tv [untitled] May 5, 2014 11:30am-12:01pm PDT
space requirement and that is a little different more me than the light well situation. >> commissioner antonini. >> could i ask a question of the architect for the project? suggestions have been made about that connector adjacent to the light well, which is probably fairly narrow if any, probably 20', it's not that narrow, because you have taken 5' away and it's a 25' lot, assuming that you don't have a setback on the other side, too. no more than 20'. so that is not too bad the. i think there was a suggestion being made about the possibility if staff would be amenable to bringing that further forward and maybe narrowing the passageway between the two? is that something?
>> absolutely. i wasn't there with the review between ty and mary. we're talking directly and maybe i thought this was one phone call towards the end i thought we were almost there. i don't want to put aspirations on either side and i don't think it will do any good, but i think that was really the heart of the issue is this area -- the area that we are talking about on the 4th floor of somehow providing more light. mayy showed you her idea of greenhouses and greenhouses are not green at all. in terms of energy uses they are too much sun load and you need air conditioning which is not a really good idea because of heat load. but i think to get flexibility to improve that in terms of getting more light and visibility to the neighbor and giving us decent size and workable rooms, absolutely, yes. >> one idea to have wayne's coating and windows on upper part of the passageway to let light come through.
>> you know these small greenhouses with a sloped roof of three-feet that has glass in it and you have the privacy issue whether you are doing that, too. so it's a catch-22 to some degree. i do think there is a workable solution in here to make this work. >> maybe you should check with him first. yes, sir? >> i would like to comment about this and a few other items that commissioner moore and sugaya have addressed. i have been at this for 18 months now. i really want to build this house. and i have already been told by the dr requester she is going to take this all the way. as commissioners moore and sugaya have issue of overlot coverage and the fact that the zoning administrator is not seeing the interpretation correctly. i am willing to cutback the
rear of the existing structure as along as it's not going to be deemed a demolition. another five feet or even ten feet to make sure that we have the 25% open space requirement and we can move on with this project. so i will give dr requester less reasons to to a round and bring us into a variety of other issues at the board of appeals. i just need to make sure this doesn't fall under the definition of a "demolition." >> so to interpret what you are saying, you would be taking five feet or a little more off of the rear of the existing cottage, to create more of a rear yard or perhaps upper floors to create a deck there. >> correct. so there will be ground, dirt. there is not going to be any building on it, but have the 25% that commission sugaya and commissioner moore's
understanding of the interpretation of the design guidelines. yes. >> thank you for that suggestion. >> commissioner moore. >> i sense from just sitting here that this conversation is going a little south. for one, i don't have any idea what it means to cut out five meet in reaction to what i think we believe is a constructive conversation around the zoning administrator to look at not only for this project, but for other projects in the city, where the problems will compound itself. i do not believe that the applicant should take offense by a discussion, which is typical between the planning commissioners to find solutions, because while i am very, very everyone empathetic
into the processes, this project as far as approval go still has to fit as someone who doesn't have the personal problems that were described to us, because they do not ultimately affect our decision. we take them into consideration because they are important to the elevator and to the important relative to space that is accessible to you in the broader sense of the word. however, the approval itself has to fit everybody else in town. and that is where we are struggling. so any reaction of cutting off the project five feet is something that i would have to go back to the zoning administrator. is that demolition that we have to consider? is this something that we should let the two people at this most who are a little bit at odds to work out each other? i am ready to approve this project, but not
the way its currently in front of me and i do not have a magic answer what you do to make it acceptable. >> i want to ask the city attorney to provide some advice to the commission, but also to suggest if changes are going to be made, that we allow time for the project sponsor to work on those changes with the neighbor. >> thank you. >> deputy city attorney marlena burn. i'm understanding that you would like some clarification about a reasonable accommodation request? >> yes, please. >> under the americans with disabilities act, if someone based on a medical condition or health condition makes a request for a reasonable accommodation, then the city does have to provide them with that reasonable accommodation. now that does not mean that any given project needs to be approved as-proposed, but the city would have to figure out what is necessary to
accommodate the specific needs of the requester? so i would recommend that if the commission was inclined to not approve the project as proposed, that rather than making any specific changes to the provoke at project, to continue it so that the project sponsor can work with staff for any accommodation needs and come back to the commission with recommendations based on that. thank you. >> commissioner sugaya. >> just to clarify, i didn't have a 25% standard in mind. it can be less. i understand that a potential way to do that is to effect the existing building because of its location, et cetera. i have no idea what that would do and whether it would trigger a demo, yet another part of the
code, which we probably do not want to get into. i think it's more -- i think your architect i think understands -- i don't care if it's 25%. it can be less. it's the positioning of it. it's the level at which it's at. i am willing to sacrifice as commissioner hillis has is he sed, the front setback if it accommodates the design better. >> sorry to interrupt, but perhaps a little more clarification, because it seems as you are discussing you are liking to see what is now a light well expanded and have the depth of it increased. the depth of from the side property line increased. is there a certain depth that you are looking to see?
because right now, i think we're saying it's about 3' for the light well. is 6' or 10'? we're not looking for a decision right now on that, but some guidance so we can work with the project architect, project sponsor and ensure that all of the needs that they have are met through the project. but also kind of address the design concerns that you have. >> commissioner antonini. >> i wanted to ask a question of mary gallagher, please in regards to what i am seeing, i'm not as concerned about the rear yard issue, but think the dr is on the impact that it may have -- your dr requester and talking about the area in the middle, where we could either put windows and leave it the same width or make it narrowor, because i don't
believe we should take the 5th floor off as we work to get a solution? >> so this was -- one of the last discussions that i had with the project sponsor, who does not want this. i will just say that. but the idea was front room, which might go further closer to the street. so sometimes you have a 10' setback instead of a 15. so he gets a larger room there in exchange for on top floor a much narrower space that becomes more a walkway than a room. right now it's a dining room with a big plate glass window looking over. so that is the 4th floor. our proposal was additional open area on the lower floors as well.
mr. sanchez, i agree, our alternative doesn't comply with our own position, but that wasn't a mistake. that was a compromise in and of itself. so we started with the concept that commissioners moore and sugaya have, which is an open area that benefits every one between the two buildings on that north property line. to try to move closer to what the project sponsor wanted, we tried to start talking about additional setbacks at perhaps higher levels, getting to the top floor, which would be the breezeway, with some sort of either angled roof or glass-glazed roof or something like that. so there are several issues. i don't think i'm helping you at all. >> thank you.
i think we'll be looking at a continuance from what i am hearing to try to craft something that is agreeable to the parties involved. at least in my mind, you leave the floors as they are. you probably don't alter the lower floors very much, but you may narrow that center section slightly. perhaps bringing the front further -- the front room further out to the street to break up for some lost space to make that a living room and the air in the back, the dining room and the breezeway would probably have to have some glass to perhaps allow light to get through there. i don't see all having all blass because i don't think that is practical. if you have some areas there where it allows a little more light, because it's a little narrower. the sun can go through that glass and that is something that i submit to project sponsor. i don't think there is any
anything wrong with this project in any interpretation, but i think we're trying to reach a compromise. >> commissioner moore. >> i don't think it's easy to put what we are expecting into words. i would really put it more into the skillful hands of poem people working on it and the direction of opening up light well and cort yard with a policeman mum of 6-8' all the way to the bottom. i hope when this project comes back there is a little more mutuality in understanding of what the difficulties of your
decision are. >> commissioner antonini. >> project sponsor, did you want to reply? we'll give you an opportunity. we had mary gallagher weigh in. >> i appreciate that. both commissioner antonini and commissioner moore, i have worked on all of these suggestions with the dr requester's representative for over a month. at the end of the day, we have no solution for this, which is why i proposed a solution of cutting back the rear of the building in order to make sure that it is compliant with all of the codes that we have. because on a 25' lot, if you are going to do a courtyard that is 6 or 10', you are left without a building. it is very, very important that the building as it is we're chopping off 4' in a good width of the building. if we have a problem with lot
coverage, or insufficient rear setbacks, we can take off the real estate of the building burb it's important especially on the first and second floor as wide as it is. >> thank you for your opinion. i would be inclined to say that certainly as we work together before this comes back, we look at both alternatives. there was the alternative of taking some off the back as project sponsor said. the other alternative of narrowing the passageway with allowing more light in. let's see if we can come up with something on those and i would move to continue. is a month adequate? >> absolutely. >> we could do sooner, if there is an opener sooner.
>> commissioners you could continue it to may 22nd, your may 29th hearing is canceled. you could put it on june 5th, you have quite a few large items on that calendar already. >> may 22nd, i would make that motion that gives you three weeks to work something out. >> two weeks. >> today is the 1st. mary, did you have a question on the continuance? >> i think it might be really helpful if the ether commissioners weighed in for some direction, because there is a division. >> yes. >> that may hamper us. >> commissioner moore. >> i would like to remind this commission that this project was never reviewed together partially because of the project was returned given that
the dimensions on the drawings were not fully filled in. it was never heard and never discussed and i with either suggest that we continue the discussion give guideline or zoning administrator's interpretation to have these people work together because there has not been any basic stand this commission took before other than this afternoon. >> so let me offer a couple of thoughts. i think where i hear agreement is some desire to look at what is labeled as a third floor. i think in the discussion it's been called the fourth floor. so look at bringing what is called the light well to widening it in change for diminishing that roof deck towards the street. and pushing the living room towards the street. i think where i have heard
disagreement is whether or not that happens on whether it's on the first floor, second floor and the basement, i believe. i am of the opinion that i would satisfied if it was just widened on the third floor, what is labeled as the third floor. but i think that i have heard disagreement on that. commissioner borden? >> i would support commission er wu's interpretation. >> >> commissioner antonini?
>> i will make a motion to continue to may 22. >> before we vote on it, stilled feel there is greement from the commission and i don't want both partis to come back on the 22nd and we end up at the same endpoint. >> we see two plans, one kind of outlining some of the things that commission moore and commissioner sugaya have suggested and one with what has been stated by other commissioners and then we can see what look better. i don't have any other solution there. >> commissioner moore. >> i don't have any particular plan or solution. i'm not here to design the building, but i would like to suggest that the building with interpretation from the zoning administrator help to address some of the common open space obligations that these projects need to fulfill? how that is done, is something that the residential design team could greatly help with.
if your interpretation before was very kind of delineated based on the interpretation from a few years ago, i think you gave it some room today to look at it slightly differently. i would like to use that input and creativity to open it up for the residential design team to give the gneiss. i guidance. i personally do not want to give specific dimensions or instructions here. >> what i noted is that the interpretation didn't specifically call for this to be at-grade for the open spaces to be at-grade. had that been the case, then there would be have been a larger requirement for it to be a courtyard. and it would have -- it would not probably not be possible with the size of this project to have a courtyard there that would meet the requirements under 135 for open space.
but what i am hearing it's the commission's desire and irregardless of my decision about whether or not this complis with the rear yard compliant, because i do believe it complies the commission can be more restrictive of interpretation. the amount that the building is setback from the side property line the commission would like to see that increased at least at the third level and perhaps at other level as well, not going to a greater extent like 10', but around the line of 6-8'. so they could -- there is the possibility of moving that third floor closer to the front of the property typically in rh2 districts you can't do that because of the height limit at the front of the property, but given that the topography is so steep, there may be the ability to move that
further forward. it would require additional residential design review and to work with the sponsor. if it's just the 3rd floor, that is the living room that would be most directly impact and moved tot front, i think they would still maintain a usable living room. the overall size of the building might actually increase. but that would just be the impact of the decision. >> okay. please call the question. >> commissioners there is say meigs and second to continue the matter to may 22nd on that motion, commissioner antiin. >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> '? >> instructor: a. commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commission president wu? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners that motion passes unanimously 6-0. >> do we need to keep this material? >> i would imagine you are going to be receiving revised
plans. >> >> okay. commissioners, that will place you on your last agendized item, no. 17, for case no. 2013.340d, at 1423 [ao-fb/] avenue a request for a mandatory discretionary review. >> commissioner antonini. >> i am going to have to recuse myself from this. i am waiting for interpretation. i have project sponsor is a dental patient of mine. we're not entirely sure whether his services at this point and renumeration and once i have a clear understanding for project probings it may have a similar circumstance, but in this case we'll just have to ask for
recusal today. >> move to recuse. >> second. >> good evening. >> sorry, one second. on the recusal of commissioner antonini commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> excuse me, commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> and commission president wu? >> aye. >> so moved commissioners. commissioner antonini, you are now recused. and jessica, you may present the case. >> thank you. good evening president wu and members of the commission, jessica luck, planning department staff. before you is a mandatory directionry review request for medical cannabis dispensary at 1423 ocean street.
with proposed hours of operations from 10:00 a.m. too 10:00 p.m. monday through sunday. the windows are proposed to be clear and unobstruct ed proposed mcd will sell cannabis and cannabis foot stuffs and would allow on-site smoking and vaporization. the mcd would also be required to comply with the mayor's office of disability requirements. the project site is located within the ocean avenue nct district and there are two other existing mcds in the area, that operate on ocean avenue. the first mcd is located at 1545 ocean avenue doing business as waterford wellness health center and this mcd is located within 500' of the subject property. the second is located at 1944 ocean on and avenue. the project meets criteria for
consideration by the planning commission and evaluating medical cannabis dispensaries. as this commission is aware there is currently pending [hr-eulgts/]ion introduced by supervisor norman yee that would amend the mcd controls within ocean avenue nct and that an nct -- mcd may be -- allowed with 500'. this first heard at the land use very many committee in april and if aproofed by the bdr board of supervisors. essentially the project sponsor because it's located within 500' of another mcd if the permit is in the issued by dbi, has to get conditional use authorization. the department received total of 22 letters in opposition and 64 letters in support of the proposed mcd. i have brought hard copies of
the email. the department recommends to approve the mcd can withins. again the planning department's review is generally limited to the location. in relation to elementary or secondary schools, public or private or recreational buildings or a permitted community center that primarily serve those under 18. therefore the staff recommends approval to the project based on meet ing these criterias. well, served by transit along on and off ocean avenue, et cetera. the department is staff does acknowledge this is a
unique situation to bring a proposed mcd to the condition with pending legislation. and result the commission has a concern about the overconcentration of mcds, it may find there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances concerning that project. and the commission can also choose to continue the hearing until the legislation is continued. >> is the city attorney still here? i received some different advice from the city attorney earlier today. >> thank you, i did speak with the city attorney before she left the building and confirming that continuance solely for the matter of allowing the legislation to take effect is not advisable. but if you have other reasons to continue it, you can for those other legitimate reasons. but otherwise, we don't know what the final forum of legislation will be and we would suggest that you take action tonight or continue for another reason. but otherwise, this project would have to obtain their
building permit prior for the effective date of the ordinance or otherwise subject to the ordinance. >> thank you. >> i have another procedural issue. in the staff report it says that the department of public health is delaying this hearing, which is a hearing on waterfall wellness, which is going through a change of ownership and will have a hearing before the director of dph and says they are delaying this until this particular mcd is heard before the commission. it seems a little backwards to have the other commission wait for us, when, in fact, if a decision is made about that other mcd in the negative, like they don't get approval, then that puts entirely different light on this particular case because of the distances involved, i believe. >> i assume that could be a legitimate reason to continue
that until dph has their hear and put it back on their back. >> as i understand, and let me know if i am come nothing territory we are not supposed to be in, dph would like to hear both locations at the same time and they have scheduled a hearing where there are two mcds that they would like to hear that are within the 500' of one another. >> commissioner hillis. >> i agree with commissioner sugaya, it's backwards and we're going to take this up and talk about clustering, which is an issue regardless of the legislation or not passing. it's been an issue that we have heard about for a long time. dph's issue is the quality of the enterprise that is operating now and which would change our opinion significantly if they said no to it. so i agree with commissioner sugaya. i think we're doing this back-yards
IN COLLECTIONSSFGTV: San Francisco Government Television Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on