there is a deck already there. you are inducing less than what they already have. commissinoner antonini: i still have a question. i am not sure. i guess i had a question. i was looking at some of these renderings. i do not quite see where the change is here on that west side. the one i am looking at here, i do not know if we could put this one up or not. it looks a little bit different. >> if i could answer commissioner suyaya's question, i was pointing out this is a one story deck in this location. if i understand correctly, the motion on the floor would provide a set back here. what i am pointing out is that that is reducing from what they have right now. commissinoner antonini: that is

the way i am seeing it in this picture. i am seeing the deck extending, taking up that first floor. what they're doing now is putting back the same thing, it essentially -- the same thing, essentially. >> providing the sights set back -- commissinoner antonini: it is less than they have now. if anything, you would bring the deck back further from the backyard. president olague: who can explain this? i think there is a misunderstanding of the motion. commissinoner antonini: may be the architect? why don't you show us what is happening.

>> this is the photograph of the existing condition. we have a deck -- >> we are talking to the staff here. commissioner moore: i think they have clarified it. president olague: mr. smith, is this what you were describing? >> that is exactly what i was describing. commissinoner antonini: to continue, it sounds like that would give them less than they now have. i do not see what we are gaining with that. as far as the roof deck is concerned, i am not sure -- architecturally, i am not sure if it's what i see in the other pictures. but it is a right. it is something they can do.

i am not sure if i necessarily want to remove that deck. commissioner sugaya: i am ok. vice president miguel: i would not want to remove the roof deck. i think it is perfectly compatible with the neighborhood and i see no problems with it at all. as far as an additional notch in the building, you are notching a deck. commissioner moore: we are nudging the building. vice president miguel: a minor notching, i would not object to. i do object to removing the roof deck. commissioner moore: normally, when a roof deck has a railing wood stays within the family of

the railing's we see here, i would like to see the stair -- i would like the stair to have, basically, a ticket rather than a solid -- a picket rather than a solid wall. a roof with a deck pulled back looks like a parapet in an office building. it might be out of scale. i would like to see a low, minimum parapet, and only within the area that is allowed as a deck a walkable deck surface and picket finceence, so the signate of the building is the different plans of pickets.

that makes the building of more -- look more notched and airy. this looks much too solid. president olague: this sounds like a modification of your original movement. commissioner moore: yes. >> on the stairwell railing, they may need to have that solid parapet on the exterior side. commissioner moore: i look for the architect that he does that in a way that it does not look so jarring. at this moment, i am not attacking your design. it is just the way these rendering techniques do not leave any imagination. that are just what they are.

for the sake of the project sponsor and everyone here -- president olague: please restate the motion. commissioner moore: staff will work with the architect on railing designs which, to a maximum degree possible, reflect a railing type which is based on the picket rather than solid. >> does your motion still include the setback at the first level? commissioner moore: yes. on the ground floor, we are creating a notch against the west property line in the way mr. smith sketched it out. >> your motion is to pull in three feet from the property line. we need to put a number of there.

you are also creating more transparency with the railing, where possible, with individual pickets. commissioner moore: including the third deck up there, yes. commissioner sugaya: i believe the other railings on the decks are what we are talking about, something on that order. so it is consistent. also, i think the city is moving toward not having glass rings because of impact on birds. it probably would be good to move away from them anyway. president olague: is that clear among everyone, more or less? ok. >> that is a motion on the floor to take discretionary review and approve the project with modifications you have stated, to have a notch on the ground

floor and to make the railings of the decks more in keeping with a lighter picket fence look, to the extent possible. on that motion -- commissinoner antonini: aye. commissioner fong: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. vice president miguel: aye. president olague: aye. >> the motion passes unanimously. thank you, commissioners. commissioners, you are now on item 11, case 2,010.1024d, 42095 market street -- for 2095 market street.

>> good afternoon, president olague and members of the commission. elizabeth watty, planning department stuff. this is a mandatory discretionary review of a building permit application to allow a new medical campus dispensary. it will not allow on-site consumption of cannabis, nor will it permit any on-site cultivation. the mcd is not located within 1,000 feet of any school, or community center could supply service persons under 18. it is not on the same party as

a -- property a substance abuse treatment center. the proposal has been significant of reach. the department has received two phone calls in opposition. we believe they have met planning code requirements. this is one of the few sites in the upper market castro neighborhood that permits mcds, is well served by transit, and is consistent with the general plan. we recommend the commission not take dr and approved. this concludes my presentation and i am available for questions. president olague: project sponsor. >> afternoon, commissioners. i am rhein hudson, along with my partner, michael thompson.

we are the sponsors of this project. i am a resident of san francisco and a bay area native. my background is technology with high-tech start-ups. recently, my position was at a local bank. michael is also a resident of san francisco. he is the founder and president upper a -- of a management and logistics company. we believe we will run a responsible dispensary in the city. we have a strong sense of community and a feeling of responsibility to help those that cannot always help themselves. we feel the apothecary will be a great way for us to do there. in addition to serving our members in a safe and respectable seven, will have a compassionate program that provides free medicine to those unable to afford it. another benefit we plan to provide is subsidized partnerships with local providers and physicians.

one is a doctor who has occupied a chiropractic clinic in the castro for over 25 years. do our compassion program, we will be offering her services as an adjunct therapy to our members. we have formed a philanthropic advisory board that will assist us in directing resources to local nonprofits and social services, such as the my tree compassionate care, the castro steps, and a unique organization that provides food and medical care and support for the pets of low income persons with hiv, aids, or other disabling illnesses. if granted our permit, we will begin improvements. within months of opening, we will need about a dozen employees. 2095 market street is located between 14th and church street. it was previously occupied by a video rental store.

it has been vacant since november 2009. the dispensary will be one of a series of retail space is on that side of market space. it is not close to any residential-only zones. it conforms to all relevant guidelines in the planning code. when completed, it will appear as many other upscale retail locations. in addition, it sits at the nexus of several major transportation corridors and public transit routes. these include the church street stop and all markets st. buses and trolleys. the easy accessibility will be a key attribute for patients who rely on public transport. the area surrounding the intersection of market and church is already accustomed to having a dispensary in the area. one of the first was located across the street at 194 church. it was recently forced to close after it could not meet city requirements laid out in the medical cannabis act, which left

many patients in the area without access. my client -- my partner and i conducted outreach, personal introductions, several open houses, mailings, meetings with neighborhood organizations, and introducing ourselves at school and they care centers in the area, as well as meeting with the sfpd. we have received 10 letters of support and 75 signatures in support. supervisor scott weiner has also written a letter of support. that should be included as part of the materials which submitted today, if not in the original brief. we think all members of the community who were open to meeting with us. the people we met were welcoming, open-minded, and entirely respectful, even if it were a bit wary about the idea. but always treated it as a prospect.

we would like to thank the following individuals and organizations. steve adams, president of the merchants of upper market. alan beach, president of the eureka valley neighborhood association and a member of our philanthropic advisory board. liz watty has been a pleasure to work with. we respectfully ask the commission to approve our application. we intend to be exemplary members of the community. president olague: we have a few speaker cards. i am going to limit it to two minutes. michael coehn alibi josh kramer and david goldman. >> can you hear me? my name is michael cohn. i am a resident at 246 sanchez

street. he will be a neighbor. i am a homeowner. and have lived there for 24 years. i want to speak as a neighbor. i went to both the open houses. i asked a number of questions. i asked how the space was coined to run, what the security was going to be. i looked at the blueprints the architect had drawn. i was very impressed. i thought this could be a real model for the dispensary in the neighborhood. i recommend you approve the proposal for the dispensary. i am sure that it will be a real

positive influence on the neighborhood. i look forward to having it. thank you. president olague: i do not know if there is any opposition in the audience currently. we can go through, and obviously you all have an opportunity to speak, but there does not appear to be any opposition. if you want to stand up and show your support, that is another way we can achieve a similar goal and save us all a lot of time. thank you all. i recognize a lot of people from previous hearings. we called the cards. there are a couple more. you certainly have the opportunity to speak if you would like to. otherwise, we will close the public hearing. it is up to you. is there any additional public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is

closed. vice president miguel: this is an interesting location. it is probably a historic building, which we have all passed. i never took a good look at it before. it is an early 1900's building. it even has a wood floors and it. from what i see of the drawings, but this is going to -- from what i see of the drawings, this is going to look like another storefront, without question. it is a modern type of business replacing one that has just gone by the wayside. [laughter] it is nearly -- it could be considered a historic reuse. i really appreciate the outrage that has been done -- beat out

reach -- the outreach that has been done to the neighborhood organizations, the new supervisor of the district, and the population of the district. obviously, there is no one here against it. i would move we do not take dr and approve the project. commissioner moore: second. i am in full support. the thing i am really glad about is that we are starting to really distribute the facilities a little bit more evenly, such as we are doing with where health care should be provided. i see this as a similar thought. they should not be all stuck somewhere on mission, or wherever they are. i do think we need to bring them closer to where the needs are, this being the first sign.

i really would like us to perhaps take a look into the future, and perhaps at one. make a sketch of how the could be best distributed. i think it could be a mile or two. what we do not want to do is have these facilities compete with each other. they should be service and health care focused. this does not have anything to do with you. but i would like to look into the future. we have been for the last two or three years struggling with all of them having to move into a certain place, partially because of distance from schools and public facilities required in our way of placing it. i want to put that into the trusting hand of the director to sometimes think about. that is a policy shift for us to find a more equitable way to at

least tentatively booked for a corporate locations citywide. -- at least tentatively look for distributed locations citywide. >> is there a minimum and maximum by district or by block? i know the rules about schools and churches and things. being the new kid here, maybe at some point you can update me. thank you. commissinoner antonini: i think one of the parts of the law, if i am interpreting correctly, is you are not supposed to say you cannot have one if there are others in the area. i believe concentration of dispensaries is not a criteria for not approving, even though in real terms it certainly is something you are going to look at. i think this is -- i am supportive of this. there are some i have not supported for a couple good

reasons. this is exactly what it should be, as far as i am concerned. that is a plus for distribution, and apothecary, or the pharmacy. if the laws were uniform nationwide, this is probably what it should be, rather than a social club or a place where people consume on site, for a lot of reasons of transport and other conditions that could be hazardous. i think they are doing the right thing. the other reason i am supportive is there is overwhelming neighborhood support. on all of the drs we hear, neighborhood support is a big factor. there have been some neighborhoods that have not been supportive. we have to take that into consideration. these are the big reasons i support this. president olague: there is a motion on the floor to not take dr. commissinoner antonini: aye. 'commissioner fong: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye.

vice president miguel: aye. president olague: aye. >> the motion passes unanimously. [applause] commissioners, just for the record, i will restate that for item 12, case 2,010.0911d, the dr has been withdrawn and this matter is no longer required for your consideration. you are now on item 13, a case 2,010.0758d, for 454 greenwich street. president olague: i do not know if staff is here for this item. we will take a five minute recess while we are waiting for staff.

that is probably the case. >> the commission is taking a five minute recess.