supervisor mar: the meeting will come to order. happy monday afternoon, everyone. this is a regular meeting of the land use and economic development committee of the san francisco board. i'm the chair of the committee. to my right is the vice chair of the committee, and to my left is supervisors got wiener -- supervisor scott wiener. are there announcements? >> please make sure to turn off cell phones and pagers. any documents to be included as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will

appear on the february 8 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. supervisor mar: thank you, and i would like to thank the staff from sfgtv for broadcasting this meeting. can you please call item 1? >> item 1, or in its amended the planning code to amend the upper market street neighborhood commercial district. >> the proposed extension of market octavia goes west to the northwest corner of castro street, specifically the lot with be artsy gas station. my home that i own is a condominium at 17th and diamond, which is less than 500 feet away from the gas station. as a result under california law, i have been devised that i must recuse myself from this

item, item one, and i request permission to do so. supervisor mar: thank you. supervisor cohen, without objection, we can reduce the supervisor wiener from this item. thank you. thank you. so for item one, it is extending the zoning controls for the market and octavia plan up to castro and market street. this extends the zoning controls and infrastructure improvements as well. we have ms. rogers from the planning department. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm here to represent the position of the planning commission. this is an ordinance that they initiated in response to hearing from people who lived in the

area, so probably over a year they lobbied the planning commission. the proposed amendment is not an extension of the full market and octavia plan. in large part, it extends a number of specific controls. the intent of the ordinance is to insure the development is consistent with the existing development patterns. the supervisor from parking requirements encourage more transit-oriented development in this upper market -- maybe i will put a little map on of the area. this map shows market street. here is castro. this middle color here is the upper market with the two parcels going down 16th street. it would ensure that development was in this area and also contributed to the community

benefits program and impacts of new private development through infrastructure fees. specifically, the ordinance would amend the following controls -- section 134 to require rear yards be provided at the ground floor and above, require glen ridge a ground floor of commercial uses would be required. of street parking would be amended to permit one car for each two dwelling units. the general standards for parking and loitering would be admitted -- amended to not permit new entries on market street in this area, and restrictions on the demolition conversion and merger in the area would be amended so that there would be added restrictions on existing dwelling units in this area above and beyond the current demolition controls allowed by section 317. same with the division of dwelling unit controls. the area would be a special-

exemption that would allow for additional height, and portions that are currently zoned for 40 or 50 feet, and that is -- as the supervisor said, the development would generally be extended to this area. the planning commission initiated after hearing from residents, and that is when the commission asked staff to provide some analysis. in doing so, we found that this proposed amendment is consistent with work the department has done for eastern neighborhoods, said the commission enthusiastically recommended approval of this. there was one thing that they added at the hearing. most of the ordinances which we did through planning efforts involved extensive community outreach and years of notice. because this draft ordinance did not benefit from the same process, did not provide the same link a notice to

developers -- the same lengthy notice to developers, the provision -- the commission proposed changing controls so there would be an exemption for certain controls and taxes with pre-existing cut six that have already filed, and if they are able to make good on their permanent application and get their entitlement within two years, so this is insuring that the projects is actually ready at the time the board is considering the ordinance and that it moves through and does get entitlements in a timely manner. so that describes the ordinance before you. if you have any questions, i'm available. supervisor mar: i do not see any questions. thank you very much. now, let's open this up for public comment. is there anyone from the public that would like to speak? please come forward. how many people would like to speak on this item?

there are quite a few. let's limit this to two minutes per speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i represent the 12,000 members of the san francisco bicycle coalition. we are very supportive of the proposal. it is very common sense. it rationalizes and harmonizes the zoning and deals with this orphan block. you have heard about this already. if anything, it will make development there more predictable, more fair, and it really brings the standards that we have developed at length for market and octavia to this last block, and it really helps to protect market street as a transit bicycle pedestrian corridor, so it seems like a very common-sense thing to do, and again, we bring you our wholehearted support for the measure. thank you. supervisor mar: thank you. those that would like to speak,

please come and line of the pecan -- line up if you can. >> hello, supervisors. i represent the castro area planning. our members and members of other neighborhood groups have been working with the planning department and also some of the developers who are working to build new developments within the zone, over the past year. we wholeheartedly support this, and we believed it is a very sensible and really kind of a modest change to the zoning, but it also kind of completes the process that was begun several years ago in which the community was engaged in a very popular and successful planning process to determine how the

future of market street would progress from this point, where at the time, there were several large-scale developments proposed on market street. of course, this last block, which was left out of the rezoning, but was included in the community design process, so this ordinance will really bring some unity and conformity and certainty to the process of development, which we expect will happen in the next couple of years. also, we expect that it will actually help to enhance the neighborhood by bringing better transit-oriented and community- oriented projects, so we urge your support. supervisor mar: thank you. >> good evening, supervisors. a group of us, of the

neighborhood organizations work for a long time to hammer this out and make sure that we got something good that would work out. a representative just spoke. the reverse -- the neighborhood title association was involved in that. liveable cities and the market and octavia actions community. also, the community -- well, the cac also endorsed this. so we are very happy about it. it is not as if the community was not involved. it was very involved, and we are very happy to see this extended. my colleague just referred to the community plan for a firm market, which was a long process

that involved community agreements and all kinds of things for upper market, but the zoning controls in that plan -- it was relying on the zoning controls of the market octavia plan, but that was not covered. it just makes good sense. it is rational, and we fully support the way it has turned out, and we hope you will, too. >> i counted on three minutes, so i may go a little longer. i hope that is okay with you. our office has been working on a residential project on the northwest corner of castro and market street since 2004. the proposed extension would have a negative effect on our project. we have a co-conforming commission and request that it be grandfathered as we have the

application in prior to december 31, 2005. i would like to give you a brief history of our budget. the multi-family building with commercial based on the street level. we worked with the planning department until 2007 when we were informed that our project would be put on hold until the upper market design was completed. in 2008, the upper market development guidelines recommended a very different zoning for the slot, for the planning codes. we were directed to follow the guidelines, rather than the zoning. we found out that we have little support when we began the process. last year, we concluded that to continue with the project, it must be 100% code-conforming to existing zoning. the proposed zoning only partially incorporates elements of the market batavia plant and would actually make this particular project less

desirable and in direct conflict with the screwed up for market design guidelines. in particular, under the new zoning, the rear yard would be required at the ground floor, not at the first residential floor. this would not serve the residential units but only reduce ground floor commercial use. because of the growth of castro street, this will locate the rear yard of the project three stories below the rear yard media tapir. as a matter of city planning, this makes no sense whatsoever. we ask that our product be grandfathered in at the first residential level. supervisor mar: mr. benjamin, please summarize what your main point is. >> we have been at it for six years. we have a project that is co- conforming. we want to continue with the project. i was bringing up parking being reduced. and part of the markets/octavia

plan was removing density requirements, so we are getting part of the market/octavia, but we are not even gaining density improvement, which is what design recommended. supervisor mar: thank you very much. >> and good afternoon. congratulations on your election and congratulations on your position here. we also have been at this a few years, working with the various -- supervisor mar: if you could state your name for the record. >> i apologize. lee molten. i'm with the design group.

we have also been at this for a number of years and have had pretty good feedback on many of the proposals. we're looking at mixed use projects but also adding rental residential units. under the new guidelines, which we support, we do support the extension to take up what has been termed the orphan law. we do support that we are looking for again more certainty in the process and more uniformity of the application planning guidelines. we worked with the neighborhood on the upper market neighborhood design guidelines. the owners have resisted they did in many different neighborhood organizations and groups and so forth, but our project will be affected by the change in ways that probably the existing market activity a plan is not expecting. because the guidelines being extended are only partial.

so how we are directly affected is that we will be the only property from van ness 2 market street that is not a historical resourced that will be limited to 50 feet, and that is pretty significant when you think about it. the only corner parcel that is not of a historic resource that will be limited to 50 feet, so we will be required to go for an sed. we did not have the certainty of the eir process that others are granted, so we support the guideline. we support the extension. we've been working closely with neighborhood groups, but we will have to come back. supervisor mar: thank you. >> thank you. supervisor mar: mr. kaelin? -- mr. cohen, how's it goin'?

>> we are obviously a major supporter and hope to be part of the architecture with this. this is a long time coming. i think staff work hard to come up with a good solution to what we referred to as the orphan block. it was this last little part of the upper market. for a 20-some odd years, the entire stretch of the commercial district of copper markets -- this was back in the 1980's when the city went through a number of commercial district rezoning -- let's call it inadvertently or for a variety of reasons, that got split into two pieces, so this is really about reuniting the commercial district quarter and providing less certainty that the

previous speaker mentioned. i do want to speak to, i guess, both the properties that came before you. i think it is fair to say that at the planning commission, this has already played out. they expressly granted a grandfather of impact fees for the property because that was the primary thing being discussed. variants is common, but in terms of the other consistencies, i do not see any rationale when talking about the project sponsor before for carving out an entire property for what would otherwise be consistent control. when it comes to the site, the previous speaker, they work very hard with the community to get the support. i think most of us feel comfortable with a hike increase, but the planning department says this is not about height, but about the underlying zoning controls. i hope the project sponsor can appreciate that. thanks. supervisor mar: thank you.

>> good afternoon, supervisors. i represent the family that owns 2301 market street. we own the property and the business. as described by many in the community, we work closely in our neighborhood for the last 10 years. four years on the upper market design. this is our existing corner. you can see our building on a prominent corner of market. the aspirations of the community are fantastic. it inspired us to come up with several plants. this is a 50-foot height plan that is compliant with the present height. we also came up with a 65-foot height plan, which is right here. lo and behold, everybody we said

take their pick, everybody came back and said this was the better plan. they like the way it looks. it frames the gateway to the community, expands a very popular local gym, preserves local retail, and as rental housing. we support this extension, but without the height, which is a critical element of the plan, we will be limited to 50 feet unless we get an sed. the cost, the process, the bureaucracy would be prohibitive to us, and a project that has been worked on for many years in close coordination with the community and our membership and many supporters would most likely not move forward. we encourage you as a commission to move forward and support supervisor wiener as a legislative amendment or some other type of tick with the planning department to allow the proper heights to go forward

without additional processes that would just add opposite goals to an already complicated but well-supported projects. thank you very much. supervisor mar: thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm the president of castro eureka valley neighborhood association. i'm not going to restate everything that has been said. really, all i wanted to say was we are fully behind this. the most important aspect of what has been talked about was the community really engaged in extensive process of looking at copper market and what we wanted in 2007. the community overwhelmingly said it wanted market octavia controls to extend up into the

castro. unfortunately, that was never caught a fight, and this whole process was just to codify it. in the interim, what happened is neighborhood residents, community members have had to engage each project one by one, whereas all we are asking is control so the neighborhood does not have to be constantly vigilant and have to work with each project sponsors so that we can all work under the same rules and guidelines. it has been a lot of work, and i personally do not feel that it should be my job to make sure that these things happen. that with the community decided on, really should be planned and codified. that is really all i wanted to say. thank you. >> thank you, supervisors. we are here today to support the legislation. we have worked with these neighbors in the past. we work with them at the

planning department on a variety of different projects. one could debate how and why we got to where we are, but the fact is we are where we are, and there has been confusion. there has been misunderstandings, and change is always going to occur. as an industry, the only thing we can ask for is something to smooth and -- smooth the transition, and the grandfathering in does provide some level of certainty. if we could discuss that at the planning commission, there were some issues brought up, and that will be addressed at the commission. we are open to the legislation, and we support the grandfather provision moving forward. thank you. supervisor mar: thank you. is there anyone else in the public that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. if i could ask ms. rodgers to come up, in case we have

questions. the developer raised some concerns. could you walk us through the process they would have to go through for the special use district and changes to address their concerns? >> yes, we could. maybe if i could just back up a little bit. when the commission heard the neighbors say that they wanted the controls extended in this area, the president of the commission and our director met with a good number of people. easily over half a dozen to a dozen representatives. at that time, we scripted out what we could do and how much time it would take. it was clear that the residents wanted something that would go forward quickly. it was clear that our department has spent literally millions of dollars on a 10-year effort, and we did not have an additional resources for another community- planning process in this area. with those demands and

limitations in mind, the ordinance before you was crafted to apply as many controls as possible without triggering possibly a time-consuming environmental review. what happens is you have many of the controls but not all of the controls. controls would increase density. there is no changes to hight limit because those with all require additional environmental review. on the gold's jim -- gym property, the owner would be to go forward and pursue a zoning map and give it added height for the additional floor. a zoning map would cost money, but even if the zoning map amendment were initiated by the board of supervisors, the procedures at the planning department is again to pass the

cost of that review, including environmental review, on to any real property owner of interest. even in a rezoning map and then that were initiated by the board, in order for us to process the work, we would still be billing the property owner. as you know, nothing can happen by the board or city without a free its sequel clearance -- without appropriate ceqa clearance. supervisor mar: i appreciate all the testimony from the groups that are strongly supportive of this and other different stakeholders as well. supervisor cohen, do you have questions? supervisor cohen: i did not have any questions. supervisor mar: i guess i appreciate the community effort that has been ongoing since the mid-80 -- the mid-1980's. community groups have been giving input on this, and my hope is that the development and others can work through the

process with planning to get their needs met, but i see that since there is so much support from stakeholders, that i'm going to be supportive of this legislation. is there a motion on this item? would you make a motion? >> -- supervisor cohen: i make a motion to put it to a vote. supervisor mar: so a roll call vote on this item. it is a motion to support this item with a positive recommendation. so, roll call. >> on the motion, supervisor cohen? supervisor cohen: yes. supervisor mar: aye. >> the motion passes. supervisor mar: thank you. please call item two, and we are rejoined by supervisor wiener. supervisor wiener: if i could

just -- i was reduced, but i was watching on tv. i just do want to indicate that i do intend to, separate from this legislation, introduced legislation relating to the zoning and that the property, and we will be having discussions with the planning department about trying to find a way within the law to make that rezoning work without tipping the project to the point of not being financially viable. thank you. >> would you like to call item two and three together? supervisor mar: yes, please. >> item two, resolution declaring the intention to vacate portions of the public right of way within the transit center project area. item three, ordinance ordering the vacation of portions of the public right of way within