it is located within the boundaries of the central market, economic strategy area. a plan that was completed last november. we have received opposition from nine people, including friends of mint plaza, and the howard street clean and green neighbors association, the central market community benefits district, and nrg energy center. to date, we have not received any support for the project. the department has determined that it should be disapproved as it presents the exceptional and extraordinary circumstances. specifically, located within an area that recently underwent a 10-month community process designed to revitalize the central market neighborhood by increasing opportunities for residents, improving the selection and quality of retail in the neighborhood, and restoring central market as san francisco's downtown arts

market. the result of this process was a central market action plan which provides a framework for cheap -- for achieving these objectives. it is in this plan that liquor stores, adult uses, and pawnshops are identified as nuisance uses. it is located in a neighborhood that contains ample access to medical cannabis come up with eight approved mcd's around. the department finds the disapproval to be necessary to fully implement the objectives of the central market economic strategy and ensure a balance of never uses. the department finds that this disapproval will not dissolute medical cannabis patients from access to medical canada's. the department recommends that you take d.r. and disapproved the c.d.

this concludes my presentation and i am available for questions. vice president wu: thank you. project sponsor? >> good evening. my name is daniel. a little bit about myself -- i am an attorney, a small-business owner in san francisco. i am also a patient and proud supporter of the medicinal marijuana community. and the values that this community shares on behalf of san francisco. san francisco has a very proud history of supporting civil rights. san francisco's politicians and the community have identified san francisco as a sanctuary city, ensuring safe access to

cannabis on behalf of those individuals who have recommendations and required it. providing safe access to medicine is critical to the well-being of our san francisco community members, especially as we know that san francisco has one of the largest per-capita prevalence of people living with hiv. 471 jessie st. is a phenomenal resource for san francisco. it is an ideal location for a dispensary. it is ideal and it has been acknowledged by the city that it meets all criteria necessary to establish a dispensary in the location. the zoning rules, proximity or lack of proximity to schools, parks, are part of the zoning requirements. most importantly, this location

also complies with federal rules regarding location and proximity. this is different than some of the other dispensaries in the location that this dispensary seeks to inhabit. as i think you know, the department of justice has been targeting dispensaries throughout san francisco. as recently as march 30, another slew of letters went out seeking the closure of dispensaries in san francisco. rather than creating an -- a large cluster of dispensaries, it said that 471 jesse street would be ideal because it meets the requirements of san francisco and the federal government. the landlord is also in full support and this is truly a rarity in san francisco. 471 jessie st., the proposed

block has little foot traffic at this time. it has to other public commercial spaces. my colleague has reference to the central market economic strategy. i believe that the referenced is selective and misinformed. if we look at the central market strategy, on page 14 of the strategy, the most compelling statement that this strategy seeks to accomplish is to reduce the vacancy rate of commercial spaces in this area. this area has the highest concentration of vacant commercial spaces, approximately 30%. 471 jessie would reduce one of those vacant spaces. increased foot traffic, that is going to be a positive as well for jessie street. if you are familiar with this

alley, there is not foot traffic. there is not a delusion of people walking on that block. we believe it will ultimately benefit the economic strategy of central market for the very reason that when you have more people focusing and flowing through a street, you will have more benefit -- more businesses seeking to benefit from the foot traffic. there has been an indication that somehow, a medicinal cannabis dispensary attracts criminal elements or a stigmatizing presence. we feel that is misinformed and not in keeping with the information we have. in one of the responsibilities of the dispensary is to ensure a constant and continual security presence, including lighting, visibility, could -- security cameras, and a constant presence during business hours, rather

than attracting -- may i continue? >> and you have 26 seconds. >> let's go forward. the base of the recommendation that she made was that there are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances suggesting why this panel should preclude us from having this dispensary. we believe there are exceptional circumstances requiring that this be supported. vice president wu: thank you. is there any public comment on this item? i have a number of cards. hunter, michael, david.

>> good evening. esteemed members of the planning commission, my name is hunter. a few things about myself -- i am a member of san francisco americans for state access, the local chapter. very active in the community. i am on the medical cannabis task force in san francisco that applies is the board of supervisors on cannabis-related issues. i did want to make some points. one of the biggest points that was brought up as an objection is that dispensaries are a nuisance. again, there is a vague reference to that in the development plan. it seems unfair to be pigeonholed with pawnshops, adult used bookstores, and liquor stores.

that is a little bit insulting. some other things -- patients are not criminals. their presence would surely benefit the neighborhood. there would be a lot more positive foot traffic and to assume that this would bring some sort of criminal element to the neighborhood is misinformed and shocking. another point is that, because there are doj letters circulating in the neighborhood, that some mcd's especially in the neighborhood -- someone said there were eight within a one-mile radius. some of those have already been targeted by the doj and will most likely be shutting down within the next 90 days. there is no indication that these letters will continue. the argument that there are too many dispensaries in the area or that clustering is an issue is also misinformed. i am also aware that the planning commission is not

supposed to look at clustering as an issue when it comes to permitting dispensaries. thank you. vice president wu: thank you. next speaker. let's good evening. my name is david. i am a member of the core leadership group of the san francisco chapter of americans for safe access. i am a long term san francisco homeowner and resident for 39 years. i am also a medical cannabis patient. my husband and i depend on medical cannabis for safe access from high-quality, laboratory- tested medical cannabis -- excuse me, we depend on safe access to high-quality, laboratory-tested medical cannabis provided by our cities am here in support of the permit.e in support of the

in the planning staff cites several erroneous assertions cited by the mayor's office of economic development, claiming that they are new since uses. there is no proof that and cd -- mcd's create more crime. i take offense to be likened to a patron of a pawn shop or a liquor store or a adult-used bookstore. in addition, san francisco analyses do not show an increase in crime in areas surrounding the mcd's. moreover, there was a report showing that crime rates go up, not down, when they are close and forced to leave the neighborhood. claims they are not positive businesses are false. in addition to the use of previously vacant spaces and the creation of dozens of jobs, they have many wellness programs offering health and legal

services for their patients, including massage, acupuncture, and legal clinics. this has been a hallmark of metathrive, whose two owners are seeking to open this collectives. under the medical canada's act of 2005, 95% of the city's land is not available for the use of and mcd. no substantive proof has been offered to show that clustering has any negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood. clustering is no more of a problem than clustering of drug stores throughout the city. on the 17th of this year, the planning commission approved two dispensaries in the same block. a few weeks ago, the commission approved a permit for the mcd at 72nd street in the same neighborhood as 471 jessie st.

apparently, clustering has not been a problem so far and should not be. there has been the closure of valley's five dispensaries with more likely to follow suit. thank you very much. i urge you not to take discretionary review and to approve the project. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is michael and i am here as and hiv haitian and core member of the san francisco chapter of americans for safe access in support of the medical cannabis dispensary permit for 471 jessie. i am disturbed by the planning department staff report on this mcd in which the mayor's office of economic and workforce development has labeled mcd's as

nuisances. the planning department report offers no proof that mcd's are either nuisances or magnets for crime, akin to porn shops and liquor stores. i do not believe they are nuisances. where are the facts to show that mcd's are nuisances which are not providing a positive impact to the neighborhood? there is no substantive research which shows that the presence of mcd's in any sense is the neighborhood has led to an increase in crime as corroborated by the sfpd's data. i maintain that san francisco mcd's are service in this community by giving employment to dozens of people and providing increased security in

the immediate vicinity surrounding them. i am asking you to approve this mcd permit and reject the clustering and nuisance arguments as empty rhetoric. medical cannabis dispensaries do not bring a bad element to our neighborhoods. thank you. vice president wu: thank you. mira, daniel b. and daniel h. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is mira and i am a resident of the tenderloin. i have lived there for about three years. there is a lot of drug-dealing going on there and but rarely, if ever, did i have people asking me if i wanted to buy

canada's. in the last six months, two dispensaries in my neighborhood closed down and all of a sudden, all of these drug dealers have come into the neighborhood and they are selling what they call "medicinal cannabis." now i have dealers coming up to me, one time, i had three dealers in one block, trying to buy -- trying to sell medicinal tender this to me. people stereotype me because i am in a wheelchair. i feel a lot less safe in the neighborhood now. in the three years that there were dispensaries, i never had this situation. i would ask that you cleaves approve this and help clean up our neighborhood and make it safer and get rid of all of the dangers that have recently moved in for disabled people. thank you. vice president wu: daniel b.,

daniel h., jordan, matthew. are any of these people present? >> good evening. my name is daniel. i am the executive director of the central market community benefits district also referred to as the central market cbd. we are a nonprofit community- based organization that provides services and programs designed to improve the quality of life in the public realm of central market district. and to create a cleaner, safer, more welcoming environment for the residents, merchants, visitors, and property owners of the district. i'm here to express my

opposition to a building permit that would allow a cannabis dispensary to locate at 471 jessie st. medical marijuana dispensaries. that is not why i am here. i'm here because, in speaking to representatives of the central market community, we are concerned about the health, safety, and vitality of our neighborhood. if this was a liquor store or on shop, we wouldcerned. if we were inundated with starbucks or walgreen's on every corner, i would be concerned about that too. the fact is, we are inundated with cannabis dispensaries. within 1 mile, there are currently eight serving the neighborhood. plans have already been approved for a medical cannabis dispensary to locate on the opposite side of the very same block. are we in such a dire need of yet another medical marijuana dispensary?

surely not. the central market community has spoken in support of limiting the expansion of medical cannabis dispensaries in the neighborhood. as mentioned, during an -- a community effort and public process, workers, property owners, and community-based organizations developed the central market strategy, a document issue to improve the safety and enhance the desire ability of our own community. this is a document that was informed and designed by our committee. under the guiding principles of this document, the central market community sees to promote the development of a healthy, economically functional neighborhood that is clean, safe, and provides access to quality and -- to quality goods and services. a dispensary at 471 jessie is not in the vision we have for

our own community. this is not what our community wants and not the kind of community we have in mind. we should decide what is best for our own neighborhood and we have spoken. as a worker in the neighborhood and member of this community. i urge you to reject the project. thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. jordan with the office of economic work force development. i am here to express opposition to the proposed mcd. as you maybe aware, mayor lee has indicated that the stabilization and revitalization of central market is one of the top priorities of his administration. our office has helped coordinate a private partnership to meet those goals. whenever our office is active in a particular district, we encourage the development of a healthy retail corridor that meets the needs of all community stakeholders, including residents, workers, visitors.

given the high concentration of mcd's that already exists in the area, we believe the proposed project would not add to the retail environment and may detract from it and make it more difficult to fill vacancies on the corridor. a second point is we have reason to believe that there is broad community opposition to the establishment of an additional mcd, not only because of the vocal opposition to this project but because of the community process that we engaged in last year that you heard about. it was a 10-month process that included six community meetings, 30 stakeholder interviews, 12 focus groups, a resident survey, a merchant survey, and other outreach. with the goal of identifying and

prioritizing the community and economic development strategies for central market. the resulting document is the central market strategy. the action plan and this document went through several rounds of public iterations. at community meetings and city hall. we can safely say this is a consensus document. i would be happy to come back and do and informational briefing about the methodology and content, the findings, and the action plan. specific to the matter at hand, there is an item in the action plan that indicates a desire of community members to limit the establishment of additional mcd's and more balanced 3 tel. perhaps rightfully, it uses the word "nuisance." any business could be a nuisance depending on how it is operating. that issue aside, what it really demonstrates is community members' desire to limit the

establishment of additional the substance of this site. -- of this kind. vice president wu: thank you. matthew. >> good evening. i am here in support of the location. i am the child of a man who almost died of cancer. if not for cannabis, he would not be able to speak to me any longer. he would not have survived his surgery. he would not have been able to continue as my father. when you decide to deem cannabis or mcd's as a nuisance, i urge you to understand that those who choose to come to these locations leave more capable of committing themselves, contributing to our environment, to our society, our

ability to be agreeable with one another. nobody is coming here to break the law. people are coming here to embrace along. this is an innovative location in our united states and it is your job and my job as people setting the standard of what will be acceptable to understand both sides of this and i think that those who are coming to this location will leave happier and a better service to our society overall because they can leave the house. they might have hunger. they will be here for a longer, more substantial amount of time simply because they have access to this medicine grid -- to this medicine. it is significant to consider medical cannabis as a nuisance because nobody is coming there to start problems. people are coming there to get away from problems. this is their only open door right now. our option to produce a bit in the economy is something we consider with medicine and

attending these mcd's. to limit their locations or prevent new ones from coming along, we are stifling economic growth because it has offered substantial tax dollars to oakland, much of san francisco and california. there are other states stepping forward. i think it is our job to set the standard, to look people in the eyes and say that these locations are endorsing, embracing innovation, changing the way that we are understanding of this planet. furthermore, bettering the economy, bettering the location, improving overall what is going on in these areas. as of right now, i am sure there are illegal things going on. if you put something that is acceptable in a location with lighting, security, regular people showing up to participate in the economy and paying taxes, it is less likely to continue to happen. i urge you to accept this thirdmcd and continue to better

our future. thank you. vice president wu: thank you. is there any further public comment on this item? >> good evening, commissioners. my name is stephanie. i am a member of the medical cannabis task force and part of the san francisco united coalition. i'm here to express my strong support for this application. i am extremely disturbed at some of the things i have heard, especially that medical cannabis dispensers are a nuisance when we have a compelling about of evidence that strongly suggests differently. not only in the staff of data, but you can reference the police commission. they have done several hearings and have found that they are very positive members of the community. that it -- they at lighting, security, they are involved in their neighborhood. they provide wellness services. it is a place where people go to

get medicine. it is not a liquor store and not a porn store. i have heard that there is a lot of community outreach and support with the community benefits district. however, you also pointed out that there are eight facilities in that area. i am wondering if any of those were a part of that conversation. there would be considered a stakeholder in that community. i know that we were not. we have heard nothing about this. we also have a statement from the mayor supporting safe access that i would like to give to all of you. as you know, san francisco is under attack by the federal government. we have had 12 of our facilities, their files polled, five facilities closed, for more have received letters. there is a new round of letters arriving right now. two weeks from now, almost half

of the facilities may be gone. some of those that have been targeted by the doj holding a permit to operate in san francisco in compliance with state l. lowe laws and in compliance with their communities, is going to be shut down. safe access is at risk. i strongly recommend that you support this application today. thank you. vice president wu: thank you. any further public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: thank you. first, a question for staff. how much involvement in the planning department have in the creation of the central market community economic strategy document or whatever it is called? >> if i could defer to the director. >> staff was involved with the

mayor's office. commissioner sugaya: why was that not brought to us months ago as an informational items? >> it is still in process. commissioner sugaya: why are we even following it? if it is still in process, why is it an official document that the staff is pointing to that we use as a justification to deny? >> is the result of several months process that is out there. commissioner sugaya: but the soma plan has been there for years but we do not use that as a document to base decisions on because it is not an adopted plan. >> we referred to it when private companies come to the area. point taken, it is not officially adopted yet but we have been working on it for several months. commissioner sugaya: it is insulting to me that all of a sudden, we get something thrown at us and we have not heard anything