back later and explain what this document is. that is not the way it works 3. -- not the way it works. how does it fit with the general plan? what are the implications surrounding it? all of this stuff has been vetted. >> i do outline the plan and party policies. not that relates to the economic strategy -- commissioner sugaya: i'm going to make a motion to not take d.r. and approve the project. also, what evidence do we have that other uses will not locate next to an mcd? that was stated in testimony to the opposition. there are none. there are no crime statistics,

nothing that point to mcd's as a nuisance. a nuisance is something that has a specific definition. other than people's perception that they do not like them, every hearing that we have, we have people in opposition to mcd's. and every hearing, it is the same argument. i do not see that that argument is any different here than it was, for example, for the ones on mission street. three of them on mission street. >> i made that statement based on the experience of staff that regularly works with community members to market and try to attract businesses to vacant spaces. based on our experiences, which typically have encountered some concern from prospective tenants of vacant space is about moving next to an mcd.

commissioner sugaya: ok. the other thing is that when i have attended planning meetings in japan town, one of the things that i always try to remind the community there is that japan town is part of a larger community of san francisco. they can work all they want on their community plan and i am sure the staff has given similar advice to the park and balboa and other places, it is fine that you want your community to have as much vibrancy and 4- looking ideas, but there are certain city policies and concerns that you have to take into consideration. it seems to me that medical marijuana is one of those, especially since the mayor, i do not know if it is the same document, has expressed his concern.

linda, do you still have that? yes, it is the same one that i have on my computer here. it is important that san franciscans who need medical cannabis have safe access to it. there are oncology patients, hiv/aids patients, and people with debilitating pain that use this to treat their conditions. the public advisor continues to advise me that use to treat pain and ease and of life suffering. since 1996, when proposition 215 passed, the state of california and our city have reaffirmed our support for legitimate medicinal use for people with serious illnesses. anyway, that is why i made the motion. and thank you. commissioner antonini: this is a

discretionary review and we have to find extraordinary and unusual circumstances. i think there are and i will tell you why. this is not something that we have not done in the past, not just with medical marijuana dispensaries but other types of the establishment. many years ago, when i was first on the commission, the commission took d.r. and disapprove a starbucks because of neighborhood opposition. this was at a time when there was no legislation that required c.u. 44 miller retail but rather a discretionary review. that is similar to the type of action we need to take here. first of all, there were some statements made about the approvals in the mission district, particularly the outer mission. there were three dispensary that came before us about one or two months ago and i voted for one and against the other two,

specifically for the reason i will state in a minute, why i will not support this one. the reason i supported one of them was that area of the our mission had no dispensaries and i thought that access was important and having won a dispensary within four or five square miles of the patients there makes sense. the nearest other dispensary was quite a ways away. the one that seemed to have the most regularly -- the most credibility was the one i decided to support. this is a different situation. we have a significant neighborhood opposition. its disapproval will not create a hardship for patients. anyone can conjecture about mcd's that might be eliminated but they are there now. according to information i have now, there are seven within 1 mile of the site of this one,

which is certainly, and we are not saying an oversaturation, but the elimination of one more coming in and will not provide a hardship. the other problem is, i am very familiar with that part of jessie street and unfortunately, partly because we have not been able to forward improvements on market street, that part of jessie remains a dangerous alley, one where there is a lot of problems occurring. it is a threat to the safety of the patients who would have to come there carrying medical marijuana or significant amounts of cash and. i do not think the site is a very good one. among the groups that are against this, we have spoken about the mayor's office and economic and work force development and the central market community benefits district. also, a number of neighbors have

written letters and the friends of mint plaza. mint plaza is a real success story. they always have to have security out there to make sure that that plaza stays safe and that the restaurants and other activities are able to flourish. i think having a dispensary might, whether the perception is fair or not, would discourage some businesses from located next door. feeling that, and this may be a wrong assumption, that there are things that might happen. possibly people carrying a lot of money or marijuana around with them and the fact that more crime might occur not through any fault of the patients. as far as what is happening with the federal government, we really have no control on that. whether this is approved or not,

it is not going to change. i will move to take d.r. -- there is a motion, i am sorry. i forgot. commissioner moore: in the absence of the economic strategy having been in front of us, this came as a surprise, seeing a recommendation in the staff report which is neither the law, an ordinance, a vested recommendation, or anything. the document has been in the making for 10 months. while i appreciate what it does, to use this document as an isolated documents in the absence of a progress report on it, i think is a stretch. i cannot do that because there is lack of notice and lack of fairness. the document would have had to

be mentioned early on when we were looking at second street. we have been struggling with the idea of clustering. we have asked for help, and discretion. this study was never mentioned. while it might provide a tool for the community examination, at this moment, it does not give me any guidance on which i can based a denial. the presentation that there are nine mcd's within the study area is a slight overstatement. the study area falls into what is called the strategy focus area, a limited radius on the north and south side of market street. there is a business study area which is the immediate

influence and the larger study area which is an area that goes to the bottom of knob hill. many of the mcd's that are being mentioned are actually outside the particular zones indicated here. if there are nine, seven of them are outside the particular zone. i do not believe that we have enough argument other than the plan recommendation. i have not seen anybody who has stood up here and tell me i cannot do this. i want to respond to commissioner antonini about jessie street being an unsafe

area. we look at the 500 block where an older takes on a building which runs on both jessie and stevenson to put a presidential unit on. none of those people are here to speak against it. there is not an absence of community support. but this report is driving the opposition statement. i am in no position to not support this. that is all issioner borden: itn really interesting. it has been a struggle appear in the sense that, when it comes to mcd's we do not have a ton of tools in our tool kit. there are issues with oversaturation. it is not about safe or unsafe or not providing access. there is an issue in a

neighborhood, we hear this all the time. people want to do a coffee shop or drug store. it could be a number of things. we already have a lot of that. we need a hardware store or a gym. it is something that we struggle with because we do not have a lot of tools to make that happen. the thing is, i do believe and we have not, in our current tool kit, we do not have oversaturation as an issue. i think that is something we should all struggled with that should be looked at. we recognize the challenge of 1,000 feet in a dense city, there are not a whole lot of locations where that would necessarily fit into. anyones that have come before us, based on what the applicant has argued, would be safe

because they meet the threshold and have been approved. that has been in place. in what is different in this case is that we respect what neighborhoods talk about, even if they do not have formalized clans. even with octavia, we did not ban parking but we went in the direction of not increasing parking, even though it is not in the plan, it does not specify that has to be the case. i do think we have a history of providing context for a neighborhood to have input. it is the wrong assumption that mcd's are a nuisance. i live by about four and do not find them to be a nuisance. in some cases, they are fortress' locations and not part of -- the apothecarium is amazing. you walk by it and do not even

know. others have the fortress of appeal where it is not as welcoming or friendly to the street. i do not see that in these plans. it is a challenge that we need to look at with some of the mcd's we have approved in the past. for me, this one is different only because -- i do like to respect what communities are trying to build and i understand the challenge. we have an issue because we don't have any sort of guidelines. they do not have a plan -- on mission, there was not a plan. there was nothing. we need to create guidelines around this. typically, this is not a typical mcd, but the challenge that we often look at is trying to create a mixed to provide

different kinds of foot traffic and there be a different neighborhood servicing. mcd's, because of the inability to locate them in other neighborhoods, there are not necessarily people who are being served. i find this to be a more difficult one. it is a situation where a neighborhood has said that they are concerned and. i do not agree with their labeling of mcd's as a nuisance to. at the same time, i understand the need for a more diverse set of businesses that they are looking for in the neighborhood. that is what i am responding to, not anything related to being for or against medical marijuana dispensaries. i think my record has been clear that i have been supportive of dispensaries. i do not have an issue and i live near several of them. i would not have moved to that location if i had an issue. we also have a situation where a community has talked about it and thought about it.

i am not saying that it is -- that their conclusion is necessarily correct, but their desire for more diverse businesses i do understand. commissioner miguel: i support the motion and i will talk a little more on that. but i would request the maker of the motion to include a condition that we have done with other medical marijuana dispensaries, that the safety programs be cleared through the local police precinct. i take great exception to that report, which we have not seen. it calls, in addition to medical marijuana dispensaries a nuisance, calls pawnshops' a nuisance. i do not think you understand what you're talking about. i have, as friends, two families

who have had pawnshops in santa cisco for over 60 years -- in san francisco for over 60 years. i have purchased from them antique jewelry. there have been pawnshops' operating in downtown san francisco, in the civic center area, in the union square area, upstairs in some of the buildings, as well as through a number of neighborhood commercial districts. with no problems in. for years. predating me and my friends. calling them a nuisance, to me, means that the people who put that document together, truthfully, i do not understand the city. -- truthfully, do not

understand the city. if anything comes in front of us to prove statistically that there is a nuisance, that there is a crime problem, that there is any other kind of major problem, then we are absolutely open to listening. we have said this week after week after week. no one has come forth. there has been no information whatsoever other than, we do not like it. that is not good reasoning. vice president wu: thank you. i also, in considering the question of if there is an oversaturation, i think we have talked enough about the oewd plan and can put that aside. on the mission mcd's, i was very

concerned about the two locating on the same block. again and again, we have asked for the board of supervisors or another entity within the city to help us with tools, with legislation to use clustering or oversaturation or another indicator as a reason to make decisions. without that tool, it is very hard to use it. when i compare this to the mission situation, i do feel like there is a two on one block, but the third was 1 mile away. i see that there are four located around. common sense wise, there is some sense of oversaturation. as far as findings, i do not think that i could support denying the project sponsor.

>> commissioners, the motion on the floor is to not take discretionary review and approve the project as prose. with the caveat that there are safety programs -- their safety program is to do it -- to go through the approval process of the centers as a police department. on that motion -- commissioner antonini: no. commissioner borden: no. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. vice president wu: aye. >> this motion 4 this-2, with commissioner antonini and commissioner borden voting against. it has been approved. commissioners, you are now at general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address you on items that fall within the subject matter jurisdiction of this commission, with exception of agenda items. vice president wu: is there any

general public comment? seeing none, we are adjourned.

>> before we go round and introduce ourselves, of like to thank the task force of compliance amendment committee for the very helpful information you provided to us in writing and for meeting with us here today. of afford to a productive conversation. we certainly on the commission are trying to do our best to

figure out a way to really welcome your health and advise in that regard, so thank you very much. >> defied the had a comment on that, this has been a long process. we do appreciate the patience you have shown us in waiting for us to weigh in on this very important process, so thank you. >> would you like to introduce yourself? we can go around quickly, since we normally don't meet together. >> i am a member of the sunshine ordnance taskforce. >> i am hoping johnson, the chair of the task force. >> members will, the vice chair of taskforce. >> i am currently the chair of

the compliance committee. and of like to express my appreciation for agreeing to meet with us after what has been several years of back and forth about some complex issues. >> i am paul of the ethics commission. >>-beverly, but have you here. gosh i cheer the ethics commission. dodge vice chair of the ethics commission. >> i thought that we could start this meeting with the very productive and pressing concerns that were raised in the task force mello. and in particular, the concern that the task force raised about the commission handling

non vocal violations of the hornets. >> we will take public comment at the end. >> before we began, i wanted to address our legal assistance, the legal counsel here today. did you want to? the deputy city attorney, the sunshine ordnance taskforce, it is severely limited. in light of that, they were unable to assist us in outside of what was already over the allotted hours for the regular task force. and the city attorney, there is a seat on the taskforce that

requires you the an attorney. he is not able to participate, so we asked a member of the public to help us. ahead and your staff is here, so we may sometimes referred to him, he relied in part on his legal adviser for some of our worth. >> i would welcome, from him whenever you deem that it is inappropriate. >> i want to make sure that people knew who we may be referring to. >> i see him in the front row, and i am glad to see he is here. >> perhaps a comment about how you would like to proceed, the view like to have someone either introduce or summarize the memo, i think we have all read it and understand its content. but for the public, a brief summary might be helpful. >> i think the person ideally

suited the would be the author of the memo. if they are inclined to speak to the principal point in the memo. >> unfortunately for both of us or all of us, i am trying out some new hearing aids, and they are not as advertised, let's say. i think the first coin from my point of view is hardly radical change and that was made from the june of 2010 policy decisions to the draft that was presented to the taskforce the

june 14, 2010 minutes, i think adequately describe the long discussion haunt the policy issues that were faced by the commission at that time. and the level of input that was given by members of the public and have the task force members, ahead and the work that went in the including my own meetings with susan. so the change of course which was a dramatic and shocking, without having the same policy body that made those decisions here in a public meeting, these

are what the policy decisions are being reversed by staff. i think it is the hot problems. those of us that have a chance for the last few years. reach a the ethics commission. as mentioned, the staff is not authorized an empowered to enforce those decisions. only the ethics commission can do that. it is the policy body that made those decisions, and the staff is simply staff. it has no in a or other authority if you can be given such authority to take the steps that it cut