To view graphic version of this page, refresh this page (F5)

Skip to page body
Seal of the City and County of San Francisco
City and County of San Francisco
Public Hearings 

June 21, 2007

June 21, 2007



Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, June 21, 2007

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Alexander, Olague, Antonini, S. Lee, W. Lee, Moore and Sugaya.



STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris – Director of Planning, Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, Amit Ghosh – Chief Planner, Mary Woods, Kate Conner, Michelle Glueckert, Elizabeth Watty, Glenn Cabreros, Rick Crawford, Aaron Starr, Cecilia Jaroslawsky, Sharon Young, Linda Avery – Commission Secretary.


The Commission will consider a request for continuance to a later date. The Commission may choose to continue the item to the date proposed below, to continue the item to another date, or to hear the item on this calendar.

1. 2007.0428C (A. STARR: (415) 558-6362)

1224 9th AVENUE - east side between Lincoln and Irving Streets; Lot 033, in Assessor's Block 1742 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 703.24 to allow an outdoor activity area in the rear yard of the subject property in the Inner Sunset Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The outdoor activity area will be used as an outdoor dinning area for 14 people for the existing restaurant (dba Bistro 9).

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with conditions

(Proposed for Continuance to June 28, 2007)


ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Alexander, Olague, Antonini, S. Lee, W. Lee, Moore and Sugaya.

2. 2006.0572C (T. FRYE: (415) 558-6822)

842 MOULTRIE STREET - south of Crescent Avenue; Assessor's Block 5810, Lot 009 -Request for Conditional Use Authorization for residential demolition pursuant to Board of Supervisors Resolution 122-07 to remove a 1906 Earthquake Refugee Shack from the property to allow for its preservation at another location, to demolish the non-historic additions, and to construct a new single-family dwelling. The property is located within an RH-1 (Residential, Single-Family) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk District within the Bernal Heights Special Use District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with conditions

(Proposed for Continuance to June 28, 2007)


ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Alexander, Olague, Antonini, S. Lee, W. Lee, Moore and Sugaya.

3a. 2006.0616BEKX (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

120 HOWARD STREET - northwest corner at Spear Street, Lot 019 in Assessor's Block 3717 - Request for review by the Planning Commission under Planning Code Section 309 of a four-story addition to an existing eight-story building (with a partial ninth floor) requiring exceptions to Planning Code standards for freight loading and building bulk, in C-3-O (Downtown Office) and C-3-O (SD) (Downtown Office - Special Development) Districts and a 200-S Height and Bulk District.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 7, 2007)

(Proposed for Continuance to June 28, 2007)


Steve Atkinson – Representing oppositon

  1. I am going to be handling this matter on behalf of my colleague, Alice Barkley, who is on vacation.
  2. When I agreed to take on this matter, it was with the understanding that it could be considered on one of various dates. At one point it was mentioned for June 7 or June 21 but never June 28. I would request continuance to July 12 or 19.
  3. I have another hearing across town on June 28. There is a possible conflict.
  4. We were not consulted by staff or by the representatives of 120 Howard regarding this continuance to June 28.

Andrew Junius, Project Sponsor Representative

  1. We opposed to the request stated by Mr. Steve Atkinson.
  2. We have been waiting since February to have this hearing. It has been continued seven times.
  3. Mr. Atkinson works for a law firm and there must be other attorneys that could cover the other matter.
  4. Requested the continuance for next week and opposed to any further continuance on this matter.

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Alexander, Olague, Antonini, S. Lee, W. Lee, Moore and Sugaya.

3b. 2006.0616BEKX (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

120 HOWARD STREET - northwest corner at Spear Street, Lot 019 in Assessor's Block 3717 - Request for allocation of office space by the Planning Commission under Planning Code Section 321 in conjunction with a four-story addition to an existing eight-story building (with a partial ninth floor). This project requires the allocation of approximately 67,310 square feet of office space. The site is in C-3-O (Downtown Office) and C-3-O (SD) (Downtown Office – Special Development) Districts and a 200-S Height and Bulk District.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 7, 2007)

(Proposed for Continuance to June 28, 2007)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed on item 3a.

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Alexander, Olague, Antonini, S. Lee, W. Lee, Moore and Sugaya.

4. 2007.0193D (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

722 COLUMBUS AVENUE - east side between Filbert and Greenwich Streets, Lot 027 in Assessor's Block 0090 - Mandatory Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2007 0206 3529 to maintain operation of an existing medical cannabis dispensary (dba  Medical Cannabis Center ) of approximately 1,000 square feet. The property is within the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. There will be no physical expansion of the existing building or commercial space.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 26, 2007)

(Proposed for Continuance to July 12, 2007)


Mark Bruno

  1. Requested the Department's indulgence of a continuance to July 12 for people that are trying to understand the process and participate in it.

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Alexander, Olague, Antonini, S. Lee, W. Lee, Moore and Sugaya.

5a. 2007.0388CV (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

2574 San Bruno Avenue - west side, between Felton and Burrows Streets, Lot 011 in Assessor's Block 5981 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization for use size under Planning Code Sections 711.21 and 121.2 to demolish the existing community recreation center,  Boys Club, and construct a two-story over basement community health center, operated by the North East Medical Services, within a NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation. The project also includes a Variance request for an exception to off-street parking requirements pursuant to Planning Code Section 151.

Preliminary Recommendation: approval with conditions

(Proposed for Continuance to July 26, 2007)


ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Alexander, Olague, Antonini, S. Lee, W. Lee, Moore and Sugaya.

5b. 2007.0388CV (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

2574 San Bruno Avenue - west side, between Felton and Burrows Streets, Lot 011 in Assessor's Block 5981 - Variance Request for off-street parking pursuant to Planning Code Section 151 for the proposed two-story over basement community health center, operated by the North East Medical Services, within a NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation.

(Proposed for Continuance to July 26, 2007)


ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Alexander, Olague, Antonini, S. Lee, W. Lee, Moore and Sugaya.


Adoption of Commission Minutes– Charter Section 4.104 requires all commissioners to vote yes or no on all matters unless that commissioner is excused by a vote of the Commission. Commissioners may not be automatically excluded from a vote on the minutes because they did not attend the meeting.

6. Consideration of Adoption:

  • Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of May 17, 2007.


ACTION: Approved as corrected: Page 3, first bullet under Commissioner Sugaya's comments - insert the word  Historic .

AYES: Alexander, Olague, Antonini, S. Lee, W. Lee, Moore and Sugaya.

7. Commission Comments/Questions

  • Inquiries/Announcements. Without discussion, at this time Commissioners may make announcements or inquiries of staff regarding various matters of interest to the Commissioner(s).
  • Future Meetings/Agendas. At this time, the Commission may discuss and take action to set the date of a Special Meeting and/or determine those items that could be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and other future meetings of the Planning Commission.



8. Director's Announcements


9. Review of Past Week's Events at the Board of Supervisors and Board of Appeals

AnMarie Rodgers

Land Use and Economic Committee

  1. Repeal of the alternative review process for the Planning Commission. This amendment would delete language that expired approximately four years ago.
  2. Pacific Avenue Neighborhood Commercial District.
    1. This is a Department sponsored rezoning that would create this named district where NC-2, (Neighborhood Commercial – 2), controls are currently in place.
    2. The creation of this new district was also accompanied with a height reclassification from 65 feet to 45 feet.
    3. It would eliminate the garment manufacturing special use district over there.

Both items were passed to the full Board [of Supervisors].

Board of Supervisors

  1. Extension of our review of Visitacion Valley Fee proposed by Supervisor Maxwell. We have an additional 60 days to review before the Planning Commission hearing.
  2. Market and Octavia Appeal of the Final Environmental Impact Report was before the Board for its second time. Upheld (+8 –1)
  3. Introductions:
    1. A Green Building Requirement introduced by Supervisor Peskin – this would be required on new or added construction totaling over 20,000 square feet to comply with the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) gold rating with some exceptions.
    2. A Resolution urging the Department of Public Health and Lennar to temporarily halt construction at the Hunter's Point Shipyard and to contract with an independent entity that could conduct a health assessment for the residents of the Bayview Hunter's Point. Introduced by Supervisor Chris Daly.
    3. A Resolution declaring the intent of the City and County of San Francisco to not take enforcement action against those Medical Cannabis Dispensaries that have properly applied for the necessary permits before the July 1st deadline.

- You will find in your packets a response to Commissioner Bill Lee's questions on Medical Cannabis Dispensaries (MCD) pertaining to saturation and location.

ª%The legislation regulating MCD does not set a cap on the quantity or otherwise controlling proximity to each other.

ª%The Planning Code however does guide permitted locations away from primarily residential zone districts and schools and more towards mixed use and commercial districts by limiting potential location for new MCD's.

ª%MCD's that existed prior to this Medical Cannabis Act are not subject to these zoning restrictions unless their permit request is disapproved. They would be generally legalized in their current locations.

- Attached you will also find a map of the existing MCD locations.

- In a related note you may have read an article in today's Examiner that indicates that pot club permits were stuck in limbo according to the headline.

- You should know that there is no limbo as far as MCD permits at the Planning Department.

- To date, the Department has successfully completed full review, including public hearings for eight MCD operators.

- There are fourteen completed applications in the Department currently being processed. Eight of these have been scheduled for public hearing before this Commission and six are pending to be scheduled.

- The Department has not received applications for eight MCD operators. They are in jeopardy of being in non-compliance after the deadline of July 1.

- We have repeatedly stated at these hearings that the Department is committed to working with MCD owners and applicants to go through this permitting process.

- The department will work with MCD applicants that have filed complete applications to ensure that they finish that department's permit and review process.

- This is consistent with the pending Board [of Supervisors] resolution that San Francisco should not take enforcement action against those who have filed.

- The key word is file for permit application.

- There are eight MCD owners who have not filed with our Department. We have sent letters to these operators informing that it is imperative that they file all necessary permits, including the Planning Department, by the July 1 deadline.

- While the Board [of Supervisors] may extend the deadline for processing permits, importantly this extension would only apply to those who have filed and begun the process.

Amit Ghosh, Chief Planner

- In your packets you have received the response from staff to a question made by Commissioner Alexander on the city's applications for priority funding from regional agencies.

- This would be for MTC, ABAG and LEED efforts that would qualify areas in the city on the basis of its priorities for transit and planning for funding.

- We are preparing an application that would identify our transit areas and then show that the region recognizes the efforts that are not currently undergoing our planning efforts such as in our Downtown, Eastern Neighborhoods, Market and Octavia, Balboa and Glenn Park Neighborhood Plans.

- There is a map attached that only serves the purpose of identifying areas that might be eligible for funding.

Board of Appeals



At this time, members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.



At this time, members of the public who wish to address the Commission on agenda items that have already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the public hearing has been closed, must do so at this time. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.


Elizabeth Erhardt, Attorney for Ms. House

- Ms. House seeks to gain an interior access between her condominium, #905, and condominium #906 with a 48-inch opening in a non-load baring party wall between the condominiums.

- Ms. House paid $3.8 millions for the three units. The fair market retail value of unit #905 is between $815 and $825 thousands dollars.

- The unit consists of only 724 square feet.

- It would cost over $1,000 per square foot and by no account would this be considered affordable housing.

- The building was constructed after 1979 so it is not called within the rent ordinance.

- Also, rent caps cannot be applied to these units.

- These units never have been and never will be affordable housing.

- With respect to the desire to do the connection: previously that would not have fallen under the merger policy.

- In April 2003, under the interpretation of dwelling units combined, you extend the merger analysis.

- However, you will see that interpretation expresses and acknowledges that each of those units, despite having interior access, maintained their separate legal structure and entity.

- We are not permanently reducing the housing stock in San Francisco.

- With respect of the five criteria for mergers: Ms. House doesn't meet two because she is an owner/move in.

- The two relative to density restrictions are not applicable for any high-rise condominiums in San Francisco.

- There is only one criteria left that she could possibly meet and that is design deficiency.

- I would contend that it is a design deficiency to have a 724 square foot unit in San Francisco when we have a public policy that supports family housing.

- Looking at the Master Plan under policy 1.7, it encourages and supports the construction of quality family housing.

- Children and families are very much a part of the city's vitality. They bring life and transform the city.

- The Planning Department would study the feasibility of flexible development projects to accommodate family growth, shrinkage, expansion and extension.

- This is squarely within the flexibility.

- Policy 2.1 discourages the demolition of existing housing. It is not even applicable.

- We are not displacing anyone. It would be co-complaint because we are keeping the kitchen utilities. Landmark concerns are not applicable.


10. 2007.0084D (Tape IA) (E. OROPEZA: (415) 558-6381)

75 FOLSOM STREET - south side between Spear and Steuart Streets; Lots 021, 022 & 023 (units no. 905, 906 & 907) in Assessor's Block 3744,  Hill Plaza - Mandatory Discretionary Review under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of dwelling unit mergers, for Building Permit Application no. 2007.0116.1750. The merger would reduce the number of legal dwelling units from 67 to 65. The property is located within the RH-DTR (Rincon Hill Residential Mixed Use) District and an 80 / 200-R Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as proposed.

(Continued from Special Meeting of May 31, 2007)

Note: On May 10, 2007, following public testimony, the Commission closed public hearing and continued the matter to May 31, 2007 by a vote of +6 –1. Commissioner Antonini voted no.

Note: On May 31, 2007, the Commission entertained a motion to take Discretionary Review and approve per agreement by vote of +2 –4. Motion Failed. Commissioners S. Lee, Moore, Sugaya and Olague voted no. The matter was continued to June 21, 2007 by a vote of +5 –1. Commissioner Antonini voted no. Commissioner Alexander was absent. Public hearing remains closed.


ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and disapproved the project.

AYES: Alexander, Olague, S. Lee, Moore and Sugaya.

NAYES: Antonini and W. Lee.


11a. 2006.0856CV (Tape IA; IB) (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

461 BAKER STREET AND 1500 GROVE STREET - southwest corner at Grove Street; Lot 1, in Assessor's Block 1199 for 461 Baker Street and northwest corner at Grove Street; Lot 9, in Assessor's Block 1184 for 1500 Grove Street - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 209.3(f) and 303 to modify a Conditional Use authorization for an existing pre-school, the Pacific Primary School, located at 1500 Grove Street to allow the construction of a new child-care facility/pre-school annex for more than 12 children across the street at 461 Baker Street, in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low-Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The annex will include 4 classrooms for up to 75 children, with the total enrollment for the school increasing to 160 children.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 7, 2007)


Douglas Tom, Architect for the Project

  1. Pacific Primary School is more than a pre-school.
  2. In its 33-year history it has become a national model for early childhood development and learning.
  3. It has become an extremely valuable institution to young families who desire to live in San Francisco.
  4. It is a very stable institution. It has had only three directors in its 33 years history.
  5. Over a third of the staff have been there for 12 years or more. One person just retired after over 30 years of service and one more remains in her 33rd year.
  6. The school is fortunate to have a faithful and supportive alumni family base extending over these expansive years.
  7. It has achieved all of this in a very modest one-story building at the northwest corner of Grove and Baker Street.
  8. The demand for admission has grown steadily for the past several years.
  9. The current admission class for this coming fall has over 300 applicants for less than 27 slots.
  10. Pacific Primary has always strived to be a good neighbor participating in community activities.
  11. The design reflects a conscious desire to build a second site explicitly - not an extension of its current facility.
  12. They want to serve another 75 families.
  13. The new building program is essentially identical to the original school.
  14. What is added in the new design is a community room for gross motor activities on rainy days, art and a staff workroom.
  15. The size of the spaces, interior and exterior, is largely governed by State License entitlements under Title 22.
  16. The immediate neighbors raised a concern of how the school handles drop-offs and pick ups, including double parking along Grove Street.
  17. Pacific Primary acted swiftly with an impressive response executed by its committed community.
  18. They hired a parking control monitor and applied for a second white zone to better manage traffic flow in front of both sites. It was approved by the Department of Parking and Traffic on June 7.

Bell Ann, Director of Pacific Primary

  1. Its mission has remained clear over the 30 years that we have been in existence. That is to create the very best environment for young children.
  2. We serve mostly working parents.
  3. Another part of our mission is to be highly diverse. Over 60 percent of our children are African American, Asian or Hispanic.
  4. We also have a very strong tuition assistance program. We have worked very hard to raise money.
  5. This year we were able to give about $80,000 in tuition.
  6. We believe that early childhood is where you have the strongest impact.
  7. In many ways, we see ourselves as a model school emotionally and socially.
  8. Parents in our community get involved in activities and when children advance to another school their parents become actively involved in various associations.

Ellenor Donald

  1. I am one of the founding members of this school. Both of my children attended it.
  2. It was designed to assist working women.
  3. We started the school with scholarship funds so we could provide the ability for students to attend.
  4. This school is an enormous credit to San Francisco and the neighborhood. Expansion will create a better benefit.

Walt John

  1. My wife had worked there for over 30 years.
  2. Nine families came together and we decided to start a school that would be workable in the city that could serve the whole community and serve minority children.
  3. This site on Grove and Baker Street was the ideal place - being in the center of the city.


  1. I just want to support this additional building. It is the sort of things that San Francisco should be supportive of.

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Alexander, Olague, Antonini, S. Lee, W. Lee, Moore and Sugaya.

MOTION: 17450

11b. 2006.0856CV (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

461 BAKER STREET - southwest corner at Grove Street; Lot 1, in Assessor's Block 1199 - Request for Variance under Planning Code Sections 134 and 151 to allow the construction of a child-care facility/pre-school annex, containing 4 classrooms for up to 75 children, in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low-Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. As proposed, the project will not meet the Planning Code's rear yard and parking requirements. The Planning Code requires a 16-foot rear yard parallel to Grove Street, while the project proposes an interior courtyard in lieu of a standard 16-foot lot line to lot line rear yard layout. The Planning Code requires 3 parking spaces for 4 classrooms, while the project proposes none. (The Zoning Administrator will consider these Variances in conjunction with the public hearing for the Conditional Use authorization.)

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 7, 2007)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed on item 11a.

ACTION: The Zoning Administrator closed public hearing and granted the variance.

Items 12 – 16 were taken out of order and followed item 17

12. 2006.1303C (Tape IIB; IIIA) (E. WATTY: (415) 558-6620)

77 OAKWOOD STREET - east side between 18th and 19th Streets; Lot 059 in Assessor's Block 3587 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to demolish a single-family dwelling and construct a new two-family dwelling, pursuant to the Board of Supervisors' interim zoning controls requiring conditional use authorization for the demolition of a residential structure. This site is located within the RH-2 (Residential House, Two Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 24, 2007)


Todd Mavis, Project Sponsor

  1. We purchased this building about a year ago. It is a very small one-bedroom building and nobody is living there. It is not habitable.
  2. The neighbors who have expressed some concerns about the project have withdrawn their concerns after we met with them.
  3. They decided to not file for discretionary review and have signed a petition in support of this particular project.
  4. I have done community outreach and 12 of our neighbors have signed a petition as well in support of our project.
  5. As of today, I am not aware of any opposition to our project.
  6. The project architect is present for any questions regarding the design.

ACTION: Approved with conditions as amended:

- Any changes to be brought to the attention of the Zoning Administrator.

- Zoning Administrator and staff to continue working on design issues with the possibility to alter the window(s) to reflect a more residential context.

- Zoning Administrator to put in a future packet of the Commission before and after renderings.

AYES: Alexander, Olague, Antonini, S. Lee, W. Lee, Moore and Sugaya.

MOTION: 17451

13. 2007.0136C (E. Watty: (415) 558-6620)

3953 24TH STREET - south side between Sanchez and Noe Streets; Lot 032 in Assessor's Block 6508 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 728.94, 161(j), and 303(e), to modify a previously approved Conditional Use Authorization in order to allow six senior dwelling-units to be converted into five market-rate dwelling-units with no off-street parking. This site is located within the 24th Street - Noe Valley Neighborhood Commercial District 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions


ACTION: Without hearing, continued to July 12, 2007

AYES: Alexander, Olague, Antonini, S. Lee, W. Lee, Moore and Sugaya.

14. 2006.0157C (Tape IIIA) (G. Cabreros: (415) 558-6169)

21 WOOD STREET - west side between Lupine Avenue and Geary Boulevard; Lot 004 in Assessor's Block 1069 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to allow the demolition of a single-family house and the construction of a new two-family building, pursuant to the Board of Supervisors' interim zoning controls requiring conditional use authorization for the demolition of a residential structure. This site is located within the RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions


Alec Birga, Project Sponsor

  1. This project has been in process for over a year.
  2. The plan is to build two units of 3 bedrooms each.
  3. It would help with the current need of family housing in San Francisco.
  4. According to neighbors, the existing dwelling has not being occupied for thirty years.
  5. Most of the neighbors support this project.

ACTION: Continued to August 2, 2007 to address design concerns. Public hearing remains open.

AYES: Alexander, Olague, Antonini, W. Lee, Moore and Sugaya.


15. 2007.0072C (Tape IIIA; IIIB) (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

2367 Market Street aka 3970 17th Street - north side between Castro and Noe Streets, Assessor's Block 3563 Lot 036 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under, Planning Code Section 186.1 to expand an existing nonconforming Neighborhood Commercial use (a bar (dba The Cafe)) on the second floor) and develop commercial space on the top floor. The project will include the construction of a 4-story addition on the 17th Street frontage at the rear of the building all within the Upper Market Neighborhood Commercial District and a 65-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.


Alan Toma, Project Sponsor

  1. The purpose of doing this addition is to provide full handicap accessibility to the café at the entrance and to the bathrooms with a chair lift elevator to the second floor of The Café.
  2. We received a lawsuit concerning accessibility, which was withdrawn because of the non-conforming designation on the building.
  3. After that, it has been in the owners mind to bring the building into full compliance.
  4. We discussed trying to provide the access from the front entrance. The problem is that we have existing tenants on Market Street and the lease is for a long time.
  5. It would be almost impossible or will take a long time to do it that way.
  6. The previous owner did improvements to The Café and came to this Commission and got Conditional Use approval with conditions.
  7. We would provide the access off 17th Street. Because we have a main entrance that does not provide handicap access, the ADA [Americans Disabilities Act] allows us to make or have a second entrance or fire exit and make it accessible.
  8. The same would apply with State law. The secondary entrance would not be equal to the main entrance but it would provide accessibility.
  9. The biggest concern brought up recently is the ADA issue.
  10. Neighbors are concerned that the secondary entrance would possibly become a second full entrance to The Café.
  11. The owners do not want to do that. The managers also do not want to create a second entrance to the café. It is very difficult to manage.
  12. The secondary entrance would be secure with a camera system and would be used for handicap accessibility only.
  13. We also ask that the Commission retract from the previous conditions of approval that only allows dancing on the weekends.

Brian Kendall

  1. The Café has nightly disrupted the quite enjoyment of my home and those of my tenants.
  2. They have disregarded the conditions of approval for the last fifteen years.
  3. The neighborhood has had chronic problems with loud music, public drunkenness, drug dealing as well as pedestrians trespassing on private properties.
  4. This year, there have been eleven complaints filed against The Café license with the ABC (Alcohol Beverage Control).
  5. In the past three years, there have been over two hundred complaints to the Police as is documented.
  6. Over twenty of my neighbors have signed a petition opposing this proposal.
  7. Why should this business owner be awarded with an expansion of their business if they refused to comply with the current conditions?

Alan Gibson

  1. Because the proposal is an expansion of commercial opportunities on the site, I would like to talk about commercial impacts on the neighborhood.
  2. There are approximately 50 residences on 17th Street and Hoff Street with a value of $2 million each.
  3. The neighborhood seems to be less attractive. Property owners are suffering with the reduced ability to enjoy quality use of their properties.
  4. Residents in the area provide revenue and generate economic value for the neighborhood.
  5. Urged the Commission to reject the proposal.

Victoria Slaker

  1. I would like to highlight the past behavior of The Café and its owners and question their ability to fulfill the new obligations and responsibilities.
  2. In 1992, The Café was granted its second conditional use application.
  3. Upon inspection of the sixteen conditions from 1992, The Café failed to fulfill ten of them.
  4. There is dancing 7 days a week. Monday night is Hip Hop dance night.
  5. I request that the Commission deny the proposal for both the expansion and the self-service restaurant.
  6. This is not about being anti business, but anti bad business.
  7. It is about protecting the Castro community and reducing the stress on city services by proper selection of new businesses that would benefit the community and not abuse it.
  8. The Café has shown that it cannot handle the responsibility of the first conditional use permit. The solution is not to grant more permits.


  1. I am concerned about The Café's respect for the neighborhood.
  2. Particularly on Monday nights they have a disregard for the neighborhood.
  3. They have not engaged neighbors in the process. In fact, when they met with Eureka Valley Promotions Association they were asked to meet with the neighbors.
  4. Three weeks went by. Then two days before the meeting was to take place (on Sunday), they put notices on mailboxes that the meeting was on Tuesday.
  5. It was a short notice and not everybody received them.
  6. They are striving to be a better neighbor.
  7. I contacted the Entertainment Commission twenty four times and they said every time they spoke to management.
  8. I just want The Café to be a good neighbor.
  9. I urge the Commission to consider training the café to meet its conditions of approval from 1992 first before asking for more conditional uses.

Damian Quasnell, Eureka Valley Promotions Association

  1. Our president could not be here tonight but I believe you have in your packets a letter from our organization regarding The Café.
  2. We really have a problem with the ADA [Americans Disabilities Act] access being on 17th Street.
  3. Our understanding is that there would be a lawsuit if it becomes a normalized entrance.
  4. If you look at the character on 17th Street you would see that pedestrian accidents would be a really serious problem.
  5. We strongly encourage that you not change condition number 10; that in fact they be held to that.
  6. It might cost more but in the long run it is a much better solution.
  7. The Café has a credibility problem with the neighborhood. They have told us things they would do and then did not follow through.
  8. We would like specifically that the conditional use include the 11p.m. closing time for the restaurant. They told us they agreed to that.

Judith Hoyem, Member of the Eureka Valley Promotions Association

  1. Damian and I are representing our association's position.
  2. We want to work with The Café to help them be a good business and neighbor. In recent times they have expressed the desire to do so.
  3. We automatically are opposed to the ADA entrance on 17th Street. It must be on Market Street.
  4. The project sponsor feels that is a hardship to ask them to change that entrance. However, we feel they created the hardship for themselves.
  5. They leased the property on the front on Market Street recently and they should have done the handicap accessibility before leasing.
  6. We certainly do not want that hardship to be passed on to the neighborhood. We could bare some but not the entire hardship.
  7. We just heard tonight that project sponsor is requesting to preclude the current condition about dancing and instead have it allowed seven nights a week.
  8. They have not abided by that condition from 1992. There is a great lack of trust.
  9. Regarding the monitoring for the entrance on 17th Street: Based on their past behavior, there is nothing that could convince us it will work.

Louis Caputo, General Manager for The Café

  1. I have worked for this company for fifteen years and managed it for five years.
  2. Up until the submission of this project, no body has approached me or called with complaints.
  3. Within the last few months, I have given out my cellular phone number and still have not heard anything from them.
  4. Basically, we want to be a good neighbor. We are in the process of setting up a hot line, email address, and meeting schedule of once a month to form a better relationship.
  5. Regarding the 17th Street exit/entrance: we do not intend or desire this to become a public entrance.
  6. It seems that everything falls on The Café and that we should take full responsibility for the entire community's entertainment.
  7. Our security could explain how we have been diligent on issues that have come up since this project was proposed.

Willie Adams, Director of Security for The Café

  1. It is unfortunate that many of the things we have at The Café have not been visible to the neighbors.
  2. The Café has implemented on-staff police for specialty events for the last three and a half years. This was not in response of any incident.
  3. We have tried to be proactive.
  4. For safety reasons, we have no intention of having the entrance on 17th Street be the main entrance.
  5. The Café is the only club in the Castro that has security and police for all special events. We have been working with the Police Department for crime prevention.

Poichaa [Tom] Hutachinda, Owner

  1. I am the owner of the business and have been since 1995.
  2. I have tried to improve operations to keep The Café as the best of the bars.
  3. Most of the bars look at The Café as a leader.
  4. Let us continue to grow up and support the Castro and Upper Market Neighborhoods.

ACTION: Continued to January 10, 2008 to allow owners to adhere to the existing Conditional Use. The public hearing will remain open.

AYES: Alexander, Olague, Antonini, S. Lee, W. Lee, Moore and Sugaya.

16. 2007.0431C (Tape IIIB) (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

301 DeMontfort Avenue, and 251 Jules Avenue - both sides between Jules and Ashton Avenues Lot 001 of Assessor's Block 6940 and Lot 012 of Assessor's Bock 6933 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 209.3(h) to expand an existing Secondary School with the addition of 3 temporary classroom modules within the existing parking lots in the RH-1, Residential House, One Family and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.


Douglass Tom, Project's Architect

  1. This is a small, nonprofit charter school management organization located in San Francisco.
  2. The charter is provided by the San Francisco Unified School District.
  3. The School District currently operates four innovated college preparation high schools with its fifth to open this coming fall.
  4. The vision expresses the belief that all students, regardless of race, ethnicity and/or economic background are entitled to attend a high school that prepares them for college success.
  5. Recruitment strategies are designed to enroll the majority of students that are first generation college bound in their family.
  6. They are focused on low-income families and students who live in the neighborhoods served by other low performance high schools.
  7. The award-winning curriculum employs instructional models based on State Standards, Project Based, Workplace Learning and personalized learning environments.
  8. You would find at these schools students that are well known, engaged and prepared to graduate from college.
  9. Each school has approximately 250 to 300 students.
  10. Teachers are empowered, supported and valued.
  11. Schools are small communities where meaningful learning happens every day.
  12. Teaching and learning are both rigorous and relevant. Every student is well known. No body slips through the cracks.
  13. Last year, the school received $6.9 million dollars in grants from the GATE Foundation.
  14. Juniors and sophomores averaged impressive passing rates on the California High School Exit Exam, 90 percent for English, Language, Arts and 83 percent for Math.
  15. The school is in the process of finding a permanent home. Until the end of the upcoming 2007-2008 school year, it needs to continue residing at 301 Demontfort Avenue.
  16. At the same time the Catholic Archdiocese needs to be allowed to build and perform the plumbing upgrades for the building, which is why there is a need to place the mobile classrooms on the side.

Josh Brankman, School Principal

  1. I just wanted to confirm what Doug mentioned. We are a school that serves under served students in San Francisco.
  2. Over half of our students qualify for free or reduced lunch.
  3. Over sixty percent of our students live in the Southeastern quarter of San Francisco.
  4. In part of our program is a commitment to our students to the community.
  5. That is a process that takes a long time - to help students find where they fit in our community and hopefully they will become very good citizens.
  6. This plan for the next year provides us an opportunity to continue our mission with our students.
  7. We have very amazing students and also some others that struggle and need a lot of our support.
  8. Our work with our staff, parents and community organizations ensure our work.


  1. I am representing residents of Jules Avenue where I live. It is only four blocks long.
  2. Buildings there were built in the 1920's. Most of them are wood frame, stucco houses and very much in the Marina style.
  3. The neighborhood is getting better. We are ripping out those aluminums windows from the 1970's.
  4. We have more neighbors moving in to fix up and live in the houses and not speculate and flip them.
  5. I am glad to hear that the permit request is only for a year.
  6. I would like to see some kind of commitment to keep graffiti off the building and sidewalk, maintain trash and plant trees around the school.


  1. I live in the neighborhood and my son is going to this school next year.
  2. The need of beautifying the neighborhood, keep off graffiti as well as planting trees came to our attention.
  3. I have been very involved in the community and approached the principal about working with the parent body to do the temporary classroom part in the neighborhood.
  4. The principal was very receptive and I am confident that whatever needs to happen, will happen.
  5. Also because I live in the neighborhood, I would be able to be a liaison.

Father Bill, Pastor of Saint Emydius

  1. We went bankrupt three years ago. Rental of the school was the only way to be able to pay for the Church.
  2. This is a beautiful plan. We live on a very tight budget.
  3. We had to fix the boys bathrooms and replace the plumbing system. The girl's bathrooms need repair.
  4. The temporary classrooms would be there for ten months.
  5. Two of them would be on the yard with no impact to the neighbors. Another one on the parking lot and teachers would be accommodated at another part of the property.
  6. There would not be any impacts to the neighborhood.
  7. We do not have the money to do portable landscaping.

ACTION: Approved with amendment to remove condition #6 relating to graffiti removal, trash, planting trees and portable landscaping.

AYES: Alexander, Olague, Antonini, S. Lee, W. Lee, Moore, and Sugaya.

MOTION: 17452

Item 17 was taken out of order followed item #19

17. 2007.0115D (Tape IB; IIA; IIB) (M. GLUECKERT 558-6543)

174 VALENCIA STREET - west side between Duboce and McCoppin; Lot 014 in Assessor's Block 3502 - Request for Mandatory Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2007.01.12.1596 to maintain operation of an existing Medical Cannabis Dispensary (d.b.a.  Mr. Nice Guy ). The parcel is located within a C-M (Heavy Commercial) District and a 50-X Height/Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove the project as submitted.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 26, 2007)


David Silverman, Project Sponsor Representative

  1. This dispensary has been open since March 2005.
  2. The application was filed to comply with the Board of Supervisor's ordinance requirement.
  3. The dispensary is located in a heavy commercial district. The uses on this block are commercial or similar uses with no residential buildings.
  4. The adjacent neighbors on both sides are in support of the dispensary.
  5. The dispensary has improved this block considerably by eradicating the homeless camp under the freeway.
  6. Closing it would attract vandalism, graffiti and unsafe streets in this neighborhood.
  7. The Department staff is concerned about clustering and the Board [of Supervisors] did not consider clustering to be objectionable.
  8. Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act, was passed in San Francisco with a 78 percent majority vote.
  9. Clearly that percentage shows a desire for MCD's [Medical Cannabis Dispensaries] to be able to operate and are expected to be located somewhere.
  10. If this location - in a heavy commercial block adjacent to the freeway - is not acceptable, I am not sure what location would be.
  11. We have provided with our submittal 50 letters of support and an additional 60 names on a petition.
  12. There have been some opponents but none of them live on this block.
  13. The sponsor did not receive complaints until the hearing was scheduled. Even then, the sponsor has taken all steps to address the concerns identified to them.
  14. San Francisco police officer, Jane Warner, was here to speak in support but had to leave to attend to her duties. She will send a letter in support.

Robert Raich

  1. I'm a medical cannabis expert and have advised cities and counties throughout the State on various aspects of the regulation.
  2. I am one of the people who was there through the inception and drafting of this ordinance.
  3. The issue of clustering of cannabis dispensaries was a topic that was raised, considered, and specifically rejected by the Board of Supervisors.
  4. There were very good reasons for that.
  5. This dispensary has met and is consistent with all of the criteria.

Don Cecil

  1. I support cannabis consumption by anyone and therefore support medical cannabis dispensaries as well.
  2. I dreamed of a day that we could all grow it in our yard and not to go anywhere for personal or medical use.
  3. They serve very needed patients but they are not simply good neighbors. They have a pit bull.
  4. They have so much opposition because they operate in a manner that lacks any cognitive recognition of the community surrounding them.
  5. There is much more to this community than a heavy commercial neighborhood. We have schools, faith institutions and other medical cannabis dispensaries.
  6. I am not anti cannabis but Mr. Nice Guy has not become part of this community.

Lashay Zamora, Co-Owner of Mr. Nice Guy

  1. My partner and I have been in operation for over two years and during that time we did not hear any complaints of our business until two months ago.
  2. Some of the things have been corrected already. The pit bull is retired.
  3. In early May, we met with three members of the  Bahai Center to discuss concerns and we have made changes and documented them in writing.
  4. [Read letter of support from  Bahai Center .]

Shirley Olivo

  1. I fully support medical cannabis treatment.
  2. I would like to remind you that your decision today is not about the need or importance of these medicines.
  3. This land use decision will improve or detract from the neighborhood surrounding Mr. Nice Guy.
  4. Although I support the services provided, I am very disappointed with the way they have conducted their business.
  5. This is not the appropriate place for Mr. Nice Guy and the North of Mission does not need an over concentration of dispensaries.
  6. Deny the permit.

Jen LaPeire, Manager of Mr. Nice Guy

  1. We were not aware of any complaints until the recent neighborhood meetings.
  2. Since then, we have made several changes.
  3. The major concern was double parking and we now have security cameras on the street and a parking lot next door to address that issue.
  4. As far as being part of the community, people need a car to enter and there are so many clients that we are doing as much as we can.

Wayne Brock

  1. I live in a condominium development up the side the street form Mr. Nice Guy.
  2. My major concern is that I am trying to raise my family and there is so much traffic, double-parking and people smoking in their cars.
  3. How can I say whether or not they are Mr. Nice Guy with their customers, and how can they control that?
  4. I support medical marijuana but it is a quality of life issue for me and my family.
  5. Also, I am intimidated by approaching Mr. Nice Guy directly.

Jessica Jimenez, Supervisor of Mr. Nice Guy

  1. We are a non-profit organization and part of the compassion program.
  2. We have about 20 patients that receive free cannabis. Also, we contribute to many different charities and organizations.

Kathleen Kelley, San Francisco Bahai Center

  1. We have been in the community since 1975 and host a variety of community meetings that include religious activities, children community activities, as well as other community meetings.
  2. Of all the medical cannabis dispensaries in our neighborhood, this is the only club we are opposing because of the high traffic and loitering.
  3. One of our members, who works at a high school in the city, ran into a student trying to buy from a patient on a Friday evening.
  4. Although Mr. Nice Guy has been in the neighborhood for two years, we did not really have much contact with them until they came up for the permit.
  5. They did meet with us and addressed some of the issues but we have no assurance that when this process is over they will continue.
  6. There is still a great deal of odor and there is a tremendous amount of traffic.

Anita Black

  1. I am a cannabis patient and I do go to Mr. Nice Guy to get my medication.
  2. I have visited other medical dispensaries and they have not provided the same type of professional customer service that Mr. Nice Guy provides to me.
  3. They get to know their patients and find out what our needs are.
  4. They have a lot of knowledge of what string of cannabis would work for the particular illness.
  5. I request that Mr. Nice Guy remains open and allow me to have access to the place I am comfortable with.

Gilbert Criswell

  1. I have lived in this neighborhood for about thirteen years and have seen many changes there.
  2. I am an active member in my community and also a cannabis patient.
  3. I have been to two community meetings and the Mr. Nice Guy dispensary has made a good faith effort addressing concerns of its immediate neighbors.
  4. I am concerned that my medicine will be subject to price fixing and retail pricing.

Jalil Morales, Security for Mr. Nice Guy

  1. We have two high-security systems consisting of 16 cameras each.
  2. They give great views of the streets going south and north bound on Valencia Street as well as the Oil Changers' parking lot.
  3. We have the system for the protection and safety of our patients and to address our neighbors' concerns.
  4. Our neighbors have always been concerned about double parking, and parking on white zones.
  5. I use these cameras in order to help patients have equaled parking opportunities, as well as the neighbors.
  6. We help a lot of patients and offer friendship – something more than just doing business.

Cathy Hunter

  1. I am the head of San Francisco Friends School currently located in the Castro.
  2. We hope very much to be a member of the North Mission Neighborhood Group as we move to 250 Valencia Street.
  3. I am here to represent our families and share with you our concern of the proximity of five or six clubs.
  4. It seems that other clubs have anticipated the concerns that neighbors might have and addressed them without being asked to.
  5. I would urge you to look at the proximity of residents, schools and religious institutions with so many Medical Cannabis Dispensaries in the area.

Roger Siegel, Informational Officer of Mr. Nice Guy

  1. I have a table in the front lobby with information concerning medical marijuana and industrial uses.
  2. Every day we distribute medicine to many people in need for various illnesses like arthritis, glaucoma, chronic pain, etc.
  3. We give medicine when need through the compassion program as well.
  4. We have invested heavily to improve our infrastructure and security.
  5. Now, we have our front door open and anyone is welcome to meet us and give any suggestions on how we can become more of a part of the community.
  6. We are one of the largest centers in the city and I do not know if any other would be able to take the volume of our clients.

Jose Lizarraga, Educator Administrator of San Francisco Friend School

  1. I'm opposed to having so many clubs near schools.
  2. Although we appreciate the work that Mr. Nice Guy has done to work on the neighbors' concerns, I still find that there is an over concentration of these clubs near schools.

Kurt Osiander

  1. Since Mr. Nice Guy moved in, security and staff are excellent. I have never had any problems with them.
  2. The odor happened in the beginning days when they had an open smoke launch, and then it was closed.
  3. The area is more secure now and the traffic comes from the adjacent business that is an Oil Changer's lot.

Michael Aldrich

  1. The largest Medical Cannabis Dispensary in the Mission was at 1716 Mission Street. It was called Mission Street Care Givers.
  2. The District Attorney closed it last year.
  3. They served an enormous clientele and the smaller operators are trying to pick up the slack since they have been closed.
  4. We have agreements with three smaller facilities: The Love Shack, 1933 Mission Street and 408 Valencia Street.
  5. None of these facilities can pick up the slack of thousands of patients that need to be served in the Mission.
  6. Clustering is more-or-less required by Mirkarimi's regulations because there are so many residential neighborhoods where MCD's cannot be located.
  7. It is virtually impossible to relocate and we are stuck with facilities that were grandfathered into the permit process.

Leslie Kossoff

  1. I live across the street in a complex that the City helped build.
  2. Just a few weeks ago, Mr. Nice Guy was not so nice to everyone who lives in the neighborhood.
  3. Every time that I drive by this location with my children, I have to roll up the windows because of the strong odor of marijuana.
  4. I do support medical marijuana but not the chaotic situation that it is going on there.

Alison Miller

  1. In terms of the planning process, there was not really a permitting process when this business was initially opened.
  2. We are sort of going backwards. And I'm not sure that makes good planning sense to have all of these businesses in a small neighborhood.
  3. Although it is zoned as a heavy industrial district, there are people who live in that block and in that area.
  4. Please consider the impacts the neighborhoods are having with this many MCD's.

Hannah Hunt, Former employee of Mr. Nice Guy

  1. I am here in support of the continued operations.
  2. I had direct contact with patients and people in the neighborhood.
  3. Shared an experience of a patient needing medication and being discriminated against for not having the appearance of being sick.
  4. People in need come in all shapes and sizes. Mr. Nice Guy has a very loyal and diverse clientele.
  5. Mr. Nice Guy operates lawfully without any registered violations.
  6. Religious, cultural, or social minorities should not have the power to close down a lawfully operated business.

Sharon McAllister

  1. I'm in support of the continued operation of Mr. Nice Guy.
  2. My son started this business and I was curious and concerned about this type of business.
  3. I began observing the dispensary's day-to-day operations and talking with employees.
  4. I spoke to a custodian from one of my former schools about his experience as a patient at Mr. Nice Guy during his chemotherapy treatment.
  5. Mr. Nice Guy is a compassionate, well-rounded and safe business.
  6. The location is clean, very discrete, secure, no loitering and smoking is not allowed on site.

Kirk Miller, Architect for Mr. Nice Guy

  1. We did some ADA [Americans with Disabilities Act] upgrades. Since then, other issues were raised in terms of the construction.
  2. Steps have been taken to make sure that Mr. Nice Guy remains a good neighbor.
  3. A number of changes have been happening and they are included in the packets.
  4. The first and most important one is that physically the front open door. That does not mean that people can get into the club without a card and a physician recommendation.
  5. There are two layers of security before gaining entrance to the dispensary.
  6. We are trying to work with Bahai Center to provide an ambassador for whenever they have an activity to make sure everything is working properly from our side.
  7. Mr. Nice Guy is willing to have an ongoing community liaison. It has to be worked out.
  8. They have grown and they really look after their patients.

Grasshopper Alex Kaplan

  1. This is San Francisco - grassland California. This is where the general community accepts medical marijuana.
  2. We want it in San Francisco. We have seen an improvement on appearance of the one on Valencia Street.
  3. I highly recommend this dispensary over all the ones I personally have seen.
  4. There is no comparison for the level of professionalism. It is a role model.
  5. There is an emergency need to serve the medical community now and not later.

Reverand Randi Webster

  1. Mr. Nice Guy is compassionate towards its patients and tries to be courteous and conscientious to its neighbors.
  2. Regarding the clustering issue: one man's cluster is another man's safe access.
  3. We are dealing with disabled people and there is a need to have a nearby dispensary.
  4. In a large part, this place is zoned commercial and it creates less potential disturbances than being in a residential district.
  5. I firmly disagree with the idea of this not being necessary to have it at this location. It lends itself well for public transportation that the majority of patients do take.
  6. We have to re-examine what the traffic issues are and maybe the Oil Changer's has more cars than what we think.
  7. Issues have been raised and dealt with. Mr. Nice Guy is in the process of working things out.

Dr. Ralph Monda

  1. Many businesses and organizations in the area support Mr. Nice Guy.
  2. They are very respectful. You should go visit them and see how it is inside.
  3. I request that you approve them.


  1. I'm in support of Mr. Nice Guy for being the best club that I have come across.
  2. I appreciate Mr. Nice Guy for helping and supporting by father to get his medicine.
  3. They have a very good compassionate program that has helped my father a lot.

Rufino de Leon, Mission Neighborhood Alliance

  1. I live across the street from Mr. Nice Guy and am opposed to the renewal of its permit.
  2. My fellow neighbors have already expressed our concerns. The one that really stands out is the intimidation that just got improved about two months ago.
  3. The 208 Valencia Street dispensary got their permit renewed and they are really a great example on how an MCD should be run.
  4. They were able to integrate their business into the neighborhood and it is not noticeable. It is predominantly a café.

Jacquelynn Allen

  1. I am a multi-hit victim. I have been going to Mr. Nice Guy for over a year now.
  2. I went to visit two dispensaries and explored safety outside and inside.
  3. I came back to Mr. Nice Guy because it is the place that I feel comfortable, safe and respected.

Erik Morse

  1. I am a vendor and provider of medical cannabis.
  2. For the last year, I have been providing the cannabis to Mr. Nice Guy solely because of the way the business is run.
  3. In the last five years that I have been provided medical cannabis, I have provided to about thirty to forty dispensaries in San Francisco frequently.
  4. I feel safe and secure there.

Reverend Jerold Nixon

  1. When I first went there, I was welcomed in a very loving way.
  2. I have never seen anybody loitering. The cameras are helping with the security.
  3. Drug related issues are everywhere but here we are talking about medical marijuana.

Silvia Ross

  1. I have been with Mr. Nice Guy since the first time they opened its door.
  2. I was able to receive compassionate care and when I was homeless, they were a place to stay with a chance to receive food and watch movies.
  3. The people that run this place should be allowed to stay and help people the way they have been doing it.

Alex Moton

  1. I recently have visited Mr. Nice Guy and no other club mainly because of its professionalism.
  2. The security guards work with a collared white shirt. At other dispensaries you cannot identify who the security guard is.

Tiya Christian, Community Health Nurse for the City and County of San Francisco

  1. I have been a member of Mr. Nice Guy for over two years now.
  2. It has been a great benefit for my self and my patients to have access to their medication in a clean, safe and convenient location.
  3. I support Mr. Nice Guy entirely.
  4. I have observed personally far more dangerous situations present in the Mission District than the ones brought forward against Mr. Nice Guy.

Peter Johnston

  1. Mr. Nice Guy has had a very good positive affect on the community in the Valencia area.
  2. They provide safe access in the area. All issues brought up by neighbors are trying to be addressed constantly.
  3. Integrating Mr. Nice Guy into the community is an on going process. We should get together and make it work.
  4. [Shared his own personal experience after a car accident]. They bring compassion and understanding.


  1. I need Mr. Nice Guy to remain open because of my illness.
  2. I am trying to get my papers signed from my doctor and be able to receive cannabis.

George Hernandez

  1. I am a cannabis patient and have been for the last three years. I am also a union member with a family.
  2. I have tried other places and the parking has been horrible and I do not feel safe.
  3. I have noticed improvements at Mr. Nice Guy and feel that they will continue.

David Sarmiento

  1. I have been a medical marijuana patient since 1996.
  2. Mr. Nice Guy is my facility. They are very caring and loving.
  3. I ask that you keep them open.

Rommie Whittaker

  1. I would like this dispensary to remain open.
  2. Also, I would like to talk to you about facial prejudice, discrimination and hypocrisy.
  3. [Shared expressions and examples of discriminations.]

Michelle Brown

  1. I am speaking on behalf on Mr. Nice Guy.
  2. I disagree with all statements made against them.
  3. Every time that I have gone there, I have never seen any loitering. The odor is not true.
  4. They have always been nice and polite, clean, very concerned, and respectful.


  1. I operate the business next door to Mr. Nice Guy.
  2. The places on Valencia Street are very small and cannot really handle all the traffic.
  3. The issues with the neighborhood are in the process of being worked out.
  4. I hope you will approve the project.


  1. Mr. Nice Guy has been very supportive and helpful with their compassion system.
  2. Security is very effective and I hope you keep them open.

Joe Clevinger Jr.

  1. This is the most fabulous club out of all of them put together.
  2. The school is way down the block and smoking on the premises is not allowed.
  3. I have never seen a dog. They are the most caring and helpful resource for people with terminal illnesses.
  4. I personally would not be able to make it without them. Without the medical marijuana, I would be dead.

Gabriela Sikora

  1. I am a registered nurse and resident of the Mission. I am also a patient of Mr. Nice Guy.
  2. This place is the safest for me.
  3. Patients and people would benefit from having Mr. Nice Guy open.

Randall Larson

  1. The use of medical marijuana helps me relieve my depression. I no longer need to use anti-depression and sleeping pills.
  2. The products are stored in a hospital atmosphere. They are top quality and are at the right price.
  3. As a person with disabilities with a fixed income, they satisfy my need even if my funds are low.
  4. This is not just any other medical marijuana outlet. It is my medical supply.

Joe Escalante

  1. I have been going to this club for about eighteen months and have not noticed any loitering or any problems at all.
  2. This is a very good place. I feel safe going there to get my medicine.


  1. I have been using medical marijuana for a few years now.
  2. I found Mr. Nice Guy after being rejected by Love Shack. Ever since then I have visited them.
  3. It is one of the nicest I have seen. Staff is very professional.

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and Approved with conditions:

-Meet with the potential school coming into the neighborhood, and meet once a month with community organizations for six months.

-Provide a personal phone number so that the community can reach operators if there is a concern.

-Continue with the special patrol.

-To create a community liaison.

-Instructed Planning Department staff to come back with a policy for conditions of approval for Medical Cannabis Dispensaries.

AYES: Alexander, Olague, S. Lee, W. Lee and Moore.

NAYES: Antonini and Sugaya.

Item 18 was taken out or order and followed item 16

18a. 2006.0636DD (Tape IIIB; IVA) (A. STARR: (415) 558-6322)

2901-2903 PIERCE STREET - northwest corner of Union and Pierce Streets; Lot 006 in Assessor's Block 0536 - Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.07.13.6418 proposing to construct a new one-story, two-car garage with roof deck addition at the rear of the three-story, two-unit building. The existing detached garage structure would be demolished. The new garage would be located within the required rear yard, requiring a variance. The property is located in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as revised.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 14, 2007)


David Cincatta, 1st Discretionary Review Requestor Representative

  1. The exceptional and extraordinary circumstances that are here are really emphasized in the lack of necessity to do this project.
  2. To do this project requires the demolition of the structure and invasion of people's privacy.
  3. The structure that they wish to demolish has a garage large enough to hold two cars.
  4. The existing deck has 713 square feet. The garage and deck would be demolished to move it closer.
  5. I do not see that their choice to demolish this structure shows any hardship at all.
  6. We tried to work with this and offered three different alternatives on how this project could work.
  7. The project sponsor should be allowed to do what they want, but it does not have to disrupt the variance.
  8. When the deck is built on top of the garage, it is moving 4 and one half feet closer to my client's home.
  9. I believe that the new proposal is totally unnecessary. They have a 9-foot garage. We are asking them to lower it.
  10. In 1973, they took out a permit to change all of the windows, the entrance, and added the French doors on the other side. The permit was issued over the counter in one day.
  11. There was no historic resource evaluation report or analysis of the merger of the unit.
  12. It seems that it was done in anticipation of this variance.
  13. We are showing you a proposal that would allow them to have a deck and open space on the back.

Marvin Grove, 2nd Discretionary Review Requestor

  1. I am comfortable with the May 14 revised plan.
  2. It has been improved and our concerns are accommodated.
  3. I think that the concerns from the other adjacent neighbors have been addressed by this plans that is now submitted.

Linda Lucas on behalf of Sandra Zonic

  1. Sandra could not attend and sent a letter to the Commission. She asked that I share her concerns of the Zoning Administrator's variance.
  2. She is against the granting of the variance. She shared this view with over sixty neighbors who have signed a petition protesting the variance.
  3. It is not in keeping with the neighborhood as it is currently designed.
  4. It does not meet the five requirements set forth in the Planning Code for approval.
  5. If it is granted, she asks that the Commission consider the affect it is going to have on some of the immediate properties - impacting privacy and air.


- Submitted a letter with comments.

Elio Minucciani

  1. I am against the building of this garage.
  2. I was thinking if they could build a lower type of structure it would be in line with the neighborhood.

-Brett Gladstone, Project Sponsor Representative

  1. [Submitted a statement of appeal.]
  2. In the statement, the appellant took a fairly reasonable approach.
  3. Their approach has gotten us in hardship by demanding more and more.
  4. In the appeal statement before you, they say that if the Commission approves they would like the following modifications: reduce size of garage by 4 feet and 9 inches on the western side. My client did that.
  5. The size of the garage is to be reduced closer to Pierce Street by 7 feet.
  6. This would not do because the Department of Interior Guidelines says that we should not bring it forward to make it in common line up with the façade of a historic building.
  7. We were asked to reduce the height of the deck by 2 feet or so. It has been done, reducing it 3 feet and ten inches on both sides.
  8. In order to do it, we had to do a foot of excavation that will cost approximately $25,000.
  9. They requested we move the proposed stairs in the backyard to face the rear yard instead so as not to look into the appellant's house. It is done.
  10. They asked to narrow the garage and it is done.
  11. We certainly accommodated at least their position of three months ago.
  12. You heard that over sixty people signed a petition. They were based on a six-month-old project that does not reflect the adjustments made.
  13. In the petition from neighbors, exhibit 11says that the backyard would be used as a play area and it would be visible from the street.
  14. We asked ourselves what is wrong with using the backyard as a play area?
  15. The only concern they have is view and it is not protected.

Alfonso, Architect

  1. The new garage is a two-car garage that would be attached to the rear existing two-family residence.
  2. The proposed set back along Pierce Street is 7 feet and 4 inches with an offset of one foot and 3 inches back from the façade of the main residence.
  3. The proposed set back from the join property line is 8 feet and 3 inches.
  4. We prepared a three dimensional computer model to give you an idea of the relationship of the proposed project with the near buildings.
  5. These images also show the relationship between the landing, deck and stair accessing the rear yard.
  6. We lowered the deck.

Anne, Owner

  1. We are proposing this project to relocate our existing non-confirming garage, property line stairs, and deck for the following reasons:
  2. The garage is dilapidated and the City's inspection report when we bought the property said that because of the extent of the damage it would be better to tear it down and build a new one.
  3. It is not wide enough to park our car and a tenant's car.
  4. The curb cut is 18 feet and with our project, it would be reduced to 10 feet allowing room for extra street parking.
  5. With the proposed reconfiguration, we could use the deck and our tenants could use the garden at the same time to allow a play area for our children.
  6. We are pleased that by incorporating the suggestions from Planning staff, neighbors, and associations this project has became a much better project than when we started out.
  7. I presented the revised project to the neighbors and they have signed a petition approving it.

Erick, Owner

  1. Our house occupied the corner spot on the corner of Pierce and Union Street.
  2. Another corner house in the neighborhood inspired our proposal that maximizes open space by putting the deck on top of the garage.
  3. Our proposal does not have inside access from our unit to the garage and we have never requested that.
  4. Our brief has an extensive chronology of the dialogue that has occurred with our neighbors and modifications incorporated into our proposal.
  5. On Tuesday, the DR requestors presented three alternatives asking for even more set backs.
  6. We cannot agree to any request asking to contradict the Residential and DPW [Department of Public Works] guidelines.
  7. In our case the existing non-confirming situation is dramatically improved.
  8. Modifications have been made to improve the street, windows, and privacy.


  1. I live across the street from the project. We are in support of the project without any reservations.
  2. It would improve the appearance of the entire block.
  3. San Francisco is hit by parking problems all over.
  4. Although we are not the worst area for parking problems, they appear in our block as well.
  5. Narrowing the curb cut and expanding of the garage would help alleviate parking problems.


  1. I am the real state agent that helped the project sponsors purchased their home.
  2. I would like to speak on one particular item. They received a letter two days ago stating that they have deliberately allowed the garage to become dilapidated.
  3. In 2002, we had inspections of the home and the garage.
  4. The condition of the garage was shocking. The inspector said that the garage ought to be demolished for being in such a condition.
  5. The project sponsor made big efforts to have the garage look better by painting it.

Karine Mendez

  1. I currently live at 2903 Pierce Street. I have lived there with my husband since November 2006.
  2. The place is very comfortable. One of the issues we have is street parking.
  3. We would have more privacy with a higher deck.
  4. It would be nice to have a garage that could fit our car.


  1. I live at 2903 Pierce Street.
  2. As my wife mentioned, the place is very nice and we would like to have privacy and parking.
  3. I urge you to approve this project.

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and Approved as revised.

AYES: Alexander, Olague, Antonini, S. Lee, W. Lee, Moore and Sugaya.

18b. 2006.0636VDD (A. STARR: (415) 558-6322)

2901-2903 PIERCE STREET - northwest corner of Union and Pierce Streets; Lot 006 in Assessor's Block 0536 - Request for Variance from Planning Code Section 134 (required rear yard) to allow demolition of the existing detached garage and to construct a new one-story horizontal addition approximately 26 feet deep and 26 feet wide at the rear of the existing two-family dwelling. The addition will accommodate a new two-car garage, roof deck and stairs leading from the roof deck to the rear yard. The new garage is located within the required rear yard. The property is located in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 14, 2007)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed on item 18a.

ACTION: Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing and granted the variance.

Item 19 was taken out of order followed item #11

19. 2007.0292D (Tape IB) (K. CONNER: (415) 575-6914)

194-198 Guerrero Street A.K.A. 502 14th Street - west side at the northwest corner of the intersection with 14th Street; Lot 014 in Assessor's Block 3534 - Request for Mandatory Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2007.02.27.4993, to maintain operation of an existing Medical Cannabis Dispensary (d.b.a. Love Shack) within the NC-1 (Cluster, Neighborhood Commercial), District, and the 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as submitted.


Tarrance Hallinan, Project Sponsor Representative

  1. I have been thrown off by moving up on the calendar. Chris Montana, the project sponsor, is not here.
  2. I want to mention that I have worked with this club since I was the District Attorney of San Francisco.
  3. They have always been a positive force in the neighborhood with outreaching programs - cleaning the streets and trying to eliminate any problems.
  4. Commissioner Bill Lee was asking about the number of clubs in San Francisco compared with other cities (for example in Oakland).
  5. I had an opportunity to visit one club in Oakland and its operation is entirely different.
  6. The San Francisco clubs are neighborhood service oriented with accessibility. The clubs in Oakland are very big, serving over 2,000 clients every day.
  7. The Love Shack has a small number of clients that live very close to the place.

Roy Crew

  1. I am one of a few clients that have to drive there due to my illness.
  2. This club has treated me with the most respect. All employees are so nice to every one.
  3. They have a team outside the facility that monitors drivers coming in.
  4. They monitor the streets for cleaning and prevent illegal sales of products bought at the club.
  5. I would ask that you approve them.

Reverend Randi Webster

  1. The Love Shack is a sanctuary for medical cannabis patients.
  2. The staff always welcomes patients with a good attitude and in a loving-care atmosphere.
  3. This is one of the oldest facilities in San Francisco
  4. It is very active in the area and makes sure that it is safe and clean.

[No Name]

  1. I am an old member of this collective, Love Shack. It is full of loving people.
  2. Chris, Erika and Rion run a wonderful family team operation
  3. The traffic congestion was an important issue for the club before.
  4. They made an important decision and limited services to old member or new members mostly from the immediate neighbors.
  5. They are very conscious of cleaning and keeping tight control of the activity on their block.

Don Cecil

  1. I support the Love Shack.
  2. It is a model medical cannabis dispensary in the city.
  3. I request that the Commission give some thought to the issue of over concentration. One particular issue you may have is the legal direction of these clubs.
  4. Our neighborhood has about five dispensaries and we wish all of them to be like the Love Shack.
  5. They decided to operate in our neighborhood and also be part of it.

Marcus Arana

  1. I am here on my own personal time.
  2. There are a great variety of people who benefit from the medical marijuana program that San Francisco has.
  3. It is a wonderful program that makes me able to get up every day and do my job.
  4. Love Shack is absolutely a model when it comes to patient's care, neighborhood relationship and establishing what a good dispensary should look like.
  5. I urge your approval.

Wayne Justmenn

  1. We made sure that these facilities fit the mold that San Francisco needed.
  2. A few years ago, Love Shack limited the number of people having access to its facilities.
  3. They review that model each year and it has worked for its patients, staff and neighborhood at large.
  4. This is an excellent facility and it is one of the earliest medical dispensaries serving cannabis patients.

Elizabeth Frantes

  1. I have been a medical patient since the beginning of 2000.
  2. My doctor's name is Todd Mai. He is an attending physician at UCSF [University of California, San Francisco] that practices at San Francisco General.
  3. I was his very first cannabis patient and he is very happy with me.
  4. We are very unhappy with this. I do not even know where to start to tell you how bad this piece of legislation is.
  5. It goes against everything that patients brought up.
  6. This is a fact of law that you are enforcing.
  7. The making of the state card mandatory in this section is a violation of the State Law itself.
  8. It says here that the cannabis dispensaries have to act as cooperatives or collectives, but it does not define what those mean.
  9. It mandates that every patient get an ID [identification] card and join a collective.
  10. You have to sign up with a club. It is like if you could only get to a certain or particular drug store and you have to pay their price or you cannot get anything.
  11. If my doctor puts me on morphine, I do not need to get a special ID [identification] card.
  12. My doctor does not deserve to have his clinical judgment second guessed by some organization that is unknown.
  13. I am supposed to send in this form that has a medical waiver that says they will release the information to anybody that asks, including the Feds.
  14. For those of us who depend on federal benefits, why should we believe that the Feds would not use this information against us?
  15. Basically, my point is that we have legislation that Mirkarimi passed down where he states that part of the deal is to make some of the clubs closed.
  16. He is trying to make the ID cards mandatory.
  17. It gives too much power to an unnamed director in the Department of Public Health.
  18. I simply do not trust their judgment. I would like to trust them, but I do not. I have seen what they have done in this city.
  19. I do not trust the patronage system when it gives us people like Anne Marie Conroy as the head of Emergency Services when the woman has no qualifications.
  20. You are taking money under false pretences by demanding that the clubs pay un-refundable money to enforce laws that violates patient's rights under California Law.
  21. Additionally, the State Supreme Court was very clear in its definition of what constitutes a caregiver and dispensaries.

Dr. Ralph Monda

  1. I do alternative therapy.
  2. The name of Love Shack tells you what it really is.
  3. You need to do a little reform and tell them that they can change the id program and that they could have private clubs.
  4. Love Shack is here to stay and so are all the medical clubs.
  5. Remember you are an outsider and you need to do something right with reform.

Christopher Montana, Love Shack

  1. We have been open since October 2002.
  2. Our main goal is to provide medical cannabis to patients.
  3. A couple of improvements have happened in my particular area.
  4. Since I always have staff outside for cleaning and safety, one of our neighbors noticed it and called the City and requested an extra trash can be put on our block.
  5. The crime in our neighborhood has decreased since 2002.
  6. About a year and a half ago, we were so busy that we started to feel unwelcome by the neighborhood and decided to become a private club.
  7. For the most part, the neighborhood is happy and we are benefiting the community and our patients.


  1. Thanked the Commission for the public service.
  2. I am a club member of Love Shack and they are really compassionate to the people.
  3. I have seen how the club handles problems very carefully - from traffic problems to complaints from the neighborhood.

Grasshopper Alec Kaplan

  1. They are really private. Even thought I have an identification card, I did not get service there.
  2. I am very supportive of this dispensary.

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and Approved.

AYES: Alexander, Olague, Antonini, S. Lee, W. Lee and Moore.

NAYES: Sugaya.

20. 2007.0212D (K.CONNER: (415) 575-6914)

1430 DIAMOND STREET - west side between 27th Street and Duncan Street; Lot 004C in Assessor's Block 6588 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.10.11.4737, proposing construction of a 12-foot horizontal rear addition and a vertical addition to an existing two-story single family residence in a RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending.


ACTION: Without hearing, continued to July 21, 2007

AYES: Alexander, Olague, Antonini, S. Lee, W. Lee, Moore and Sugaya.

Items 21 & 22 were taken out or order and followed item 18

21. 2007.0164D (Tape IVA) (C. JAROSLAWSKY (415) 558-6348)

40 JUANITA WAY - south side between Fowler Avenue and Teresita Boulevard; Lot 010 in Assessor's Block 2901B - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 20056.12.20.0206, construct a third level addition, onto a one-story over garage, single-family structure. The addition would include a rear deck and stairs at the second and third levels, in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve the project with modifications.


John O'Sullivan, Discretionary Review Requestor

  1. I am a resident at 36 Juanita Way where I have lived for 27 years.
  2. The houses in our block are attached homes with center patios.
  3. There are three houses in our block with third floor additions of under 500 square feet.
  4. They are all setback six feet from the center patios and cannot be seen from the streets.
  5. None of the attached homes with the additions have exterior staircases with decks.
  6. The proposed addition would not be in character and content with our neighborhood.
  7. This project would set a dangerous precedent.
  8. We would loose considerable light and air into our homes if the project is approved.
  9. Miraloma Park Residential Design Guidelines say that to compensate for the light and air envelope that would be provided by side yards, many attached home designs incorporate skylights and center courtyards.
  10. When considering expansion of homes and heights, designers should explore ways to not shade skylights and courtyards of adjacent homes.
  11. To the best of our knowledge, there is no one addition in our neighborhood that covers its center patio.
  12. We also believe that air and light is protected in the environmental protection element under the San Francisco General Plan section 13.3 and 13.4.
  13. Technology options for producing energy efficient housing specifically include  operational skylights for natural day lighting and ventilation.
  14. The compromise that we suggest is that the addition is 500 square feet, similar to our home and our neighborhood.
  15. We do not have much support from our neighbors because there are only 10 houses in the block and most of them are rental.

Frances O'Sullivan

  1. We had an addition and remodeled our home, keeping the character of our neighborhood as well as providing a skylight and ventilation.
  2. Although we requested a shadow study in January, we never received one.
  3. We did receive photos of a rough model that provided a very uncompleted analysis.
  4. The scariest part for us is to set precedence and that the neighbor in the back would do the same.

Helen Lam, Project Designer

  1. I met with Mr. O'Sullivan for the first time at the application meeting.
  2. He shared his concerns and we reduced the height from 9 to 8 feet. We moved the wall by providing a roof.
  3. After we filed for the site permit the requestor was still unsatisfied and we made further adjustments.
  4. We did a model and took it to PG&E [Pacific Gas and Electric] for shadow studies. That would be exhibit 8.
  5. The shadows are from the roof and the rear building. March, December and September are the times that they would be cast in shadow by 3p.m.
  6. According to a PG&E officer, the shadow of the building does not render it in total darkness.
  7. I had a meeting in the requestor's home on April 20 to show them pictures from the shadow studies. They requested more studies.
  8. Regarding the addition: regardless of the size, is very important for my clients to have the addition in order to accommodate their family.
  9. We were willing and tried working with the requestor but were unsuccessful.

Mary Fitzgerald

  1. We would like to be able to have the addition.
  2. We now live in a 2 bedrooms house and with five people it is very, very crowded.
  3. We have a small business that we run from our home. By law, we need a separate room for that office and it is currently located in the basement.
  4. The Department accepted our original plan.
  5. Neighbors requested that we cut back the ceiling and parapet wall and we did that.
  6. They asked for shadow studies and we did that as well.
  7. Pictures showed that their own roof shadows their own living room.
  8. Regarding the rear staircase: the requestor mentioned that it would be an eye sore for our neighbors. There is an alley way in the back.
  9. We have shown good faith by altering our plans as each complaint came along.
  10. We really need to build and accommodate our growing family.
  11. I have letters signed by neighbors supporting our project.

Anne Molloy, Owner

  1. We purchased the property for my daughter to live there with her family.
  2. They have three children now and they need the space. I help my daughter take care of her children.
  3. I would not like my daughter to move out of San Francisco. All my children live in the city.

Patrick Molloy

  1. I would really like this project to be approved in order for my daughter to stay close by.
  2. We have done everything we could to lower the wall.

ACTION: The Commission continued this item to August 9, 2007 to allow the sponsors to consider re-designing or design options. The public hearing remains open.

AYES: Alexander, Olague, Antonini, S. Lee, W. Lee, Moore and Sugaya.

22. 2007.0436D (Tape IVA; IVB) (S. YOUNG: (415) 558-6346)

58 Wilmot Street/2255-57 Pine Street - a through lot with frontage on Wilmot and Pine Streets, between Fillmore and Webster Streets, Lot 27 in Assessor's Block 660 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application Nos. 2007.03.09.5884 proposing to construct a below-grade garage and 2007.03.09.5886 proposing to construct a new three-story over basement, single-family dwelling fronting on Wilmot Street. An existing two-story over basement, two-family dwelling fronts Pine Street. On January 19, 2007, the Zoning Administrator granted variances to the Planning Code's Minimum Lot Area, Rear Yard and Off-Street Parking requirements with regard to this project.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as revised.


Fred Baldi, Discretionary Review Requestor

  1. I live at 60 Wilmot Street and my family has lived there since 1993.
  2. We love the unique character and ambiance of our street and neighborhood.
  3. The Building and Planning Codes set maximums and minimums for dimension of buildings.
  4. Section 101 of the Planning Code very clearly says that conservation and protection of the existing neighborhood character is a priority.
  5. Our neighborhood is one of mixed character and may contain existing incompatible buildings. That does not free the designer from the obligation to enhance the area.
  6. The new structure should be no more than 25 feet in height. Best practices and common sense was used for the last three new structures built on Wilmot.
  7. There was no existing 2800 square foot single-family four-story structure facing the narrow alley. This would be precedence setting.
  8. The developer has been illusive in nature. From the beginning we have been opposed to a four story building in the neighborhood. It is severely out of context.
  9. When we received the latest plans, we were shocked that very little was changed.
  10. There was no request for neighborhood meetings.
  11. The sponsor provided little change to the first set of drawings and filed for an appeal ten days after the issuance of the variance.

Land Wilson

  1. Since there is an open parking lot between my home and the structure, I am concerned with the height and massing of the building.
  2. It would affect my quality of life. It would block the sunlight.
  3. Although I am not against the development, I would like them to work with us in keeping the structure consistent with the rest of the alley.
  4. I think three stories would be more appropriate than four.

Tracy Iseler

  1. I have a deeded parking space that would be right above this new building.
  2. With all the documentation, there has been no communication of how that lot would be protected and separated to maintain safety.
  3. That is a very real concern above and beyond that this is a very big structure from the one we have.
  4. We have a wonderful location and would like to preserve it.

Lu Blazej – Representing the Project Sponsor

  1. We are proposing a small project and it is in scale of what is in the area.
  2. New parking would be provided at the basement level that would provide two spaces for Pine Street.
  3. The requestor has a parapet of 40 feet in height. These stories are two stories over garage and are in a greater scale than what we are proposing.
  4. The building has been designed for the bays to stop at 27 feet.
  5. It is really a very small building. It is less than 2500 square feet of living space.
  6. The master bedroom has been modified with a pitched roof and it would not even be noticed at street level.

Vincent Tomera, Owner

  1. I called a meeting of my neighbors. When I received response, I spoke to them either in person or by telephone.
  2. One of the neighbors was concerned about her property for possible damages.
  3. After talking to her and explaining the project and procedures, she changed her mind and is in full support of the project.
  4. I am holding a letter signed by Mr. Wilson supporting the project when it was larger and now that we have reduced it, he is against it.
  5. We listened to our neighbors and the Planning Department staff and we believe it is in conformity with the guidelines.

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved the project per the granted variance; with a finding that the Project Sponsor agreed to withdraw the appeal of the variance.

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, W. Lee and Sugaya.

NAYES: Olague, S. Lee and Moore.


At this time, members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Commission has closed the public hearing, your opportunity to address the Commission must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the Calendar. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.

The Brown Act forbids a commission from taking action or discussing any item not appearing on the posted agenda, including those items raised at public comment. In response to public comment, the commission is limited to:

(1) responding to statements made or questions posed by members of the public; or

(2) requesting staff to report back on a matter at a subsequent meeting; or

  1. directing staff to place the item on a future agenda. (Government Code Section 54954.2(a))


Adjournment: 10:37p.m.



ACTION: Approved

AYES: Alexander, Olague, Antonini, S. Lee, W. Lee, Moore and Sugaya.

NOTE: Per Section 67.18 of the Administrative Code for the City and County of San Francisco, Commission minutes contain a description of the item before the Commission for discussion/consideration; a list of the public speakers with names if given, and a summary of their comments including an indication of whether they are in favor of or against the matter; and any action the Commission takes. The minutes are not the official record of a Commission hearing. The audiotape is the official record. Copies of the audiotape may be obtained by calling the Commission office at (415) 558-6415. For those with access to a computer and/or the Internet, Commission hearings are available at Under the heading Explore, the category Government, and the City Resources section, click on SFGTV, then Video on Demand. You may select the hearing date you want and the item of your choice for a replay of the hearing.

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:28 PM