dispensaries, i notice that on the sidewalks and on the streets outside of the existing dispensaries, there is not that same open area drug market activity going on and the reason is, it's because when dispensaries come into a community, they improve the community. they don't diminish that community. when it comes to clustering or multiple dispensaries near each other, it's help for patients. i want to give an example of a patient may use a quarter ounce of cannabis a week, some charge 90 dollars for that and some charge $45. let's keep in mind that multiple communities don't diminish it just as multiple

restaurants and bars. they benefit the community. thanks for your time. >> good afternoon commissioners. i'm here to oppose this. it's simply the wrong venue. i don't think we should give the authority to commercial districts to restrict a medical service. i think it's really important that everybody recognize that this is not been legalized for recreational use in california. this is legalized for medical other us in california. this is for patients who are trying to have access to medicine and we are not trying to put restriction on that without

going through a long thoughtful process which is what we did which we came with the act. all of these regulations that are in our sf law was recommended by patients and operators so they can be responsibly integrated into our communities. right know we have a green zone in san francisco and we can't even access all of the green zone in san francisco. there are neighborhoods that it's so hostile that neighbors do not want this used so bad that they will appeal every single permit, building and planning and make it impossible to open up in. in areas that we do have green zone left, we are seeing people opening up in areas where it's not hostile. being honest in district 6 where we see a lot of medical

dispensaries operating side by side, it's not an issue. it's helped the neighborhood, created more of a safe environment. i have not felt better walking down mission and 6 street because of the prevalence of the medical cannabis in that community. i ask you to please reject these restrictions. it's the wrong venue. this commission as well as any other body repeated with our policy makers go back to the drawing board. >> you are out of your time. >> sorry. i will write a letter. any other speakers whom i haven't called. >> my name is jonelle. we were here last year at the same time opposed the 3 cannabis clubs that did open. mission organic has opened and the police have

been called numerous times. their patients feel they have the right to sit inside of a car and smoke the cannabis and drive away. there have also been, they walk around the corner where they go and smoke their pot because they feel they have the right to do so. no, you don't. you have a right to be a good citizen. you don't have a right to cause additional problems in this area. we are not afraid of medical cannabis. i understand the needs for it. that's not the issue. the issue is we want some control. in one night we went from zero to three because there is no legislation on the books. please listen to the people that live in the neighborhood. i have lived there for over 40 years. mission street has changed dramatically. not all for the better. we also want to make sure that you understand the parking control. there is huge

issue with parking in the neighborhood. at mel flores talked about. we want to keep the conditions as they are. do not change it. that's why we had three parking summons. >> thank you. any additional speakers? okay. seeing none, public comment is closed and opening up to questions. >> first the last controversial aspect of the legislation i think we always enjoy supporting commercial neighborhoods districts, i think they provide protection and support for what this legislation is able to do. i think that parking maximum, i know that people are not for that, but it's the direction we are trying to move in and the policy city. i think that the 5 foot high bonus, all of these are great legislation and

around other technical changes. in terms of medical cannabis dispensaries, maybe supervisor you can talk about how you arrived at 500 feet as a number, i don't know if that was a neighborhood number or? >> well, it didn't come out of a hat. first of all, i'm not opposed to medical cannabis dispensaries at all. i could have said hell know. i looked at the 500 foot idea because i felt 250 was too small of a radius would even be probably allow two cannabis dispensaries on the same block and in a thousand feet would exclude looted of areas that they felt would be okay to have which would create a blanket area and close the green zone completely in my part of san francisco so

i thought a thousand feet was too wide so a thousand feet was the number and perhaps that's how it came out. >> did you have a chance to do a community out reach to the community? >> up until quite recently. i did not. i did talk to the cannabis dispensaries. when it came to talking about it now, it wasn't discussed as an option. i felt like i had to propose what seems best for my neighborhood. threatening a needle knowing where people are most vocal about mcd's are saying no completely. i'm not saying no completely. i'm trying to figure out the best pathway for my neighborhood. i do have a concern about setting

a precedent about replicating could come across. >> this is more, i think there is two distinct issues that we are suffering with. it's about all uses we have. we have language over concentration and eating and drinking establishments. it's not that they are being singled out. the fact that starbucks and over concentration and lack of diversity. it's not a specific use but a lack of diversity of uses as opposed to a neighborhood commercial district, is supposed to serve a neighborhood. you want to have a coffee shop and pharmacy store and with that mcd also add special things. the issue over a concentration is a real

one and not to target or focus specifically on medical cannabis dispensaries. the challenge we do have is we recognize and this is the issue that we've had that there aren't a lot of areas in san francisco where you can locate medical dispensaries which have led to this clustering. we recognize this as a problem. i do see if we were to include this in the legislation, it will be precedent setting and other neighborhood commercial districts would want to seek this and the problem with conditional use is that it's sort of like the medical cannabis dispensaries that we approved in the sunset districts. there were no other cannabis dispensaries, i don't know how many feet away but the entire community came out and ultimately went to the board of appeals and it was turned down. i do believe with the necessary

desirable threshold that unless you try to layout some standards. i think the challenge we have is that necessity is very, it depends on who is speak negative sdiesh -- speaking in desirability wins. we would like to believe that is not the case. >> i don't doubt that there is politics involved in this. we are policy makers but we have to look at what are policies that work and understand what the politics are and not everyone is going to be happy with the decision. as a politician i understand that is the process. i do feel that i'm not -- i do feel the city needs to make probably revisions to over all how we cite mcd's. i

also think with tools and in neighborhoods to decide what's best. i do think i need to figure out what's the balance of uses in the neighborhood. that's what i'm trying to bring forward today. >> i guess one of the things, it sounds to me like one of the challenges i think and i think one of the things that we would prefer to see is look at the article 3 of the house code more broadly because i do see unfortunately if you plug the hole in one area then it spills into another. it like the issue we had a couple weeks ago with supervisor chiu's 300 foot radius around local eating and drinking establishments. it's a similar kind of concern. i

guess, do you think that's something you would pursue? >> to me it's something i can, but this is an issue in a way that it manifest itself in my part of san francisco. we have areas in san francisco where it's a lot more dense and people who access medical cannabis as well. those are the aers that have to most need. i think the planning department would be a great study for planning department to propose looking at how to cite mcd's. you can do it in a way that take out a lot of politics that people like me that in politicians. every a little bit

of cover in the state department. i think supervisor and policy makers have a much better way. this has on a cannabis community. the people in my district are not part of the community at large in san francisco. >> thank you very much for your comments. i think everyone's commission have supported most if not all cannabis dispensaries that have come before us. and how important they are in the community. i think the tools is around

looking at the concentration and not specific to the use and specific to all uses because of the diversity the corridor needs to support. i do struggle with doing it in this legislation without looking bigger because i think there is a larger problem and i don't think this is something we can deal with piece meal because there are problems and the fact that it's restricted in so many areas. if we were to support this then every supervisor might be coming through different corridor wanting the same control. i'm concerned about that. 3 hundred feet seems to be a number that we use a lot in the planning department. i'm not sure why. and when we look at eating

establishments that we look at lineal feet. if we look at lineal feet along the block corridor. for me, it's hard for me to say. i support the community on its concern and i support the community on wanting to do anything about this. at this point i'm not sure if i want to have it here in this legislation because it has larger implications that we really need to address. >> commissioner antonini? >> supervisor avalos. thank you for bringing this legislation. there are many places that i like and some that i don't like but i particularly appreciate you addressing the issue because there is a lot of things we struggle with and we've never had anyone to date to brought up suggestions as did you today. that is have you laudable i think. the parts i'm in favor of elimination or the ban on any new off sale liquor

makes total sense of a continue using of an existing policy by put that go in your legislation. with the caveat that grocery stores are is toers -- stores that have other products and off sale liquor products if you try get a grocery store in there. i think that's important. trying to eliminate the gambling salon issues is something to get worked on, the height bonus is a very good one. but the area that i don't agree with is the parking. the south is a lot like the west of san francisco. we have cars, we use cars, we are a long ways from anywhere and oftentimes in my case being on the west side of san francisco, i have the advantage

of hopping on the metro and getting downtown, however it's a longer trip from the outer mission i think and also many times our travel takes us not to corridors that are easily served by public transportation. i have patients who are historically or 45 minutes late and they come to my office because they have to take preponderance transportation and make 3-4 transfers. another of my patients has told me how much more difficult it was out there because when they first fought -- their home in the 70s there was one car to each house. now there is a corridor which might have some benefit. i can see

where you want to put more types of housing, diversify your housing a little bit. i think you have to allow a restriction to have enough park to go take care of the new residents without putting more pressure on people who live there. >> we are talking about many years, many decades moving forward. we know in san francisco that we need to build out our infrastructure going oun outreach effort that way. in fact we are looking to do that in the next bond. we are talking about that with the mayor's office and all our different departments so the program is going to bring major benefits to the mission street corridor. we know the building and transit that we are going to meet. we know the corridor the way it's built now it's built to the 20th century. we annoy -- now need to build a

corridor. that is what this legislation is doing knowing that we have to build the kind of housing and commercial corridor that is going to work with our transit needs and is going to meet our reasonableal -- needs as well. we are going to see no matter what, we are going to see housing, 3-4 story housing come in on the corridor. we need that as a city for the people. so looking at parking requirements we are allowing one to one so there is a minimum. i think it's a choice that's made. we have developers to look at the demand most of all when it comes to choosing what level of parking they are going to provide and could very well be in reality one on one. >> thank you, i appreciate your comments but i still feel our greatest needs is for our single family homes, for

families, we are building a lot of dense housing, that's okay, even on the outer mission. our families are moving away from san francisco because they don't have houses of their on. i disagree on that policy but i agree that it allows one to one but unfortunately builders will cram as many units as they can into smallest spaces. i don't think the outer mission works. anyway, let's talk about what i think is the key issue here and that is the mcd one although all of this is important. later in the calendar we have three other conditional uses coming before us. we have one that moves a limit restaurant with no beer and wine. that's a conditional use. we have one react rating 2 adjacent spaces,

that's a conditional use, then we have one formula retail coffee establishment replacing another. that's a conditional use. all of these things that people have brought up as examples of things that are clustered all have conditional uses mostly because they are formula retail. starbucks, pet food express, walgreen's and these places have conditional uses. i think the supervisor's hit on something interesting here. i think the medical cannabis dispensaries rise to a level of significance. they should be of conditional use throughout the city in the future. i will at the you why, no. 1, they are significant. i'm not saying they don't provide a service. they provide a very good service for their patients but they deal with a

lot of cash that is part of their governmental feels they are not a substance. i think we have to look very carefully at each establishment to make sure it's the proper one. many of the respondents, the speakers spoke about the non-profits one being beneficial and the lower cost dispensaries and if we have the conditional use process we have to make this necessary and beneficial where we might, not approve a dispensary that would felt not to be doop -- duplicate that was not helping the individual. i feel if you look at each win particularly. the other ones who were opposed to mcd's were the ones who were not approved,

we have disapproved one or two in the commission and another one was an approved then it was disapproved by the permit appeals. it goes to the board of supervisors where you stand a getting it better on appeal. i think it addresses both sides but i think they are significant enough and we fight over them enough with class jurisdictional laws with the federal government and state government and it's a hard decision and every bit as significant as reacting them to these other things. i'm usually not an advocate for more process and more government. in this case, maybe the level should rise to one of c u. i can see not having the 500 foot in there but having a cu for new dispensaries here

throughout the city. commissioner hillist. >> thank you all for testifying. i'm very support ive of m cd's. we have three in our neighborhood. i think we are beyond the discussion of where we are talking about of them being magnets for crime or they are not good neighbors. i think we are beyond that. i would support at looking at citywide expanding of where they go. we are limiting where they can go and we can expend citywide to where they should go. the neighbors have a right to define their neighborhoods and we do that with coffee shops, retail, restaurants. so i don't

think we can discount the neighborhood wanting to help define what their neighborhood looks like in what it feels like. so i'm supportive, i think 500 feet in kind of banning them within 500 feet is somewhat clun key. where we have a hearing where it being clustered. maybe you increase that 500 feet to a thousand feet. but having this process. i think it's sound policy. can

m cd's be allowed on the second floor? >> excellent question. i don't think they are allowed. it should be in the packet. i don't think there is a great excuse for only ground floor. if there is accessibility to a

second floor. if they need the other code requirements much like a doctors office or dental office. second floor space is appropriate for them. they are not classic retail. it's more medical oriented and that's where we tend to have medical uses. so again, i'm sicht of some control that would look at clustering for 500 or thousand foot radius. and i would leak to see if we can encourage of them locating elsewhere. >> commission wu. >> thanks. the question of the cu. i feel whatever we do or recommend for me it needs to be about this name, mcd, i do like

the name mcd because it gives us the opportunity to look and maintain the culture of the certain neighborhood. i think it's great over all that we are moving in that direction. for me the question of moving a cu to a you will the city, probably the dr is a more appropriate venue. if there were a cu just for the ones that were 500 feet. would three be one that would supercede the other >> yes. if a c u was instituted in this neighborhood. it would only be the c u. i will still curious what the other commissioners have to say, i think i'm comfortable

forwarding this with the recommendation of the board of supervisors. i think it's just on the issue of concentration. if there was not an mcd there then one can locate it. on a number of issues, we have asked to divide the board and no with unis -- one is willing to do it. in the conversation so far i feel comfortable recommending this 500 foot ban. >> commissioner sugaya. >> i generally agree with most comments made and following on