a-2.1 sort of a dashed line on the left which is at the north property line so that's where the privacy screen is proposed opposite on the wall a door to the deck and perpendicular there's walls those face east so they don't face to the neighbors property. >> the objection the stairs there's no decking in this project. >> there's no stair. >> our approval will not allow that and any addition will be contrary to approval. >> so one of the things i think perhaps when there's a wall there that exists where this door is on the same plane leading out to the deck my understanding is there are

windows left in there but under this permit those rough ends up will be no windows there they're waiting for the bring out to take those out you can ask the sponsor or the architect. >> the other side if it's approved as sketched there won't need a screen because there's no window. >> the screen. >> the screen is there. >> they want another screen open on the east side of this notch that's currently open the neighbor wants a screen there he feels his privacy is not - >> officially a cage previously expands to the notch and in terms of windows that's a very difficult thing to address when it comes up at the discretionary

review hearings no notification is required for adding a window on the previous building they could get the windows they have to be fire rated limitations but no notice required even as a non-non-compliance structure not a surveillance is to add a structure our plans today don't have the window it's a window on the landing for a stair again, it's giving the idea of the window by a stair that could be added at a later date unless you take dr no window every there's a screen in the plan that is not invading their privacy those windows need to come up this is

in rear of the property that's an issue to consider. >> thank you maybe i can ask carol you commented are those the same windows. >> they took the windows out there were looking into my garden and those have been removed. >> they're not part of the plan now. >> no, not now my concern was the stairway up to the roof are we okay. and they're to open up the roof and have an area up there which is above everyone in the neighborhood. >> i can address that under the code of a non-complying code you can add a roof-deck providing

it's a minimum roof-deck with a railing that's open on top of of the non-complying building i will note if there are no plans to do that they would have to do it without the penthouse because not only would that trigger the 311 notice by the way, it's in the radish building requirements do the patches in some cases it is possible without a satire penthouse but again, nothing in the plan and not an ability to add a roof-deck later without a notification. >> we have those discussions about privacy easement and generally we are on the side of if you're concerned put screens up on your property if someone's is looking at our property but

this is a different situation we had plans that were did not involve the windows and now the with these are there so it's a little bit different because what was originally proposed is not the same so i'll be inclined to support another screen that allows latin-american for windows that will be placed by block out a view of the backyard and concerns and taking dr and not allowing an upper deck to be built that's a notice of special restriction or make it part of the motion itself. >> that's not part of the proposal currently you know that's certainly something the commission can do i'll note the window not it on the plan it maybe roughed in they wanted to do that that's again in the

staircase and actually carotid to the plans actually on a step so just to kind of keep in mind the privacy concerns maybe from a small window and a stairwell but one screen that is being proposed dribble on that property line and what's being proposed is another one to cage the open space. >> that's my inclination i'll see what the other commissioners. >> commissioner johnson. >> i agree i see a lot of cases where privacy is one or more of the issues that run to the dr requesters i'm not for changing the design of the building to accommodate neighbors if they feel it's a concern generally speaking san francisco is a city and privacy is no in the general

plan there are ways that has nothing to do with to the building structure it can be used to accommodate those concerns until further notice so i don't disagree with that being part of the motion in terms of the potential for further alternatives to the finished property that we see before us i did not that needs to be part of the motion times change and any proposals that you have a roof area that is habitable could require litigation as a zoning administrator said and would probably be back before us for another dr in which case we can discuss that job agree with talking those yet so i'll not

agree with commissioner antonini on either one of those potential additions to a motion on this project. >> commissioner richards. >> a question of staff if i take a look at the original project is interest a difference in the original design of the building. >> the only thing changed in the original design move the windows and the stair penthouse or stairs up to the roof after that it's virtually the same project. >> the project sponsor has something to add as well. >> police commissioner yeah. just to emphasize the original permit did include property line on the west and property their roughed in that's part of the original permit we've removed them and to be

clear the window on the notch that faces directly north that's window has bhn removed there is no window there we're happy to put the screen on the north property line as well that's part of the proposal on the other hand, so eve your left with the a notch facing east and that north facing window is gone. >> there's a question about the condition that that scene be there on the north property line. >> it's in the plans. >> as part of the plans. >> if you're offering it we'll take it if the neighbors are happy. >> yeah. i think that for me, i have concerns about the fact that the demolition did happen i will accept our story but what's

in front of if his with a eastern screen i don't see the need so this sentiment from the commission in that direction and commissioner fong and based on this information i think an attempt by the project sponsor to accommodate some of the neighbors requests in this recent round i'm going to move to not take dr. >> second. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i have a question for staff if we vote with the project as proposed it includes the private screen and there's no window at least at the present time in the eastern direction. >> there's a window facing east but that view is diminished by the screening on the north and then the proposed window facing north is also screened by the screen that's happening. >> there's no window facing

north. >> no window facing north. >> it's roughed in but not under the permit. >> the other thing if there's an attempt to add a deck it will have to come their notice will have to be generated to the neighbors and done administratively if someone obtained they can bring in another dr or stopped. >> given it's a non-complying a it will trigger a notice to the adjacent properties additionally if it has a stair penthouse a public hearing through the variance. >> thank you. >> one other question mr. sanchez draefgs between an attached structure can we do that without a permit.

>> it will also yeah. >> okay. thank you commissioners, we have a motion and a second not take dr and approve the project as proposed commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner richards commissioner johns and commissioner president wu so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously zoning administrator what say you close the public hearing. >> thank you, commissioners item 12 for the next case at 5420 mixing is request for a mandatory discretionary review. >> commissioner richards. >> i want to let the commission know i don't have a conflict of interest but i sit open the board in my neighborhood that

will not make me impartial in my sense to this project. >> good afternoon commissioner president wu and members of the planning commission the item before you is an application for a mandatory discretionary review for a building permit application on mission street project side on the north side of admission on ottawa in the occurred mission district and mailings falls within a height district proposal so establish a new mcd the now vacant space is seven hundred plus thousand square feet with 25 feet with frontage along mixing and no physical expansion the proposed mixed use will operate and dispose of

medical cannabis and have on site smoking the density will not incorporate the medical cannabis on site and the tenants will have to comply with the mayor's office subject property located in the excelsior outer commission where the medical cannabis is under the mandatory discretionary review and it is located within 5 hundred feet of another medical cannabis to go through the mandatory discretionary review process and subject to the restrictions of the planning code there are two other medical cannabiss on the 2 hundred block of mission street since the project falls outside of the community a mandatory discretionary review is not required it is one hundred and 66 feet the second is approximately 8

hundred and 70 feet away doing business as as tree medicaid medical cannabis on february 16, 2012, a third mcd was approved through the same process and to date the department has hundreds and one letters in support and additional calls and letters in opposition to the project since the case was pushed and the department has received 15 calls and 31 letters of opposition brown about concerned of the approximate to the childcare and a public utilities how it impacts and crimes and another mcd the outer- in addition the

department has been notified of a couple of petitions one in opposition that reviewed one hundred and 70 signatures as another one in support of october 8th the department was made aware of 3 hundred and 9 signatures 2, 3, 4 support of the project as the commissioner is unaware the medical cannabis was approved by the health department the planning department is generally limited to the location of the characteristic of the mcd we recommend you take the mandatory discretionary review the project meets all the planning code requirements and as well as additional criteria within the miths pursuant to the planning code mcd has addressed parking and transportation by proibt double

parking and has suggested that this will be strictly monitored by staff the project is well serviced been the bart station and that rinses along mission and the project sponsor has developed a safety and security plan reaching to the police department and operates between the hours of operation and other contrary directly recommend to the mandatory discretionary review is required as non-applicable to the case it is one thousand feet from any school or recreational building and will provide only provide a medical cannabis to patient with proper identification cards mcd employees 0 thirty to 50 full-time and are paramount

employees to reduce the impact the following conditions are recommended the operators should maintain the main sdrans and all situations and the project sponsor had maintain all significant ordered from escaping the premises and all garbage containers shall be kept within the building until pickup that concludes my presentation. thank you. >> we'll have a presentation fwlt project sponsor i understand in the public comment there are two members of the public that require interpretation so we'll accommodate those first; is that correct. >> there's a general question for the interpreters they'll be accommodated during the public comment period. >> thank you project sponsor.

>> thank you commissioner president wu and commissioners staff and for your work on our police station for mission street i'm happy to be here and looking forward to hearing about the concerns great from the neighbors that filled the discretionary review i'm looking forward to - i'm the mayor and the executive director of san francisco patient and resource center as long as spark 8 years

ago i formed a community-based nonprofit organization nearly 3 inquires i was krultd to lead spark as the executive director and i now, it's fifth year of operation let me talk about what sets spark apart we provided ourselves in proven in addition to what you see we were the first dispensary we were based on the american products association and like to talk about safety first there's product safety many patients have accommodated immune systems we test outline products for mold and sun die and other constraints containments and there's people safety we've not had one instance at our selma

location spark goes beyond basic standards to provide from the cannabis we provide on site xhiemgs another our 9th and on the facility which in a planning commission report dated march 202014 we provide a safe place for people with deblilt ills perhaps the most important thing that sets park apart is our commitment to the community we contribute to many nonprofit organizations with funds and employee volunteers some some of the organizations are hospice and equality san francisco and

equality california and aids life cycle a list of many, many more but building community it is not only informed and gave me members of the community and incorporate the feedback into the 5420 mission street location we work to engagement the stakeholders via snail mail and in person building just yesterday, we hosted two meeting who has chosen to not oppose this application those are the many factors that sets spark apart and the san francisco platt agrees in its report evaluating the medical cannabis spark is specifically referenced as the example of a dispensary

that - we bring the quality to the outer mission and people asked why we choose 5420 location offering 12 hundred members live in the area code we're opening in and over 71 hundred members live nearby t this location reduced green house gas emissions to folks that travel to the closer locates and not have to come into our location at fifth and mission finally we've got a lot of folks that came out today so all the sparks supporters to please stand up if you can raise our hands high and a and i hope

that everyone doesn't have to

speak here today, if you speak you don't have to take the full 3 minutes take one minute the planning commission is smart at the know how to hear what you're saying there's an sf giant game happening thank you. i hope you'll are supportive. >> i believe i say mr. pollack from the supervisors office weigh like to speak. >> good afternoon jeremy legislation aid the supervisor

asked me to deliver the memorandum and i'll reading a few portions district 11 experience with the medical cannabis has been demonstrating discretionary in and they review the applications for mcd and wanted to diminish between good and bad operators the 3 mcds that were approved on february 2012 we have those 3 december pens make an effort to, work with the neighborhood and it shows how a glycoclothes could contribute and they put out pedestrian signs and kathy has received no compliments and the dispensaries on the 2 had had one hundred and 70 block have not been good neighbors we hope to hold this as a high bar for beneficial services. >> supervisor avalos i'll leave it to your discretionary to approve those applications and i appreciate the work to engagement in the outer mission neighborhoods we'll not welcome any more dispenses that don't offer a a lot of benefits and reflecting reject the medical cannabis within a mcd one thousand foot district in developing the outer commercial district where we put in the anti cluster my my mcd that attempts to relocate will have to get a permit and much debate between preventing clustering of mcds and we settled on the 5 hundred foot provision as a good balance and i think with consideration of expanding that to one thousand feet and supervisor avalos was concerned we'll be using that as a precedence and find out it was inconsistent with expanding the

green zone and one thousand foot will not allow it to expand n and it's outlined in the mcd report lastly it is important to think of the dynamics of marijuana in 2016 we're likely to see recreational value on the ballot and i think with my need need to look at colorado and washington and be before the accident happened to adapt what the new regulatory regime is going to be recycle i'll continue to read we need to prepare for the marijuana landscape and i believe the first step to draft an ordinance based on the recommendations of our recreational reports open the mcd requirements we need to revisit the medical cannabis and critique the pressure of oversaturation like the excelsior but we need to provide

additional career to approve the mcds will be be good neighbors and make sure they're living up to their commitments to the neighborhood and to the reform of the medical cannabis act will start with the political will and the current regulations supervisor avalos is willing to introduce reforms by needs the planning commission to help develop and pass the ordinance if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them. >> commissioners, if i may for you who came in and may not have heard me, please turn off our mobile devises if i don't know how to turn them off they're a disruption. >> there's a request for both

spanish and chinese interpreters for those persons that made the requests please came forward first. >> so mr. secretary we'll limit public comment to public comment only for interpretation. >> so is - >> there's. >> wonderful why don't i come up to speak. >> it is your time to submit our public comment. >> okay and was there also a request for a spanish interpretation? >> please come forward when making those are requests for interpreters to be present this coyotes of the city's dime

if you request an interpreter you actually submit our comment. >> good afternoon i'm going to try to speak a little bit in english but i can't he's going to help me i live across the street from the place they want to approve this thing this dispen i'm sorry we have in order to place this very close my kids they grew up in this neighborhood and right now it oh, it's terrible that place right now is my kids one of my kids a a paramedic saves lives