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 

October 11, 2007

October 11, 2007



Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

October 11, 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, Scott Sanchez, Kelly Amdur, Adam Light, Craig Nikitas, Diana Sokolove, AnMarie Rodgers, Kate McGee, Ken Rich, John Billovits, Jim Miller, Sharon Young, Aaron Hollister, Michelle Glueckert, Elizabeth Watty, Edgar Oropeza and 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. 2007.0594D (A. STARR: (415) 558-6382)

4111 GEARY BOULEVARD - south side between Funston and 12th Avenues; Lot 32F in Assessor's Block 1532 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of medical cannabis dispensaries, of Building Permit Application 2007.03.30.7704, to legalize an existing medical cannabis dispensary (dba The Hemp Center) within an NC-3 (Moderate Scale, Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

(Proposed for Continuance to October 18, 2007)


Russell Kyle

- I'm in favor of the continuance because they are doing a fine job and they should be supported fully by the community.

ACTION: Continued as proposed.

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

2. 2006.1227C (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

5735-5757 Mission Street - southeast side between Whittier and Oliver Streets Lots 038, 039, 040 of Assessor's Block 6473 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 711.11 and 711.39 to develop a lot greater than 9,999 square feet in area and to demolish residential units above the ground floor in the NC-2 Small Scale Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

(Proposed for Continuance to October 25, 2007)


ACTION: Continued as proposed.

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

3. 2007.0584C (E. Watty: (415) 558-6620)

2298 MARKET STREET - northeast corner at Noe Street; Lot 015 in Assessor's Block 3560 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Section 303(e), to modify a previously approved Conditional Use Authorization in order to allow the existing large fast-food restaurant (D.B.A. Café Flore) to operate and provide outside food-service 24-hours a day, 7-days a week, and to allow  other entertainment – including amplified music – until 2 a.m. daily. The Subject Property is within the Upper Market Neighborhood Commercial District and 50-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Proposed for Continuance to October 25, 2007)


Jeremy Paul

- Continuance to October 25th is not enough time to properly work with neighbors so I'm requesting continue to December 6.

ACTION: Continued as proposed.

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


4. 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.

Commissioner Olague

- In reviewing the Action List, I was wondering about the first two items from May when we requested a report on the consultant hired last year to evaluate the internal process of the Department.

- I was wondering if you could let us know when we would have that information and how we are doing comparing our operation to like agencies.

- The second one was a request to have a discussion to learn how the Department moves forward RFPs without Commission involvement.

- Those two items have been sitting around since May.

Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator

- I will talk with Ms. John-Baptiste to follow up because both are under her purview.

Commissioner Olague

- I spoke with Ms. Avery about scheduling a Transbay special hearing at 10a.m. sometime in November; we are working on that.

Commissioner Antonini

- In the same regard, and I think there was a concurrence of the Commissioners, I requested to schedule a hearing about the tall building issue and asked to have various authorities throughout the world in this area be part of the hearing.

- I do not know if that is being calendared or being noted, but I wanted to point that out.

- There was another article in the Chronicle's Editorial section that I think is an issue that the public is interested to hear about.

- It would be good to have some testimony from structural engineers and architects and others involved in tall buildings, particularly in other areas of the world that are seismic zones.

Commissioner Alexander

- We did talk about that and I do not see it on the Action List and we can work with Ms. Avery to find a day to calendar that.

Commissioner Moore

- For a long time I wanted to ask for a hearing on Treasure Island. I think the project is at a state of maturity where it should be more that just a staff update.

- It should be a full presentation by the architects, planners and TI to have a full understanding because we are moving into the draft EIR stage soon.

- I think we should have an understanding of that before it happens.

Commissioner Antonini

- I just have a question in regards to the process and Commissioner Moore mentioned that in addition to the impact report we should have a special hearing.

- I just do not want to have a duplication type of situation where we are dealing with the same issues. So as long as it is a different subject &

Commissioner Moore

- It is a different subject because the Draft EIR is just being scoped and I think that it is very important to understand the project prior to moving to that stage.

Commissioner Sugaya

- I think Mr. Badiner held a hearing on 648 Howard or Hawthorne with TDR's and if I can get information in a memorandum at some point about that.

Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator

- It is still under consideration and they are probably finding another way to do that and at this time I am not inclined to grant the variance.

- I think they are pursuing their other options and if that changes I will let you know. That would be 1 Hawthorne at Howard Street.

Commissioner Sugaya

- Secondly, in the announcements for the new director through the Mayor's Office, there was an indication that the Acting Director would stay on in a special project capacity.

- Could we ask the Mayor's Office what they have in mind with respect to those projects?

Commissioner Olague

- I support that request also because I would be interested in knowing what those special projects are.

Commissioner Alexander

- I would not limit the request to just knowing the special projects but understanding what the role is with regard to the new director and understanding what the new vision of responsibilities would be.

Commissioner Moore

- I just wanted to point out that there is a small article in the Chronicle informing us that the court put the updated plan on hold and that is quite important for this group.

- The State Supreme Court did this yesterday and what I found interesting is that it was really published in this very few inches [measuring the space with her fingers].


5. Director's Announcements


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


Jamie Cherry, Regarding 1135, 1137 and 1139 Green Street

- I request that you direct the Department to issue 311-notice for this project and postponed the October 18 hearing until after the notice has been sent.

- The proposed project would construct 2 story structures behind the historic 1870 Green Street retaining wall. It has been under review by this Department for more than two years.

- This construction could jeopardize the stability and integrity of this landmark resulting in demolition.

John Bardis, Regarding 1135, 1137 and 1139 Green Street

- I asked the Department to send notices to residents and property owners about this project and hold the hearing after that notification and there has not been any response on this.

- The Commission should look at this very carefully and postpone the hearing on this project.

Moniu Pilpel, Planning Department Codes and Enforcement

- I sent a letter about three weeks ago about issuance of temporary use permits. I got a response from the enforcement staff but half of the questions were not really answered.

- Conditions of the permit have not been met and Mr. Badiner issued a temporary use permit ignoring the conditions from the Board of Appeals and the Codes and I ask you to question him about this property at 19th and Sloat Avenue.

Robert Omalley, Diplomatic Work

- I have letters of introduction from the Germany Consulate and the City Attorney has them.

- I have been working with the United Nations through the consulate to put a Campus of Environmental Studies here in San Francisco and probably to be at the former Federal Building and that should be coming up soon.

Sue Hestor

- We have the opportunity to do something right and that has to do with transportation with the housing density that we are planning, especially with the projects on Market Street.

- We are changing housing in that area and the Planning Department really needs to tackle transportation analysis and transit improvement.


( Tape IA ; IB) (S. SANCHEZ/A. LIGHT/C. NIKITAS: (415) 558-6326//(415) 558-6306)

ANNUAL LIMIT UPDATE - Informational presentation on the status of four entitled office development projects that have exceeded their statutory eighteen month approval period. The four projects to be discussed are: 350 Bush Street (2000.541B), 500 Pine Street (2000.539B), 801 Market Street (2000.277B) and 3433 3rd Street (2000.1269B).


Janelle Smith, Attorney for the Project Sponsor - 801 Market Street

- They are really committed to develop this property that they acquired in 2004.

- The have not found a project that is feasible for this property.

- I have a letter from the leasing agent outlining the market conditions.

Sue Hestor

- I was hoping that staff would have shown attachments that there were notices all along on these extensions but there were none because there were no notices.

- The Department has taken upon themselves to keep these projects alive indefinitely without telling this Commission or even posting notice on the site.

- This Commission needs to take this issue back and take control from staff.

- You should require annual status reports on projects and let the public know about it.

Jim Ruben, Representing owners of 350 Bush and 500 Pine Street

- Both properties need to be built together and the intention is to do that and to provide the open space at the Pine Street building which is needed for the building at 350 Bush Street.

- The housing fees were paid in September 2006 and the amount itself is convincing enough that we intent to build those buildings as fast as we can.

ACTION: Informational only. No Action is required of the Commission

Item 8 was taken out off order and followed item 10

8. 2007.0682ET (Tape IIA) (C. NIKITAS: (415) 558-6306)

Amendments to Planning Code Section 242(e)(1)(A) - Ordinance introduced by Supervisor Ammiano as part of Board File No. 071216 that would amend a portion of the Planning Code to allow electric wind turbines that meet certain requirements to exceed the height limit of the Bernal Heights Special Use District, as permitted in other districts of the City.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval



- I'm in support of allowing the wind turbines to go in.

- We feel that property owners should have the right to do what they want with their own property as long as they are not violating the rights of others.

ACTION: Approved

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


9. 2007.0511T (Tape IIA; IIB) (T. TAM: (415) 558-6325)

INSTITUTIONAL MASTER PLAN: HEALTH PLANNER: BOARD FILE 070678 - Forwarding a proposed ordinance with a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors amending the Planning Code (Section 304.5) to require a qualified health planner retained by the Department of Public Health to analyze the relationship to citywide health care needs of medical institutions' institutional master plans, revisions, and conditional use applications, to provide comments to the Planning Department, making environmental findings, and making findings of consistency with the General Plan and priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 4, 2007)


Jon Lau, Office of Supervisor Sophie Maxwell

- There are two other co-authors to the legislation, Supervisors Ammiano and Pier.

- Two basic components: add language to the existing institutional master plan requiring review by a health planner and clarifying definitions and thresholds in the IMP section of the code.

- The goal is simply to inject objective information and analysis from those in the health planning profession.

- We have to acknowledge that there are a multitude of issues surrounding medical institutions today.

- We want to be clear that this piece of legislation does not attempt to tackle those complex issues but simply build off the existing noticing and procedural requirements for institutions.

- It would add information from health professionals to the discussion around IMP for certain types of medical facilities.

- This ordinance seeks to bring additional clarity around the existing institutional master plan requirements that would be of benefit to the project sponsor, neighborhood activists and City staff.

- I believe you are going to hear from a few members of the Health Commission today as well, and certainly the Supervisor continues to welcome their involvement on this issue.

- Many have suggested language modifications to the ordinance around the issue of more formal input from the Health Commission on specific IMP.

Jim Soos, Department of Public Health

- We are here to express our support to the proposed changes to the Institutional Master Plan review process.

- Our own Health Commission has scheduled a hearing on this item as well for the 16th of October and there is a resolution attached to that.

Marc Snyder

- We are seeing many facilities changing and it is important that the City take a look at what is going on with health care facilities and its distribution.

- I support this proposal for a health planner and the amendments that are before you today.

Ron Smith, President of the Hospital Council of Northern and Central California

- We are asking the Commission to vote against the proposed ordinance because we have many great concerns outlined in the letter I've just submitted to you.

- The City has not adopted a plan describing health care needs and what role the hospitals ought to play.

- The State reserves the sole authority for health care planning under California Health and Safety Codes 12715 and 127560.

Heather Otanez, Saint Mary's Medical Center

- I urge you to vote no on this proposal because the financial impact on hospitals would be very significant.

- We already do a lot of mandated reporting to the State.

Richard Thomason, Policy Director for the Service Employees International Union

- We are here to support the ordinance as being appropriate updating of the planning requirements, which it has been in the book for a long time.

- In fact, we would like it to go further by putting in the conditional use permitting process some real planning oversight to really accomplish the objective of the policy.

Jim Illig, Member of the Health Commission

- You have received a letter from the President of the Health Commission outlining some of our specific recommendations.

- We think that on Tuesday the Commission is going to vote in favor of this legislation for providing an important tool for policy makers.

Abbie Yient, Senior Director of Mission Advocacy and Community Health Center

- Our concern with the ordinance is that as currently written it has considerable operational impacts. Please take a close look to prevent those impacts.

- You should defer this consideration until more health considerations can be heard at the scheduled hearing of the Health Commission next week or have a joint hearing.

Paul Wermer

- I'm in full support of this ordinance and I urge you to go further and make recommendations to address a couple of the issues raised earlier.

- There is no health needs assessment for the City and it should add provisions to improve community input.

Berthy Campbell-Ward, Cathedral Hill Neighbor Association

- I'm in support of the ordinance because the City needs to step in.

- We have all these private health care people and operations and we need to make certain that the City gets adequate coverage.

Wayne Hu, Chinese Hospital

- The health planner should evaluate hospitals on City wide goals.

- We need to make sure that it also allows independent hospitals to continue their operations.


- I oppose this measurement because the money used to hire this employee can be better spent to give free health care to the homeless, for example.

Sue Hestor

- Please send this legislation on with a recommendation asking the Board of Supervisors to listen and talk to the Health Department Commission.

- I would ask this Commission to agree to adopt an outreach plan as a policy and show how it should be done by staff when a project is coming through.

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Olague, W. Lee, Moore and Sugaya

NAYES: Alexander, Antonini and S. Lee


Item 10 was taken out of order followed item 7

10. 2005.0159E (Tape IB; IIA) (D. Sokolove: (415) 575-9046)

Informational Presentation and Hearing to Receive Planning Commission's Comments on Draft Program Environmental Impact Report. - Water System Improvement Program - The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) is sponsoring a proposed program, which consists of a series of facility improvement projects and a water supply strategy that, together, implement the SFPUC's service goals and system performance objectives for the regional water system in the areas of water quality, seismic reliability, delivery reliability, and water supply through the year 2030. The proposed program runs through several California counties, including Tuolumne, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Alameda, Santa Clara, San Mateo and San Francisco counties. Additional hearings were held throughout the proposed program area, including one on September 20, 2007 before the Planning Commission. The SFPUC and the Planning Department will provide information to the Planning Commission about the Water System Improvement Program and the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report; the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report analyzes the environmental impacts of the Water System Improvement Program.

Preliminary Recommendation: No Action Required. Informational presentation and hearing to receive comments on the Program EIR.



Susan Leal, General Manager of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission

- We are pleased to be here today and to have the opportunity to give a brief presentation on our water system.

Tony Irons, Deputy General Manager of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission

- The first task before us was to create a program that can be reviewed by the public and allow public comments.

- There are four categories: seismic, delivery reliability, water quality, and supply.

- In the early 90's; the Bay Area Economic Forum published documents that stated that in the event of a major earthquake, the economic impact on that seasonal water would be catastrophic.

- The State kind of responded by passing three legislations back then.

- There would be great danger to the Bay Area with health issues if we do not do this.

- We have established a time table for the end of 2014 to have this program completed because of the danger to health and safety should an earthquake occur.

- We have very aggressive goals. More in fact more than any other jurisdiction because we cross three earthquake faults.

- The delivery reliability is that this system has to have this major program done for it because it has not had maintenance for 70 years.

- Water quality stipulates that we will comply with all present and known future water regulations either from State and/or local government.

- Water supply identifies two overarching issues: delivery capacity on an average of 300 million gallons of water a day to the overall service area; and that during a draught there would be a maximum rationing of 20 percent of average delivery of water.

- Those guidelines provide us as management to this program the ability to design all of these individual projects as an interwoven continuum and establish the design for each one.

- All of the improvements are a result of the deterioration of the system and the necessity to provide for earthquake protection.

- This is a City run and City managed program.

- Our biggest challenge is to get contractors to bid on these projects because of its size.

Peter Drekmeier, Director of the Tuolumne River Trust

- Our organization is 100 percent supportive of the seismic upgrade to the system. However, we are very concerned about the proposal to divert up to 25 million gallons of water per day.

- We have worked with the Sierra Club and Clean Water Action to provide comments and there are over 60 pages and a short executive summary.

Art Jensen, General Manager for the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency

- We reviewed the report. It is very conscientious and we believe is meeting CEQA [California Environment Quality Act] requirements.

- There are two areas that we think needs to be improved. It does not convey the risk and urgency for building the water system without delay; and the impacts to public health and safety would be dramatic.

John Rizzo, Sierra Club

- We fully support the critical seismic upgrades and our comments focus on the inadequacy of the Environmental Review of the proposal to divert an additional 25 million gallons per day.

- Our comments include: inadequate analysis of the impacts inside Yosemite National Park, faulty growth statement relying on old public studies, inadequate mitigation, lack of consideration of global climate change, and others inadequacies as well.

ACTION: This was an informational presentation and action by the Commission is not required. Commissioner Sugaya was excused.

11. (Tape IIB; IIIA) (K. McGEE: (415) 558-6367)

BALBOAPARKSTATION AREA PLAN INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATION - The Balboa Park Station Area Plan is one of the three pilot projects of the Better Neighborhoods Program. The Plan lays out a two-part vision of providing housing opportunities close to transit, and re-engineering the area's public facilities. The draft Neighborhood Plan was published in 2002. The Draft Environmental Impact Report was released on September 22, 2007. This presentation aims to inform the Planning Commission of the Plan's goals, including a broad overview of its plan elements. The presentation will also serve as an up-date on work to date, and inform the Commission of upcoming events as the Plan moves closer to being before the Planning Commission for adoption.

Preliminary Recommendation: No action requested, informational item.


ACTION: Informational presentation. No action required of the Commission

12a. 2007.0242CV (Tape IIIA) (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

875 Post Street - south side between Leavenworth and Hyde Streets, Lot 014 in Assessor's Block 0303 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to reduce the parking requirement by one off-street parking space pursuant to Planning Code Section 161(h) in connection with the proposed construction of four dwelling units in the ground floor of the existing building. There would be no physical expansion of the existing building. Requests for Variances from the rear yard, open space, and dwelling unit exposure requirements of the Planning Code will be considered by the Zoning Administrator at the same hearing. The site is within an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined, High Density) District, the North of Market Residential Special Use District (Subarea no. 2), and an 80-T Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 6, 2007)


Tracy - Reuben and Junius

- We contacted HUD [Department of Housing and Urban Development], The Mayor's Office of Housing, and The Tenderloin Housing Clinic and we did not find evidence, restriction or conditions on the basement space.

- There would be sufficient light, air and open space for the four units and they will be affordable to middle income residents.

- The project is consistent with the City's transfer and preservation policy.

- We are increasing density within an existing envelope.

Robert Gimelli

- I am not opposed to increasing housing or density in the City but I find this a poor choice of space. It is like warehousing people.

- It would be a more appropriate use of this space to create community space and have two units in the front to satisfy both needs: amenities and housing.


- Questioned whether there is federal funding involved in this project.

- If there is federal money involved, the public has a say in this and you should try to do the best for the people that are the neediest.

- It is worth it to look into other considerations for better use of this space.

MOTION: To approve with an amendment that Project Sponsor contact and work with The Tenderloin Housing on community space.

AYES: Alexander, Antonini and Sugaya

NAYES: Olague, Moore and S. Lee


Motion Failed

ACTION: Continued to October 25, 2007 to allow the absent commissioner the ability to participate in the final action.

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


12b. 2007.0242CV (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

875 Post Street - south side between Leavenworth and Hyde Streets, Lot 014 in Assessor's Block 0303 - Request for Variance of Planning Code standards for rear yard, usable open space and dwelling-unit exposure in connection with the proposed construction of four dwelling units in the ground floor of the existing building. There would be no physical expansion of the existing building. The site is within an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined, High Density) District, the North of Market Residential Special Use District (Subarea No. 2), and an 80-T Height and Bulk District.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 6, 2007)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed on item 12a.

ACTION: Zoning Administrator continued this item to October 25, 2007

13. 2007.0708C (Tape IIIA) (S. YOUNG: (415) 558-6346)

311 - 12TH AVENUE - southwest corner of Clement Street and 12th Avenue; Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 1444: Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Sections 716.54 and 303 of the Planning Code to convert a vacant commercial space (previously occupied by a chiropractic office) with approximately 672 square feet of floor area into a massage establishment with accessory acupuncture and personal service uses (d.b.a. Clement Service Center) on the ground floor of an existing residential and commercial building in the Inner Clement Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposed massage establishment will provide Thai and Swedish massage services and accessory acupuncture and personal services for facials and other skin and beauty treatments. The proposal will involve tenant improvements to the existing commercial space. There will be no expansion of the existing building envelope.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.


Tony Phuong

- The owner received recommendations from neighbors. [He submitted letters.]

- The only changes to the location would be handicap access and lighting to comply with Title 24.

Don Gieb

- I just wanted to give personal and business references. The owner is a good tenant causing no problems.


- I'm speaking in favor of this establishment being allowed to open because they have a legitimate lease.

Silvia Johnson

- This is a good project and it has to do a lot with arts that is being explored.

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Antonini and W. Lee

MOTION: 17498

14. 2006.1148KC (Tape IIIA; IIIB) (A. HOLLISTER: (415) 558-9078)

1149 Jackson Street - south side between Jones and Taylor Streets, Lot 019B in Assessor's Block 0189 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to construct an addition above a height of 40 feet in a residential zoning district. The proposed project is the addition of a partial fifth floor to the existing four-story, six-unit building. The project site is within an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions


Tracy - Reuben and Junius

- The project is modest and we have worked in collaboration with staff and the project sponsor to design the addition with substantial setbacks on the front and the rear.

- It does not have substantial new shadows.

- It is a vertical addition and it is much smaller than the existing footprint and is set back 15 feet at the front property line and 12 feet at the rear.

David Toy

- We would like to have this modest addition to our house and live in it through our retirement years.

- We are very active and would like to fulfill the American dream by having this house close to Chinatown.

May Toy

- I live directly adjacent uphill and the case has been made that it is taller than its surrounding buildings.

- All neighbors sent letters and respectfully asked that you not approve this project because it is already 4-stories and this project would make it 5-stories.


- I'm in support of this project because we live in a City where it is better to build up and not out.

- People are driven out of San Francisco and anything we can do to alleviate that should be done.

ACTION: Disapproved

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

ABSENT: Olague and Antonini

MOTION: 17499

15. 2007.0579D (Tape IIIB; IVA) (M. GLUECKERT: (415) 558-6543)

122 10TH STREET - west side between Mission Street and Howard Street; Lot 059 in Assessor's Block 3510 - Mandatory Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2007.05.18.1730s to maintain operation of an existing Medical Cannabis Dispensary (d.b.a.  San Francisco Medical Cannabis Clinic ). The parcel is located within a C-M (Heavy Commercial) Zoning District and a 130-L Height and Bulk District.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 6, 2007)


Terrance, Project Sponsor's Representative

- On the issue of ventilation, I want to assure you that we have two bids for this MCD [Medical Cannabis Dispensary]. It should be done and it will be done.

- Clarified the situation where it was said that this club has violated San Francisco's Sanctuary Ordinance because of a conflict with an MCD activist.

Lynnette Shaw

- I do not object to the land use of this site. However, the project sponsor's action in Federal Court of trying to add names to the conspiracy caused a lot of problems in the cannabis community.

Catherine Smith

- Project Sponsor is not going to provide safe access for our medical patients or keep up our sanctuary status. This Commission should consider that.

Jon Martinelli

- It is illegal to sale marijuana for profit in the City and by California Law.

- Project Sponsor does not care about patients and this is a wrong use of this property.

Shona Gochonar

- We have to take a serious, slow, and strong look at this because we need this project but not with this operator.

David Cohen

- These clubs, when they start off, gave a tremendous amount of services to members of the community.

- Project Sponsor is a danger to members of our community.

George Price

- This does come down to sanctuary status and the protection of cannabis users in San Francisco. Allowing this facility to continue will have a negative effect in the community.

- I urge you to not approve the continued operation of this service permit.

Wayne Justmann

- I have heard statement this evening that have no basis of fact.

- I'm embarrassed to see the hatred and evil that now exists in our community.

Danny Foos

- This dispensary has absolutely no compassion and this person has turned several testimonies. It is written in the court's documents of whom he testified against.

Denise Dorey, Access of Love

- The project sponsor is more helpful to the feds than to his patients.

- It is about land use and safe access to Medical Cannabis.

Walter Henry Jones

- I have appeared before this Commission in favor of a number of dispensaries but this is not one of those occasions.

Michael Aldrich

- This is one of the few places that is 1,000 feet away from schools, allows on site smoking, and is a safe place for patients to get off the street.

- Patients are the ones who choose whether they want to go or not to this dispensary.


- The most important thing is that we need to keep open every single dispensary in San Francisco.

Albert Blais

- The sanctuary status is being violated.

- The club is good but the owner is the bad apple in the bunch and has got to go.

Cheryl Lynn

- This establishment exploits patients. Twice they have been asked to sign a form to assign care givers status with no explanation.

David Goldman

- I live in the neighborhood and am speaking in favor of this dispensary because the City needs these clubs to remain open for the people.

Silvia Johnson

- A lot of this stuff needs to be cleared out because that is not why the ordinance took place.

Kevin Reed

- The Patients Collectives are run by patients and if there are no patients that support a land use in the City, we should not keep it.

- I do not here any land issues regarding this facility and it needs to continue to be opened for patients.

Michelle Aldrich

- We need to keep all the dispensaries open because a lot of them are not going to pass and they serve their patients well.

- How many dispensaries feed their people?

Russell Davis

- I am speaking in favor of this dispensary because there is compassion in that building. [He shared his own experience at this club.]

Rand Crook

- I have worked with project sponsor and am speaking in favor because of his efforts and good work have been well acknowledged over his years of service in this community.

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved as submitted without changing the hours of operation.

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

ABSENT: Antonini

16. 2007.0673D (Tape IVA) (E. Watty: 415-558-6620)

194 Church Street - northwest side between 14th Street and Duboce Avenue; Lot 016 in Assessor's Block 3537 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Code Sections 721.84 and 790.141 requiring review of Medical Cannabis Dispensaries (MCDs), of Building Permit Application 2007.06.29.5642, to maintain operation of an existing MCD (d.b.a.  San Francisco Medical Cannabis Clinic, Church Street ). The property is located within the Upper Market Neighborhood Commercial District and a 80-B Height and Bulk District.

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


Terrance, Project Sponsor's Representative

- My previous comments really were directed to both clubs and if there is any specific question or issues of the Commissioners, I would be happy to answer them.

- The two clubs are similarly situated. The possibility to have legally onsite smoking is good for patients. It gives them a place to be medicated, eat and socialize to prevent isolation.

Jon Martinelli, Access of Love

- You have in your packages a petition from 1500 people and I would like to add 87 more.

- This place is not accessible for disable people. It is for profit.

[No name stated]

- This facility is located on the second floor with no accessibility. The project sponsor has not made any effort to have any type of patient services.

David Cohen

- I represent people in wheelchairs and this facility is not ADA [American Disabilities Act] accessible.

George Price

- This place is not wheelchair accessible. It is a big issue and they should not be operating.

Rand Crook

- Accusations made today are false.

- They give tickets for social events, massage therapy, and food. The sponsor himself has driven the medicine to patients.

Denise Dorey

- This landmark status should not be excused to avoid ADA compliance.

Michael Aldrich

- I do not see any reason in terms of safe access for all patients to close one of only two dispensaries left in the Castro.

- The Board of Supervisors has given this dispensary the opportunity to improve their wheelchair access and to work out the landmark issue.

- We should approve this facility as proposed.


- You should consider hearing the items in the order of the number of people present to speak on them.

- The issue of accessibility is not economically feasible and you should be able to decide what you want to do with your own property. You should have the choice what to do with it.

Albert Blais

- This is about the cannabis community.

- We have to work together and the owner of this club just will not do it.

Andrew Abels

- [Shared own experience with the club and the services they provide.]

- We need that place to stay open.

David Goldman

- I understand that disabled patients have been able to get their medicine brought to them without any charge.

- We should use our energy promoting the dispensaries and not trying to destroy them.

Cheryl Lynn

- The operator does not like to appear publicly but he does like to sign us up for phony grow operations.

- There is a great deal of profit being made here.

Wayne Justmann

- This was the first dispensary recognized in San Francisco.

- They serve patients.

- Statements and accusations being made are not on factual basis.

Russell Davis

- We are a community and we need to stay as such.

- This is about land use and not personal stuff.

[No name stated]

- The Commission is here to support the process of passing permits and as far as I know this applicant has met all the criteria that you have put on them.


- You are in a place to get permits on a building.

- I ask that you base the decision on meeting the criteria and not on what people feel personally about an individual.


- We need to keep this club open because it is the first club ever recognized by local officials.

Silvia Johnson

- I do not think that any of this should be taking place. It is a discrimination to discuss what is right or wrong.

Kevin Reed

- Our community is before you requesting this facility to be open.

- This collective deserves the right to operate just like every other collective located in this City.

- Give them that chance.

Russell Kyle

- We are supposed to be a sanctuary city. It is not community when one party goes after the other in Federal Court. It is not justifiable.

Mark Anthony Romero

- I would like this cannabis to remain open but to go under different management.

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved as proposed with the hours of operation as stated by staff - Monday - Saturday 11a.m. to 7p.m. and Sunday 11a.m. to 5p.m.

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

NAYES: Olague

ABSENT: Antonini

17. 2007.0631D (Tape IVA; IVB) (E. Watty 415-558-6620)

1545 Ocean Avenue - south side between Capitol and Miramar Avenues; Lot 011 in Assessor's Block 6936 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Code Sections 711.84 and 790.141 requiring review of Medical Cannabis Dispensaries (MCDs), of Building Permit Application 2007.06.20.4494, to maintain operation of an existing MCD (d.b.a.  Nor-Cal Herbal Relief Patients' Cooperative ). The property is located within an NC-2 (Neighborhood Commercial, Small Scale) Zoning District, Ocean Avenue Fast-Food Sub-district, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve with conditions.


James Anthony, Land Use Attorney – Project Sponsor

- I am the project sponsor and will just pass to the community organizer.

Alex Franco, Community Organizer

- The condition addresses a problem with the previous tenant. The present applicant has not used the residential space. We accept the proposed conditions by staff.

- Also, we are requesting that they be allowed to cultivate in a 10 x 10 area on the ground floor but separate from the area that would be accessible to the patients.

- Collectives are allowed to cultivate up to 99 plants.

- We have opened communication with neighborhood associations and merchants and are working to improve the area.

- We sponsor patient's organizations and contribute to the community.

Daniel Mendez, Applicant

- Our dispensary is a benefit to the community. It provides a safe place, support, food and medicine.

- I am located on the green zone in San Francisco and I have done everything in my power to obey the law.

Christina Ja Jeh

- There are so many people in need and we feel strongly that compassion is why we are in business.

- We will continue this program and expand it as needed to grow.

- I facilitate a support group that is held every week. It is a great chance for patients to help patients.

- We as a group have a great feeling of responsibility in our community and we will uphold that by being a respectfully dispensary.

Silvia Johnson

- People are dying; please help them.

Autumn Weickum

- Nor Cal has been wonderful and life savers. Our community appreciates them for being there with all the activities.

Shona Gochonar

- This is the best way to end this evening because it is exactly what I love to hear [compassionate program]


- I am a patient but a resident of San Mateo. We do not have any dispensaries there.

- It is very important to keep them open because it is like a family.

Leroy Bermudez

- I am in support of the dispensary because the applicant has supported the community's youth and victims of gang violence.


- [Shared an experience of being a patient and them helping ease the needs and pain.]

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved with a condition to require permits for change of use for the residential unit.

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

ABSENT: Antonini

18. 2007.0628D (K. CONNER: (415) 575-6914)

2200 17TH AVENUE - east side at the southeast corner of the intersection with Rivera Street; Lot 039 in Assessor's Block 2333A - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2007.01.26.2734, proposing a third-story vertical addition, a two story southern side horizontal addition, and a rear horizontal addition to allow for egress stairs to a single-family dwelling in a RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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


ACTION: Without hearing, continued to October 25, 2007

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

19. 2006.1413D (Tape IVB) (E. OROPEZA: (415) 558-6381)

1845-1851 MARKET STREET - south side between Guerrero and Pearl Streets; Lot 43 in Assessor's Block 3502 - Mandatory Discretionary Review under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of removal of a legal dwelling unit, for Building Permit Application no. 2006.1019.5508. The merger would reduce the number of legal dwelling units from 3 to 2 within the building fronting on Market Street. The property is located within the NC-3 (Moderate Scale) Neighborhood Commercial District, the Mission Alcoholic Beverage Special Use Subdistrict and a 105 / E Height and Bulk District.

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


Silvia Johnson

- There is no problem to me and we need it on Market Street. Always be strong and hold on to our community.

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved requiring the removal of a bathtub (bathroom) and the Project Sponsor is to keep working with staff on any further designs.

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

ABSENT: Antonini


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

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



Adjournment: 9:50 P.M.



ACTION: Approved

AYES: Alexander, Olague, Antonini, S. Lee, W. Lee 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 10:00:30 PM