theç -- throughout the papers, they call it a pop out. it should be called a felon. it is kind of a notched their if you take a look at what they're doing. they are really filling in from the interior a not very workable kitchen. i do want to show you a photograph that will tell the story. i think you may have seen this. çógood. if you take a look right here, this is the piece that is xdgetting filled in to the backf the wall and across here. if you take a lookt( at this fence, that fence is about a six-foot fence. we have a right to put a 10-foot fence in there. q we took the opportunity to put up a 10-foot fence. it truly is much ado about nothing.

here isç a that is the plan we just showed you that shows where we are filling in this notch. if you take a look, if you were in the backyard and went down the block, every other property has that not filled in for the same reason. çódramatically, from the inside, it did not work. let's see what else i want to tell you. we corrected the d.e.m. mentions, i told you about the fence. if you have questions, let us know. president miguel: anyç speakers in favor of the product sponsor? q two minutes for a rebuttal. >> i do not have access to any of the documents that were submitted today or amended. i could barely read it.

there is a reference to a 10- foot fence. we do not have a 10-foot fence at the moment. if there was a 10-foot fence, i would not be opposing it. if the planning code allows for i would not waste your time or my time if legally, this project could be built. the planning code does not allow for it. the design guidelines are undercut it. ç-- are undercutted. amend the guidelines and anyone who has such a project would be able to build it. as it stands today, this project should not be approved. president miguel:ç thank you. project sponsor, you have two minutes. >> i just want to defend the architect studies that are in

the back of our sub middle. they are accurate. thank you. commissioner moore: i just wanted to point out that the required change in the kitchen is an improvement to the layout of the house. i do believe that there is nothing exceptional or extraordinary about what we are asked to look at. ixd appreciate that the d.r. requester implies that there is a code or rule violation, but i do not see it that way. is there anything in the code which we are not seeing? the design guidelines clearly speak to a modest cop out -- pop i]out. >> arguably, there are two code issues. the first is residential design guidelines adopted in the planning code under section 311.

t(the department reviewed this d found that it complies with the design guidelines. the second issue is that of the rear yard. there is a rear yard variants for a very small portion of the structure. while they are allowed a 12-foot obstruction intot( the required rear yard, that is limited to 10 feet in height when itç goes to the property line. this is 11 feet, 8 inches. it is consistent with that of the structure that is already there. carrying over that existing roof line. we did have a hearing at the end of october on this. the d.r. was required subsequent to that hearing. we wanted to bring it back to the commission for your consideration. the roof is impractical given the existing building conditions, where you have the upper level that comes out.

this was the best solution for it is a very minor variants from the code. wv? i appreciate that interpretation. you'd probably get quite a few people into this building because it would change the architectural expression and you would not look for a flat roof. you would do exactly what you are doing. i am in full support of how you explain it. i make a motion that we do not take the art and approve the product as it is. commissioner sugaya: this is not anything fort( or against the project, but it is another pet peeve of mine. on the drawings that were submitted, especially ao.01, we have a vicinity map that has vallejo street horning to the top. -- pointing to the top. when we get to the site plan,

there isxd no aero and it is reversed from the vicinity matt. -- there is noç arrow and is reversed from the vicinity map. it would be nice for some consistency. an arrow on the site map would be nice as well. commissioner antonini: looking at the picture we have, it showsç broadway with large apartment buildings to the south ofç this, i think that north arrow, in my estimation, would be facing in the west direction. that is another reason much of the light is cut off to the backs of these yards by those larger apartment buildings already. i cannot really see where this would have much of an impact. there are quite a few other pop outs that are similar to this

one in the adjacent houses. commissioner moore: i want to thank commissioner sugaya. these are the working drawings and the sections of the decaling do not belong. i would rather have this pared ç back to the essentialç drawings with the north arrow pointing in the right direction so that we can understand the direction of sunlightç and whatever, including adjacent buildings. enough said. i do thank you for that, commissioner sugaya. president miguel: çi fully agr. sometimes we getç is more akino dbi. >> the motion on the floor is to not take discretionary review. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner fong: aye.

çcommissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. commissioner wu: aye. president miguel: aye. >> the building does feature a garage. it is a historic resource and there are similar features on the block, a south-facing closure. there are temporary buildings that already cast a significant shadow much more than the profit would. minimal expansion. that said, i would add the condition that there be no roof deck on theç subsequent structure. noting that that is unlikely to happen anyway given that it is not a level surface. but we would add that condition anyway. that is all. thank you. president miguel: we are going to take a 10 minute break before the

ç>>ç ok, the planning commissn is back in session. we are about to hear itemsç 11 and 12 on your calendar. çsupervisor avalos has given a memo to the commission that he would like read into the record. >> this is from john avalosççó, supervisor for district 11, dated february 16th of thisç year, to the planning commission. "thank you for the opportunity to address you on a number of items related to medical cannabis dispensaryç permitsae. although you are considering three separate itemsçxd, i woud like to address these together.

i am supportive of patient access to medical cannabis and have supportedç the city of san francisco's approach to regulating mcd's. i expect these dispensaries to meet otherq approval that the commission can and should oblige. locations on our neighborhood commercial corridor and their proximity to commercial uses, it is important that the conditions for the issuance of operating permits for all of these facilities include adequate inappropriate lighting -- adequate and appropriate lighting. safety and security of the block. esthetic appeal by adding greenery and maintaining clean, graffiti- free, well-paintedç facades.

i don't feel it would be appropriate for on-site smoking or consumption. in addition to these considerations, i hope that they would employ local residents and were closely with neighbors to address any concerns. i would like the pilot is to accommodate other conditions within reason as called for by the community. like all businesses, i expect that all mcd's would work closely to address any concerns as well as maintaining an open relationship in order to insure greed upon conditions. çthe residence merchants association agency has been working hard to approve the commercial corridor over the past few years. we have seen gradual improvements such as improved cleanliness and aesthetic

appeal. a healthy commercial corridor includes a balance of uses. okçxdi am greatly concerned win oversaturation of this type of service with applications for two dispensaries on the same block at 3 dispensaries within 1.2 miles of each other. we have not even had an mcd in this part of town. thank you for your support of these issues and i look forward to a collaborative process where we can accommodate the needs for access to medical cannabis as well as safety and security concerns of all of our residents." >> thank you. item number 11, case number 2,011.0682 dd.

>> i have been discussing this with the city attorney. this item is being continued a number of timesi] and it as a bt of an explanation of why it comes before us. >> thank you. the deputy city attorney, the office gave you a device in januaryç when a]i decision ouq the city of long beach related to the issuance of mcd's and we gave the advice that the commission suspend the permits until the supreme court gave the decision on whether to grant review. the california supreme court has granted review in that case, so the current decision by the court of appealsç is to be çpublished. it is not at this moment a

sizable president. therefore, the planning commission can process permits according to the existing procedures. of course, we will continue to keep you updated as the supreme court considersw3 this case. >> thank you for that clarification. >> good evening. the request before you is a mandatory discretionary review to establish a newç medical cannabis dispensary for the green cross which it operates as a delivery only service. this will sell cannabis, canada's food products as well as the plans on the ground level. no on-site smoking, vaporize income or consumption would be providing -- would be permitted. the application was filed by

representatives for the out commission merchants and residents association citing concerns about its proximity to child care location -- facilities. since the preparations of the commission updated the pact could come up additional public comments were received by the department. written comments and opposition and the petition with additional signatures and 21 written comments in support into the staff has received numerous public comments since this of middle and early 2011 both in support and opposition. the comments and support state at the existing operator has proven to be an upstanding establishment and that the proposed facility will provide a necessary medical service. the comments and opposition general expressed concerns regarding potentialç increase n criminal activity in the area, proximity to facilities catering to children, the legality of

mcd's çunder federal regulatio. w3this location complies underxe planning code and no schools, recreation buildings or substance abuse centers are located within a thousand feet of the facility. all notification requirements have been met. child care facilities are not included in the 1,000 foot requirement under the planning code. ñrthis is approximately 1.2 mils away from the closest child care facility. the project sponsor has documented extensive outreach efforts throughout this process including responding to neighbors consents, offering additional meetings and for the updating the security plans.

q been in consultation with the captain from the station regarding their security measures. based on a lack of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances present and based on the merits of this project, the recommended action is to not take discretionary review and to approve the project as proposed. this meets all requirements of the policy and it is going to be operated by a local business operator. the location is well served by transit. the tenant improvements will provide a safe and well lit establishment and this will eliminate a vacant storefront that has been vacant for over a okyear. this will provide additional unemployment opportunities for san franciscans.

it will provide a service that is not currently available. i want to take this opportunity to remind the commission on a few items. the project, this item and the next item are mandatory discretionary review items and not a conditional use items. this means that the building permit that is subject to the current review to establish the new dispensary, the code it does permit that. unless there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances found by theç commission and is discretionary abilities. i am happy to answer any additional questions relating to this project. >> there is a discretionary review file on this.

>> good afternoon, commissionairet(. i am the president of the outer commission merchants and residents association. i filed for discretionary review for several reasons. first and foremost, to our organization, association overwhelminglyç opposesç these kinds of businesses in our neighborhood. i want to quantify one aspect of this whole thing. we started out with this over two years ago and these are the two that areçó on the next itemn the agenda. we have been dealing with 4218 for six or seven months.

çhaving that said, to have thre mcd's on the same agenda, on the same street, having it within one block and another 10 blocks away is unconscionable for our neighborhood. i have been president of this association and the co-founder for almost 15 years. one of our tasks is land use issues. we are in front of you all the time. in the 30 + 50's, 60's, and the beginning of the 70's, the neighborhood was a vibrant commercial district. it was in the late 70's, we did not have a grocery store. the first safe way was on the cornerñr of naples, cordova, and

12th street. the next time safely opened was in 1978. we are striving to get businesses. there are empty storefronts. they are ugly empty storefronts. we have had to call 311 several times because of all of the graffiti. if we have to deal with that when it is empty, when -- what will we deal with when there is something there? we represent over 1000 households. these are people who have lived there longer than i have. those people have lived there from the 1930's 40's 50's. my neighbors have been there for 45 years. they don't understand this.

we what legitimate businesses, and i'm not saying that mcd is not a legitimate business. people are scared to death because they don't know what is going on. we have dozens and dozens and dozens of california facilities in the admission. t(there is the mission ymca, its when he got the putin is over 1,000 feet. the alternative school is over 1,000 feet. there in the neighborhood.

one of the child care facilities is on the corner of avalon and mission. across the street from that is the san francisco jewish home. silver and mission is not the safest. we're trying to get cameras. geneva and mission was an awful place to get off or on a bus. a 12 that the people that are here to speak. i think -- i hope you'll take into consideration the over- saturation is going to get this. thank you. [applause] çpresident miguel: that is not

allowed. >> i am a if the community is g out as they have byok voice and putting pen to paper, i hope that we do the right thing. thank you. president miguel: next

speakers. >> good evening. i came to speak in opposition of 4218. çfrom a planning perspective, u will heart( never heard opposition from an emotional standpoint and family standpoints. from a planning perspective that the housing authority -- as a housing authority commissioner, this location is 1,100 feet from the ymca, serving a number of youth and 1150 square feet from

the boys and girls club. predominately the mission and silver bust out which is in the middle of these locations, well within 1,000 feet of this okproposed medical kamen -- canada's club is a major stop for a number of youth to access these facilities. from a planning perspective, this location,ç i urge you to e your discretion and reject this location on the grounds it is a bad fit from a planning perspective. as a housing authority commissioner, thousands of youth is the boys and girls club and ymca. they travel from different parts of the city because they have to leave theirç neighborhoodç violence for other reasons. the access these clubs as well. i am speakingç as a neighbor as well as a commissioner. ok>> are you representing the commission? >> i am.

the executive director would have been here. i did speak toç four out of sen commissioners and the majority are 100% in opposition. >> for the record, let me say i would advise my commission they could not do that. they could not speak to a majority of the commission without being in a public format. >> we have not taken an official vote. >> if you did not gather that informatr in a public format, you are on the commission -- or representing yourself. çwithout that public hearing ad that formal vote it cannot represent them. >> i am giving my best answer. in terms of the official, no.

>> i am here in opposition to 4218. i am presenting myself in front of the commission not as someone who lives in san francisco but as someone who has lived in san francisco my entire life. i have seen changes take place. some of the changes have been for the better. some can be argued differently. in this case, several of my neighbors have voiced concerns, have voiced opposition. we are a working-class community. in many instances, they do not have the opportunity to leave work early to come and testify. they have other responsibilities. speaking of their children, cooking dinner. they do not have the opportunity but believe me when i tellñr yo,

the numbers are large. çthere are in opposition. ççrevoice the concerns of the neighborhood. as my friend stated, i ask that you please use discretion and help us out with this. we do not need this in the neighborhood. çgiven the proximity to several child care -- ñrwhere children hang out, obviously, children are there after school in the area. we do not need this in our area. i ask that you please help us out. thank you. [applause] >>ok to back up what the presidt says. we are going to be your number of hours. everyone is passionate about this subject. if you insist on applauding after