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.

>> we usually reserve the front row for staff. we really do. if there are seats, i want you to find one in the audience. and if they are not, i will let you sit there. there is a seat next to you that is available if you can stand up for someone to take it. otherwise we will assume there aren't any available seats.

it looks like we will need an overflow room. unless it is okay for them to stand off to the side, miss avery. secretary avery: they can stand over here. they can't stand over here. president olague: okay. i think we're okay. i think we're okay then. >> all right. secretary avery: all right. thank you. planning commission is back in session. let me just say this. please turn off your pagers, your cell phones, your laptop computers, anything that may sound off during the proceeding.

when speaking before the commission, i am asking you state your name for the record and spell your last time in. we ask that the room is crowd sod if you feel the feed -- crowded so if you feel the need to engage in a secondary discussion, we ask you take the discussions outside and is extremely disruptive to the process. again, there is to be no standing on the wall where the door is. it exceeds the fire hazard. and if you are standing over here on this wall, please do not block the screen. thank you. roll call. kathrin moore. >> here. >> bill sugaya. >> here. >> rodney fong. >> here. >> antonini ant. >> here. >> christine olague. >> here. >> gwenn borden. >> here. secretary avery: commissioners, at this time the items before you will all pertain to 800 presidio avenue.

and item 12 is the consideration of the final e.i.r.. because you do not have public hearings on final e.i.r.'s we have a public comment category so the public can make comments before you take your action on that e.i.r.. so at this time members of the public who wish to address the commission on any agenda item that has been reviewed at a public member that members of the public were allowed to testify and the public has been closed, your opportunity to do so would be at this time. and you may address the commission for up to three minutes or whatever time the president sets. and the only item this category can be used for today would be for number 12. again, that is for 800 presidio avenue, certification of the final environmental impact report. okay. it looks like i am going to need overflow. i really can't start the meeting with the door blocked like that. it just can't happen. so you either need to come over

here on this side and sit on floor or whatever, but you cannot block that door.

secretary avery: okay, ladies and gentlemen. president olague: yes, that is okay. two minutes if that is okay on the e.i.r. secretary avery: so president olague has determined that she will allow two minutes for speaker to address the e.i.r. president olague: and commissioner fong has something. commissioner fong: i ask for your indulgence of this matter and i am going to ask to recuse myself from this item as a family member is just found out is going to service services from one of the organizations related to this project. secretary avery: on the motion for recusal -- commissioner miguel: motion for recusal. >> second. [roll call taken on recusal] secretary avery: commissioner fong, you are recused.

thank you. i need the speaker cards. >> this is item 12. president olague: this is the item on strictly on items that are where the public hearing has been closed and that only relates to the environmental impact report. i do have a few speaker cards so i'll go ahead and call them out. but again, this only relates to the e.i.r. it does not relate to the project itself. so brad paul. john manley.