Will the Board of Supervisors Betray the Market/Octavia Plan on Tuesday?

marketoctaviacorner.jpgThe Board of Supervisors on Tuesday will hear an appeal against more parking in Market/Octavia area.

After nearly ten years of community planning and a rigorous review process that resulted in a model community plan encouraging transit-oriented development, density, and strategic parking limits, a developer in the Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan (PDF) area has asked for a special exception to the parking limit so they can sell condos to mostly wealthy people. 

Sound ridiculous?  Not to the Planning Commission, which unanimously supported the developer’s request for a conditional use (CU) variance at 299 Valencia Street in November of 2008.  In response, the Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association (HVNA), Livable City, the Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition, and the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition have appealed the Planning Department’s decision.

From the HVNA appeal (PDF):

Neither planning staff nor the project sponsor provided evidence that
the CU is necessary, desirable, or compatible.  Instead, the project
sponsor explicitly stated at the Nov 6th 2008 Planning Commission
hearing that the request for a CU for increased parking was necessary
to market the new housing units to higher-end buyers. 

The Board of Supervisors will hear arguments for and against the CU tomorrow at 4pm in the Board of Supervisors auditorium at City Hall.  Readers are encouraged to attend the hearing and speak in favor of the appeal.

Photo: Planning Department

  • Jeffrey W. Baker

    It is burdensome to always need vigilance against planning commission stupidity. It might be nice to live in a city, someday, where the planning commission and the land use and planning subcommittee of the board of supervisors mainly takes rational actions, rather than the one we have now which constantly acts against the interests of the public.

    I had my own similar encounter with the board last year, when the land use subcommittee voted (1-0) to establish permit parking in a C-3-S zoning block, within the boundaries of the transbay redevelopment district. The prevailing argument which swayed the supervisor was that permit parking must be established, otherwise families with children would move out of the city. That is the level of rhetoric to which our government is susceptible.

  • Any way we can add written comment, for those of us who can’t physically attend?

  • Besides, of course, contacting your Supervisor here:


  • Peter

    us livable streets folks should start blaring that ‘children and families’ song at every chance we get.

    “But why is Supervisor ‘X’ against families and children? Does s/he hate children? Then why not make this crosswalk safer?”

  • I find myself tuning out many SFBC alerts because no effort is made to represent the claims and reasoning of the opposition. Credibility and depth are gained when an effort is made to accurately perceive the point of view of the opposition. My tune out filter kicks at the first sign of polarized refusal to understand rational arguments on the other side. If their arguments aren’t rational, expose the fact at least summarily.

    SFBC too seldom and too shallowly contemplates the views of those who oppose us. Screw that.

  • Decker:

    What are you referring to? This article had nothing to do with the SFBC (though the SFBC endorsed this proposal and I am a neighbor and SFBC staff who spoke out in favor of the appeal)…

    …and Why would you be upset that an organization isn’t spending their member’s time and email inbox space explaining a contrary point of view…?