programs on 1010 mission. and lastly we have the temple which also has arabic education class for young people together with youth-related services which come out of that particular mosque. and then i think there's also the john scott vocal school that provides vocal training and coaching services also on 965 mission. and i am asking myself as to whether or not this particular clustering of potential youth-related services shouldn't be addressed first. and supervisor kim and have both

picked up the issue of overconcentration as it starts to become almost like an unabling element in the south of market community and i am quoting here supervisor macarini who says that the regulations have worked well but amendments may be necessary to offset any disproportionate impact and is getting what we have talked about in policy. and supervisor kim put out a note saying it's not to say we do not support medical marijuana, which we obviously all do, but we are talking about a large swath in a neighborhood where we want to prevent clustering. i have enough policy issues and i encourage us not in tonight but to not really rush to approving this and really take a

second look at the distribution of youth-related facilities nearby and al talk with the supervisors to resolve the issue of overclustering which has been an issue for all of us for quite some time. i am making a motion to continue until such policy discussions including staff investigation on the youth serving facilities has been clairefied. >> second. president olague: commissioner miguel? migu commissioner miguel: yes, a couple of other questions. first of all, i would like to ask the project sponsor what this information is and the information that's coming to me and doesn't necessarily have the best reputation in the

neighborhood. >> it is a landmark-tenant relationship and i think the added security and a staff security person at the door all the time and obviously loitering is not permitted because it crow yates confusion -- it creates confusion for law enforcement driving by and people are standing in front. if anything, we will keep traffic moving in front of that location which should have a positive impact and the patrol special will also be parked on that block. so it's a good working relationship and the landlord is very supportive of us and wants it to be supported. commissioner miguel: thank you. as to commissioner moore's comments, i understand what the supervisors first did when they drafted the legislation. they were very cautious, let us say, in geographic locations

allowed and put in the youth provisions. they didn't do the same thing with liquor stores in the same manner and liquor kills a lot more people and causes a lot more problems than medical marijuana, so i think they reacted to the public reaction and we saw that in the particular instance that and responded to that and that broke my record and we were here to 2:45 in the morning. i appreciate the support that you have given and engendered with friends at mid plaza. unfortunately, it was based on

the fact that we would have a city museum and not a lot of white elephants that continue to sit on that corner and look ridiculous and would make a great deal of difference and maybe it will come to fruition in some time. and in the meantime, there is the questionable operation there. and the work has been done, but it is not an active problem. and i have a lot of problems with the geographic restriction and forces the concentration that i don't think is viable. why medical marijuana is confirmed and as far as i am concerned, it should be a prescription at a c.v.s.. exactly what it should be.

fit's medical and if it's prescribed by a doctor, that is what it should be. that would remove in my mind this ridiculous geographic restriction. i would typically continue to go along with supervisor moore's request for the continuance, but i do not believe the manner in which the youth restriction drafted originally holds as far as i am concerned. and unless it starts to apply to a lot of other things and i don't think it does. so i can't go along with it at this point.

and i have a number of questions for staff. and with the other legalizations and other branches of government and this is that you could have a new establishment because from whey understand the existing one on polk street is remaining and this is a secondary of the sponsors that is allowed to add new m.c.d.'s. >> rick crawford of the department staff, and yes, commissioner, that is correct. this will be a second outlet for this. >> i don't remember additional and usually a transfer from some other place but fit's allowed in

the code, then that is okay. >> there have been a number of cases of new ones that did not exist previously and i brought a couple before you myself. commissioner antonini: all right. that is the first question. i guess the second is the obvious thing if there are youth-serving institutions within the 1,000 feet and if we're sure there aren't, then i am probably okay if there is a chance there are, then i would rather find out ahead of time rather than later. >> we are not aware of any. commissioner antonini: i may ask the sponsor next. and on the whole issue of the clustering which we're not allowing to consider and the various restrictions and i agree with commissioner miguel. some day we'll have some sort of a national policy where there will be agreement between the federal government and the state

government as to medical marijuana and the use and it will be a prescribed item without the need to have these proprietary institutions and will be through the various system of other pharmaceuticals hopefully. that will be the way it will work. and i understand there is no consumption on site. is that correct? >> that is correct. there is no smoking and also i know vaporizing. >> good, good. and let's see. what about selling the project? and here is the question and project sponsors have there and about the possible affects they might have from the establishment of the m.c.d. on obtaining loans and fairs things. and if the hotel is built and if the area of the use becomes more advantageous for other uses, it

is possible that the project sponsors could do that and the entitlement and with the conditional use and depending on what the use was. >> and if it was something that required conditional use and it would be before you. >> that makes me feel a little bit concerned about the affects this might have on the hotel and i want to make sure the hotel gets built and there isn't anything, although i am very happy with this particular sponsor and the m.c.d.'s we have, they seem to do the best job. they have the security, the outreach, the mid plaza and are taking part in the neighborhood and are adding and helping the neighborhood and perhaps beautify it and i like their

concept, but i am uncertain on the continuance and i will see what the other commissioners have to say and if there is any outstanding questions it wouldn't hurt to have them answered before we make a final vote on it. president olague: commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: yes, i think as commissioner moore said, we are all trapped here because of the way the supervisors vote on setting up the medical cannabis program. and because of the way the rules work, there aren't very many places as everybody probably knows by now that you can set up a dispensary. and it all kind of comes down to southwest market and certain other areas that are not close to all the facilities that the dispensary is not supposed to be close to.

that said, the way the code is worded it says 1,000 feet from the public or private kwool and recreation buildings as defined in the code. i think when we acted on terriville street, we were informed that there were other private serving facilities that sort of met the same definition, but i think the decision was these were not by definition in the planning code applicable. and i don't know that the fail ills that commissioner moore has listed but we could be in the same situation where if it is appealed, i am not saying that it will be but if it is approved first and if it gets appealed, the board of appeals might decide on their own that there

is these facilities in their opinion that are legitimate concer concerns. and in that sense it seems like from my recollection of being on the board of appeals, they are taking the interpretation of the policy so to speak and applying it slightly differently than what this commission can look at it from. and that is within their prerogative because they are a different body and quasi judicial and all that kind of stuff. but if we were to districtly look at what the code provides, then you're saying that you feel there aren't defined facilities that are within 1,000 feet of this place? >> that is what i am saying, yes.

>> and sponsor can speak to that and i will look at this in a more extensive survey. commissioner sugaya: i did a google earth distance calculation and it's about 1,091 feet away from the community rec center there and so we're barely out of that range. but thank you. and if we were to step back in terms of the continuance or put this on hold, again, there is an issue of what we feel we think we're going to take place in the meantime. and if we think we're going to try to address private youth serving facilities that aren't defined in the code and expand that definition, that's going to take years. if we try to alter the 1,000 feet rule and bring in or eliminate, let's say, schools

and rec centers, that is going to take years. so it seems like if we're really embarking on the policy discussion, it will have to take place not only here but at the board of supervisors. and given this board of supervisors, my own personal opinion, i think it may make it even more restrictive if we open up the issue. and so i would rather go ahead with this one today and have the policy issue kind of as we discussed with the formula retail put on the burner for summertime. president olague: i think this commission is pretty progressive as it pertains to medical cannabis dispensaries and i think we have only denied one and the most controversial ones with hundreds of people literally standing in line to

speak against it and we still voted to support the use in sunset district and there aren't any out there and felt there should be some close to people who neat that type of treatment who live in sunset. i have no doubt that mr. hallohan is an upstanding business person and i am glad to here once in a while that a parent will say i feel safer that my daughter comes home and there is security and i believe that these m.c.d.'s have helped to improve safety measures in certain neighborhoods and certain blocks. that being said, i do think that it's time to reopen the discussion and i do think that i have always had some frustrations around concentration with this issue that came up initially because

there was some opposition and these were cannabis dispensary that had been in place in certain neighborhoods for a number of years and i didn't feel it was fair to be judging them based on these rules around oversaturation. and then as for the 1,000 square foot, this kind of decision, i think that's very challenging, too, because there aren't many places in the city other than in the c-3 and i think me and a friend went over that actually would be available for medical cannabis dispensaries. and i think that this location is what i would be inclined to support it and support commissioner moore's cautionary note that i am not necessarily convinced that this is the most ideal location for this use. and my reason being that we just approved a location adjacent to

it and the concerns that the hotel owner has are somewhat legitimate and i am concerned about the proximity issue and i know in the past there have been some proposed and this is truly one of the worst ones that i have seen and doesn't look like it's very well kept. i would request that if there are in reports and from d.c.h. and i know they are a privately funded hotel and i do have some concerns with what appears to be maybe not the best quality of life for the residents who are there. and i can't make that judgment call based on what i see walking around that neighborhood. and i has been to work across the street in the building 65 mission, so i am there every day. and i don't think it's a

horrible block and there are certainly some folks who are homeless and where are they supposed to go if shelters are closing and federal government subsidies are decreasing and where do they go but the street? and another issue for another time. and i am not going to judge people who have no place to go because they're homeless. i think that there is a lot of issues that this product raises and i am willing to go ahead and doesn't sound like we have the support necessarily for the continuance and i think that there are issues that need to be reconsidered and even the 1,000 square feet which i think may be too excessive in most instances and as commissioner sugaya pointed out, most likely with this support we would see a move and i also think that the need is something that i am curious about, too, and how many

patients are there in the city. and do we have enough dispensaries to supply the need for those patients. and there is a lot of questions that i think come up in this discussion and i have no doubt that mr. hallohan is a good whatever and also the filipino community and i don't know if you had any opportunity to reach out to them and their senter is literally down the block. i think there are quite a few in that area right across from msaconi and there is a few. not like it is completely vacant and not like taraville where there is none, so i think there is a lot of issues this raises for me, too, although i am always inclined to support these uses. >> thank you. i wanted to clarify the analysis that staff does go through in looking at any qualifying use

and the sponsor does submit an affidavit and we do our own analysis and the public facilities are easy to identify. the private more difficult. we do in part rely on communities and what other facilities are out there and a lot of preschool and day care-type of stuff, but as far as the teenage-based youth facilities, it is kind of a case by case analysis and this commissioner so desired, staff could look into that and to the knowledge here, this is compliant. >> i would like to ask a question for mr. singh, the d.r.

requester. i amg generally in favor to thi particular m.c.d. because i think they do a better job than most of them. however, i am concerned about any negative effects that any m.c.d. may have and do you have any projections to when you might be beginning construction if you can get a loan and where you can get on the project? >> mr. singh is the owner of the project and unfortunately he is not here. i do know that we have recently gotten approval obviously through the city and when we are trying to get financing right now. our major concern is would this actually negate our affect our ability to get the financing. and beyond that i would have to get a better idea of how soon

the project will be done. commissioner antonini: here is the thing. what i am going to say is i am not o supposed to a sport continuance but if we did have a continuance and if it was voted that way, i would like you to come back with a report to the financing and specifically with a bank source or other institutions that you might speak to and whether there is, in fact, a deleterious effect. it might not be and it might be that they're cleaning the neighborhood up and making it more easier for you to get a loan. i am not saying that is the case, but certainly wouldn't hurt and i would like to hear that because that will lead me if there is a second vote to how i will vote on that depending what kind of input you have. president olague: commissioner moore?

commissioner moore: i wanted to pick up on what commissioner apt ant just said. it is not really trying to drag this out and not support it, but i am really tired of working very hard and because we vice president looked closely enough at the code or event private organizations with youth services are covered by the code and we get basically turn downed by the board of appeals. we have to at least be familiar and have all the tools we need so we'll postpone it by a week or two and continue it and there is a clear identification that we have a much clearer position to do so. i don't want to be shot down by the board of appeals all the time. it is wasting their time and our time. president olague: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: commissioner moore, what would your date be for the continuance? commissioner moore: there is only one person with that answer in the room is secretary avery who has the paper in her hands there. secretary avery: it definitely will be a week or two and

probably looking closer to june 9. >> that is fine. president olague: so on the motion for continuance of the item to june 9 and the public hearing to remain open? secretary avery: and i will say if the calendar is not closed for the 9th, let me remind you you have ceqa briefing in the morning. president olague: as an informational item. so that will be removed. secretary avery: that is gone? thank you. that makes it better. okay. on the motion for continuance -- commissioner antonini: staff is going to -- not just commissioner apt apt ant's -- not just commissioner antonini's

concern and if staff can look at the definition of what is and isn't more clearly, that would help. >> thank you for the clarification. i wanted to understand clear enough what we were supposed to be doing. president olague: does the board of appeals have a dicht s diffet of rules? i thought we had the same set of rules we were all supposed to be following honestly, because i was perplexed by the way the decision was overturned. secretary avery: the motion on the floor is for continuance to june 9. president olague: and i believe commissioner borden will be gone. commissioner borden: no, i will be here. president olague: great. secretary avery: on that motion, commissioner apt ant. >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner fong? >> no. >> commissioner miguel?

>> aye. >> commissioner olague? >> aye. >> that motion passed 5-2 with commissioners fong and sugaya voting against if item will continue to june 9. public hear willing remain open. planning commission is in recess until 4:00 p.m.