and that's legislativeed by the board >> thank you for please take a seat in the witness stand that out again. >> i agree the side yard acts in a lot of distancing look the rear yard. i even it's too much of american people addition in the side

yard. i know the project sponsor as an architect about you ever think about the addition we're going what we recall calling the rear yard instead of adding on to the side yard. we briefly looked at that because most of the addition is, in fact, $0.40 for the stairs and a elevators to put it there would require us enclosing through the bedrooms and it didn't seem okay for the function >> yeah, but again we're not going to get discouraged. so there's only a certain amount

of room and it seems like there's a lot of remaining that didn't make sense >> so, i mean i think i've had a chance to go out to the site with both project sponsor. those houses were built at the same time and it goods into this side yard so the addition is out of scale and a inappropriate of what i'd consider the rear yard of this property. it's almost assessed they're open space you know this area and coupled with their side yard aids the other requesters side yard but looking at more space

in the rear yard would be appropriate >> commissioner wu. hearing the zoning administrator has said though you have concerns about the rear yard so it's not ultimately up to us it's your call >> but i think along the lines confirm i see more development ultimately to the rear where the bedroom expands but i have concerns about the large extension and most of it within the elevator is clearly before you for discretionary review. >>right. >> i have concerns. >> seeing the proposed compromise prosecute the project

sponsor. i hear the discussion about the side yard and how much the elevator and stairs encroaching into it i that that i can live with the proposal so one foot less than what was originally in our paukt paublth but eliminating the rear yard portion of it. i think that obviously there are a lot of interest in this case but focusing on the residential guidelines it's - the fact that the window lot line windows are not protected it's hard to find the reasoning. i think i'm out of sync with the rest of the commission >> commissioner moore. >> i would agree with those examiners who expressed concerns

that a massive addition like the stairs and the i've said for the last seven years that our attitude towards property line windows needs to be reexamined relative who when buildings are built. their ability with respect to each other and one and one doesn't make two but to treating create a larger south and the side yard properties are - property line windows is essentially. under any circumstances that's not only for single families but large apartment buildings all the way down do the mayor and

that includes separation by 5 are 10 feet. i've lived p in one of those buildings and still do in nob hill and i've proposed that challenge that the department needs to move ahead so we ultimately don't measure the - i'm in full support of not building in the side set back and reventing the need for a elevator based the cheer assessment is speculative but it can be accommodated in order to serve an aging couple i'm in support of the expansion to the

fourth floor but not in support of the excessive stairs pressing into the side yard. >> i would be supportive of that as well. >> commissioner. >> some dine observations. on the northeast corner the intersection between the side yard and the backyard whatever we're going to call. theirs indicating a lot of fluff. there's not indicative on the floor space i don't know what that is if it's unlabeled i assume it's unimportant. on the next floor up above the living room and whatever we have a desk. and we have yet another bathroom

and on say bedroom floor we have a bathroom that's to serve family whatever they come to stay is served by a full bathroom and full shower or something. i think there's plenty of room to shove things around within the existing footstep the goiflt bedroom is a 20 by 12 you can can i ever a bathroom space out of that. i maybe more radical but i'm going to make a motion to deny the project and allow the first

floor and allow the encroachments >> i'll allow the project without encroachments without into the side yard but allow the bottom floor. >> i'm for the changes in the rear of the building but i don't know the projects of the maker of the motion will accept the rear addition with the zoning administrator granting the difference but project respond representative you're raising your hand. >> commissioners on the new balcony prepares your tennis is to allow addition but not

consistent open the street. >> we don't want to make it impossible with the needs of elevators or a different kind of staircase but if they use that with as much gadget they might have to remodel it. the extension for the guest bedroom on the underwriters floor and expanded the kitchen at the second story and no expansion for the enterprise below and what was pointed out out as the fluff on the northeast corner that's not part of the proposal but the captains of the kitchen and bedroom would be fine >> yeah. i think that's fine.

>> i'm confused i actually supported getting rid of the side yard but the entry of poems believes is in and out our jurisdiction. i prefer we not make suggestions around that but i think that the issue that's been identified is more of the side yard not the rear yard and to the extent you want them to create - i mean, you, have it within reason we don't have is a giant hoa over san francisco and i think the side yard is not reasonable space i don't necessarily have an opinion about the other additions that's been added to the motion but i wouldn't want

to go too far >> despite suggestions from project sponsors i would generally allow the motion if it's okay with the maker but not deny the space between the - >> the side yard. >> the side yard. >> commissioner. >> we would allow in the rear yard up to the property line the existing property line and the second addition is to the kitchen. >> i'm not sure are there additions that group from that. >> existing first and second floors laterally among the lines

with the arrogantly that's been expressed the gadget and the covered entrance below doesn't seem necessary so i was concerned about those elements although if the commission is going to say you can't do the side yard addition they made need some addition space to allow the stairs so if the commission would like to set a simple envelope so they do encroach any farther into the rear yard authenticated square it off that would require a veterinarians but -

>> no, we're not negotiating the project here. >> i want to clarify. i want to see if i'm understanding what you're talking about so. this corner is partially in the side yard >> actually, if we could see the surveying off to allow the existing encroachment to the rear yard to the side? >> from the department staff. sheet one .2 the existing side plan. from what i'm understanding from

the commissions motion this the the existing rear wall of the plan. essentially it's projecting the side wall out and the rear wall out would be the addition of the project >> that's what the zoning mist. >> thank you for putting that to picture. it would be the first and second stories only where they're proposing the expansion >> in the ground floor area. >> commissioners there's a motion and a second can i get the motion that the proposeers are accepting this? in that case if there's nothing

further i'll call the motion with no additional encroachments in the side yard allowing the scaring off on the first and second floor. commissioner moore. and (calling names) >> so moved commissioners that motion passes 6 to 1. >> on the variance if anyone would like to copy of the decision copy please contact mr. air force versus and you'll get a copy. >> commissioners you have one remaining item on your regular calendar. at 212 on california street this

is a mandatory discretionary review so for the people who are leaving the room please leave the room equivocally so we can precede with this hearing >> good afternoon president fong i'm with the department staff. the case is a mandatory discretionary review requesting two - the proposed mc d will not allow smoking or vaporizing eating - they're not located within a school or community center that serves persons under

the age of 18. they are not located in the alcoholic areas. we've received support to the project and option from four different people. in order to minimize the commercial areas the following conditions are being recommended the business hours are limited from 8 to 4 and the property is a through lot so the seals will be redistrict and they'll have to provide ventilation in the areas and all garbage to be in the building until that pickup

day. this is consistent with the planning code. it will not have a commercial store presence. and it is well served by public transit and is in balance with the general plan. we recommend this be profound with the awe for mentioned conditions >> project sponsor please. good evening. i'm on behalf of the project sponsor. locking and permitting a cdc is channeling. the process i've worked with applicants over the last 8 years were we took dead on arrival

into a accountant all the opinions of prior law enforcement and other folks. the issues that have long been raised it's well over 1 thousand feet from playgrounds and schools and it has public transportation access. it is off the street and has no impact on the character of the neighborhood. in addition, we don't care into account the chufrt cds h that have long been brought up in the past. clustering is not a problem with this c, d, and and there's no other applicants in the area it will be north of downtown. and based on on the factors i've

pointed out it will be impossible to find a best location. if navigate the board of supervisors wishes to discourage this cd it will not protest other applications for this project. >> good evening president and members of the commission. i want to address concerns about the credibility of the owns and give you a new vision for this. my husband ways diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. our on closet want to find a good quality marijuana which at

that time was not available in the state of california payroll my husband was a business owner. we looked like more and more most of the poem in the neighborhood. and while i understand about the clinic tell of the cbc wellness i suggest to you that the majority of customers who come are closed to fitting our profile. they rage in the area of 65 years old. the wellness is a business model for d example cdc. 7 years ago one of the founders was diagnosed with cancer and

was able to access this process. he became an vocal and a student and discovered the healing attributes of cv d. it's mostly recognized for its medical effectiveness. it has a power effect and didn't make people them stoendz. scientific and clinical studies have found it has great application for arthritis and other medical conditions. they have a process of extracting the oils and have ingredients that help with

moenlt. the focus on this is the mission of cvc wellness. we believe it's comparable with the neighborhood. they're responsible and responsive. i worked with them to get their first permits. we received starch recommendation and unanimous approval from the planning commission and renewal. they have no issues with law enforcement. simply put they want a good reputable business. thank you for our consideration >> no sorry i put down a photo here i showed the location of

the nearest location. >> opening it to public comment i have one speaker card of melissa. >> i'm here representing the grill that's been here since 1967. we wrote a letter as part of the opposition to this project and after meeting with the gentleman i still feel opposed to the project. while they have the mission of having a certain type of incline tell we feel it will only effect the property values in the area

might be affected and we feel that restaurants that have long been there for a longed might be famed and i oops this project >> any additional public comment? >> good evening, commissioners i'm mike. i represent the ownership and on california street where the neighbor to the west of the project. we're opposed to this project because number one we don't feel it's a consistent land use.

this is a private club and all the other businesses are open to the public and we don't feel this is an inclusive business that be a benefit to others. on the ground floor it would make is harder to lease the front space to leave the front available for lease by another tenant. i'm concerned this is not a workable solution because as you know the floor plates are relatively small and i don't know the chances of leasing is a a space of that size and thirdly the uncertain status of medical dispenses on the federal level i'm concerned that either in the

near term or long-term there could be a seizures by the federal government leaving a key component of california street vacant or worse >> that said though we're firmly proposed e opposed to the project if you take action to approve it we want you to consider a number of considerations. but i know that many of them brandon and the project sponsors will hopefully agree to. number one regarding the retail frontage i think that one of my concerns is the project spokesperson said the divisions is to add acupuncture and i'm concerned that the expansion of

the cd could occur to the front of the familiarity and the commission should define that should be only an eating or directing establishment should be required to be open while the canister dispense should be open >> i urge you to take a look at them. >> thank you very much >> good evening. i'm the owner and operator of restaurantss respectfully on california street adjacent to the proposed building. when i found out what the owners wanted to