cd's can locate other districts. i will speak, i think the 500 foot ban could lead to a situation where you have 6 blocks but if you did it as a cu, you could have these in one block which i think it makes sense especially given there are landlords that won't lease to mcd. do we have a motion? and a second on the floor? >> i would move to adopt this with modifications where we convert the 500 foot restricts to c u's. >> second. >> maker has to accept it.

>> there was a motion. >> there is an initial motion with a second. there has been a second motion with a second. we should take up the first motion and back it up with a second. let me get a chance to get my head around the second one. okay. so there is a motion by commissioner border, seconded by commissioner moore to adopt the resolution recommended approval for the proposed new mcd and controls with the exception to access neighborhood regarding control for medical cannabis dispensaries. or that motion, commissioner antonini, no, moore, no, sugaya, no, wu, no,

fong. that motion fails 2-5. with commissioners antonini, hillis, sugaya, wu and fong voting against. should we take the second motion. >> so i believe i can support commissioner hillis motion. i don't know the to see all c u's, if it's located as a process as opposed to a banned process. >> that's exactly my position as well. i do not support conditional uses accrue is the city. if we want to give control in that way, i'm willing to support that, but i don't think that is the right approach citywide. i just don't. >> let me chime in and this is really not too much different in what we did in upper market

last week. in which we created a very specific policy with a radius clause of a number of feet. it really sort of a pilot for that particular area because of the given conditions. i feel this is the exact same thing. i do feel that by whatever reason timing approving three in one night, we changed that block over night and i didn't feel very good about that and i don't have a problem with the mcd's there, but doing it there in one night was not right for the community. remember they were pretty upset. some of the families that were in that area. that's my position. commissioners sugaya? >> that's why i'm going to vote against the motion because i think that turning it into a conditional use despite commissioner hillis's argument, we have no tools to actually decide whether it's necessary or desirable. we are going to fall right back on how close

are they and that is not a consideration. so, it's kind of right. >> we can make it a consideration and supervisor. >> anyway, i think a ban is simpler, easier and way to go. >> commissioner antonini? >> i think we have tools and situations where certain dispensaries have come up and represented in not only by communities but sometimes the police department and neighbors who have come up. i think we can probably. i still have problems with the parking part of it. that's difficult for me. although i think an allowing 1-1 is okay but the actual resident who has come up to speak from the district itself says parking is really important to them and it's

going to make the problem worse. >> commissioner hillis. >> when we prove this in one location and one day we specifically target supervisors who are normally open to the issues to provide tools. we took that as far as we can do that looking at reputations. who has a better reputation than the other. all of those things. and none of the tools we tried to create on the run, worked for us to not have to prove all three of them because there was nothing against any of them which could make a shadow of a doubt on one and not on the other. we were literally stuck particularly if we are supposed to represent a policy of access and what san francisco stands for. three in one night is a little bit more

than any of us can handle. >> commissioner sugaya. >> i think commissioner moore just argued for my position. commissioners then recommending the approval for control of medical cannabis dispensaries to confer to 500 foot restrictions. hillis, sugaya, no, wu, aye, so moved commissioners, that motion passes 5-2 with commissioners antonini and sugaya voting against. >> that will place you on item no. 10. 2012, 1919 coal street

request for conditional use.

the proposal will involve tenant commercial space. there will be no expansion to the existing building. the operation of the store are 5:30-230 a.m.. packaged tea, brewing equipment and merchandise combined with beverages and -- the planning department is recommending approval with conditions. this concludes my presentation.

thank you. project sponsor? >> good afternoon, my name is carole messte. as you probably know pete's, was started in berkeley in 1966. we are a bay area company. our home office and roasting plant are in the bay area. we are excited to be here. this would be our smallest store to date, but we are really excited about being here. if you have any questions

regarding the actual physical changes that will make, our construction project manager is here to answer those questions. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? >> seeing none, public comment is close. commissioner antonini? >> maybe i can talk to the project sponsor. i just have a question regarding pete's in general for the edification. i like pete's a lot and i'm happy to hear they are located in the bay area although we would like to see them head quartered in san francisco. i don't have to have an answer, but i would like to know what sort of thing do we have to do in san francisco to make us friendly to a company like pete to make them operate their headquarters in san francisco. >> i would love that.

>> tell me what we have to do. >> i have to be honest. our roots are in berkeley. if you mailed something to us, it would go to a berkeley. our first store was on vine an walnut. saying that, i will be honest, you never know what's going to happen in the future, but i think our berkeley roots are too deep for moving our home office. however we have out grown it so now is the time. >> in particular you mentioned your roots in berkeley but i'm thinking like jam ba juice who were head quartered in this area thechlt -- they must be doing something. >> jamba juice, for us, we were roasting our beans in

emeryville. it was our roasting plant company and there weren't many condo s and as it was getting more residential people were complaining and we had to build a roasting plant outside. so we turned that building into our office. >> makes sense but we've had coffee growers in san francisco, historically, but not too many right now. we appreciate it and this is just the change of one form of retail to another and one coffee to another coffee so i don't really see a problem with that. >> thank you. >> and i would move to approve. >> second. >> could you call the question please. >> commissioner hillis? >> speaking as a former coal

valley resident. i would have liked to prefer to see another. i like pete's. pete's is good coffee, but it's a small commercial corridor there. it's only two blocks. i think pete's is smart to go in this location. i think there is other coffee shops that could have located here on the small corridor. it's almost like a suburb. there could be independent coffee shops. >> commissioner moore? >> all we can really do is support one form or small form of retail. i'm going to put an emphasis on small moving into an already coffee place type

space. that's what i feel we are judging on. >> on that motion, commissioner antonini, aye, hillis, aye, wu aye, so moved commissioners that motion passes unanimously 5-0 and puts you on item 11 for 1501 baker street request for conditional use authorization. >> members of the planning commission sharon young. the item before you is kwr for use of authorization to react rate to establish 1850 square foot establishment doing business within rh 3 zoning district.

they were occupied both commercial tenant spaces at 2600 sutter street with connection between the two spaces. the proposal involves commercial space. there would be no expansion of existing building envelope. according to the project sponsor, the propose service establishment will specialize in nutrition and holistic workshops, presentations and possibly drop off point for fruit and vegetables and delivery services. the proposed will be independently own and not considered a retail use in the planning code. the subject commercial at the present time space was prior to january 1st,

1960 was a grocery store and according to the project sponsor, the commercial spaces might have been used for personal uses for some time after 1998. to date the permanent has received two e-mails in support in concern about potential noise and request the walls be sound insulated and also after the project was noticed, there was phone calls, e-mails and contacts from supervisor ferls office for information about the project because of rumors that a medical cannabis dispensary was being proposed this concludes my presentation and the planning department is recommending approval with conditions. thank you.

>> project sponsor please. >> i'm here to tell you a little bit of background. i'm a lifestyle coach. i help people with all kinds of health issues. i help people with rehabilitation so people coming out of physical therapy. it sort of like a personal training studio. but it's not like a 24 hour fitness. the concerns about noise, i don't know if you probably have in the packet, the blueprints you will see the work out room is on the corner of the space and further away from the walls that adjoin any of the other properties. i'm open to addressed sound concerns if people have them down the road and just so you know i did have a meeting with neighbors. maybe 8 or 10 folks showed up and they were in support and i think there should be a couple

of males -- e-mails and notes in your packets. open to questions. >> do you care to state your name for the record? >> david engan. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> seeing none, public comment is close. commissioner antonini. project sponsor. the rumor about the mcd is just a rumor. >> it's a rumor. the public notices that were regarding this hearing were defaced and they wrote no dispensary, speak out. subsequently someone scratched out the no and wrote

yes. >> if you were here at the last dispensary you understand how important that is. >> i have driven by this location a couple times. it intrigues me because it's a great location. there are some interesting things across from it. i think this is a kul -- cool use and i wish you lung -- luck on it. >> i would move to approve. >> on that motion to approve. >> commissioner antonini, aye, hillis aye, sugaya aye, wu, aye, that motion passes unanimously 7-0. places you on

item 12. request for conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon i'm chris crawford with department staff. this case is a conditional use request under planning code section 21-44 for a restaurant doing business as pic a kitchen in the neighborhood commercial district. the project would convert the existing limiting restaurant to a full restaurant with beer and wine service. it would be open from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m.. the types of alcohol are limited by an earlier planning motion by improvement of the nightclub on this building. i'm pleased to report has been operating continually since the planning commission approved the expansion of that without any difficulty with the

neighborhood. this project is an independently owned business and not a form of retail. including this proposed restaurant, the total number of drinking and eating establishments, within this location is only 15 percent of the lineal frontage much less than the commission imposed. the proposed restaurant would not cause any concentration of food and beverage uses. the department has received letters of support from the process by the castro and merchants in upper market castro. we have had no opposition to the project. the project recommends approval of proposal with conditions. it will not cause concentration of drinking and eating establishment and complies with all requirements of the planning code and for

most the policies of the general plan. thank you very much, i'm available for questions. >> thank you. project sponsor? >> hello. i'm the owner. we have applied for a license to provide alcohol in 2011, august, it was approved. it was not until we went to the health department that we realized that the restaurant has been zoned for limited restaurant. this is part of a legislation that passed late last year to simplify restaurant, by not being open we went to our elimination of restaurant. we would like to be considered to be a restaurant since our cuisine is a restaurant an

accompanied by beer and wine. >> all right. we'll open to public comment. we might have questions for you. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> okay. public comment is closed. >> i live by the other location. i vote to prove this motion. >> on that motion to approve, commissioner wu, ayes. so move that motion passes. that places you in the next item at 3819 forth street for discretionary review. >> good afternoon commissioners. property address. this proposal is to

construct a rear existing to a 3 story family residence. the project's located on a 25 hundred foot parcel. the existing structure is 7 inches from the property line. the block is predominantly made up of 3 story dwellings with similar front set backs. the other adjacent lots are 114 feet deep which are deeper to the property. while the the other residence are toward the other street. three additional properties front on the noi

street. these three parcels are 80 feet. this past week one of the dr's has been withdrawn. the process on the file to the west have agreed to a design modification that was agreed upon after the design changes in the commission packages. this changes result in an area that doesn't require additional notification. they found the project meets the standards and

the project does not present an exceptional extraordinary circumstances. the upper level of the proposed position only 8 feet beyond the existing wall and it's height would be lower than the existing ridge line of the house. the rearmost portion would only be one story in height. the main rear wall showers in the adjacent rear wall of the property to the west. the addition will not affect open space. the building to the east are separated from the addition by the rear yard and will not change the relationship nor will it alter the existing situation. therefore the department is determined that this addition will not create a significant adverse on the residents. the

planning department should know take discretionary view. one thing i would like to note there is an agreed upon modification with one of the dr fileers. the plans do not reflect that. the architect can explain that in detail during their presentation. this is an actual reduction in building mass. so it wouldn't require any additional negotiation. if the commission shows they could take dr based on that modification or prove it then they would provide the revisions. >> thank you. >> that dr has been withdrawn? >> yes. it there is only one dr

against the property. >> okay. you have five minutes. my name is barbara. i live necked -- next door to the proposed project. i object to the building. it will shield my windows from the western sunlight and warmth. my house has always depended on its solar attributes which is limited to 3 hours on sunny days. i want the extension denied. the roof slopes. such an extension includes the set backs. this represents the

aerial view of my house at the top center. period 90 degrees. this is my house. the project house to the left and the noi street development on the right. this is my yard here. my house is swayed -- situated on a substandard lot. this yard ends much higher. there is no basement and no room to install central heating. this is an adjustment to the overhead. this is my idea of what the tunnel created by the new construction would look like. so this is the extension here and this again is my house which is now shadowed. the southern