i'm sure you're aware of after last weeks review hearing is required, however, in the we are not portal it is needed to establish a mc d near another mc d within 5 hundred photo of an existing mc d. this ordinance repeal cats the provision that directs the removal of those controls. if you recall last week the commission recommended this type of but for be considered citywide. the department will prefer any changes to the mc d regulation until the report is received and any restrictions on the location of mc d be tied to the green

zone, however, the concern is this ordinance had been superseded when the proximity of the governance of those mc d this buffer will work citywide the department finds that a workable solution. the department recommended approval and that concludes my remarks >> opening for public comment i have a number of speaker cards (calling names) the first speaker can come up to the podium. >> good afternoon planning department and commissioners. first, i'd like to thank supervisor yee to understand the

complex set of concerns and circumstances on ocean street we've made a new ally. the zone a small on ocean street and only one applicant is in current compliance that the law. those applicants are not the new kids on the block but came patient providers in the district. one being north hill anothers 15345 ocean after a hostile takeover and the other 1944 ocean which is recently switched hands in a peaceful not traents district. and they don't provide mc d for their patients but this is a

good player vs. bad player we depends on the preapplication process further the dr process to insure with the city has the best of the best and allowing the change of ownership to happen like through the backdoor. in the case in no other business arena would they be allowed to operate this vicinities the trust of the neighbors we request this be sent to the board if passed with a recommendation that the public health department review their transfer of ownership closing the loopholes and assuring a transparencycy in public hearing

and notification of the patient base and surrounding immediate neighbors and merchant. thank you for your consideration >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm mr. hernandez i'm part of the city working group. i'm here to talk about item 12. this current body of commissioners has a lack open transparency there's no open transparency. i want dwp to review it. this is the body that allowed the excuse me. this is the same body that loud a highly, highly area between fifth street

and market i can walk into a pharmacy and i can go one block and buy the same product. this is totally wrong the mc d on ocean avenue is such restricted with the green space that they special specialize in eatables and another mc d specialize in teamsters and other things. different patients have different needs some people can't i think hall the marijuana smoke and is certainty marijuana patients needs the eatables to live. this is about kaeshltd needs and access. highly, highly highly at risk patients in san francisco is going to suffer for that.

ask the commission to approve this and go directly to dph >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, i'm michael goldman i was a member of the medical kifrdz committee and currently on the state hall working group with president chiu. i have a couple of ideas the public health commission ought to be consulted before we go forward. the current green zone limits the option for cannabis dispensaries and those kind of additional conditions further con districts options.

there are a small number of cannabis dispensaries in the district but the ownership of those has been changed without the public being noticed. i personally as a patient was not aware of the change the owner of the wonderful women's dispen and didn't know who my medical provider was there's no discolor they had the same signage outside and continued operating as the same dispensary and they're not this is an important thing if the locations are not operated in an open process so i would ask that this be postponed for the health department and the commission to give impact input.

thank you >> thank you. >> hi, i'm denise i think the hunt is a better candidate for the canvas community i'm rising my he concern about ocean going if a patient going this to a dispen they want to be aware of the ownership if the policy changes it's an exception of service quality. and i don't know of any other business where that takes place so we need transparency for businesses operating in a manner >> thank you is there any additional public comment? >> hi, i'm michael i've been a

member of the wellness for a couple of years i was shocked by the take over it wasn't the same dispensary that i frequently visited. and felt totally uncomfortable. going to the dispensary i just wish i don't know. i just wish they would be more transparent of what's going and in ownership takes place this commission should know. thank you >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is dan whatever i'm the executive director of the ocean avenue association which is a

community benefit district. as you can tell by previous testimony things are complex especially in our neighborhood. we have discussions the situation to as that's changed over the past of months and established a position on the matters and i'll briefly state it. ocean avenue association recognizes that a difference mix of retail businesses service the community better than a community the clustering is not the backbone that meets the nodes of the residents. they support the anti clustering for the commercial corridor such as proposed by commissioner low

and no more than 2 mc ds should be on the corridor. this issue of clustering is something that happens in the neighborhood corridors in many of the forms. this is a particularly controversial one maybe that's obvious but basically, we have two clinics now and a third it applying i'm not sure how this whole thing is working out but we want to stay at two rather than having more. it's been pointed out that some communities have none and we're doing our share of providing space and support for the clinics that exist. thank you >> next speaker >> my name is a robert i live

in the ocean avenue district. i'm in favor of making clustering of mc d in this area as conditional use the burden of proof is on another mc d they have to show us its necessary and desirable. i'm sure you're aware of mc d are clustered within the city downtown. mission street and more recently ocean avenue yet a large area of the city doesn't have mc d. i disagree there are not unify areas of open spaces for mc d in the city there are many blocks in most areas of the city and each of those blocks has a

number of store locations and pitting new mc d in other areas will help access. underlying this is the fact that we the neighbors obviously seem to agree that the mc d is not improve the character off our business district. so i hope you pass this ordinance. thank you >> thank you. next speaker. >> my name is clare listen i live in the ocean avenue area. i would be in favor of passing this ordinance to change from the dr to the conditional use. i think this would open up availability to patients which is one of the points out that

various people have been making. diversity on the of businesses in an area is an important thing it attracts a good incline tell and good for the neighborhood. so i think you - i urge you to vote in favor of the change from a dr to the conditional use. the conditional use puts the burden of proof for the new mc d is necessary. and consistent with the neighborhood so i hope that you will approve the ordinance that is being proposed with the change that is being proposed by commissioner low. thank you >> is there any public comment. seeing none, public comment is closed. if i could ask staff a clarifying question what's in

front of us today who we want to institute a new process while there's a mc d within 5 hundred feet >> that's correct. >> that's an issue that should be dealt with at the public health department. >> that's correct. the land use intermediate is carried with the land and not with the owner there's a hearing on that it's not as rigorous as the planning commission or as notice but there's a public hearing >> do you know the date. >> it will be set soon. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i have a question for the gentleman if you want to come up. so it was reported by staff that for example, west portal has a seat within the district this is

within six hundred feet why isn't it district wide? >> so the extent of the green zone on oxygen avenue covers two blocks that is a factor for conditional use for any new mc d because one is located on the radius so it's not a larger conditional use. >> well, the other thing i don't know who has jurisdiction probably citywide but if legislation is to change and allow a boarder area if you made it the entire district it will pertain a boarder area i will support this i think it should be a boarder area. >> i appreciate our feedback.

>> i have a couple of other comments. i thought this should be a citywide issue. something like that should require it to be necessary or desirable and four commissioners out of 7 commissioners should building that the case and the burden of proof shouldn't be on the opponents to make a unusual and told you so in westport californiaal you don't see mc d because the neighborhood take strong positions as to whether or not they should be there so it gives the neighbors control of what's in their neighbors so i will support this because i think this is a step in the

right direction >> commissioner sugaya. >> i'm going to make a motion to approve but like to add a condition. is language in the actual ordinance under number b-2 the mc d has prepared a parking plan sufficient, etc. and the mc d has demonstrated a commitment to actively engaging the community including secured measures in the precision of a business could we have that changed a little bit so that the mc d submits a security plan of some kind and the language can be worked out with the supervisors office but - >> you can put that in there it's already required as part of the application process.

>> we'll see that when we get that request then? >> if you want we can make a that a policy but typically don't get them. >> i want to include that there's such a thing even though it's within the pressure view of dph anyway, that's my motion. >> commissioner sugaya you're referring to the health code b-2. >> yeah. include that in the packet that we receive. >> commissioner hillis. >> i want to say a few comments the 5 hundred feet he given the size of the district is a little bit small scombrug by the map i could fit 3 more without having

the cd plus obviously depending on where there's availability and the green zone is only about 2 blocks. >> so the green zone limits. >> yeah. this is a de facto. >> in addition to the criteria we've talked about before that the existing concentration in the district that's district wide not within the 5 hundred foot buffer correct new. >> yes. >> commissioner moore. >> i'm in support of this legislation expects this might make it 5 hundred or 6 hundred feet i hope we can revelocity this. i the message is to ask the

supervisor to support a more thorough review of who the mrntsz are you have an issue if there's a new organization coming in without bringing them in as credible i think that's an extremely important issue that exists on a federal level >> commissioner sugaya one final comment mr. weaver didn't read the last part but they state r a well run mc d is an educate in the district and they outline wasn't they mean so i think that should be made public so to speak. seems like it is somewhat of an

enlightened approach >> commissioner moore. >> can you ask mr. star that part of the conversation be put into the foil as we discuss the policy that might add more intense to the legislation. >> in part of this discussion? >> yes, we have it available as we move along. >> commissioner, i heard a motion but not a second. >> i'll second. >> thank you. commissioners there's a moved and seconded to adapt a recommendation for approval with the river for security plans being included anyone that motion >> commissioner antonini. commissioner borden.

commissioner moore. commissioner hillis. commissioner sugaya. commissioner fong. commissioner president wu. so moved, commissioners, that motion passes naems unanimously 7 to zero that place you under our discretionary review calendar i want to say to the public that the dr for carolyn street has bun withdrawn but that leaves the variance planter on the calendar so at the john sharp the zoning administer will top the matters and if the public could exit the room quietly. commissioners on item 13 for the case at the 1110 ashbury bureau street request for discretionary

review >> good afternoon. jessica wolf that's a discretionary review for the address of a single-family located in hate ashbury in the zoning district the plan is recommending you not take dr. the subject property is currently a single-family home that's located at the rear of the parcel about 46 away from the property line it includes a vertical and horizontal room. this edition will expand this into a larger single-family home residence, however, no work has been done in the rear yard and no variance needed and also the top story is set back.

the slopping garage and store will be fully upgrade by below grade larger than or longer the rear of the building that was filed by the owner on hate ashbury street. some of the dr requests concerns are the scale and lot. the dr requester is particularly concerned of the masking later than the north side property line and the project doesn't comply with the code sections one hundred 34 and 57 of the open space and also the manage of the buildingable area of the bathroom that is located in the front door of the house. the department and the residential design team found exiled circumstances duce to the

fact that the existing building is a non-compliant structure and we recognize this creates challenges with the design but overall felt the project clients. the building scale and form at the front is comparable with the surrounds, and, secondly, the issue of the massing located near the rear of the requesters land the team looked the site and said it provides air and light similar to a set we'll. the project was looked at and the interpretation of planning code section one hundred 34 and 5 and determined it comprises. the department has received 3

letters of support from the adjacent resident one from the rear of the subject property on european terrace and they're in support so long as the project is not increased in scale to the rear and the second is from a resident and even though third letter from a neighbor with the subject block. i have copies variable again, the department recommends approval if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them >> commissioners, i do apologize i should have brought this up when i called the matter to our attention this the the matter that commissioner moore has a question about you may want to look at the continuous.

>> commissioner moore. >> i am concerned about the manner in which it is done not in front of it that's a separate discussion. just like the discretionary review which was brought up a few minutes. the project applicant had the dependency to provide us with the plan and basically go having us individually seat belt what's in front of us the matter was settled is gives sufficient time to look at the changes and the dr request. today we've been give those plans despite i asked for them a few days ago and not everything in the packet was e-mailed to us

two days ago. i believe for that reason in order to be clear and process it and be identifiable we need to look at this from today until next thursday and continue this item >> we will take public comment on matters of continuance why don't we do that now. so opening public comment >> i'm working with the folks approximately two analyses weeks ago it was to be continued i agreed to any continuance except april 10th because michelle is being sent out of state so this

comes at the fault of the project sponsor so i hope you don't continue it until april 10th. on the topic of the project itself thank you commissioner moore you read about this i brought it up in 3 kogsz to staff i said there was no scale how could we review this. i was made to feel like an idiot thank you commissioner moore >> thank you further public comment. >> yeah.. this dr has been on schedule and conditioned to march 27 i received a request for continuation for those