SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, July 13, 2006

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: President Dwight Alexander; Michael Antonini; William Lee; Kathrin Moore; Christina Olague; and Hisashi Sugaya

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT DWIGHT ALEXANDER AT 1:48 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris – Director of Planning; Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator; Amit Ghosh; Glen Cabreros; Kimberly Durandet; Mary Woods; Dan DiBartolo; Susan Cleveland-Knowles – Deputy City Attorney; Linda Avery – Commission Secretary

• CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

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. 2006.0537D (E. WATTY: (415) 558-6620)

1678 Great Highway - east side between Moraga and Lawton Avenues, Lot 026, in Assessor's Block 1895 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit 2006.02.01.6549 proposing to legalize work performed without permits, including reconstructing the rear of a single family dwelling. The subject property is located in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 22, 2006)

(Proposed for Continuance to July 27, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

2. 2006.0050DD (I. WILSON: (415) 558-6163)

3577 PACIFIC AVENUE - south side between Locust and Spruce Streets; Lot 014 in Assessor's Block 0970 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.10.07.5061, proposing to add a third story, expand the building at the rear, and alter the front facade. The property is located within an 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 building permit application.

(Proposed for Continuance to July 27, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

3. 2006.0673D (I. WILSON: (415) 558-6163)

70-72 NIDO AVENUE - east side between Vega and Turk Streets; Lot 022 in Assessor's Block 0970 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.03.01.5727, proposing to add a fourth story that is setback 27'-0 from the front building wall; add a 6'-0 x 6'-8 deck at the southeast (rear) corner of the second floor; alter window sizes and provide entry awning at the front of the building. The property is located within an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 30-X Height and Bulk District. Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the building permit application.

(Proposed for Continuance to August 3, 2006 to July 20, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued to August 3, 2006

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

4. 2002.1263U (J. SWITZKY 575-6815)

333 Fremont Street - Motion to Approve In-Kind Agreement to Satisfy Rincon Hill Community Infrastructure Impact Fee Requirement per Section 318.3(e). The Planning Commission approved a project at 333 Fremont Street on June 16, 2005, that includes approximately 88 dwelling units. Planning Code Section 318.3(b)(i) requires payment of $11.00 per net occupied square foot of residential development for the Rincon Hill Community Infrastructure Fund prior to issuance of site permit. The project required a payment of approximately $769,142. On March 14, 2006, the project sponsor deposited the full amount of its required fee, plus interest, into an escrow account payable to the City, pending approval of an In-Kind Agreement that would credit the sponsor for a portion of the fee in exchange for publicly accessible improvements in accordance with the Rincon Hill Plan. The project sponsor has entered into an In-Kind Agreement with the City, to the satisfaction of the Planning Department and City Attorney, to construct, and dedicate a permanent public easement on, a mid-block pedestrian pathway on the project site. The Planning Department recommends a fee credit equal to construction cost of the pathway improvements (approximately $240,000) plus the value of the public easement ($333,200), or approximately $573,200 total. The City would thus draw from the escrow account the difference of the full fee and this credit, or $195,942, and deposit this amount in the Rincon Hill Community Improvements Fund.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

(Continued from the Regular Meeting of June 22, 2006)

(Proposed for Continuance to July 20, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

Commission Minutes– Charter Section 4.104 requires all commissioners to vote yes or no on all matters unless that commissioner is excused by a vote of the Commission. Commissioners may not be automatically excluded from a vote on the minutes because they did not attend the meeting. A vote on the minutes is different from a vote on a permit; the vote doesn't have the same adjudicative and due process implications.

5. Consideration of Adoption:

• Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of January 26, 2006.
• Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of February 9, 2006.
• Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of May 25, 2006.
• Draft Minute of Regular Meeting of June 22, 2006.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: The minutes were approved

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Lee, and Olague

EXCUSED: Moore and Sugaya

6. OFFICERS: In accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the San Francisco Planning Commission, the President and Vice President of the Commission shall hold office for one year and until their successors are elected. In the event of the absence or inability to act of the President, the Vice President shall take the place and perform the duties of the President.

ELECTION OF VICE PRESIDENT: The Commission may take action to elect a Vice President to complete the one-year term (through 2006) with the ability to continue to hold office until their successor is elected.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Commissioner Olague elected as Vice President

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

7. Commission Comments/Questions

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

SPEAKERS:

Commissioner Antonini

1. There was an article in the Chronicle on Monday in the Forum Section I thought encapsulated a lot of what some of us have been saying in regards to the fact that if we don't build enough housing for the middle class it adds to urban sprawl and an environmental issue.
2. I thought it was well presented.
3. The conclusion was, what is the solution?
4. For the people who can stay in San Francisco and are able to buy or rent here and feel of a like mind, they should and do show they are active politically.
5. This is a message we here often, that people basically are not active, they don't vote and don't register.
6. The totals from the last primary were disturbing.
7. The key is if you feel this way or whatever your position is, it is important that you make your voice heard and be active.

Commissioner Lee

1. A couple of requests for staff
2. A couple of years ago I asked for the numbers of registered cars and trucks in San Francisco.
3. I would like to see if we could get the DMV number of registered cars and trucks in the city.
4. We are not building more parking lots as a City policy.
5. [We need to see] if there is a way we can figure out how many parking spaces we have in the city.
6. This is an issue on Geary and Downtown.
7. I think it would be good to have an update.
8. The Arts Task Force report. I want to know if that was scheduled.
9. Regarding administration: Last year we went through this hiring and I want to find out the number of people we hired, the ethnic breakdown and the number of men and women we hired.
10. Also, on the State ballot in the fall there is a bond measure for affordable housing. I want staff to look at that and see how much money is available if it passes and how much can San Francisco get?

Commissioner Olague

1. I want to know what the status of the 199 Leland housing project is?
2. Are we going to have a hearing? Is that something we can request?

Zoning Administrator Badiner responded

1. Commissioners, those of you who were here recall we had a hearing on senior housing and the requirements. There were three projects in this area. One of them was 199 Leland.
2. The other two projects are in permit stages, but have not received them.
3. This project is constructed and what was before us was pending a General Plan review of the condominium subdivision.
4. At the conclusion of the hearing, I asked the commissioners if you wanted to see the projects and I did not focus on 199 Leland.
5. I did not understand that the Commission had a vote or consensus that they wanted to see these.
6. This would not normally come before you, as it is a condominium subdivision.
7. If the Commission wants to see it you can request it.
8. It's a recommendation we make to DPW for their ultimate approval or disapproval.
9. It is appealable to the Board of Supervisors, as I understand it.
10. This would not normally come before you.
11. There is controversy.
12. The building is built and approved and doesn't normally come before the Commission.
13. If you request it to come before you, we can do that.

Commissioner Olague

1. There is interest on behalf of the neighbors, and Senior Action Network, and other organizations in town.
2. It seems there is interest in having it heard here.

Zoning Administrator Badiner

1. I think the appropriate process is whether there is a consensus [on the Commission].

Commissioner Olague

1. I'd like to request a vote.
2. If there is a consensus we will hear it. If not, fine.
3. I move we hear 199 Leland.

[Note from Commission Secretary: The motion did not receive a second. The motion dies.]

Commissioner Antonini

1. Can I ask a question?
2. What is the issue?

Commissioner Olague

1. There was a discussion on Senior Housing.
2. There were issues that were raised around that particular project by Senior Action Network.
3. Neighbors also had concerns.
4. Because they don't have the right to request discretionary review, it would be up to us to request that we have a hearing here.
5. It seemed there was community desire to see that that issue be brought before us.

Commissioner Antonini

1. What I'm hearing is this is appealable to the Board of Supervisors anyway.
2. If a decision is granted in favor of this project and then there is some feeling that they want to appeal they appeal to the Board of Supervisors?

Zoning Administrator Badiner

1. That is my understanding.

Commissioner Antonini

1. We would be another step.
2. If we heard it then the Supervisors would not?

Zoning Administrator Badiner

1. They could also hear it too if it was appealed.
2. Your hearing it does not preclude the Supervisors hearing it.

Commissioner Antonini

1. I'm trying to figure out what we would gain other than taking longer time.
2. If they feel strongly they will find a way to appeal to the Board of Supervisors, I guess.

Commissioner Olague

1. I guess what I will do is have conversations with people.

Zoning Administrator Badiner

1. We will take that into account.
2. There is a serious question raised about whether it meets the laws for senior housing.
3. That question has been raised to us and we will take that into account.
4. I throw out another point: It may require physical modification to the building. It will require a building permit. That building permit is subject to discretionary review.

Commissioner Lee

1. One Rincon revised their plans because of seismic issues.
2. Putting water towers on top of One Rincon, will that affect the height?

Zoning Administrator Badiner

1. In our technical terms, it is not a revision.
2. In this case the Department approved a project, it goes to the site permit and the Building Department who reviews for safety and structure.
3. There is always a lot of back and forth after it goes to the Planning Department.
4. The new water towers for the building will not shake as much.

Commissioner Lee

1. The height with the three water towers will not exceed what we approved on One Rincon?

Zoning Administrator Badiner

1. That is correct.

Commissioner Lee

1. My second question: There is a proposal to do gay/lesbian senior housing on Laguna. Legally do we have a right to earmark housing strictly for sexual preferences or not?
2. I'm trying to figure out if Mark Leno is going to sponsor something for gays and lesbians.
3. Two years ago they wanted it strictly for gays and lesbians. Can we require this has to be senior?
4. Can we earmark a project for senior housing for gays and lesbians?

Deputy City Attorney Zoning Administrator Badiner

1. I don't have an answer today. I think we would have to look into this further and get back to you.

Director Macris Dan Sider of Department staff

1. I have been working closely with Supervisor Dufty and Mirkarimi on this issue.
2. We are trying to work out an arrangement so the project can proceed.
3. We will keep the Commission informed on this circumstance.
4. We are very intensely involved in trying to work out something that would allow this project to go forward.

President Alexander

1. I want to formally welcome our two new commissioners – Kathrin Moore and Hisashi Sugaya.
2. They will be a great addition.
3. They bring a wealth of knowledge and experience.
4. I'm pleased to have them here.

Commissioner Sugaya

1. I bring greetings from the Board of Appeals.
2. They promised me that whatever I vote for they will oppose.

Commissioner Moore

1. Citizens Advisory Committee and the Port Design Review Committee

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

8. Director's Announcements

Director Macris

1. Commissioners, on behalf of the staff, I would like to say welcome to the new commissioners.
2. We look forward to working with you.
3. Congratulations to Commissioner Alexander and Olague as our two new officers.
4. We are looking forward to this.
5. We are not going to have much of a grace period because sometime in August, early, we will look at a very major project on Market Street – Trinity Plaza. We will also have Market Octavia Better Neighborhood's plan for you for initiation in August and your consideration in September.
6. Today I'd like three of our staff to give you a quick summary of things that occurred during the week.
7. Sarah Dennis is our staff person that's been working with the Board of Supervisors and conducting our analysis of inclusionary zoning – a report that is of major significance to the affordability picture for our city.
8. Alicia John-Baptiste will give us a summary on the fee schedule for the department, which you participated in building.

Alicia John-Baptiste

1. I'm the Chief Administrative Officer for the Planning Department.
2. I'm pleased to report that this past Tuesday the Board approved our fee schedule at its first reading at the full Board.
3. The Department has been working on this for over a year.
4. We went through a rigorous process to establish a proposed fee schedule that (1) set our fees at cost recovery; and (2) established a way of starting to recover our long-rang planning costs.
5. In the past it covered our current planning costs [only].
6. This establishes long-range planning.
7. The purpose of the structure is to provide for subsidy areas for preservation and public access.
8. The proposed fee structure establishes fees for appeals.
9. That was the guidance that we received at the various meetings with the Commission.
10. That was the package we put together and was adopted by the Supervisors on Tuesday.
11. Supervisor Peskin was instrumental in bringing the package forward and worked on the fee proposal.
12. There were modifications to the fees.
13. One was to establish an exemption for neighborhood organizations filing appeals.
14. We have a $400 appeal fee for the appeals we are involved with.
15. Neighborhood organizations could seek a waiver of the fee.
16. We initially proposed a Discretionary Review fee of $400 and it was reduced to $300.
17. The other hundred or so fees that went forward were adopted and those are starting on September first.
18. We are trying to get our systems in place.
19. I want to mention as we finalize the budget process we will be back in front of you in the second week of August to update you on the final adopted budged for fiscal year '07 including our work program.

Director Macris

1. The Department was fortunate this week to get a major grant.
2. I've asked David to describe the nature of the grant and the amount of the grant.
3. Theresa [Ojeda] has brought evidence that we have the grant.

David Alumbaugh

1. Welcome to the new commissioners.
2. As many of you may know from past presentations, the department has a program for coordinated street design and planning.
3. We now have a robust team and public realm design program.
4. We are moving forward with that program.
5. We have on your calendar for the 27^th a presentation on Leland Avenue.
6. At that time I would like to present an overview of the Street's Program.
7. Today, the Director talked about the State Public Housing and Community Development to the Work Force Program and discussed with the State the best way to position the city to receive a grant.
8. We talked with the staff and determined the best way to use the funds and position ourselves is propose a public realm land.
9. We went before the Board in March and they approved it.
10. The initiative was carried to the Board by the Mayor's Office and they approved it.
11. This Tuesday in Oakland, the Department was awarded a grant to undertake the work of preparing the Mission Public Realm Plan.
12. The Plan would give better designs to streets in the Mission District.
13. Now we are going to begin preparing a scope and discuss staffing and hope to be back with you soon with the ways we think we should proceed.

Director Macris

1. I want to emphasize this.
2. Theresa [Ojeda] took the initiative and she was terrific at it.
3. It is only right that she carries the check.
4. I don't know how cashable that is.
5. Congratulations to Theresa particularly.

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

None

10. (S. DENNIS: (415) 558-6314)

INCLUSIONARY HOUSING STUDY - Informational report on the findings of the housing sensitivity analysis, this is the first part of the Inclusionary Housing Study, authorized by the Board of Supervisors.

Sarah Dennis – Department Staff

1. The study was authorized by the Board of Supervisors.
2. The Planning Department started on it in late March.
3. We hired a consultant to assist us and worked with a broad spectrum of people who made up the Technical Advisory Committee appointed by the Director of Planning.
4. We convened 10 meetings, all of which were open to the public.
5. This first part of the study was intended to analyze the impact of amendments to the Inclusionary Housing Program on market-rate housing projects and economics.
6. There is a second part that will follow that is intended to provide a legal base for the entire Inclusionary Housing Program. That will be completed in early to late fall.
7. The first portion of the study looked at three amendments.
8. One was an amendment to look at the way San Francisco median income was calculated. We use a base of the metropolitan statistic income. One of the proposed amendments was to use a localized San Francisco only area median income.
9. Another amendment dealt with the off-site option requiring that off-site projects are within a mile of the principal project and has to be sold at 80 percent of the median income.
10. The third is increased percentage requirements – a higher level of inclusionary required of each housing developed.
11. The Planning Commission heard the analyzed amendments earlier this year.
12. With the exception of several procedural amendments, you recommended the Board defer action until the study was completed.
13. We completed the study and presented the study to the Board of Supervisors yesterday at their hearing.
14. The findings are in the report we gave to you.
15. We looked at the inclusionary housing in two ways – the current program and what is proposed.
16. Our primary findings about the current program were that the program is feasible for all project types.
17. We looked from low-rise to high-rise development. We found it allows profitable reasonable projects under the current program.
18. The on-site option is only a reasonable option for low-rise units.
19. It is more cost effective for high-rises to pay the in lieu fees.
20. The costs are proximate to the in-lieu fee.
21. The extra hassle in city fees doesn't make sense.
22. There is no logical reason to choose the off site option.
23. When you look at the proposed amendments the findings were different.
24. We found the revisions to the area median income (AMI) have no great impact on a project's feasibility.
25. Projects were possible under the lower AMI.
26. 80 percent of the AMI makes the off-site more challenging.
27. That is not a choice people would choose.
28. The percentage changes were the ones that had the most significant impact.
29. Supervisor Maxwell addressed several amendments at yesterday's hearing.
30. Two were to revise the percent increases for all projects to a mid range than what is current or proposed. That would collapse requirements for both projects that are as-of-right and conditional use. It would apply the same requirements to the projects at 15 on site and 20 off site. Supervisor Maxwell introduced dates on applications when the amendments would be effective. She grandfathered projects in the pipeline except on conditional use applications to provide residential units.
31. There were several amendments proposed that would have to come back to the Planning Commission. There are three that have not been reviewed that would come back. One is to direct the Planning Department to include a review of additional affordable housing requirements as part of any planning process. Another would be to consider differential requirements for buildings over 120 feet. And the third would be to look at revisions to the in lieu fee.
32. One of the things the findings highlighted is that the in lieu fee is based on low-rise. They use the fees to build housing and what they are building doesn't match.
33. One proposal is to look how the in lieu fees are calculated and match what we are building, which would result in increased fees.
34. The language of the amendments will be clarified over the next week.
35. The item is continued at Land Use and will be heard at next Wednesday's hearing.
36. Proposed amendments that have not been reviewed will come back to you in late July or early August.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Informational only. No action taken by the Commission.

D. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT – 15 MINUTES

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.

None

E. CONSENT CALENDAR

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.

11a. 2006.0333D (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

3344 MARKET STREET - northeast side between Glendale and Clayton Streets. Assessor's Block 2717 Lot 004F - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition of Demolition Permit Application No. 2006.03.29.7845, to demolish the existing one-family house and construct a new one-family house in an RH-2 (Residential House, Two Family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review, and approve the Demolition Permit.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Did not take discretionary review and approved demolition

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

11b. 2006.0803D (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

3344 MARKET STREET - northeast side between Glendale and Clayton Streets. Assessor's Block 2717 Lot 004F - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of replacement housing of Building Permit Application No. 2006.03.29.8452, to construct a new one-family house in an RH-2 (Residential House, Two Family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review, and approve the Building Permit.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Did not take discretionary review and approved replacement housing

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

12. 2006.0605D (S. SANCHEZ: (415) 558-6326)

593 ARKANSAS STREET - east side between 20th and 22nd Streets, Lot 043 in Assessor's Block 4099 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2006/04/19/9394 proposing to merge two dwelling units into one dwelling unit in an RH-2 (House, Two-Family) District, and 40-X Height/Bulk District.

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

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Did not take discretionary review and approved dwelling unit merger

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

13. 2006.0618C (E. WATTY: (415) 558-6620)

156 Broad Street - north side between Capitol and Plymouth Avenues; Lot 019 in Assessor's Block 7107 - Request for Conditional Use authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Section 209.4(a), to convert a single-family residence into a community facility operated by the OMI (Ocean View, Merced, Ingleside) Family Resource Center, a program of Urban Services YMCA, located in an RH-2 (Residential House, Two Family) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

MOTION: 17275

14a. 2005.0060D (T. WANG: (415) 558-6335)

134 RALSTON STREET- east side between Sargent and Randolph Streets; currently straddling Lots 031 and 030 in Assessor's Block 7085 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Commission's policy requiring review of residential demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No.2003.08.07.1522, proposing to demolish a single-family dwelling in an 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 demolition permit.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Did not take discretionary review and approved residential demolition

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

14b. 2005.0061D (T. WANG: (415) 558-6335)

132 RALSTON STREET- east side between Sargent and Randolph Streets; Lot 030 in Assessor's Block 7085 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Commission's policy requiring review of all replacement structures in association with residential demolition, of Building Permit Application No.2003.08.07.1524, proposing to construct a two-story, single-family dwelling in an 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 new building permit.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Did not take discretionary review and approved replacement structure

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

14c. 2005.0064D (T. WANG: (415) 558-6335)

134 RALSTON STREET- east side between Sargent and Randolph Streets; Lot 031 in Assessor's Block 7085 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Commission's policy requiring review of all replacement structures in association with residential demolition, of Building Permit Application No.2003.08.07.1529, proposing to construct a two-story, single-family dwelling in an 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 new building permit.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Did not take discretionary review and approved replacement structure

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

15. 2006.0468C (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

1201 ORTEGA STREET - between 19^th and 20^th Avenues, Lots 002, 003, 004, 035, 036, and 037 in Assessor's Block 2115 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Planning Code Section 209.3(h) to convert a post-secondary school operated by the San Francisco Conservatory of Music to a private combined elementary and secondary school operated by Lycee Francais La Perouse, located in a RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District, a RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

MOTION: 17276

F. REGULAR CALENDAR

16. 2005.0402D (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

2477-2479 SUTTER STREET - south side between Broderick and Divisadero Streets; Lot 022 in Assessor's Block 1076 - Staff Initiated Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application 2004.03.02.7604, to construct horizontal and vertical additions to the existing two-story, two-unit building resulting in a four-story, three-unit building in a 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 as proposed.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: This item was moved to the July 20, 2006 hearing because there was not a quorum of commissioners that could participate at this hearing.

17. 2006.0523D (K. DURANDET: (415) 575-6816)

372-374 CAPP STREET - west side between 18^th and 19^th Streets; Lot 048 in Assessor's Block 3590 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.1116.8251S, proposing to replace and reconfigure rear stairs adding two (2) decks and firewall to an existing two-family dwelling in an RH-3 (Residential, Three-Family) District and a 50-X Height and Bulk District in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. .

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the building permit application.

SPEAKERS:

Discretionary Review Requestor

1. There will be towers on a block of narrow and small backyards.
2. None of these houses on the block have this type of deck.
3. These are not in character with the surrounding areas.
4. They will interrupt our enjoyment of our private space.
5. The best solution would be to build a wall between the properties that is 6 feet taller than the deck. This wall will preserve the character of our garden area.
6. I am disappointed in my neighbor for using his rights as a property owner to change the charming character of our little backyard spaces.

Jerry, Owner of 374 Capp

1. We are proposing the replacement of a rear stair. It's in disarray.
2. There are holes and they are about to fall down.
3. It's a safety issue at this point.
4. During this process, what I would also like to do is propose building two decks.
5. Now the person that's against building the decks is proposing for us not to build them
6. Part of the problem is that they are on the south side.
7. The sun from the south side is blocked by a cottage.
8. It's a legal unit but a legal nonconforming unit.
9. The fact that we don't get the sun is due to the structures on that side.
10. We are proposing to rise above the property line to enjoy the sun in the Mission.
11. I met on two different occasions and asked if there was anything I could do.
12. One offer was privacy screens.
13. She wasn't interested in privacy screens. The concern was viewing into the cottage area from the deck.
14. She proposed a fence.
15. I found out I could build a five foot fence from my side because my property is five feet lower, but she could build a 10 foot fence on her side.
16. It doesn't make sense.
17. I'm trying to develop my property like she is.
18. I'm trying to build a deck in the Mission and replace the stairs so they are safe.

ACTION: Took discretionary review and approved requiring a six-foot high latticed screen on the south side of the deck.

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

18a. 2005.0764DV (K. Durandet: (415) 575-6816)

1640 20^th STREET - north side corner lot between Arkansas and Connecticut; Lot 012 in Assessor's Block 4068 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.0816.0369S proposing to construct a rear stairway from the first/ground floor to a new third floor roof deck and a new stair penthouse and a front horizontal addition for an existing three-story, single-family house in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the building permit application.

SPEAKERS:

Discretionary Review Requestor

1. I am co-owner of 479 Arkansas Street, adjacent to 20^th Avenue.
2. The best way for me to describe our issue and for each one of you to experience the situation would be if you owned solar panels and your neighbor puts up a structure that would block the sun - the source of energy for the panels. I paid $20,000 for the panels and they worked.
3. You felt that since the State of California provided funding for these panels you would be protected by California Civil Code 801.5 with provisions to receive sunlight and creating an easement for a solar system.
4. The planner says there is no such code to protect city residents. They say it's a private matter between us.
5. I am here to see whether this Commission can find a way to get someone to be responsible, just as a City wants their documents signed by professionals.
6. Our request is that the project does not obstruct the sunlight. They can be made of transparent materials.
7. It's a roof deck in the most sunny part of San Francisco.
8. I would add, in the magnitude of what we were arguing here, we failed to determine that there are issues of security as a result of the stairway.
9. It comes close to a landing to our bathroom window. There could be someone who could jump from the landing to our property.

Margaret Healy, Owner 1640 20^th Street.

1. When he first approached me about the concern of his solar panels I told my architect to look at it.
2. She presented a shadow analysis.
3. It showed a minimal impact on the shadowing.
4. They refused to accept this report and required us to prepare a full calendar year study and financial analysis of how much it would cost in terms of lost energy.
5. I hired 2 solar experts. I made significant design changes.
6. Ripping off the top of my roof and adding $30,000 dollars to the cost of the construction.
7. The design changes were successful.
8. The solar reports only showed a few dollars a year impact on the solar system.
9. They are refusing to accept the results of the report they requested.
   At this point we've spent five months and $40,000 in reports, design and construction changes.
10. I think we have done enough.
11. I hope the Commission will see we have acted in good faith and as good neighbors.

ACTION: Did not take discretionary review and approved

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

18b. 2005.0764DV (K. Durandet: (415) 575-6816)

1640 20^th STREET - north side corner lot between Arkansas and Connecticut; Lot 012 in Assessor's Block 4068 - Request for a Rear Yard Variance per Planning Code Section 134 proposing to construct a stairway from the first/ground floor to a new third floor roof deck at the rear of an existing three-story, single-family house. The required rear yard is 15 feet and the proposed stairway would result in a rear yard of 3 feet. The Variance is only for the proposed rear stair.

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 18a

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

19. 2006.0455D (A. STARR: (415) 558-6362)

704 NORTH POINT STREET (AKA 2710 LEAVENWORTH) - north side between Leavenworth and Hyde Streets; Lot 002 in Assessor's Block 0024 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of medical cannabis dispensaries, of Building Permit Application 2006.03.29.7757, to establish a medical cannabis dispensary (dba Green Cross) in a vacant retail space that was previously occupied by a full service restaurant (dba Levunic Restaurant). The property is located within a C-2 (Community Business) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

SPEAKERS:

Joe

1. I represent the Green Cross
2. It is important to state why we are here today.
3. I'm sure members of this commission are aware that the Green Cross used to be in a different neighborhood. There was a process that leads us to be here today.
4. Mr. Reid is here today because he is one of the few or only dispensary operator who has gone above and beyond to comply with the rules.
5. He was one of the two at the time who got a use permit, which is not what most were doing.
6. He was trying to play by the rules.
7. Later when neighbors complained, his permit was suspended and there were proceedings to revoke the permit.
8. That was pre-regulations.
9. That is what brought Mr. Reid before the Board of Permit Appeals.
10. After hearing the evidence, they did not elect to close him down. They gave him six months and if there were serious problems that caused detriment to the neighborhood, they would have closed him down immediately.
11. They gave him six months without prejudice to Mr. Reid to be able to move to another location.
12. The Board intended for Mr. Reid to find another location and that is why we are here today.
13. All of this occurred before the regulations.
14. Now that there are regulations many of the problems, if not all that occurred in the prior neighborhood, can be avoided here today.
15. This process, through the Commission, allows a venue for working with the neighbors so neighbors can vet their concerns and the Green Cross can respond and figure out a way to make this work as the Board intended when they created the regulations.
16. The major issue in the prior case dealt with traffic.
17. The Green Cross had outgrown that district.
18. That will not occur this time around.
19. This is not an NC-1 district. It is a mixed business district. It has a higher turn over in terms of traffic with greater availability to parking.
20. Since the regulations have passed, one of the requirements to enter a medical cannabis property is you have to have a State identification card.
21. I am not a patient. I could not enter the Green Cross.
22. Even most medical marijuana patients who could have entered can't [now].
23. You have to be a resident of San Francisco or Oakland or the few counties that give out identification cards.
24. The volume of traffic will be lower in this neighborhood than in the past neighborhood.
25. Captain Goldberg of the Mission District Police Force did a study and said crime decreased.
26. There may be misperception surrounding that.
27. I notice there are a lot of people here from the neighborhood wearing stickers that say character counts.
28. I urge you to look very closely at Mr. Reid's character.
29. He has done everything he can to follow the rules.
30. He demonstrated himself to be a responsible member of the community and neighborhoods where he is involved.
31. The Mayor has commented to that effect.
32. The Board of Supervisors regulated dispensaries. So did the State.
33. They elected to regulate not pass a moratorium.

Liz Moore

1. I live on North Point half a block from the proposed site.
2. I am one of a number of neighbors that would have filed a discretionary review that would postpone the proceedings.
3. We want to make it clear there are exceptional circumstances specifically to this site that would satisfy discretionary review.
4. We want to make it clear that the project is in conflict with all the applicable planning code priority policies.
5. We want to state for the project sponsor and the record that we are not opposed to medical marijuana and have compassion for the people it helps.
6. We feel it is an inappropriate location.
7. I want to give you an example of the exceptional circumstances.
8. It's in violation of the Planning Code.
9. We identified seven property sites we feel qualify as recreational buildings.
10. Second, with regard to traffic impacts, this is a short block that fronts on a narrow street.
11. Any effects resulting from double parking are extreme - far more than in any other location.
12. Third, the fact it's located in Fisherman's Wharf, which is the face we show to the world.
13. The adjacent park creates a temptation for customers to smoke marijuana there and reduce the ability of the neighborhood to enjoy that park.

Trish Heims

1. I'm a resident that lives on North Point.
2. I think this is an issue that affects all of us.
3. I would like to specifically discuss the Planning Code priority that concerns protecting the character of this particular neighborhood.
4. Green Cross had a negative impact on the former neighborhood. That's why they had to leave.
5. Security and safety represent major concerns.
6. The San Francisco Police reported to the Board of Appeals that the volume of police calls had increased 280 percent around the Green Cross's former location.
7. I would like to underscore there are no substantive differences between the equipment and policies they had in place in the other location than they propose to put in place in our neighborhood.
8. A former neighbor stated that as the Green Cross instituted their program the problems migrated around the corner.
9. We understand Green Cross will manage the conditions. They will migrate around the corner.
10. There is noise pollution, loud music, smoking marijuana in public, reselling marijuana, loitering and littering.
11. The Green Cross had a negative impact on the former neighborhood and I think it will have the same impact on our neighborhood.

Robert Hellwick

1. My wife and I live in the neighborhood.
2. One of the pleasures of living in this neighborhood involves the contact we have with the multitude of families and children that visit this area form all over the country and the world.
3. Being the gateway to the wharf, this is a Mecca to San Francisco.
4. Thousands of children pass by this location we are talking about today.
5. This single factor constitutes an exceptional circumstance that warrants denying the permit.
6. The Board of Appeals concluded that the Green Cross adversely affected the area. In this was a finding made last December and it applies more to the present location given the unique circumstances of the neighborhood.
7. The wharf is not the appropriate location to put a cannabis operation, which is in the heart of the City's center for family activity.
8. I would urge you to consider when you hear the comments of the local merchants, residents and concerned citizen, consider this is not compatible with the unique environment that constitutes the wharf and the residents around it.

Bill Raven

1. I'm a neighbor on North Point Street.
2. I would like to discuss the Planning Code policy on not over burdening our streets and parking.
3. We were told we could expect a maximum of 60 to 80 customers an hour buying marijuana.
4. In the former neighborhood that caused massive traffic. It was so bad, the resulting quantity of the vehicles and pedestrian traffic created conditions that are potentially hazardous to pedestrians.
5. The traffic congestion will be worse in our neighborhood and I want to show you why.
6. It's at the intersection of three streets: Columbus, North Point and Leavenworth. They come together at the gateway to the wharf.
7. It's a complicated intersection and it has been said that there are no public parking facilities around there. It's on a small street.
8. Any double parking will cause traffic congestion without a question.

Sally Moral

1. I want to continue to comment about the traffic congestion problems.
2. I walk my dog in the area daily. I can tell you how dangerous that intersection is.
3. In addition to normal traffic, we have Muni buses, Golden Gate Transit buses, large trucks that are not allowed on Bay Street and tourists that are not sure where they are going or how to get there.
4. That's a dangerous mix. If there is double-parking the Muni will be slowed if not stopped.
5. There is a proposal being evaluated to remove a westbound lane on North Point. The one that goes by the proposed location, and turning it into a bicycle lane as part of the over all plan on North Point.
6. If that is approved the congestion will get worse.

Karen Raven

1. I'm a North Point neighbor.
2. I want to discuss the planning policy concerning protecting parks and open spaces - the park across the street from the proposed dispensary.
3. I am concerned that people will be drawn to the park to smoke.
4. Local children and families use the park and a great many children and families pass the park visiting attractions at the wharf and the pier.
5. This is a special park. It marks the end of Columbus Avenue passing the Transamerica Pyramid going through Chinatown and North Beach.
6. It marks the step to the aquatic parks and ship.
7. A marijuana dispensary in this area does not seem compatible.

Bill Gannon

1. I'm a North Point resident and have lived here for six and a half years.
2. I oppose this.
3. What you are seeing are the FAQ's from your website that defines what you said recreation facilities were.
4. A recreation building is an institution assembly of social service use. Used for public use and recreational social purposes, community club houses, neighborhood and cultural centers and meeting halls.
5. We have found eight of them.
6. We visited each and confirmed they were open to the public and recreation going on in their buildings.

Susan McDonald

1. I am speaking in opposition.
2. I am a member of the Dolphin Club, which stands within the thousand-foot radius of the location.
3. I am speaking as an individual member of the club.
4. The Dolphin Club has been at the same location since it was founded in 1877. It is a historical institution.
5. It is a non-profit, public access athletic organization with a diverse membership and open to the public.
6. There are dozens of family recreation activities throughout the year from learning about our historic boats and participating in boat building.
7. People swim in the park and build sand castles on the beach.
8. I believe the neighborhood and the community would be negatively affected with the MCD operations at the proposed location.
9. I am opposed to the MCD location. It does not meet the requirements.

Matt Harris

1. I live one block away from the proposed site.
2. The association hall is a recreational cultural institution established a hundreds years ago to promote the commercial fishing fleet.
3. This is not a proper site for this location.

Paul Einstein

1. I am concerned about the MCD application.
2. I am the youth coordinator at North Beach Place at 567 Bay Street. We provide summer and after school programs.
3. I consider it a safe and positive environment for kids to interact.
4. It's 500 feet from the proposed cannabis dispensary.
5. I am concerned with how it will affect the teens at North Beach Place.
6. There are thousands of people that live there. 394 children that are all low income.
7. They face many challenges and most are at risk.
8. One of my biggest questions is will youth be approached to buy or smoke marijuana?

Debbie Gannon

1. I'm a North Point resident
2. I oppose the MCD application.
3. The San Francisco Maritime Historical Park defined by the federal government is a recreation institution.
4. Set at Hyde and Jefferson Streets, the San Francisco Maritime Parks Center stands 732 feet from the proposed location and is open to the public.
5. School groups tour the center year round.
6. The pier offers education, music and crafts for all ages.
7. I hope you will consider that.

Gibb Ford

1. I'm a neighbor and I oppose the MCD.
2. The South End Rowing Club is a recreational social institution within a thousand feet.
3. Membership is open to anybody. The club is open on Wednesday and Fridays.
4. The club offers to the general public swimming in the bay and rowing.
5. We have 30 watercrafts.
6. We have handball. There are three dirt courts and five tournaments a year.
7. There is a range of social and recreational activities, dinners, boat restoration, athletic training, saunas and events.

Saul

1. I live on Mason Street.
2. I would like to say I oppose the application.
3. The Seaman's Church, a cultural and religious center is located at 2454 Hyde Street. The church is located less than 860 feet from the proposed location.
4. The church is on the first level.
5. A recreational center is on the second level with a Hyde Street entrance.
6. The church is open to the public 11 to 7, Monday through Saturday.
7. There are a variety of recreational and cultural activities in the church.
8. There is a playgroup for children.
9. There are card games; Norwegian lesions and dinners held for the students.
10. There are two ladies groups. They have a Christmas bizarre.
11. There is a library with newspapers.
12. There is Lutheran service on Sundays at 11.
13. Allowing this club here in North Beach, in my opinion, is as inappropriate as putting it in the middle of the Galileo Football field.

Trent Moore

1. I live on the block of the proposed site.
2. It is close to recreational and cultural buildings – to the San Francisco Art Institute.
3. The Institute is open daily to the public from 8 a.m. to 9 p.m.
4. There is direct and free public access to artwork.
5. There are exhibits and films and other events that are free and open to the public.
6. There are a couple of classes on going. One that is open to 13 to 15 year olds – that's the Young Artist program. That is in session now through August 11.
7. Another program called the pre-college program is open to 16 to 18 year olds.
8. The Art Institute is 800 feet away from the proposed site. There is no way you can resolve that problem.
9. I oppose the MCD application.

[No name]

1. Read a letter written by the residents of the Telegraph Hill Neighborhood Association, in which they expressed their opposition of the MCD at the proposed location.

Orlando Antonini

1. I'm adjacent to the proposed site.
2. I believe that at certain times of the week and summertime traffic is atrocious.
3. People park in my driveway.
4. You call the police and they can't respond for an hour.
5. I don't see how you are going to respond.
6. The cops can't remove the homeless from the park. They have to leave them alone.
7. I'm afraid I will lose business when people can't park.
8. Please deny this request.

Michael

1. I belong to the Senior Center and depend on it because I'm disabled.
2. I have a lot of friends at the Senior Center.
3. The proposed site is three blocks away from the Center.
4. The seniors participate in daily activities seven days a week.
5. The majority of the seniors use public transportation.
6. The buses cannot hold any more people.
7. They are over crowded with Galileo High School students and seniors.
8. I think this is asking too much.
9. I oppose the MCD application.

Betty Foote

1. I am a neighbor.
2. I want to express the freedom to protest and to be heard.
3. I bring to your attention the three story and what I consider an anchor building.
4. The location is highly visible like an anchor building on two business corners.
5. The high demand for the usage of marijuana will ensure the probability of expansion.
6. Their records are filled with several alias, shoplifting, felony convictions and so forth.
7. We have scratched the surface and know the Planning staff and law enforcement officers are better equipped to go to the history with the people involved.
8. This is not a little storefront.
9. It's first a club, a building, a corner, a neighborhood, and a city.
10. This is important.
11. It is precedent setting.
12. The location, the usage, and the people involved are special circumstances.

Michael

1. In addition to the eight recreational sites we have uncovered, we have uncovered findings that we can't get our arms around. We will leave that to the Commission for further investigation.
2. There is a lack of transparency to the ownership structure of the building.
3. We don't know who owns what.
4. The notion that the community is supportive of this is a lie.
5. The café is under the same ownership of the building that is proposing to rent the MCD.
6. I am opposed to the MCD application.

Jan Mish

1. I am the manager of the Tuscan Inn
2. A representative of Mr. Reid told us that he really didn't want to be in that neighborhood, that it was not his first choice.
3. It's not ours either.
4. There will be traffic issues.
5. School buses come to our area all the time to bring children from all over the Bay Area to visit the wharf, the number one choice to visit in our area.
6. I am here to oppose.
7. They need to be somewhere else, but this is not the appropriate location.

Patricia, The Hotel Council of San Francisco

1. I am here to oppose the MCD application on behalf of the members of the Hotel Council of San Francisco.
2. We are concerned about the effect a pot club will have on the Wharf.

Rodney Fong, President, Fisherman's Wharf Association

1. We are all opposed to this happening at Fisherman's Wharf.
2. San Francisco is voted the number one City.
3. The Wharf is the number one destination.

Linda Lau

1. I am here on behalf of Galileo parents, teacher/student association.
2. I am the current president of the PTSA.
3. We have great concerns on the location of this cannabis dispensary.
4. Earlier in the meeting I was glad to hear one of the goals of setting the new policy for MCD's is to keep youth away.
5. I think it will be a problem for our students. Youth are impressionable. They have peer pressure and may not know how to avoid an inappropriate drug use.
6. Urged the Commission to not approve this application at this location, in order to keep our youth safe.

Denise Lima

1. I am for the proposed opening in Fisherman's Wharf.
2. I carry my speech in my heart.
3. I am opposed to alcohol use because I lost four members of my family because of alcohol usage. I wish they had smoked pot.

Kate Richardson

1. I urge you to consider the location of this medical establishment in regards to millions of Americans and thousand of school children who visit the area each year.

Penelope Clark, Co-Chair of Russian Hill Neighbors

1. We voted to oppose granting a permit to Green Cross.
2. It's an inappropriate location that could compromise the neighborhood's security and lower the quality of life.
3. Consider the consequences of this high profile location.
4. The wharf is a tourist attraction. The Holiday Inn is across the street from the park.
5. Certainly, there is a possibility that those who attempt to prey on customers of this all cash business might turn their attention to the tourists and consider them easy marks.
6. There is now national publicity about the location of this dispensary.
7. Dispensaries should be discrete and out of the public eye.
8. The wharf is not a discrete location.
9. Please, do not approve this project.

Robert

1. I'm a graduate of the University of Berkeley.
2. The Holiday Inn has criteria related to the ordinance that can guard and protect the wharf.
3. They have meetings and seminars and 4,000 Girl Scouts of America marching through the wharf.
4. I will follow up with a Grand Jury Investigation if this goes through.
5. I oppose the MCD application.

[Name was not clear]

1. I am 16 years old and have lived two blocks away from the site my entire life.
2. I am here to speak against the idea.
3. Unlike many of the speakers my focus is not just the club's location.
4. I will focus on something I have more qualifications for - the presence of youth and teenagers in the area.
5. This area is full of unsupervised teenagers.
6. Should the Planning Commission approve this, it will constitute the approval for marijuana in the middle of San Francisco's Disneyland.

Tom Rubins, Merchant in the Wharf Area

1. Our family has owned and operated a restaurant in the wharf for the past 80 years.
2. Along with our 150 employees, we are opposed.
3. It's insulting to read over this item number 19, which says [staff] recommends that you approve the project without discretionary review.
4. We are opposed to this project.
5. We feel it's inappropriate location for this site to be a cannabis house.

Bill Clarkson

1. I'm proud to be a merchant at the Cannery in San Francisco.
2. We started out to be a restaurant for older people, but it turned into a family tourist restaurant.
3. I didn't plane it that way.
4. There are more and more children coming to this destination every year.
5. I just can't see any reason that a cannabis club should be there.
6. I definitely oppose this.

Chris Martin, Chair, Benefit Planning Committee and President of the Cannery Properties, Inc.

1. We are currently interviewing Urban Planners that will lead the effort to preserve and enhance the cultural heritage of the wharf by establishing a plan which sets forth standards and policy for land use, urban design, transportation and parking.
2. Why does  San Francisco's number one visitor attractions have the weakest zoning in the city?
3. Without [positive] action the wharf will lose it's character and uniqueness appeal and its cultural contribution to the city.
4. Why do other cities do a better job preserving their historical centerpiece?
5. We need this commission's firm and unwavering support to properly plan this community.
6. It is time for your staff to become engaged in the planning and development of the wharf and surrounding community.
7. I'm opposed to this MCD application.

John Rubins

1. I'm opposed to the business in question.
2. I am concerned about the crime.
3. We are a vulnerable community.

Tom Brown

1. I'm a property owner in the neighborhood a hundred yards away.
2. I'm opposed.

Jessica Hopkins

1. I'm asking you to oppose this.

Brian

1. I've been a patient of the Green Cross.
2. I have felt safe.
3. I'm for the project.

Kathy Paver

- I'm in charge of the Marketing Department for Pier 39

1. I sit on the Board of Governors for the Wharf and Community Benefit District.
2. I will speak on behalf of all the organizations.
3. I have the same concerns that a medical cannabis dispensary in the heart of San Francisco's number one tourist destination is a grave mistake.
4. The wharf is a family destination and a cannabis dispensary is counter to everything we stand for.
5. I urge you to vote against this dispensary and invite you in the future to work with us to find appropriate things for the Wharf and preserve the neighborhood for generations to come.

Thomas Fell, Principal, Galileo High School

1. We have 2,400 students.
2. We are not a neighborhood school.
3. Our students come from all the sectors of the city.
4. A large amount of students travel along North Point passing near the proposed program.
5. Four years ago Galileo was about to lose its accreditation.
6. It has made improvements.
7. We are a California Distinguished school.
8. Our test scores are meeting the 800 mark.
9. We are selected to be one of 10 schools in the state.
10. For this to continue we need the support of the city and community to continue providing safety to our students.
11. Many of our students have marginal backgrounds.
12. The use of marijuana among our youth is on the rise and our students don't know how to separate the appropriate use of drugs from the inappropriate use of drugs.
13. If you allow Green Cross to be so close to our schools it will be a problem.
14. It is a health impact on your students in our schools.
15. Don't let this program be so close to San Francisco's youth.

Anthony, former Galileo student

1. Fisherman's Wharf is a nice place for everyday.
2. This is a bad influence for the teens.
3. The teens can get access to marijuana.
4. Anyway, I oppose it.

Mrs. Chang

- I'm speaking on behalf of Renewed San Francisco - Revitalizing and Energizing the Waterfront of San Francisco

1. We are concerned about the proposal.
2. Again, it's location, location and location.
3. I do not want to repeat all of the compelling reasons that have been expressed by the residents and merchants of the Wharf's area.
4. Even if the proposal has met all criteria of the Planning Code, I think your job is to balance it with the interest of the residents and merchants of the area.

Fred Cruise, Police Officer at Central Station

1. The Captain is opposed to this. He's mirroring the sentiment of the community.
2. I don't have anything to add that was not said already.

Brian Denny

1. I am a patient of the Green Cross.
2. I have had a positive experience.
3. They provide a safe environment.
4. There is no smoking in the premise.
5. I am a family man and have three children.
6. You keep your medication away from your children.
7. I did not have a problem finding parking.
8. They have done everything to meet the opposition.
9. I understand they have addressed all their issues.
10. I think they can work well with the community.

Maria Malloy

1. I am a chemist that researched the effects of marijuana on the brain.
2. I am here as a resident and voter of the City of San Francisco.
3. I thought we already voted on this.
4. I am not sure how the conservative neighbors could over ride the City's vote.

Mike Aldrich

1. I was a patient before they were forced to close.
2. I will support this location because it's near my house.
3. There are no MCD's in my district.
4. I believe there should MCD's in every neighborhood.
5. The restrictions give you a box you have to work with.
6. It makes it impossible for an MCD to locate in any neighborhood.
7. According to the regulations it is hard to find a landlord to rent to an MCD in the zoning and proximity requirements.
8. This will happen with every marijuana dispensary that will come before you where the neighborhoods oppose it.
9. Remember, that in every one of the neighborhoods there are patients like myself who needs a dispensary near by because of mobility problems.
10. This is just a test case.
11. If you do not allow Green Cross, which has followed all the rules to go to this location, the new regulations are a sham.

Michelle Aldrich

1. Dispensaries are not open to the public.
2. There has been parking problems on the wharf since I've lived here.
3. I am really insulted by my neighbors questioning my character after living in San Francisco for thirty-four years because I am a patient.
4. Distribution was not included.
5. Patients have to go to the streets to get their medicine.
6. Dispensaries were set up as an attempt to deal with a grossly unjust situation.
7. Until the federal laws are changed, the acceptance of dispensaries should be the moral way.
8. Green Cross will be closer to my home than any other in the city.
9. Please let them open.

Richard Mullen

1. There are a couple of misconceptions about medical marijuana and clubs.
2. One is that somehow we will influence kids to smoke marijuana. That is not the case.
3. That has been hoisted on us from people who've been against marijuana from the beginning.
4. The reason to outlaw marijuana is the effect on the degenerate races.

Bob Lane

1. I'm a local cannabis patient.
2. I want to address the concept that the Wharf is an inappropriate place.
3. Those that are against this probably have no problem with a pharmacy.
4. When the Board of Supervisors decided where to allow dispensaries they instituted a rule not within a thousand feet of schools.
5. Consider the effect of this poorly thought out policy.
6. Only a few possible locations remain.
7. Event though the city excludes most spaces they expand the definition knowing this would be a ban on dispensaries.
8. The Wharf is not a bad location.
9. It's the only place that they haven't excluded.
10. Consider the needs of the medical needy, which are the white affluent people of North Beach.

Michelle Hersch

1. I am a San Francisco resident and a caregiver.
2. I have a card to go and buy marijuana for a friend who is very ill.
3. I chose the Green Cross, after seeing [other] dispensaries and feel that working with them [Green Cross] is the safest.
4. I feel I will continue to go to the Green Cross even though it's not close to my home.
5. I travel by bike and will not take up a parking spot.

Rachel

1. I have been a patient for a year.
2. I started going to the Green Cross in its old location. After doing the research, it was the most professionally run operation I could locate
3. I am here because I am worried not just about the Green Cross but the future for medical marijuana places.
4. After meeting every rule and dotting every  i' and crossing every  t' you are being asked to deny us a permit.
5. I worry what will happen to medical cannabis patients after June of 2007.

Jonathan Beaver

1. I am a medical marijuana patient.
2. That marijuana is highly addictive is a lie projected by policy.
3. Prohibitionists are saying that there is a rise in cannabis users seeking help.
4. How could it be otherwise when there has been a dramatic increase and risk for simple possession?
5. Less than 5% of persons entering drug treatment programs for cannabis use do so voluntarily.
6. Most first time offenders are forced to treatment.
7. No other interest group lobbies harder to deter cannabis reform.

Shona

1. I am here to represent the cannabis dispensary in the Tenderloin.
2. They have the most complete plans for veterans in need in the City of San Francisco.
3. I highly recommend the permitting of this club.
4. I have a letter from Assemblyman Mark Leno, defining the award we received.
5. And it's my hope that the 20 to 25 permitting hearings will hopefully [provide] better education and not have so many misnomers about our community.

Karen

1. I am the Director of Government Relations for Americans for Access.
2. Dispensaries are a compassionate response to suffering Californians; to people who need medical cannabis and cannabis based products in a secure environment.
3. They provide the education of the safe and effective use of the products.
4. The right to have them in San Francisco is law.
5. Fair and equal access to all medical cannabis patients across the City is what they provide.
6. The fact is, many critically ill medical cannabis patients call Fisherman's Wharf and North Beach their home and they need access to medicine.

David Mays

1. I am a resident of the City and a medical marijuana patient.
2. I'm in support of the Green Cross.
3. The Green Cross has the greatest range of strains and an educated staff to direct the patients to the strain they need.
4. It's exceptional in comparison to the others in the City.

Tony Bowls

1. I support Green Cross and medical cannabis dispensaries.
2. The extensions of the regulations establish working guidelines for safe cannabis dispensaries.
3. People are jumping to conclusions.
4. If this location is not allowed and it falls within the local guidelines what can patients expect in San Francisco, a City that prides itself on tolerance?
5. The dispensaries are not open to the public.
6. No evidence supports the theory that medical cannabis gives the wrong idea to children.

Wane Kilo

1. I'm supporting the Green Cross.
2. I think strip clubs and places where alcohol is served cause more damage in the community than having medical cannabis near by.

Sammy Hastings

1. I am a caregiver for a medical cannabis cardholder that cannot get their own medicine.
2. One of the biggest concerns I had was the safety of the facility I was going to to get the medicine for the person I care for.
3. Most of the places are not safe to go to.
4. Kevin runs a sound business. He has done everything in his power to make it a business place where people can go, like myself, and can be safe.
5. I go to the club because of the safety.

Sara

1. I am born and raised in San Francisco.
2. I may look young and healthy but looking at me does not tell you I have been to specialists and am on 24 medications.
3. I was happy to have Green Cross, the first dispensary, in a neighborhood I could walk to.
4. I was disappointed they had to move.
5. I went to middle school a few blocks away from the original location.
6. Across the street from us was an adult store and liquor store.
7. We could not get in and access the items.
8. Even though the new location is in walking distance from a school, there are also places that service alcohol and both require proper identification.
9. Because of zoning regulations, Green Cross was limited to this location as one of the few locations that was left in town.
10. I urge the Commission to consider these facts.
11. This facility has done everything it can to abide legally in San Francisco.
12. It would be wrong to let the fears of medical cannabis stop them from opening.

April Funky

1. I am an artist and medical cannabis patient.
2. I was a patient at the Green Cross' former location and I hope to be a patient at the proposed site.
3. I believe Kevin Reed and the Green Cross is the most responsible, clean dispensary in San Francisco.
4. They will bring a model dispensary under the new location.
5. San Francisco has been a progressive city.
6. We can show the rest of the country how it can be done.

Ernesto

1. I am for the opening at this location.
2. I've worked closely with them for the past year.
3. We need this club to be open.
4. This is a model club. This is what you can use as a model club.
5. This is a lengthy process and he has done everything you have asked him to do.

Henry Jew

1. Medical cannabis dispensaries were made legal under the California State Law Bill 420.
2. The constitution of the state specifically prohibits state or local enforcement from attempting to enforce federal laws, which conflict with state laws.
3. In my opinion I would be nice to have one in that area because think of the tourist dollars - they don't have to look all over town to have a place to relax.

Robert Carlton

1. It seems to me that all the neighborhood support would make it less likely that anything falls under diversionary practices because there is so much support in their neighborhood.
2. Again, all neighborhoods need to have a dispensary.
3. If you put them in a couple of neighborhoods, issues like parking will be magnified.
4. Surveillance is a good thing.
5. It makes sure that all the issues that they are concerned with don't happen.
6. You can cut and spin it anyway you want.
7. It's there for the safety of everyone.
8. I'm in favor of the MCD application.

Margaret

1. I'm a resident and homeowner in the city of San Francisco in District 7.
2. Decisions of this importance should be based on fact and not potential dangers.
3. Merchants like and appreciated the business the patients brought.
4. The drive to keep children away from the facilities is based on emotion, not fact.
5. I would like to hear facts before basing disapproval on protecting youth.
6. Although I think we need to protect youths.
7. Police show the Green Cross neighborhood was safer.
8. They don't adversely affect tourism in the Haight/Ashbury.
9. The only one I heard from went to the worst dispensary in the area – the one on 12^th and Howard.
10. It is despicable and I wish they were closed down.

Emily Souffer

1. I've been a Green Cross patient since it's inception.
2. I support them opening in their new location.
3. I was at work watching this hearing and felt compelled to explain to my boss the things people are saying about Kevin are not fair.
4. He is the nicest person I have ever met.
5. What I was hearing was reactionary based on fear.
6. You can't expect to have a tourist area and not have traffic.
7. Eliminating local business will do nothing to help the community grow and thrive.
8. During my time as a Green Cross patient I saw PG&E trucks double and triple parked. UPS and Comcast trucks double-parked. Never once did I see a Green Cross patient double-parked.
9. The patients at the Green Cross are not looking to make life difficult; they are looking to make their own lives easier.
10. I highly support Kevin and I hope you will as well.

Miles Davis

1. I own the T-shirt shop next to there.
2. There is a lot of talk about tourism.
3. What tourism?
4. Why is Ghirardelli Square turning to condos?
5. The Cannery is even being considered for sale.
6. Tourism is way down.
7. People are not spending.
8. My business is down. Way, way down.
9. There are a lot of empty storefronts.
10. If there is a business that brings money to a neighborhood, proper money, then I don't object to that from a business point of view.
11. They say the park is for children.
12. We've had people living in the park for years.
13. They do everything there.
14. It's their toilet and bed.
15. It smells like an outhouse there.
16. The block has been filthy and neglected for two years.
17. The Green Cross is cleaning it up.
18. All I know is what I've seen.

[No name given]

1. That was my father before me.
2. I'm 23 and I grew up next door.
3. Our shop is there and our apartment is next door.
4. I went to high school in Pacific Heights.
5. I've been around marijuana and never partaken in it.
6. People say that walking by a store that doesn't have signage will make them want to smoke more.
7. I don't think that happens.
8. Our business pays for my education and our life.
9. It [our business] is down.
10. Kevin's shop would bring more business.
11. Any traffic to my neighborhood would be great.
12. There are cafes and restaurants. It would help all that.
13. We are worried about the effects of marijuana. There is a bar on every corner on the wharf.
14. There are three bars on our corner.
15. There are disputes and noise complaints.
16. We talk about crime that happens past 2 a.m.
17. Maybe with the cameras the crime would stop.
18. There are patient's rights.
19. Patients need medicine.
20. I'm the one who is right next door to it.
21. If there is a problem, you will be the first to hear from our family.

Juan

1. I've lived in San Francisco for 24 years.
2. They say the traffic on the street is crowded.
3. What street is not crowded in San Francisco?
4. The North Beach area is a gated community. You don't have to worry about the kids escaping from the recreation center.
5. I think you should give it a chance to reopen just because it's the greatest club in San Francisco.

ACTION: Took discretionary review and disapproved

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Lee, and Olague

NAYES: Moore and Sugaya

20. 2006.0578D (K. AMDUR: (415) 558-6351)

1345 Montgomery Street- west side, at the southwest corner of the intersection with Filbert Street (steps), Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 0105 - Discretionary Review request, for a building permit (No. 2005.08.01.9085) to convert the existing commercial building, most recently used as a restaurant, to a single family dwelling. The project includes extensive remodeling of the interior and several changes to the exterior, including the addition of two dormer windows, the replacement of several existing windows, and the creation of a garage door and curb cut, all on the Montgomery Street façade; and the addition of a roof deck with a glass guardrail. The flat portion of the Montgomery Street roof will be raised approximately 3 feet, to the height of the peak of the roof facing Montgomery Street. The existing stair penthouse will be expanded slightly to meet current Code requirements for access to the roof, and some existing mechanical equipment on the roof would be removed. The property is located in the RH-3 (Residential, House Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: None. Discretionary Review application was withdrawn

21. 2006.0127C (M. WOODS; (415) 558-6315)

360 - 9^th AVENUE (a.k.a. 370 – 9^th Avenue) - east side between Clement Street and Geary Boulevard; Lot 011, in Assessor's Block 1440 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Sections 178(c), 209.3(f) and 303 to convert an existing kindergarten classroom (approximately 1,100 square feet) in the Star of the Sea Elementary and High Schools to a preschool, a child-care use category as defined under Section 209.3(f) of the Planning Code, for up to 24 children, on an existing church and school site. The site, approximately 65,980 square feet consisting of seven buildings, occupies almost the entire block beginning at the northeast corner of Ninth Avenue and Geary Boulevard. The site is in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low-Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

SPEAKERS:

Project Sponsor

1. The one thing I want to say about this building is that it already exists.
2. It's very difficult to get preschools in San Francisco because it's hard to meet the State regulations.
3. This building has small things to make it accessible.
4. We have no opposition.
5. After noticing the neighbors for the 300 foot radius we got over 20 responses.
6. All of them were inquiries about when they could enroll their kids and when do we open.

ACTION: Approved

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

MOTION: 17277

22. 2005.0659C (T. WANG (415) 558-6335)

85 SAINT ELMO WAY- southeast side between Monterey Boulevard and Yerba Buena Avenue; Lot 032 in Assessor's Block 3049 - Request for Conditional Use authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Section 304 Planned Unit Developments, to allow construction of an addition to the existing residence of Consul General of the People's Republic of China, with a modification of rear yard requirements in an RH-1 (D) (Residential, House, One-Family, Detached Dwelling) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 8, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to 7/27/06

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

23a. 2004.0165EMZHX: (D. DIBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)

1 Kearny Street/710 Market Street- west side between Market and Geary Streets, Lots 003 and 010 in Assessor's Block 312 - Adoption of CEQA findingsrelated to the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and adoption of said MND regarding the reclassification of Lot 003 from a C-3-R (Downtown, Retail) District and 80-130-F Height and Bulk District to a C-3-O (Downtown, Office) District and 142-X Height and Bulk District, the demolition of a three-story commercial structure at Lot 003, and the construction of a new 10-story horizontal expansion to the Category I, Mutual Savings Bank Building located on Lot 010. Lots 003 and 010 within Assessor's Block 0312 are currently located in C-3-R (Downtown Retail) and C-3-O (Downtown Office) Districts, respectively. Both lots are located within an 80-130-F Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt the CEQA findings and the Mitigated Negative Declaration.

SPEAKERS:

Council Representative of the Project Sponsor

1. We work on a lot of historic buildings and this is one of the most interesting historic structures I have dealt with.
2. When we entered into this with this building it was obvious that 1 Kearny was the historic building and the annex has less historic merit.
3. When we discovered there was a debate on whether or not it was historic, the owners of the building decide to preserve the building.
4. The design went through two extensive hearings at the Landmark's Board where there was a divergence of opinion.
5. Some say the annex should be torn down.
6. We changed the design in response to the comments made by the Landmark's Board.
7. You see a design that received unanimous support by the board.
8. It's an improved design based on a long dialogue with the Planning staff and the Landmark's Board on how to treat a building that is the average landmark restoration project.

Charles, Architect for the project

1. This is a very important building at an important location in San Francisco.
2. It is in the Kearney/Market Conservation District, at a very important corner in the city. Where one of San Francisco's grids intersects on Market Street.
3. It's a dramatic building especially seen from Third Street as you approach the city.
4. There are three parts: The original 1902 Savings Bank in the building, which is an early quake survivor, and the annex added in '64.
5. We planned to tear down the three-story build seen on left in the picture and replace it with a 10-story building.
6. Our design is an attempt to fill in the missing tooth to Market Street.
7. We are sensitive to the urban design and context as well as to the specific design itself.
8. One Kearny and bank annex function as one building.
9. There are a number of functional problems.
10. The annex has elevators, stairs and bathrooms.
11. It is difficult to divide the building into floors.
12. There is no air conditioning or heat in the annex.
13. One of our objectives is to correct the functional problems.
14. The building has a seismic prospect. Even though it was an earthquake survivor, it has a stiff element that makes it twist during an earthquake.
15. Our project will correct all of the functional problems by creating a new core in the new building. We'll take the elevators out of the annex. We'll make their front door their back door.
16. We want to put the building in architectural balance.
17. We are changing brick to glass.
18. We are using traditional materials like terra cotta in contemporary ways.
19. We don't have open space on the ground floor; we are proposing to put it on the roof at the top.

ACTION: Adopted CEQA findings and the MND as amended:

1. Require a full description and history of the structure to follow the Historic American Building Standards be transmitted to the San Francisco Public Library and Northwest Information Center.
2. Have an exhibit in an accessible public space in the new development, using the same photo documentation and same descriptions using historic photos that are in the possession of the sponsor to create an exhibit in the lobby of the building. They don't have to do additional research, just some kind of historical placard with photos.

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

MOTION: 17278

23b. 2004.0165EMZHX: (D. DIBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)

1 Kearny Street/710 Market Street - west side between Market and Geary Streets, Lots 003 and 010 in Assessor's Block 312 - Request for adoption of a resolution recommending that the Board of Supervisors approve two General Plan Amendments which would amend Map 1 and Map 5 of the Downtown Element of the San Francisco General Plan to allow for the reclassification of Assessor's Block 0312, Lot 003 from a C-3-R (Downtown Retail) District to a C-3-O (Downtown, Office) District and from a 80-130-F Height and Bulk District to a 142-X Height and Bulk District. The property is currently within a C-3-R (Downtown, Retail) District and an 80-130-F Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt the draft resolution.

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 23a

ACTION: Approved as amended:

1. Amend the Height District to 150-X

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

RESOLUTION: 17279

23c. 2004.0165EMZHX: (D. DIBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)

1 Kearny Street/710 Market Street- west side between Market and Geary Streets, Lots 003 and 010 in Assessor's Block 312 - Request for adoption of a Resolution recommending that the Board of Supervisors approve two Zoning Map Amendments which would amend Zoning Map Sheets 1 and 1H to reclassify Assessor's Block 312, Lot 003 from a C-3-R (Downtown, Retail) District to a C-3-O (Downtown, Office) District and from a 80-130-F Height and Bulk District to a 142-X Height and Bulk District. The subject property is currently within a C-3-R (Downtown Retail) District and an 80-130-F Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt the draft resolution.

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 23a

ACTION: Approved as amended:

1. Amend the Height District to 150-X

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

RESOLUTION: 17280

23d. 2004.0165EMZHX: (D. DIBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)

1 Kearny Street/710 Market Street- west side between Market and Geary Streets, Lots 003 and 010 in Assessor's Block 312 - Request for Permit to Alter under Article 11 of the Planning Code for a nine or ten story horizontal addition to an Article 11 Category I building, The "Mutual Savings Bank Building", located at One Kearny Street in Assessor's Block 0312, Lot 010. The property is currently within a C-3-O (Downtown Office) District and an 80-130-F Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 23a

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Lee, Moore, and Olague

NAYES: Sugaya

MOTION: 17281

23e. 2004.0165EMZHX: (D. DIBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)

1 Kearny Street/710 Market Street- west side between Market and Geary Streets, Lots 003 and 010 in Assessor's Block 312 - Request for a Determination of Compliance with Exceptions under Section 309 of the Planning Code. The project would demolish a three-story commercial structure at Lot 003, and then construct a new 10-story horizontal expansion to the Category I, Mutual Savings Bank Building located on Lot 010. The Project is requesting exceptions for Shadows on Public Streets and, in the event the required General Plan and Zoning Map Amendments described in items (b) and (c) above are not approved by the Board of Supervisors, Exceptions to Height Limits in 80-130-F Height and Bulk District. Lots 003 and 010 within Assessor's Block 0312 are currently located in C-3-R (Downtown Retail) and C-3-O (Downtown Office) Districts, respectively. Both lots are located within an 80-130-F Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 23a

ACTION: Approved as amended to require signage/plaques indicating where the building's Open Space is on both the Geary and Market Street frontages of the building

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

MOTION: 17282

24. 2003.1183E (W. WYCKO: (415) 558-5972)

55 Francisco Street Project - Appeal of Preliminary Negative Declaration. The project site at 55 Francisco Street (Assessor's Block 0056, Lot 006), also known as 1789 Montgomery Street, is approximately 48,714 square feet in size and located on the southern side of Francisco Street in the block bounded by Francisco, Montgomery, Chestnut, and Kearny Streets. The project site currently has a three-story, 284-space parking garage and a seven-story office building. The proposed project would involve the addition of three new levels atop the existing parking garage with 51 residential dwelling units (approximately 57,999 gross square feet). The existing office building on the project site would remain as it is. The proposed project would also involve reconfiguration of the existing parking by removing 81 independently accessible public parking spaces and creating valet parking for 203 vehicles on the first two levels of the garage, and providing 59 independently accessible parking spaces on the third level for the proposed dwelling units. The project site is zoned C-2 (Community Business), and is within a 65-X height and bulk district and Waterfront Special Use District #3. The proposed project would require Conditional Use authorization for the proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD).

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 25, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: None. The Negative Declaration has been abandoned to do an EIR

25. 2006.0730U (J. Switzky: (415) 575-6815)

Motion to Approve Expenditure from Rincon Hill Community Improvements Fund of up to $25,000 for Appraisal and Planning Services from the Real Estate Division - The Real Estate Division of the Department of Administrative Services is providing appraisal, transaction, and miscellaneous services related to implementation of the Rincon Hill Plan community improvements, including open space acquisition (Guy Place) and community facilities leasing (Sailor's Union of the Pacific). Planning Code Section 318.6(b) enables the Planning Commission to expend up to $250,000 from the Fund for planning, architectural, engineering, and other support services for implementation of the public improvements funded by the Rincon Hill Community Improvements Fund. Approval of this expenditure will approve establishment of a work order not to exceed $25,000 for the Real Estate Division. This item was originally advertised for June 22, 2006.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 22, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

MOTION: 17283

26. Discretionary Review Policy (J. IONIN: (415) 558-6309)

Department presentation to the Commission on their Discretionary Review Policy adopted May 20, 2004 with suggested modifications to the Pre-Application process, expanded criteria and new terminology ("Simple vs. Complex" to "Abbreviated vs. Standard").

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 1, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to September 21, 2006

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

G. PUBLIC COMMENT

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))

None

Adjournment: 8:14 p.m.

THESE MINUTES WERE ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2006.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved with corrections on page 5

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

NAYES: None

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 www.sfgov.org. 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.