344 14th Street / 1463 Stevenson Street

2014.0948 · 344 14TH STREET

37comments

33in person

4emails

11hearings

dashed lines mark hearings · supportopposenot recorded · dot size = comments that day · click a dot to jump to the comment

Hearings

approved continued denied / withdrawn · 11 hearings · hover a marker for the date and outcome

Comments by hearing (37)

expand all · collapse all · comments with recorded text are listed first

2018-11-29 · 1 comments · 1 / 0

Stephen Schur · email · 2018-11-29 · support · source packet

Please add the following comments to 2014.0948ENX 344 14th Street/1463 Stevenson
Street Suggested Approval Conditions: 344 14TH STREET/1463 STEVENSON STREET As a Woodward Street, resident, I support housing to replace the parking lot at 344 14th Street. That said, the project sponsor (MM Stevenson) has not had any meaningful dialog with the local community and appears unresponsive to specific requests in the 2016 UDAT and SDAT notes for this project. To assure the success of thee project, I… Street Suggested Approval Conditions: 344 14TH STREET/1463 STEVENSON STREET As a Woodward Street, resident, I support housing to replace the parking lot at 344 14th Street. That said, the project sponsor (MM Stevenson) has not had any meaningful dialog with the local community and appears unresponsive to specific requests in the 2016 UDAT and SDAT notes for this project. To assure the success of thee project, I respectfully request that the Planning Commission make approval conditional on the City<U+2019>s suggestions listed below, and send this project back to Manouch Moshayedi until the project is amended accordingly. 1. 2. Reduce 3. the height of the project by at least 20<U+2019> overall, especially on the Woodward Street frontage. <U+201C>UDAT recommends finding a more significant way architecturally to break down the faade than giving the false effect of overlapping masses than in fact do not provide 4. real volumetric changes.<U+201D> (UDAT). 5. 6. 7. Commit 8. to using natural and compatible materials on the Woodward Street frontage. <U+201C>As this project abuts and faces the Woodward Street Romeo Flats Reconstruction Historic District, the materials need to be compatible with materials of the district such as painted 9. real wood or brick which would provide a certain dialogue with the nearby Armory. The non-brick or natural materials should be lighter in tonality.<U+201D> (UDAT) 10. 11. 12. Commit 13. to closely follow the design guidelines set forth in the Living Alley Toolkit by adding distinctive pavement, daylighting, raised crosswalks, bulbouts and other traffic calming measures on Woodward to mitigate the increased drop-off traffic. Add street furniture 14. along Woodward Street. <U+201C>In the Mission District Streetscape Plan, Woodward Street is identified as a priority street for Living Alley design treatment. All projects on Woodward Street should seek to advance the improvement of Woodward Street as a Living Alley<U+201D> 15. (SDAT). 16. 17. 18. Submit 19. proof of compliance with the San Francisco 20. Stormwater Management Ordinance 21. (SMO). 22. 23. 24. Commit 25. to respect the creek flowing underneath the project by reducing or relocating the underground parking; submit proof of insurance / indemnification for damage caused to Woodward Street, Stevenson Street and the nearby buildings in the Historic District as a 26. result of altering or blocking the flow of the creek. <U+201C>Retain and highlight existing features, such as ... waterways, and specimen trees.<U+201D> (SF Urban Design Guidelines page 28) 27. Including these items in Appendix A and sending the plans back to the project sponsor for revision will greatly improve this project. The project will be much more successful if it respects the neighborhood, the community and the City<U+2019>s requests and guidelines. Stephen Schur [phone removed] [email removed]show more

2019-04-04 · 20 comments · 5 / 15

Jody Knight · spoken · 2019-04-04 · support

Project presentation

Phil Lesser · spoken · 2019-04-04 · support

Community outreach

Rick Hall · spoken · 2019-04-04 · oppose

Continue for sponsor to work with the community

Davian Contreras · spoken · 2019-04-04 · oppose

Opposition

Andy Gyllis · spoken · 2019-04-04 · oppose

Gentrification

Jack Rice · spoken · 2019-04-04 · oppose

Gentrification

Marie Sorenson · spoken · 2019-04-04 · oppose

Opposition, parking

Kevin Ortiz · spoken · 2019-04-04 · oppose

Character of the neighborhood

Ben Carrol · spoken · 2019-04-04 · oppose

Opposition

Jackie Barshackle · spoken · 2019-04-04 · oppose

Opposition

Stephen Schur · spoken · 2019-04-04 · oppose

Woodward Historic District, neighborhood character

Sven Eberlein · spoken · 2019-04-04 · oppose

Bicycling mitigation measures

Taylor Ahlgren · spoken · 2019-04-04 · oppose

Gentrification

Gideon Kramer · spoken · 2019-04-04 · support

Support

Vicky Castro · spoken · 2019-04-04 · oppose

Organized Opposition

Scott Weaver · spoken · 2019-04-04 · oppose

Organized Opposition

Larisa Pedroncelli · spoken · 2019-04-04 · oppose

Organized Opposition

Mark Roth · spoken · 2019-04-04 · support

PDR training

Kelly Hill · spoken · 2019-04-04 · oppose

Ground water, sewage system

Chris Heagglund · spoken · 2019-04-04 · support

Design presentation

2019-04-25 · 1 comments · 1 / 0

David Stewart · email · 2019-04-25 · support · source packet

Neighbor feedback on 344 14th St/1463 Stevenson Street
I live in a condo at 270 Valencia Street, which is less than 500 feet from the proposed development site of 344 14th St/1463 Stevenson Street. I've lived at this location for about 10 years, and would like to provide feedback on the proposal. I'm supportive of this development, especially that it would grow higher (7 stories) than most other buildings in the immediate area. This is a perfect place for the… I live in a condo at 270 Valencia Street, which is less than 500 feet from the proposed development site of 344 14th St/1463 Stevenson Street. I've lived at this location for about 10 years, and would like to provide feedback on the proposal. I'm supportive of this development, especially that it would grow higher (7 stories) than most other buildings in the immediate area. This is a perfect place for the city's density bonus to be implemented, in my opinion. San Francisco is in the midst of a housing crisis, and we desperately need more of all kinds of housing and at all price points. Increased density, including building taller, needs to be part of the solution. Over the past decade I've found my quality of life has increased by having more density, including restaurants and retail within a close walk, and believe this development will be another positive step for the area. That said, this development isn't perfect in my opinion. A few things that would make it even better for the community: 14th Street between Mission and Valencia is already clogged with traffic. During busy periods vehicles often back all the way up to Valencia and sometimes cause gridlock . I'd like to see fewer car parking spaces in the plan. (it also wouldn't hurt if the signal timing at Mission and 14th were lengthened, to enable more traffic flow...) While this area may be at the edge of a region that has been zoned for PDR and other industrial uses for historical reasons, today it is squarely in an expanding residential, retail, and shopping district. I'd like to see the PDR and SEW components downsized or eliminated, in favor of more residential and retail use. In particular it would be nice to see another restaurant space included in the plan; judging from the lines out the door at nearly every restaurant in the immediate vicinity, there is a chronic shortage of restaurant space relative to the demand that exists for dining out in this area. That said, overall I support this project and if the choice is between going ahead "as is" vs not, I'd strongly support its approval. Thank you for taking my perspective into account. David Stewart [email removed]show more

2019-05-02 · 1 comments · 1 / 0

14th Street · email · 2019-05-02 · support · source packet

Re: Neighbor feedback on 344 14th St/1463 Stevenson Street
Hi David, Thank you for your feedback, I appreciate your support. To your point, we will be presenting a plan at the meeting which will eliminate the SEW/PDR building altogether and with it the underground parking that was planned for that location. I think the parking spaces will be reduced from the current 42 to about 25 or 30. Unfortunately I can<U+2019>t do anything about signal timing. We are allowed a to… Hi David, Thank you for your feedback, I appreciate your support. To your point, we will be presenting a plan at the meeting which will eliminate the SEW/PDR building altogether and with it the underground parking that was planned for that location. I think the parking spaces will be reduced from the current 42 to about 25 or 30. Unfortunately I can<U+2019>t do anything about signal timing. We are allowed a total of 5600 sqft of retail which will probably divide into four or five separate spaces based on future demand, theoritically these could all be restaurants in the future. Maybe someday the zoning for the PDR lot changes to residential and we can build more livable units in that location. Hope to see you at the meeting. Regards, Manouch Moshayedi On Apr 18, 2019, at 7:26 PM, David Stewart [email removed]> wrote: I live in a condo at 270 Valencia Street, which is less than 500 feet from the proposed development site of 344 14th St/1463 Stevenson Street. I've lived at this location for about 10 years, and would like to provide feedback on the proposal. I'm supportive of this development, especially that it would grow higher (7 stories) than most other buildings in the immediate area. This is a perfect place for the city's density bonus to be implemented, in my opinion. San Francisco is in the midst of a housing crisis, and we desperately need more of all kinds of housing and at all price points. Increased density, including building taller, needs to be part of the solution. Over the past decade I've found my quality of life has increased by having more density, including restaurants and retail within a close walk, and believe this development will be another positive step for the area. That said, this development isn't perfect in my opinion. A few things that would make it even better for the community: 14th Street between Mission and Valencia is already clogged with traffic. During busy periods vehicles often back all the way up to Valencia and sometimes cause gridlock . I'd like to see fewer car parking spaces in the plan. (it also wouldn't hurt if the signal timing at Mission and 14th were lengthened, to enable more traffic flow...) While this area may be at the edge of a region that has been zoned for PDR and other industrial uses for historical reasons, today it is squarely in an expanding residential, retail, and shopping district. I'd like to see the PDR and SEW components downsized or eliminated, in favor of more residential and retail use. In particular it would be nice to see another restaurant space included in the plan; judging from the lines out the door at nearly every restaurant in the immediate vicinity, there is a chronic shortage of restaurant space relative to the demand that exists for dining out in this area. That said, overall I support this project and if the choice is between going ahead "as is" vs not, I'd strongly support its approval. Thank you for taking my perspective into account. David Stewart [email removed]show more

2019-06-06 · 2 comments · 1 / 0

John Kevlin · spoken · 2019-06-06 · support

Continue to June 13th

Georgia Schuttish · spoken · 2019-06-06 · neutral

"Can anyone afford it?"

2019-06-27 · 8 comments · 3 / 2

Peter Papadapolous · spoken · 2019-06-27 · neutral

More time to reach an agreement

Rick Hall · spoken · 2019-06-27 · neutral

More time to reach an agreement

Steven Shum · spoken · 2019-06-27 · support

Support for mitigation measures

Kelly Hill · spoken · 2019-06-27 · oppose

Numerous concerns

Larisa Pedroncelli · spoken · 2019-06-27 · neutral

No agreement

Manouch Moshayedi · spoken · 2019-06-27 · support

Project presentation

Marie Sorenson · spoken · 2019-06-27 · oppose

Affordable housing

Ben Libbey · email · 2019-06-27 · support · source packet

344 14th Street, 2014.0948ENX
6/27/2019 San Francisco Planning Commission City Hall, Room 400 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, CA 94102 [email removed]; [email removed]; Via Email Re: 344 14th Street 2014.0948ENX Dear San Francisco Planning Commissioners, The California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund (CaRLA) submits this letter to inform you that the San Francisco Planning Commission has an obligation… 6/27/2019 San Francisco Planning Commission City Hall, Room 400 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, CA 94102 [email removed]; [email removed]; Via Email Re: 344 14th Street 2014.0948ENX Dear San Francisco Planning Commissioners, The California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund (CaRLA) submits this letter to inform you that the San Francisco Planning Commission has an obligation to abide by all relevant state housing laws when evaluating the above captioned proposal, including the Housing Accountability Act. California Government Code 65589.5, the Housing Accountability Act, prohibits localities from denying housing development projects that are compliant with the locality<U+2019>s Zoning Ordinance and General Plan at the time the application was deemed complete, unless the locality can make findings that the proposed housing development would be a threat to public health and safety. The most relevant section is copied below: (j) When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the housing development project's application is determined to be complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to approve it upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by substantial evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist: (1) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a "specific, adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. (2) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density. The Applicant proposes to construct a new 7-story 60-unit residential structure with ground floor commercial space on a site that is currently used as a parking lot. The above captioned proposal is zoning compliant and general plan compliant, therefore, your local agency must approve the application, or else make findings to the effect that the proposed project would have an adverse impact on public health and safety, as described above. CaRLA is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation whose mission is to restore a legal environment in which California builds housing equal to its needs, which we pursue through public impact litigation and providing educational programs to California city officials and their staff. Sincerely, Sonja Trauss Co-Executive Director California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund Cc: MM Stevenson, LLC 2429 West Coast Highway, Suite 205 Newport Beach, CA 92625show more

2019-07-11 · 1 comments · no positions recorded

John Kevlin · spoken · 2019-07-11 · —

Continuance

2019-07-25 · 3 comments · 2 / 1

John Kevlin · spoken · 2019-07-25 · support

Project presentation

Larisa Pedroncelli · spoken · 2019-07-25 · oppose

Last minute offer

John Jensen · spoken · 2019-07-25 · support

Support