2017-09-14 · 8 comments · 7 / 1
Mark Loper · spoken · 2017-09-14 · support
Project presentation
Bob Baum · spoken · 2017-09-14 · support
Design presentation Speaker – Organized opposition Marilyn Duran – Organized opposition Carlos Juacanegra
Organized opposition · spoken · 2017-09-14 · oppose
Mike Carlisle – Opposed David Sanchez – Opposed
Steve Chen · spoken · 2017-09-14 · support
Support
Tim Colen · spoken · 2017-09-14 · support
Opposition in the Mission Scott Weaver – One entitlement Kevin Ortiz – More time
Sonja Transs · spoken · 2017-09-14 · support
Support
Corey Smith · spoken · 2017-09-14 · support
Affordable housing
Milo Trauss · spoken · 2017-09-14 · support
Good project
2017-11-30 · 16 comments · 5 / 10
2918 Mission St - Revised set for alternative massingRich, Maia and Linda, I have attached the revised package based on the alternative massing scheme for the hearing on 2017/11/30. See below for the summarized project information. No change in total building area and residential GSF: we maintain the same 35% bonus area increase as before. No change in the number of units (75 units in total) No change in the unit ratio (40% 2 bedroom unit) <… Rich, Maia and Linda, I have attached the revised package based on the alternative massing scheme for the hearing on 2017/11/30. See below for the summarized project information. No change in total building area and residential GSF: we maintain the same 35% bonus area increase as before. No change in the number of units (75 units in total) No change in the unit ratio (40% 2 bedroom unit) <U+2013> All unit ratios stay the same. No additional waiver (We still have 4 waivers <U+2013> Building Height, Bulk, Rear Yard and Unit Exposure): Impacted unit number has been changed. See the diagrams in the package. No change in ground level in terms of programs and configuration Massing facing Osage Alley above the 6th level has been pushed pack to provide a better sightline from the Alley The height of mass adjacent to condo building on Osage/25th has been increased to maintain the same building area. Building design focuses on the lower volume of massing on Mission Street while simplifying the upper massing as a background Floor plans, building elevations, diagrams and perspectives have been updated accordingly All other design comments from the meeting with Rich, Maia and Linda have been addressed well We will bring our presentation slides including a final rendering to the Hearing. Please take a look at the set and let me know if you have any comments. Thanks. Phil Choi, AIA, LEED AP Senior Associate g o u l d e v a n s tel: +14155031411;ext=1122 [email removed] 95 Brady Street San Francisco, CA 94103 www.gouldevans.comshow more Vincent Chan · spoken · 2017-11-30 · oppose
Homeless kids, construction impacts
Lou Dematteis · spoken · 2017-11-30 · oppose
Opposed
Laura Clark · spoken · 2017-11-30 · support
Gentrification
Richard Hack · spoken · 2017-11-30 · oppose
Architecture is hideous
Tim Colen · spoken · 2017-11-30 · support
Support
Scott Weaver · spoken · 2017-11-30 · oppose
Opposed
Alicia Sandoval · spoken · 2017-11-30 · oppose
Opposed
Richard Becker · spoken · 2017-11-30 · oppose
Nobody on that block wants this to go up
Andy Gilles · spoken · 2017-11-30 · oppose
Gentrification
Gloria La Riva · spoken · 2017-11-30 · oppose
No community outreach
Susan Sindad · spoken · 2017-11-30 · oppose
Opposed, wrong direction
Bob Bowen · spoken · 2017-11-30 · support
Design presentation
Bob Tillman · spoken · 2017-11-30 · support
Project presentation
Corey Smith · spoken · 2017-11-30 · support
Support
Thor Boucher · spoken · 2017-11-30 · neutral
no text recorded
2018-09-27 · 8 comments · 1 / 7
Eric Arguello · spoken · 2018-09-27 · oppose
Shadow study, density bonus
Re: 2918 Mission Street Environmental ReviewPlease deny this project. It's too tall for the area. The norm here is two or three stories, not eight. The developer is seeking to override City heigh limits using a State loophole, by offering 11% "affordable" (below-market-rate) units. One dollar below market rate is still half this area's median salary; that's not affordable! If he were willing to build half this height, he'… Please deny this project. It's too tall for the area. The norm here is two or three stories, not eight. The developer is seeking to override City heigh limits using a State loophole, by offering 11% "affordable" (below-market-rate) units. One dollar below market rate is still half this area's median salary; that's not affordable! If he were willing to build half this height, he'd have been approved years ago. But his motivation is greed. My neighbors and I don't want this. And the developer doesn't even live in San Francisco. Thank you. On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 11:02 AM, Moore, Julie (CPC-PUC) [email removed]> wrote: Dear sir or madam: You are receiving this notice because you commented on the Notice of Project Receiving Environmental Review for the 2918-2924 Mission Street Project. Environmental Planning has issued a revised Initial Study-Community Plan Evaluation. The initial study can be downloaded directly here: http://sfmea.sfplanning.org/2014.0376ENV_2918%20Mission%20Initial%20Study- CPE_09.20.2018.pdf The shadow analysis technical report is a large file which is also available for download from our website here: PIM > 2918 Mission St > Planning Apps > 2014.0376ENV > Related Documents. A hearing regarding the Conditional Use Authorization for the project is scheduled at the Planning Commission on September 27th. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Regards, Julie Moore, Senior Planner Environmental Planning Division San Francisco Planning Department 1650 Mission Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94103 Direct: [phone removed] | www.sfplanning.org San Francisco Property Information Mapshow more Francisco D'Acosta · spoken · 2018-09-27 · oppose
Children
Gus Hernandez · spoken · 2018-09-27 · oppose
Base density calculation
Marie Sorenson · spoken · 2018-09-27 · oppose
Shadow
Mark Loper · spoken · 2018-09-27 · support
Project presentation
Anastasia Yovonapolous · spoken · 2018-09-27 · oppose
Developer intent, shadow
Larisa Pedroncelli · spoken · 2018-09-27 · oppose
Base density
2018-10-11 · 18 comments · 1 / 15
Subject: Opposition to 2918 Mission Street
Its wrong to cover a children's playground up to 63 percent. Its a significant negative impact and must be disapproved. Our children are important. This impact will have a life long effect on their future. Low income communities of color never get the protections they need. Sun is important for a childs development to grow and learn. Sincerely,
2918 Mission
Hi Linda, I was at the hearing yesterday requesting the calculation for base density for 2918 Mission, since they used the state density bonus. Can you share the formula (calculation) that was used to arrive at the base density? Thank you, Gus
Opposition to 2918 Mission StreetDear Commissioners, I am concerned that the children's playground next to the proposed development at 2918 Mission Street is shaded up to 63 percent. Its a significant negative impact and must be disapproved or a creative solution to allow more light through the proposed development. Our children are important. This impact will have a life long effect on their future. Sun is important for a child<U+2019>… Dear Commissioners, I am concerned that the children's playground next to the proposed development at 2918 Mission Street is shaded up to 63 percent. Its a significant negative impact and must be disapproved or a creative solution to allow more light through the proposed development. Our children are important. This impact will have a life long effect on their future. Sun is important for a child<U+2019>s development to grow and learn. Sincerely, Susan Cervantes Council member Calle 24 Latino Cultural District --show more Opposed to 2918 Mission - State Density BonusDear Commissioners, Where is the base density calculation for 2918 Mission? After some research, I found that 2918 Mission is relying on Planning Code Section 206.6 (C) (1) (D) to override the base density formula, which is supposed to determine the project's base density and its density bonus limit. 206.6 (C) (1) (D) The Density Bonus Units shall not be included when determining the number of Restricted Af… Dear Commissioners, Where is the base density calculation for 2918 Mission? After some research, I found that 2918 Mission is relying on Planning Code Section 206.6 (C) (1) (D) to override the base density formula, which is supposed to determine the project's base density and its density bonus limit. 206.6 (C) (1) (D) The Density Bonus Units shall not be included when determining the number of Restricted Affordable Units required to qualify for a Density Bonus. Density bonuses shall be calculated as a percentage of the Maximum Allowable Gross Residential Density. However, if you go back to SEC. 206.2. DEFINITIONS. ...The following definitions shall also apply, and shall prevail if there is a conflict with other sections of the Planning Code.... <U+201C>Base Density<U+201D> is lot area divided by the maximum lot area per unit permitted under existing density regulations (e.g. 1 unit per 200, 400, 600, 800, or 1000 square feet of lot area). Calculations that result in a decimal point of 0.5 and above are rounded to the next whole number. It is plainly stated in Planning Code Section 206.2. Bonus Density Limit This project claims that their base density project would be 55 units. The bonus density limit should then be calculated: 55 x 1.35 = 74.25 Since .25 is not above 0.5, this calculation does not get rounded to the next whole number. The total maximum allowable units would be 74, not 75 units as proposed. Reverse Engineering Density Recently, a similar project at 1355 Fulton filed their application for a 77-unit building with a base density of 55. After feedback from the Planning Department, they presented a 75-unit building with a base density of 57. At a base density of 55 units, these projects cannot achieve 77 units using the density bonus limit formula. Density bonuses should not be implemented by reverse engineering. These NCT projects should be put on hold until there is a correction to this error. The Planning Code must be applied consistently to these projects. Thank you, Gus Hernandez Co-Chair Affordable Divis ---------- Forwarded message ---------show more Fernando Marti · spoken · 2018-10-11 · oppose
Inclusionary housing
Peter Cohen · spoken · 2018-10-11 · neutral
State Density Bonus Law
Rick Hall · spoken · 2018-10-11 · oppose
Opposition
John Mendoza · spoken · 2018-10-11 · oppose
Opposition, wind impact
Corey Smith · spoken · 2018-10-11 · neutral
Housing Accountability Act analysis
Kelly Hill · spoken · 2018-10-11 · oppose
Opposition
Laura Gano · spoken · 2018-10-11 · oppose
Children first
Raphael Dikazo · spoken · 2018-10-11 · oppose
Impact to school
Larisa Pedroncelli · spoken · 2018-10-11 · oppose
Deny the project
Anastasia Yovanopoulos · spoken · 2018-10-11 · oppose
Shadow cast on play yard
Gus Hernandez · spoken · 2018-10-11 · oppose
Opposition, not necessary or desirable
Mark Loper · spoken · 2018-10-11 · support
Project presentation
Opposition to 2918 Mission StreetDear Commissioner, Its wrong to cover a children's playground up to 63 percent. Its a significant negative impact and must be disapproved. Our children are important and this impact will have a life long effect on their future. Low income communities of color never get the protections they need. Our kids and Mission community deserve better. Zaida T. Rodriguez school deserves better. Children need sun to grow … Dear Commissioner, Its wrong to cover a children's playground up to 63 percent. Its a significant negative impact and must be disapproved. Our children are important and this impact will have a life long effect on their future. Low income communities of color never get the protections they need. Our kids and Mission community deserve better. Zaida T. Rodriguez school deserves better. Children need sun to grow and learn to be have a healthy life. Sincerely, -- Erick Arguello Founder, Council President Calle 24 Latino Cultural District 2958 24th St. San Francisco, Ca 94110 www.calle24sf.orgshow more Eric Arguello · spoken · 2018-10-11 · oppose
Shadow impact