i think the first one was unanimous, but the second was not. given the current rules, we fully support, i also think there is a lot of misinformation, misunderstanding, and still a lot of fear around medical cannabis dispensary is, when really it is a medical use and people have to have certain prescriptions. they need a prescription in order to even enter that placed. in this situation, no smoking is even allowed on site, i don't believe. there are some places where it is, there are some places where it is not. i don't think we have any conclusive research that indicates there is a connection between medical cannabis dispensary and in increase -- i will be careful in saying this,

medical cannabis amongst youth or anyone else who happens to occupy the dispensary or happens to be adjacent to it. i think there is still a lot of things. i am glad you are using this opportunity to educate. you met with the people in shock. they serve as a lot of younger women, i believe, and they became more educated about this. i know i heard it through the supervisor's office that the director of the miami hub has had concerns -- have not had any concerns either, and they serve youth and seniors. i think there is still a lot of education that needs to be done among the public. since we have been hearing so many more concerns, i know you were at the beginning of the discussion i don't know how many years ago. i don't know, a long time ago. maybe at some point you could be

part of reopening and reconsidering and discussing these things out. but i think we will figure out a way to draft a letter to the board, requesting that they start to kind of assess where we are, where we're going in regards to this issue. so i support this, also. and i think the conversation that occurred after this, even though it is a painful process, i think led to a lot of positive results. so thank you for that. mr. sanchez? >> i think the commission has highlighted the current issues and requirements of mcd's. the legislation was developed in 2005. it may be time to revisit the location requirements. this is a discretionary review. the commission has a broad amount of discretion and authority to approve or deny or

make amendments to the application. that is what happened with the case in the sunset, that this commission found it was appropriate and acceptable. the board of appeals disagreed and denied on those grounds, because they took no account their discretionary authority what they saw as the impact on the neighborhood to deny their application. president olague: is it not primary and secondary schools? so it does it include some youth facilities. >> it is primary and secondary educational schools, as well as community centers, recreation centers primarily devoted to use. -- to youth. president olague: yeah, i don't know of any around there, at work across the street, actually. i'd like to thank supervisor kim's office. they have been extremely

helpful and facilitating these conversations. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i just want to mention that my comments and vote will not be reflective of -- this group has done things the way they should be done. however, the clustering as a concern for me and could have a depressing effect on other development in the area, although this will be a big improvement over what is there, certainly, but the fact there are so many mcd's in a small area, there is something wrong there. i think there are other reasons other than the fact that there are areas that are limited. commissioner sugaya: lastly for me, i don't speak for all the commissioners, but from my perspective what i was trying to communicate with the board of supervisors was not my intent to say, at least myself, looking

for any additional restrictions, so to speak. president olague: right, i am not looking for restrictions. commissioner sugaya: it is more to support the idea of medical cannabis in the community. i think it is just the way that the rules are set up, we need clarification and direction and possibly some changes as to the way it is set up. president olague: yeah, like you, i am not looking for more restrictions. secretary avery: on the motion to take discretionary review -- [roll-call vote] secretary avery: that motion passes six-one, with commissioner antonini voting against. [applause] secretary avery: want to take a

minute to let them clear it out? minute to let them clear it out? president olague: sure, 5 minute >> we had a gentleman, up and speak for a request for a continuance -- come up and speak for a request for a continuance. commissioners, at this point, i would ask to take up the matter of continuous before considering the on item. president olague: is there any public comment on the matter of continuance? >> good afternoon, commissioners. we are hoping to come back with a design that could be somewhat improved, and the property owner

has had family issues. they have spoken to the dr request for the continuance, just getting some changes made. president olague: is there a date that would work? >> if we could get a time in july -- president olague: not until september, correct? >> yes. >> we will take the first available. president olague: i want to hear from me dr request your -- requester. >> i am david grouper, one of the neighbors that is part of this project. this has been all long, strange

road for us. it started many years ago. there have been transformations in the ownership, the partnerships, what ever, but we lucked out throughout the process. the original permit expired. then it was renewed. we are hoping that by accepting and going forward with an extension that we will be included -- but that includes staff, too, so we can fully understand and work with this process. we think this is something be planning commission should decide -- the planning commission should decide. president olague: you are one of the neighbors, so you are one of the dr requesters. >> yes. it was done through our counsel,

steve williams, but things got expensive. we're trying to hold it down a little bit. president olague: we are looking to schedule this for the first available date in september. would that be ok for you? >> yes. president olague: thank you. is there any additional comment on this item? no? public comment is closed. commissioner miguel? commissioner miguel: yes, i would recommend to continue this to what date in september? >> september 15. >> yes, i second, and i would like to have the project sponsor and the dr requesters, if you are able to get together at any

point. there is plenty of time. mr. paul has been here more often than -- he has a longstanding, i think understanding of the planning process and the things that the commission is looking for, and i would encourage the project sponsor -- who i do not think is here. is that correct? and to watch the tape or something, or maybe staff can communicate in their -- in that regard. president olague: ms. avery- herbert, do we have a date? >> september 15. commissioners, on the motion of continuance for this item to september 15, up on that motion -- [roll-call vote]

thank you, commissioners. as the project is continued until september 15. commissioners, you are now on item number 11, cases for 14 costa street. >> good afternoon, commissioners. the project involves a single family dwelling over a two-story garage. it is important to note the building has already been demolished by the previous owner. the current owner and the project sponsor has been working diligently with the planning

department to seek approval. the project has received approval and recommendation for approval that is consistent with the general plan policy. the design is compatible with the existing neighborhood. president olague: thank you. project sponsor? it is up to you. if you want to present, you can. we can call you back up if we have questions later on. >> good afternoon, commission. i am the owner of 14 costa street. i wanted to come here and appear before you guys. there are no changes. the project is pretty much in line. my father-in-law and i have met with the representatives, and we corrected as much as we can. we stand before you today to

hopefully get approval. thank you. president olague: thank you. is there additional public comment? >> good afternoon. i am the owner of 8 costa, and we are adjacent to 14 costa street. my parents and i will be moving into 8 costa within a year. they want to grow old here. although we are very happy they are going to rebuild this home, we do have bought major concerns -- we do have two major concerns.

so, there is a privacy issue that we are looking at. there are two roofs on the proposed plan. the front deck looks right over into our deck. the rear one looks over into our deck. there are five windows that look into the third floor. there are two windows on the second window that looked directly into the main entry. there's also a bay window at the rear -- let me show you. if you look?

the roof deck, roof deck in the front, roof deck in the rear. front bay windows, side windows, all of these are looking directly into our entryway and the master bedroom. at the rear, same thing. the bay window. this is a big concern for ross. we have a roof deck that is currently looking into one of the other neighbors homes right now -- neighbor's homes right now. ever since this was first issued, the neighborhood has totally shut down. they have closed their curtains and they have not been able to come out. that is quite a distance from

our property to there's. id is are really uncomfortable feeling to walk out -- it is really an uncomfortable feeling to walk out and see. we have another roof deck on the right-hand side. [chime] president olague: thank you. >> i have one more issue. president olague: yes. everyone has three minutes. is there additional public comment? >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is cary milne, and i want to say two things. our groups of plants for this project approximately five years ago. the only indication i got for this discretionary review was a phone tip asking me questions about it. i did not get back to them

because i had no notification, no information. so, therefore, and of no idea what our group did five years ago because i did not have a chance to look through. i would just like to let you know that, that this is the thinking, that we did not get notification. and i know there was an issue some time ago about illegal immigration that was going on, and i do not know if they should rebuild because of that. and i do not know if there is a time period because of that. thank you. president olague: thank you. is there additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner moore?

commissioner moore: could they answer the questions of the neighborhood? >> sure. mr. milne mention the legal workshop. dbi filed a notice on the project, because apparently the previous owner had started work based on an interior model permits and it was demolished. that was back in 2004. we had an extensive discussion with dbi and received documentation that it is not illegal to proceed in alterations. since the new owners purchased the building, they decided to withdraw the alteration permit and file for a demolition permit just to be forthright about what is actually going to happen here. the building as it stands now

cannot be repaired and replaced. they filed their permits and a new construction permits. i will be happy to answer any questions you may have. commissioner moore: thank you for that answer. i think it really gets to the quarter. well i normally would -- while i would normally hesitate to permit a demolition, it seems to be the best and most expedient way to get a family home in here. i do not find anything extraordinary about what is in front of us. neither the deck or the windows are unusual. having said that, the only thing i would question is if this building is outfitted for dakar's. what does the code say to us for that?

>> the project at 14 costa street is located in the burn on heights -- bernal heights. this property does not provide more than what is required. commissioner moore: so this would be code-compliant? >> exactly. commissioner moore: can you issue the notification? >> staff prepared the labels. for many years, -- i have personally worked with the support staff and i personally saw that they went out. commissioner moore: it was just not received? >> apparently. but it was mailed out. commissioner moore: i move to approve it, including its demolition. it is the hot items.

," and can take them as one. >> second. president olague: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i am impressed with how this was done. i wish we sought more of this new seat replacement projects. this is beautiful. also, as far as the other thing, icommissioner moore, they are entitled to have a roof deck just like the adjacent property is entitled to have our roof deck. you know, you're in an urban environment. you'll have to deal with shades and other things, privacy concerns, and views are not protected. as far as the bernal heights

square footage, that is unusual, as was pointed out. that is something we should look for in some other neighborhoods, because, presumably, a house with more square footage involves more people and often times more people means more cars. this is good. i really like this project. president olague: commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: does anybody but me have a concern about a unit down? >> i am, a commissioner -- i am sorry, commissioner sugaya

. what was the concern? commissioner sugaya: there are opportunities to put something, expand into the garage if needed. it would just be more comfortable. is that a special restriction? >> for new construction with no direct access from the ground floor, the current configuration is code-compliant. commissioner sugaya: i understand that. i would still like an nsr. commissioner moore: i support that. i will make a motion. i support that. commissioner miguel: yes. president olague: maybe staff can explain to the person who raised some concerns, so they have a better understanding about the side windows and about code compliance. >> ," spoken with the

neighborhood agency -- i have spoken with the neighborhood agency numerous times, so i believe his concerns were addressed by the department. president olague: maybe you can continue to talk to staff or something? commissioner moore: will also be so kind as to explain to the applicant -- we use that word frequently. the owner needs to know. >> absolutely. commissioner antonini: i just have a procedural question. we did put these two motions together, and the motion, i assume, was to not take the dr. can we add special restrictions without taking dr? >> i believe we can. president olague: if you want to briefly mention your concern -- briefly -- then you can, but

usually only -- people only get three minutes. >> on the current plans, it indicates an encroachment issue, that our property is encroaching on their property from zero to one inches. there was nothing mentioned. i communicated with the applicant. i asked, hey, are you going to work with me? president olague: ok. maybe you can continue to work on these issues? >> it is not within our per year. president olague: no. it is not. >> commissioners, the motion on the floor is to require an nsr

be placed on the project, and the motion is actually for both the demolition and the new construction. on the motion -- [roll-call vote] thank you, commissioners. the motion -- plural -- passes secretary avery: this is the 5:00 calendar of the planning commission meeting today. before we get started, and i that, the room is crowded. it is very important that you cannot block either of the monitors and that you not block the doorway. we cannot allow the public to come beyond the railing on either side.

if you could respect to that, i would appreciate it. i will ask you all to turn off your cell phones and electronic devices that may sound off during the proceedings. in crowded rooms like this, it is real important that if you feel the need to engage in a secondary discussion that you take your discussion outside. it becomes extremely disruptive to the process. if everybody could respect to that, we will very much appreciate that. we will not be able to get an overflow rooms until 6:00 p.m. until then, we have to live with each other and be respectful of each other. thank you. roll call. [roll-call] secretary avery: thank you, commissioners. at this time, you have before you california pacific medical center long-range development plan.

>> thank you. good evening. i am elisabeth with the planning department. if we could have the overhead, please? tonight's informational presentation is the third of five scheduled hearings on cpmc's long-range development plans. at tonight's presentation will be divided into two parts. the first half will include the land approvals necessary for the cpmc project to move forward and responses to most of the questions raised at the informational hearing. the second half of the presentation will include an overview of the city's half of the development agreement. we have staff from several city development departments that revolved around their respective agencies. before we get started, i'd like to outline the upcoming hearings that are currently scheduled for cpmc. the next hearing is scheduled july 14, or will present a draft development agreement, along

with the revised plans based on the feedback provided at the may 12 hearing. we also have the initiation of the planning code in general plan amendment scheduled for that hearing. certification of the final eir and the land-use approvals are currently scheduled for about a month thereafter on august 11. the first half of tonight's presentation is organized campus by campus. this includes general overview of cpmc land-use approvals. we're still fine-tuning some of the approvals, so there may be minor changes in the coming weeks. we will start with st. luke's. the new hospital and medical office building at st. luke's require land use approval for the need of a general plan referrals to about street vacation for a portion of san jose avenue, creation of st. luke's sud, change of