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

Skip to page body
City and County of San Francisco

December 14, 2006

December 14, 2006

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, December 14, 2006

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

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

COMMISSIONER ABSENT: W. Lee

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY ACTING CHAIR ANTONINI AT 1:30 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris – Director of Planning, Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, Amit Ghosh – Chief Planner, Jonathan Purvis, 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. 2003.0347E (R. AHMADI: (415)-558-5966)

Market & Octavia Neighborhood Plan - Certification of Final Environmental Impact Report. The project area lies to the west of the City's downtown financial district and sits at the junction of several neighborhoods, including, Civic Center, Hayes Valley, Western Addition, South of Market, Inner Mission, the Castro, Duboce Triangle, Eureka Valley, and Upper Market. The proposed neighborhood plan would reclassify the existing zoning from Residential Districts (R), Neighborhood Commercial Districts (NCD's), Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial (NC-3), and Heavy Commercial (C-M) to Downtown General Commercial Districts (C-3-G), Residential Transit Oriented (RTO), Neighborhood Commercial Transit Districts (NCT), Neighborhood Commercial-Transit, Moderate-Scale Mixed Use Districts (NCT-3). It would also increase height limits in certain areas and reduce height limits in other areas. The proposed zoning and height reclassifications would increase the potential for residential development in the area.

Preliminary Recommendation: Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report.

Please note: The public review period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report is closed. The Planning Commission does not conduct public review of Final EIRs. Public comments on the certification may be presented to the Planning Commission during the Public Comment portion of the Commission calendar.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 7, 2006)

(Proposed for Continuance to January 18, 2007)

SPEAKERS

Sue Hestor

  1. I recommended that you consider the continuance of this item until after you are done with item 17 [Market and Octavia Plan Amendments].

ACTION: Continued to February 1, 2007

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

ABSENT: Alexander, Olague and W. Lee

2. 2003.0347E (R. AHMADI: 414-558-5966)

Market & Octavia Neighborhood Plan - Adoption of CEQA Findings Related to EIR and Potential Project Approval Action. The project includes proposed amendments to the General Plan, Planning Code and Zoning Map. The project area lies to the west of the City's downtown financial district and sits at the junction of several neighborhoods, including, Civic Center, Hayes Valley, Western Addition, South of Market, Inner Mission, the Castro, Duboce Triangle, Eureka Valley, and Upper Market. The proposed neighborhood plan would: (1) amend the General Plan, adding a new Area Plan (the Market and Octavia Area Plan) and make related amendments to the Commerce and Industry, Housing, Recreation and Open Space and Transportation Elements, the Civic Center Area Plan, Downtown Area Plan, South of Market Area Plan and the Land Use Index; and (2) amend the Planning Code and Zoning Map to reclassify the existing zoning from Residential Districts (R), Neighborhood Commercial Districts (NCD's), Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial (NC-3), and Heavy Commercial (C-M) to Downtown General Commercial Districts (C-3-G), Residential Transit Oriented (RTO), Neighborhood Commercial Transit Districts (NCT), Neighborhood Commercial-Transit, Moderate-Scale Mixed Use Districts (NCT-3). The project would also increase height limits in certain areas and reduce height limits in other areas, and establish new fees. The proposed zoning and height reclassifications would increase the potential for residential development in the area.

Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt CEQA Findings.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 7, 2006)

(Proposed for Continuance to January 18, 2007)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed on item #1.

ACTION: Continued to February 1, 2007

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

ABSENT: Alexander, Olague and W. Lee.

3. 2004.0603C (T. Tam (415) 558-6325)

601 DUBOCE AVENUE - southwest corner of Duboce Avenue and Noe Street; Lot 1 in Assessor's Block 3539 - Request for a Conditional Use Authorization for a Planned Unit Development pursuant to Planning Code Sections 303(c) and 304 to amend a previously approved CU/PUD authorization (Case No. 1987.847C, Motion No. M13255) and develop a new four-story, 46,000 gross-square-foot (gsf) clinic / medical office building (as measured by the Planning Code; 50,100 gsf without area reductions allowed by Sec. 102.9). The new building would contain a Neuromuscular and Electroencephalogram Clinic, offices, a pharmacy and an admitting station for the existing ambulatory surgery department in the CPMC Hospital North Tower. As a Planned Unit Development, the project is seeking modifications to Planning Code requirements for rear yard and independently accessible parking. The property is in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 65-D Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Proposed for Continuance to January 25, 2007)

SPEAKERS

Jeffrey Nelson, California Pacific Medical Center

  1. Requested that the continuance to January 25, 2007 not change.

Richard Magary, Buena Vista Neighborhood Association

- We have been working as part of a neighborhood task force and have generally achieved some productive results.

  1. At the same time, there are a few significant issues that are not satisfactory.
  2. I ask that you consider a reasonable time frame, and February 1 seems appropriate.

Peter Cohen

- The process has been stuck for two months and the task force has not endorsed this project.

- I request that you continue this project to February 1, 2007 to allow time and work with neighborhood concerns.

Steven

  1. Requested the item be continued to February 1 to allow more time to address concerns.

- Time is needed to work out concerns between the Task Force [on behalf of neighbors] and California Pacific Medical Center.

Brook

- We need time to review all documents and if it could be continued further, that would be great.

- Please continue to February 1 at the very least.

ACTION: Continued to February 1, 2007

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

ABSENT: Alexander, Olague and W. Lee.

4. 2006.0897D (A. STARR: (415) 558-6362)

3300 CLAY STREET - at the southeast corner of Clay Street and Presidio Avenue, Lot 003 in Assessor's Block 0997- Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.02.27.5519proposing to remove the ground floor storage area of a six-unit residential building, excavate a portion of the ground floor, and install a 6-car garage with a 10' wide garage door on Presidio Avenue. The existing building is a four-story, six-unit building in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed Districts, Low-Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 16, 2006)

NOTE: On October 5, 2006, following public testimony the Commission closed public hearing and entertained a motion to approve. The motion failed by a vote of +3 –2. Commissioners Moore and Sugaya voted no and Commissioner Alexander was absent. The item was continued to November 16, 2006 by a vote +4 –1. Commissioner Sugaya voted no. Commissioner Alexander was absent.

(Proposed for Continuance to February 1, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed.

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

ABSENT: Alexander, Olague and W. Lee.

5. (J. IONIN: (415) 558-6309)

WTS GUIDELINES - Informational Presentation on the current status of the W.T.S. Guidelines: a brief history; preference location summary; accessory use determinations; and an overview of the supplemental guidelines adopted in 2003.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 2, 2006)

(Proposed for Continuance to February 8, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed.

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

ABSENT: Alexander, Olague and W. Lee.

6a. 2006.0636VDD (S. MENDRIN: (415) 558-6625)

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

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

(Proposed for Continuance to March 1, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed.

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

ABSENT: Alexander, Olague and W. Lee.

6b. 2006.0636VDD (S. MENDRIN: (415) 558-6625)

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

(Proposed for Continuance to March 1, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed.

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

ABSENT: Alexander, Olague and W. Lee.

PLEASE NOTE: The Planning Commission has temporarily altered the Order of Business for this hearing. COMMISSIONERS QUESTIONS AND MATTERS and DIRECTOR'S REPORT will follow item #17 - Market and Octavia Plan Amendments, Hearing #5.

B. 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: None

C. 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.

7. 2006.1156Q (A. STARR: (415) 558-6362)

7 CASA WAY - south side between Marina Boulevard and Retiro Way, Lot 014 in Assessor's Block 0418A - Public hearing, under Article 9 of the Subdivision Code, to determine consistency of a proposed five-unit Condominium-Conversion Subdivision with the General Plan, located in a RH-3 (Residential, House Districts, Three Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposal is to convert the existing building to a condominium form of ownership and does not involve expansion, alteration, or demolition of the existing building.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Alexander, Olague and W. Lee.

MOTION: 17346

8. 2006.1168Q (A. STARR: (415) 558-6362)

73-83 GRATTAN STREET - southwest corner of Grattan Street and Cole Street, Lot 025 in Assessor's Block 1280 - Public hearing, under Article 9 of the Subdivision Code, to determine consistency of a proposed six-unit Condominium-Conversion Subdivision with the General Plan, located in a RH-3 (Residential, House, Three Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposal is to convert the existing six-unit building to a condominium form of ownership and does not involve expansion, alteration, or demolition of the existing building.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved.

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

ABSENT: Alexander, Olague and W. Lee.

MOTION: 17347

9. 2006.1174Q (A. STARR: (415) 558-6362)

894-896 WALLER STREET/12-16 BRODERICK STREET - northwest corner of Waller Street and Broderick Street, Lot 018 in Assessor's Block 1240 - Public hearing, under Article 9 of the Subdivision Code, to determine consistency of a proposed six-unit Condominium-Conversion Subdivision with the General Plan, located in a RH-3 (Residential, House, Three Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposal is to convert the existing six-unit building to a condominium form of ownership and does not involve expansion, alteration, or demolition of the existing building.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved.

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

ABSENT: Alexander, Olague and W. Lee.

MOTION: 17348

10. 2006.0926Q (B. Fu: (415) 558-6613)

481 CLEMENTINA STREET - north side between 5th and 6th Streets, Lot 036 in Assessor's Block 3732 - Public hearing, under Article 9 of the Subdivision Code,to determine consistency of a proposed six-unit Condominium-Conversion Subdivision with the General Plan, located in a RSD (Residential/Service Mixed Use) District and a 40-X/85-B Height and Bulk District. The proposal is to convert the existing building to a condominium form of ownership and does not involve expansion, alteration, or demolition of the existing building.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved.

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

ABSENT: Alexander, Olague and W. Lee.

MOTION: 17349

  • REGULAR CALENDAR

11. (Tape IA) (S. WERTHEIM: (415) 558-6612)

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN - Informational presentation on the San Francisco Economic Strategy. The City is undertaking its first-ever comprehensive planning process devoted to economic development, as initiated by passage of Proposition I in November of 2004. Dr. Ted Egan, Director of Analysis at ICF Consulting, is the lead consultant for the project.

Preliminary Recommendation: No action required

(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 2, 2006)

SPEAKERS

Ted Eagan

  1. We have worked with a number of community outreach groups to attempt to establish some goals and strategies.
  2. First we would like to share the logic in the relationship between targeting industry and economic strategies.
  3. There are two reasons why this approach is current in economic planning in recent years.
  4. One is the recognition of different cities supporting industries differently.
  5. Industries look for specific things. That raised the question of which industries are viable for San Francisco and which ones to support or not.
  6. Economy has different impacts. They have the ability to move the economy in different directions.
  7. What we hoped to achieve is to identify different activities that the city could support.
  8. This plan was authorized by Proposition I - focusing on the creation of jobs, job opportunities for vulnerable and disabled populations, increase tax revenues and support small businesses in San Francisco.
  9. We conducted a web based community survey as part of our outreach activities and we asked residents to take the survey. About 500 people responded.
  10. There is a very strong commitment by the people in the city to retain businesses in the city.
  11. There was very strong support for a goal that speaks to economic development itself to create more employment opportunities.
  12. There is also a big connection between the economy and resident's quality of life.
  13. There was a lot of support for stability in the city and also a desire for the growth of new industries.
  14. We also conducted a series of focus groups and public meetings about the initial performance review.
  15. There are a lot of differences and also a lot of similarities. The theme of retention of local businesses kept coming back.
  16. We tried to condense a set of goals:
    • To create employment opportunities by identifying industries with high local multiple effects.
    • To ensure greater inclusions and equity of job opportunities for residents without a university degree.
    • To ensure a sound fiscal footing for the City by encouraging industries with a positive fiscal year by identifying those that generate more tax revenues than they consume in services.
  17. After, we measured every industry in San Francisco on their ability to provide middle-income jobs and generate tax revenue in the City.
  18. We looked at every industry in the City with more than 500 employees.
  19. Construction, manufacturing, wholesale and transportation industries have very high impacts in the city.
  20. They have the best middle-income job impact offering the best employment opportunities for residents without a university degree.
  21. Retail trade industries do not have much impact. They generate sales tax for the City.
  22. Some of them have good job impacts.
  23. Financial, professional, business and environmental industries are combined impacts offering jobs to people with a university degree as well as non-university graduates.
  24. Largely because they have higher wages and they have high tax revenues.
  25. Education, Health, Hospitality and other service industries do not really have high impacts, but still they provide some middle-income jobs.
  26. They do not have much tax revenue because most of them are in the private sector.
  27. Like all cities, San Francisco's economy is very much conditioned by the relationship to the rest of the world.
  28. We looked very carefully at San Francisco's trade pattern with the outside world.
  29. What San Francisco really does is supply financial, professional and tourism services.
  30. We need to understand what are the pieces and dynamics of San Francisco's economy to stimulate them.
  31. We really have four sectors that comprise the mainstream of our economy and two industries that constitute our export base set of activities.
  32. We have to make them work in order to have economic growth in the City.
  33. We need to do more knowledge and experience generation.
  34. The rest of the San Francisco Economy for the most part is a set of local serving companies and organizations that allow that to happen.
  35. Part of the economy that I have not mentioned that was traditionally strong is our export manufacturing. It used to be a very large segment of our economy decades ago.
  36. It has declined significantly. We have lost two thirds of our jobs in that sector since the year 1990, and half of the jobs in that sector since 2000.
  37. While the workforce with degrees dominates the growing industries, only half of the workforce in the industries we are losing have university degree and the other half do not.
  38. These are all significant sources of middle-income jobs for people who do not have a university degree in San Francisco.
  39. The bad news is that these are precisely the industries we have been loosing in the past 10 to 15 years and they are growing in other cities in the Bay Area.
  40. Across the board, the Bay Area is the leading recipient in capital funding.
  41. On one hand we would like to retain our large businesses in the knowledge sector and bring back the industries we have been loosing, while at the same time continue to diversify and widen our set of new companies in the knowledge sector.
  42. We need to do two things with respect to this sector: continue stimulating new industries and at the same time ensure that our small companies stay and become large companies.
  43. On the side of experience is where the tourism relates. We have seen activity on the growing side over the last ten years.
  44. These are not necessarily high impact industries.
  45. The goods news is that we see a connection between strategy for growing in San Francisco and the workforce strategy in providing higher pay for work in the industry.
  46. In many ways, the experience we provide to tourism in San Francisco depends on the quality of the workforce and the quality of the service that is provided.
  47. The Human Infrastructure is the third one.
  48. This is a local service industry that would generally want to track the over all growth trends in the economy.
  49. This is a set of activities that in some cases hospitals and educational services have grown well in.
  50. The other local sector is a very different story. It is the physical infrastructure sector.
  51. The growth we have experienced over the past ten or fifteen years in our knowledge and experience sectors has not translated into the physical infrastructure sector.
  52. We have seen declines in this sector. It is very important because these are the highest impact industries we have in San Francisco.
  53. It calls out for a strategic priority of the plan to focus on the retention of these industries.
  54. This chart shows the dependence of our physical infrastructure to the growth and experience knowledge sector within San Francisco.
  55. In the early 1990's, the knowledge and experience sector declined and the physical infrastructure sector was faster and more extensive than in the export phase.
  56. From 1995 to 2000, we saw a rapid period of growth in San Francisco, and yet, not net growth.
  57. This is suggesting that we have a set of industries that are not sufficiently linked to the rapid growth of the economy.
  58. These companies are not able to sell into the growing market. Partly because of competition.
  59. The strategy for these companies needs to be an investment in the capacity of this sector to be able to link to opportunities to grow.
  60. First, we want to continue investment and diversify the innovation to get a broader set of small starts in that sector.
  61. Second, we want to retain companies as they grow in San Francisco.
  62. Third, recognize that tourism is a vital part of our economy.
  63. This is the analysis of what strategy we need to take in order to grow our economy in San Francisco.

Bernard Choden

  1. That was a very [good] explanation that was deeper and wider than I would have expected.
  2. On this chart, you have a view of regional economic analysis showing how complex this process really is and what it involves.
  3. As if it could be done in areas as small as San Francisco. Yes it can.
  4. My comments pertain to the rule of planning and the Planning Department in the City.
  5. First of all, the City is a large part of the economy. Capital budget programming requires the input of the Planning Department that has been less than professional.
  6. We need to do something about that.
  7. Secondly, land use and visual aspects as its priority do not deal with the consequences economically and socially regarding land use speculations.
  8. Awareness and proposals in this Department are essential.
  9. We have not got a good economic broad-based and in depth analysis.
  10. The participation of the department and this good report need to question how deep, broad, and how much will be learned regarding staff employment in this aspect.
  11. Linda has my hand out and I believe you should have access to my report.

ACTION: No action required of the Commission. Informational Only.

12. 2004.0339C (Tape IA; IB) (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

1800 VAN NESS AVENUE (including 1754 CLAY STREET) - northeast corner of Van Ness Avenue and Clay Street; Assessor's Block 0619, Lots 009 & 010 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization for a Planned Unit Development pursuant to Planning Code Sections 253.2, 303, 304 and 306 proposing to demolish an existing two-story commercial building (currently occupied by Kinko's) and to construct an 8-story, 62-unit mixed-use building with up to 82 parking spaces and approximately 5,100 square feet of ground-floor commercial space, located in an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined, High Density) District, the Van Ness Special Use District and an 80-D Height and Bulk District. Note: 1754 Clay Street, Lot 10, is a through lot which also fronts onto Washington Street.

Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to January 25, 2007.

AYES: Antonini, S. Lee and Sugaya.

NAYES: Moore.

ABSENT: Alexander, Olague and W. Lee.

13a. 2005.0776C (Tape IB) (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

83-85 BRADY STREET - east side between Market and Otis Streets, Lot 022 in Assessor's Block 3505 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 215(a) and 303 to demolish a single-family dwelling plus commercial building and construct a five-story, six-unit residential building with six off-street parking spaces in the C-M (Heavy Commercial) Use District, the 160-H Height and Bulk District and within the Housing Mixed-Use Area under Resolution No. 16202 where maximum housing density is encouraged.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS

Bill Riddle, Project Sponsor

  1. Mr. Purvis explained the project very well and I do not have anything else to say.

David Mayer

  1. I have concerns about the light and wonder if there are any shadow studies.

- I heard that the Department of Green has been formed and would like to know what it means.

- We had a dance floor and another commercial space would be closed with this project, locking [out] activities in the area.

ACTION: Approved with conditions as drafted by staff and amended:

Project Sponsor to continue working with staff on design.

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

ABSENT: Alexander, Olague and W. Lee.

MOTION: 17350

13b. 2005.0776D (Tape IB) (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

83-85 BRADY STREET - east side between Market and Otis Streets, Lot 022 in Assessor's Block 3505 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Commission Resolution No. 16700 requiring review of all demolition of residential structures, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2005.09.15.2951, to demolish the above-noted mixed-use residential/commercial building.

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

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed on item 13a.

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and Approved.

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

ABSENT: Alexander, Olague and W. Lee.

14. 2006.0833D (Tape IB) (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

1 Palo Alto Drive (aka 1 Avanzada aka 250 Palo Alto) - Assessor's Block 2724 Lot 003 - Mandatory Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application Nos. 2006.06.21.4679 for replacement of four existing small receive-only antennas and the addition a fifth such antenna to the fifth level of Sutro Tower and, 2006.06.21.4681 for the addition of four receive-only antennas to the roof of the existing control building at the SUTRO TOWER Broadcast facility. This project lies within the RH-1, Residential House, One Family District and within a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and Approve with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 2, 2006)

SPEAKERS

Robert McArthur, Project Sponsor Representative

  1. This is basically to replace four existing antennas for channels 2, 4, 5 and 7 in the tower.
  2. They would be of the same length but slightly curved. It would eliminate interference issues.
  3. This is because of federal mandates.
  4. For many years this sector had been in constant use. Nextel, law enforcement, and first responders depended on the eight hundred mega hertz.
  5. As the use by law enforcement became greater then expected, there was inevitable interference.
  6. The remedy was straightforward. The result was that Sprint-Nextel would remain with the eight hundred mega hertz. They allocated nine hundred mega hertz to accommodate first responders.
  7. This is a national play and is not just about Sutro Tower. Sprint is not on the tower.
  8. One antenna is going to serve existing customers - KSFS and KDTV - to reach across twin peaks in their program to broadcast in Spanish.
  9. It is more important because the competitive broadcast station, Telemundo, decided to withdraw from the news business.
  10. San Francisco's Spanish population relies only on KSFS and KDTV for news.
  11. KGO has applied to receive only broadcast antennas that are five and 12 feet in diameter. Those antennas are for reception only.

Gene Zastrow, General Manager of Sutro Tower

  1. I am going to focus on some of the project details that Bob [Robert McArthur] has described.
  2. The project is to replace four small BAS [Broadcast Auxiliary Service] antennas. They are used for electronic newsgathering.
  3. The fifth antenna would be for the same purpose for KDTV and KSFS.
  4. The Sutro Tower is the most appropriate location for these antennas. It is the only location that could receive the signal. There is no other location that could serve for the purpose.
  5. They would operate on the same spectrum as the existing one. They are virtually invisible from any public location.
  6. For thirty-five years, Sutro Tower has provided a facility to local stations to provide cultural and educational entertainment and informational services to the public.
  7. This project would enhance our ability to keep the public informed on an emergency nature.

Kristin Jacobsen, Sprint-Nextel

  1. This project is being undertaken in order to comply directly with the Federal Communications Commission [FCC] order.
  2. It is a necessary and critical component of this order. It is designed to eliminate harmful interference to public safety communicators, particularly first responders.
  3. Our proposed project in San Francisco is part of a nation wide undertaking.
  4. Sutro Towers is one of twenty locations throughout the Bay Area that would need to do these changes.
  5. The replacements have already been discussed. They do not produce any radio frequency.
  6. On October 24, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to uphold the Categorical Exemption determination.
  7. I just want to mention that I am here because Nextel has partnered with public safety organizations and broadcasters around the country.
  8. We ask and seek your assistance to comply with the Federal Communications Commission order.

Walter - Forrest Knowles

  1. We are not here to oppose this project. We are here because this is a mandatory discretionary review hearing
  2. The Forrest Knowles is an over 400 home neighborhood adjacent to Twin Peaks Neighborhood and Middle Town.
  3. Sutro Towers was constructed in our RH-1 neighborhood. It was approved in 1960 and constructed in the early 1970's. It is authorized by a conditional use.
  4. The Planning Code prohibits transmission towers in a RH-1 zoning district unless they are there by necessity.
  5. In 1988 Sutro Tower decided to expand. They were faced with a denial of that conditional use.
  6. The Planning Commission at that point determined that all future Sutro Tower issues would require a mandatory discretionary review.
  7. We ask staff again and again the same question: is this permit application that makes a showing necessity? Are there any alternatives to the addition to more stuff to Sutro Tower?
  8. Could some of that stuff be placed anywhere else?

Doris Linnenbach, Member of the Twin Peaks Association

  1. For forty years I have been attending meetings regarding Sutro Towers.
  2. For years, our residents have endured horrible noises and signs of earthquake notations.
  3. A few weeks ago, in the Examiner Newspaper, there was an article about garage doors that could lock up because of antenna interference.
  4. Many people in our neighborhood are having problems with garage doors because of Sutro Tower.
  5. One of our neighbors who is 90 years old has not been able to find a company that could offer service in case of an emergency because of interference from the Sutro Tower.

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved with conditions proposed by staff.

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

ABSENT: Alexander, Olague and W. Lee.

15. 2006.0070ET (C. NIKITAS: (415) 558-6306)

CONTROLS FOR LOSS OF DWELLING UNITS - a proposed ordinance amending the Planning Code, adding Section 317, requiring a Planning Commission hearing for any project that would eliminate existing legal dwelling units through mergers, conversions, or demolitions of residential buildings, and requiring certain affordability and soundness findings; making environmental findings and findings of consistency with the priority policies of planning code section 101.1 and the general plan. On November 2, 2006, the Commission adopted Resolution No. 17334, an intent to initiate a planning code amendment stipulating mandatory discretionary review of all residential demolition and of replacement building permit applications.

Preliminary Recommendation:

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to January 11, 2007.

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

ABSENT: Alexander, Olague and W. Lee.

16. 2006.1284ET (C. NIKITAS: (415) 558-6306

CONDITIONAL USE FOR DEMOLITION OF DWELLING UNITS - a proposed ordinance amending the Planning Code, introduced by Supervisor Sophie Maxwell under Board File 061371, adding Section 317, prohibiting the demolition of residential units unless Conditional Use authorization is granted for the replacement building, making environmental findings and findings of consistency with the priority policies of planning code section 101.1 and the general plan.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to January 11, 2007.

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

ABSENT: Alexander, Olague and W. Lee.

6:00 P.M.

17. 2003.0347MTZ (J. Billovits (415) 558-6390, A. Rodgers: (415) 558-6395)

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

The series of hearings was originally scheduled to culminate in a hearing to consider adoption actions on or after Dec. 7, 2006. As the Nov. 16th hearing was cancelled, the Commission held hearing number four on Dec. 7, 2006 and hearing number five on December 14, 2006. Additional hearings are likely to be added after the new year, with adoption actions on or after January 18, 2007.

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

Draft Schedule for Planning Commission Hearing

This calendar gives notice that the Planning Commission will be hearing the following aspects of the Market & Octavia Plan on or after December 14, 2006. Be advised that due to the nature of the public hearings, the Commission may continue any particular hearing item and/or may not hear all items at the hearing. To confirm the final Commission Hearing schedule, on the week of the hearing please visit: http://www.sfgov.org/site/planning_meeting.asp?id=15840 or call Aksel Olsen at 558-6616.

Hearing # 5 – December 14, 2006

At this hearing, the Planning Commission may consider the following aspects of the Plan:

  • Community Improvements / Public Benefits (continuation)
  • SoMa West Area Heights Review –  Towers and Transitions
  •  Pipeline Projects Discussion on Plan Proposal

·ð Overview of various minor project-related issues in plan area

·ð 555 Fulton St. land use and height district issue

  • Follow-Up on various Comments and Questions (continuation)

For more information on this six-year planning process, please visit our website at http://marketoctavia.betterneighborhoods.org. In addition to providing information about the proposed General Plan, Planning Code and Zoning Map amendments, staff will also provide follow-up information on issues discussed at earlier hearings.

Plan Area

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

Specifically, the Commission will consider the following items and may take action on or after January 18, 2007:

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

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

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

Together, these Commission actions are intended to implement the Market and Octavia Plan. In addition, an historic survey is currently being done of the project area; property owners considering constructing or altering a building in this area should consult with Planning Department staff to determine the historic resource status of their property. Property owners and interested parties are advised that height limits and other controls do not provide unqualified rights to development, but rather, proscribe the maximum potential building envelope that may be permitted; proposed buildings may not reach the maximum permitted building height/envelope. The Commission may also consider establishing interim procedures to guide the review of plans to construct new structures and alter existing structures to protect potentially eligible historic resources in the Plan Area prior to conclusion of an historic resources survey.

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

As part of Case No. 2003.0347T, the proposed Planning Code text amendment would revise Planning Code controls, including controls for land use, height and bulk, building design, loading, parking and establish new fees. The proposed amendments are described more fully below:

Establishment of Three Zoning Districts in the Plan Area

The Transit-Oriented Residential Use District(RTO) will replace most of the RH and RM districts zoning north and south of the Market Street corridor, extending north to Turk Street, west to Noe and Scott Streets, and South to Sixteenth Street. The proposed RTO district will encourage moderate-density, multi-family, and residential infill. Because of the availability of transit service, proximity of retail and services within walking distance, and limitation on permitted parking the RTO permits the construction of some housing without accessory parking. Parking controls will establish maximum caps (instead of existing minimum requirements) and housing density will be controlled by building envelope to encourage housing within buildings in keeping with neighborhood scale. Proposed heights in Residential Transit Oriented (RTO) Districts and RH districts primarily remain 40 and 50 feet as currently classified; in some RTO areas, permitted heights will change from 50, 80 and 105 feet to 40 and 50 feet.

A Neighborhood Commercial Transit District (NCT) will overlay the Hayes-Gough Neighborhood Commercial District and portions of the Upper Market and Valencia Neighborhood Commercial Districts within the Market and Octavia neighborhood. In named NCT and NC-1 (T) districts, parking controls will establish maximum caps (instead of existing minimum requirements) and housing density will be controlled by building envelope to encourage housing above ground-floor retail uses. These districts will largely keep the existing specific use-size controls. They include current Neighborhood Commercial Districts (Hayes-Gough, portions of the Upper Market, Valencia) and several parcels currently zoned NC-1.

The Van Ness and Market Downtown Residential Special Use District (VNMDR-SUD) will permit the development of a transit-oriented, high-density, mixed-use neighborhood around the intersections of Van Ness Avenue and Market Street and South Van Ness Avenue and Mission Street. This SUD will overlay existing C-3-G districts and existing C-M districts will be rezoned to C-3-G with this new VNMDR-SUD. Parking controls will establish maximum caps (instead of existing minimum requirements) and housing density will be controlled by building envelope to encourage housing in buildings with mixed-used podiums and some residential towers at two key intersections: Market Street and Van Ness Avenue and Mission Street and South Van Ness Avenue. Proposed heights in the Van Ness and Market Downtown Residential Use District (VNMDR-SUD) will change from 120, 130, 150, 160, 200 and 320 feet to 85, 120, 200, 320 and 400 feet; towers will be permitted over a podium of 85 or 120 feet; the highest towers will be permitted in the vicinity of the Market Street/Van Ness Avenue intersections.

In the Transit-Oriented Neighborhood Commercial Use Districts (NCT), height districts will change from 50, 80 and 105 feet to primarily 55, 65 and 85 feet; these districts will be located in SoMa West and along Market Street. The NCT district will largely replace C-M and NC-3 districts. In the NCT district, parking controls will establish maximum caps (instead of existing minimum requirements) and housing density will be controlled by building envelope to encourage housing above ground-floor retail uses. These districts will largely keep the existing specific use-size controls in place in the NC-3 district. Some heights on some parcels near Brady Street will change from 105 and 60 feet to 40 feet and 85 feet on parcels surrounding a proposed public open space.

Establishment of New Fees in the Plan Area

In order to fund the community improvements identified in the Plan, the Program document proposes to establish a Development Impact Fee, requiring the growth that generates the demand for additional infrastructure and services to provide some of the revenue required to fund the improvements. The proposal establishes a development impact fee on new residential and commercial development in the Plan Area. The fee proposal is $10.00 per square foot of residential development, and $4.00 per square foot of commercial development.

To encourage the provision of necessary and desirable public infrastructure improvements and also in order to mitigate the impacts of this increased localized density, the Department has established the Van Ness and Market Neighborhood Infrastructure Fund. Developers may provide in-kind public improvements (such as open space or streetscape improvements) or proportional in-lieu contributions to this fund that will allow the city to develop these facilities. The Department estimates that no more than 6 potential development sites would benefit from participating in the program. The Department has set the value of the additional FAR at par with the current market value of historic TDR credits ($15 per square foot).

Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt the following:

  • Draft Motion to Certify the EIR and adopt CEQA Findings (Case 2003.0347EE)
  • Draft Resolution to amend the General Plan (Case 2003.0347M)
  • Draft Resolution to amend the Planning Code (Case 2003.0347T)

ACTION: The Commission Secretary, in coordination with Department staff, continued this item to January 11, 2007 and adjourned the meeting because a quorum of the Commission was lost at 4:15 p.m.

E. 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.

18 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.

NONE [Commission quorum was lost & meeting was adjourned early]

F. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

  1. Director's Announcements

NONE [Commission quorum was lost & meeting was adjourned early]

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

NONE [Commission quorum was lost & meeting was adjourned early]

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 [Commission quorum was lost & meeting was adjourned early]

Adjournment: 4:15 P.M.

THESE MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, July 19, 2007.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: W. Lee

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.

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:24 PM