that grocery stores are is toers -- stores that have other products and off sale liquor products if you try get a grocery store in there. i think that's important. trying to eliminate the gambling salon issues is something to get worked on, the height bonus is a very good one. but the area that i don't agree with is the parking. the south is a lot like the west of san francisco. we have cars, we use cars, we are a long ways from anywhere and oftentimes in my case being on the west side of san francisco, i have the advantage of hopping on the metro and getting downtown, however it's a longer trip from the outer mission i think and also many times our travel takes us not

to corridors that are easily served by public transportation. i have patients who are historically or 45 minutes late and they come to my office because they have to take preponderance transportation and make 3-4 transfers. another of my patients has told me how much more difficult it was out there because when they first fought -- their home in the 70s there was one car to each house. now there is a corridor which might have some benefit. i can see where you want to put more types of housing, diversify your housing a little bit. i think you have to allow a restriction to have enough park to go take care of the new

residents without putting more pressure on people who live there. >> we are talking about many years, many decades moving forward. we know in san francisco that we need to build out our infrastructure going oun outreach effort that way. in fact we are looking to do that in the next bond. we are talking about that with the mayor's office and all our different departments so the program is going to bring major benefits to the mission street corridor. we know the building and transit that we are going to meet. we know the corridor the way it's built now it's built to the 20th century. we annoy -- now need to build a corridor. that is what this legislation is doing knowing that we have to build the kind of housing and commercial corridor that is going to work with our transit needs and is

going to meet our reasonableal -- needs as well. we are going to see no matter what, we are going to see housing, 3-4 story housing come in on the corridor. we need that as a city for the people. so looking at parking requirements we are allowing one to one so there is a minimum. i think it's a choice that's made. we have developers to look at the demand most of all when it comes to choosing what level of parking they are going to provide and could very well be in reality one on one. >> thank you, i appreciate your comments but i still feel our greatest needs is for our single family homes, for families, we are building a lot of dense housing, that's okay, even on the outer mission. our families are moving away from

san francisco because they don't have houses of their on. i disagree on that policy but i agree that it allows one to one but unfortunately builders will cram as many units as they can into smallest spaces. i don't think the outer mission works. anyway, let's talk about what i think is the key issue here and that is the mcd one although all of this is important. later in the calendar we have three other conditional uses coming before us. we have one that moves a limit restaurant with no beer and wine. that's a conditional use. we have one react rating 2 adjacent spaces, that's a conditional use, then we have one formula retail coffee establishment replacing another. that's a conditional use. all of these things that

people have brought up as examples of things that are clustered all have conditional uses mostly because they are formula retail. starbucks, pet food express, walgreen's and these places have conditional uses. i think the supervisor's hit on something interesting here. i think the medical cannabis dispensaries rise to a level of significance. they should be of conditional use throughout the city in the future. i will at the you why, no. 1, they are significant. i'm not saying they don't provide a service. they provide a very good service for their patients but they deal with a lot of cash that is part of their governmental feels they are not a substance. i think we have to look very carefully at

each establishment to make sure it's the proper one. many of the respondents, the speakers spoke about the non-profits one being beneficial and the lower cost dispensaries and if we have the conditional use process we have to make this necessary and beneficial where we might, not approve a dispensary that would felt not to be doop -- duplicate that was not helping the individual. i feel if you look at each win particularly. the other ones who were opposed to mcd's were the ones who were not approved, we have disapproved one or two in the commission and another one was an approved then it was disapproved by the permit

appeals. it goes to the board of supervisors where you stand a getting it better on appeal. i think it addresses both sides but i think they are significant enough and we fight over them enough with class jurisdictional laws with the federal government and state government and it's a hard decision and every bit as significant as reacting them to these other things. i'm usually not an advocate for more process and more government. in this case, maybe the level should rise to one of c u. i can see not having the 500 foot in there but having a cu for new dispensaries here throughout the city. commissioner hillist. >> thank you all for testifying.

i'm very support ive of m cd's. we have three in our neighborhood. i think we are beyond the discussion of where we are talking about of them being magnets for crime or they are not good neighbors. i think we are beyond that. i would support at looking at citywide expanding of where they go. we are limiting where they can go and we can expend citywide to where they should go. the neighbors have a right to define their neighborhoods and we do that with coffee shops, retail, restaurants. so i don't think we can discount the neighborhood wanting to help define what their neighborhood looks like in what it feels like. so i'm supportive, i think 500 feet in kind of

banning them within 500 feet is somewhat clun key. where we have a hearing where it being clustered. maybe you increase that 500 feet to a thousand feet. but having this process. i think it's sound policy. can

m cd's be allowed on the second floor? >> excellent question. i don't think they are allowed. it should be in the packet. i don't think there is a great excuse for only ground floor. if there is accessibility to a second floor. if they need the other code requirements much like a doctors office or dental office. second floor space is

appropriate for them. they are not classic retail. it's more medical oriented and that's where we tend to have medical uses. so again, i'm sicht of some control that would look at clustering for 500 or thousand foot radius. and i would leak to see if we can encourage of them locating elsewhere. >> commission wu. >> thanks. the question of the cu. i feel whatever we do or recommend for me it needs to be about this name, mcd, i do like the name mcd because it gives us the opportunity to look and

maintain the culture of the certain neighborhood. i think it's great over all that we are moving in that direction. for me the question of moving a cu to a you will the city, probably the dr is a more appropriate venue. if there were a cu just for the ones that were 500 feet. would three be one that would supercede the other >> yes. if a c u was instituted in this neighborhood. it would only be the c u. i will still curious what the other commissioners have to say, i think i'm comfortable forwarding this with the recommendation of the board of supervisors. i think it's just on the issue of concentration.

if there was not an mcd there then one can locate it. on a number of issues, we have asked to divide the board and no with unis -- one is willing to do it. in the conversation so far i feel comfortable recommending this 500 foot ban. >> commissioner sugaya. >> i generally agree with most comments made and following on commissioner wu i'm with the mind of the 500 be included without a conditional use process. i generally don't like conditional use processes because it seems like every

time there is a controversy over certain kinds of use whether it comes from this community or that community or one interest or another interest, we end up making it a conditional use. and because nobody can say, yeah, we want to ban it or no, or the other way, yeah let's allow it. so now we are involved in this discretionary action. but in my experience on the commission, the commission has hardly ever denied a conditional use permit. with a 1001 percent opposed to it at all levels and we an approved it anyway. and it maybe that we are not as political as supervisor avalos may want us to be, but that did eventually get over turned and

the supervisor from that district was adamantly opposed to it but this commission, and she was here at our hearing and this commission went ahead and voted anyway to approve it. i think it does show the commission, i think as far as mcd's go are quite sympathetic and generally tend to approve them. i think there has only been one or two. one was in north beach. i think both were in north beach. there was one on columbus avenue and one towards fisherman'swarf. it

does state that these allow for more tailored control and help protect the enhanced or unique characteristics of a neighborhood. they this only apply to that district versus nc 3 where they would have to be applied citywide. i think for me we are talking about a specific ncd as being proposed and in my mind we can deal with a medical cannabis issue within that context. and i also agree that we've asked the supervisors previously to give us better tools, perhaps reexamine the legislation which does result in this clustering

effect we are trying to deal with. everybody knows that and so i think some movement on that note will also help us out in the future. but i'm quite willing to move ahead with this one on its own. >> commissioner moore. >> this is an extremely difficult discussion and the more diverse and well thought out opinions i hear, the more difficult it gets because each point is understandable, defensible and in instinctually i would gravitate more with commissioner borden because since we have asked and spent a lot of time thinking about controls and clustering with no help, i don't want to use this ncd as an example because the remaining location in san francisco are so difficult on their own and few are not in

established commercial corridors, why would i create special protections within a corridor when the rest of the rule regarding our preliminary can be so restrictive that there is hardly any room. we know that in more than 60-70 percent there is no possibility of locating any additional ncd's because there is a school which restricts the property for any new mcd in a completely residential neighborhood. having said that, within the almost 2 mile long there are actually 3 specific locations on the corridor and two specific locations off the corridor. the task i would like to examine and i'm not sure i

would bring that to this particular approval today is not to talk about a separation by 300 or 250 or 500 feet but talking about implementation of mcd application over time. none of them can appeal at the same time. but each of them has to go through the process of establishing themselves as a credible desirable business before anybody else and they can come along to ask for a next one. there is criteria to sort out what it can be and should be and let the process like an ndr sort out as to whether or not this support or opposition to additional ones. i'm trying to look at a tool. i might not be able to have a discussion about that today. i would like for us to work with

the supervisors, to work with the active operators to find out the tools. and i have a hard time making this decision and this approval. >> commissioner antonini. >> i have a question for mr. star and the parking part of it. now, i think i went over the boundaries of this ncd and i think it was along major streets. geneva, a little around a little street called ralph, after the mayor. it's

pretty wide. thank you. i'm going to make a motion in a second. >> i assume that also along the parking, is there a diversity of density being proposed here because in the past most neighborhood in the city had zoning for 2 or 3 units and now a number of these neighborhoods have come up with this indefinite amount of zoning number of units. it's more based upon the square footage. is that part of this legislation or not. >> the density is set at one unit per 400 square feet of lot area. it not like the rto which a you to have as many units as you can interested the the building as long as you can provide the open space and exposure for it.

>> just to remind you, this is in the neighborhood commercial district. the whole parking issue, it sounds like a few units can be built without parking. >> it depends on what the market will bear. if no one is buying housing without parking, they might not do that. >> also if supervisor wants to eliminate the minimum and have a maximum of 1-1. we just approved a project not too long ago on a commercial street and he needed 2-1. he made that work. i think that i would be

favorable if we had a measure where we didn't have a maximum. there may be projects that need more than one parking space for the particular project that might be rare. okay. let me craft on this. as far as the medical marijuana, i think commissioner wu made a point. we are not talking about a citywide policy, only talking about a policy on this area. if we wanted to do a 500, that would be okay with me. i would move approval but i would modify the parking with no minimum and no maximum under my motion. >> in the discussion that would possibly come before the board of supervisors to allow ncd's

on second floors. that is one consideration provided they have access to the second floor. >> that could be part of it. i don't see why it couldn't be on the second floor. there might be more security there. that's my motion, if i get a second, i don't know but we'll try it. >> commissioner border? >> to support the other aspects of the legislation that we all mutually agree upon. i know you don't agree with the parking commissioner, antonini. the parking controls, the other removing the alcohol restriction. the prohibition on financial services and the five foot height bonus but also

recommend that maybe the supervisor continue to work with the community in the neighborhood to come up with something that i think is more thoughtful. my concern goes back to the fact that we said there is a limited amount. typically i would say, not a problem. we have commercial districts that ban financial services institutions. but 90 percent of the cities allows you to have it if a neighborhood doesn't have a bank. that's true for a lot of other kinds of uses. but this use is a little different. i don't know if the number is 90 percent of the city is off limits. i don't know what that is. but trying to look at the bigger picture and not one neighborhood is why i have the concern and the final concern of course is that limiting an area that is already restricted

further intensifies the clustering. in areas that have clustering of ncd's you pretty much force an entire to been an medical cannabis dispensaries. i would like to make a motion that ask that maybe there is more working with the medical cannabis community and outer mission neighborhood and excelsior neighbors and look at the bigger picture because this is not a problem that is going away. >> i could second that. >> that's exactly what i was hoping wouldn't be said here that we are kicking the can down the road. last year when this issue came before us, there were three dispensaries approved in the same day. and

when tools are provided, you don't suggest where they can be. i don't necessarily feel it's the best process. >> i get exactly where you are. i would say that it was a unique situation at 3 at once. in other neighborhoods it's a lot more. that's where i struggle with. whenever we asked for was citywide tools and that's something we haven't gotten and i don't think that tension is going away in the near future. i really hope we can figure out something on it. i think that the members of the community were saying there were other option they had in mind and that something unique would be crafted in your neighborhoods that works for your neighborhood, i don't know. but another neighborhood suggested different threshold

but trying to look at the bigger picture. >> just to say no, i have talked to the cannabis dispensaries that have been cited in my neighborhood particularly the ones on the same block that have been approved and one is already in business and the other one is going to start very soon. we are trying to work out with neighbors how we can work well with the community with good communication and good sense of safety and what the neighbor wants. i'm in the work is of doing that. in terms of the overall rules. if i came to you with something else, we would talk about the same thing and be in the same place. >> since there seem to be a little bit more discussion. commissioner sugaya. you are done? commissioner antonini. >> i agree with supervisor

avalos and we often complain that the supervisors change things that we prove and we have an opportunity to prove something so i think we should take a position and i like his 500 feet. i'm probably going to vote no on the motion for parking. i like the 500 feet. i rather take a definite stand on this thing and the supervisors are going to discuss it anyway. i would be fine with what the supervisor has proposed. i'm going to vote no on the motion. >> commissioner hillis? >> i think we should address the concerns now. i guess the citywide issue for the planning commission issue, we can ask to hear this issue next week because i think it legitimate to talk about this citywide and making sure other