizing, and other forms of consumption.

commissioner sugaya: second. commissioner miguel: i would support that. in looking at the plans, in considering them in light of department comments, i think we should very definitely include an emphasis has to department conditions. the way i am looking at it, the frontage on both sides shows fabric curtains, single-way mirrors, which i presume is to look out at the street and not be allowed to look in -- it is to totally sealed it off, totally against what a retail establishment should look like in a retail area. and i want to emphasize the

department recommendations in that regard. it should not be a sealed off area whatsoever. i think that is the way the department views it as well. certainly, there should not be any consumption on site. i see no medical reason for consumption on site. i agree with the comments that were made earlier, whether the medical cards could be obtained by anyone by asking and paying a very minimal charge to those who issued them. and yet i know a number of people who use, because of medical reasons, cannabis very effectively. i have nothing against its proper use.

i think to my experience the nonmedical use of medical cards is far, far exceeding the actual need use, but that is to the personal comment. i would support it, but with definite emphasis as to the department recommendations to keep the openness of this location. commissioner sugaya: the motion implied that the department considerations would definitely be upheld. commissioner miguel: and the plans do not even show a vaporizing space, by the way. there is nothing i see them -- see in them that shows any treatment space. commissioner borden: i support what has been said. i think the issue around neighborhoods that have issues with drugs and illegal people on the street -- the honest truth

is anybody who went to school in america has never had a shortage of interaction with marijuana being available. it is just the reality. that is a truthful thing. i do not condone people giving medical cards improperly, but it is better, in terms of crime and other social ills. my comment would be to look at the apothecary on market street. that is a good example of an mcd that looks like a store. when you look in the window -- the last time i walked through that location, i had no idea if it was a marijuana dispensary. it is a welcoming, inviting, attractive addition to the neighborhood block. you would have no reason to know what exactly it was unless you were seeking about. -- it out.

>> just a reminder -- most of you remember this, i am sure. but president olague last july did send a letter to the board aligning these concerns and asking for a revaluation. commissioner moore: could we resent that? commissioner miguel: remind her of that. president fong: now that she is supervisor. commissioner antonini: i think what commissioner miguel said is we have not had direct testimony of law enforcement that they believe there is an increase in crime in areas because there is medical marijuana dispensers. i think anybody who is a realist must acknowledge there is a certain amount of use that is not for medical reasons. obviously. if we have this many dispensaries, it is kind of

chicken or egg. do we have people spending a lot of their day consuming marijuana for recreational reasons, and therefore we have so many dispensaries? or are we bringing in more people who maybe are using it in this manner? i am not really sure what the answer is. it is something we should look at down the line. commissioner miguel: that reminds me of the argument that always comes up in front of us. the more parking spaces we provide, the more cars there are. president fong: i think i have voted to approve previous dispensaries before us. i am never going to get in between the lifestyle choices of anybody. in this area, we have a number of schools with younger people. kaplan is probably outside of that radius.

it also serves high school kids trying to take the s.a.t. and prep tests. the motion on the floor is to approve without vaporization. i am going to vote no, solely to get attention to the supervisors to look at updating the radiuses, the type of use, and the clustering. those are my comments. >> mr. president, want me to call the question? on the motion before you to take discretionary review and approve the project, with the idea that vaporization not be allowed on site and that the staff recommendations be part of the approval process -- commissioner moore: could you add the words smoking to that?

it is smoking, vaporization, and a consumption. >> ok. a smoking, vaporization, and consumption should not be allowed on site. staff recommendation for approval with conditions would be in that motion. commissioner antonini: no. president fong: did you have a comment or clarification? >> i would like a piece of clarification on the motion. the prohibition against consumption -- i assume that includes food as well? >> that is correct. commissioner sugaya: it is not a prohibition on selling them. right? >> again, the motion. commissioner antonini: no. commissioner sugaya: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. vice president wu: aye. president fong: no.

>> the motion passed 5-2. commissioners, you are now at general public comment, where members of the public may address you for up to three minutes each on items that fall within your jurisdiction. president fong: general public comment? seeing none, this meeting is adjourned. >> thank you.

>> item 1, a hearing to consider the type 48 on sale general public sales liquor license from 1525 mission street to 1525 mission street for expansion of public occupancy into adjacent portion of the building. doing business as sloane square, willful -- will serve the public convenience or necessity of the people of the city and county of san francisco. >> do you have a report for us? >> the applicant is seeking a promised expansion, type 48 for public promise license, located between 11th street.

hours of operation are daily 5:00 p.m. until 2:00 a.m. and this was a licensed as a type 48. the owner has expanded his business to the rear. the purpose of the hearing is to determine if the expanded portion of the premise will be licensed as part of the type 48. letters of protest for, letters of support, no record. please call for service, 19. police reports during that same time, 6. there is no opposition from the southern station. premises is located in a high crime area. premise is located in high concentration and we recommend approval with conditions. the current conditions shall remain and be transferred to the

new license with additional conditions as follows. between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and until one half-hour past closing, the license shall provide security personnel. the number of security personnel shall be sufficient to maintain order therein and maintain activity which would interfere with the quiet enjoyment of the property of nearby residents. said personnel should be identifiable as security personnel. security personnel shall make frequent visits to areas including parking lots to ensure patients from the premises do not disturb the peace and quiet and comfort of persons in the neighborhood. the petitioners call utilize electronic surveillance and recording equipment able to view all exit and entrance point of the exterior of the premises. the electronic surveillance recording shall be operational at all times in the premises.

electronic recordings shall be maintained for no less than 72 hours and shelley made to the police department on demand. 3, and the doors or windows that open to the street shall be kept close and not be used as an entrance or exit for patrons. it will be used for emergencies or permit deliveries only. the doors are not to consist only of a screen or ventilated security door. thank you. supervisor elsbernd: members of the public here to speak, we will give everyone two minutes to speak. >> i'm here today with the managing member of zfc concepts. we have had an extension --

extensive conversations and there have been no less than 10 neighborhood meetings, mostly with the neighborhood association. that is primarily behind these premises which go from mission pack 2 minute street. this location is directly across from goodwill industries which starts on the corner of mission and runs back to 11th. it used to be a great little bar. they have been unsuccessful and are expanding from 2,000 feet to 5,000 feet. this will create 15 new jobs. they have been operating for sometimes on a series of temporary licenses and there have been no problems with the neighborhood. they have brought in a sound

attenuation expert who has button up the sound and i think the makers are happy. i'm not sure if we have anyone here today from the neighborhood -- the neighbors are happy. the conditions enumerated are fine with us and we're here to answer any questions you might have. supervisor elsbernd: seeing no questions, are there any members of the public who wish to comment on this item? see in thenone, public comment is closed. >> with regards to the calls for services, there were 19 carl's and the span of the year. do you believe -- 19 calls in the span of the year. do you believe this addresses the conditions? >> we do feel the conditions are sufficient. >> there is a typo which i would

correct. it says between the house -- it should be between the hours. if we make that adjustment, i will move the item. supervisor elsbernd: can you please read item number 2? >> hearing to consider the issuance of the lobby bar located at 835 hyde street. it will serve the convenience and necessity of the people of the city and county of san francisco. >> this is a license for 835 high street located between bush and setter. hours of operation are 4:00 p.m. until 2:00 a.m.

835 high street is the nob hill hotel. this would be for beer and wine inside the lobby hotel. the bar can only be accessed through the hotel lobby and would not have street access. letters of support, no record. letters of protest, no record. police calls for service from october 2010 to october 2011, the team. police reports during that same time, three. there is no opposition from central station. the premises is in a high crime area and the premises is located in undue concentration. approvals are recommended with conditions as follows -- sales and consumption of alcoholic beverages should only be allowed between 4:00 and 2:00 daily. no noise shelby audible are on the area of control as defined in 257.