Planning Commission hears months-long debate over Market & Octavia plan; staff proposes 'super inclusionary' study

The San Francisco Planning Commission spent the bulk of its meeting on a detailed review of the Market & Octavia plan amendments, taking prolonged public comment and asking staff for further analysis on affordability, height and neighborhood protections.

Planning Department staff told commissioners they intend to pursue a linked economic analysis — conducted as part of the Eastern Neighborhoods study — to calculate how much additional value upzoning at a handful of parcels can yield and to propose a supplemental "super inclusionary" requirement for those sites. Anne Marie Rogers, the plan manager, said the department has already expanded the consultant scope to run Market & Octavia-specific scenarios and expects to present findings this spring; if the commission directs it, staff would prepare trailer legislation for a new inclusionary rate within three months of commission action on the plan.

The proposal rests on three funding pillars: the area-wide Market Octavia Community Improvements Impact Fee (staff estimates roughly $197 million over 20 years for infrastructure), the citywide inclusionary requirement (projects remain subject to the city program: 15% on-site or 20% off-site/equivalent), and potential bonus-FAR or tower-related payments. Staff said the tower parcels are few (roughly six sites in the special-use district) but could yield funds to cover streetscape, open-space and affordable-housing investments that would otherwise be difficult to finance.

Commissioners and the public pressed the Mayor's Office of Housing for a clear accounting: what do in-lieu and off-site payments buy, how long before units appear, and how do on-site affordable units compare in cost and timing? Doug Shoemaker of the Mayor's Office of Housing said he would return with a short briefing showing how inclusionary funds and mayoral allocations have been used and how quickly units have been produced.

Debate also focused on the plan's proposed range of heights. Supporters said the Market/Van Ness intersection is a transit-rich crossroads suited to denser housing, and that slender towers could deliver both housing and funding for public improvements. Detractors warned towers at that corner could create wind, shadow and infrastructure challenges and questioned whether tower units would be family-appropriate or primarily luxury condominiums. Commissioners requested additional three-dimensional massing, grade-sensitive modeling and engineering input on shadows, wind and emergency access before endorsing large-scale height increases.

Neighborhood groups raised parallel concerns. DeBose Triangle and Hayes Valley representatives asked for a firm mechanism to incorporate the ongoing historic-survey (DPR 523 forms) into the plan before rezoning takes effect and sought safeguards against subdivision that would create many small units in low-scale, historic streets. Staff offered a programmatic alternative for RTO neighborhoods: a soft density cap (one unit per 600 square feet of lot area, three-unit minimum) with conditional-use review and public commission discretion for projects proposing more units. The commission asked staff to draft language reflecting those options.

Commissioners signaled interest in several next steps: an early informational briefing on affordability and fee deliveries from the Mayor's Office of Housing (scheduled by staff), additional three-dimensional modeling of tower proposals and grade-sensitive studies for Market/Buchanan and other parcel-specific concerns, and clearer language and process to incorporate the historic-survey outcomes. The hearing produced substantial public testimony from residents, small-business owners and service providers urging both stronger preservation protections and binding commitments that new development funds will produce permanent affordable units.

The commission did not adopt final action on the Market & Octavia package at this meeting; staff will return with the requested studies and draft legislative language for further deliberation.