tv Planning Commission 81116 SFGTV August 20, 2016 2:00am-3:31am PDT
for an eight unit building with a 10 foot setback at the front and however shadow study prepared by provision design determine the proposal would reduce the were produce approximate 24 min. of shadow after 7 pm went to the corner of the basketball court at helen will spark across the street to the southeastern increase the .01% shadow on the court from a-charger for the direction of a kind we redesign the upper floors to incorporate toy for foot and 51 foot setback to the before to avoid the shadows on the project is reduce the proposal by about 4000 ft.2 and facilitated the removal of the eight unit. the revised proposal before you allows the design to read like a four-story structure from broadway street to be masking the upper floors and doesn't require any parking exemption
for the unit. having a street frontage of 36 feet along broadway the building is unusual in its width so the design is intended to emphasize more traditional san francisco proportion and rhythm. we the vertical element to the west recessed balcony and a main body to the use that's also finally articulated with recesses and material changes. this provides multiple benefits given the elevation compositional that provides overproduction to the south facing windows and provide an open space for several of the units. the building lobby is designed located to maximize visibility on the ground floor and the second means of the rest to activate the pedestrian experience. in addition to the required outreach meetings we've had several follow-up face-to-face meetings e-mail correspondence and phone calls with the adjacent neighbors during this prostitute we have modified the designs to mitigate privacy concerns raised by primarily by the neighbors to the west of these modifications include providing frosted glass to the light wells frosted glass privacy screens about the gargoyles to the west, side of the property and setting back the roof deck on the property line at the upper floors. the proposal
before you increase the use of an underdeveloped site along the major corridor and neighborhood commercial district at 57 additionally needed residential units to the city supply provides one part bicycle each of the unit could contribute positively to the neighborhood character and the suspect oh to its neighbors. it will include the streetscape along broadway by reducing the width of the cut and 15 u st. trees in this proposal completely code compliant asking for no variances were exceptions we all the requirements of the planning code. recently it's come to our attention some of the community would preferably maintain the eighth unit from the previous original proposal. if this is also the consensus of the commission and a parking
exception can be printed as part of the approval process, we can work with staff to maintain the extra or envelope as proposed in the current design were to get the eighth unit back into the interior design. however, as we have to remove the primary stair access from the sixth floor to avoid casting shadow on the helen will spark it will acquire finessing that the lower floors requires consultation with fire and pediatrics at the for the integration of the eighth unit be handled at the staff level after the granting of the conditional use if that is the desire of the commission and suck it thank you for your consideration am available for questions. >> thank you. opening it up to public comment? >> good evening. i first want to thank commissioner antonini first 12 years service on this commission. i tuned in at 10 pm at night when i got back home and unwind and sure enough you're still digging in and asking the tough questions. >> thank you good actually 14 years but i appreciate it. >> sorry. so, on this project broadly supportive of adding housing at this location. however, we think there is changes that could be made. one, he was just mentioned by department staff and sponsor this the transit rich area. so, why are we having seven parking
spaces. yes we follow the plane when which the code but the zoning administrator does have the ability to grant an exemption from parking so we would ask for a little parking as possible. we can say transit rich and then say we need one to one parking. so that's on parking. we also think that this site can have more than eight units if that is possible. if that's a bit of a stretch than we really insist on eight units at this site. the unit sizes are quite large. my understanding is that this is going to be a first sale project just give you some sense . new condos are selling in our neighborhood for about $1200 a square foot. that's $1.2 million per thousand square feet. you know you have to start picking about affordability and one weight we can tackle affordability is building smaller units that can
come to the market and be more marketable to wider ranges of folks. and that will be our comments here. we would like the sponsors to perhaps have another trip back to the department, work with the department, to try to get more units unless parking out of this project. we think it's possible. we think that they've done a lot of great work. they've done outreach to us and talking with us. i just want to get a phone call in a couple of years that says unfortunately there's been a bad traffic accident because somebody is coming out of the broadway tunnel and you have cars coming out of this site. i just think that's a bad location to have seven cars coming in and out. the city is investing a massive amount of money into brd along van ness so the great transit of our neighborhood is going to get better. so let's try to be creative with this one. let's try to make some easy changes
to increase the unit count and reduce the parking and i think that will be in line with the city's overall transit first policies and would also improve affordability. so with those comments, we'd ask for the commission to make some modifications. thank you >> thank you. >> good evening commissioners. mike, thank you for your years of service as lucky as i like to echo all the many many comments here >> thank you, sean >> it's been so long a lot of good stories and a lot of fun. anyway, i appreciate the comments from oh and the project sponsor at working together for the last several months on this. if i could have the overhead just for a second? this junk. oh that illustrates
the bite that had to come out of this project when it was an eight unit building get to satisfy the requirement of no shadow on the part. the project sponsor would love to have eight units. we are dedicated and committed to working with for that eighth unit. it would be our preference, not to have to come back in front of this commission again that eighth unit would reduce our parking ratio could we would now be less than 1 to 1. that would take some work on your behalf. but, i do want to acknowledge that front staircase does not access all the floors anymore. while i am not a building code expert, i know that each unit has to have a passive travel and get you off that floor to staircase appeared that grates a little bit of an unusual challenge on that pass through. we have your approval, they would be dedicated to working with staff and working with the community to obtain that eight
units and i think that would go a long way towards all the things that we support thank you >> any additional public comment? >> my name is greg wilson get i'm just a resident >> use them other microphone if you mine? thanks >> i live on alejo street just north of this building site. the pictures that we've seen they look good. the focus of this project and the discussion in the packet in the planning committee has been on broadway. it's been on the impact on broadway where the shadow that casts on the helen will spark that was removed. but there is also a large shadow that goes the other direction is much more significant and impact a lot more residents. immediately to the north of the site is a courtyard that is owned by a large apartment complex but
surrounded by a lot of common buildings in the courtyard provides clean space and light and son for a lot of the units that surround that courtier. including mine on vallejo street. that is our primary source of sun and light to those units. we get that from the south. as you know. by allowing this conditional authorization for this building to go as high as 73 feet, the structure, it's going to cause a lot of that some in a lot of that blue sky that we enjoyed to be blocked by that though. it's pretty much directly in line if you look at sort of just south of the little south west of the courtyard. afternoon sun and afternoon light is going to be blocked by this building. so the focus has been again on broadway and we look at the pictures and the building looks great because we don't see the three stories on top of that
structure because of those setbacks. but those three stories will cause this great light blockage and shadow on all of these units that enjoy that courtyard. it will have a big impact on a lot of the units on that side of it. we had-they did have an outreach meeting as was mentioned and there was that good number of residents at that showed up there. i had e-mailed the staff planner mr. died expressing the same concern back then and i know others from the meeting also have some concerns. i don't know if they expressed it or not in writing but in the packet, it said that no public comment has been received. i know there was a transition on the assigned staff planner from
mr. died to the current staff could maybe those comments were lost, but it's a little concerning that the packet there's no public comments were received, which i know i get comments to him and i believe other residents also had the same concern. residence that border and surround this courtyard. so i would hope that the extra height will not be granted. >> thank you. any additional public comment? not seen any public comment is closed. commissioner moore >> i would like to ask a couple of questions. questions which in the context of a project which uses a similar pace condition for design and that is 4069 pacific st. they are, we talked about the issue of double dipping where under article 1, use of a noncompliant structure, was mixed with new construction which falls under a different set of rules. in the end we were working out with a lot of
hug and told that indeed, there was a variance for the introducing a residential use into a noncompliant structure. i would like to ask mr. rowan, how that particular observation that particular case applies here? on pacific street we had eight old manufacturing bakery building which had been there since the end of the last century. no. the one before. in a neighborhood which is residential in through the new construction, first through trying to retrofit that building we realized it was basically new construction kit that we have that here, too. we are retaining a noncompliant industrial structure and were inserting new construction without really examining where
the dividing lines are in particular the request for variance in change of use. i have a problem that this particular building is envelope maximizing envelope driven and the reduction in shape and size is only basically driven by preventing sunlight-shadow on the public open space across the street, but because it is a see you it is not really allowed neighbors to weigh in which you have when somebody could file adr. i think there's a number of questions in this particular project doesn't answer. i am concerned about its height get i'm concerned about the amount of parking. i'm concerned about not the average unit size, but the excessive size of unit number seven, which has 3008 square
feet with decks over 1300 ft.2, which somewhat seems a little bit odd given where this project six. there are some other more detailed issues about light well matching light well and light weld depth on the drawing a-five unit seven to the west side has to show the light well. that is not deep enough. it notches-it starts with a 5 foot 1 inch light will do seen it to 3 feet in an area with the adjoining building has a day which indicates living space and basically barely 2
feet of the façade of those of that particular pay window. it's a privacy issue going to a 2.3, so there's a number of issues i believe this building needs to answer a couple of questions and needs to make some modifications in order to fit the circumstance. >> commissioner antonini >> i generally like a lot of things about this project. first, in terms of the parking. i mean these are nice units. they can be for sale units and i don't get into a situation where we sell self-selected, people can live in san francisco. once you don't have cars or want to have cars. i mean if you do buy a unit in its going to be a nice unit of ghana one have a place to put your car and people going shopping or taking your kid
somewhere if you have any or probably not going to want to go over to van ness invite the students from galileo per space on the bus when you go down van ness. i often will take muni bell walked from market and van ness to my dental office on franklin street which is 2 miles but it's better than getting onto those crowded buses. they're going to get better when the bus rapid transit but it still isn't done the way it should be done in the subways are light rail. anyway, that being said, i've no problem with the amount of parking. it's only one car. units. if you things that could be improved. first of all the exterior whatever happened to building walls and putting windows and? what we do is build windows nokia we don't have anything but glazing. i would like to see that work with the project architect and try to make it look like it fits in a little bit better because to the east, you can see there's a building they might particularly like the style of it. it's a fairly new
building there was likely built in the last 20-30 years, and has some pays and it has more of a punch window window instead of all glazing which i don't really know if it's cheaper to build it or why we have these solid windows all over the place. the other thing i would see is some of the units are pretty big. the audit numbered units. they have this huge master bedroom which looks like it's 27 by i think, 16 which is a pretty big rented it could be that way but it may be possible to redesign those bigger units and end up with three, three bedroom units and of course you have the two three, two bedroom units on the fun once if i'm not a stake in. that would be something i think i would try to look at because it might be better to try to design. it's interior design which we really don't have to do that much with but it would make more family-friendly units
whether more bedrooms in those. the idea of a big unit is pretty large on the top, i understand the access problem. if there was a way to combine those or rather separate them and make an additional unit it's okay. but, i don't really feel is that necessary. it's a big units but i don't really know if there's much that can be done. i have to defer to mr. keegan and see if there's any way that could be done if it looks like we had to cut it back so far to keep the shadows from helen will spark, then it might be difficult to make that not a townhouse. as far as the height, i mean i think it's the compliance, i believe. is it not? we already taken enough height off to block the-not block any light on the tennis courts and maybe some impact on the places to the north, but there's a fairly good separation from those. i mean,
you can always have no shadows anywhere. see with the other commissioners say >> commissioner moore >> of a cover clarification from the applicant were staff regarding access, private access to from unit seven to the roof deck so we have a penthouse for private roof deck axis given elevator penthouse with the public stare what exactly do we have here? last week, i think, we have a project which attempted something like a weaver restricted ourselves to basically anybody who wants to go to the roof deck basically comes up on the common stairs. i think that is a pretty healthy thing because this extra as additional height and clutter in a neighborhood with our typical and it adds to the shadow and impact on neighbors to the east who-and to the
northeast because they are already affected by shadow anyway. could you explain that please the designer of the project? >> sure. i'll start by saying were not propose the la to go to the repaired the elevator penthouse so that we match you with the height of the parapet so 4 feet above the roof level. we do have two stairs that go up there which is required. when you don't fire department access from one main public stairs going up to the roof and then we have an interiors therefore that residential unit. to get access up there >> but that is what we at this moment are debating because we do not believe that the private access stare from the unit below is necessary. >> that's basically-if anybody goes to the roof they often go the same stairs. there's no need for the unit which already has a very large terrace to have extra dedication penthouse
access to this route. i find that really somewhat ironic that the terror space for this unit seven is already 1305 five squared. that is easily three unit sizes of medium-size studios in the city. >> one of the issues we run to previously before the shadow impact analysis we had to stairs going up to the roof which provided all of our common open spaces on a roof. when we have a lot off the first 35-50 feet the building we had to illuminate the main penthouse up to the roof as well as the old waiter panos and it cannot be used as common open space. we often run into bombs with the fire department if we have a common stairs going up to the roof deck and it's not intuitively designated as private open space did we end up having to provide [inaudible] so it is something we can potentially look up here if we were to provide a common stair only up to the roof and provide locked the gate so only
that tenant has access to it. is that which are getting that? >> i am actually getting at that. you're providing balconies of 80 ft.2 on the majority of the units except the one in question, which is 1305 ft.2. >> right. another issue is on the sixth floor because of the shadow impact we can actually have any guardrails in front of the building and so that is actually just roof and not with deck access. so what is main living area we don't have any roof decking on the 64. this is actually just flat roof and i was again an issue chapter is minor sampling won't even allow carbonyls to be stuck into that shutter window. >> normally, we would not put the cargoes of the edge of the roof anyway. we pull them as far back with any override of
any stair penthouse, etc. so we were never pushing guardrails at the edge because you can look at that >> we can even push it out. >> there still something off. thank you for it! mr. roman, my question has been-not been answered and that's the question i'm asking for a variance in noncompliant structure. where are we with that? >> commissioner moore additional variance requested maybe we could speak to the suggestion that this is limited commercial use building that's an existing use of the building. that's one story have to lot. the back half of the lot is ground floor with a mezzanine, which were there were offices. so, the fact that the structure encroached into the required year rear yard makes that portion nonconforming but they're not exacerbating the nonconformity. the new vertical addition is that when i percent outside of the required we are your. >> we are getting into the very gray area of noncompliant
structures in the discussion we had on pacific. this is the same discussion. what would happen if this would be a demolition? this would be basically a project which grows from the ground up, takes its proper attitude toward your yard and in concert and harmony with all surrounding developments because it is primary residential, and would indeed, involve a building which would probably have eight units with open space and more bounce than what we're seeing here. i'm very very uncomfortable. we are basically being thrown again to the same kind of discussion that in pacific we need to come at some point with a planning department to some kind of better understanding where we stand with article 1 and where we stand with article 2 when it comes to new construction, so
it avoids mix and match his. i'm not an expert on it by a long shot but i know there's something not quite balanced here. we are making compromises around the building that tries to do all kinds of things but in the end, it maximizes-it designs the building and maximizing an envelope and that is just not enough because it misses out on being sensitive to what is surrounds it. that is my problem >> can you just clarify, if this building the existing building was demolished with a be able to happen with it less of a building envelope to build in? >> my understanding that is correct >> they would? >> they would be further restricted >> all the residential components of it [inaudible] >> zoning district in other words the ground floor is bigger than it would be otherwise but the upper floor is about the ground floor are all within the end below. they could've anyway. >> i think the restrictions
were the concerns about parking were very well expressed. broadway is already basically an extension of highway 1 going down van ness into lombard. when the prt on dennis is being built this we further exacerbated because walt left turn destructions off van ness going downtown. this will further exacerbate the problem of using broadly in both directions. the street is actually the moving lanes on broadway in front of these buildings is two lanes. yet, now you have cars entering and exiting out of this particular situation it that is a very difficult thing to inpatient on top of what is already going on. i happen to walked other all-time somewhat little bit prejudiced but the difficulties as a pedestrian as well as doing with past within cars who think they own the freeway. i
think we are, indeed, not adding a residential building the kind of harmonizes within those constraints including the adjoining neighbors particularly going north,, northeast. i think we would be better off looking at the building which looks at parking at a lower ratio. perhaps even in the basement. it deals with the ground floor where in a way that's appropriate to where we are and does a building that involves the number of units that we can do but in a better way. >> commissioner hillis >> just a question. i like the project. i think it's well-designed and i think kind of the biggest impact to the park has been mitigated which i appreciate. i share some concerns about the top floor deck in trying to minimize the structures and the penthouses that penetrate the top deck and i think it's appropriate to
reduce the private staircase up to the roof in either replace that with a hatchet if you want private access or use the common area staircase for that. i also share your concern about eight units. i mean that unit on the top is large. if there is a way that's code compliance to reduce you be able to get to units instead of that somewhat larger 3000 square-foot unit. i mean don't be something i might be happy to writing staff to look at to maximize the amount of housing and modest sized units of housing we can get on the site >> the first issue be happy
doing a roof hatch on the. disregard administrative battle but it should not be an issue. so were fine putting a roof hatch*that private access to the roof. in regards to modifying the top floors to get an additional units in that it's going to require further discussions building and fire engines of travel distances and whatnot. that's why we've not integrated at this point. i think there is a solution in there somehow. we have to maintain top-level being a townhouse connected to the lower level because of the egress issue. i think we can probably get an eight unit into this poem. we need to work with staff >> okay, thank you i be comfortable moving forward today with those conditions that the product with debt be only accessed by a terrace from the upper units attempt is made to work with staff to try to get an extra units on this site. i get the concerns about the ground floor but i didn't think given the context here is a bit different than what we saw on pacific. i sympathize
with the neighbors on the layout. i know there's an impact to this, but if you look at the setbacks as you go up this building they start to get 40 feet amount plus, in the rear on the upper floors. so, i think that appropriate design and project in this context it would move to approve with those conditions. >> and second >> commissioner richards >> question for staff it is this eight emotions do to fix no, it's not a demolition. section 370 does not apply. >> not residential >> no >> newbury is needed? >> it's a change in use and noncompliant structure. >> it's not a noncompliance rupture. >> it's not a noncompliant structure. >> i think there's some confusion about that. >> it's an rn-two dish. >> this is allowed. this is when i percent code compliance and i could actually go to the light wells as well in case anyone is curious.
>> commissioner moore >> i still like the commission to open the 8.23 we are we are not seeing the living room of unit for audit store floor to basically 3 feet of the face of the adjoining bay window good do you see that? >> yes >> it's fairly light on the window but that is existing with his existing those structure. that's where the existing office envelope is. we are proposing to remove that part of the building structure to provide a light well. >> yes, but you are providing a notch where your dining room table is. instead of coming straight across from the bathroom going south your notching and you are 2 feet of
the face of that bay window that. i believe that is too close for privacy issues across the light well in the existing unless i misunderstand what you're trying to do. >> i think you understand it correctly could be worked with the adjacent neighbor and their fine with us putting foss across along that edge and that's what we dumped it was her non-operable windows as well. >> what is the use in the day there in the adjoining building? >> i'm not sure but i believe their kitchens and baths in the mid-in the building and bedrooms and living heirs towards the street rear yard >> is this a rental building next-door? >> it's condos >> i find it very unusual summary would want to sit of the adjoining building and in the past we have not taken privacy. where providing what needs to be done that. so i would basically still say that the distance between the baby
and your window has to be 5 feet without you are not. as soon as the building-as soon as they unit which is currently being affected from your neighbors being sold there will be problems. so those private agreements we had them with noise and whatever other things, they don't really matter to what we need to hear and that is basically to insure that privacy concerns are properly addressed when they need to be called and that is my current >> i think would be comfortable moving that section back to feature lineup 5 feet all the way across the third floor. >> [inaudible] >> that is correct. you are drawing it correctly.
>> were fine including that is part of the conditions. >> that's fine with me as a second. >> can i ask a question? rule >> go ahead >> forgive me to you said this building is compliance. is that because if it was residential right now would be compliant? there's no clear yard. it's not on vallejo we have a rear yard setback requirements. is that rear yard setback requirement exists on broadway or in exist because it's commercial? >> the existing structure encroaches affectively into the entire rear yard. so there's only 9 foot-distance between the actual hotline and the rear was part of the build. so that existing structure maintaining. they're not exacerbating the nonconformity >> is that it's in compliance currently but that's not good
>> grandfathered in >> if you want to sit down, thank you >> attics this odyssey and real ledge and encroaching into the rear yard. whether or not project sponsor is exacerbating that noncompliance by obviously they can do a vertical addition on that portion in the rear yard. that would not be allowed. only option there would be to ask for evidence which they are not doing. the vertical edition is one of percent within the code. they have notched every single setback accordingly including the template notch beginning at 30 feet from the rear property line. >> this thing has lost its >> commissioner moore >> i want to stay one more time the neighborhood surrounding this project in the pacific avenue corridor, the
project in broadway corridor in on cross streets all have noncompliant buildings in there which are by default now being turned into residential will be exacerbate density developed residential patterns which don't benefit from properly designing residential which fits this is a great sparrow this could be well developed with training carried on the existing building and creating something which indeed braces for looking attitude towards residential densification which is this particular project does not get their attack is a good architect at the questions about its. however, what this project is entirely designed as maximizing an envelope including some lingering questions that we from a policy point have not clearly formulated with respect to the reuse of these older buildings and what to do, i cannot support this project. i am really hoping that this commission-sorry commissioner
antonini you will not be around to have a discussion which clearly addresses the future of the sites in the context of what our real issues really are. so i cannot support this project aside from the fact that i appreciate your work and the seriousness of what we do but i cannot >> commissioner hillis >> appreciate those comments but i want to make sure commissioner moore you understand the difference between a code compliant mode one you would build a structure from nothing on the site as opposed to setting and what we saw on pacific. i think what you see is the difference being on the first floor am a you would now have a beard yard we are is now you have a structure. going to the end of the lot on the first floor. as you get beyond the first floor to the second floor, third, and beyond, you've got setbacks that comply in would look
exactly what we would see the building built from scratch your. on top of that, you've got a development and a project that's responding to the context. i think that's most important we respond to which the public park across the street in making changes to its façade that respond to that so doesn't actually shadow the park. so, i get the issue but i think we've got to look at those new ones is and understand it's not an enormous difference were talking about. that's what were talking about. if you want a project that does that you can certainly take the first floor of the building and lop off the back that are necessary and you have a compliant parts. we should speak to the developer but i'm not hearing anything from neighbors and looking at the context of this project where on both sides as well as in the back and the walgreens on the side your start to encroach. there's not the kind of midblock open space that i think we saw on pacific and see elsewhere that contextually were not really doing anything
detrimental by allowing this to happen. which is a bit different than what happened on pacific. so, i'm okay with the project as is. i don't hope others are the changes i think that had been made to the top and two for the notch. >> commissioner antonini >> i am fine, too. i think this is a good use. i don't think we have to do a whole demo and rebuild because i'm not sure what were going to gain. we don't need large number of tiny units. the unit sizes are good and if that upper unit there's a way to make two units were the one unit is, then you come up with eight units of reasonable size that i think is a good use for the size of the space that. i don't think the extension of the first floor into the reader has any impact on anybody. so i think that is i'm fine with the project with those changes did to fix commissioner moore >> i like to clarify the open
space according to our courts, there are tennis courts and basketball courts, there's not a single element of grass or walking or sitting in this particular. it's a functional looping of hard surface play yards. there need to be protected. they will they were rebuilt a few years ago with a lot of neighborhood and city support because it's a difficult elevated structure which needs to be completely refurbished and no shadow on that particular part. it's important. however, i believe we would be better off considering a project from scratch that something what we have here. the difficulty is with a conditional use which does not really ring it to
everybody's attention and that we had basically letters of concern the being given to us not even senseless because people were not aware should be an indication that this project as far as neighbors are concerned is pretty much flying under the radar. >> commissioner richards >> there's too many questions for me to say yesterday. i sport a continuance. i don't want to say no but i've too many questions. i was looking at the part of the building. not the back of the building. so i would love to be assessed this could have a go back to staff with commissioner moore's concerns looked at very brief continuance and ring it back to us. >> commissioner hillis >> i know it's late and sometimes these issues get complicated but i think through stephanie architect we bolted down to what the change would be. from a project that would be built from scratch to this price. i get where we have
questions we like to continue them but that is in essence the difference between the project. i appreciate the concern but the difference would be that first floor. it would be set back to allow a rearguard. if you look at the drawings in context on the overhead we will see, to the west is a building. that takes up that lots. that would be adjacent to this building on the first floor. to the east is a small open space that is already kind of boxed in by the existing built environments. so, i mean, i'm okay continuing its and continuing to work on it but i think we 02 people come here to rock these projects and put a lot into them to try to get down to the issues and understand what they are. i think we do in this case. unprepared to vote. there's
only five of us here so that to continue we've got to continue, but i think our knee-jerk reaction is kind of windows a bit of a question is not as complicated in the situations i think were making it out to be. people obviously have worked with neighbors to make this a project work. i get there's concern in the back but we are complying with the rear yard setback on every floor but the first. >> commissioner richards >> could we take a look at section 188 point a to make sure that's not covering this building? 180 a, codes section. >> could you give a little content to the section >> eight just talked about a noncompliant rearguard building could not be converted to the residential use without seeking and justifying of a variance. >> if i could if you look at trying [inaudible] in this section, i think there's confusion you. the existing building goes back into it the rear yard would be today. it
is in a one-story building but if you look at that section and the portion of that section that is just that one-story parts, that you cannot build on there today. but everything because that's the existing building. >> the building is complying or noncomplying itself? >> the new building? >> the existing government >> the existing building goes into his noncompliant but all the addition is complying. all of the upper floors >> i get it. >> roxy removing 15 feet off the back of the building. all this hatch area >> that hatched areas being removed. it's actually increasing the compliance. >> yesterday were actually lowering the back half above the first floor. if you >> if you just take a look at 180 8a, i would be happy.
>> while he's looking that up, if you want to illustrate director rams, we try to point out in which area. >> this area here is the only area the existing building that is being used on the ground floor as part of these are seen and look. i would not be in compliance. that if this was a brand-new building all the hatch indicates area of the existing building were proposing to remove. that 15 feet of height in the rear yard are locking down. vastly reducing the impact on all the rearguard at they currently exist and the lowering the back 35 feet or so of the structure. 34.4.
>> thank you. >> while they are looking commissioner moore. >> i think it would be interesting to see the pros and cons. commissioner richards, i'm kind of like interested. i haven't thought about continuance but i think would be interesting for this commission to see that if we study what a tear down the existing building and start from scratch with look like. they can create a completely different building. also, see i've never seen a shadow started. i'm basically being told it cast shadows but i've never seen a shadow subject i'd really like to particularly as you go up to the corner where the open spaces, to the open space itself sits on the platform and it is easily 6
feet taller than me above the street level. when i walked by there i see the feet of the people on that court. it's not to grade. i like to see that relationship together with the proposed building as well as with and envelope which would basically demolish existing buildings and to show the commission with the trade-offs are in terms of units, interment unit sizes that subject it can be done quickly. the figure 3-d mappings. you know enough about residential design to do that quickly. that's what i would be asking if we have a continuance. i'm in support of a project there. it just has to be done correctly given we have other sites in the neighborhood where we are starting not properly addressing a problem that the reuse of those existing basis >> can i adjust that >> yes >> if we toured on this building and started this project we took into account the impact on the park address
across the way the building but the exact same envelope, less the last 25 feet of the building on the ground floor. we would have it it parking exception perhaps a units because we would lose several of the parking spaces on the ground floor because we are required to the accessible spot in there which takes up a fair amount of space and that would be the result of that. the only real change here of the building as proposed using the existing envelope on the ground floor is the additional parking. >> what that is something is a big residence for me is the problem on pacific. i'm not prepared to design a building based on parking and driving and parking space driven. i'm in support of accessible parking and he kept parking i'm in support of reasonable amount of parking but for the
reduction of what you are proposing. so, i think the story you are telling is you could design a building with 25 foot rear yard which would be interesting to see what it does relative older to unit design what you might have to add terms about any sort terraces but am interested in pursuing that because i think- >> it won't do anything to the unit. [inaudible] >> i think it will require a unit we design because you won't have to look at the allocation of how you deal with your ducks in your balconies. >> it would be the exact same >> the second floor would be access to the rear yard. >> commissioner antonini
>> i think this is kind of your projects presented to us. we are to opine on the projects, not create a new project. if the commission doesn't like this project they can vote against it. but i don't see where a continuance is going to gain us anything because i don't think project sponsor once a project whether doing a tear down and rebuild. they want to build on the existing structure which makes a lot of sense. as far as the parking ratios, and the impact of coming out onto broadway, cars travel quickly. they traveled quickly on franklin street. my neighbor who lived to be 103 years old used to get out of his driveway into his 90s almost 100 by carefully backing out into their picking his times when he exited, but it's not like we have a vast number of cars that give one car per unit. maybe in this case one unit without a parking place. i would like to see it passed as presented. >> commissioner richards >> mr. foster >> all do my absolute best. section 188 noncompliant structures enlargements
alterations and reconstruction at this is specifically subset eight with no limitations of article 1.7 especially section 172 and 180 here of occupying structure as defined in section 180 a.d. enlarge altered or relocated were undergoing change contents edition of use in conformity with the use limitations of this code. provided that with respect to such structure there is no increase in any discrepancy or any new discrepancy in any level of the structure between the existing conditions of the lot and the required new construction set forth in this code provided there may be required to the code are amended third this is a divorce of the existing portion. there is no-the changes to the non-compliant structure actually [inaudible] >> song back to the parking issue. i've heard with the neighborhood said. if you got the building offer you three parking spots and you create a backyard. how are we? how do you feel about that? project sponsor?
>> were in a transit which neighborhood. we have a backyard. >> bother deliberating on the density units, we are getting six two-bedroom units and one three-bedroom units which is actually far far greater than what we've required for example in the neighborhood association and market octavia etc. there is a provision in the planning code for rc are in districts that clout the three-quarter provision if the units were less than 500 ft.2 they could counted three quarters of a year. if you count that out you only get one additional unit out of this. the difference between nine and 88 is the maximum number could i just want to point that out treats >> i'm good with that. >> object sponsor want to respond?
>> a lot of moving pieces here. the parking is a template. any other neighborhoods this was eight two-bedroom units can end up with eight two-bedroom units were not that far off aware market octavia would be eastern neighborhoods would be. it will be less than 121. the problem is, some neighbors don't want parking and other neighbors have been told there is one to one parking. this is the classic story of the project sponsor always been rule >> if or not existing in the rear yard i would not have a problem with it. >> the one thing i'll say about the rear yard, it will improve the rear yard >> i get it. i'm with you there. get rid of three spaces. it seems like a win for the environment, the neighbors or we can continue.
>> commissioner moore >> i have avoided for the last number of years to make a counterpoint to commissioner antonini position on parking in this particular case as we are now moving into a new era of thinking about tdm i believe that we need to take a very hard look at reducing parking wherever we can. because we cannot continue to speak out both ends of our mouth eagerly at a time when the transportation environment and the movement environment around this particular site will be greatly altered in the near future. >> commissioner antonini >> i don't speak out above-cited i've always advocated for parking. i advocate for what i consider to be normal people who have families that need a car to live. even people who don't
have young children generally would want to have a place where they can park their car. that's the way i feel and we don't want to exclude that type of person which is the majority of the people in the united states, and were self-selecting out people who don't have cars and sometimes those people's abuse don't agree with mine on a lot of things that i think we have to be brought on enough to make up lease for people who do have cars and there's nothing wrong with that. it's fine to have more transit, but trying to scope these projects so there's less than one to one parking. these are for-sale units and i don't think they want a backyard. i mean, they have decks. you're on the third or fourth worker. i want one always done to go to this backyard when you have younger. probably not going to even use the backyard so i don't see the point. when he is gaining anything by having a lower level except to add to a little
more conformity which they are already making it more conforms. project sponsor, how do you feel about the backyard? i don't see what we can >> i think would have been a challenge with it because we designed going to be code compliant and use the code as our guide to create it that's how they ran the numbers to make sure this a viable project that i think there's a struggle for sure i know because were not sure how that's been a pencil out and whether that make sense. we would lose half a parking space and we end up with 3-4 for the seven or eight units at the point >> that doesn't work. years ago, we acknowledged units with more than one bedroom would have allowance of parking that is higher 121. on many of the years that we approved parking for could we give less parking for one bedrooms were no parking, but if a multiple bedrooms we did the 121 as part of the code we put in. so, that only makes sense here because i think you can end up with what
did you say, probably eight two-bedroom should is that which are thinking to fix these are family sized unit. >> their good size there only two bedrooms but good size. i think the project is scope that make sense to me because nobody's really gaining anything by not having that extension into the rear yard in the back >> commissioner richards >> i think we give more time to the project sponsors you can work with us and figure the subject i know it might be a bit of a surprise did was focus on the front of the building. happy to continue into the first meeting we have in september. commissioner sec. >> you can continue any day you like. you are going to-you be coming back strong >> half a block from an ncd. you're not sitting in the terrace where you actually need a car. of everything and anything for your living.
>> commissioner hillis >> i noticed you are raising your hand it's good to hear a valuable. i just want to say, we kind of our cross purposes what we're trying to do and accomplish in solving every problem the city has in one unit project. sometimes it does not work. i don't i think actually, the ground floor in the open seas probably better without first floor going all the way to the end getting kind of what is there in the context of the walgreens and larger scale buildings. i know i have a family with three kids good i challenge anybody to get them anywhere they need to go without a car. from soccer practice. so, yes to my think were on a good trend in the city not to have one to one parking, but our own wolves are inconsistent there is some have to work there some 121. there's a lot of projects being built
in the city that we don't see that you have one-to-one parking. there's a lot of people and families who do need a car. again, i'd be all over the city on uber or lift spending millions to try to get my kids around to soccer and baseball into school on time. then you have to quit my job. in order to figure it out. you begin to hear your thoughts >> a couple of responses. one might think were making a big assumption that families live here. again, $1200 a square foot . i don't know how much the average square foot is here. i wait and i have made a decision to live in an urban environment but it's a small space and given the high cost of childcare and everything else, but we are unique. most of the people in our neighborhood are not families. so i think >> everyone of families live there if you build smaller units without parking you not definitely not going to get-
>> you might have a young family that lives there for a couple of years and moves somewhere else but we've offered to the sponsor and i think it's a good way to get this done today for them to lop off that last part of the building. the rear yard that's an amenity, two. that's a place where you can go down there kick around a soccer ball. people will self-selected people will say, this two-bedroom condo am going to get a little bit of cheaper price on it but not to get a parking space within my price range. someone else may say well you know what, i absolutely need to cars because we commute that a fark the go look somewhere else. i'm interested in i think that's a fair compromise. we should not let parking design the whole project and that's exactly what's happening here and i think to echo commissioner moore's point, hours and hours on these meetings on transportation demand management environmental concerns and everything else.
honestly, these units will sell. in our neighborhood, demand is high. they will sell. somebody will bynum and somebody will live there >> i get the get we grapple often with their space. what else could you use it for. you might as well put parking in the. you can have a shot at attracting families. i get it. i don't think this is a very the standards got a ton of families of special egg utilizing 2-3 bedrooms for maximum out of families. but i don't quite agree you lucked out that off you got some nice open space that's when to her. you're probably better off with the second floor backspace on there then you are first floor. so i get it. were making we can make tweaks like that. are we improving the project? maybe, maybe not. but i get it. they're bigger policies that were scenes were trying to [inaudible] try to do them on
every project sometimes gets a little challenging >> i am aware. having these eight units a hustle to get a live there. some may be family could some of them may not be. but we welcome those new eight households and i think there's really an urgency to get more units approved but make sure that their respectful of the whole context. so, i'm hoping the project sponsor would be amenable to that and we can get this hopefully the commission would support that as well >> commissioner moore >> can i ask you a question. do you by any chance-you live around the corner what is the distribution of car sharing traces on the street there? i know there. i see the provision and i don't pay much attention to it anymore. this particular
corridor has literally car share places everywhere on the public right-of-way >> yes. there are several city car share as well as zip car outlets within a 5-10 min. walk. there's several along polk, both in private condominium buildings as well. and other commercial outlets. i mean, there's definitely no problem in getting harsher. i would just say other than a 99 unit building that was constructed in 2014. oftentimes, several of the parking spaces are empty because people don't have a car. further, you will see there will be a constant stream of gmc pickups at all times of the day. people's motive
transportation is changing. our building of 99 units we have 15 children. most of whom are small. the many empty investors, retirees would've grown up have been in the suburbs at ray's family and they want to come back into the city. that buyer could buy here. we have many young professionals with roommates. so, i know that we want to bring in families. i am just take that top unit 3000 ft.2. that's $3.6 million could mean, sure there's a family out there that can drop $3.6 million but i don't think it's what were thinking of mom, dad to car to get in a golden retriever. i just want an offer that. >> thank you. >> commissioner moore, on the point of car sure in that era was also in our mind is one of the first supercar locations on the corner which we approve the building on and it's no longer there. so come i think some of the destinations we are building project. commissioner
richards >> if we stop sent based on census tract the car ownership rate is .5 and we had from the american committee surveyed two-bedroom households on one car i would be okay with it. let's just do it did fine but we don't have that. so i'm open to 10 you it. i think were at a stalemate here today. let's come back. >> can i adjust that? if we were to not try and squeeze in the eight units and keep it as seven units and we took off the back 15 feet of the ground floor, would we be in agreement? >> repeat that one more time, please >> if we kept the unit count at seven-seven or eight units and we take off the back 15 feet of the proposed structure of the ground floor, would we be in agreement with the commission? >> what would that accomplish?
>> will have to reorganize the garage. we can explore looking at parking stackers. will maybe lose parking. i am not sure. we will have to look at it. it would give you a larger rear yard and i guess it would bring it halfway closer to >> 10 feet into the required rearguard >> you'd have a beer yard- >> it would be closer to it. >> you would come in five more feet >> yes. >> uncomfortable with that. >> i'm okay. i'm fine with that motion replacing the motion that is before us now. >> it depends on the motion. what it all includes. >> same thing. additional rear yard >> a roof hatches for the roof tec open space. popoff 15 feet
from the ground floor as proposed and will work with staff to address interior layout of the garage >> and it's a privacy issue of holding back >> yes. include the third-floor light will >> i am good with that >> commissioner moore are you good? >> i'm good in principle. i prefer to see plans before i approve something. that's my own nature. i prefer to see drawings and if they can be shown on whatever september 5 or so whatever the date is, that would be fine by me >> did you say you want us to come back and show you? >> yes >> you can chose on the 15th. kind of like we did on- >> basically eliminate
[inaudible] >> with the deck is >> yes. >> how are you responding to our challenge about those 3000 square-foot unit on number seven and the 1300 ft.2 of terrace on that unit? that is a challenge for me. >> you'd like to see a smaller duck? >> yes, i do >> i find the imbalance in the building given also the cost of what this huge oversized unit does somewhat un-proportional to what we are trying to do >> can we set back the deck from 5 feet from each from the back and front? is that getting to where you'd like to see this?
>> yes it should be set back. it should be more inbounds. 80 ft.2 versus 1300 ft.2 balcony or deck size is somewhat a message for a units inequity than having a hard time with. >> so in addition to the other changes we will remove the last 5 feet of the deck and said dr. garbo? we will convert this to a roof hatch. is that workable? >> we will work with staff to figure this out >> okay >> i think we've kind of be dissolved. >> we listen to you. trust me. we have. >> commissioners, there's a motion and seconded to approve this project with conditions as amended to require roof hatches to explore an additional units notching the third level of the building and reducing the first
floor 15 feet from the review leader also reducing the roof terrace 5 feet from the real. is that >> could you repeat the sentence of the roof hatches? >> requiring with patches >> in lieu of >> excuse me i don't think you never roof hatch [inaudible] the common staircase saws have a penthouse because the roof hatch on the private >> yes >> on a motion commissioner antonini aye hillis aye moore nay richards aye fong got so moved the motion passes 4-1 with commissioner moore voting against. that will places on your discretionary review calendar for item 16, 1276 market st. this is a mandatory discretion review to >> the cost of the premise of
this item before you is an application for mandatory discretion or view deception medical cannabis dispensary or ncd for sure doing business as mowbray and spirit located at 1276 market st. the project site is located within the see 3g data general zoning district 80 x height and bulk did. it's bound by market street to the south i say to these barking street to the west and grove street juvenile. perception new and city replacing a bacon ground floor commercial space. see occupied by retail sales and service these doing business as the dollar store. the subject space has been vacant since november 2015. the proposal would allow for on-site sales of medical cannabis and her medical cannabis edibles to person 18 years of age over holding a valid medical cannabis identification card. addition the proposal would allow for the medication of medical cannabis many that smoking vaporizing in her consumption of medical cannabis edibles would be permitted on-site. as was the on-site cultivation
again meeting like underwater plants be kept on the premises for the purposes of harvesting medical products. the proposal would make tenant permits to the existing 4001 at 21 square-foot ground floor commercial space with no physical expansion at the existing structure. the project sponsor remains a full-time security which is include indoor and outdoor video surveillance that in addition security guards will be employed inside and outside the subject retail shit hours of operation for the ncb 8 am-10 pm dear. they maintain full-time security as i mentioned. [inaudible] project sponsor employment levels are anticipated to exceed 30 employees the first year which does include security. as approved by the board of supervisors of the prominent public-health serves as the lead agency for permitting and cds. the print unto you is generally limited to the location of physical
characteristics of entities are principally permitted the zoning district and cities are part to be heard by the planning commission which shall consider whether or not to exercise its discretion or review powers of the building permit application should the planning code section 202. to date the department has received 19 letters of support to the letters were received after the active publication deadline because were transmitted to the commission of their service. you have those letters. major of the public, transported up close and cities folks on the need for additional state axis to medical cannabis in san francisco as well as potential for increased economic economic activity. the department recommends take discretionary review and approve the following week. the ncd is a neighbor serving units that complies with all requirements of the codes and secondly the site areas already and credibly well served by public transit including muni and golden gate transit services as well as per part this concludes my presentation.
>> thank you. project sponsor, please >> good evening commissioners. antonini congratulation get we commend you to the service to the city. >> thank you >> we will split time get on here representing mr. nate half doing business as mowbray's medical cannabis dispensary at 1276 market st. when i was first retained by mr. hoss to assist them with the project at a conference of betting the neighborhood to ensure there's no conflicting uses or potentially conflicting uses within 1000 feet the results were conclusive. there's no use serving facilities recreational facilities or schools anywhere nearby. this will actually only be the only dispensary in this area worth of market street. it will serve the valley civic center midmarket corridor
larkin street and even up market. the dispensary will revitalize this corridor to clean up the surrounding area market street is in much need of attention and economic developments. he's been a speak about his expense and the work is done already towards improving this area in the community >> good afternoon were good evening commissioners. i started at barbary coast as a doorman that worked my up to the general manager there. being first on every job and a dispensary is the key to being an effective general manager. based on the knowledge on definitely a semi-overall knowledge am deathly a security first guy. patient security and comfort are paramount to running a well having a well-run dispensary. beyond that, i care deeply about the city. i'm a proud third-generation san franciscan raising my family here. when i signed the lease at 1276 market reach out to supervisor kim's office to kind of get advice on the issues that plagued the neighborhood. at her suggestion for my walk the property with
house and birth of sf safe as well as cmdr. teresa humans of the tenderloin command and learned a little more of the specifics about the problems that are on the block. at their recognition to secure the best lighting and security cameras, and the central market community benefit district. i recommended i use applied video solutions about which currently are being used by public safety for public safety by the sf mta union square and many others. also, the suggestion of capt. humans i form the midmarket public safety group. this group consists of residents of small businesses that are working collectively to affect change down there. in these meetings we come up with some tangible solutions to improve the conditions. these include power washing the streets. which i have donated as well as petitioning the city for more
garbage cans along market street. i was also instrument so in getting rid of a problem liquor store on our block and i can happily report that they will now house a not-for-profit executive offices for non-perfect not-for-profit. they currently run a dispensary that is as one best reputations in san francisco. receive clean comfortable environment where we have the highest quality meds as well as patient education. i hold myself to the highest standards and am committed to making this dispensary and acid in the community. it is my ultimate goal that this will serve as an excellent example about revitalize market street. thank you for your time and your consideration.
>> good evening commissioners took my name is jesse henry. i'm the executive director at barbary coast here in san francisco. i like to take a moment to speak about nate hostage nate has worked with me over at barbary case over the last three years and currently the general manager. he proven to be someone who also sell to the highest standard works with dedication honesty fairness and integrity. the progressive was born and raised here in san francisco this community is for important to him and his played a big part of barbary coast community outreach programs. be a very positive presence for the community at 1276 market st. get one of the things i like most about his project is the plan to allow on seconds option. i like it time you fought breast cancer almost 7 years goes medical marijuana played an important part in her battle. her illness was one of many patients aren't many fighting every day. having a designated place a safe clean comfortable for any patient to be able to consume without the threat of being harassed arrested or being a nuisance to others our streets is important for our city in addition it offers a place to medicate for
people live in places that don't allow consumption such as new condos, hotels or federally funded housing and offers an alternative to consuming unrestricted mix it up for me and the project that's under to work with someone with his character >> thank you. that includes project sponsor. with open up to public comment. >>[calling public comment cards]'s >> good evening commissioners. chris shulman. first of all thank you commissioner antonini. it's been a pleasure speaking before you today. we have not always agreed but i do want to say you've always been very clear articulate. it's clear you're well-versed on the issues. i am employed in the cannabis industry. i consider nate hoss a colleague and have reviewed this project based on land use, location, security plans, designed layout and i think it's an exceptional
project. i do want to speak briefly on on-site consumption did i work at a dispensary to that does not have on-site consumption. it is actually one most frequent questions that i receive is asked folks asking where can i medicate. we really just don't have an answer. for folks. you know they may-it's a lot of situations where they can't medicate in a safe space. maybe your home work hotel street or otherwise they don't want to medicate in public. some live in housing where they may have roommate situations, federal housing restrictions they may live in sro. hotels at such a. i think this will be a space that safe and secure for them to medicate. it's also way to socialize some folks that may not consume alcohol may not want to consume alcohol. it's a safe place and i hope you will
consider allowing them on-site medication. i come here often for my neighborhood advocacy. i told major muscle on the cbd board in lower polk could not represent them obviously here to get i told nate that i would elite testified after speaking to the central market cbd and actually spoke to ms.-so do and i called her and eight she told me they were comfortable with this project. i was pretty pleased to hear that. she said the safety component the cameras, the activation of the space the community outreach was very important to me and am pleased to hear that mr. hoss completed so much community outreach and i'm confident that this dispensary will be a beneficial component of the neighborhood. thank you for your time tonight. >> thank you. >> >>[calling public comment cards] >> good evening commissioners.
i am reminded every day of my life about uncommon common sense is. i've been here many times before and i've got to say that even though i don't share your point of view a lot of times, mr. antonini you have brought your own grant rant of common sense and it's very refreshing. >> thank you >> i come to support this project. i make medicine for severely ill people. medicine cannabis-based medicine that's non-psychoactive. i find that there's only a handful of dispensaries that care about that. nate and barbary coast they care about that. they have things on the shelves that don't fly off the shelves not the things most popular all the time. it's not of course during
this visit has to make some money and pay the bills. keep the lights on but they care about the patient's. they take the time and the effort to make sure they have the medicines that severely ill people need. what they have done on the block with barbary coast underneath general manager ship, two years ago you would not want to walk down the street. the way they surveyed and take care of the street it's cleaned up considerably. i strongly hope that you approve this project because i figure be a benefit to the city. and for the patients throughout the city. thank you. >> good evening commissioners. commissioner antonini, as a member of a committee of the branch of city government really deeply appreciate your hard work and thank you.
>> thank you >> congratulations. i'm susan gibbons. i grew up on the leavenworth st., hill. a short walk i have a dicey walk sometimes to the proposed pickle cannabis dispensary on market street. during a recent oncology consults it was a discussion of cannabis-based combo mentoring medicine. my doctor shared with me his preference for medical cannabis, mentoring medicine and the kinds of places that he directed his patients two. he spoke about dispensaries that were uniquely stocked, as the previous speaker said, things that maybe did not fly off the shelf, but that serious ill people need it. he spoke about a family and a safe and knowledge-based location. his preference could have been a description of the existing barbary coast dispensary. one which is willing to stock items that as i say, seriously ill people rely upon regardless of popularity. over five decades
of walking down that leavenworth street 02 the fifth and mission area have revealed a notable change in the cleanliness and safety of the area since the existing barbary coast dispensary opened for positive change has exemplified by the transformation that ivory coast has affected on mission street between fifth and sixth augurs well for a new location on market between eighth and ninth. law enforcement statistics indicate that a well-run security minded dispensary discourages unlawful activity promulgates a safer and cleaner neighborhood. coupled with a demonstrated commitment to knowledge-based dispensing of cannabis-based medicine, both popular and specialty items, barbary coast dispensary at 1276 market would
be a positive and welcome addition to the neighborhood and for patients on the northern side of the city. thank you very much. >> good evening. thank you for your time. my name is making money on the author of a book called medical marijuana 101. i am also the director of a nonprofit called parents for pot. another nonprofit called cannabis response network. i like to speak on behalf. i do a lot of work on the community a lot of work with a lot of cities are rogatory commissions and developing regulations and pretty in tune with all the major players in the medical cannabis industry and these gentlemen have a stellar reputation in the industry for professionalism and compassion. i think there should be taken into consideration. i also want to speak to the need for
on-site consumption. one of the groups i work with his parents for pot and it's a group that focuses on family related issues. one of the big issues that people have children can't medicate in their home and have a place where they can safely medicate at home so having a place where they can comfortably medicate and user cannabis is important to them. as well as low income people who may live in section 8 housing that doesn't don't allow for this type of medical consumption. so, i strongly consider to allow for this type of use and give people a safe place and a lot of patience idea with also don't have a lot of social activity in their life. they don't get out a lot some have place where they can share with other patients and talk about different types of conditions that they have and how medical cannabis helps them is important to their social healing as would you please,
take that into consideration and i thank you for your time >> thank you. any additional public comment? not seen any public comment is closed.. commissioner hillis >> thank you. i think my biggest question was on-site consumption did i appreciate the public comments that were made. they can discuss that. i think were seen less as cds requesting on-site consumption but it appears to be a need for that. so i appreciate those comments. with that, i'm supportive. all here with the other commissioners say although i moved to take er and approve the conditions outlined by the target i think that's fitting and in cd commissioner antonini would here. >>[laughing] although on that the building has a strong corner. >>[laughing] >> i like the design.
>> i've heard a lot of good things about this organization. i've heard from a couple people who have said they've cleaned up areas where they're located, so that security and those sorts of things very much in favor of it i still have a problem with the on-site consumption because were still dealing with medical marijuana, not recreational marijuana. it's like someone going to a pharmacy and getting some vicodin and saying, take it right here and then drive home. that sort of not what we do. you take your medicine home and you take it as needed for pain or whatever that thing is. i realize there are situations where people are not allowed to smoke or maybe with children or something like that, but you guys feature edibles, to, which i find it hard to believe somebody's in a situation where summaries can be watching exactly what they're eating and discovering it turns out to be medical marijuana which if they have a prescription for it's a medicine you would think in most instances it be something. so the other thing is that
there's a lot of clustering. there's like seven of these and cds. almost 6, seven within a half mile. but i think this is a good one and since it's dr, i figured that a lot of commissioners in favor of it. so my vote is not going to make too much difference but anyway we'll go from there >> mr. moore >> i have two questions. one is the size.. 4000 ft.2 seems very large but i'm not an expert in size. could somebody please speak to the sizes. we had last week a few weeks ago we had one which was 600 ft.2 and i was considered to be quite small. here were having on which is 4000. so my question is could somebody speak to the size? >> it is a large size for a dispenser. i would guess they range from
IN COLLECTIONSSFGTV: San Francisco Government Television Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on