Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Market Octavia topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commissioners warn Board of Supervisors against material changes to Market Octavia plan
Summary
Commissioners and public commenters pushed back after supervisors drafted changes to Market Octavia that add a new $10 housing fee and cut residential parking; commissioners sought legal clarity on whether those amendments are 'material' and whether the plan must return to the Planning Commission for review.
San Francisco Planning Commission members and residents on Thursday raised concerns that changes introduced at the Board of Supervisors could amount to material revisions to the Market Octavia plan that should be returned to the Planning Commission for further review. Staff briefed the commission on competing versions of amendments, both of which add a new $10 fee for affordable housing in addition to an existing $10 public-benefits fee and would impose lower caps on residential parking than the commission previously recommended.
Commissioner Michael Antonini said he feared the board’s changes were being made without adequate opportunity for the public or the commission to review alternatives. "I just would urge that the Board disapprove this not so much on what's been done but on the process," he said. Planning Department staff noted supervisors Peskin, Mercarini and McGoldrick have each proposed amendments; staff told commissioners two versions will be before the full board next week.
Several public commenters, including Marilyn Amini and Michael Burke, told the commission the changes are significant. Amini submitted a coalition letter arguing supervisors’ amendments remove protections the commission previously approved and said the board "shall not take final action upon any material modification that has not been approved or disapproved by the planning commission." Burke said adding dollars per square foot and reducing parking rules could change project economics and rise to the level of a material change.
Staff and a deputy city attorney told the panel there is legal ambiguity over how the city’s charter and planning code treat "material" amendments and whether such changes automatically send a plan back to the Planning Commission. A deputy city attorney said the office offered two reasonable interpretations and that "it’s really up to the commission to determine which interpretation it feels is the more valid one of the rules." Several commissioners asked staff to request a written interpretation from the city attorney’s office before the board acts and to consider an informational hearing so the commission can provide formal input.
What’s next: Commissioners asked staff to seek the city attorney’s written interpretation and to notify the commission if the board takes action. The board’s versions are scheduled for full-board consideration in the coming week; commissioners may ask the Board of Supervisors to return the amendments if the office deems them material.
