money than they can afford. we are providing a very necessary place for people to come and receive social services, women's groups, veterans groups. it would be a real shame for us to be classified as a retail medical dispensary, which we are not, and have to do things we cannot afford not be able to serve the committee with the services that we provide. thank you. president miguel: thank you. >> good afternoon. go giants. my name is kathy smith. i run the hope that, and medical dispensary on ninth street. i would also like to talk about this. i was just blown away by it. i cannot believe it. it access of love is totally a social services facility. i know that because i pay their

bills. they don't take any money in from their members. i know that because i pay their bills. every day, people get clothing, food, we make sure people have homes to cook their food that we're giving them. they have social services for veterans, aa meetings, narcotics anonymous, chess, bingo, a transsexual groups, women's groups. these are all social services, given away for free. access of love is a social service center. i would beg you to give them the sanctuary status until all of this planning can be straightened out. the other thing i want to address is the letters of determination, which are very disturbing because they basically circumvent the public

process. they take away the neighborhood 's right to decide he was going to be their neighbor -- who is going to be their neighbor. i think you all know some of this is contentious. we could have contentious new owners moving in and the neighborhood not being happy, and it is just not fair. it is not the way this city does business. i would urge you to tighten up on those and look at those levels -- letters of determination. the third issue that was brought up is totally relevant, and that is the delivery service. grain crops -- green crops has gone through a lot to be a delivery service. they have paid their fees, they have paid their dues. it is not fair for the city to let other services, and and not

hold those services to the same accountability that we hold them to. it is just not fair to them. i would ask you to look into this. thank you very much. president miguel: i am going to interrupt this, as i said i would. supervisor campos is here. we will take up health care legislation and come back to this afterwards. if you wish. all right, the supervisor says you can finish, but please make it fast. and no applause, please. >> nicholas. i would like to thank all the commissioners for their time today. i am a disabled veteran, san

francisco veteran, an activist. i would like the hearing on the definitions of mcd, to hold a fair and impartial hearing to define what is a medicinal cannabis dispensary. i am in favor of chris jackson for d-10 supervisor. one-third of all homeless are veterans suffering from post- traumatic stress disorder and other disorders. these veterans need meeting places such as acts of love, which is the only veterans meeting place in san francisco city and county.. acts of love is a benevolent, satellite organization for harm reduction and group social support to avoid suicidal depression and to help find reintegration with society for

american veterans. thank you very much. >> thank you, hi. i am a member of acts of love. i had back surgery about four months ago and have been put on about $100 per month stipend to live on. i can tell you personally because, first of all, i do not use of opiates to dearer -- to deal with my back surgery pain. the medical marijuana community is the only resource that works, and without this i would not be able to get up and walk around, much less have to deal with my seizures. if you negate the system that is in place here, you are just taking away from people who don't have anything already.

thank you. >> excuse me, members of the public. be advised that this section of the calendar goes up to 15 minutes and there are approximately five minutes left. >> i am frank, and i am a trend psychic healer. i basically -- i am a trained psychic healer. i started 10 years ago with several other dispensaries. they basically said, frank, we're fascinated, but we are running a business here. i have a little office and a pile in to see me every wednesday. i don't think people should have astrological or numerology guidance just because they cannot afford it.

i've volunteered and people have really responded to what i am doing, especially the harm reduction. i have been bounced around, and everybody is fascinated with my talent, but they all said the same thing, we are running a business. but this is not a business. we struggle with hope net to pay our bills, and we are providing -- for a fascist date to provide, you have to divide and conquer. if you have to stop people from congregating. if people like us cannot get together -- i am 62 next week, so i am really what is left of the counterculture, and we all feel this. we'll put our heart into this. on my tv access cable show, we are every place that you could beat if you could, but you have

jobs so you are not. hopefully, we will get some donations, especially around the holidays because we could really use them. this is a wicked below, getting thrown under the bus. i cannot wait for you to come down to excess of love and assault. i know your time is limited. i appreciate your time. i practice buddhism and we are altruistic. >> i am here on behalf of access of love. once upon a time, there was a collective called access of love. they were very successful raising political issues, helping indigent citizens with housing and food and harm reduction. all with no cost to any municipality, city government or otherwise. why would some hostile forces

want to disband us? it is like the big bad wolf, who will huff and puff and blow your house down. they tried arresting are growers and the charges were dropped. even the product was returned, the first time in police history. they tried to stop our dispensaries, and a resolution was passed that said, no, no, no to hostile takeover. now that have come up with another poison that attempted to spend us, calling us at the dispensary, knowing full well that the $10,000 price tag would inflict a vital blow to our food program and rant and our facility. so the moral of the story is no

matter how many times they try to pick want access of love, it is a wonderful organization that helps many people. it helps people in the community, and you will need us. one way or another, you all need us. we also know the definition of a dispensary has nothing to do with giving away free product, so again, this is another bill attempts to disband us which will also go up in smoke. the end of the story. thank you. >> thank you. commissioners, we have exceeded the 15-minute time. president miguel: public, is closed for this portion of the calendar. a public comment will be available at the end of the calendar. vice president olague: yeah, at some point, sooner than later, i would like to request some clarity on some of these issues. i think would be best if it was

done in a public forum, because there might be some information that needs to be clarified on all sides. i know the department of public health had an opinion that might somehow differ from the planning department, even though we're dealing with a similar issue, so it might be good to have everyone here, maybe even and fight dph to get the discussion -- maybe even and fight dph to get everyone involved. i know that i have heard the grain crops. i don't know what that has to do with the delivery service, does that mean it is voluntary in terms of the permitting? a lot of the comets are raising more questions, and i think it would be good, we would be able to reach more understanding, if we just had some kind of discussion with the public. that is all. i would like to ask for that. commissioner moore: depending on

the outcome of the november election, i think we will have expanded questions that include the city attorney, land use, the city attorney, everybody. president miguel: until the november election is over and proposition 19 is settled, i and the hall commission decides what they want to define or not defined. i do not want to decide. >> commissioners, the next item on the calendar is public comment on agenda items where the public hearing has been closed. at her lover, because item 10 has been continued to december 2, there are no items where the public hearing has been closed, which puts us on the regular calendar, and we will be taking item 16 out of order, health care services master plan.

the planning commission will consider a proposed ordinance. >> good afternoon president miguel and members of the planning commission. the item before you is an ordinance that would require the creation and implementation of a health-care services master plan. i will go through a full description of this ordinance and a moment, but first i would like to introduce supervisor campos, author of the wilderness, to provide a few words. president miguel: supervisor camps, thank you for coming. supervisor campos: thank you, mr. president and commissioners. i like to underscore the importance of giving clarity on the issue that was raised before, because you have the medical cannabis community that needs to have that clarity. for many of us who have worked with this group, it is difficult for us to understand how that can be classified as as an mcd.

i think the sooner we address that, the better it is for the city. that said, amid talk about why we are here, which is this piece of legislation that we introduced a few weeks back. let me say i have been involved in legislation, drafting legislation the last two years, and i am very proud of the fact that the way we have been working on this piece of legislation is unprecedented, and the terms of the level of involvement that we have had, in terms of the stake holders on this issue. from the very beginning, before we even started thinking about drafting this legislation that called for the creation of the health services master plan, we made a point of sitting down not only with city agencies but with people within the community and the industry to understand what issues that would be impacted by the legislation would be, and making it clear to them that as we were drafting that legislation that we wanted to get their input.

once the legislation was drafted, we also want to sit down with them and talk to them about their comments and concerns and their ideas. we have been doing that. it has been a matter of months since we start working on this. i also want to thank the health director for the city and county of the san francisco, whose input has been invaluable in all of this, and his staff who has helped tremendously. i also want to thank the planning director and his staff for the amazing work they have also done on this piece of legislation. we have learned a lot in this process. that is a complicated issue, and one thing we have recognized is there is not one clear answer to a lot of these issues, but we as a city are at a crossroads with something that needs to be done. i will be honest with you, in the last week or so, i have heard a lot about what is being said about this piece of

legislation. i have heard a lot from a lot of different people, in this building, a lot of my colleagues have been approached by a number of individuals who have talked about this legislation in a way that has provided a lot of misinformation. this is a modest legislative proposal that is basically grounded on the idea that we as a city on a regular basis are being asked to make decisions in the land use context that have implications on how health care is provided to sanford skins. one thing that became very clear to me -- to residents of san francisco. one thing that became very clear to me is that we as a city are being asked to make those decisions without having full knowledge of what the actual health care needs of san francisco are. and not just the needs of the city as a whole, but the needs of individual neighborhoods and communities throughout the city. and not just the needs today,

but the needs a year, two years, 10 years from now. with this legislation essentially does is it presents a very basic proposal that says before we go forward, as we're doing right now, and make those decisions, let's create a master plan that outlines in a very thorough and complete way with the health care needs of every resident of san francisco are, what the health-care needs of the city are said that when we are asked to approve or disapprove a project, we have the information to know whether or not those projects are actually consistent with the needs of the city. it is not rocket science. it is a very basic concept. in the process of drafting the legislation, we have learned a lot. in fact, we have learned a lot, in particular, from the planning department, which not only help us put together the legislation,

but has in the course of this process introduced a number of changes. in fact, a letter was sent from our office to you, explaining how we are planning to amend the legislation in direct response to some of the issues that were raised by the planning staff. again, from the very beginning, -- actually, there is a key medication that was sent through your staff, and i am here to say that there incorporating into the legislation that are directly due to the result of suggestions from the planning department's staff. and some of those, so that i can give you a brief overview, and there will be more substance provided in the course of this presentation, one of the things that we learn in talking to individuals is that since the legislation remains as is, you could have a situation where a

health institution had to go through the process of seeking a determination by virtue of where the project was located. and that because of zoning issues, you could have a situation where two similar projects by virtue of what the proposed geographic location would be, one would have to go through a determination and another would not have to. because of the inequities involved in that, we amended it to make sure there was consistency in the treatment of all projects. we also recognize there are legitimate concerns about smaller projects that by virtue of their size and the nature of the projects do not really have the kind of impact that concerns us in terms of health care access throughout the city. because of that, one of the things we are changing and proposing to change is the trigger for when the legislation is implicated.

the suggestion that was provided to us by planning and perhaps a suggestion that's modified somewhat by your staff is that the threshhold be when a project or building is of more than 6,000 square feet or if you have an existing building where there is a proposal to change the use of that existing facility and that change surpassed 3,000 square feet. again, the focus is on some of the larger projects and not so much on the solid projects and the example that he provides is we have a need for primary care physicians in san francisco and to the extent that you have a project that essentially opened up a clinic that provides those services, you don't want something like this to get in the way of something like that. again, all the changes responsive to the concerns that have been raised by planning and also the concerns that have been

raised by the health economyi commission, whiches in course of their deliberation have provided to us a number of hypotheticals and raised a lot of issues, some that we hadn't thought about. in response to the hypotheticals that we also may be seeing. i want to have two more points. i think that this commission itself is actually highlighted better than i ever could the need for this legislation. commissioner sugaya and one of the prior hearings, you talked about how the city really needs this kind of information and this kind of planning and you explained, and i quote, this commission is ill equipped to analyze the needs of this particular hospital, referring to the specific project at issue, and we have no community san francisco health care plan, and that is what you explained. and absolutely, you are right. i do think that this commission

is ill equipped along the lines that you described not because of the fact you don't know what you are doing, but simply because we are talking about a different area of expertise. we have president miguel who is a following, but although san francisco has put into effect healthy san francisco and from all the reports i have had it is working and starting to work, we have failed miserably, the city government of san francisco has failed miserably to create a comprehensive plan addressing the health care distribution in the city. basically, a health care master plan. and then president miguel goes on to say we need better planning tools in this city in order to help us make wise choices regarding the distribution of health care services in this city and whether it makes sense to grant permission to construction of a new health care services in our city. i can not agree with you more, mr. president. i think you explained it better than i could. that is why we're here.

the final point that i will make is that as we continue with the legislative process, my office is remaining open to consideration of amendments. we know that the planning department staff has some amendments that have been recommended and we're open to a discussion about them, but i do want to speak about one specific concept that if i understand it has been and will be proposed which is the idea of exempting certain projects from being covered by this legislation. again, we are open to discussing any instrument and this concept included, but the amendment has to be grounded in good public policy. there has to be a good public policy rational for making any itch compleme amendment which p

point to the need to move in a certain direction, but there has to be a policy surrounding for anything we do. and the example that i give and the question that arises to me in thinking about this amendment or the proposal and again, open to discussing it and hearing what the planning department staff has to give, whatever the explanation is, and if you want to regulate offshore drilling, there are many things that you need to take into account. but if you are thinking about accepting individual companies, is that really something that's going to advance public policy? do you have legislation that regulates offshore drilling and exempt b.p. or chevron or exxon? you have to think before you do something like that. to the extent that we're talking about exempting a project or project, we need to understand where that exemption fits in the

larger scheme of what this legislation is trying to do. this is about giving city agencies yourself and the tools needed to make life decisions. that's all we're trying to do. we don't have all the answers but we believe that we have to start somewhere and i think that the sooner that we move this piece of legislation forward, the better. with that, i don't know if the commission has any questions for me at this point. before i turn it over to the planning department and staff. president miguel: thank you very much. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: supervisor campos, i have a question that may come up. wouldn't this more proper will i be the department of health which i understand has a budget of about $1.5 billion per year and might be more properly put together by them? obviously with as your legislation and they might be the lead agency one would think,

and then, of course, we could use as advisory when projects come before us whether or not we feel it's in conformity. but we would make the decision of the conformity. that is my question. >> thank you very much, commissioner. we have thought very, very carefully about that issue and the reason that the legislation was crafted in this way is the decisions being made with respect to the individual projects being made is in the land use context. and for the health care services master plan to have any impact on those decisions, it has to be drafted in such a way where the decision making happens in the project of land use. that is why the ultimate determination about the approval of the projects is with this commission. that is not taking away from you. in fact, what the health commission does is look at the health care piece and make a

finding about consistency or inconsistency. in making that finding, they do not have the final say of what the overall project is seeking a land use entitlement. they send that finding to you for your information and you take that into consideration as you make your decision and ultimately where the health commission has made a finding of inconsistency, you may decide on balance the project could be approved. so i actually think that the point you make of something that's already embedded in this legislation. what we also, though, try to do is make sure that there is collaboration between the health department and the planning department because i don't think that the city can make wise policy choices if the two are

operating in a vacuum. it's important that they work to inform both and that is what we're trying to do and if you have specific ways that that collaboration can be enhanced through this legislation and be open to that, that's why it was drafted the way it was drafted. commissioner antonini: thank you, supervisor. and one follow-up on the threshhold. presently anything over 10,000 square feet has to have a ceqa determination and almost anything has some reason for conditional use and most of it does even at lower levels and i just don't understand why the square footage is lower for this than would be the case than what it presently is. >> sorry to interrupt. that threshhold was originally provided by planning and we are open to discussing what it should be. we are open to that discussion and certainly do not want to create inconsistency in how

projects are treated, so we're open to that. thank you for that suggestion. president miguel: commissioner moore. commissioner moore: without preempting the suggestion, i would like to add the department of the environment and i believe that chemical and waste management is a very strong consideration which goes into land use but beyond it i would also suggest that traffic and transportation are being asked because given the size of some of these facilities that requires really very, very strong coordination relative to parking and public access and emergency access, etc. and obviously emergency responsibility as an independent entity that i think should be very well involved given when it comes to the larger size facility. >> if i may, commissioner, and welcome to the suggestion and we had a meeting with the human services agency and and