is perfect for this center. he has the background, a proven track care record with running a health care facility. and his desire to provide care to patients who need it. i fully support his proposal and ask that the commission body join me in it as well. thank you. president olague: thank you. maria gray followed by robert wright. >> hello. my name is maria gray. i live near the mission and shop in that area. and i use medical marijuana for chronic joint pain. it helps me so that i can focus on other things that my pain -- other things than my pain and carry on a normal life activity. i am also a member of healthy san francisco.

i agree that the city doesn't need anymore pot clubs. but i do believe that we need better marijuana dispensaries, especially ones that are connected with other holistic medicines. we need dispensaries also that are in a safer location. 8th and mission, 4th and howard really aren't safe places to visit. they have no parking. and also just undesirable people that i really don't enjoy being around. the 3100 block of mission has good public transportation good street parking, and a safe, comfortable area to visit and shop in. part of the program i have to relieve my pain is acupuncture and chiropractic care this new facility will incorporate some of those practices into its services for members, along with physical therapy, group therapy, and other holistic treatments.

i hope you will vote to allow this facility to open. thank you. president olague: thank you. was there any additional public comment? i remember reading one name. whoever else wants to come up? sir, do you want to speak? >> yes. my name is robert. you didn't call me as being the next person. president olague: i probably pronounce it had wrong. >> that's right. robert raich. i'm glad to be here. thank you, madam chair, commissioners. i am an attorney. i specialize in medical cannabis law. i'm happy to be here. and i've got to tell you that the proposal that dr. margusov is proposing to you looks like one of the best medical cannibas dispensaries i've seen anywhere in the state. it would be a tremendous benefit to you, the citizens of san francisco, as well as to the area itself when it opens.

i would like to address a couple of the objections that i heard some of the other people mentioning here speaking before me today. first off, there was a discussion that there is another dispensary that's relatively nearby. its name is the bernal heights dispensary. i'd like to distinguish that dispensary from dr. margusov's. that dispensary does not provide other health care services. it just provides medical cannabis to patients. and also, it allows smoking inside. dr. margusov will not allow smoking in his dispensary. and it will also provide chiropractic care, physical therapy, occupational therapy, and licensed clinical social work. in addition to having that beautiful-looking cafe in front, it will also be a real health care facility in the back,

providing a whole range of holistic care to patients as well as, of course, their medical cannabis. another thing is that the dispensary and its security guards will actually improve the area. somebody mentioned the problem with loitering or graffiti. having the dispensary there and its security guards will actually reduce some of these apparent problems that apparently exist there, such as loitering, the graffiti, and other problems that people have. the disprensry will actually im-- dispensary will actually improve it. and that facade would actually look better than most other storefronts on that particular block. again, it will be a tremendous benefit to the area. and the neighborhood specifically. there is a childcare facility -- [tone] that has been mentioned being nearby. however, under san francisco's

ordinance, childcare facilities are not included among those areas that dispensaries must be 1,000 feet away from. and, of course, you can see why the board of supervisors drafted the ordinance the way it did. small children, you know, children who are under 5 years old, are not going to be going on into a medical cannabis dispensary the way some -- [tone] older students might. president olague: thank you. >> they have teachers and providers. you're welcome. >> marijuana, medical or illegal. i deal with it every day at my house. i live on 11th avenue. getting home from work last night two people on my backdoorstep just rolling marijuana. medical? illegal? i don't know. i've swept up both kind of containers behind my house. there's a club on 29 mission street. i don't feel safe. i've been living there 16 years,

slowly the neighborhood turns around, graffiti. i've been removing it. storefronts, curbs, everything, to get my neighborhood safe. i don't feel safe. approach adults, people behind my house, find that place to go. they're not smoking marijuana. i realize that. they're going to have security. i realize that now. now, if i come home and there are people behind my house, which every day, every week, they are. i've been threatened. i'm scared to go in the back of my own yard. i call the cops. they come. if these people that are behind my house decide to come down the street and hang out behind my house and smoke, you know, do i have security, you know to report this? what happens for me in the neighborhood? because i do not feel safe. and now with this going in, i would feel less safe. that's all i got to say. thank you. president olague: is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment's

closed. -- commissioner fong? commissioner fong: thank you. looking at the map provided, there's a map of the mission child development preschool. that seems to intersect -- the 1,000 radius goes right through it. what does the law prescribe as far as the 1,000 feet? >> plaintiff department staff. the way i understand it and the way it's been interpreted is it's primary and secondary schools, public or private. we understand that to mean k through 6 and then 7 through 12, whatever the distinction is. we don't believe that this child development center that you're referencing falls into those that lists restricted uses. commissioner fong: and so the family school public comment was

also about -- >> what we understand is that the family school is not a primary-secondary school. commissioner fong: ok. [tone] ok. president olague: commissioner miguel? commissioner miguel: yes. my recommendation, i've made it privately to many people who have contacted me regarding this and other medical cannabis dispensaries if that is your problem, talk to the board of supervisors. they're the ones who set the code up in the manner in which they did. we did not. we merely have to abide by it, just like everyone else. so if that's your problem, that is your venue for it. and i suggest you do so. bring the problem to them if you feel it is a problem, and go ahead from there. as far as the proliferation

within an area, if you take a look at not regular medical services, not a doctor as service, alternative medical services, chiropractors, acupuncturists, chinese herbal dispensaries, i don't ever remember hearing a problem of three chiropractors on one block, three acupunctures on one block. you go down into chinatown and you will find asian herbal dispensaries all over the place, concentrated. i have spoken at these hearings before that i have problems with the law regarding medical marijuana. if it is a medicalically dispensed drug, you should be able to get it at walgreens, as far as i'm concerned, on a standard doctor's prescription.

until that law is changed, however, and it doesn't seem like anyone's paying any attention to me, then we deal with what we have. we have to deal with the code as it presently is. as far as crime is concerned, i very much appreciated the officer from the ingleside station being here, and i took note of what he and other officers have not said. we have never, in my mind, or my memory at this commission or at any other time, been shown any statistics to show that medical cannabis dispensary increase crime in a neighborhood. i mean, if there's crime -- and i'm sure the officer would be the first one to second me on this. report it to them. do it. that's exactly what should be done. that's what all the stations in san francisco and all over expect you to do.

but no one has ever presented to us actual factual material on which we could make a decision of saying this is going to increase crime. i haven't seen it at all. the comment on the signs on 1,000-foot drug-free zones are for illegal drugs. they are not for anything from prescription drugs, basically. whether i like it or not, the manner of which the prescriptions are held in medical cannabis, this has to be considered a prescription drug. you get it because you get it on the basis of a doctor's prescription. and so it is not covered in that. and on that basis, it becomes very difficult for me to make a decision based on the arguments

that have come forward. president olague: commissioner sog so sugaya? commissioner sugaya: yes. i would like to echo the commissioner's comments. going on from there, i have a question for project sponsor. on the plans and drawings that were given to us, there's a layout of your facility. and there's a room in the back called the work room. can you describe to me what takes place in that room? >> the work room? it's described as a work room, but it's actually going to be an office. that's the way it was written by the architect. commissioner sugaya: and then there's another office sort of in the middle of the space. >> that's correct. that's where we plan on providing some of the therapies. i also have a licensed health care facility here in san

francisco, in the richmond district. because of the project and the agreement with the heights alliance, we had to cut down about 360 to 400 square feet to provide the cafe in the front so we had to take out some offices. so we're working to, you know, somehow provide health care to the patients. once, you know, we feel that the patients have outgrown the facility, we look to open something next to this dispensary. there's a few more storefronts that are vacant on mission street. that's our intent. commissioner sugaya: ok. thank you. i think following up with commissioner's comments with respect to changing the ordinance is actually through the board of supervisors. however, there was another marijuana sentencery that

this -- dispensary that this board approved which was appealed at the board of appeals because this is a discretionary review. and the board of appeals voted to overturn our decision. and that kind of decision -- i was a member of the board of appeals at that time. that kind of decision is very rare, i think in terms of the board. and it points out, i think, that in the board of appeals, it's not a body that sets policy. this board can vote on various policy issues through the general plan and other planning mechanisms. the board of appeals is really there to uphold city law. and for them to step outside the boundaries in my opinion, in this case, is pointing a direction. and i don't know, along with commissioner miguel, if

anybody's listening. but somebody should be listening. i think each time we get one of these, there's an increasing number -- not increasing number. there are concerns that are being expressed that the current ordinance as commissioner miguel said does not give us much leadway to address. so something, i assume, at some point, will begin to happen. i feel that in this case i'm quite supportive of the current application. if we include -- i think there were -- mr. sanchez, i think we are already including conditions of approval with respect to security. i don't know how the other commissioners feel. but if we could include what the police officer had testified to in terms of working with them on security cameras and other aspects of the security plan?

>> i think they're added to the three conditions. we could add a fourth, i believe, work with the san francisco police department and particularly that station on a security plan. sog sog ok. commissioner sugaya: ok. commissioner miguel: i would second. is that a motion? i would second. president olague: commissioner moore followed by commissioner sugaya for the commission to remind ourselves we continued an application on 952 mission street with the very same question pending that we were looking for further definition on what it meant by youth serving services.

i think as we -- definitions which further highlight which uses are or are not included within the 1,000-foot area. it is just coming to a head. we are respective and supportive of the neighbors. however, i think commissioner miguel very clearly described what we know and what we're judging by. another point in response to the officer who kindly offered his advice, the planning staff does a follow-up on complaints or description of the individual in front of us. and there are at least one or two cases within the last five years where there were questionable reports about an individual who was applying for

a license, and we denied it. because what was in front of us did not make any of us totally convinced that that was the right thing to do. we do not have that here. indeed, we have a very positive description about an individual who is in the medical field, who is running a responsible practice. so there is no reason for us to add other questions or concerns that really do not apply to describing the individual asking for a business license to run a medical marijuana facility. so having said that, i'll summarize for myself of what the criteria are, i am in support of this. and i urge supervisors, listening to what we're saying here that the board steps together, together with the planning commission as a department, to further elaborate on what we need to know in order to avoid over saturation and clarity on definitions.

president olague: commissioner fong? commissioner fong: thank you. it seems like this project complies with the code. and so, therefore, i'm going to support our policy. but this next question has nothing to do with the plat operation -- to the operation. it sounds like you run a great operation. but to my fellow commissioners, i think it's time for a review. i know it's not solely our decision, but that maybe we ask from the police department some sort of recap of what the implications are, maybe reaching out to the supervisors on this matter. and it's really a question that's been asked, how much is too much? but we would ask, and we do ask the same questions, how many cvs pharmacies are too much, how many starbucks are too much? how many taco bells are too much? not taco bell, but. but we ask the questions. i think it's fair to maybe -- i don't even know. does anybody even know how many m.c.d.'s we have in san francisco?

but -- [inaudible] commissioner fong: thank you. it's clearly a concentration because of this 1,000-foot radius. maybe it's time to review that. i'm hearing that pretty strongly amongst the six of us here today. but if we can get that ball rolling, i think it's better. in the previous one on mission street, and this one as well, i can't continue an item or not approve it unless we've changed the policy on it. so otherwise, it's within the rules. congratulations. but. president olague: and i wanted to make a comment that while it sounds like there's a lot of existing issues with graffiti and all of these other issues that are already in existence in this neighborhood that probably deserves some attention, but i'm not sure it's within the purview of this medical cannabis or this

health facility, whatever. i don't see a nexus between the two, as has been spoken, a nexus between hasn't been established. we've asked for it. and it hasn't been provided. so i think as it relates to activities, maybe that's even a question for the school board. it's beyond this issue. it's beyond this body, obviously. maybe discuss families, a lot of different issue that are related come up here a lot. and if opportunities aren't being provided for certain us use -- youth, then unfortunately they gravitate towards activities that aren't so constructive. so i think that's an issue that the city needs to be taking up outside of this realm. but, you know, certainly the school board, the board of supervisors, maybe there's some kind of way of looking at ways

of remedying this where youth are provided with something that would help them to create more productive activities with their time. i think it is an issue that's unfortunate. but sometimes i think what happens is that the law gets projected on to certain types of uses, and maybe -- i'm not sure if it's within the realm of the land uses also medical cannabis patients, i'm not convinced, are necessarily contributing to certain types of activity. i don't think there's any evidence of that either. the medical use. i'm not sure it's necessarily contributing to an increase in certain, you know, activity in certain areas. so i think what i do like about this project is -- one of the

things that's unfortunate about many of these facilities is that it deadens the activity on the street. it doesn't activate the street use. so because there's a cafe that's being set up there, i think that's good. and if you can look at ways to acts rate is this -- activate this type of use, that's a good thing. there's a separate entrance, i guess, for the other uses. and it sounds like it's more like a health center than not. so i think that could be positive. then if you have the security -- you discussed with the police force or whatever -- then there's ways of increasing security on the street in that respect, too. and to continue to engage with the neighbors on some productive level to see how maybe some of their concerns can be addressed through this project rather than exacerbated, which i don't think is necessarily the case although there's a lot of miss

understanding -- miss understanding about that. so i think it might be time to relook at this. if anything, we might need to lift the restrictions on 1,000 feet rather than tighten them. because of the restriction, it really limits where these go. so i think what we're finding is that it's creating a certain saturation or clustering which we support initially because there were, at that point, a lot of places being grandfathered in that were adjacent to each other for whatever reason. so i think because we have such restricted rules around the 1,000-foot whatever it just limits where these places can be. so there's a lot that the board of supervisors might need to consider. it's been a couple of years since this has been in place. and maybe it's time to just review it. they have a task force there, i know. there are some that -- some

districts that might have more than others, like d-6, i know. d-9 probably on some level. so maybe something that the supervisors just want to reflect on or just have some kind of a status report on how things have moved. there's one not too far from where i live it doesn't seem to have caused any increase in certain types of crimes. that i'm aware of. >> commissioners, just to clarify, there are 26 in operation right now approved. five are in the pipeline. president olague: and also, i do want to -- in some -- there have been at least i think -- there's at least once instance that i can remember where we approved it and it was closed down because they didn't comply by the conditions that we set for them. so there's been -- they have to be good operators. they have to be responsive to

the concern that are raised here, and the neighbors, and the staff and all of that. so i want to thank mr. sanchez for his work on this. i know it's not easy. ok. >> commissioners, the motion on the floor is to, i assume, approve this project with the added condition offered by the police department that project sponsor continue working with them, work with them, on their security plan. on that motion, commissioner gordon? [roll call] >> thank you, commissioners. that motion passed unanimously. president olague: we're going to take a 10-minut

>> okay, the planning commission is back in session. my understanding since the recesses you will consider the continuance of item 15, which is the market and octavia monitoring report follow-up hearing. so moved to what date? >> june 16 or whatever 16th it is. commissioner olague: the proposal is to continue this in the june 16. >> second. >> wanted to make sure to place at the end of the calendar because a lot of the individuals that hope to be here wanted to be here, and that is why we are continuing it, so we could have more input. commissioner olague: on that motion for continuance to june 16. commissioner moore? don't know? commissioner moore: [inaudible]

commissioner borden: aye. commissioner moore:. commissioner sugaya:. commissioner miguel:. commissioner olague: thank you, commissioners. that item has been continued. you are now on general public comment. is there any general public, items on today's agenda? seeing none, general public comment is closed and the meeting is adjourned. thank you. 6:14

[pledge of allegiance] >> hello. we will be taking the roll call. [roll call]