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

November 9, 2006

November 9, 2006



Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, November 9, 2006

2:00 PM

Regular Meeting

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



STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris – Director of Planning, Craig Nikitas – Acting Zoning Administrator, Amit Ghosh – Chief Planner, Glenn Cabreros, Dan Sider, Steve Wertheim, Tara Sullivan-Lenane, Michael Smith, Sharon Young, Matt Snyder, Ken Rich, John Billovits, David Alumbaugh, Peter Albert, Charles Rivasplata, Kearstin Dischinger, Jonas Ionin, 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. (J. Lau: (415) 558-6383)

Presentation on Proposed Planning Code Amendments to Industrial Districts in Bayview Hunters Point - Informational Item. The Department is preparing a set of zoning modifications for certain M-1 and M-2 designated areas in the Bayview Hunters Point district. The Department is proposing this zoning update to implement various objectives from the Bayview Hunters Point Area Plan, which seeks to retain space for jobs and light industrial activities and to reduce land use conflicts between housing and industry in the Bayview. In general, the Code amendments would continue to permit a wide range of light and contemporary industrial activities, while restricting the size of retail and office development in the area. The zoning revisions will also standardize and codify existing land use policies and controls that currently discourage or prohibit residential development in these industrial zones.

Preliminary Recommendation: Hold hearing on informational item. No action is proposed at this time.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 2, 2006)

(Proposed for Continuance to December 7, 2006)


Dorothy Peterson

- Asked the Commission to allow the community's input because housing is a very big issue.

- There is a conflict because it needs to remain affordable housing and not market rate housing.

- Asked the Commission to attend meetings in the neighborhood.

- This should be continued to February.

Rev. Arelious Walker

- There is a lot of excitement from the people of Hunters Point. We want to make sure that people in the community voice their concerns and issues.

- It is very important that everybody in the area be informed. There has not been adequate notice.

- It should be continued to December 7.

Francisco Da Costa

- The Commission has a responsibility to those who pay taxes.

- It should be continued to February to allow proper public input.

- We need the material and notices to go out in various languages.

Espanola Jackson

- I would like to have this continued to February and would like to see what this plan includes.

- I want to make sure that you know we are very interested of what is going to happen.


- I got pictures of the Hunter's Point and this item should be heard today.

ACTION: Continued to January 18, 2007

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

ABSENT: Alexander

2. 2005.0486D (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

2564 SUTTER STREET - north side between Broderick and Baker Streets; Lot 012 in Assessor's Block 1053 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.01.11.2946 proposing a 35-foot rear horizontal addition and a two-story vertical addition to the existing two-story, single-family residence in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family District) and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The existing building is proposed to be lifted approximately 20 inches to allow for a three-car garage to be inserted below the existing basement level. Two additional dwelling units are proposed for a total of three units on the subject lot.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 28, 2006)

(Proposed for Continuance to December 7, 2006)


ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: Alexander

PLEASE NOTE: The Planning Commission has temporarily altered the Order of Business for this hearing. COMMISSIONERS QUESTIIONS AND MATTERS and DIRECTOR'S REPORT will follow item #11 - Market and Octavia Plan Amendments, Hearing #3.


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.


Pauline Peele, Advisory Member of Indian Basin Neighborhood Association

- Asked the Commission to schedule for discussion 900 Innes Avenue and it sounds like January 25 is the earliest.

- We have been working on this for over a year.

Julia Catalano, Reuben and Junius for Trinity Plaza at 117 Market Street

- This item was approved and forwarded to the Board of Supervisors in August.

- The Planning Code requires that the Board has to hear the item within 90-day of being approved.

- Asked the Commission to reintroduce the General Plan amendments for Trinity Plaza to start the clock again.

Francisco Da Costa

- Regarding 900 Innes, it was told at the Board of Supervisors that this structure was a school and it turned out to be false. It belongs to Joe Cassidy.

- A lot of money has been spent to do data on this project.

- Let us put to rest things like 900 Innes.

Espanola Jackson

- I would like to take you all on a tour at the Bayview Hunters Point and really look at what the community is out there.

- I took Commissioner Lee on a tour and many of the areas of Bayview are not shown in the records.

- Records became missing from moving records from one place to another.

- I want to see information on all these changes in various languages because not everybody in my community speaks English.


All matters listed hereunder constitute a Consent Calendar, are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission, and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the Commission. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the Commission, the public, or staff so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing.

Items 3a and 3b were taken off Consent and followed item 4

3a. 2005.0913D (Tape IA) (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

431 26TH AVENUE - west side between Clement Street and Geary Boulevard; Lot 005 in Assessor's Block 1458 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2003.09.26.5931, proposing to demolish an existing single-family dwelling in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low-Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the demolition


John Lau, Dickson Consulting Group, Project Sponsor Representative

- I am also in charge of the soundness report and this project has been in the process for about a year.

- Staff made a good brief presentation and I am available to answer any questions.

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and Approved

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

ABSENT: Alexander

3b. 2005.0914D (Tape IA) (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

431 26th Avenue - west side between Clement Street and Geary Boulevard; Lot 005 in Assessor's Block 1458 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of new residential building in association with residential demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2003.09.26.5941, proposing to construct a new four-story, three-family building in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low-Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed on item 3a.

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and Approved

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

ABSENT: Alexander

4. 2006.1231D (Tape IA) (K. DURANDET: (415) 575-6816)

216 TOWNSEND Street - northeast corner of Ritch Street, Lot 008 in Assessor's Block 3788 - Mandatory Discretionary Review for a proposal to procure a new Type 41 Liquor License for a full-service restaurant and wine bar (DBA  N38 : MB0600926 & MB0600925) to sell wine and beer for consumption on-site. No physical expansion, or increase in exterior dimensions of the existing building is proposed. Planning Commission Resolution Number 14844 requires a Discretionary Review hearing for all projects that involve a new or relocated liquor license or bar within the proposed Ballpark Vicinity Special Use District (BVSUD). The property is located in an SLI (Service / Light Industrial) District, the proposed BVSUD, and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and recommend approval of the referral applications


ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and Approved

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

ABSENT: Alexander


5. (Tape IA) (L BADINER/S. WEIRTHEIM: (415) 558-6350/558-6612)

Zoning Administrator announcement of the receipt of the New College of California Abbreviated Institutional Master Plan (IMP) pursuant to Planning Code Section 304.5. The Planning Commission has the discretion under Planning Code Section 304.5(d), to hold or not hold a public hearing on an Abbreviated IMP. If the Commission requests a hearing, it would be scheduled for a later date.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 26, 2006)


ACTION: The Commission decided not to hold a public hearing

AYES: Olague, W. Lee, Moore and Sugaya

ABSENT: Antonini and Alexander

6. 2006.0882A (Tape IA) (T. SULLIVAN-LENANE: (415) 558-6257)

1306-1310 MCALLISTER STREET - north side between Steiner and Pierce Streets; Assessor's Block 775, Lot 004A - Request for Certificate of Appropriateness to remove a portion of the ground floor bay and construct a new garage opening. The building is a contributory-altered building to the Alamo Square Historic District under Article 10. It is located within an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District. The Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board heard this case at the September 6, 2006, public hearing and recommended disapproval.

Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 26, 2006)

SPEAKERS on continuance consideration

John Pollard, Owner Representative

- Respectfully requested continuance to January 18 to have the full Commission and full team for the project including architects on historic preservation.

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to January 18, 2007

AYES: Antonini, W. Lee, Moore and Sugaya

NAYES: Olague

ABSENT: Alexander

7. 2006.0822D (Tape IB) (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

70-74 HARTFORD SREET - west side between 17th and 18th Streets, Lot 050 in Assessor's Block 3582 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.02.24.5386, the proposal is to construct a garage at the basement level, infill the light wells along the north side, and construct stairs at the rear of the three-unit residential building, located in a RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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


Judith Hoyam, Board member of Friends of 1800

- We are dedicated to protect the City's Historic Resources.

- This garage addition would remove 2 parking spaces near shopping centers.

- The curb cut would appropriate for private use space that belongs to the City and general public and would remove a mature tree.

- In the 1900 nothing was constructed on Hartford Street and in 1902 it was all full.

- Every house was setback for landscaping. It is the simple characteristic of this block. None of the houses were constructed with garages.

- It was created that way to provide open space.

- We are asking the Commission to require that an independent historic evaluation by a qualified consultant be part of the Environmental Report.

Mark Paez, Chair of Friends of 1800 and Co-Chair of Duboce Triangle Neighborhood Association

- This Planning Department really needs some policy guidance from this Commission to elevate this process and make more qualitative analysis for these types of proposals.

- This project in particular needs historic resource evaluation, environmental review, and careful policy consideration. We believe it is not ready for approval.

- Numerous garage additions to constructions in the Castro and Eureka Valley are being approved by the department without adequate historic evaluation and environmental review and in conflict with the criteria for the garage guidelines.

- The project is also contrary to the Transit First Policy of the General Plan and also the intentions of the Market-Octavia Plan by promoting the no longer required off-street parking.

- Take DR and require additional analysis.

Charles Chase, Executive Director of San Francisco Heritage

- This project does not conform to the Planning Department procedure for garage additions and we question the validity of staff comments on the [Secretary of] Interior Standards application in this case.

- There has not been adequate environmental review and it violates the Transit First policy of the General Plan in the Planning Department.

- Insertion of garages has a potential negative impact on San Francisco's historic resources.

- It should be fully reviewed to determine the extent of the historic fabric loss, the applicability of the Interior Standards, and how the project meets the current policies and those proposed in the Market-Octavia Plan.


- I want to echo the Friends of 1800's concern of the historic character of the neighborhood and the impact there.

- I wonder how the garage is going in without considering the mature tree.

- Finally, I have a concern about parking and taking these public parking spaces to convert it to private space. It would take away three spaces with the curb cut.

Marcus Connen, Owner

- The house needs a lot of work. The entrance way and back porch are rotted and need to be replaced. It needs new bathroom and kitchen.

- The building is on a non-cement foundation and needs to be reinforced.

- The cost of this project is about $400,000 to renovate the building to the point that these units could be rented or to sell it. Currently it is my primary residence.

- It is virtually impossible to rent or sell a house in the Castro without parking. The parking is going to be underground and it is that way on many houses on the block.

Gordon Atkinson, Architect

- The Planning Department has confirmed that this project conforms to the guidelines and regulations.

- The mandate of the Commission is to review projects only when there are extraordinary circumstances.

- We are asking permission to bring the building into compliance with DCP parking requirements for new residents, and to restore the historic ornamentation.

- There are no sidewalk improvements or removal of trees. We are proposing to build new concrete benches along the side walk as an amenity.

- There is nothing extraordinary or exceptional about this project.

- This property is not a landmark designation nor is it in a historic district.

MOTION: To not take Discretionary Review and Approved

AYES: Antonini, W. Lee and Sugaya

NAYES: Olague and Moore

ABSENT: Alexander


ACTION: The project is approved as proposed in the absence of a successful substitute motion.

Items 8a and 8c were heard together following 8b.

8a. 2005.0817CD (S. Young: (415) 558-6346)

473 HAIGHT STREET - south side between Webster and Fillmore Streets; Lot 038 in Assessor's Block 0859 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Sections 711.26 and 303 of the Planning Code to legalize an existing automatic teller machine (ATM) walk-up facility, installed without providing a 3-foot setback from the front property line. The ATM, which was installed without permit, is an accessory use to the existing tobacco shop (d.b.a. Good Fellows Smoke Shop) which houses the medical cannabis dispensary described in part (b) below. The property is located in an NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.


Brian Kuester, on behalf of Project Sponsor for item 8a

- When the project sponsor purchased the business, the ATM had been in place three years by then. They had no idea that there was no permit for it.

- As soon as they were notified by the department that a permit was required, they filed immediately.

- The charge for the use of the ATM is $1.50 where most other places charge $2.50

- If anybody has a problem, the owners handle it right away.

Danny Parker, General Council for Swipe USA LLC - Project Sponsor Representative for item 8c

- We have an alliance with Designer Brand.

-  Swipe' has been managing ATM's for seven years. They follow banking guidelines.

- One of the concerns is graffiti at this location and I want to assure you that Designer Brands owner works carefully with  Swipe' to ensure that any graffiti is removed clean within 24 hours.

-  Swipe' is a very responsible business and engages with the Police Department's Patrol Division.

- We have neighborhood support.

- I urge you to apply fundamental fairness to both ATM's and look at the contributions to the community.

Jeff Christen

- I just want to point out that this belongs to the Cannabis Club and they will use the funds from the cannabis to fill the ATM machine.

- I do not know how legal that is. Imagine having an ATM and everything else at this one location

Gary Bell [8c]

- I am here in support of the ATM. The very first goal of the Commerce Industry section of the General Plan is to maintain healthy and diverse economy.

- There are no banks anywhere within easy walking distances.

- In addition to contributing to the local economy, there is no adverse impact on city services from this machine.

- The machine has been in this location for over a year.

Hasah Khader, Designer Brands Owner

- I have been doing business on Haight Street for the last 15 years.

- There were no ATM machines before and now we have more.

- There are no complaints and it is helping to bring more people to spend more money in our community.

- Many residents and merchants support the idea of having both ATM's on our street.

Laurence Odhner

- I am the former owner of this place and during the interim term I noticed that other merchants added ATM's and none have been turned down, to the best of my knowledge.

- To turn down Mr. Khader's request, which is as valid as the others, it would be highly discriminatory.

Marwan Ouziz, Technical Manager for Swipe Management Company

- Approve the conditional use.

- Swipe has been a respectful member of the San Francisco Business community and has extended the amount of service to our customers.

Scott Hart, San Francisco Patrol Special Police

-  Swipe' has hired our services to patrol the ATM's at night and make sure that there are no problems.

- If there are any problems, they call Marwan and he contacts us to go out.


- The impression is that the ATM being next to the medical marijuana dispensary will bring a negative type of traffic. There could be a problem with marijuana and money.

- We are going backwards in the City. Look at the fact that there is more marijuana in the Haight. Putting money next to the dispensary is not a good idea.

Michael Aldrich

- I am here in support of having the ATM's at both locations.

- I want to raise a couple of points; Mohna has worked very hard to have the medical dispensary working properly and this ATM brings accessibility to people in a wheel chair.

- This ATM charges only $1.5 which is much less than most ATM's.

Juli Carter

- There were no ATM's before in the area.

- Walgreens put in the first and now there are a few. There is a need for an ATM on Sundays.

- These are the only ones available on Sundays when people come to the neighborhood and need to buy stuff or dine in the area.

Rev. Randi Webster

- I'm speaking in favor of both ATM's because of accessibility for patients of the Medical Dispensary and because the community needs this service.

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Alexander

MOTION: 17339

8b. 2005.0817CD (Tape IB; IIA) (S. Young: (415) 558-6346)

473 HAIGHT STREET - south side between Webster and Fillmore Streets; Lot 038 in Assessor's Block 0859 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Code Sections 711.84 and 790.141(h) requiring review of Medical Cannabis Dispensaries (MCDs), of Building Permit Application No. 2005.07.22.8399, to maintain the operation of an existing medical cannabis dispensary within an existing retail space occupied by a tobacco shop (d.b.a. Good Fellows Smoke Shop). The property is located in an NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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


Brian Kuester, on behalf of Project Sponsor

- The project sponsors have demonstrated to the medical cannabis community that they are the kind of people you want to run these collectives.

- They are very involved in the community and have participated in every organized activity to support and enhance the community.

- When our neighborhood requested for them to have an open house, they held two.

- When the Planning Department first sent notices in May 2005 requiring a building permit for a change of use, they were the very first one to apply and by July filed all required documents.

- They want very much to provide service to the community and are very committed to compassion.

- They provide cannabis to patients who are income limited and provide edibles to staff at Saint Mary's Hospital and Laguna Honda to be distributed to needy patients.

Juli Carter

- I have been a patient since 1995 and I have seen the evolution of the owners and the dispensary.

- They have not contributed to problems, if anything, they have helped.

Rev. Randi Webster

- They are a very good addition to the medical cannabis community.

- They are very leveling, giving, and compassionate and I have not heard any problems from them.

Percy Coleman

- I have been a patient for about two years and I am here in support of the dispensary.

- I have never had any problems. This is one of the fewest areas where you can go in and leave without fear.

David Sarmento

- I am here to support the dispensary. I have been a patient there since January 2006.

- These are good fellows and they help and work for the community. Please approve the permit.

Shep Mishkin

- I am a patient of this dispensary and they are very good people.

- I am one of the patients that get free medical marijuana.

Ed Binion

- I am here to urge you to grant the permit to this dispensary.

- They clean the streets and they patrol the streets. They keep the criminal element out and they are doing everything in San Francisco that a club should do to maintain their status.

Henry Singh

- I am a single parent and patient of this dispensary.

- They have provided me free marijuana for the last two years for my arthritis pain.

- It is very convenient being a non-smoking place and a couple steps from the bus stop.

Amy McKee

- I have been a patient of Good Fellows for over a year and I would like you give them the license to stay open.

- This is the only club that I go to because I feel the safest there. They are good people.

Dave Flackman

I have been a patient for over a year. The people are very good and they keep the area clean Leslie Thomas

- I am requesting that Good Fellowes remain open. The relationship with the owners has been mainly as an advocate.

- I was the director of a patient union and the smoke shop was generous to our patient group.

They are very good neighbors in between two not good ones.

Vergia Thompson

- I am a patient of this dispensary and they have given me free cannabis and I hope you will give the permission to keep their permit.

Robert Carltan

- I also support giving the permit without the discretionary review.

- I am also a witness of all the compassion that they have extended to all members.


- The Federal Government should look into closing down all the medical marijuana clubs in the City.

- There are a lot of citizens that do not like going to the park and there are people smoking marijuana and there are people abusing the clubs just to get the pot.

- You think about the moral value that you are trying to give to the city of San Francisco.

- I hope to see one of the members above me [the Commission] to start working with the Federal Government to close down the medical marijuana pot clubs.

James D'ahllagher, Attorney

- Unlike the other speakers, I am not a user and nor am I going to pontificate on how wonderful they are -- although they are.

- My purpose in coming is to respond to any possible arguments against the recommendation or for not granting this permit.

- So far, I heard one and I do not wish to dignify that one with a serious response. I think the people of California have spoken.

Heather Altree

- I do not think that marijuana should be legalized that way. We are not prepared for this.

- If it is going to be legalized, there should be a lot of talk about situations on how it is going to be when they are on pot, since that makes them incapable of being normal and in control of them selves.

- They should not have license to give pot even if it is for medical reasons. It should go to the drug court.

Sarah Clarke, American Safe Access

- As the medical marijuana community grows in the community, it is becoming crucial that we continue supporting that community.

- If we do not allow these facilities to remain open, we are going to have less dispensaries and more patients and traffic going to the few dispensaries remaining.

- These regulations came up to legitimize and control these facilities.

- They are very compassionate and they are doing everything the City has requested.

Kevin Reed, The Green Cross

- I just want to show my support. They are give compassionate support and they are one of twelve dispensaries that have applied for their permit.

Laurence Odnner

- I had a store adjacent to the Good Fellowes Shop and I am very familiar with them.

- I do not oppose the permit to operate there. However, I do wish to add the caveat that it should be with a conditional review.

- There is a volatile mix if we add the cannabis to that location. This facility sells pornography and dildos and crack pipes.

- Also, the hours of operation late in the evenings on the most dangerous blocks in the city without security are a concern.

Jeff Christen

- I do not oppose the cannabis dispensary but it should have the discretionary review.

- This location sells all kind of pornography and crack pipes and people are selling the pot on the street.

- I know many people spoke in favor of them but that is because they are getting free pot.

Mike McClarrinon

- I oppose this medical cannabis dispensary in that are. It would increase criminal activity.

- On November 8 at approximately 7p.m., I asked the owner about tall cylinder devices on the shelf and the lady said it was a pipe glass to smoke ice.

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and Approved as modified:

-Fixed the wall between the existing smoke shop and the medical cannabis dispensary that it goes up all the way up to the ceiling.

-Require that food stuff adhere to the City's template on labeling.

-Require secure gate to enter and exit the dispensary from and to the smoke shop.

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

ABSENT: Alexander

8c. 2006.0831C (Tape IIA) (S. Young: (415) 558-6346)

473A HAIGHT STREET - south side between Webster and Fillmore Streets; Lot 038 in Assessor's Block 0859 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Sections 711.26 and 303 of the Planning Code to legalize an existing automatic teller machine (ATM) walk-up facility, installed without providing a 3-foot setback from the front property line. The ATM, which was installed without permit, is an accessory use to an existing retail store (d.b.a. Designer Brands #4). The property is located in an NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval.

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed on item 8a

MOTION: To approve

AYES: Olague, Antonini and W. Lee

NAYES: Moore and Sugaya

ABSENT: Alexander


ACTION: Continued to January 18, 2007 so absent Commissioner can participate

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

ABSENT: Alexander

9a. 2006.0390DV (Tape IIA; IIB) (M. SNYDER; (415) 575-6891)

152 ELSIE STREET - west side between Esmeralda Avenue and Virginia Avenue, Lot 5618 in Assessor's Block 020 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.10.06.6599 proposing to construct a single-family dwelling on a vacant lot. The property is within an RH-1 (House, Single-family District), The Bernal Heights Special Use District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and approve the project as proposed.


Charles Bolton, Discretionary Review Requestor

- The main issue is that we have extremely narrow streets there. The area in question has no legal walk way.

- We have concerns about the height because the two adjacent properties are much lower.

- The other issue is the parking situation because this would be the first driveway on the west side of the street and cars coming would not be able to recognize the driveway.

- We have a requirement for 2 off street parking spaces because parking is in tight demand in our neighborhood.

- We have strong concerns about the construction impact of the elevated driveway and the ramp.

- These issues were raised before the design review board over two years ago. After that, there were no discussions, negotiation or communications with the neighborhood.

- What we are asking is postponing any decision for two months to see if we can get to an agreement and if not, this Commission could make the decision.

Lee Moulton, Project Sponsor Representative

- There is support for the project from neighbors. We have made changes to address concerns of the adjacent neighbor.

- This is a very difficult site on a down slope.

- This project is very modest – a 3 story house over a basement, 3 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms and 3 off-street parking spaces. There is also a request for a variance for exposure on the street.

- It improves the public sidewalk in front of the house. It is not accessible because it ends at a dead end in front of two houses.

- The proposal includes reconfiguring the sidewalk by making it continuous and accessible.

- This has gone to the Department of Public Works and it has been approved.

- At the neighborhood meetings under the Northwest Bernal Height Review Board, there were recommendations to reduce the house by 12 inches and it has been done.

- 8 feet has been cut from the top floor to reduce the mass of the building.

- There were two meetings with the design review board with Northwest Bernal Height and they have issued a letter approving the project recognizing the unique condition of the site.

- There have been two DPW public hearings and neighborhood meetings and Planning Department staff has recommended approving the project and not take DR.

David Kurn

- My concerns are parking and traffic issues.

- The plans show a garage with one outside space and cars driving from the crest of the hill will not be able to see the driveway.

- The parking variance should be denied because of the safety issues.

David Schreiber

- I am concerned about the parking. Look at the plan on Page S 1.1 showing that there would be one off-street parking and one on-street parking space.

- The street is so narrow that it would be difficult to enter or leave the house. Cars cresting the hill will not be able to see the driveway.

- Do not grant the variance and do not make a decision on the DR until they have time to review the traffic issues with an engineer.

Melissa Clendenny

- This new house is substantially taller than the adjacent house and will impact light and air.

- We are concerned with the ramp, sidewalk and drainage in front of our house (150 Ellis Street) eliminating the green space to replace it with concrete.

Mary Morgan

- I have three points to make: the driveway design is very dangerous. Place written conditions on it. Defer any decision until questions and concerns have been responded to and for you to physically look at the uniqueness of this street.

- Conditions need to be placed on the permit in writing because the project sponsor has not acted in good faith during this process.

Linda Goldman

- Pedestrian safety on our block is very important to us.

- We are concerned about drivers entering the proposed driveway not being able to see the pedestrians because of the narrow street and the crest of the hill.

- We are very concerned that the proposed construction will jeopardize the safety of our family and neighbors because the sidewalk will be closed during construction.

- Every time that sponsor closes the sidewalk, pedestrians will be forced to walk on a narrow street over the blind hill.

- Urged the Commission to visit the site to fully appreciate all our concerns.

Sululagi Palegk

- I think what they are proposing would be great if there were more space on that street.

- The street is so narrow that even for fire fighters it is very difficult to get down the hill.

- In case of an emergency, I am very concerned about my mother-in-law if an ambulance is needed with that driveway reducing space there.

- Urged the Commission to delay this process and request a different plan for that project.

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and Approve requiring a model of the right of way prior to construction.

AYES: Antonini, W. Lee, Moore and Sugaya

NAYES: Olague

ABSENT: Alexander

9b. 2006.0390DV (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

152 Elsie Street - west side between Esmeralda Avenue and Virginia Avenue, Lot 5618 in Assessor's Block 020 - Request for a parking variance. The proposal is to construct a house on a vacant lot that would be approximately 2,195 usable square feet, which would require two enclosed parking spaces per Planning Code Section 242(e)(4). One of the required parking spaces is proposed to be unenclosed. The property is within an RH-1 (House, Single-family District), The Bernal Heights Special Use District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed on item 9a

ACTION: Acting Zoning Administrator closed public hearing and has taken the matter under advisement.

10. 2006.1308U (Tape IIB; IIIA) (K. RICH: (415) 558-6345)

VISITACIONVALLEYREDEVELOPMENT AREA PRELIMINARY PLAN - In 2005 the Board of Supervisors adopted a Visitacion Valley Redevelopment Survey Area and asked the Planning Department and Redevelopment Agency to initiate the process for adopting a Redevelopment Project Area. According to state law, the Planning Commission must submit a Preliminary Plan, containing proposed boundaries, goals, and general land uses, to the Redevelopment Agency. Blocks and lots proposed for inclusion in the redevelopment area include Blocks 5066B, 5087, 5099 (lot 014), 5100, 5101, 5102, 5107, 6237 (lots 048, 055), 6247, (lots 002-019, 042), 6248 (lots 002, 008-022, 045), 6249 (lots 001, 002, 002A, 003, 012-023), 6250, (lots 001, 017-024, 028-031, 034-037), 6251 (lots 001-016-020, 023), 6252 (lot 036), 6308 (lots 001, 001A, 001D, 002, 002B, 003), 6309B (lots 001, 002, 018) Staff will present additional background information and ask for approval of the Preliminary Plan.

Preliminary recommendation: Approve Preliminary Plan.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 2, 2006)


Francisco Da Costa

- I have been following this for the past one and a half years.

- I am requesting you to look and be very carefully about this plan from the inception.

Robin Chiang

- I urge you to approve this portion of the preliminary plan because of the time table that was shown. We had a lot of public meetings and the process have been really open.

Fran Martin, Visitacion Plan Alliance

- We voted +9 -1 to accept the preliminary plan.

- We made a concept plan for the site with housing, community facilities, retail and open space.

- Our community suffers from the presence of a blighted eye sore in the middle of our neighborhood.

Anne Simmonds, Visitacion Valley Green Way Project

- Redevelopment is our only hope to take action.

- Please adopt the preliminary plans.

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Olague, Antonini, W. Lee and Moore


ABSENT: Alexander



11. 2003.0347EMTZ (J. Billovits (415) 558-6390/A. Rodgers: (415) 558-6395)

Market and Octavia Plan Amendments - The Planning Commission will hold a series of public hearings beginning on or after October 26, 2006, to consider Case No. 2003.0347EMTZ, adopting a Motion to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report and adopt CEQA Findings and consider resolutions to adopt amendments to the San Francisco General Plan, Planning Code and Zoning Map related to the Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan. A series of public hearings are scheduled for October 26, 2006, Nov. 2, 2006, Nov. 9, 2006, and Nov. 16, 2006. The Commission will consider and receive public comment on specific aspects of the Plan and proposed amendments at each hearing. The series of hearings will culminate in a hearing to consider adoption actions on or after Dec. 7, 2006.

The Plan encompasses an irregularly shaped area in northeast San Francisco. It extends two to three blocks in width along Market Street for ten blocks and extends north along the former Central Freeway alignment at Octavia Boulevard for ten blocks. Along Market Street, the Plan Area boundaries extend from 11th and Larkin Streets in the east to Noe and Scott Streets in the west. The boundary jogs north along Noe Street, Duboce Avenue, Scott Street, Waller Street, Webster Street, Oak Street, Buchanan Street, and Grove Street; continues north along the former Central Freeway alignment to include the area up toTurk Street between Laguna and Franklin Streets; and east of Franklin Street jogs south to Grove and Larkin Streets. The Project Area boundary extends south of Market Street between 10th and 11th Street to Howard Street. Extending west along Howard Street, the Project Area boundaries jog along Division, Clinton, Stevenson, Fourteenth, Guerrero, and Sixteenth Streets. The Project Area is comprised of 89 Assessor's Blocks in entirety or in part, including the whole of Blocks 759, 761, 768, 770, 783, 785, 792 to 794, 806 to 809, 813 to 819, 830 to 841, 850 to 858, 863 to 876, 3501 to 3506, 3512 to 3514, 3533 to 3538, 3541 to 3545, 3556 to 3560; and portions of 3507 (lot 40), 3510 (lots 49, 57), 3511 (lots 1, 23, 25, 31, 33, 74, 75, 80, 82, and 93), and 3532 (lots 14, 19B, 35, 36, 88, 89, 90 and 91).

At the hearings, the Planning Commission will consider a rezoning and public improvements program to realize the vision articulated by the community through the Market and Octavia community planning process. For more information on this six-year planning process, please visit our website at

Specifically, the Commission will consider the following actions:

· Case 2003.0347E – Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and adoption of CEQA Findings on the Market and Octavia Plan.

· Case 2003.0347M - a proposed General Plan amendment that would add a new area plan, the Market and Octavia Area Plan, and make related amendments to the Commerce and Industry, Housing, Recreation and Open Space and Transportation Elements, the Civic Center Area Plan, Downtown Area Plan, South of Market Area Plan and the Land Use Index;

· Case 2003.0347T - a proposed Planning Code text amendment that would revise Planning Code controls, including controls for land use, height and bulk, building design, loading, parking and new fees;

· Case 2003.0347Z - a proposed Zoning Map amendment that would revise Maps 2 and 2H, 7 and 7H, and 2SU and 7SU. The proposed Planning Code text and map (Zoning Map) amendments would a) establish three new zoning districts, b) amend the Hayes-Gough, Upper Market, and Valencia Neighborhood Commercial Districts (NCDs), c) update height and bulk districts, d) establish the Market and Octavia Community Improvements Impact Fee, and e) make related revisions necessary to implement the General Plan.

Together, these four Commission actions are intended to implement the Market and Octavia Plan. Generally, these changes are described on page 3 of this document.

In addition, an historic survey is currently being done of the project area; property owners considering constructing or altering a building in this area should consult with Planning Department staff to determine the historic resource status of their property. Property owners and interested parties are advised that height limits and other controls do not provide unqualified rights to development, but rather, proscribe the maximum potential building envelope that may be permitted; proposed buildings may not reach the maximum permitted building height/envelope.

Members of the public may review a copy of the proposed amendments at the San Francisco Planning Department office at 1660 Mission Street 5th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94103, at the Public Library (the Main Library 100 Larkin St., and Harvey Milk branch library, 1 Jose Sarria Ct. (near16th & Market Sts.). An electronic copy of the proposed amendments and actions is available at

Draft Schedule for Planning Commission Hearing

This calendar gives notice that the Planning Commission will be hearing the following aspects of the Market & Octavia Plan on or after November 2, 2006. Be advised that due to the nature of the public hearings, the Commission may continue any particular hearing item and/or may not hear all items at the hearing. To confirm the final Commission Hearing schedule, on the week of the hearing please visit: or call Aksel Olsen at 558-6616.

Hearing #3 – November 9, 2006

Staff will provide the presentation to the Planning Commission and members of the public on the following aspects of the Market & Octavia Plan: Transportation, Streets and Open Space; Community Improvements / Public Benefits, including a description of the proposed fee and revenue strategies, and establishment of an Implementation Advisory Committee to oversee Plan implementation. At this hearing, Planning Department staff will present information on the Plan and the Planning Commission will hear public comment on the subjects discussed at the hearing.

Preliminary Recommendation: Informational Presentation and Public Comment; No Commission Action requested.


Charles Marsteller

- I want to remind you about my previous testimony of possible soil compression issues along Market Street corridor. Densification could have an impact on the soil.

- We have transit impact development fees for commercial/industrial but not for residential. In areas for densification, we may want to expand the idea of the fee to improve public transportation systems.

Bernie Choden, San Francisco Tomorrow

- We funded the tear down of the freeway through a study that put out users of vehicles and where they are stored.

- Those are the only sensible studies that have ever been done for the last forty years and they need to be part of this plan.

- We have a problem with affordability within the central district. Fixing the neighborhood does not deal with the question of who pays for it.

Christopher Peterson

- The public transit improvement is absolutely crucial for this plan including bus route transit on Van Ness Avenue. It looks well on paper but we need to make it a reality.

- The community benefit fee increases the chances to implement those improvements.

- I support the pedestrian improvements of the plan because it would enhance the accessibility to the downtown area to visit or live there.

Curt Holzinger,  Duboce Triangle Neighborhood Association

- We feel that we have two different neighborhoods. The one along Church and Market Street support the high density but in the inner neighborhood we do not support the new zoning.

- We are concerned about the new zoning because it would increase the units from 2 or 3 units per lot to up to 8 units. It is a huge up zoning impacting the open space and transportation.

William Bulkley, Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association

- With the higher density, we need more green space. The plan elements are a model for the City as a whole.

- You are encouraged to do what you can to make this plan happen for the City.

Ed Bedard, Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association

- The car circulation through the Hayes Commercial District is a left over from the freeway traffic on Gough to Market and Franklin and Fell Streets.

- We support that the plan proposes to change Hayes Street to two-way all the way to Market Street.

Robin Levitt

- The plan really compliments the character of the Hayes Valley Neighborhood and works on things that make the neighborhood desirable with its diversity, many different housing types and a lot of potential to build.

- This district was a forgotten neighborhood with a lot of crime, central freeway and a lot of traffic. It has gotten better and this plan keeps the momentum.

Paul Olsen, President of the Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association

- We must make sure that the Market-Octavia Plan promotes the character of pedestrian orientation and to provide a choice to people that want to live in that type of neighborhood.

- Transportation improvements are imperative and this plan has it, so let it go through.

James Haas

- I was dismayed that the Citizen Advisory Group for the Market-Octavia Plan turned down the request for money to request the traffic study that is very well needed for this plan.

- There is a high priority for bumps on Grove, Hayes and Franklin Streets because after concerts people bunch up on the streets.

- The two-way Hayes Street is very interesting but seems to be infeasible.

Peter Cohen, Duboce Triangle Neighborhood Association

- We are concerned that there is no recognition of existing infrastructure and the impacts of a 33% increase of population that will have.

- We would like to see a clear delineation of how those improvements are going to happen in parts of our neighborhood.

- We have put together a list of specific things on transit and open space that should be done in this plan.

Tes Welborn

- The plan is so well integrated with all the elements.

- There are some areas that still need to be addressed being the interface of traffic at Octavia with the MUNI lines, the entrance to the freeway and around Oak and Fell Street.

- We need more public spaces and there are few lots in the area that can be conceivable for community gardens and parks.

Sarah Karlinsky, San Francisco Planning and Urban Organizations

- SPUR is supportive of the transportation element of this plan.

- We are disappointed that not all the transit and pedestrian improvements contemplated in the 2002 draft are being implemented with the plan.

- I urge you to learn more on the new metric that the Transit Authority is working on to use instead of Auto LOS [level of service]

Tom Radulovich, Executive Director of Livable City

- The plan is good but there are weaknesses on some parts like the two-way Hayes Street.

- The analysis is not sensitive to provisions for parking in terms of the model for units. There is the tendency to use the quadrant policies.

- I urge you to redouble your efforts to reform those policies.

Adam Millard

- There is much housing for this plan but we need to incorporate traffic and transit improvements.

- One of the most important elements is to convert Hayes Street to two-way.

- This is a great plan with great elements but we have to make sure that it is going to be implemented.

Karen Mauney

- I live on the corner of Oak and Laguna Street and about 40,000 cars pass by everyday and people are scared to walk.

- We are interested in the community benefits package and how that would work to make that actual plan implemented having safe streets to walk on.

Sue Hestor

- I have attended all the meetings on the Mission and South of Market and we do not have a comprehensive integrated transit plan.

- We are way behind on the transit improvements and without being able to ride on the buses people are not going to use the transit because of congestion.

Jason Henderson, Chair of the Transportation and Planning of Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association

- The North of Market Street is impacted by massive volumes of traffic.

- Hayes Street was considered to be converted to two-way in the Market-Octavia Plan and now it is being studied.

- We are very supportive of the 2002 draft version of this plan.

- Do not dilute the plan based on Auto LOS [level of service] because we also need to include transit and bicyclist LOS.


Tom Radulovich

- We are very pleased that we are starting with this principle that growth should pay for growth.

- Please think about BART. When you are adding impact development fees, think about adding BART capacity and hopefully there should be a little expense.

- Cars are the ones creating the impacts so they should pay the fees.

James Haas

- The MUNI stations on Van Ness and Civic Center are un-appealing for the Performing Arts patrons. They have not had any improvements since they were opened. There is no signage

- The proposal for the Van Ness station is too modest. It should involve a modernized station with a lot of information of activities in the downtown inviting people to use transit.

Jason Henderson, Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association

- This is really an important part of this plan and you should be very careful on how to rank it and the criteria to follow.

Tes Welborn

- This is very important for the plan and yet has the least public input. I would like to see a broader menu on benefits in California.

- South of Market, under the freeway, is going to increase noise and there was a lot of talk on improving this area.

- When the density bonus is ready for Van Ness Avenue, I would like to see it be used towards affordable housing and a community center with places for people to do things and not just sitting down on benches.

Peter Cohen, Duboce Triangle Neighborhood Association

- This is a relatively new framework since the 2002 draft plan and now we are thinking differently to really see how growth impacts the infrastructure.

- The focus for our organization has been on how community needs are identified and analyzed.

- We submitted to staff a list of summary of needs and we would like those to be addressed.

Robin Levitt

- It is very important to have this community benefit plan. As a property owner, one of the things that appealed to me is the bonus.

- Please consider the swimming pool for the community benefit. We do not have any in my neighborhood and a lot of children could benefit from it.

Alan Martinez, Castro Area Planning and Action

- The nexus that determines the fees do not take into account the need of particular populations.

- Conditional Use process need to stay and be part of this plan to ensure that larger projects meet the values and needs of the community.

Sue Hestor

- We have got to use this public benefit statement to sort out how you will deal with it.

- The Planning Commission should not move this without acknowledging that you have East SoMa, Mission, Showplace Square and Visitacion Valley, all coming through.

- In the core area, you have 5 areas that are under going planning.

- I just want to echo the needs of the community improvements and fees.

- There are three points: moving this plan forward, make sure that we have broader possible base for the fee, and direct staff to pursue some other resources as fast as possible.

Sarah Karlinsky, SPUR

- This is the first time a comprehensive plan for community benefit has been brought forward before you and it is exciting.

- One of the things that has not been mentioned and yet is important to keep in mind that the density and height proposed are part of what is going to pay for this community benefit package.



12. 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

- We need to look at the advanced calendar because I think the calendars are burning people out. I do not know if other Commissioners agree.

- I do not know if we should push the discussions out further or look at which can be moved to next year. We need to look at something.

- I want to refer to what people mentioned about LOS and I would like to calendar an item for at least as informational to the Commissioners about LOS.

- There was a resolution passed by Supervisor Mirkarimi, resolution 23306, urging the Planning Commission to update the transportation analysis under CEQA. It is rather lengthy.

- I think a lot of people were referring to it when they were talking about Auto LOS this evening.

- I think that before we even get to the place of directing the Environmental Review Officer to modify some of this, we need to better understand it.

- I would like an informational hearing on LOS maybe in January or February.

Amit Ghosh, Chief Planner

- We suggested that there be other training sessions perhaps outside of the Commission hearings on methods that are used in environmental review analysis.

- It can be covered there if your calendar does not permit anything to happen in the near future.

Commissioner Antonini

- I know it is late in the night but I could not help mentioning in regards to the 49ers situation.

- I talked often about architectural issues where the product is presented to us at the end of the process rather than us having some input in it.

- It seems that this is a situation that a lot of planning is involved in the City's negotiations.

- I am wondering if it is the role of the Planning Commission to have more input as issues that involve parking and retail and access in City Planning for something that is being discussed but we are not part of the process.

- I would wish we could be involved in things like that at an early stage because we can contribute to it.

- We will be asked to make decisions on things that sometimes never get to us because we are not involved with it.

Amit Ghosh, Chief Planner

- We hear you and will be certain that if there is anything that transpires from any negotiation we will bring it for your consideration.

Commissioner W. Lee

- My suggestion is that Commissioner Olague and Commissioner Alexander sit down with Linda Avery and decide [about moving items on the calendar]. That is your role.

Commissioner Olague

- Mr. Snyder requested that we hear item 15 next week and it will not take more than 5 minutes.

Commissioner Antonini

- I would rather have more sessions than being here at 11p.m. vs fewer sessions so as not to hold up the business before us.


13. Director's Announcements

Amit Ghosh, Chief Planner

- I have an offer to make if you want to have the Directors Report continued to next week.

- You had requested information on 900 Innes. The project sponsor has decided not to proceed with it but if you choose to calendar it for Landmark consideration we can do that.

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


15. 2003.1210C (M. Snyder: (415) 575-6891)

5600 THIRD STREET - the block bounded by Third Street on its east, Bancroft Avenue on its south, Mendell Street on its west, and Armstrong Avenue on its north, Lots 003, 005, 006, 007, 008, 009, and 011 of Assessor's Block 5421 - Informational Presentation on the design refinements for the proposed project approved under Planned Unit Development / Conditional Use Case No. 2003.1210C. The subject property is within an M-1 (Light Industrial) District and a 65-J Height and Bulk District.


ACTION: Continued to November 16, 2006

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

ABSENT: Alexander

16. 2002.0628ECKVX (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

1160 MISSION STREET - northwest side between Seventh and Eighth Streets, with additional frontage on Stevenson Street, Lots 37, 38 and 56 in Assessor's Block 3702 - Informational Presentation - Art program, as required by Planning Code Section 149, in conjunction with the construction of a 23-story residential building containing 246 condominium units.

Project withdrawn by applicant


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))


Sue Hestor

- One of your cases for next week disappeared. These are the letters saying that we are not withdrawing but telling you that you do not have to read the Capp Street stuff because we think we have an agreement.

- Second, I have been through a lot of Planning Commission [hearings] at the end of the year and the last weeks are horrible for everybody.

- Staff should be told to go light on you at the meetings at the end of the year.

- I was hearing the Board of Supervisor and there was an appeal about 2 lot subdivisions at Buena Vista Avenue, in a RH-2 neighborhood.

- The people were fighting the subdivision because the developer had been told by Planning Director Macris that they should be maximizing density on that project.

- I have heard that from too many developers.

- If the Director is telling that to developers, you should know about it.

Adjournment: 10:56 PM



ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Alexander

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 10:00:25 PM