Planning commission signals intent to certify Market and Octavia EIR amid preservation and housing disputes

The San Francisco Planning Commission voted to register its intent to certify the final environmental impact report (EIR) for the Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan and to move forward with related general plan and zoning amendments, signaling a 4–1 outcome on a nonbinding motion of intent.

Planning department staff recommended certification, saying the draft EIR, the comments-and-responses document and subsequent edits together constitute a final EIR adequate for a program-level decision. "The draft EIR for the project was published on 06/25/2005 ... the comments and responses document was published and circulated on 09/26/2006," Planning Department staffer Rana Amadi told commissioners during her presentation of the recommendation. She also identified two significant unavoidable, program-level impacts — shadows and traffic — that would require a statement of overriding considerations if the commission approves the plan.

The hearing focused on three recurring public concerns. Preservation advocates, including the Landmarks Board and allied neighborhood groups, urged the commission to postpone certification until an ongoing historic-resource survey is complete and its DPR forms incorporated into the EIR. "If the department had done its work right, the survey would have been done to begin with and would have informed the plan," preservation consultant Gigi Platt told commissioners, and several commenters urged that the survey results be adopted as part of the plan before final action.

Planning staff responded that the document is a program EIR and that subsequent project-level CEQA review would require focused historic-resource evaluations for specific developments. Paul Malcher, planning department staff, said the EIR "identifies all known landmarks" and that "the plan is going to result in a comprehensive survey, which will be adopted as part of the plan" and used in later analyses, arguing that this program-level approach is legally defensible.

Affordable housing and the so-called "super inclusionary" proposal also divided speakers and commissioners. Staff outlined a supplemental inclusionary program targeted at parcels that receive substantial upzoning; the department recommended adopting policy and code language committing to a study and follow-up ordinance rather than locking in a fee or percentage at this hearing. As Anne Marie Rogers, department staff, described it, the proposal would "supplement the currently existing inclusionary requirements, which are 15 to 20%" and target parcels receiving significant upzoning for an additional requirement, with the technical fee/percentage to be developed by a consultant study.

Several commissioners expressed discomfort voting for a policy before the super-inclusionary fee structure is complete. The city attorney clarified that a motion of intent is nonbinding and that the commission could review final legislative language — including any proposed fee — before a formal adoption vote.

Urban form and height drew sustained debate. Staff presented a plan that concentrates increased height at the Market/Van Ness node and reduces heights across much of the plan area, while adding podium and bulk controls to limit tower massing and require larger tower separations. "The plan proposes virtually one area in its entire extent where it is actually raising heights," urban designer David Allenbaugh said, describing proposed podium heights of about 120 feet and limited sites where towers up to 400 feet could be allowed. Supporters said taller, more slender towers would unlock funding for public improvements; critics warned about shadows, wind and uncertain market outcomes.

Transportation and community improvements were discussed as part of the package. Staff described funding sources such as impact fees and an FAR bonus that would generate community benefits including transit and open-space improvements; commissioners requested clearer coordination and a presentation from the Municipal Transportation Agency on how transit capacity would be matched to projected growth.

After hours of public comment — which included endorsements of certification from some neighborhood groups and strong objections from preservation and some neighborhood advocates — Commissioner Bill Lee moved a nonbinding motion of intent to certify the final EIR, adopt the CEQA findings and advance plan and code amendments with staff follow-up on unresolved issues. Commissioner Antonini seconded. The roll call vote was Antonini Aye, Sue Lee Aye, Bill Lee Aye, Moore No, Olague Aye; the motion passed 4–1. The commission directed staff to return with final documents and additional information for possible adoption at the April meeting.

What happens next: the commission’s action tonight was a statement of intent rather than a final adoption. Staff will incorporate direction from the hearing, provide additional status information on the historic-resource survey and the super-inclusionary study, and return with final CEQA findings, code language and proposed fees for the commission’s formal vote.