they decided not to do the kitchen, but they decided to do some additional work, and then there were revisions to each of these permits, and there was one revision to the seismic upgrade. >> can you describe those? >> sure, the first one was to add a full blast to the basement region -- a full bath to the basement and to add a shed in the rear and a teacher and lightning and fans in the basement and a structural modification to the stairs, and

the revision to the voluntary seismic upgrade was a structural provision. >> the shed was added to the rear of the building or the property line? >> the rear of the building. >> thought was for mechanical e equipment? >> it is closer to the building than to the stairs. gerd >> did any of the work require excavation hamas -- require excavation? >> just for the foundations. >> were you are approached in an effort to try to understand what the project was about, or were you not the contact person bowman -- the contact person? >> the first i heard was when

the project was suspended. >> thank you. >> anything further? the issue is yours, so the standard of review it is discussion. >> thank you for the reminder. >> we get a lot of these cases were clearly people are being neighborly and not communicative in figuring out what the improvements are and the design. we do not necessarily regulates staff. it seems like based on the planning assessment, this was done to code.

they are the minimum size required. we just do not have the big systems to overturn this permit. we encourage people to solve these cases, but we cannot necessarily dictate. i am inclined to uphold the permit. good the heavy constructionk for seismic and foundations is done, and the irritation that occurs through the construction is heavily over. the problem is probably one of the issue will change, because the stairs look so much different than the circular stair. the issue of privacy that is raised, as one goes down, the

spiral staircase would have the same . did given that it is barely above what the code mandated, it appears it is based on the heights that has to transition downward. it appears it is code- compliant, and i would support the merger. good >> i share in my sentiments which are already expressed. i find it troubling communications were not air between the neighbors, because if you are putting improvements in your house, presumably you are going to be there for a while.

>> i will move to deny the appeal and of hold the permanent. >> you would be moving to uphold the release of suspension. you might suggest you have no error. >> we have a motion to deny this appeal, of pulled the order on the basis there was no error -- uphold the order on the basis there was no abuse of discretion. [calling votes] the vote is 4-0. the zoning administrator is of the zoning administrator is of help.

maxwell come back. before i call the next item, -- >> welcome back. i would like to ask our translator to come forward. we have a cantonese translator. if we could get an announcement, i would appreciate it. >> [speaking cantonese] should we take a minute to distribute had saeadsets? >> the you want me to conduct a

second swearing in story as well? >> i think that would be a good idea. >> we will do a second swearing in for people who were not here. do you solemnly of firm you will translate from cantonese to english and english to cantonese to the best of your ability? thank you. we will be conducting a second swearing in for the public if you were not able to take the oath at 5:00 p.m. please stand, raise your right hand, and say i do if you were not able to take it at the

beginning. thank you. do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? thank you. >> we are calling item #7, our district merchants association vs. planning department approval. now the subject is at 5257 mission streets protesting the pursuant permit to alter a building. medical cannabis dispensary, new toilet, new plumbing, new display, new waiting area, the

entry door, compliance for the entire space. we will start with the appellant, and you have seven minutes. >> good evening. i would first like to ask, did you receive a letter from supervisor avalos this afternoon? this is a series of e-mails that are going back and forth. there have been e-mails. i never met him before tonight. he has had several attorneys. most of the e-mails deal with

issues, but there was 1 e-mail i received on tuesday morning, and i need to read this into the record. >> feel free to read this into the record as part of your presentation. >> it takes up part of my seven minutes. >> i am starting the time. >> i have been before this board. i never received any e-mails i have been opposite and this board. if it started with an e-mail with mr. roberts introducing himself as the attorney. representing himself as the attorney. he wanted to know if we could discuss the issues, and my appellants brief clearly stated what the issues were regarding the neighborhood. secondly, i received an e-mail

about receiving the brief by e- mail. i reluctantly said yes because i did not realize it was going to be 500 pages, but the day it was due to the court of appeals last thursday, i did get a copy at my home, hand delivered on thursday of about 5:30. this was a brief are received. over the weekend i started preparing my oral arguments, and let me back up a little bit. our reasons for appealing this are in my brees. -- my brief. if upheld your issuance, and

thirdly, what supervisor avalos is talking about, the clustering in our neighborhood. going through the documents over the weekend, i felt like i had the documents. it was a well-written brief, but the exhibitors were not stabbed, -- tabbed, and i could not follow, so i said then e- mail monday morning -- i sent an e-mail monday morning stating i wanted to have a clearer and brief. they responded, saying if you need to mirror the brief filed by the court of appeals. monday night the increase was delivered to me.

richard -- monday night the brief was delivered to me. it was beautiful. on tuesday i began to prepare my oral testimony, but i found it insulting and not a professional to have something delivered to my doorstep at kennecott 56 on a monday night. i sent an e-mail threatening -- at 10:56 on a monday night. i sent an e-mail threatening to reschedule, because i did not think it was there to prepare arguments over the brief i submitted on time. i received an e-mail from mr. roberts, and there were many things i was concerned about. one of them is that he had a meeting at noon and would return to san francisco and deliver the

brees to maintaie, but he had to his office and deliver a new breeze. one of his statement stated that in order to comprehend the brief it was feigned. i took that to be that i am stupid or do not understand the breeandbrief, and i was insultey that. on the second page you have exhibited bias on ethnicity. give repeatedly referring to him as a well-known brand of she robbed the -- brand of cheap vodka. i am not a racist, and i do

recall calling him mr. popov. i had to go to a liquor store. i did not even know what it was. i find it very unprofessional, and if this is the kind of attitude they are going to take in this neighborhood where we aren't now opposing something that is not right, then i do not trust them. we are very concerned, and the letter says the board of supervisors is prepared to look at clustering. three of them is unconscionable. it should never have been done in the history of the planning commission. it makes my merchants i

represent, my neighbors uncomfortable. secondly, in the statement by the judge and your board basically said the delivery service in san francisco is adequate, just like the green cross, their service is adequate. i do not feel that we need this service or the one at 5234 or the one at 4218. the merchants are scared. they have never had to deal with this before. some of these merchants have been here for 40 years. one of them is a printing shop. one is a tax merchant.

i stand on my brief, and i give the case to you. >> i have a question on the clustering issue. what are the other permits to? they are not before the board to night? were they issued to the same group or permit holder? >> no, there are three different. two years ago we question the 5200 block, but they are separate. >> are they currently in existence? >> they just issued an over-the- counter permit that the appeal had been filed, and that comes before you on to buy 25 -- on nt

but i will appeal 5224. that was issued on june 1 that we're not going to appeal. we are going to appeal the regional permit. -- the original permit. it is mostly cosmetic. >> thank you. mr. roberts. we are ready for you. >> my name is eugene popok president hwang: -- eugene popok. i started the project three years ago and what i wanted to say, the city licensed and approved that i can run it efficiently. i have a lot of experience and from my experience in dealing

with people and helping them, you saw people come in and they will cry and have you sang able -- i was able to sleep for the first time in 20 years and able to eat a hamburger. i have been able to do this or that. it means a lot. i am passionate about what i do. just like stephen said, he does not represent the whole community. i have done the outreach even after the hearing. some of the neighbors that were opposed changed their minds and support us with letters and further and went out to find why are here to speak later on. i think, in fact i know i have not had thany incidents.

i have met and the spoken with john avalos and he supports the project. captain mahoney, we did a walk- through. one of the representatives were there with us and she saw the whole thing. there are a lot of people in the neighborhood that support the project. you know, i feel confident and i trust you guys to do what is right and i will not to let you down and i intend to do the best job. i also bring the best and highest quality of medicine and also it will be tested and patients will qualify. i have four kids myself.

four girls. this issue -- there will not be any problems. we will not let children in. the only thing is going to do is security is going to be better. it will better the neighborhood. i ask that you let me start building and let me do what i do best. >> good evening. george roberts. in 2005, it was considered by the board of supervisors. there were two competing ordnances with the one that was ultimately adopted. one was from supervisor elsbernd. they contained a specific anti- clustering parisian --

provision. that was considered and rejected by the board of supervisors. as far as what the policy should be, the policy now, there is no prohibition against clustering. there are areas in the city in which you have a large number of mcd's, which is a function of the green at. the various constraints as far as distances up from schools, community centers, treatment facilities, and the zoning, there are limited places where you cannot cite an mcd. it is not surprising there is clustering. this one was unique or you had applications at the same time rather than having them come in one after another. but there are no mcd's in this neighborhood. the appellate has made it clear

he does not want any in district 11 and we do not believe that is appropriate or consistent with city property. as far as clustering, that is something they should pick up and if they want to change the policy that is their prerogative. it would be based on the hearings and testimony of that time. i will turn it over to my colleagues. >> i am the applicant for the permit. i want to point out that the other permits that were mentioned earlier have not yet be finalized and we were the first to be pulled for this facility. i have a plan i wanted to show you. i have copies of it if you want to see it. it is on the overhead. security is of the biggest element in this facility for us. >> i would actually like a copy.

>> i have six copies. plus my own right here. >> starting the clock now. >> we met with the police department several months ago after we received approval from planning and the planning commission. we developed a plan that involves physical security of the gate at the front of the store front, which closes at night when the place is closed.

is it your front door that will be released by a security guard who will stand inside and clear indication to come in through the space. there is also a waiting area with a second security line that is only accessed to patients who are cleared with a phone call to their doctor, who issued the recommendation. on the authorized people will be allowed into the facility. then there is a series of security cameras that will record anything going on inside 24 hours a day. it will be linked to the recording system so they can do with any issues but come up. there will also be lighting at all time. i can answer any further questions if he would like. -- you would like. >> i am a faculty member. i have worked with dispensaries all over california and for me

the priority is making sure that they are good neighbors and give a good name to the canvas movement. i believe this is the case. i would also like to mention that stephen says we are within 1,000 feet of cicely's we're not supposed to be, that is completely inaccurate. i will touch on more and that in the rebuttal. >> dan of the planning department. as you heard from the appellant and permit holder the commission did, on the 16th of february, approved three separate dispensaries, the one of which is non appeal tonight.

the commission did confirm that each were appropriate uses and that nothing about any of the three cases was extraordinary or unusual. the issue that the commission did crapaud with, as you have heard, was not this-- grapple with, as you have heard, was this issue a clustering. the code minutes eligible locations based on a variety of land use of factors, proximity to other medical dispensaries is not one of those factors. in july of last summer, the commission did write a letter to the board of supervisors pointing out this issue, of this issue of clustering and seeking their input and guidance. the board chose not to change spill law. when these cases -- to change of the law. when these cases came forward, they were compliant and they found no unusual factors that

would suggest exercising their discretionary powers. the permit on appeal tonight is the first of that-. it is the only permit that has been issued. the rest are being processed by other agencies. as you know, medical cannabis discretion -- dispensaries are entitled to a third party requests. his arguments are not dissimilar to those that are in his brief tonight. above all other issues, the appellant asks you apply your decision in the other case to this case. commissioners, we do not believe that this case is the same as the terra belle. in that case there was a significant number of sensitive

facilities in close proximity to that establishment. the appeal did state it was located "within a block of a licensed day care center, next door to a church and tutoring center that hosts children after school on a daily basis, and was steps away from another tutoring center and dance school." in the case before you tonight, the appellant in his brief cites four child care centers within 1,000 feet of this property. our research suggests that none of those have the permits they need to legally operate. he also cites an elementary school which is about a third of a mile away. based on the briefs in each of these cases, our view is that there are different sets of facts that pertain to each and that they are not comparable. the planning