Market & Octavia Neighborhood Plan

2005-07-28 · 1 comments · 1 / 0

James Haas · spoken · 2005-07-28 · support

Civic Pride Concerned about parking issues Christopher Pederson Supports the project Bonnie Jones Concerned about the removal of 100 off-street parking spaces near Civic Center in order to build housing. Paul Olsen Strongly supports the plan and urged the Commission to support the transportation improvement within the plan. Pamela Duffy The Market Octavia Plan showed different height limits than those shown in the … show more

2006-09-07 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

James Haas · spoken · 2006-09-07 · oppose

I am here to talk about short-term parking. Some of the supply of parking lots that were available for short term parking has been taken. There is a shortage of it. There is the potential of expanding the garage of the Performing Arts. Next door to the Performing Arts' garage is one of the affordable housing sites for the formerly homeless. Richard Henderson I would like to talk about the projected large condomi… I am here to talk about short-term parking. Some of the supply of parking lots that were available for short term parking has been taken. There is a shortage of it. There is the potential of expanding the garage of the Performing Arts. Next door to the Performing Arts' garage is one of the affordable housing sites for the formerly homeless. Richard Henderson I would like to talk about the projected large condominium structure on Buchannan and Market Street. Construction should not be an obstruction. Buildings should be enhancements for the neighborhood. Therefore, I am requesting that you reduce the density of it. As proposed, it would violate the standards that we agreed on. It would destroy the light and harmony established in the neighborhood. Peter Lewis, Mission Dolores Neighborhood Association We are very concerned about this plan because of how is going to impact our district. Our goal is to make Mission Dolores a historic district. The increased scrutiny level mentioned before is minute in our district. We already have reduced parking. Every weekend there are so many cars in the area We need your help. One of the solutions is to give us one-to-one parking on the southern part of .Market Street. Joe Curtin My concern in particular is the one-to-one parking. It should be allowed in the new constructions in the Mission Dolores Neighborhood. Parking along the Dolores and Valencia corridors is intolerable. Tom Radulovich As a resident of the Mission Dolores area I would say that the character of our district is being threatened by The Planning Department's controls. You would notice by walking in the neighborhood that the Victorian houses have very narrow garage doors on 17 th and Dolores Streets. This is ruining our district. New constructions should be incorporated into the character of the neighborhood. There should be more planning on traffic. Kate White This plan is visionary, sensible and calls for clustery developments on the transit corridors. It includes important protection for historic preservation. She urged the support of this plan. Alan Martinez, Landmark Preservation Advisory Board You have received two letters from the Landmark Board about the issues on preservation in the Market/Octavia Plan. The basic goal for us is that the planning works to make sure that the policies of the plan do not impact historic resources. One of the issues not mentioned is determining the boundaries of the scrutiny areas. Tim Colen This was a wonderful presentation and captured why we like the plan and want to go forward. We are interested in historic preservation and are encouraged with the guidelines and interim controls. We strongly support the Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association on the issues of parking. Do not delay any further your support of this plan. Laura Tashan I just found out about the projected 80-foot condominium site on Buchanan and Market Streets. I have a petition with 26 signatures from residents that they believe this would impact the light, air and view. I believe that for this type of large building two entrances for parking should be required. Craig O'Connor These concerns about the 80-foot building should be considered because it would impact life quality by obstructing light and air. Density is another concern. There might be 10,000 new neighbors with this plan. Richard, Eureka Valley resident We were shocked when we found out that Eureka Valley is included in the plan area. We would like our area to be cut it from the plan area. We do not really relate to Hayes Valley for the Market/Octavia plan. Chris Peterson I would like to speak in particular to the parking requirements. The neighborhood is very well served by transit and has easy access to the freeway. The plan should continue promoting pedestrian oriented patterns and not encourage automobile dependent people. Ruben Levitt I would like to address the parking issue. In the area there are buildings that have garages and it seems that no cars are parked there. Garages are used for storage. This plan is a comprehensive one. All the elements work together and it is important to keep the integrity of it than piece it out. Developments in the pipeline are waiting for this plan to move forward. Lynn Craton, Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association We need to address the problem of automobile abundance. I support the parking limitations. I urge you to approve the plan without the completion of the historic survey. Paul Olsen, Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association There was an important word used during the presentation and that is balance. The community has truly come together to have a plan that is fully community based. We need to go forward and have this plan adopted. People choose to live in certain areas and we need to honor those choices. All areas in the city do not need to be the same. We need to give people the choice of living in an area that is pedestrian oriented. Jason Henderson The summary this evening is really compromising. We are willing to move this process forward. What needs to happen is a better management of off-street parking spaces. Steve Vettel The original idea for this plan was to have community consensus of what development should be in the area. The trade off was to eliminate case by case discretion. I recommend that you direct staff to look into the 309 compliance process rather than a CU [Conditional Use] process for development sites that are consistent with the plan. Joe Curtin, President of Castro Area Planning and Action We have been active with this process since the beginning. We support incorporating the conditional use requirements in the plan. It would help to ensure that new developments are going to help the neighborhood. We support eliminating the minimum parking requirements and instituting maximum parking along Market Street. Hiroshi Fukuda I do not live in the plan area. This is a very small city and we are not isolated. It is going to impact everybody. Parking is very difficult here. It is hard to digest everything that is going on. Curt Holzinger, Duboce Triangle Neighborhood Association There was a discussion in our association that we want to continue the conversation on density. We support having no parking to increase more housing. Our main concern is that high density would slowly erode the historic character of that neighborhood overtime. As far as the process, I would like to find out how we get specific answers to suggestions we have made. We are trying to make a few requests of things that do not apply to our area and we would present them at the next meeting. Ruven Hannah I am very concerned with the feature of the projected complex of an 80 foot site. The quality of our lives is going to be impacted by it obstructing light and air. Sarah Karlinsky, SPUR The main thing to keep in mind about this plan is that it is oriented in one of the most important transit corridors in the city. If we are going to increase density in the city, this is the right area to do it. Judith Berkowitz, Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhood The records show that parking will be built down the road when one-to-one parking ratios are not built in with new construction. Those who want to eliminate cars from this plan are diluting themselves. This body should have blanket prohibition against parking that should be written into the plan. The residents of San Francisco have no idea that its officials are eliminating the minimum parking requirement which is one-to-one. We urge you to have a contingency plan in place. Peter Cohen There is no increase in transit capacity for the increased density. This is a solid cutting edge of this plan. The question is how these comments would be responded to and be used to refine this plan. Thoughtful comments by member of the public that live in the area should be very informative to get this plan to work. Dennis Richards, President of Duboce Triangle Neighborhood Association Thanked staff for the presentation and allowing participation from the community. There are a lot of good things in this plan that we support. We know there would be additional growth and we are willing to support what we can handle. Market Street is a unique area and we support no parking and density limits along that street. Tim Dunn I live in the project area and parking is a big issue. We recently bought a unit and we were able to purchase it because it has no parking. Housing affordability is something to consider when talking about parking. Since we are looking to increase density, we should be looking into it as a source of funds for affordable housing. Ali Kia Shabahangi I would like to express my full support. We are one of the projects in the pipeline proposing senior affordable housing. I urge to approve the plan. Leigh Stackpole Expressed full support for the Market/Octavia plan. I would like to see Hayes Street as a two\way street implemented. Also, pedestrian cross walks should be implemented on Hayes/Gough Streets and Gough/Sutter Streets. Safety should be a priority. I would really like to see the south side of Market be a priority as a green area like the North side of Market. James Warshell I very much support this plan. We had numerous meetings to educate ourselves about it. Staff has worked very hard to reach out to the community and I can hardly believe that anyone has not had a chance to share suggestions and ideas. Around 6:00 p.m. the Planning Commission recessed to hold a joint meeting with the Building Inspection Commission in room 250. The remainder of this calendar [as indicated by the items below] took place at the conclusion of the joint meeting. The Planning Commission's meeting resumed around 10:00 p.m. [No name] There is a soil compression along Van Ness and Market. You should bring that issue up with the geotechnical people. Rufino DeLeon Jr. I am in very much support of the plan. On the parking issue: residents that can not meet their transit needs would purchase a car if it is the only feasible transportation available. It is better to include parking choices now then trying to take care of it later. I would prefer to see large developments with underground garages than vehicles clogging the streets. Sue Hestor You should ask your staff to do some isometric drawings of the plan. This plan has had very good participation from Hayes Valley. There are implications for Noe Valley. Eureka Valley did not have the same opportunity to participate. I would respectfully ask staff to request developers to go out and talk to people in the neighborhood. We need to talk about 400-foot towers on Market and Van Ness Avenue.show more

2006-09-28 · 6 comments · 2 / 2

Dennis Richards · spoken · 2006-09-28 · support

President of the Duboce Triangle Neighborhood Association We are 20% of the plan area. We are cited as a model neighborhood in a transit rich environment. We support long range planning. We support a plan sensitive to the needs of our neighborhood. I want to acknowledge the work the Planning Department has done. They have been accessible to us. We have spent a hundred hours on this plan. We have some concerns remain… show more

Curt Holzinger · spoken · 2006-09-28 · oppose

Served on the Task Force of the [Duboce] Triangle Area. We have been working with staff for about a year. Our initial comments cane in August. We have read the plan and all the material. We have offered thoughtful suggestions on how this plan should be amended so that can we can embrace it. Right now we are not ready to embrace this plan. We are here to appeal to you, the Commissioner, as you go through this, to lis… Served on the Task Force of the [Duboce] Triangle Area. We have been working with staff for about a year. Our initial comments cane in August. We have read the plan and all the material. We have offered thoughtful suggestions on how this plan should be amended so that can we can embrace it. Right now we are not ready to embrace this plan. We are here to appeal to you, the Commissioner, as you go through this, to listen to our rational. To hear why we think in our neighborhood certain aspects of this plan will be detrimental rather than beneficial. We researched and read it an thoughtfully considered the issues. We had heated discussions in our group on whether the plan is good for us or not. We need these amendments and I hope over the next few months that the staff and the Commisison will be open to the changes we are putting forth, which we think will improve the plan and protect our neighborhood. As you review this information, please keep in mind that there are rebuilding and reweaving neighborhoods that are putting things back together. The Triangle is not that the type of neighborhood. It's already a pretty darned good neighborhood and it doesn't need a lot of reweaving or improvements. Certain things can be detrimental. One to pick on is the huge increase in density that's proposed for our residential neighborhoods. We are a neighborhood of two and three unit buildings and two and three stories. This would change the density to what the property owners decide within the [new] bulk and height. To get the six units is pretty easy within those parameters. That's a doubling of the density in our residential neighborhood. That's a point we have a concern about. We look forward to working with you, bringing our points to you and hope you and the staff will be open to the amendments so we can embrace this plan. Peter Cohen I think the schedule of hearings is reasonable if everyone is ready to do a lot of work. I want to make sure that when folks talk about the length of time this has taken there was a significant dead zone for a couple of years while the EIR was being prepared. I don't want there to be a mistake that people feel they need more time. We are starting into a new phase of dialogue. The hearing schedule is reasonable. We are looking at an adoption packet. This is not flipping the pages. It is reading new materials. It's the adoption-codified stuff. It's an experimental plan. Rincon was 12 development projects. This is a neighborhood. We are prefabricating fragile virtues in the case report. We have to be careful about the fine-tuning process and list to the community who lives there. I think they should be taken seriously. This is about getting it just right. A few quick issues: Mid-block open space - a lot of the development impact in residential neighborhoods happens in the interior of the block. You don't see it in the street but you feel it when you live there.show more

Garage additions · spoken · 2006-09-28 · support

it would be great to get a survey of the garage additions.

Interagency coordination · spoken · 2006-09-28 · —

I'm happy to say a piece of legislation moved yesterday.

Public benefits · spoken · 2006-09-28 · —

Better Neighborhoods Plus provided the structure for the public benefits program. How do you deal with the up zoning included in the plan?

Robin Levitt · spoken · 2006-09-28 · oppose

On the Board of Haze Valley Neighborhood Association I'm not speaking for them. Dennis Richards mentioned this was a 30-year plan. I hope it doesn't turn into a 30-year planning process.

2006-10-26 · 1 comments · 1 / 0

James Haas · spoken · 2006-10-26 · support

I am very please that the responses indicate that arts and education will be integral elements in what is going on. I urge you to read Comments and Responses because it has a great deal of information on the notion of mixture or interaction between those particular elements. [Submitted a draft brochure that the Convention and Visitors Bureau is preparing] There is an issue with the plan regarding billboards. There ar… I am very please that the responses indicate that arts and education will be integral elements in what is going on. I urge you to read Comments and Responses because it has a great deal of information on the notion of mixture or interaction between those particular elements. [Submitted a draft brochure that the Convention and Visitors Bureau is preparing] There is an issue with the plan regarding billboards. There are two big billboards on Oak and Franklin Street and I would like to include in the plan a measure to abate billboards. Peter Lewis My main concern is the height [limits] on the districts. 85 feet on Market Street from Octavia/Church Street is not what we would like there. We are trying to have Mission Dolores as a historic district and the idea of having [tall] buildings at the entrance of our district does not please anybody in our groups. The design guidelines look good except on how it would affect our neighborhood in having corner stores throughout the Northern Mission. Jim Meko Residents in the north-west area of Western SOMA are concerned about developments occurring outside the planning areas. The 10 th and Mission Street proposal would impact Natoma residential. The same with a development at Mission and South Van Ness Avenue on the Lafayette residential area. Consider buffering those areas. [Inaudible] I live in the Natoma neighborhood. I invited the Commission to visit this neighborhood. [Shared photographs of the area about Minna, Clay and Lafayette Streets.] Currently it is zoned of 130 feet but there is nothing built that high. Most buildings are 40 feet. Alan Martinez I am here representing myself and giving my own opinion. [Shared thoughts of good and true planning ideas.] Good in a moral and technical sense. Planning is something based in serving cultural values. This is a good attempt to a better community planning. Joel Yodowitz I specifically represent the owner on Howard and Third Street. The site is currently 130 feet and the proposal is to take them down to 55 feet, the zoning is NCT. We propose an 85 foot height limit there. Immediately across the street is also NCT but with 85 feet. I urge you to take a close look at this. Joanie Misrack Reconsider the height limit on 12 th Street, which is currently NCT. I would not be able to build residential above the retail with the proposed height. Robin Levitt I am very supportive of this plan. It has been a long process. I support the density and height parameters. This plan would help revitalize my neighborhood. Charles Chase Part of the integration of this plan is to look at the historic survey to balance issues around height - whether to increase it or decrease it - and how it is going to affect the character of the neighborhoods from the historic preservation point of view. Jason Henderson We have a resolution that supports the concepts on this plan including the height and density. This plan should provide community benefits. In this community, we ought to worry about giving. Paul Olsen We are very supportive of this plan and the height limits specially along Market Street. We welcome the residential zoning as long as it comes with strong urban design controls, making active streets welcome to pedestrians and others for a truly pedestrian oriented experience. We also want residential zoning that brings a strong community benefits packet. Stefan Hastrup I just want to call your attention to the great investment that the community has in this plan. Thanked the Planning Department for bringing together all separate ideas and crafting them into a comprehensive vision for the neighborhood. Jared Braiterman I am here to support this plan. The plan offers many ways for smart growth and development. Joe Curtin In the Castro we have been very involved in this process since the beginning. We support the enhancement of urban character of the upper Market neighborhoods. Our members voted to support this and we urge this Commission to support the goals of the Market-Octavia Plan. We support the off street parking. Sarah Karlinsky One of the things that San Francisco can do to help combat global warming it is to build densely beside transit nodes. This is something the Market-Octavia Plan does in an excellent way. Every objective in the plan is worth supporting. I urge the commission to respect and support the height limits brought forward in this plan. Curtz Holzinger We want to support this plan but are not prepare to just yet. We will be attending the meetings and will speak to you about issues. We would like to have clarification on what form the guidelines are going to take. Would it be an addendum or be part of the General Plan? We suggest pulling them out as a special document where everybody could refer to it in a clear and precise way. David Dupree There are points about this plan that I would like to see incorporated on the Hayes area: office on the ground level and developers to include a percentage for entertainment venues, art, support and educational facilities. Chris Peterson This is a very good plan and I urge you to approve it. Adam Millard-Ball I strongly support this plan especially the height limits for providing certainty on design guidelines and protecting historic preservation. Sue Hestor Urged staff to get a hold of a wind study done by Federal GSA building on Van Ness and Market. They provided these studies for free because there are hills and the wind hits those buildings. If you build towers without having thought through all of that first, it is not planning. The practice in terms of implementation is where everything falls apart. This is why I asked that you have a hearing on how this is going to be implemented. Jim Keith I have a few pieces of properties in the area plan. This is a great plan. We want to see one to one parking and the height limit on alleys should be lower. Grove and Gough Street height limit should be 55 feet. Property on Duboce and Market Street currently is 85 and it's being proposed to drop back to 55 feet. It should stay as it is. If there is going to be a prohibition on mergers, it should be a conditional use. Rufino DeLeon I am also in support of the plan. Height limits and density are well thought out. Density is very critical to bringing more eyes and in taking pride of your own place. There should be mitigation for trees, air quality and noise issues. Tes Welsborne The plan helps set limits and makes things more certain. It is a good plan. I feel that Hayes Valley and Haight are examples of very livable neighborhoods. San Francisco doubled its population during the day. We should encourage those people visiting to live here. Incentives to allow developers to have any number of units within the envelopes without parking are encouragements for existing and new developments. Karen People have invested time and effort and it is good to see that there is a final resolution and that we are getting there.show more

2006-11-02 · 22 comments · 6 / 7

Duboce Triangle Neighborhood Association · spoken · 2006-11-02 · oppose

Housing should be built on Church and Market Streets, which are commercial transit areas. High density is a big issue in inner blocks

Peter Cohen · spoken · 2006-11-02 · support

The current parking ratio is .5 ratio and it should be a reference point Garage addtitions should not be allowed. Joe Curtin - Castro Area Planning and Action New development along Market Street would bring a lot of life and create new housing opportunities. I would like to see diversity of housing. Parking should be kept at minimum of .5 per unit. I support the idea of waiting for the findings of the historic resource survey and the implementation of it.

Robin Levitt · spoken · 2006-11-02 · oppose

Building a lot of parking will atract more cars and increase traffic.

Jim Key · spoken · 2006-11-02 · oppose

The interim controls are adequate. Strengthen what is going on and protect historic preservation.

Scott Clark · spoken · 2006-11-02 · —

Make developments that will fit into the neighborhood. No need for more parking.

Adam Miller · spoken · 2006-11-02 · oppose

Historic preservation will not weaken this plan. It will give more protection. Affordable housing is much more important than parking.

Frank Weiss · spoken · 2006-11-02 · —

Eureka Valley Association looks forward to reasonalbe self determinations in this area. Limiting parking will affect our neighborhood for the visitors who come to the Castro area. Mark Paez - Friends of 1800 and Duboce Triangle Neighborhood Association Submitted a letter from the organization notifying the commission of the serious legal deficiency of this plan process. There is no historic preservation analysis. It … show more

Rufino de Leonor · spoken · 2006-11-02 · support

We need more parking when there is an increase in density and activity.

Tes Welborn · spoken · 2006-11-02 · —

Density helps affordability housing. There are different parking areas in the plan

Robert Rhine · spoken · 2006-11-02 · oppose

Representing Lafayette Neighborhood Association. We invite you on a walking tour of our neighborhood. Density, height snf parking are going to be big problems in our neighborhood Charles Chase, San Francisco Herittage Over the past six years Herittage has been concerned that the plan does not include historic resources. They should be included with findings as well. Peter Lewis, Director of Mission Dolores Neighborho… show more

Bernie Choden · spoken · 2006-11-02 · —

In line with the original Downtown Plan, I suggest the idea of using gateways to intercept and to ease the pain of mass transit.

Jason Henderson · spoken · 2006-11-02 · —

Reducing parking will create a critical mass of shoppers.

Sarah Karlinsky · spoken · 2006-11-02 · support

SPUR is very supportive of and interested in housing people and not cars.

Paul Olsen · spoken · 2006-11-02 · oppose

Historic Preservation is very important Large plan areas with a very low amount of parking does not work

Bland Platt · spoken · 2006-11-02 · oppose

There is no architectural survey. The CEQA document can not be complete until you have it

Ed Bedard · spoken · 2006-11-02 · —

Get rid off garages. Let rhythm of garden take place instead of cars.

Michael Schoenig · spoken · 2006-11-02 · support

I'm respresenting the Symphony, Opera, Asian Art Museum and Conservatory of Music. This plan will have a severe impact for us. I request your support for the proposal made in this plan that referrs to the Art's garage.

Dennis Richards · spoken · 2006-11-02 · support

President of the Duboce Triangle Neighborhood Association represent 3,000 households. We have worked with planning staff and are very pleased with the progress.

Alan Martinez · spoken · 2006-11-02 · —

The preservation funds committee is paying for most of the surveys There is an important tool missing and that is the character of the neighborhoods If the plan is going to stay on schedule, speed up the survey.

Demian Quesnel · spoken · 2006-11-02 · support

The Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association has been invloved in the plan from the beginning. We share the same goals and want to create the best neighborhood we can. The reduce parking will have an impact on the Eureka and Castro neighborhoods.

Curt Holzinger · spoken · 2006-11-02 · —

no text recorded

Eric Dash · spoken · 2006-11-02 · —

no text recorded

2006-12-07 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

James Haas · spoken · 2006-12-07 · oppose

I am here to talk about short-term parking. Some of the supply of parking lots that were available for short term parking has been taken. There is a shortage of it. There is the potential of expanding the garage of the Performing Arts. Next door to the Performing Arts' garage is one of the affordable housing sites for the formerly homeless. Richard Henderson I would like to talk about the projected large condomi… I am here to talk about short-term parking. Some of the supply of parking lots that were available for short term parking has been taken. There is a shortage of it. There is the potential of expanding the garage of the Performing Arts. Next door to the Performing Arts' garage is one of the affordable housing sites for the formerly homeless. Richard Henderson I would like to talk about the projected large condominium structure on Buchannan and Market Street. Construction should not be an obstruction. Buildings should be enhancements for the neighborhood. Therefore, I am requesting that you reduce the density of it. As proposed, it would violate the standards that we agreed on. It would destroy the light and harmony established in the neighborhood. Peter Lewis, Mission Dolores Neighborhood Association We are very concerned about this plan because of how is going to impact our district. Our goal is to make Mission Dolores a historic district. The increased scrutiny level mentioned before is minute in our district. We already have reduced parking. Every weekend there are so many cars in the area We need your help. One of the solutions is to give us one-to-one parking on the southern part of .Market Street. Joe Curtin My concern in particular is the one-to-one parking. It should be allowed in the new constructions in the Mission Dolores Neighborhood. Parking along the Dolores and Valencia corridors is intolerable. Tom Radulovich As a resident of the Mission Dolores area I would say that the character of our district is being threatened by The Planning Department's controls. You would notice by walking in the neighborhood that the Victorian houses have very narrow garage doors on 17 th and Dolores Streets. This is ruining our district. New constructions should be incorporated into the character of the neighborhood. There should be more planning on traffic. Kate White This plan is visionary, sensible and calls for clustery developments on the transit corridors. It includes important protection for historic preservation. She urged the support of this plan. Alan Martinez, Landmark Preservation Advisory Board You have received two letters from the Landmark Board about the issues on preservation in the Market/Octavia Plan. The basic goal for us is that the planning works to make sure that the policies of the plan do not impact historic resources. One of the issues not mentioned is determining the boundaries of the scrutiny areas. Tim Colen This was a wonderful presentation and captured why we like the plan and want to go forward. We are interested in historic preservation and are encouraged with the guidelines and interim controls. We strongly support the Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association on the issues of parking. Do not delay any further your support of this plan. Laura Tashan I just found out about the projected 80-foot condominium site on Buchanan and Market Streets. I have a petition with 26 signatures from residents that they believe this would impact the light, air and view. I believe that for this type of large building two entrances for parking should be required. Craig O'Connor These concerns about the 80-foot building should be considered because it would impact life quality by obstructing light and air. Density is another concern. There might be 10,000 new neighbors with this plan. Richard, Eureka Valley resident We were shocked when we found out that Eureka Valley is included in the plan area. We would like our area to be cut it from the plan area. We do not really relate to Hayes Valley for the Market/Octavia plan. Chris Peterson I would like to speak in particular to the parking requirements. The neighborhood is very well served by transit and has easy access to the freeway. The plan should continue promoting pedestrian oriented patterns and not encourage automobile dependent people. Ruben Levitt I would like to address the parking issue. In the area there are buildings that have garages and it seems that no cars are parked there. Garages are used for storage. This plan is a comprehensive one. All the elements work together and it is important to keep the integrity of it than piece it out. Developments in the pipeline are waiting for this plan to move forward. Lynn Craton, Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association We need to address the problem of automobile abundance. I support the parking limitations. I urge you to approve the plan without the completion of the historic survey. Paul Olsen, Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association There was an important word used during the presentation and that is balance. The community has truly come together to have a plan that is fully community based. We need to go forward and have this plan adopted. People choose to live in certain areas and we need to honor those choices. All areas in the city do not need to be the same. We need to give people the choice of living in an area that is pedestrian oriented. Jason Henderson The summary this evening is really compromising. We are willing to move this process forward. What needs to happen is a better management of off-street parking spaces. Steve Vettel The original idea for this plan was to have community consensus of what development should be in the area. The trade off was to eliminate case by case discretion. I recommend that you direct staff to look into the 309 compliance process rather than a CU [Conditional Use] process for development sites that are consistent with the plan. Joe Curtin, President of Castro Area Planning and Action We have been active with this process since the beginning. We support incorporating the conditional use requirements in the plan. It would help to ensure that new developments are going to help the neighborhood. We support eliminating the minimum parking requirements and instituting maximum parking along Market Street. Hiroshi Fukuda I do not live in the plan area. This is a very small city and we are not isolated. It is going to impact everybody. Parking is very difficult here. It is hard to digest everything that is going on. Curt Holzinger, Duboce Triangle Neighborhood Association There was a discussion in our association that we want to continue the conversation on density. We support having no parking to increase more housing. Our main concern is that high density would slowly erode the historic character of that neighborhood overtime. As far as the process, I would like to find out how we get specific answers to suggestions we have made. We are trying to make a few requests of things that do not apply to our area and we would present them at the next meeting. Ruven Hannah I am very concerned with the feature of the projected complex of an 80 foot site. The quality of our lives is going to be impacted by it obstructing light and air. Sarah Karlinsky, SPUR The main thing to keep in mind about this plan is that it is oriented in one of the most important transit corridors in the city. If we are going to increase density in the city, this is the right area to do it. Judith Berkowitz, Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhood The records show that parking will be built down the road when one-to-one parking ratios are not built in with new construction. Those who want to eliminate cars from this plan are diluting themselves. This body should have blanket prohibition against parking that should be written into the plan. The residents of San Francisco have no idea that its officials are eliminating the minimum parking requirement which is one-to-one. We urge you to have a contingency plan in place. Peter Cohen There is no increase in transit capacity for the increased density. This is a solid cutting edge of this plan. The question is how these comments would be responded to and be used to refine this plan. Thoughtful comments by member of the public that live in the area should be very informative to get this plan to work. Dennis Richards, President of Duboce Triangle Neighborhood Association Thanked staff for the presentation and allowing participation from the community. There are a lot of good things in this plan that we support. We know there would be additional growth and we are willing to support what we can handle. Market Street is a unique area and we support no parking and density limits along that street. Tim Dunn I live in the project area and parking is a big issue. We recently bought a unit and we were able to purchase it because it has no parking. Housing affordability is something to consider when talking about parking. Since we are looking to increase density, we should be looking into it as a source of funds for affordable housing. Ali Kia Shabahangi I would like to express my full support. We are one of the projects in the pipeline proposing senior affordable housing. I urge to approve the plan. Leigh Stackpole Expressed full support for the Market/Octavia plan. I would like to see Hayes Street as a two\way street implemented. Also, pedestrian cross walks should be implemented on Hayes/Gough Streets and Gough/Sutter Streets. Safety should be a priority. I would really like to see the south side of Market be a priority as a green area like the North side of Market. James Warshell I very much support this plan. We had numerous meetings to educate ourselves about it. Staff has worked very hard to reach out to the community and I can hardly believe that anyone has not had a chance to share suggestions and ideas. Around 6:00 p.m. the Planning Commission recessed to hold a joint meeting with the Building Inspection Commission in room 250. The remainder of this calendar [as indicated by the items below] took place at the conclusion of the joint meeting. The Planning Commission's meeting resumed around 10:00 p.m. [No name] There is a soil compression along Van Ness and Market. You should bring that issue up with the geotechnical people. Rufino DeLeon Jr. I am in very much support of the plan. On the parking issue: residents that can not meet their transit needs would purchase a car if it is the only feasible transportation available. It is better to include parking choices now then trying to take care of it later. I would prefer to see large developments with underground garages than vehicles clogging the streets. Sue Hestor You should ask your staff to do some isometric drawings of the plan. This plan has had very good participation from Hayes Valley. There are implications for Noe Valley. Eureka Valley did not have the same opportunity to participate. I would respectfully ask staff to request developers to go out and talk to people in the neighborhood. We need to talk about 400-foot towers on Market and Van Ness Avenue.show more

2006-12-14 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

Sue Hestor · spoken · 2006-12-14 · oppose

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

2007-01-11 · 36 comments · 8 / 15

Shelagh Ross · spoken · 2007-01-11 · —

I suggest having leaders form a community advisory committee to inform neighborhoods.

Peter Cohen · spoken · 2007-01-11 · —

The Duboce Triangle Neighbor Association submitted suggestions and ideas. We want you to consider a structure for this plan that provides for an advisory committee includes its role, monitoring and reporting mechanisms, staff and funds for your consideration.

Harry O'Brien · spoken · 2007-01-11 · —

Reductions will impact Gough and Grove Streets.

Jim Keith · spoken · 2007-01-11 · —

Keep height to 80 feet on Market and Duboce.

Tom Radulovich · spoken · 2007-01-11 · support

Fantastic plan. I support it.

Neil Kate · spoken · 2007-01-11 · —

Presented a proposal for a mixed project of commercial, housing and parking at Laguna and Fulton Streets.

Jim Meko · spoken · 2007-01-11 · oppose

The plan over-reached geographically. Affordability has not been mentioned.

Stephen Haigh · spoken · 2007-01-11 · oppose

Opposes the plan. It separates neighborhoods along Market Street.

Ed Brincat · spoken · 2007-01-11 · support

I'm in favor of passing the plan.

Adam Millard-Ball · spoken · 2007-01-11 · oppose

We have waited too much for this.

Karin Moree · spoken · 2007-01-11 · support

We need housing. This plan assures positive and safe environments.

Sue Hestor · spoken · 2007-01-11 · oppose

Affordability, transportation, and a wind study have not been talked about . Downtown was zoned for offices not housing.

Rufino de Leon · spoken · 2007-01-11 · —

I'm in support of the plan but small business should be included as well.

Paul Olsen · spoken · 2007-01-11 · support

I'm very supportive of the plan. Move it forward. It has been seven years already.

Hiroshi Fukuda · spoken · 2007-01-11 · —

The process did not notice the public properly. Notice should be done citywide.

Robin Levitt · spoken · 2007-01-11 · support

Supports the plan. It is time to move forward.

Arnold Townsend · spoken · 2007-01-11 · —

Allow Market to stay with 5-story buildings.

Sarah Karlinsky · spoken · 2007-01-11 · support

Strongly supports the plan. It brings out the beauty of San Francisco.

Cynthia Servetnick · spoken · 2007-01-11 · oppose

The public process has been improper. Historic preservation has not been evaluated.

George Williams · spoken · 2007-01-11 · support

I'm in favor of the plan. It is the best thing the department has produced.

Marius Starkey · spoken · 2007-01-11 · oppose

Consider one-to-one parking.

Curt Holzinger · spoken · 2007-01-11 · oppose

In opposition to the project because of historic preservation concerns.

Sally McDonnell · spoken · 2007-01-11 · —

Projects will be too high for neighborhoods. Property values will be diminished.

Richard Henderson · spoken · 2007-01-11 · oppose

Buildings should be modified. Sunlight would be obstructed.

Jane Becker · spoken · 2007-01-11 · oppose

Reject the proposal. Respect neighborhood character.

Craig O'Connor · spoken · 2007-01-11 · oppose

I'm concerned about health issues and neighborhood character.

Peter Lewis · spoken · 2007-01-11 · oppose

Requested protection for historic preservation.

Georgie Faine · spoken · 2007-01-11 · oppose

It would be industrial looking. Neighborhood character will not be maintained.

Lisa Arena · spoken · 2007-01-11 · oppose

Concerned that there was not proper notification to adjacent neighborhoods.

David Silverman · spoken · 2007-01-11 · support

Consider building grocery stores and not limit less than 50-foot projects.

James Haas · spoken · 2007-01-11 · —

Support the project and request that you include a garage for the arts activities. The project should not be less than 50-feet in order to pay for it.

Steve Vettel · spoken · 2007-01-11 · —

Self-Storage at 11 th and Mission should stay and not be used as a residential building.

Gideon Kramer · spoken · 2007-01-11 · oppose

Concerned about parking and protection for historic preservation.

Jason Henderson · spoken · 2007-01-11 · oppose

Plan would increase property values and parking should be subject to inflation rather than a flat fee.

Alastair Mactaggart · spoken · 2007-01-11 · —

Supports the plan. An objective is that the 11 th and Mission building should be reduced to 85 or 40 feet.

Move forward · spoken · 2007-01-11 · —

no text recorded

2007-02-01 · 2 comments · 0 / 2

Hiroshi Fukuda · spoken · 2007-02-01 · oppose

Requested continuance of 120 days for the Market/Octavia Plan for not including reclassification of land.

Marylin Amini · spoken · 2007-02-01 · oppose

Requested continuance of 90 to120 days for the Market/Octavia Plan. Environmental review does not include reclassification of land.

2007-02-08 · 41 comments · 9 / 15

Rufino DeLeon Jr · spoken · 2007-02-08 · —

SOMA/West is a relatively new neighborhood. We would like to get involved with this plan.

Anna Shimko · spoken · 2007-02-08 · support

Safeway is very supportive of the plan and appreciates the Department staff for being diligent, responsive and responsible.

Lynne Creighhton · spoken · 2007-02-08 · —

Support the project. We should not wait until it pleases everybody.

David Winslav · spoken · 2007-02-08 · —

Appreciating the process, but after six or seven years it has been refined.

Frank Noto · spoken · 2007-02-08 · —

Sunset residents support the plan. The west side is watching closely.

Gail Baugh · spoken · 2007-02-08 · —

Urged adoption of this plan. It would bring back families with children to the neighborhood.

Jason Henderson · spoken · 2007-02-08 · support

Move this plan forward. Conditional parking and public transportation should be strengthened.

Tim Colen · spoken · 2007-02-08 · support

The plan deserves to be adopted. It is about housing for humans and not geology

Georgie Faine · spoken · 2007-02-08 · oppose

Invited to visit neighborhoods and imagine changes that would happen affecting neighborhood character. Modernization should happen in other parts of the city but not in historic neighborhoods.

Tes Bolbar · spoken · 2007-02-08 · —

Many people have participated in this plan. This process is going to help neighborhoods with housing, retails and certainty with Zoning and Planning Codes.

Robin Levitt · spoken · 2007-02-08 · support

Support the plan the way it is with high density and low parking.

Ed Bernard · spoken · 2007-02-08 · support

The Plan process has been open, democratic and transparent. Adopt the plan to have a better San Francisco.

Robert Lafayt · spoken · 2007-02-08 · support

The Plan is great because of density. The ability to have affordable housing is much more important than cars.

Sue Hestor · spoken · 2007-02-08 · oppose

This plan includes incredible density without improvement of public transportation. Height limits should be different whether being on the North or South side of a street. Construction proposals on Buchanan and Market are too big for the character of the neighborhood. Requested to hold this Plan until all these details are worked out.

Karin Monivorack · spoken · 2007-02-08 · support

Urged to adopt the Plan. It targets affordable housing by lowering parking and increasing density. The Planning Department has done good work and has tried to responsive to public needs.

John Bardis · spoken · 2007-02-08 · oppose

Developers only care about concrete and not affordable housing. Challenged the Commission to carefully read the proposal of this plan and amend it to truly do something for Market-Octavia.

Paul Olsen · spoken · 2007-02-08 · —

Thanked staff and the Commission for the work and the respect you gave to the public. This plan allows choices on affordability, transit, density and parking. We will work with the Commission and follow up promises made on this plan.

John McNulty · spoken · 2007-02-08 · support

Urged moving the plan forward for the progress of San Francisco.

Richard Johnson · spoken · 2007-02-08 · —

People are fearful of changes. They come here to demand and not compromise themselves. Adopt the project.

Chris Pet · spoken · 2007-02-08 · support

erson Urged support of the plan. Adopt it and move quickly. Encouraged people to bike, walk and commute to prevent global warming.

David Schoop · spoken · 2007-02-08 · —

I do not see small business fitting in the plan. Keep us in mind for future rezoning.

Craig O'connor · spoken · 2007-02-08 · oppose

Urge not to build at 1998 Market Street. It will highly impact the neighborhood.

Dennis Richards · spoken · 2007-02-08 · —

I support no density limit on Market Street but limit inner streets. We support no density limit on inner blocks if it provides permanent affordable housing for underserved populations and has conditional use.

Calvin Welch · spoken · 2007-02-08 · oppose

Urge the commission to take the draft community improvement program back and make some fundamental changes.

Betty Levitin · spoken · 2007-02-08 · oppose

NCT rear yard walls on Market and West Church Street should not be higher than five feet.

Richard McRee · spoken · 2007-02-08 · oppose

There is a lack of communication to the public. We will be facing global warming with all these big constructions. We have to learn to use what we have.

Hiroshi Fukuda · spoken · 2007-02-08 · —

Read a letter submitted to the Planning Commission to question City and Land Use Attorneys about notifying limit restrictions in zoning.

Curt Holzinger · spoken · 2007-02-08 · oppose

We submitted a proposal to respond to specific needs of specific neighborhoods. The EIR says that this is going to alter neighborhoods to maximize housing.

Jane Becker · spoken · 2007-02-08 · oppose

The building proposed for Market and Buchanan is too big for this neighborhood. It [the neighborhood] would be negatively impacted.

Sharon Williams · spoken · 2007-02-08 · oppose

There is a lack of communication. Newspapers are not updating the public on this plan. Parking is a big issue.

Sally McDonnell · spoken · 2007-02-08 · —

Our buildings are small and the Market-Octavia Plan would alter the neighborhood character.

Alan Martinez · spoken · 2007-02-08 · —

Supports the approach of waiting for the Historic Survey to be used in the plan. The Commission has to deal with CEQA and the EIR and landmarking at some point.

Tom Radulovich · spoken · 2007-02-08 · —

I would like to see this create benefits for greater housing affordability. Hold off on any demolitions until we have the historic survey. Suggested parking management from the city.

Francis Lundy · spoken · 2007-02-08 · oppose

Concerned about the loss of property value, health, view and sunlight.

Peter Lewis · spoken · 2007-02-08 · oppose

In essence the show room site on Market and Dolores is too big. Asked for lower heights from Dolores Street to 14 Street. Consider one-to-one parking in the Dolores neighborhood.

Bill Rusconi · spoken · 2007-02-08 · oppose

The size, height and density plan proposed for Market and Buchanan does not fit the neighborhood.

Charles Marsteller · spoken · 2007-02-08 · —

Urged the Commission to invite the Department of Emergency Services of San Francisco to share the consequences of large volume of construction in the next 20 to 25 years

Gideon Kramer · spoken · 2007-02-08 · oppose

Opposes big construction on Dolores and 14 Streets for being out of character Consider one-to-one parking on any new construction along Market and Dolores Street.

Sarah Karlinsky · spoken · 2007-02-08 · —

Complimented staff and the Commission for listening to different issues being addressed in a thoughtful ways.

Scott Kuby · spoken · 2007-02-08 · oppose

UC extension is including 450 housing units. This plan would add so much density on Buchanan and Market Street. My concerns are health because of a former gas station, shopping, and a commuting already crowded.

Move forward · spoken · 2007-02-08 · —

no text recorded

2007-02-15 · 21 comments · 5 / 5

Harry O'Brien · spoken · 2007-02-15 · oppose

Regarding the freeway parcel I addressed in the summary: Height limits on Grove/Gough Street is 55-feet. Changing it to 45 feet would loose one floor of affordable housing.

Jim Keith · spoken · 2007-02-15 · support

Regarding Parcel 1: We met with the neighborhood and they support the project on Grove Street with a 55-foot height limit. We are committed to build affordable housing.

Patrick Spiers · spoken · 2007-02-15 · support

Gough/Grove Street project was purchased with the understanding of a 55-foot height limit.

Marilyn Amini · spoken · 2007-02-15 · oppose

District Attorney differed the question to the Zoning Administrator about proper public notices. Reclassification of land requires notification to people who are going to be impacted.

Peter Cohen · spoken · 2007-02-15 · support

This is a laborious process but it is working. The Duboce Triangle Neighborhood provided an alternative plan. Suggested having an Improvement and Advisory Committee.

David Sincara · spoken · 2007-02-15 · support

We have been working with Staff to deal with the objectives of the Market and Buchanan Street project. Go forward with this plan

Marilyn Amini · spoken · 2007-02-15 · oppose

Requested the item to be continued for 90 to 120 days Two new amendments on zoning were just made public yesterday and would impact the Environmental Report. It would affect the entire city, not only Market-Octavia. Process is out of compliance because it has not been noticed publicly properly.

Joe Curtin · spoken · 2007-02-15 · —

Castro College supports changes to the RTO zoning. It would have a gap in density. Supports conditional use with no density limit and 100 % affordable housing.

Cynthia Servetnick · spoken · 2007-02-15 · —

Rezoning would impact open space, public and historic preservation on Laguna Street. If you have a public hearing on the draft of environmental report, set it at 6pm to provide an opportunity for people to comment.

Demian Quesnel · spoken · 2007-02-15 · —

Market/Octavia is a composition of various neighborhoods. It is not a neighborhood itself. Hayes/Valley Neighborhood supports affordable housing and public garages should be built.

David Schoop · spoken · 2007-02-15 · oppose

Submitted a letter signed by 12 small business owners requesting not to be evicted in this process. The public does not want the project as it is now.

Betty Levitin · spoken · 2007-02-15 · —

Proposes having a 40-foot height limit on Market Street to save sunlight.

Dennis Richards · spoken · 2007-02-15 · oppose

We want housing with a balance of livability and neighborhood character. The alternative Plan submitted to the Commission from Duboce/Triangle Neighborhood is with no height limit on interior blocks with 100% affordable housing.

Jason Henderson · spoken · 2007-02-15 · —

Submitted a letter from Hayes/Valley neighborhood. Increase affordable housing by not constructing parking. Do not delay this project anymore.

Robin Levitt · spoken · 2007-02-15 · —

50% of the proposed plan in the Hayes/Valley neighborhood is going to be affordable housing. Community services would be needed.

Brian Bosing · spoken · 2007-02-15 · —

14% of people with AIDS are homeless. Stop HIV from spreading by housing people.

Sue Hestor · spoken · 2007-02-15 · —

Requested a continuance until a model and the historic survey are done. Chart of streets shows neighborhoods having very deep hills and areas that are depressed. This process is treating it as a flat area.

Richard Henderson · spoken · 2007-02-15 · —

The Buchanan/Market Street project proposal would cover an entire property obstructing sunlight.

Tom Radulovich · spoken · 2007-02-15 · support

Sent a letter asking the Commission to have an environmental finding to restore one-way Hayes Street to two-way; it was included in the plan proposal of 2002.

Hiroshi Fukuda · spoken · 2007-02-15 · —

Asked the City Attorney about proper notice of rezoning throughout the city.

Curt Holzinger · spoken · 2007-02-15 · —

Temporarily proposes a 55-foot height limit for the upper Market Street section.

2007-03-01 · 2 comments · no positions recorded

Marilyn Amini · spoken · 2007-03-01 · —

Western Twin Picks Council sent a letter requesting a continuance of 90-days.

Hiroshi Fukuda · spoken · 2007-03-01 · —

Presented a letter from The Sunset Coalition Neighborhood requesting at least a 90-day continuance after proper notification to the public.

2007-03-22 · 1 comments · no positions recorded

Joe Curtin · spoken · 2007-03-22 · —

I'm in support of the amendments to the plan. It is important to include the historic preservation survey and protection should be implemented. Demian Quesnel Eureka Valley Planning Association Concerned about parking in the Eureka Valley Area. Homeowners are more likely to own a car than home renters. The center area of the plan would have homeownership and our neighborhood would be negatively impacted. Dennis … I'm in support of the amendments to the plan. It is important to include the historic preservation survey and protection should be implemented. Demian Quesnel Eureka Valley Planning Association Concerned about parking in the Eureka Valley Area. Homeowners are more likely to own a car than home renters. The center area of the plan would have homeownership and our neighborhood would be negatively impacted. Dennis Richards, Duboce Triangle Neighborhood Association Supports amendments to the plan. Suggested having a design guideline booklet for developers. We would like the market based parking price be modified in the document. Tim Dunn, Duboce Triangle Neighborhood Association Affordable housing is very important for our neighborhood. Parcels on Octavia Boulevard are funded by Caltrain and not by developers. Requested a commitment be made for affordable housing - not only inclusionary. Hiroshi Fukuda, Richmond Community Association Commissioners mentioned not knowing what they are voting for. This plan is not ready to go forward. Jim Haas, Civic Center I noticed that you are preoccupied with the parcels on Van Ness and Market Street. Two of those parcels belong to the City. Adjacent to Civic Center, affordable housing currently exists. The area needs wealth to increase shoppers. Marilyn Amini This plan is not ready. You should not adopt it until you work out some details. You would be adopting transit that is not consistent with the Housing Element. Jason Henderson, HVNA I'm in support of the Plan and it should be moved forward. Super inclusionary should be taken seriously. We do need affordable housing. Tall buildings help include more affordable units. Charles Chase, San Francisco Heritage Committed to seeing that this plan is fulfilled through the completion of the survey with analysis. This is a significant improvement in terms of types of controls. The value of Transfer Development Rights for this plan is low. Tom Radulovich, San Franciscan's for a Livable City I'm worried that the spirit of this plan will be lost. This new neighborhood is going to be different. It will be transit, walking and cycling oriented. We need a balance of private and public benefits. It is important to have inclusionary and affordable housing. Peter Lewis, Mission Dolores Neighborhood Association Mission Dolores is the oldest neighborhood in San Francisco and is cut in half by this plan. We would like a comprehensive historic survey completed before going forward. Mark Paez, Duboce Triangle Neighborhood Association We support the adoption of the plan only after it is informed properly by the historic survey. There are unresolved concerns about how historic preservation is going to be treated in this plan. Suggested that the Commission take into consideration having an informational hearing with historic preservation consultants. Jim Keith With regards to Parcel I, it was an agreement and supported by the neighborhood to have a 55-foot height limit. Now the proposal is to drop the height down to 45 feet. I hope you looked at all the facts and considered that owners are committed to on- site affordable housing. Patrick Spiers, Owner of Parcel I We did a trade and agreed on a deal with the City. We met with the neighborhood and it was suggested that we follow the guidelines of Octavia Boulevard. We should have followed the initial agreement when we purchased the property with the 55-foot height limit. Richie Hart With regards to Parcel 1 - height along the corridor would not be consistent. The Commission was urged to keep the height limit to 55 feet on Grove Street. Kieran Buckley Owner of Ivy Street lot, Parcel I. The proposed height of 40 feet is not going to be consistent along the corridor. The agreement was already made for 55 feet. It is important for affordable housing. Angus McCarthy Requested the 55-foot height limit on Parcel I. The owners of the parcel have waited for over five years for this plan. Stephen Haigh, Victorian Alliance Plan areas include many valuable historic structures. We would like the historic survey to inform the plan before the plan is adopted. Peter Cohen The plan talks in general about the building community. I am certain that there will be some refining words in this plan. There is a need for maintenance of structures and the transit analysis needs to be more specific. Chris Foley It has been a long time. You have had five years of community input through hearings. I urge you to adopt it today. Mary Miles, Coalition for Adequate Review It is inconsistent with the general housing element. This plan does not have any accountability for building affordable housing. Density is too high. Sue Hestor There are a lot of projects in process around Civic Center. It is important to have a cumulative climate analysis from Mission, Van Ness, and Market to 10 th Street. This housing should be for workers in the city. It should be affordable and not luxury housing. Judy We were told in past hearings that there were no plan proposals to implement these re-zonings outside Market-Octavia. Answers have been misleading. There is another plan proposal for other parts of the city.show more

2007-04-05 · 1 comments · 1 / 0

Peter Lewis · spoken · 2007-04-05 · support

Appreciates the added language stating that Mission Dolores Neighborhood Association should be incorporated into the plan Charles Chase, San Francisco Heritage The resource evaluation is not available but it is stepping in the right direction. Urged to include the service advisory as part of a community effort to enhance the evaluation of the survey. Alan Martinez, Landmarks Board Our main concern is that any finding… Appreciates the added language stating that Mission Dolores Neighborhood Association should be incorporated into the plan Charles Chase, San Francisco Heritage The resource evaluation is not available but it is stepping in the right direction. Urged to include the service advisory as part of a community effort to enhance the evaluation of the survey. Alan Martinez, Landmarks Board Our main concern is that any findings of the historical survey that is available should be included. We have not seen that last motion get incorporated into the plan. Sara Karlinsky, San Francisco Planning and Urban Association This plan deals with density and growth with elegancy. Betty Levitin, Land use committee for Triangle Neighborhood Association The Association made three requests that we understood was going to be included in the amendments and it is not there. Revised height limit on Market Street when historic survey is completed. Design guidelines to be published as a separate document. We asked that any reference to market base pricing for residential parking permit be removed from the general plan amendments to explore other alternative language. Jason Henderson, Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association Requested that the Plan not be separated as was suggested by a speaker earlier. Urged to approve the plan and support the concept of super inclusionary housing on Van Ness Avenue. Tom Radulovich, Livable City We support the density in this plan. Parking controls from original draft were much better than the current ones. Jim Warshell, Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association Include language for historic preservation survey. On future plans, work on this matter earlier. Supports the plan and urged its approval. Peter Cohen, Duboce Triangle Association The plan is much better now. Public transportation is still a concern. We submitted recommendations to fund a better bus implementation program Adam Millard Urged not to separate the plan. Approve for better developments and growth of the city. Robin Levitt Parking is a big concern. New residents bringing cars would increase vehicle traffic. Draft proposal from 2002 was much better. Demian Quesnel Market and Octavia is not a neighborhood. This plan includes 4 existing neighborhoods. Neighborhoods are not treated equally. Anita Margrill Affordable housing should be available for people that really need it like community servers (policeman, teachers and fireman). David Silverman, 555 Fulton Street Project Set a 50-foot height limit for the project at 555 Fulton Street. Drake Gardner The project on 555 Fulton Street has become very important to the community. It would bring reasonable costs, accessible usage, and employment opportunities. Cynthia Servetnick, Save 55 Laguna Street Campus The University of California Berkeley extension has been a designated landmark and a national register nominee. Include mitigation measures in the Market-Octavia plan: (a) citizen advisory commission and (b) comprehensive analysis. The same historic preservation the University in Berkeley is suggesting should be implemented in San Francisco. Hiroshi Fukuda This plan discriminates against the poor, senior, and disabled people. It offers high cost housing and density populations. Jim Keith -Set back the height limit to 55 feet on Parcel I on Gough Street. Tes This plan provides density and merger controls as well as housing for families. Urged approval of it. Karen This is a good plan including hearings, meetings with neighborhoods and associations. Move it forward and bring the growth the city is expecting. Sue Hestor Do a finding for not having done studies on climate for wind and shadows on public spaces. You should eliminate the 400-foot height limit on Market and Van Ness Avenue and start at 120 feet -- maybe increasing it going up Market Street. The City would be providing housing mainly for Silicon Valley and not San Franciscans. Drivers would have three accesses to the freeway and it would create congestion. Christopher Peterson I'd rather support the 2002 original draft plan. Process has been reasonable and it would be better than this one. Avoid temptations for allowing additional parking and to maximize housing for people [not] living and serving the city. Frank Wise Consider allowing more parking on Dolores and Noe Streets. Mark Paez Include preliminary findings from the survey. We would like to see more independent review data and not just the Department Staff's. Consider a viable approach to approve the plan neighborhood by neighborhood. Marc Solomon Western South of Market is concerned that this process has taken seven years and there are still some issues pending. The plan has no historical preservation survey, affordability or transportation. Some areas were privileged to benefit their neighborhood while other areas did not. Tamara Cobby, Save UC Berkeley Extension Campus Make it clear that a 400-foot height limit on Market and Van Ness Avenue is to help affordable housing. 55 Laguna College Campus represents the heart and culture of the city. It needs preservation. Marilyn Amini Process for this plan has been deficient. It will impact transit and policies of the entire city. Neighborhoods are not treated equally.show more

2007-07-12 · 1 comments · no positions recorded

Libby Sifold · spoken · 2007-07-12 · —

We were challenged with the task of analyzing the financial feasibility of increased contributions to affordable housing with respect to up-zoning within the Market-Octavia Plan. The way that we picked this site was first analyzing potential up-zoning opportunities in this area. They vary in changes in height and density allowed within the area. The areas with +/- 10 feet change did not have much economic effect on l… We were challenged with the task of analyzing the financial feasibility of increased contributions to affordable housing with respect to up-zoning within the Market-Octavia Plan. The way that we picked this site was first analyzing potential up-zoning opportunities in this area. They vary in changes in height and density allowed within the area. The areas with +/- 10 feet change did not have much economic effect on land values. We really concentrated the analysis on the Van Ness-Market residential special use district. We particularly looked at four sites of the zoning map. The up-zoning would mean increases in height and the number of units allowed but higher development costs in fees. As you increase height, the construction costs go up. We looked at the assumptions of the inclusionary housing study as a basis for what we did. We made some adjustments for the specifics within the Van Ness corridor area. We spoke with a number of development consultants and got some key information. Construction costs represent the majority at approximately 50 percent of development cost. Others are finance and soft cost and the City's fee including the in-lieu fee for the affordable housing plan, school fee and the special fee associated with the Market-Octavia Plan. For assumptions on development profit or margin, we were consistent with the inclusionary housing study. We used 20 – 22percent for these higher towers. We developed a lenders model. What we were doing was looking at what is the effect when you change density on the value of the land. It is the same methodology used in Rincon-Hill and in the inclusionary housing study. We ran initial model on these sites and we also did sensitivity analysis changing the assumption up and down with respect to unit size, sales price and construction cost to test the analysis. This is an illustration of the four sites that we looked at and it shows that basically, fundamentally, even thought there is a dramatic increase in height the construction cost is also increasing consequently. From a policy stand point, we found what you already have done through your policies - and it is that you actually captured a lot of the public benefits. You have done slender tower design that limits the amount of development potential but for positive reasons to mitigate shadow impacts and wind effects. You have the Market-Octavia community improvement fee that is $10 per net square foot of residential and $4 per net square foot of commercial. You also have an additional VNRSUD development credit meaning that when a building goes above 9FAR there is actually an additional amount that is paid of $15 per gross square foot. There is a significant amount of money that is potentially generated as heights go up. Also, higher density means more units available for affordable housing units. We wanted to put this together to make sure that developments do happen and to encourage developers. The changes in residual land value were not enough to really warrant any increase in affordability requirements or increase in fees. We found that the fees were being captured by in FAR that are already in place that would go back to help the neighborhood. We found that we really could not recommend to you any increase in the affordability requirement. We have also found that you really have captured the economic benefit through the FAR increase fees and the TDR. James Haas I have talked on several occasions on the subject of Market-Octavia and about the need for community benefits. The transit station on Van Ness needs open space and/or streetscape to make that area hospitable. I urge you to accept the conclusion of you consultant and pass the remaining item to the Board of Supervisors who have been waiting to deliberate on the plan. Octavia Boulevard parcels cannot be sold until this plan is completed and signed by the Mayor. Arnold Townsend I keep not hearing something that we need to start hearing in this Commission and that is improving economic development in San Francisco We never talk about creating small business owners. We are going to continue to build even more affordable housing that San Franciscans can not afford to live in. [No name] There are conclusions and no decisions. This should not move forward.show more

2008-03-27 · 6 comments · 3 / 3

Hiroshi Fukuda · spoken · 2008-03-27 · oppose

The plan is going to drastically affect the larger units and garages allowing them to split.

Marilyn Amini · spoken · 2008-03-27 · oppose

The proposed changes are material to take density controls out for over 1700 city's blocks and you need to make findings and make public notice to let the population know about it.

Sarah Karlinsky · spoken · 2008-03-27 · support

Supported Supervisor Mirkarimi's amendments especially the elimination of density controls on the RTO [Residential Transit Oriented].

Tom Radulovich · spoken · 2008-03-27 · support

Supported Supervisor Mirkarimi's amendments because they strengthen the plan and brings back several things from the 2002 draft plan. Mark Solomon You are making a poor businesses decision for San Francisco because you are entitling a big amount of new expensive housing production and getting hardly anything out of it.

Robin Levitt · spoken · 2008-03-27 · support

The plan came out of a very intense community process. The plan itself and the amendments really reflect that process.

Judith Berkowitz · spoken · 2008-03-27 · oppose

No body was informed or invited to be part of the discussion on these amendments. Rich Hillz, Mayor's Office of Economic and Workforce Development We are certainly supportive of the amendments because we think they strike a good balance between the impacts of the plan -- especially affordable housing and encouraging new developments.

Market & Octavia Neighborhood Plan

Hearings

Comments by hearing (144)