299 Valencia Appeal Fails As Swing Vote Dufty Sides with Developer

299_Valencia_now.jpgThe future home of 299 Valencia will have more parking than the neighborhood plan allows of right

The Board of Supervisors, in one the first tests of the new progressive bloc, failed to muster a supermajority vote to support an appeal that would have overturned the Planning Commission’s approval of a conditional use (CU) permit, which allowed seven more parking spaces than the ratio set in the Market/Octavia Plan for a proposed condominium and commercial development at 299 Valencia Street.

The vote Tuesday followed two-and-half-hours of debate and public comment from advocates who fear the decision sets a bad precedent and violates the overall spirit of a sustainable neighborhood blueprint that took more than a decade to craft.

"The question is ‘What kind of city we want?’" said Jeffrey Tumlin, principal of Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates and transportation lead on the Market/Octavia Plan.  "If we are going to override the zoning code that resulted from 10 years of intensive community process, what’s the compelling social reason?  How does [it] make the community better?"

At issue was a request by JS Sullivan Development LLC for a CU for the right to build .75 parking spaces for each residential unit for a new structure to be constructed at the corner of Valencia Street and 14th Street. The Market and Octavia plan of right only allows .5:1 parking spaces to dwelling units.  In November, the Planning Commission, based on staff recommendations, voted 7-0 in favor of the CU, arguing the developer had done everything required to meet the threshold in Planning Code for the extra spaces.   That decision was appealed to the Board of Supervisors.

It boils down to two sections of the planning code, 303 and 151.1(f).   303 broadly addresses the merits of conditional uses, i.e. necessity, desirability, and compatibility with the surrounding area.  151.1(f) is a checklist of specific conditions to be met to grant the parking CU, assuming the broader interpretation of 303 is appropriate.

The Planning Commission asserted the developer met the criteria in 151.1(f) and the developer argued that without the extra parking spaces they couldn’t afford to excavate for parking, forcing them to put parking at grade, though Planning Department staff present at the hearing informed the chamber that at-grade parking would be illegal under the plan.

The appellants, which include the Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association (HVNA), Livable City, the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition (SFBC), the Sierra Club, the AIDS Housing Alliance and others, argued that extra parking violates the context of one of the most transit-rich, bicycle-friendly, and pedestrian-scale neighborhoods in San Francisco. 

Curb_cut.jpgDeveloper argued that the future curb cut on Stevenson Lane would limit conflict with pedestrians and cyclists.

Valencia and 14th Streets are two of the busiest bicycle routes in the city, with numerous Muni and BART transit options nearby, and the majority of the other buildings in the area have little to no on-site parking.  Census numbers show only 27% of people living in the immediate area own cars.  HVNA and Livable city warned if this CU was granted it would set a precedent that subsequent developers would use to argue for exceptions in their project, no small matter given that Whole Foods and other large projects are in the pipeline for the area.

Supervisors Elsbernd, Alioto-Pier, and Chu came into the hearing on the side of the developer with a strict interpretation of 151.1(f).

“What we wanted to grant a conditional use permit was specifically put in the code and this is the code we are asked to interpret,” said Supervisor Elsbernd, who spent much of the hearing pacing or standing and appearing none-too-pleased to spend his evening in chambers. 

Supervisors Avalos, Campos, Chiu, Daly, Mar, Maxwell, and Mirkarimi all came into the hearing siding with the appellants and a broader interpretation of how the CU would impact the neighborhood.  The wild card was Supervisor Dufty, who would not signal his position ahead of time to appellants who lobbied for his support.  When Dufty chastised the developer’s lawyer, David Silverman, for depicting the appellants as carpetbaggers, it appeared he might lean toward supporting the appeal.

“I have to admit that your argumentation disappoints me.  The people are not from Walnut Creek or Saratoga or Concord,” he said.  “These are not… the barbarians at the gate.” 

In the end though, Dufty cast his vote with the moderates to support the developer, killing the appeal, which required an 8-3 supermajority to pass.  Dufty didn’t return phone calls requesting comment.

Jason Henderson, vice president of the HVNA, said he wasn’t too surprised with the outcome, that the 7-4 split is the political alignment of the city currently.  He was disappointed, however, that the sustainable transportation advocates seem to be at odds with the Planning Department and its analysis.

“It doesn’t need to be this divisive,” he said.  “I hope to communicate to the Planning Department that we’re not going to be happy with just giving away these CUs in the future.”

Photos: Matthew Roth

  • CBrinkman

    The argument that since the garage entrance is on Stevenson the cars will cause no disruption to the neighborhood was particularly silly – what, the cars simply vaporize when they leave the garage? I also loved the claims from the devlopers that the 7 extra spaces would “free up” 7 street spots in the neighborhood. Said with a straight face. I wish that planning or one of the Supervisors had disputed those claims. Or I wish public comment was held for both sides, for and against, after the developer spoke. We didn’t have a chance to dispute his assertions.

  • Bob

    Dufty.

    What a disappointment.

    Building a transit-first city is impossible without supervisors who have a backbone.

  • Grr… Bevan…

  • marc

    So what we’ve got here is a City Attorney and Planning Department staff which control the writing of the code of these tremendously complicated plans to the extent that it is impossible for any supervisor to get their minds around the entirety of what they are passing to check for the multiple back doors included in the legal text.

    The Market Octavia plan and the more expansive, less detailed yet much more voluminous Eastern Neighborhoods Plans are so textually enormous that the ability of citizens to exercise our right of referendum is abridged as the cost to reproduce a copy of these ordinances runs to about $100 per plan and is effectively eliminated.

    So long as land use entitlements provided by the City allow for developers to earn more than 20% ROI, we will continue to see political pressure applied to all decision makers to keep the inevitable campaign contribution cash flowing even though these projects cumulatively will degrade the performance of MUNI significantly as has been shown in the various EIRs.

    More delays for MUNI means more people in their cars which means more delays for MUNI and a death spiral. As we’ve been trying to dig MUNI out of a hole with the TEP and Prop A, the last thing we need is for city officials to abrogate their responsibilities under Section 101.1 of the Planning Code and Section 8A.113 of the Charter to put transit first and to preserve neighborhood character.

    -marc

  • So what we’ve learned is that the 0.5 parking maximun under the Market/Octavia plan is nothing more than a lot of wasted ink, the real max is .75, since there is apparently no reason the Planning commission can think of not to grant a CU!

    Let him hear it:

    Bevan Dufty
    District 8
    (415) 554-6968 – Voice
    (415) 554-6909 – Fax
    Bevan.Dufty@sfgov.org

  • Thanks for leaving your comments, friends. Please stay on topic, though. We don’t tolerate insults.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Supervisor Dufty Argues 299 Valencia Vote Sets No Precedent

|
Supervisor Bevan Dufty The San Francisco Bay Guardian has suggested that Supervisor Bevan Dufty swung to the right with his votes not to override the Mayor’s veto on legislation that would have required conditional use (CU) permits and hearings when housing units are being eliminated and his refusal to support an appeal of the 299 […]

Proposed Developments Illustrate San Francisco’s Parking Dilemma

|
A simulation of the proposed discount mall on Market Street, City Place. Image: Urban Realty. At another marathon Planning Commission meeting last week, parking was all the rage. Two projects in particular had community members and housing and transit advocates fired up because of the parking that developers proposed to build, or in one case, […]