>> it is important for us as commissioners, we have the public safety, we have to take care of. it is important for us to do the public justice by making sure that you did the right thing. at the end of the day, it is going to help you as well. >> you will be required to work with staff to show them you have the proper security, proper training, and the proper committee outreach to the residential neighborhood groups as opposed to a few letters from we do not know who. ok? >> you have to do it this time. >> this is sink or swim and time. >> my motion is to continue. >> i second. >> [roll-call vote] president newlin: item 7, commissioner comments and questions. commissioners? item eight, new business request for future agenda items. >> there was a meeting change in the bylaws that says we have to meet on the second and fourth tuesdays. >> the bylaws were meeting with me mad on the first and third tuesdays. somebody changed it. " we will change that back. we. met the first and third. >> if you are in a club and they have the music and the screen, but you are lip-synching, is that a

it is incumbent upon us as commissioners to continue to also share the chief's concern about what is happening. we had a meeting near the housing project last week and heard from members of the community who are terrified. the chief is aware of the spread the commission is aware of this. we asked if there is a resource issue, additional resources that we need. it is not ok -- we are talking about young men dying on the streets. oftentimes, those cases are going on salt. it is an issue that we need to continue to look at. whenever you need to curb the violence and hold the offenders accountable. . >> is disconcerting the number of homicides. we're having this problem in the mission, we had coordinated manpower targeting the community. are we doing not -- are we doing that are retaking a different tactic? >> the last incident was on july 1st. we're having a tremendous success. this is happened -- that is a completely different set. nabih will expand and address that, too. normally -- now we will expand at an address that, too. normally, this is cross-gang. you're looking for the person

us and what is going forward for us. commissioner liu: are you saying we should specify the recommendation that charges be sustained as to certain counts only? commissioner studley: and what meaning we think that might have, and i have some thoughts. i will pass it forward. chairperson hur: i am just trying in my mind to square it with the automatic removal if there is a finding of official misconduct. maybe you can claim what you have in mind. commissioner studley: give me a minute to think about it. one is that -- one strand is the automatic removal if the supervisors agreed with us. the first half to reach that, or fail to act within 30 days -- they first have to reach that, or fail to act within 30 days. but there were members of the public who said, and i found this -- it got me thinking in a variety of different ways when they said it is unfortunateq tht this has come this far. commissioner hayon said something similar. you do not see more of this because people take action. the resolve things with their supervisor, or they resign, or somebody works out something to protect the interest that is at stake. wheat, i t

will bridge the understanding between professionals and people wanting to build as well as us and other commissioners in the public at large that we have a better common language to create good critique and good incentives. i think it's in the misunderstanding of what is good and what is not so good, where we are not all standing together to do better. there are other cities who have a much more clear language and pushback about what they really do want and don't want. i look at new york's planning commission. i think they're quite powerful. at least in the discussion of high-rise buildings. to rein in what they don't want. we are quite timid and none of us are high-rise designers here but also not giving the right guidance to things which need a little guidance. i won't mention any project where i felt there's guidance missing. so i will not get into -- get in marjorie's a.i.a. clients into any trouble. but i think there are dialogues where more pushback could have created better results. however, as a city, i think we still have a lot to lose and today's presentation was one of them where we need t

as mr. moller referenced, -- but the referenced, this building was voted on twice. -- butler referenced, this building was voted on twice. there were nine commissioners that voted on a conditional use. only one vote for this project. i am here to follow the process through. i urge you to please go through and denied this project as it is. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i would like to read a letter. we passed resolution concerning 1601 larkin street. that shall incorporate elements of the historic first st. john's methodist church. this approves the eir and the proposal for the project. the recent requirements by staff and a new architect are similar in height and mass. we strongly support efforts to reserve the reuse of the historic buildings. we oppose demolition tactics to win project approval. we believe san francisco mo greatly benefit if historic preservation laws and sepal laws are strictly enforced. -- ceqa laws are strictly enforced. we will never forget what this developer did to the japantown vote. the developer tried to diminish the cherry blossom festival food fair, which is right by his condos that were built at a site where the japantown residents we

as mr. moller referenced, -- but the referenced, this building was voted on twice. -- butler referenced, this building was voted on twice. there were nine commissioners that voted on a conditional use. only one vote for this project. i am here to follow the process through. i urge you to please go through and denied this project as it is. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i would like to read a letter.

explain to me why it i as a commissioner on the ethics commission should be comfortable applying a common- sense test, and usecommon sense should not be applying. to go the common sense is what do people in this position do? as commissioners, we do not know that. here is what a cheap officer is expected to do. we have all of the different responsibilities of a share, whether it is policy responsibilities, exhibit, documents. so it is a common-sense test but a fact-based test about what people in this office do and one of the functions of the commission has been to collect that evidence, and that evidence supplies was in relationship to the duties of office. it is a common-sense relationship and that sense. >> i have one other question, and i apologize for monopolizing your time. in page 9 of the brief you appear to agree there is a difference between personal misconduct and official misconduct. do i have that correctly? >> in that there are something that you could do that are completely personal that would not be a basis for removal. yes. commissioners, i think the facts help us as much as they help us with