SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, September 27, 2007

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

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

COMMISSIONER ABSENT: None

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT ALEXANDER AT 1:32 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris – Director of Planning, Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, Amit Ghosh – Chief Planner, Tara Sullivan-Lenane, Scott Sanchez, Sue Exline, Sharon Young, Elizabeth Watty, Aaron Starr, Nannie Turrell Jonas Ionin – Acting Commission Secretary.

A. 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. 2007.0838C (J. IONIN: (415) 558-6309)

1100 OAK STREET (a.k.a. 401 Divisadero Street), northwest corner of Oak and Divisadero Streets, Assessor's Block 1215, Lot 016 – Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Section 703.3 to establish a new formula retail store (d.b.a. Batteries Plus) in an NC-2 (Neighborhood Commercial, Small Scale) District, the Divisadero Street Alcohol Restricted Use District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(NOTE: This item has been continued to October 4, 2007. Because the October 4^th hearing will be held outside of City Hall it needs a 15 day notice. As such, the calendar for October 4, 2007 has already been sent out and shows this item as being considered for hearing and possible action. Unless the Commission continues this item beyond October 4, 2007, it is anticipated that the Commission will hold a public hearing on October 4^th with the possibility of taking action.)

SPEAKERS

Patricia Vaughey, Planning Association of Divisadero Street

- This was never taken into one neighborhood organization and the poster on the window shows room 400 and not the other place.

- I would like scale drawings and to have this item continued to December to allow neighborhood associations time to study it and have the proper public input.

David Tornheim

- I concur with Patricia's comments. There have been inconsistencies on the notices for the hearing on this matter including the telephone line information.

- Re-notice the hearing to allow proper public input to be held at City Hall and allow enough time to review it.

ACTION: Continued to November 1, 2007

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

2. 2006.0997C (C. Jaroslawsky: (415) 558-6348)

1864 8^th AVENUE - east side of 8th Avenue, between Noriega and Ortega Streets; Assessor's Block 2044, Lot 003A - Request for Conditional Use Authorization for residential demolition of an existing single-family dwelling (pursuant to Board of Supervisors) Resolution 122-07) and the construction of a new, two-family dwelling. The rear of the property faces Laguna Honda Boulevard and Reservoir. The subject property is within an RH-2 (Residential House, Two-Family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Proposed for Continuance to October 18, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

3. 2007.0162D (C. JAROSLAWSKY (415) 558-6348)

2908 ULLOA STREET - between 30^th and 31^st Avenues; Lot 041 (formerly lot 017) in Assessor's Block 2395 – Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.07.20.7180, to construct a new, two-story over garage, single-family dwelling in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve with recommendations.

(Proposed for Continuance to October 18, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

4. 2007.0461C (A. HOLLISTER: (415) 575-9078)

448 BROADWAY STREET, north side between Montgomery and Kearny Streets, Lot 011 in Assessor's Block 0144 – Request for conditional use authorization to operate a business under this application between the hours of 2 AM and 6 AM. Specifically, the project proposal is to extend the hours of operation of the subject business (dba  Broadway Express ) to 3:00 AM. No construction is proposed under this application. This site is within the Broadway Neighborhood Commercial District, and a 65-A-1 Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Proposed for Continuance to October 18, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

5. 2004.1245E (N. TURRELL: (415) 575-9047)
300 Grant Avenue (aka 272 and 290 Sutter Street) - Assessor's Block 0287, Lots 013, 014 - Appeal of a Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration. The 10,500 square-foot project site is located at 300 Grant Avenue (aka 272-290 Sutter Street) on the northeast corner of Grant Avenue and Sutter Street in the Financial District neighborhood. The proposed project would involve the demolition of two buildings containing approximately 35,600-square feet of retail space and construction of an approximately 114,354 gross square foot, 12-story, 130-foot tall building containing up to 56 residential units, 15,000 square feet of retail space, and 34 to 40 off-street parking spaces. The retail entrance to the proposed project would be at the corner of Grant Avenue and Sutter Street, while the residential lobby entrance would be at the corner of Grant Avenue and Harlan Place. Access to the parking garage would be from Harlan Place off Grant Avenue. The site is zoned C-3-R (Downtown Retail) within an 80-130-F height and bulk district, and the Downtown Area Plan of the General Plan.

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 6, 2007)

NOTE: On July 12, 2007, following public testimony, the Commission entertained a motion to uphold the Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration (PMND) by a vote of +2 -4, the motion failed. Commissioner S. Lee was excused. The Commission continued the matter to September 6, 2007 by a vote +5 -1,

(Proposed for Continuance to October 25, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

6a. 2004.1245EKVX (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

300 GRANT AVENUE (aka 272 and 290 Sutter Street) - northeast corner at Sutter Street, Lots 13 and 14 in Assessor's Block 287, in a C-3-R (Downtown Retail) District and an 80-130-F Height and Bulk District - Request for review under Planning Code ("Code") Section 309 of the construction of a new, 11-story mixed-use building containing approximately 43 dwelling units, approximately 15,000 square feet of ground- and second-floor retail space, and up to 40 off-street parking spaces in a two-level underground garage, requiring the authorization of exceptions to Code standards for height above 80 feet, building bulk, rear yard, and off-street parking, as well as the granting of Variances of Code standards for usable open space and dwelling-unit exposure.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 6, 2007)

(Proposed for Continuance to October 25, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

6b. 2004.1245EKVX (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

300 GRANT AVENUE (aka 272 and 290 Sutter Street) - northeast corner at Sutter Street, Lots 13 and 14 in Assessor's Block 287, in a C-3-R (Downtown Retail) District and an 80-130-F Height and Bulk District - Request for Variance of Planning Code standards for usable open space and dwelling-unit exposure in conjunction with the construction of a new, 11-story mixed-use building containing approximately 43 dwelling units, approximately 15,000 square feet of ground- and second-floor retail space, and up to 40 off-street parking spaces in a two-level underground garage.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 6, 2007)

(Proposed for Continuance to October 25, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

7. 2006.1354D (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)

1166 HAIGHT STREET - north side between Baker and Lyon Streets, Lot 014 in Assessor's Block 1235 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.10.19.5970 to install a below-grade garage to create approximately eight off-street parking spaces for a building containing twelve units located in an RM-1 (Mixed, Low Density) and 40-X Height/Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 2, 2007)

(Proposed for Continuance to November 15, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

8a. 2007.0094CEZ (T. TAM: (415) 558-6325)

1401-1417 DIVISADERO STREET, northwest corner of Divisadero and O'Farrell Streets; Assessor's Block 1098, Lot 009 - Request forAmendment of the Zoning Map to change the zoning district for the property from NC-2 (Neighborhood Commercial, Small-Scale) to NC-3 (Neighborhood Commercial, Moderate Scale). This legislation (File Number 070546) was introduced by Supervisor Mirkarimi on April 24, 2007. The property is in the NC-2 (Neighborhood Commercial, Small-Scale) District and a 105-E Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

(Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

8b. 2007.0094CEZ (T. TAM: (415) 558-6325)

1401-1417 DIVISADERO STREET - (including 2201 Geary Street), west side of Divisadero Street, between Geary Boulevard and O'Farrell Street; Assessor's Block 1098, Lots 009 and 038 - Request for Conditional Use authorization to allow demolition of an existing three-story, mixed-use building and construction of a new six-story medical clinic and office building, approximately 75,000 square feet in size for Kaiser Permanente. The vacant parcel at 2201 Geary Street (Lot 038) is currently in the NC-3 (Neighborhood, Commercial, Moderate Scale) District and a 105-E Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.

(Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

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

9. Consideration of Adoption:

· Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of November 9, 2006

· Draft Minutes of 5 p.m. Special Meeting of August 30, 2007

· Draft Minutes of 10 a.m. Special Meeting of September 6, 2007

· Draft Minutes of 6 p.m. Special Meeting of September 6, 2007

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Alexander

10. Commission Comments/Questions

· Inquiries/Announcements. Without discussion, at this time Commissioners may make announcements or inquiries of staff regarding various matters of interest to the Commissioner(s).

· Future Meetings/Agendas. At this time, the Commission may discuss and take action to set the date of a Special Meeting and/or determine those items that could be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and other future meetings of the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Antonini

- I want to thank Ken Rich and Sarah Dennis who took time out to meet with me and explain a little bit about the Eastern Neighborhoods with particular reference to the different zoning classifications and the alphabet soup.

- It was a very good presentation. There was a lot of information and I found out that it was extremely helpful.

- While there will be a lot of testimony, comments and issues; it is good to sort of understand the definitions.

- I think that was a very good session and I thank them for that.

- Second, SPUR has a newsletter. I think the September newsletter talked about Seattle and they made some very good points.

- The one point they made that I thought was particularly good was the fact that Seattle has been in recent years looking at their housing needs and policies on a regional basis and they were very happy about that.

- I think that is an excellent point and it is even more important in the San Francisco Bay Area given that we are somewhat unique in the United States.

- We have 3 cities in the Bay Area with populations over 400,000. But even with those 3 cities being considered, over 50 percent of the population in the immediate Bay Area lives outside those 3 cities.

- We have about 50 percent of the work force commuting into San Francisco and I think that you know when we look at these things we cannot take an insular approach.

- While we are all responsible for the policies of the City and County of San Francisco, it makes sense that we have a closer working relationship with other areas in the region and look at housing needs and try to address them on a regional basis.

- To my knowledge, it has not been done very much so far in the Bay Area.

- That is what I take out of that comment. It is a real positive thing and I would like to see us look into steps to try to have a report perhaps or at least some input of what is being done on a regional basis as far as housing needs and concerns that are going on in the area.

Commissioner Sugaya

- I have seen some emails with respect to 5890 Mission Street which is an Arco Gas Station and there are some concerns about conditional use issues and if senior staff could take a look at that and inform us.

Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator

- We are very aware of it and thank you for bringing it to our attention. We have been working with Mr. Courier on this.

- It was a conditional use that this Commission heard about 5 years ago. It had some very specific code language on conditions for hours of operation and liquor sales and prohibitions.

- There is a new operator that is not cooperating as much.

- I have instructed staff that we are going to proceed with a hearing in front of this Commission to consider whether to revoke the authorization.

- That is two steps process that we have not done very often but essentially the Commission direct us to calendar a hearing just like a CU and you take it away instead of granting it.

Commissioner Sugaya

- My second point is the notice of November 11 with the intent to adopt the Negative Declaration.

- The lead agency is the regional University of California, but the property apparently is privately owned.

- I have an MEA or Environmental CEQA question and maybe through the City Attorney Office as to why this is being issued through the University instead of coming through The Planning Department?

- If it is not confidential, you can pass it on to us.

Commissioner Moore

- At the beginning of the week SPUR had a presentation on the climate change of the California Environmental Quality Act.

- There was a lot of interesting information being passed on regarding infill housing and CEQA's difficulties with infill housing.

- Gabriel Metcalf volunteered to give this Commission more details on the City's focus, an update on this particular issue and I suggest that we schedule such a presentation.

- I am looking for Commissioner Olague's support on this who also attended the meeting.

Commissioner Olague

- That is fine.

- 1880 Mission Street was a project that we heard about a year and a half ago. I would like some status on that.

- I would like some information on that and get a sense of where we are with that project. I do not know if that is something that I ask here or should I ask someone in the department.

Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator

- Julian Bañales just indicated to me that they will submit plans next week. We just contacted them and we would be happy to give an updated report on that.

Commissioner Antonini

- I wanted to elaborate on my earlier comments. I do not know if I phrased it correctly that I would like to see a report in the future in regards of the 8 bay area counties on how they are addressing their housing needs.

- In terms of affordability - whether they have inclusionary and what the different cities have.

- We need to know what other places are doing in regards of addressing some of the issues that we have. I would like to see that in the future.

Amit Ghosh, Chief Planner

- As part of the Housing Element development, we will brief you on what we call the Regional Housing Needs Assessment and what the region's affordable and total housing burden is; what part of that is shared by what county and how much of that falls to San Francisco.

- Are you asking us to do a separate presentation before we get to the housing element?

Commission Antonini

- I know we have seen that periodically and I do not know when the latest was.

- There have been I believe blue color regional housing studies and I do not know whether there is one out now. If there is one newer than a couple of years old that may be enough in itself because it answers the same questions.

- I just do not know when the most recent one is but I think the last one was in 2005 and there might be a newer one.

Commissioner Alexander

- This is in regards of the SFPUC water project we heard last week. We have been in discussions with the SFPUC and the City Attorney and the comment date for that probably will be extended.

-We do not have an exact date. We would probably hold another informational hearing for us to hear more and understand more about that project.

- I do want to make the public aware of that.

Commissioner W. Lee

- About a month ago, we held a joint hearing with the Building Inspection Commission and at that time I asked the Building Department for a status report of why the department did not receive any building permits for the 12  Quicklies' in town.

- I would like to get a status of that and also to follow up and have the Planning Commission ask the Director of Health to see why 12 permits were issued from the Health Department but yet none went to the Building or Planning Department.

Commissioner Alexander

- I would conquer with that. I think it is important to know what happened there so we do not have that problem again. The potential is great.

Commissioner Olague

- I would support Commissioner Moore's suggestion about a presentation regarding CEQA and housing.

- We had a brief conversation with Mr. Metcalf and he said that someone from SPUR would be willing to come and present to us. We can mix that with other people from that field.

Commissioner Alexander

- Before we calendar that, I would like the two of you to get more specific about what we want so we can work on it and bring it forward to calendar it.

- I think it is important that we understand the CEQA process.

Commissioner Olague

- At one point we had talked about transportation and having someone come and talk more about it.

Commissioner W. Lee

- I think we need to talk more about parking as get into the Eastern Neighborhoods process.

Commissioner Alexander

- As we start to plan the extra hearings, we need to scope out what we want to see so we can tell staff and when we set a date they know what to have prepared.

Amit Ghosh, Chief Planner

- May I suggest that we sit down with 2 commissioners who asked as to what specifically the interest is in transportation because it is a broad subject.

- We will set that up and discuss it with you.

Commissioner Olague

- Finally, I just want to thank Commissioner Alexander for talking to the Director of the PUC and working with the City Attorney to extend that hearing date on the comment period and for coordinating a hearing on the water projects.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

11. Director's Announcements

Amit Ghosh, Chief Planner

- In your packets you will find a memorandum from Teresa Ojeda, manager of the City Wide Information and Analysis Section, and attaches the pipeline report that we regularly publish. This is the first quarter report of 2007.

- As you know the pipeline reports on a segment of the development process projects. It starts with an application and ends with a permit of completion and occupancy. That is the last permit.

- The number of projects that are subject to those filters of application to the Certificate of Occupancy is reported in the pipeline reports.

- It is an informative report that tells you about trends and what is happening and what is projected to happen. It does not include conceptual projects or project that already have been completed and occupied.

- We will wait for you to let us know whether you require a staff presentation on that and we will be happy to present it to you if you so desire.

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

AnMarie Rodgers

Land Use Committee

NONE

Board of Supervisors

A- 2527 Front Street: To designate this item Planning Code Article 11 would need to be amended. Passed

B- Medical Cannabis Dispensary Legislation: It was before the Board for the final reading and it would amend the Health and Planning Codes and extend the deadline to file for permits. It also provides new provisions for disability access. Passed

C- Appeals:

a. 445 Wynona Street - Cat. Ex.: The Board voted to direct the Planning Department to conduct a more through traffic impact study. The other issues have been sufficiently addressed in the Cat. Ex. Appeal.

b. 317 Cortland Street – Cat. Ex.: The Department of Public Health found that there were contaminants that leaked off the site but not sufficient to cause harm to workers or future occupants of the building. Upheld the Cat. Ex.

D- Introductions:

a. Last week Supervisor Ammiano introduced legislation that would create interim controls for the Eastern Neighborhoods Conditional Use. This week he amended the legislation slightly by explicitly listing new exemptions from this interim control. Now he is proposing that this interim control would exempt projects where the Planning Commission had already issue a Conditional Use permit on or before the effective date of the legislation. It would also exempt alterations or minor additions that were not defined as new construction. It would exempt projects that have given out 311 notifications under most circumstances. Further, projects would be exempted if they were a hundred percent affordable or a full service restaurant or small full service restaurant.

b. Supervisor Peskin introduced an ordinance to initiate the designation of the Chronicle building at 691 Market Street as a landmark,

Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator

Board of Appeals None

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.

SPEAKERS

Steven Currier [Regarding 5898 Mission Street]

- We sent you a letter back in May after having conversations with the new owner after several weeks.

- She does not want to comply with the 16 conditions that were passed by this Board on September 4, 2003. We have been dealing with this issue for a year and a half.

- About six months later, after this Commission granted the Conditional Use, Arco contacted us to see if we would work with them to remove one of the conditions which was selling alcohol and we said absolutely not because that was the top issue on our Discretionary Review.

- We have been very patient since the end of April and we had our Board meeting on Monday night and we unanimously voted to push for a revocation hearing through this body.

Patricia Vaughey

- 2721 Spear Street has appealed the window's recommendation from Commissioner Sugaya. They are trying to get around the exemptions.

- I am seeing pieces of paper show up with reduced drawings that are so bad that you cannot really read them and also I am receiving a lot of papers without the existing drawings on them.

- There is more than one place that you go to look for the files and the scaled drawings are not there of the existing and proposed ones. This is extremely important for public input.

- Neighborhood Associations are not being alerted ahead of time to work out compromises.

- The public has the right to have meetings and hearings and try to get compromises so that we do not have to put everything in front of the Commission. I am not seeing that right now.

- You should take a look at the notices and send it 15 days prior to the hearing instead of 10 so the public can receive it on time, look at it and attend the meetings.

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.

13. 2007.0874C (Tape IA) (C. TEAGUE: (415) 575-9081)

245 11^th STREET - north side, between Kissling and Folsom Streets, Lot 016 in Assessor's Block 3517 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 816.21, 890.50(a) and 303 for a change of use of a 3-story, approximately 17,000 square feet building from general office space to a social service provider (Westside Community Services) within an SLR (Service, Light Industrial, Residential) Zoning District and a 50-X Height and Bulk designation. The proposal is to offer community-based prevention, mental health, substance abuse, AIDS-related, and social services. No building expansion or exterior renovations are included.

Preliminary recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 6, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

MOTION: 17490

F. REGULAR CALENDAR

14. (Tape IA; IB; IIA) (S. SANCHEZ: (415) 558-6326)

ACADEMYOF ART UNIVERSITY ENFORCEMENT UPDATE – Informational presentation on the status of pending enforcement cases on properties operated by the Academy of Art University, including descriptions of the various enforcement issues and a discussion on the University's efforts to achieve compliance.

SPEAKERS

Gary Delagnes, President of San Francisco Police Officers Association

- Over the last few years, the Police Officers Association has had the opportunity to work with the Academy of Arts on several projects.

- I think that it should be very well noted that this is an organization that has provided thousands of educational opportunities to over 12,000 students in the City of San Francisco in art for a career. They have been a tremendous asset to the academic community.

- I urge the Commission to work with the Academy of Arts.

Alberto Bertoli, Director of School of Architecture at The Academy of Arts

- I would like to speak about the educational role that the University has in the community, with students, and the City.

- It brings to the City a place that enhances the urban condition by taking over buildings that in many cases are not necessarily in good condition and bring them up to participate visually and actively become more livable.

- You should consider this very highly and try to cooperate and work with the institution to achieve the required criteria that any planning department needs to have.

Rev. Arnold Towsend

- Look onto the Academy and understand the good work that they do and work with them to get all the issues cleared up and get them on the right track.

- They have worked furiously to repair any problems that they have and get that done with the understanding that it should have been done.

Michael Petricci, Director of Campus Safety for the Academy

- We have over 70 professionals and a leadership team of three people.

- I have 30 years of experience in safety and we are committed to provide a safe and secure environment to our staff, students and for the public.

Nancy Musser

- Resident of the 1800 Greenwich Street and we want to keep that area residential.

- We were not included in the process and I have heard about cooperation but that does not go only one way.

Patricia Vaughey

- Taking residents out for students that are coming from out of the City when we really need housing is disturbing.

- We should look into what exactly the Academy of Arts is doing and not just their master plan. There should be some control of what happens with buildings, especially historic ones.

John Elliott

- I'm a renter of one of the dormitories own by the Academy of Arts and have lived at 860 Sutter Street for 30 years.

- They are the fourth owner of that building and are the best of all in taking care of it. I have no problems with them at all.

Ryan Dumlao, Student of the Academy of Arts

- I ran out of my federal help but with the Academy of Arts I have a lot of opportunities to finish and pursue my career. They basically saved me.

Carmen Bardsley

- The issue here is that the Academy of Arts has moved into many different locations without going through the proper channels.

- Students should have a campus with a gymnasium and other amenities for them to go to.

- It looks like they do not have any supervision and they should not be in a residential district.

Tracy Dearman

- The Academy of Arts is a hidden treasure and we see their signs and logos everywhere but we are forgetting the work that they do by providing opportunities and staff in the arts.

- They are committed to do scholarships for high school students to participate in summer or spring programs to expose them to art in a variety of opportunities present in the arts.

Elisa Stephens

- My grandfather started the Academy of Arts in 1921. My father took over in 1950 and I assumed presidency in 1992. We are dedicated as a family to the Academy of Arts.

- We bring a tremendous amount of vitality to the City and I look forward to working with the City in good faith and apologize for not being involved in City politics.

- We want to work with neighbors as well as alleviate their concerns with our students.

Jamie Williams

- I have seen amazing things in working with Elisa Stephens and the problems going on right now could be fixed.

- I invite people to come to the Academy and really see what is going on inside.

John Hanley, President of the Fire Fighters Union in San Francisco

- The Academy of Arts is a good neighbor and has worked with the Fire Department on violations.

- They want to continue being part of San Francisco and they are here to shake hands and work together.

Joanne Minsky, Oak and Fillmore Neighborhood Association

- Check all the buildings that they own or control for code compliance.

- You ought to direct them to have the proper City people come around and make sure that they follow the codes and have them fix anything done with the codes.

- I am sure they do good things and will keep doing that but I do not want anybody to get hurt.

David

- I think that the Academy of Art should follow to the rules as every other person and pay strict attention to the people they misplaced.

- I am in favor of the Academy but I definitely feel that the City needs to look at the fact that everything needs to be done appropriately and for them to communicate with the neighbors.

Michael Burk

- I am asking you to accept our apology for the situation in which we find ourselves and appreciate that we are trying to correct the situation by having your staff continue to work with us as they have.

Claire Pilcher

- The issue is that they are spreading out into residential areas, permits are not being obtained, and Planning is not being consulted.

- It has nothing to do with the quality of the Academy of Art but about following rules.

Sue Hestor

- When the Institutional Master Plan ordinance was passed, it was because hospitals and education institutions have good missions but sometimes are blind and they do not see the impacts on the City and in the neighborhoods.

- The Academy of Arts has been in existence and has not complied. We have not heard that addressed today.

- They have building code issues but they also have an Institutional Master Plan obligation.

Lu Blazej

- I just want you to know that there is a new team of professionals and legal staff to get this institution on the right track. They are committed to it.

ACTION: No Action is required of the Commission. Information Item Only

15. 2004.0194E (Tape IIA) (N. TURRELL: (415) 575-9047)

GOLDEN GATEPARKSTABLES PROJECT- Public Hearing on the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The San Francisco Recreation and Park Department (SFRPD) is proposing the rehabilitation of the four stables built during the Works Progress Administration (WPA), demolition of the Golden Gate Park (GGP) Grandstand and ancillary structures, construction of three additional stables, and expansion of the existing arena. The existing WPA Stables would be rehabilitated to meet current seismic and building code standards and the stalls would be reconfigured to increase their size. The number of stalls onsite would total 46 after completion of the project. The demolition of the GGP Grandstand would allow for the expansion of the arena to 130 feet by 122 feet (15,860 sq. ft.) from its current size 8,576 sq. ft. The arena would be covered and lit. Other project components include construction of a retaining wall along the south end of the expanded arena to protect the all-purpose trail running east-west on the southernmost side of the site; construction of a hay barn and feed storage building totaling 1,600 sq. ft; construction of a 200 square foot manure bunker adjacent to the hay barn; use of multiple-use paths to nearby arenas, resurfacing of pathways, road, and parking lot; landscape improvements, and installation of perimeter fencing. The goal of the Proposed Project is to bring the historic activity of horseback riding back to the GGP Stables. The project site is located within the boundaries of Golden Gate Park, Block 1700, Lot 1, south of John F. Kennedy Drive between Spreckels Lake, GGP Stadium, and Lindley Meadow; and east of the GGP Police Stables. The site is located within a P (Public Use) zoning district and OS (Open Space) Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: No Action Required

Note: Written comments will be accepted at the Planning Department's offices until the close of business on October 16, 2007.

SPEAKERS

Cynthia Silverstine, Park Trust

- We are a 3500 member organization and advocate. We support the City's parks and recreation programs and support the proposed project.

- The two most important points really covered by this project are: to bring back its historic use to the park and to provide a diversity of recreational opportunities for the community.

Peter Mikkelsen

- I sent a letter to the department who prepared the report and asked for two points: who has the overall responsibility for coordinating the renovation of the stable and see that it is done?

- The second question, what does the Commission suggest for the people in the City that need adequate instruction to get on public transportation?

Patricia Vaughey

- I am thrilled that we are at this stage and we should move it forward as fast as possible.

Louis

- This project should not need an impact review because San Francisco from its inception had horses.

- Diversity and historical preservation are on the opposite ends of the spectrum. You are all about trying to get away from what is historically correct.

Edmund

- The City, and part of your job, is to bring back and keep good things in San Francisco.

- Maybe you do not know the history of this piece of earth but it is very important that you know that if there were no horses from the start then there would be no grass and trees in the City.

ACTION: No Action is required from the Commission.

16. 2007.0247T (Tape IIA; IIB) (S. EXLINE: (415) 558-6332)

AMENDMENTS TO PLANNING CODE SECTION 315/INCLUSIONARY HOUSING – EXPAND APPLICATION TO PROJECTS OF THREE OR MORE UNITS - Substitute legislation introduced by Supervisor McGoldrick as part of Board File No. 070212 that would amend portions of the Planning Code to extend the requirements of the inclusionary affordable housing program to three or more units and establishing the percentage of affordable housing required for residential developments of three or four units.

Preliminary Recommendation: Adoption

SPEAKERS

Mathew Brannan

- I oppose these amendments because we started with 10 units and then went down to 5 and now it is proposed to be three.

- I request the Commission to send it back to the Planning Department and have them work together with the City Attorney's Office to propose a new plan and assure that the new plan is in line with the Supreme clause.

Mark Brennan

- I'm opposed to this ordinance because it is only 3 percent of the original construction. We have a need for affordable housing.

- This is going to affect the small developers and I urge the Commission to disapprove it.

Jerry Augusta

- I oppose this legislation because nobody knows the impact that this is going to have in housing production.

- These are huge fees and it is affecting the production. It is time to change the framework of the discussion and give incentives instead of punishments.

David Buckley

- We all recognize that there is a need for affordability in this town but this is not adding up.

- This is going to take small builders out of business.

Brian McGee

- I have a family building business and we work small. What this is going to do to us is that we are not going to be able to build with this legislation.

- There are hundreds of people that are going to be affected by this.

[Inaudible]

- Anywhere else in the Bay Area that we go to build we get a density bonus of 35 percent as per State Law of California.

- We are the people who pay the fees, construct a building, and come back to keep building the City.

Joanne

- This is not right to keep adding fees. The amount of money that goes into a building is huge.

- The rent in San Francisco is so high and doing this is going to increase it even more.

Patricia Vaughey

- We are not addressing the issue of what must be considered affordable for the money that goes into this.

Edmund

- You have a right and responsibility to make this a better world. We need politicians to stand up for the people.

- The new housing is targeting only the rich people and we need to make housing available for everyone.

MOTION: Commissioner Olague moved to approve with recommendations from staff. There was no second for that motion. The motion did not move forward.

MOTION: Commissioner Antonini moved to disapprove. There was no second for that motion. The motion did not move forward.

ACTION: The resolution will be forwarded the Board of Supervisors without a recommendation from the Planning Commission.

Item 17 was taken out of order and followed #13

17. 2007.0688T (Tape IA) (T. SULLIVAN-LENANE: (415) 558-6257)

POLK STREET: BOARD FILE 070851 - Ordinance Amending Planning Code Sections 121.2 and 723 as related to the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District [Board File No. 07-0851]. Ordinance amending sections of the San Francisco Planning Codes by amending Section 121.2 to move Polk Street from a 3,000 square foot use size limit to a 2,000 square foot use size limit and by amending Section 723 to provide that commercial and institutional uses in the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District are permitted up to 1,999 square feet and allowed as a conditional use for 2,000 square feet and above; adopting findings, inclusion Section 302 findings, environmental findings and findings of consistency with Section 101.1 and the General Plan.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Modifications

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 20, 2007)

SPEAKERS

Tony Antico, John Barleycorn Coalition

- We would like to endorse a one year moratorium on the expansion in the area.

- We represent 4,000 people who have signed a petition requesting that this place stay open. Also, we have the support of two neighborhood and business associations.

- We focused a lot of the economic implications of changing the use of this property. They are a 40 year old business and taking them out would be bad for the economic and social life in that district.

Supervisor Peskin

- As you may know, this has been employed to keep smaller use size limits in some of the commercial districts in San Francisco.

- It was actually pioneered on the other side of the hill from Polk Street, in North Beach, that went into effect in 1998 and has been a safe guard for small businesses there.

- Many were displaced at that time by unit consolidations where two, three and four stores were consolidated together.

- Subsequently, it was adopted with the recommendation of this body in the Castro NCD.

- The situation is somewhat different and I want to highlight that.

- It is a very different mix size of store fronts. And while we have some anecdotal evidence, we do not have at this time what we had in the case of North Beach and the Castro use size revisions.

- That was a use size analysis of every single business within the boundaries of the NCD through a survey that was compiled in 1986 when the use size provisions went into effect.

- That has not been done in this instance. We do certainly know that we have lost a number of small businesses through consolidation.

- I would hope that by embracing your staff's recommendation not to exceed a one year period where we could do that statistical analysis and the interim helps safeguard and protect those businesses that are under threat.

ACTION: Approved as amended encouraging the Board of Supervisors to draft it in a way that gets it eliminated from the Code.

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

RESOLUTION: 17491

18. 2007.0764C (Tape IIB) (S. YOUNG: (415) 558-6346)

3228 SACRAMENTO STREET - north side between Lyon Street and Presidio Avenue; Lot 011 in Assessor's Block 1007: Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Sections 703.4, 303(c), and 303(i) of the Planning Code to establish a Formula Retail Use in the Sacramento Street Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District and a 40-X -+Height and Bulk District. The proposal is to convert a vacant retail sales establishment (previously occupied by  Urban Chateau ) to another retail sales establishment (DBA  Pierre Deux , a French Country style home furniture, décor, and accessories store). The proposed retail store is considered a Formula Retail Use under Section 703.3 of the Planning Code. The proposal will involve tenant improvements to the existing commercial space with new merchandise display areas. There will be no exterior modifications to the storefront or expansion of the existing building envelope.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS

Janet Crane, Architect

- The store is a local business that has been operating in San Francisco for over 30 years. It started on Sutter Street and for the last ten years has been on Main Street where the lease is expiring.

- They are trying to relocate to the Sacramento Street district within a shopping district where many stores of related businesses in home furnishings, accessories, and antiques are sold.

- Pierre Deux operates a total of 18 stores in the United States and one in Japan. In California they are in San Francisco and Los Angeles.

- While the store has over 11 locations, it really does not conform to the formula retail criteria in the Planning Code because the stores have a trader name but do not have standard merchandise.

- [Showed photographs of the store.]

- The space is now empty. The previous tenant was an antique and home furnishings company.

- The scale of this building is very much in keeping with the rest of the district.

- Pierre Deux is planning to paint, redecorate and install new signage but the space is open and left like it was planned. No significant changes are proposed for the store layout.

- They would hire 5 employees, all local residents.

ACTION: Approved

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

MOTION: 17492

19. 2007.0136C (Tape IIB; IIIA) (E. Watty: (415) 558-6620)

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

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 9, 2007)

SPEAKERS

Louis Blazej, Project Sponsor Representative

- This project came before you as a conditional use for six units for senior housing.

- [Showed photographs of how the building was and the way it is now.]

- It was originally with off-street parking but looking at the transportation and the curb cut that would generate, it was not necessary.

- The fact that it is coming back now is so it can go from six to five units and it is giving a contribution to affordability.

Claire Pilcher, Former President of Friends of Noe Valley

- We had a neighborhood meeting last year on this item and we were told by the project sponsor that the housing was going to be for seniors and it would be affordable.

- The building was bigger than what we wanted because it was presented to us as four units.

- I urge you to deny the modification to this conditional use.

Elleanore Gerhardt

- Three meetings were held in the neighborhood to gather input. The general feeling was that the six units were too large and the façade was not in keeping with the area's Victorian character.

- The builder agreed to not have a garage and that they would sell the apartments to seniors and they were going to be affordable.

Anastasia Yovanopoulos

- I also attended some of those meetings and was sold the same bill of goods by the owners that these apartments were for seniors.

John Hudson

- I also attended some of those meetings and I more or less agreed to what was said.

- I ask you to approve the conditional use authorization because it is better to have five units occupied than six vacant.

- There are no seniors that want to buy at that price with no parking.

Eileen Long, One of the Project Sponsors

- We had a lot of exposure from the Noe Valley Voice. The neighborhood knew about us.

- I sent a lender out to all homeowners in the Noe Valley. I think that they were going to be prime candidates to live in the six condominiums.

- We did advertise through open houses every Sunday in 2005 with signs and ads in the Real Estate Times for 2005 and 2006. In 2006 I brought in Van Guard, a leader in selling condominiums.

- I did get one written offer. But mainly there are four obstacles: size, storage, price and the lack of parking.

Cathy Schareet

- It is a shame to see that building empty and I was one of the advocates for that building.

- This building does not have the amenities that seniors need to live comfortably.

- It does not work and if we let it sit any longer, we will take away the value of 24 Street.

Jerry Augusta

- This building should not be sitting there vacant; it is very well documented that it was tried to be sold as new housing.

- Do whatever you can to have this building occupied.

Larry

- Asked the Commission to make homeruns in taking care for hosing for all and planning for seniors and people with disabilities.

Charles Spiegel

- I would like my mother to live in safe, friendly housing that is walking distance to my house.

- Although I agree that it is a beautiful building, I oppose the conditional use.

- The approval from three years ago says that this building must be occupied by seniors and does not say that it has to be sold as condominiums. It could be rental apartments.

Ruth Spiegel

- I have been looking for a more suitable and accessible apartment. I did not look at this building because it is for sale and the price starts from $500,000.

- I would be very interested in this building to rent an apartment.

Cheryl Deaner

- Since the developer started the process to take away the senior housing from our community, there have been no community meetings about it.

- Have they done outreach to disabled/senior organizations or organizations that assist senior citizens in finding housing in San Francisco?

- If you are inclined to approve this change, consider a continuation so the developer can have a community meeting.

Yvonne Borg

- I do not think that parking is the problem here; I think it is the price.

- For one year there was no way of knowing that these units were for sale and the sign did not have a contact person or number. I wonder if this was done on purpose.

Mark Brennan

- I urge you to approve this conditional use for a change because we've also had a building empty for two years and it is a very expensive proposition to have it that way.

- The efforts were put out there to sell the units and it didn't work.

Brian

- We did not receive one solid offer. All the people did not want to give up their car. We tried everything and even dropped the price at least three times.

- We have paid to the bank for the last 2 and a half year $21,592 per month. There is no logical reason why we would not try to sell this.

Patricia Vaughey

- My question is did they go to other citizens and neighborhood meetings in the City.

- Look at both sides.

Jerry

- When we originally started this building, we went for four units with parking.

- We have done marketing numerous times and have gone to a lot of real estate companies and it is very expensive to keep it vacant.

ACTION: Disapproved

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

NAYES: Antonini

ABSENT: W. Lee

MOTION: 17493

20. 2007.0595D (Tape IIIA; IIIB) (A. STARR (415) 558-6362)

350 DIVISADERO (aka 352 DIVISADERO STREET) – west side between Oak and Page Streets; Lot 27 in Assessor's Block 1217 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of medical cannabis dispensaries, of Building Permit Application 2007.05.08.0661, to legalize an existing medical cannabis dispensary (dba San Francisco Patient's Cooperative) within an NC-2 (Small Scale, Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and modify the application so that smoking is prohibited on-site.

SPEAKERS

Rev. Randy Webster

- The San Francisco Patient's Cooperative and Medical Cannabis Community Center was funded back in August of 1999 as a San Francisco Patient's Research Center.

- We went through the change of use permit and were the first one to receive the change of use to Medical Cannabis Clinic.

- We were also granted the right to medicate by smoking on site to the exceptions made to the Health Code, specifically Article 19f.

- On site medicating was and remains a vital part of the harm reduction process and it is crucial for many homeless and section 8 subsidized patients that come daily to our facilities.

- Holistic is empowerment is what we call this kind of patient's care. We offer an alternative to isolation and a chance to socialize.

- In 2002 we changed our name to San Francisco Patient Cooperative to better suit our function as patient-to-patient care.

- It is completely non-profit volunteer management and staff is made up from our patient base that is clean and trained.

- The Cooperative is involve in the community and has a long standing neighborhood policy posted at the exits and common areas to ensure peace, safe and coexistence with the community.

- We have patient's guidelines and house rules posted inside the facility to ensure a safe healing environment within.

- The majority of our patients are low to no income and come to the Cooperative through public transportation. They spend time a considerable portion of the day in our facility.

- Since 1999, we have been taking periodic surveys to see if our patients are impacting parking and traffic in the area. 99 percent of our patients come by public transportation.

Joanne Minsky

- I have several objections to the way that this institution runs its business. They do not monitor people leaving to make sure they do not drive; they do not monitor patients to make sure they do no smoke outside; and there are parking issues.

Beth Johnson

- I am a patient and volunteer at the site.

- I facilitate two support groups of 10 – 20 people every week and these are just two of the many activities that we provide for our patients.

- We do take as much responsibility as is feasible to monitor the patients that are leaving our facility.

Marylou Benitez

- I go to the club to medicate because it is illegal to do it around minors and I have a 16-year old. It is a big help with my medication and other issues.

Barbara Nunez

- I volunteer and I work the front door and some of the things that were said are unfounded because I have been sitting there for the last six years.

- The San Francisco Police walk our beat at least three times in a six hour period on both sides of the street.

Percy Coleman

- I live in the Tenderloin in subsidized housing. And there are a lot of marijuana clubs close to my home but I go to the Divisadero because of the people and the effective services there.

- I have been going there for three years and I have never seen anybody smoking outside.

Albert Blats

- I am a patient and I do not take any pills. I go to the groups and meet a lot of people.

- San Francisco is about the people.

Michael Aldrich

- Shared an idea to solve the 1,000 foot rule by adding the vertical distance of 30 or 40 feet to the 980 feet that is the horizontal distance to the back corner of 350 Divisadero from the school.

- Another possibility is to consider the walking distance instead of the feet distance which could be about four blocks. The rule does not say what you have to use to measure that distance.

Michelle Aldrich

- When we put together what dispensaries should look like, San Francisco Cooperative was and still is a model for providing social services, support groups, harm reduction and the ability to medicate safely on site.

- This is the only site with enough space for meetings and memorial services.

Cheryl Lynn

- Shared her experience at the San Francisco Cooperative when trying to go in with a service dog. It was not allowed in.

- Opposed the permit until the human rights issues are resolved.

Silvia Johnson

- Marijuana should not be taken outside. That would solve a lot of problems.

EdmondLarry Juicy

- Thanked Barry Bonds and Willie Mays for being in San Francisco because this particular club used to be an African American Night Club.

- I called this club the medical marijuana country club. It is doing the best, and always has done, with all the services they give to the community.

Sammie Shepherd

- I am a patient of the club and love it because it brought me back to life.

- I fully support the passing of this permit. And just remember that all these people volunteer.

Judith Kaminsky

- I'm opposed to this permit because we do have parking issues and I'm concerned with people smoking in the cars and driving loaded.

- It is impacting the businesses and no smoking on site would eliminate some of the problems.

- Another issue is enforcement. Who is going to verify that they follow the regulations?

Patricia Vaughey

- When this subject came up, they were supposed to close at 10 o'clock but they are out after midnight every night, loitering outside.

- If you approve this, I support no smoking on premises and close at 10p.m. This place is not following the rules.

David Sarmiento

- I have been a patient as well as an advocate for medical marijuana.

- This medical dispensary is more than a cannabis dispensary to me with all the services they provide.

Paul Torello

- I'm a member and worker at the club as security.

- Please grant the permit.

Kitty Nabotseg

- This is our family and home. We gather there every single day of the week.

- This is a wonderful thing that San Francisco has done for us and I urge you to keep doing that.

Joseph

- I have been a member of this club for about eight years and five years ago we started the harm reduction and are helping people to achieve their dream.

- I would like this decision to go through and we will do our best to work with the community.

George Price

- This place is not a pot shop. It is a true community center because of the diverse activities that it offers its patients for social gatherings, special programs, events and groups.

- The use of cannabis to smoke, the preferred method, is essential for a well being service relation.

- It is also important because many of our members live in Section 8 and other subsidized housing and as such is not legal to be medicate in their own residences.

- It is a unique and special place. It is a true landmark in the medicinal cannabis community where it has a tradition and history within that community.

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved allowing the MCD to continue operation without on-site smoking and hours of operation are limited to 10p.m.

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

ABSENT: W. Lee

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))

SPEAKERS

None

Adjournment: 7:28 P.M

THESE MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, November 15, 2007.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Moore

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.