Downtown Residential District Zoning – Table 1

 

Notes on Community Comments

• Increased density requires additional services (i.e. grocery stores, Safeway). These services need to be promoted someway through zoning
• Can we find a way to promote homeownership through this process, particularly for city employees (i.e. teachers)
• Need developer incentives to encourage homeownership
• Need developer incentives for different exactions if density bonus are no longer possible
• Need to increase transit capacity as residential density increases
• Creative parking benefit district – increase cost of street parking
• Need active retail ground floor frontages
• Ban/control formula retail in NCT districts
• Limit size of retail space to encourage small business ownership

 

 

Community Comment Cards

1.  Concerns:

• Concern over enforcement of design standards especially houses
• Concern over height transition to alleys behind Mission
• Like no driveways on Market & Van Ness; & required ground floor retail
• Concern about wind
• Should lower parking requirement to less than 1:2 max parking, don’t add more cars to Market/ Van Ness, .125:1 , with a conditional use 1:4
• New BART station
• Green building standards/ green roof required
• Inclusionary housing not enough, especially for towers, affordable housing especially senior housing
• Public benefits feeds are necessary/ development fees

 

2.  Lower parking maximums for DTR district should be 0.125:1

Provide Carshare

 

3.  Lower parking maximums 1 to 4

 

4.  Lower parking maximums 1 to 4

 

5.   The current situation:

• No transit stops Van Ness to 9th
• No enforcement of current zoning
• History of very poor neighborhood notifications –especially South of Market
• Wind is very bad already & has gotten worse
• Interface with Mid Market

 

6.  There should be a separate “The Planning Department is Evil” group so that these guys don’t hijack the real groups.

 

7.  Affordability

Affordability

Affordability

 

8.  More housing less office (non-housing use), condos for single people at affordable rates, and parking garages.  Senior housing?  Will the city allow the use of preassembled housing to reduce the cost?  Will the housing stock be green-friendly (solar, roof gardens)?

 

9.  Stick with 0.25:1 parking maximum, strict criteria should be regulated for any Conditional Use Permit to allow more than .25:1 parking.  City should consider green building standards.  The city MUST impose adequate development fees to pay for public amenities such as transit improvements and streetscape improvements, otherwise high-density development won’t work.

 

10. Parking must be subterranean.  Require setbacks on tall towers.  Green roofs or roof gardens, more SRO’s.

 

11. Concerns:  We are all skeptical about:  1) Design & Density- quality of architecture- review* & enforcement** 2) Tie into transit with Mid-Market/downtown.  Market Street transit should be FREE.  Transit should be paid by merchants & landlords in new development  3) Height- 10% taller than Fox Plaza disaster. 

 

12. Market/Van Ness is confused, desolate, dangerous for pedestrians, ETC. This nexus should serve, visually, as the gateway to the city – the civic center, WEST neighborhoods ETC. standards need to be set to encourage grand structures while at the same time activating the ground floors/sidewalks. Housing is great but we do not want huge buildings with a streetscape so unfriendly no one steps outside.

 

 

Neighborhood Commercial Transit District Zoning -  Table 2

 

Community Comment Cards

 

1. Treat corner NC properties differently – side street grades etc.

Eliminate suburban model (Safeway) parking lots on street.

Discourage very large commercial and finer grain development.

No street level office use, but ok on second level.

 

Residential Transit Oriented District Zoning - Table 3

 

Community Comment Cards

 

1. The conceptualization of this district is balanced and fit into the context of surrounding neighborhoods and the city at large. I’d like to see more aggressive maximum parking requirements, which will give a powerful boost in actualizing the mixed typologies and affordable housing goals. Another option is to proactively unbundled parking from housing units therefore allowing the Market to more actively dictate parking costs.
2. I support new density controls and removing parking requirement in RTO (per the plan). Thanks for all your hard work. Consider permitting limited office use on ground floors of RTO (it is difficult to rent as residential).
3. The zoning should specify criteria that will be used to grant a conditional use permit for parking requirements. For example a development that’s predominately larger-size units might justify a conditional use for a higher parking ratio, but not one that’s primarily studios or one bedrooms. Design criteria to minimize curb cuts, garage doors and to require active ground floor uses should be rigorously enforced even when additional parking allowed. Risk that elimination of density controls will provide strong incentive to maximize number of studios/1 beds and to minimize incentives encourage larger size units
4. Concerns:

• Parking if anything is too high (.75). I would like to see it lower.
• Conditional use permit – this is undeveloped - needs strong requirements like no independently accessible spaces – we need to work on this
• CU parking access – this too is way too vague. We need to get cars off sidewalk! (the reality is that garages come with big butts of cars sticking out)
• Also add Fillmore Street for prohibition of garages
• Parking dimensions limit to one (not two) limit width to 8-10 feet
• This is important for conversions in Victorians – I have big concerns about Victorians getting garages

5. Page 24 and 45 conflict – replacement in RTO housing 2:1, affordable 1:1 ??
6. RTO district, residential replacement of two units for every unit lost seems peculiar – will lead to very small units?
7. Concerns:

• No formula retail in RTO
• Ok cornerstones in RTO with severe restrictions
• Continue to encourage low parking maximums in RTO district

8. Concerns:

• No formula retail
• No retail that will generate more traffic
• Street frontage – 70% of open width is a structural disaster.  A building requires lateral support to withstand an earthquake

9. I strongly support eliminating minimum parking requirements and imposing parking maximum of no more than .75:1 for RTO district
10. Put the EIR on the website
11. Make sure varying proportions of single unit, 1 BDR, 2 BDR within the RTO. Diversity vs. developers zealousness to maximize investment to cram as many units into a box to make it more palatable to building ??managers??  Encourage mixed transportation and give developer incentives to provide for alternatives to cars. IE bike parking, sites for city car share, public transportation support and infrastructure such as covered bus shelters, timing for next bus, and pedestrian friendly ground floor frontage

Height and Bulk Controls – Table 4

 

Community Comments

1. Where is Muni? Does Muni have any projected members of optimum units/rider usage and does the new plan approach with ideal? I’m concerned that the proposed usage is not dense enough. Could it be possible to have Muni representatives attend future sessions?
2. I generally like the proposal for height and bulk. I support increased density and height – particularly in transit corridors. I suggest you also allow developers an extra 5-0” height in nay district where they provide retail at the ground floor – i.e. At Fell and Laguna where instead of 40’ height limit there would be a 45’-0” height limit if there is ground floor retail. Thanks.
3. I would like to request you re-visit the 30’ height limit proposed for Brosnan Street. I would to keep the present 50’ height limit as it now exists. This is a commercial alley with the historic Levi Strauss building, approx. 50 ft.  in height as the streets major building. Now building at 17 Brosnan is a 50 ft building approved by the planning dept. and the board of supervisors. The majority of Brosnan is composed of 45 to 50 foot apartment buildings. It’s proximity to the Valencia street transit corridor make this a logical place to infill on under utilized property’s not possible with a 30’ height limit – please call for more information.
4. Concerns:

 

Housing People - Table 5

 

Community comments

 

1. Concerns:

2. Concerns:

3. Zone to allow creative uses: affordable ownership w/limited equity take-away; co-housing; larger % of inclusionary housing; reduce parking ratio in transit areas; encourage mixes of types of housing w/large developments
4. Issues I’m concerned about:

5. As there are many very low-income people who live in the neighborhood we demand that the inclusionary housing and the proceeds from sale of the lots go to very low income such as SSI; and that they be non-toxic construction.
6. Concerns:

7. Concerns:

8. Concerns:

9. May I suggest that A) “waiting list” be established for affordable housing or a lottery list – whatever. I’ve been waiting for years and I want at least a chance. Thanks!
10. First time attending the workshop. I am here to gain some knowledge and understanding on urban planning
11. Concerns:

12. Concerns:

 

Community Services - Table 6

 

Notes on Community Comments

1. Community Services only zoning
2. Large gathering places on Market Street
3. Zone against chain stores
4. Assess the needs of community services

5. Encourage mixed uses on ground floors
6. Allow community uses above the ground floors
7. Allow assembly spaces up to say 200 without conditional use

 

What are community Services?

• Public meeting space/seniors/childcare
• Hayes Valley Playground
• Don’t make money – implications for zoning
• Market does not build these
• Some amount of community services, zoning really affects what gets built, or will tell you what it won’t get
• Arts space
• Cultural
• Non-profit orgs
• Co-op grocery/co-op neighborhood serving business
• Gathering spaces
• Community gardens
• Check HVNA website
• Impact fee for community services – like transit impact fee
• Parking benefits district
• Creative public finance
• Mello Roos – property tax
• Schools in W.A. closing – and job training

 

 

Community Comments

 

• Community Services – allow without conditional use on all floors including assembly in Market st. disallow uses on upper floors that are neither com. Serv. Nor residential
• Neighborhood commercial transit
• Ban formula retail, ban retail or ground floor commercial uses over 2500 sq. ft.

2.   How is SFUSD responding to zoning changes to provide educational spaces to serve the area

 

 

Introduction to Draft Plan and General Comments - Table 7

 

Community Comments

 

1. Concerns:

• Your putting too much housing in the pipeline – why so many units? Just because it’s on a transit corridor? And residential high rises are a bad idea for any neighborhood. (Also you spent too much money printing what is only a draft).
• Terrible plan. The assumption that density is a good thing as basic premise of plan is simply false. Residential high rises are a terrible idea.

2. Concerns:

• More and bright lighting under overpass on Valencia and Stevenson.
• Community garden at dead end on McCoppin.
• Keep and upgrade fencing on these streets.

3. You have done a good job from what I’ve seen so far on this plan. Two items I’d like to reinforce:

• Foster home ownership: incent, encourage, push, etc for ownership on the private parcels
• Trees and greening; more is better!

4. Concerns:

• The plan is a shameful giveaway to developers by exempting them from existing controls on height, bulk, density, and parking.
• There is no evidence that by eliminating parking you will eliminate cars.
• No high-rises please.
• All of your re-zoning changes heights for the higher = no way!

5. What is going to be uses of revenues gained from parcel sales? It would seem important to use money towards enhancing public space – sidewalks and parks. I think one of the goals of the plan should be to promote a 24 hr. community (which it seems to be) and fostering a feeling of safety!
6. Concerns:

• Please limit height allowances as much as possible to retain residential charm.
• Please limit number of big-brands e.g. Starbucks, Walgreens.
• Please do not allow fast food chains.
• Please provide adequate public parking lots for visitors to the commercial area.
• Please limit height/density of UC Ext project!

7. Concerns:

• Where are assurance of no political compromises/tradeoffs of height/bulk/building quality elements.
• Assurances of design review for excellence – not expediency – tired of cheap compromise buildings, esp. in prominent locations (mrkt/van ness) (u.c. extension site) Upper Market/Mid Market.

8. Concerns:

• Much more attention needs to be paid to existing buildings. Most are at 35, 40 feet, era 50 feet is very high in comparison.
• Special attention should be paid to Laguna, a growing residential corridor, with 2 neighborhood cafes, 50 feet on Laguna is too high.
• Parcilization issues are also important to keep local character.

9. Concerns:
   • The notion that elimination of parking will result in less car ownership is unsupported.
   • Muni is at capacity with standing room only – what do you propose as a solution for that?
10. I strongly support the maximum parking proposal to limit parking in the neighborhood

Regarding limiting parking – in there a mid-range view. Has anyone conducted surveys that asked working families and others if they would choose to live in a home that had no parking. On the other hand how can enforce parking laws so that persons don’t leave cars on the street indefinitely. Or have more than one car per person per household.

Market Octavia Neighborhood Commercial Transit District - Presentation Notes

The Neighborhood Commercial Transit districts are transit-oriented high-density mixed-use neighborhoods of moderate scale concentrated near transit services. The districts generally conform to transit corridors or nodes, and contain a rich mix of retail and services within walking distance, which limits residents’ dependence on automobiles for daily needs.

 

Named NCT districts such as Hayes Gough, Valencia, and Upper Market maintain existing zoning controls except for new residential density and parking controls proposed in the plan.

 

Mixed Use

• Permits commercial uses on the first and second stories 
• Encourages housing above retail
• Limits lot size to create fine grain building pattern

Pedestrian Oriented

• Encourages or requires active, pedestrian-oriented ground floor uses including eating and drinking, neighborhood services and retail, and entertainment uses
• Restricts new ground-story offices
• Protects continuous commercial frontage
• Limits or prohibits new curb cuts on key streets
• Requires parking be setback or below ground
• Discourages and limits parking requirements for residential and retail uses  

Market Octavia Neighborhood Commercial Transit District

Zoning Category	Controls
Lot Size [Per Development]	P up to 9,999 sq. ft.; C 10,000 sq. ft. & above
Rear Yard	Required at residential levels only
Street Frontage	Required See Market and Octavia Plan Design Guidelines
Required Ground Floor Retail Frontage	Hayes Street (b/w Laguna and Franklin); Market Street; Van Ness (b/w Fell and Mission); and Church (b/w Duboce and 15th)
Maximum Ground Floor Frontage per individual use	50 feet on the street-facing property line
Parking and Loading Access	CU on some street frontages; Prohibited on Market, Haight; Church; Mission; Hayes b/w Laguna and Franklin; Octavia Blvd (East side); and Duboce b/w Market and Castro.
Parking and Loading Access: Dimensions	Individual entries/exits limited to 11 feet wide, maximum of 2. Loading limited to one 15’ wide entry/exit.
Awning, Canopy, Marquee, Street Trees	P
Floor Area Ratio (non-residential uses)	3.0 to 1
Use Size [Non-Residential]	P up to 5,000sq. ft.; C 5,000 sq. ft. & above
Off-Street Parking,   Commercial/Institutional	None required if occupied floor area is less than 5000 square feet; Conditional for maximum up to 1space per 2,500 square feet
Off-Street Freight Loading	Generally, none required if gross floor area is less than 10,000 sq. ft.
Outdoor Activity Area	P if located in front; C if located elsewhere
Walk-Up Facility	P if recessed 3 ft.; C if not recessed
Hours of Operation	P  6 a.m. - 2 a.m.; C  2 a.m. - 6 a.m.
Business & Other Signs	P
Residential Demolition	P, provided that 3 new units are provided for every unit demolished, and that all affordable units provided are replaced

 

 

NCT
	Controls by Story
Zoning Category	1st	2nd	3rd+
Residential Conversion	P	C
Other Retail Sales and Services   [Not Listed Below]	P	P
Bar	P
Full-Service Restaurant	P
Large Fast Food Restaurant	C
Small Self-Service Restaurant	P
Liquor Store	P
Movie Theater	P
Other Entertainment	P
Financial Service	P	C
Limited Financial Service	P
Medical Service	P	P
Personal Service	P	P
Business or Professional Service	P	P
Massage Establishment	C
Tourist Hotel	C	C	C
Automobile Parking	C	C	C
Animal Hospital	C
Trade Shop	P	C
Video Store	C	C
Other Institutions, Large	P	C	C
Other Institutions, Small	P	P	P
Public Use	C	C	C
Residential Use	P Except where commercial is required	P	P
Residential Density, Dwelling Units	No residential Density limit by lot area. Density restricted by height and bulk controls.  Sec. 207.4
Residential Density, Group Housing	Residential Density limited by height and bulk controls.
Usable Open Space   [Per Residential Unit]	Generally, either 60 sq. ft. if private, or 80 sq. ft. if common
Off-Street Parking, Residential	None Required. P up to .05 space for each dwelling unit. C up to .75 space for each dwelling unit. NP above .75 spaces per unit.
Community Residential Parking	C. Parking must be setback 25 feet from all street-facing property lines and lined with residential uses or pedestrian- oriented retail uses

 

 

•     Encourages high-density residential uses