650 DIVISADERO ST

2016-07-21 · 2 comments · 1 / 1

Gus Hernandez · spoken · 2016-07-21 · support

supports continuance

Donna Thompson · spoken · 2016-07-21 · oppose

against continuance (M) Speaker – on-site units

2016-10-20 · 1 comments · no positions recorded

John Kevlin · spoken · 2016-10-20 · —

January 26 th

2017-01-26 · 2 comments · 2 / 0

John Kevlin · spoken · 2017-01-26 · support

650 Divisadero Continuance

Gus Hernandez · spoken · 2017-01-26 · support

650 Divisadero Continuance

2017-03-23 · 8 comments · 8 / 0

Norman Daeglman · spoken · 2017-03-23 · support

Support for continuance

Denise Sedlow · spoken · 2017-03-23 · support

Support for continuance

Rufus Watkins · spoken · 2017-03-23 · support

Support for continuance

Suzie Kendal- Osborne · spoken · 2017-03-23 · support

Support for continuance

Lisa Aubrey · spoken · 2017-03-23 · support

Support for continuance

Renee Curran · spoken · 2017-03-23 · support

Support for continuance

Tess Welbourne · spoken · 2017-03-23 · support

Support for continuance Laura C lark – Housing delayed is housing denied

Jen Snyder · spoken · 2017-03-23 · support

Neighbors United supports for continuance

2017-04-06 · 2 comments · 0 / 1

John Kevlin · spoken · 2017-04-06 · —

June 8 th

Roberto Duran · spoken · 2017-04-06 · oppose

Not in support

2017-08-31 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

Donna Thomson · email · 2017-08-31 · oppose · source packet

Correction for 650 Divisadero Project
Re: Planning Commission Meeting set for September 28, 2017 Project: 650 Divisadero St Adjacent Property: 1265 Grove St August 29, 2017 Dear Mr Ionin, I need your help. Since I have never heard from any of the Planning Commissioners concerning my proposed site visit invitation, encouraged by Commissioner Richards, mailed on March 24, 2017, today I'm sending out another invitation without my letter, … Re: Planning Commission Meeting set for September 28, 2017 Project: 650 Divisadero St Adjacent Property: 1265 Grove St August 29, 2017 Dear Mr Ionin, I need your help. Since I have never heard from any of the Planning Commissioners concerning my proposed site visit invitation, encouraged by Commissioner Richards, mailed on March 24, 2017, today I'm sending out another invitation without my letter, just a short list of my concerns. Since I believe it imperative that someone sees the site, to fully understand my concerns, and to be able to visualize the problems as they relate to the proposed plan, I am asking you to forward my complete thoughts to the commissioners. Here is my formal letter: Commissioner Richards suggested to me in July 2016 when the meeting for this project was postponed until October, that I write a letter for the record and might request that members of the commission come to our property, since I would be out of town in October. The hearing dates were changed in October. Our property at 1265 Grove was the most adversely impacted by the proposed project. On March 24th 2017 I emailed my invitation with a 2nd letter to each member of the Planning Commission and have not received a single response thus far. My original letter found its way to the back of a packet for the project that was put together expressly for the Planning Commission to review. I was more than disappointed and discouraged that it was relegated to the very last page of about 100 pages of public comment, many of which were written by people who do not even live in the neighborhood. I have to wonder if any of you even saw it, with so much to read. I have 5 major concerns and unless there is a site visit, I do not believe the commissioners could visualize the unique problems the plans, as currently proposed, would cause to our building. My concerns include: - undermining of our foundation and potential theft. - the proposed 7<U+2019> Privacy fence on the property line - sound being funneled into our building - killing of our 4 storey tree - 7 day per week construction Concerns about our foundation being undermined can be alleviated by the current wall between the 2 properties remaining in place and being strengthened, as proposed to us by the Szetos at a meeting in March of this year. This would also eliminate access to our property, which is protected by that wall, and the possibility of theft because our tenants' back doors would be left exposed without the wall. Concerns about light may be alleviated somewhat with their plan to build 6<U+2019><U+2013>10<U+2019> from the property line starting at our light well, but creating a 7<U+2019> privacy screen at the property line will eliminate some of that light gain. Our tenants<U+2019> large dining room windows are 4<U+2019> from the property line (see photos #65 the window on the left is the kitchen window, that in the center is the side dining room window. The large dining room window is actually closer to the property line by 2' instead of 4'), so this is a claustrophobic prospect. My suggestion is to require that the planters and privacy fence be moved 5<U+2019> from the property line and the screening be required to prevent falling, not to obstruct the little light we will have left. Their 18<U+2019> setback from the property line on the 2 top floors does precious little for light, since they are above our roofline. On our block, the corner building on Divisadero and the north side of Grove, which looms over a much shorter building is set 3<U+2019> back from the property line, allowing the owner of the shorter building access to the side of his building for painting and other repairs. I would like this same consideration (see photos #112 & #113). With this new building going up near the Independent nightclub, the amplification of sound is inevitable. While the property owners at 650 Divisadero believe any noise issues would be better addressed by the nightclub, I believe the 6 stories of their building proposed at the property line with the club will create a funnel for sound going directly into our building by way of their rear yard setback. For that reason my husband and I are requesting a discretionary review of sound as it would impact our building. Their plans to dig below grade at the property line will damage and most likely kill our walnut tree which stands 4 1/2 stories tall and spans over 75', because part of the root system supporting the weight of the tree is under their current foundation. This would expose us to massive liability law suits should the tree die from mishandling and fall, damaging neighboring properties. My suggestion is to require a tree protection plan overseen by a consulting arborist, not a certified arborist, and a significant bond that would protect us financially, if the tree dies within 5 years of the construction. I would urge the commission to deny the rear yard setback variance being sought unless this provision was met by the owners of 650 Grove St. If the rear yard were on the ground floor as it should be according to building code, since residential units start there, my tree roots would not be damaged. The variance is being sought to allow stacked parking in the critical root zone of our tree. Besides the damage to roots by cutting through them, compaction of soil is also a significant way to kill a tree. Allowing building materials and equipment to sit over the root zone can kill the roots. To protect a tree, the root zone needs 10 feet beyond the canopy to be protected from damage by digging and weight that compacts the earth around it. This would go 35<U+2019> past the property line into 650 Divisadero. We have already lost 2 parties being offered our units, who rejected them because of the inevitable loss of light and views, but also for the building construction which we have been informed will be 7 days per week. The sunlight flooding our kitchens and dining rooms, the sunset views, and our tree have been the features that have made our building unique in this area and of interest to renters. Do we need to also lose long term tenants because of construction noise on weekends, in addition to losing sunlight, views and possibly the tree? We are located on a residential street and believe 7 day per week construction is unacceptable. I feel the cost to us as adjacent neighbors is too much and request some consideration from the commission. How much are we as neighbors expected to pay and or lose for the success of this enterprise? Sincerely, Donna Thomson [phone removed] Download all attachments as a zip file DSC00070.JPG 150.7kB DSC00065.JPG 147kB DSC00064.JPG 150.9kB DSC00078.JPG 151.2kB DSC00113.JPG 148.8kB DSC00112.JPG 146.1kBshow more

2017-09-28 · 3 comments · 1 / 1

Mark Loper · spoken · 2017-09-28 · —

Recent legislation, working with the neighborhood

Lisa Aubrey · spoken · 2017-09-28 · support

Support for continuance

Donna Thompson · spoken · 2017-09-28 · oppose

Not available on November 30 th

2017-12-14 · 2 comments · 1 / 1

Tom Tunny · spoken · 2017-12-14 · support

March 8, 2018

Donna Thompson · spoken · 2017-12-14 · oppose

March 29, 2018

2018-03-08 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

Gus Hernandez · email · 2018-03-08 · oppose · source packet

650 Divisadero - Insufficient on-site affordable housing - Community Letter from Affordable
Divis March 6, 2018 To: Patrick Szeto, Developer 650 Divisadero; San Francisco Planning Commission: Rich Hillis, President, Myrna Melgar, Vice President, Commissioners Rodney Fong, Milicent Johnson, Joel Koppel, Kathrin Moore, Dennis Richards CC: San Francisco Board of Supervisors, Planning Director John Rahaim, Zoning Administrator Scott Sanchez Mr. Szeto and San Francisco Planning Commission, Affordabl… Divis March 6, 2018 To: Patrick Szeto, Developer 650 Divisadero; San Francisco Planning Commission: Rich Hillis, President, Myrna Melgar, Vice President, Commissioners Rodney Fong, Milicent Johnson, Joel Koppel, Kathrin Moore, Dennis Richards CC: San Francisco Board of Supervisors, Planning Director John Rahaim, Zoning Administrator Scott Sanchez Mr. Szeto and San Francisco Planning Commission, Affordable Divis has now waited over two years for a higher affordable housing requirement for 650 Divisadero. When Supervisor Breed refused to rescind her NCT legislation, Affordable Divis responded by holding community meetings and a neighborhood forum in December 2015 to create the Divisadero Community Plan. In 2014, Mayor Ed Lee pledged to build 30,000 homes, of which half would be affordable. According to the Mayor<U+2019>s Office: "In 2014, Mayor Lee pledged to construct 30,000 new and rehabilitated homes throughout the City by 2020, with half available to low, working and middle income San Franciscans. San Francisco is well on track towards those goals. Since announcing his Housing Plan in January 2014, over 17,100 units have been built or completely rehabilitated, with over 6,100 of those units permanently affordable to low and moderate income San Franciscans.<U+201D> The Divisadero Community Plan also calls for half of the new housing units on Divisadero Street to be affordable. In the absence of any additional affordable housing requirement for 650 Divisadero, Affordable Divis requests that the project meet the Affordable Housing requirement of the Divisadero Community Plan. According to the City<U+2019>s analysis, 650 Divisadero is currently required to build only 13.5% on-site affordable, since the project sponsor filed the first Environmental Application in 2014. 13.5% is equal to just 9 units of low income housing out of 66 units. Affordable Divis proposes the following additional affordable housing requirements for 650 Divisadero, based on the Divisadero Community Plan: An additional 8 units affordable for low income households (up to 50% AMI) for a total of 17 units; and An additional 8 units affordable for households 50%-80% AMI; and An additional 8 units affordable for households 80%-100% AMI If you can agree to this in writing, Affordable Divis will be ready to support your proposal for 650 Divisadero. If no additional affordable housing is included for 650 Divisadero above the 9 units already required, then we must oppose this project, since it will not meet the threshold to be necessary or desirable for the neighborhood and for San Francisco. Thank you, Affordable Divis Steering Committee Yayne Abeba, Lisa Awbrey, Maya Chupkov, Charles Dupigny, Gus Hernandez, Richard Kay, Quintin Mecke, Dean Preston, Jennifer Snyder, Tes Welborn, Calvin Welchshow more

2018-03-15 · 21 comments · 1 / 20

Renee Curran · email · 2018-03-15 · oppose · source packet

I Oppose 650 Divisadero
Dear Planning Commission, I am opposed to the project at 650 Divisadero as proposed for the following reasons: - 9 units of low-income housing out of 66 is not enough. - This project started at 16 units before Divisadero was rezoned, and while it gained 50 units, there was no increase in the rate of required on-site affordable housing. - San Francisco has already approved more than 200% of the market rate housing… show more

Hugo Kobayashi · email · 2018-03-15 · oppose · source packet

We Oppose 650 Divisadero
Dear Planning Commission, I am opposed to the project at 650 Divisadero as proposed for the following reasons: - 9 units of low-income housing out of 66 is not enough. - This project started at 16 units before Divisadero was rezoned, and while it gained 50 units, there was no increase in the rate of required on-site affordable housing. - San Francisco has already approved more than 200% of the market rate ho… show more

Tes Welborn · email · 2018-03-15 · oppose · source packet

650 Divisadero
Hi Tes, The hearing for 650 Divisadero is near. Help us demand more affordable housing! Thursday, March 29, 2018 City Hall Room 400 SF Planning Commission RSVP on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/events/1654117528230673/ Whether or not you can make it, please email the commissioners by Friday if possible (you can contact them until the hearing date to weigh in). Email the Planning Commission and Board of Supervi… show more

Doug Diboll · email · 2018-03-15 · oppose · source packet

I Oppose 650 Divisadero in it's present form
Dear Planning Commission, I am opposed to the project at 650 Divisadero as proposed for the following reasons: - 9 units of low-income housing out of 66 is not enough. - This project started at 16 units before Divisadero was rezoned, and while it gained 50 units, there was no increase in the rate of required on-site affordable housing. - San Francisco has already approved more than 200% of the market rate housing goa… show more

Brendan Kierans · email · 2018-03-15 · oppose · source packet

I Oppose 650 Divisadero
Dear Planning Commission, I am opposed to the project at 650 Divisadero as proposed for the following reasons: - 9 units of low-income housing out of 66 is not enough. - This project started at 16 units before Divisadero was rezoned, and while it gained 50 units, there was no increase in the rate of required on-site affordable housing. - San Francisco has already approved more than 200% of the market rate housing go… show more

Katherine Hennes · email · 2018-03-15 · oppose · source packet

I Support 650 Divisadero
Dear Planning Commission, I've just learned that a group claiming to advocate for an "affordable" Divisadero corridor is asking members of the neighborhood to oppose the 650 Divisadero project. They argue that 13.6% affordable units is "not enough" and that the project is "neither necessary nor desirable." As someone who dearly loves San Francisco and has lived in the Bay Area f… show more

Jennifer Snyder · email · 2018-03-15 · oppose · source packet

I Oppose 650 Divisadero
Dear Planning Commission, I am opposed to the project at 650 Divisadero as proposed for the following reasons: - 9 units of low-income housing out of 66 is not enough. - This project started at 16 units before Divisadero was rezoned, and while it gained 50 units, there was no increase in the rate of required on-site affordable housing. - San Francisco has already approved more than 200% of the market rate housing goa… show more

Amy Farah Weiss · email · 2018-03-15 · oppose · source packet

I Oppose 650 Divisadero
Dear Planning Commission, I am opposed to the project at 650 Divisadero as proposed for the following reasons: - 9 units of low-income housing out of 66 is not enough. - This project started at 16 units before Divisadero was rezoned, and while it gained 50 units, there was no increase in the rate of required on-site affordable housing. - San Francisco has already approved more than 200% of the market rate housing goa… show more

Lisa Windes · email · 2018-03-15 · oppose · source packet

Opposition to 650 Divisadero
Dear Planning Commission, I am opposed to the project at 650 Divisadero as proposed for the following reasons: 9 units of low-income housing out of 66 is not enough. This project started at 16 units before Divisadero was rezoned, and while it gained 50 units, there was no increase in the rate of required on-site affordable housing. San Francisco has already approved more than 200% of the ma… show more

Emil Margolis · email · 2018-03-15 · oppose · source packet

I Oppose 650 Divisadero
Dear Planning Commission, I am opposed to the project at 650 Divisadero as proposed for the following reasons: - 9 units of low-income housing out of 66 is not enough. - This project started at 16 units before Divisadero was rezoned, and while it gained 50 units, there was no increase in the rate of required on-site affordable housing. - San Francisco has already approved more than 200% of the market rate housing goa… show more

Jason Kruta · email · 2018-03-15 · oppose · source packet

I Oppose 650 Divisadero
Dear Planning Commission, I am opposed to the project at 650 Divisadero as proposed for the following reasons: - 9 units of low-income housing out of 66 is not enough. - This project started at 16 units before Divisadero was rezoned, and while it gained 50 units, there was no increase in the rate of required on-site affordable housing. - San Francisco has already approved more than 200% of the market rate housing go… show more

Orion Kellogg · email · 2018-03-15 · oppose · source packet

I Oppose 650 Divisadero
Dear Planning Commission, I am opposed to the project at 650 Divisadero as proposed for the following reasons: - 9 units of low-income housing out of 66 is not enough. - This project started at 16 units before Divisadero was rezoned, and while it gained 50 units, there was no increase in the rate of required on-site affordable housing. - San Francisco has already approved more than 200% of the market rate housing go… show more

Jackie Hasa · email · 2018-03-15 · oppose · source packet

I Oppose 650 Divisadero
Dear Planning Commission, As someone who lives just one block from the proposed site, I am opposed to the project at 650 Divisadero as proposed for the following reasons: - 9 units of low-income housing out of 66 is not enough, when this neighborhood has already been subject to massive displacement of low-income people in the past few years. - This project started at 16 units before Divisadero was rezoned, and while … show more

(name not recorded) · email · 2018-03-15 · oppose · source packet

I Oppose 650 Divisadero!!!!!!!
Dear Planning Commission, I am opposed to the project at 650 Divisadero as proposed for the following reasons: - 9 units of low-income housing out of 66 is not enough. - This project started at 16 units before Divisadero was rezoned, and while it gained 50 units, there was no increase in the rate of required on-site affordable housing. - San Francisco has already approved more than 200% of the market rate housing goa… show more

Shannon Bolt · email · 2018-03-15 · oppose · source packet

Opposing 650 Divisadero
Dear Planning Commission, The Western Addition neighborhood now known as NoPa along the Divisadero Corridor has been so overgentrified that it is now rare to see any African-American residents in the neighborhood, and many of the businesses that served them have moved out. I am opposed to the project at 650 Divisadero as proposed for the following reasons: 9 units of low-income housing out of 66 is not enou… show more

Frances Prochilo · email · 2018-03-15 · oppose · source packet

I Oppose 650 Divisadero
Dear Planning Commission, I am opposed to the project at 650 Divisadero as proposed for the following reasons: - 9 units of low-income housing out of 66 is not enough. - This project started at 16 units before Divisadero was rezoned, and while it gained 50 units, there was no increase in the rate of required on-site affordable housing. - San Francisco has already approved more than 200% of the market rate housing go… show more

Sona Avakian · email · 2018-03-15 · oppose · source packet

I Oppose 650 Divisadero
Dear Planning Commission, I am a victim of a OMI eviction. Even with the help of MEDA, I cannot afford to live in San Francisco anymore. Nine units is simply not enough. I am opposed to the project at 650 Divisadero as proposed for the following reasons: - 9 units of low-income housing out of 66 is not enough. - This project started at 16 units before Divisadero was rezoned, and while it gained 50 units, there was … show more

Sara Allen · email · 2018-03-15 · oppose · source packet

I Oppose 650 Divisadero
Dear Planning Commission, I am opposed to the project at 650 Divisadero as proposed for the following reasons: - 9 units of low-income housing out of 66 is not enough. - This project started at 16 units before Divisadero was rezoned, and while it gained 50 units, there was no increase in the rate of required on-site affordable housing. - San Francisco has already approved more than 200% of the market rate housing … show more

Nishikant Sheorey · email · 2018-03-15 · oppose · source packet

I Oppose 650 Divisadero
Dear Planning Commission, I am opposed to the project at 650 Divisadero as proposed for the following reasons: - 9 units of low-income housing out of 66 is not enough. - This project started at 16 units before Divisadero was rezoned, and while it gained 50 units, there was no increase in the rate of required on-site affordable housing. - San Francisco has already approved more than 200% of the market rate housing go… show more

Aida Jones · email · 2018-03-15 · oppose · source packet

I Oppose 650 Divisadero
Dear Planning Commission, I am opposed to the project at 650 Divisadero as proposed for the following reasons: - 9 units of low-income housing out of 66 is not enough in an area with a dire need for affordable housing. look at the high percentage of homeless in d5 - the project started at 16 units before Divisadero was rezoned<U+2014>without public input--and gained 50 units, WITHOUT any additional on-site affo… show more

David Winegar · email · 2018-03-15 · support · source packet

I Support 650 Divisadero
Dear Planning Commission, As a neighbor of 650 Divisadero, I know how much we need additional market rate and affordable housing in the neighborhood. Opponents to this project are focused on the size of the development - a ridiculous NIMBY position that prioritizes their own comfort at the expense of anyone who might want to live in the wonderful Divisadero area. A diverse, inclusive community needs an abundance of… show more

2018-06-21 · 3 comments · 2 / 0

Donna Thompson · spoken · 2018-06-21 · neutral

650 Divisadero Street neighbor

Patrick Zeto · spoken · 2018-06-21 · support

September 27th

Mark Loper · spoken · 2018-06-21 · support

Proposed date are fine

2018-11-08 · 19 comments · 7 / 8

Tim Colen · spoken · 2018-11-08 · support

Housing

Sidharth Kapur · email · 2018-11-08 · support · source packet

In support of 650 Divisadero
Commissioner Hillis, I just wanted to write in support of the 650 Divisadero project. This seems like a great opportunity to start using the new NCT zoning. It provides 6 or 7 on-site affordable units and is replacing a 1-story industrial building, so no one is being displaced by this project. Please approve it promptly.

Gus Hernandez · email · 2018-11-08 · oppose · source packet

Opposition to 650 Divisadero
Dear Chris and Planning Commissioners, I went through the hearing packet and counted at least 95 emails that have the subject line "I Oppose 650 Divisadero" or "Oppose approval of 650 Divisadero." But they were not indicated as opposition in the executive summary. Please correct this error. I also noticed the following letters missing, attached here. -Harvey Milk Club letter in opposition -… Dear Chris and Planning Commissioners, I went through the hearing packet and counted at least 95 emails that have the subject line "I Oppose 650 Divisadero" or "Oppose approval of 650 Divisadero." But they were not indicated as opposition in the executive summary. Please correct this error. I also noticed the following letters missing, attached here. -Harvey Milk Club letter in opposition -Sierra Club letter opposing CEQA exemption dated March 2018 (attached) -Letter from Mark Kessler, historian, requesting reconsideration of CEQA exemption Gus March 13th, 2018 Dear San Francisco Planning Commission: We write to you today in opposition of the proposed project for 650 Divisadero Street. San Francisco is experiencing a housing affordability crisis like never before. The City has reached and surpassed the target for market rate housing for 2022 by 200%; yet there is clearly no need for additional market rate housing in San Francisco. In response to the density giveaway provided in 2015, which allowed this project to grow from 16 to 66 units with no increase in the rate of on-site affordable units, Affordable Divis held community meetings and a neighborhood forum to create the Divisadero Community Plan. This Plan, devised by neighbors and community members, calls for half of new housing units on Divisadero Street to be affordable. However, out of the total 66 units, the proposed project for 650 Divisadero would include only 9 affordable housing units and a staggering 57 units of market rate housing. Without an increase in on-site affordable housing, the 650 Divisadero project is neither necessary nor desirable for the community. We stand with Affordable Divis in their request for more on-site affordable housing for this project, and we oppose the proposed project for 650 Divisadero until it meets the on-site affordable housing needs of the community as outlined by Affordable Divis and the Divisadero Community Plan. For these reasons, the Executive Board of the Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club strongly encourages you to agree to the on-site affordable housing requirements for 650 Divisadero proposed by Affordable Divis. Signed, The Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club Executive Board March 29, 2018 RE: Opposition to Categorical CEQA exemption for 650 Divisadero project Sierra Club supports infill development. We also support proper evaluation of potential environment impacts per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as well as the inclusion of affordable housing to prevent sprawl development in rural areas. Unfortunately, the categorical exemption at 650 Divisadero is not authorized by CEQA, particularly because the site was used for decades as an automotive repair facility, long before modern standards of pollution control were in effect. The proposal at 650 Divisadero requires full CEQA review and the impacts of development fully analyzed. Aside from the non-compliance CEQA, we are also concerned that the proposal does not include enough affordable housing. We point out the following facts regarding the need for an environmental impact report: <U+2022> In the Categorical Exemption document, the Planning Department states that hazardous materials exist on the site, and that the proposed demolition would not <U+201C>substantially<U+201D> alter existing groundwater quality. SFPUC is adding groundwater into the San Francisco drinking supply. <U+2022> Per CEQA, a categorical exemption shall not be used for a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. <U+2022> A building can be considered a historical resource if it meets one of four criteria: If the property is associated with a historically significant event (Criterion 1), person (Criterion 2), or architectural style (Criterion 3), or if there is potential to gather historically significant information from the site (Criterion 4). <U+2022> The Planning Department affirms that this project meets Criterion 3: <U+201C>While the building was not surveyed in the Van Ness Auto Row Survey, based on the historical use and age of the building it is a moderately early example of the second most important group of auto-related facilities established by the study. In addition, the building was referenced in two prior publications, The Architect & Engineer and The Early Public Garages of San Francisco. Thus, the building appears to be a significant individual resource under Criterion 3." <U+2022> In summary, Hazardous materials and water quality are issues that can be examined in an Environmental Impact Report. The impacts of demolishing a historic resource should be fully analyzed. In addition, the project as proposed calls for 9 units of affordable housing out of a total of 66 units. This is an inadequate amount of affordable housing and does not further San Francisco's share of regional affordable housing. It also does not meet the late Mayor Ed's Lee's goal of half of all new housing being affordable. In addition to the need for an EIR, the Sierra Club believes that more affordable housing at this project should be required in exchange for the density deregulation from the NCT rezoning in 2015. Sincerely, John Rizzo Sierra Club Chapter Excecutive Committee Mark Kessler San Francisco, CA June 30, 2017 San Francisco Department of City Planning Christopher May, Planner [email removed] Re: 650 Divisadero Street Case No.: 2013.1037E Dear Mr. May, I am opposed to the proposed development at 650 Divisadero. I believe that the San Francisco Planning Department (SFPD) erred in its determination that the existing garage lacks the integrity to qualify as a historical resource. Additionally--and in consideration of the impending loss of the garage--SFPD compounded its error in settling for the required minimum of affordable housing units. I am a San Francisco resident, California architect, and author of a book devoted to these early garages. My discussion of this garage is cited in the "Historic Resource Evaluation Response" in support of SFPD's conclusion that the garage is individually significant under California Register Criterion 3. The SFPD finding that the building lacks integrity is attributed to facade alterations that damage original elements (Figs 1-2). I do not agree that the damage reaches this critical threshold. While the changes are visually horrific--ruining the facade's symmetry and rhythm of alternating solid and void bays--they are ultimately superficial. The form of the head building, including its roof profile and facade subdivisions (attic story and end-bay projections), has survived. Moreover, the facade's southern end bay retains its integrity, providing intact examples of the facade's essential ornamental elements and character defining features (Fig 3). Due to this circumstance, and the symmetry of the original composition, the opposite end bay (and matching bay facing Grove) can be accurately reconstructed. The ornamental shafts of the attic pilasters--many of which are simply obscured beneath coats of paint--can be stripped and/or repaired. The three middle bays of the original ground floor served as crucial compositional (and functional) elements, but were always plain. Two of the three bays were open voids, requiring little more than demolition to restore. (The original heads and jambs of the storefront and south garage door opening remain inscribed on the facade.) Beyond the details however, the strict application of the Secretary of Interior's Standards and Guidelines to this facade is unfortunate, as that document does not anticipate a building type like this. To judge this facade on its ability to convey its significance through a preponderance of original construction is to misunderstand the source and nature of that significance. The importance of this facade is not located in revelatory building materials, crafts, or construction technologies. Rather, its architectural and cultural/historical significance resides in Baumann's ironic application of formal, academic design to this new utilitarian building type. Material authenticity is beside the point when the design conceptualization is predicated on billboard-like simulations of other building types (train stations) and materials (stucco scored to look like masonry). It's wrongheaded to conclude that this garage lacks integrity--and is therefore disposable--because much of its stucco and stock ornamentation are not original. New or old stucco performs equally well in conveying the true significance of the facade. While reconstructing the end bays (that form the northwest corner) is not an ideal mode of preservation, it is not difficult to convey that one end bay is original while the others are reproductions. Certainly this solution, which honestly leverages original construction, is preferable to losing the entire structure. The rendering of the project sponsor's original 16-unit design demonstrates the staying power of the garage's architectural integrity. Despite the introduction of design modifications that accommodate the change in use, the garage maintains its form, materials, schematic composition, and general character. Implicitly, this design recognizes the presence of an historical resource. This solution is also preferable to losing the entire structure. Realistically I know that the garage will be demolished, regardless of its designation as a historical resource. The key issue then becomes, what does the City realize in return for approving the demolition of this important building? What needs are addressed through the replacement? Elsewhere I have written, "In some instances, as in the construction of affordable housing in the Tenderloin [or in this case, NoPa], we may decide that the loss of a garage is in our best interest."1 Affordable housing is indeed an urgent need. Enhancement of the City's supply of affordable housing is a priority of the General Plan, and a mandate of the Planning Department. The current design calls for 66 units; 9 of these are affordable, as required by law. However, most projects that conform to this law do not hinge upon the loss of a cultural and architectural artifact. The original 16-unit project offers many relative advantages: the preservation of the garage; its adaptive reuse to retail; and, the setback of the residential block, which maintains the scale, bulk and character of the architecture on Divisadero Street. If the 16-unit proposal was profitable, the 66-unit development is likely to be significantly more so. In exchange for granting this large expansion in project scope (encompassing the demolition of the garage), the City can and should act upon its mandate to enhance affordable housing and require more than the minimum number of affordable units. I urge SFPD to reconsider its evaluation of the garage at 650 Divisadero, acknowledge its significance as a historical resource, and require additional units of affordable housing, especially in consideration of the garage's demise. Thank you. Sincerely, Mark Kessler Associate Professor Department of Design, UC Davisshow more

Lisa Awbrey · email · 2018-11-08 · support · source packet

Continue the hearing for 650 Divisadero
Planning Commission, We support affordable housing for our neighborhood, done right. Over 500 community members and local residents have organized and pressed the developers of the projects at 650 and 400 Divisadero for higher levels of truly affordable units, but our efforts have so far fallen on deaf developer ears. Continue the hearing for 650 Divisadero until the community's concerns are addressed in the aff… show more

Richard Kay · spoken · 2018-11-08 · support

Support, continuance

David Wu · spoken · 2018-11-08 · oppose

Continue until legislation finalized

Phillip Robernich · spoken · 2018-11-08 · support

More housing near transit Owen O'Donnell- Not big enough, need housing

Arnold Townsend · spoken · 2018-11-08 · support

Diverse tenant mix

Patrick Szeto · spoken · 2018-11-08 · neutral

Project presentation

Warner Schmalz · spoken · 2018-11-08 · neutral

Project presentation

Vallie Brown · spoken · 2018-11-08 · neutral

Legislation

Laura Clark · spoken · 2018-11-08 · support

Community engagement

Gus Hernandez · spoken · 2018-11-08 · oppose

Continuance for legislation

Jim Hillis · spoken · 2018-11-08 · oppose

Legislation

Heike Kilian · spoken · 2018-11-08 · oppose

Tree protection plan, bulk

Bill Thomson · spoken · 2018-11-08 · oppose

Density, off-street parking

Donna Thompson · spoken · 2018-11-08 · neutral

Negatively impacts building next door

Norm Degelman · spoken · 2018-11-08 · oppose

Continue

Charles D · spoken · 2018-11-08 · oppose

Increase density, continuance

650 DIVISADERO ST

Hearings

Campaign emails (19)

Comments by hearing (65)