Comments on: 299 Valencia Appeal Fails As Swing Vote Dufty Sides with Developer http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/01/14/299-valencia-appeal-fails-as-swing-vote-dufty-sides-with-developer/ Covering San Francisco's livable streets movement Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:15:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Matthew Roth http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/01/14/299-valencia-appeal-fails-as-swing-vote-dufty-sides-with-developer/comment-page-1/#comment-3176 Matthew Roth Thu, 15 Jan 2009 01:49:58 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1307#comment-3176 Thanks for leaving your comments, friends. Please stay on topic, though. We don't tolerate insults. Thanks for leaving your comments, friends. Please stay on topic, though. We don’t tolerate insults.

]]> By: Josh http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/01/14/299-valencia-appeal-fails-as-swing-vote-dufty-sides-with-developer/comment-page-1/#comment-3174 Josh Wed, 14 Jan 2009 23:05:20 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1307#comment-3174 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 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

]]> By: marc http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/01/14/299-valencia-appeal-fails-as-swing-vote-dufty-sides-with-developer/comment-page-1/#comment-3173 marc Wed, 14 Jan 2009 22:24:47 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1307#comment-3173 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 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

]]> By: murphstahoe http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/01/14/299-valencia-appeal-fails-as-swing-vote-dufty-sides-with-developer/comment-page-1/#comment-3172 murphstahoe Wed, 14 Jan 2009 21:25:37 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1307#comment-3172 Grr... Bevan... Grr… Bevan…

]]> By: Bob http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/01/14/299-valencia-appeal-fails-as-swing-vote-dufty-sides-with-developer/comment-page-1/#comment-3171 Bob Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:31:59 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1307#comment-3171 Dufty. What a disappointment. Building a transit-first city is impossible without supervisors who have a backbone. Dufty.

What a disappointment.

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

]]> By: CBrinkman http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/01/14/299-valencia-appeal-fails-as-swing-vote-dufty-sides-with-developer/comment-page-1/#comment-3170 CBrinkman Wed, 14 Jan 2009 19:57:59 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1307#comment-3170 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. 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.

]]>