400-444 Divisadero St AND 1048-1064 Oak St

2019-05-02 · 1 comments · 1 / 0

Divisadero Merchants · email · 2019-05-02 · support · source packet

Endorsement for 400 Divisadero project
April 26, 2019 Dear Planning Commissioners, We are writing today to let you know that the Divisadero Merchants Association is endorsing the proposed development at 400 Divisadero. We believe that our city needs more housing, and we think that this housing development is intentional in making use of as much as of the space as possible. We also appreciate that the developers have worked with the community and the… show more

2019-05-23 · 12 comments · 8 / 4

Kat Hawthorne · email · 2019-05-23 · support · source packet

I support 400 Divisadero
Hi, I live a few blocks away (Oak and Pierce) from this proposed new development at 400 Divisadero and I am excited to welcome new neighbors as a part of this plan. I believe it should go through as-is. Thank you for helping more people enjoy calling San Francisco home, Kat

Jim Summers · email · 2019-05-23 · oppose · source packet

Opposition to 400 Divisadero <U+2013> Not Enough On-Site Affordable Housing
Dear Planning Commissioners, I am a neighbor who is opposed to the project at 400-444 Divisadero St., and 1048- 1064 Oak St., as proposed, for the following reasons: The style and architecture of this building proposal wouldn't even pass a planning commission approval in Texas, where the developers are based. So, why would we be allow something like this to be built here in SF, in 2019!?!. This is beautiful hist… show more

Taylor Watson · email · 2019-05-23 · support · source packet

I Support 400 Divisadero
I live at Central and Waller and support this development. -- Taylor Watson [phone removed] [email removed] http://www.linkedin.com/in/taylorkwatson

Marty Cerles Jr · email · 2019-05-23 · support · source packet

I Support 400 Divisadero
Hello, My name is Marty Raymond Cerles Jr. I was born and raised at the corner of Anza and Masonic, and currently reside at Bush and Divisadero. I wholeheartedly support the construction of homes at 400 Divisadero. Between the time I was born 30 years ago to today, San Francisco has DRASTICALLY underproduced housing, which has led to me being unable to live in the neighborhood I grew up in even though I am better… show more

Matthew Schoolfield · email · 2019-05-23 · support · source packet

I Support 400 Divisadero
I live in the neighborhood (near hayes and cole), and i'd love to be a homeowner one day. The only way that can happen is with more residences. I support this new building, that will make the neighborhood more inviting. Thanks, Matt Schoolfield

Lori Liederman · email · 2019-05-23 · oppose · source packet

Opposition to 400 Divisadero <U+2013> Not Enough On-Site Affordable Housing
Dear Planning Commissioners, I am a neighbor opposed to the project at 400-444 Divisadero St and 1048-1064 Oak St as proposed for the following reasons: 1) 37 units of affordable housing out of 186 units is not enough. 2) The project fails to meet neighborhood needs as articulated in the 2016 Affordable Divisadero Community Plan, created by over 500 community members, which calls for 50% affordability in new projects… show more

Aaron Goodman · email · 2019-05-23 · oppose · source packet

Opposition to 400 Divisadero <U+2013> Not Enough On-Site Affordable Housing
Dear Planning Commissioners, I am a SF housing advocate opposed to the project at 400-444 Divisadero St and 1048-1064 Oak St as proposed for the following reasons: 1) 37 units of affordable housing out of 186 units is not enough. 2) The project fails to meet neighborhood needs as articulated in the 2016 Affordable Divisadero Community Plan, created by over 500 community members, which calls for 50% affordability i… show more

Phillip Kobernick · email · 2019-05-23 · support · source packet

I support 400 Divisadero
Zero displacement? Check. Affordable inclusionary? Check. More rental apartments in a rental housing crisis? Check. Getting a better neighborhood use than a gas station? Check. Planning Commission, this project checks all the boxes. Please support this housing for renters. Thx, Phillip Sent from my iPhone

Joe Hooker · email · 2019-05-23 · support · source packet

I Support 400 Divisadero
I live at 320 Pierce St, only a few blocks away. I support this project because it will add much-needed housing to the neighborhood. I hope that the Commission approves this project and others like it to address the housing issues in San Francisco. Thank you, Joe Hooker 320 Pierce St San Francisco

Meggie Bonner · email · 2019-05-23 · support · source packet

Support 400 Divisidero
I'd like to voice my support for the 400 Divisidero project. Getting more housing instead of an unsightly gas station is a win win for the neighborhood. Thanks, Margaret Bonner 58 Clayton St. Apt 8 San Francisco CA 94117

Riley Avron · email · 2019-05-23 · support · source packet

I support 400 Divisadero
Hello, I'm a resident in district 5, and I've heard that there might be resistance to the 400 Divisadero project, which would replace a gas station with sorely needed housing in the city. Accordingly, I'm writing to express my support for that project, as a resident in the neighborhood. The city needs more housing stock, as quickly as possible, and this project won't even displace any current re… show more

Hamid R. Bronner · email · 2019-05-23 · oppose · source packet

400-444 Divisidero Project, Opposed Neighbor
Hello Commissioners, I am a neighbor in very close proximity to this project, which does not seem to be a well thought-out project. It conspicuously follows the trend of much of the latest hasty development throughout San Francisco in the last decade or so. My concern that too many issues correlating to this project are being dismissed or ignored, points to a push to exploit a perceived space for development. T… Hello Commissioners, I am a neighbor in very close proximity to this project, which does not seem to be a well thought-out project. It conspicuously follows the trend of much of the latest hasty development throughout San Francisco in the last decade or so. My concern that too many issues correlating to this project are being dismissed or ignored, points to a push to exploit a perceived space for development. The net result however, is not a benefit to the neighborhood. There is not much consideration to those who currently live here, and need to continue their lives in this place. Along with a following prepared letter below that I am in agreement with, I'd like to add a few of the points that would impact all who live and spend a fair amount of time along Divisidero. Please consider these additional points as well as the letter below: - The ongoing turnover of Small Businesses shows the sterilization of local-commercial culture benefiting larger corporations which can afford extreme commercial rates. - The loss of balance in existing demographics (a lesser measured stat, however clearly visible on the ground). This is an area closely tied to some vulnerable San Francisco ethnicities and cultures, some more obvious than others and an area which should preserve the ideal of civil interactions, without becoming too much of an influx of a homogeneous particular industry-culture (in this case part of the city-tech-wave-influx). -The prior point leads to the issue of encouraging commuting far away to Silicon Valley and using San Francisco as a corporate perk/campus. This is a well established issue in the news from the start of the recent giveaways, and certainly something that should be looked at as a local area, region-by- region pressing issue. It also relates to traffic, both automotive and pedestrian. Electric gadget modes of transportation are not factoring well among conventional Divisidero street traffic, so they will be more and more taking sidewalks. This issue is coupled with commuting and the point goes to giving perks at the expense of people actually living, not short-term transient stays in SF. The attracted increase of accidents, petty crime, congestion to a narrowing transit corridor (more and more side streets are closed off to cross-town traffic) shows the need for projects planned with foresight and accounting for inevitable secondary and tertiary consequences. - The aforementioned concern(s) points to an issue of vitality for this area. It is my estimation that area should attract and allow visitors and tourists to stop and find a unique and interesting place. Congestion and transient tech-labor will not add to this or allow people to come comfortably and the area to develop organically and uniquely. It will be too imbalanced with people using the area at high expense and with frequent turn over. The possibility that more affordable housing done in a responsible way will lead to comparable or with better benefits to this area is more likely. - Lastly I'd add, when I walk this stretch regularly I feel the coldness a larger than average building would create. It would take a piece of the skyline that would be a bad precedent and severe loss along this 'corridor.' It would not be friendly and welcoming, and it would not fit with the surrounding buildings. The geographic position at the base of the Haight St. and Divisidero Hill side does not compliment a tall and wide building here. The design seems to not include this concern. Thank you for reading my concerns and the following prepared letter of the conscientious neighbor(s) below. Dear Planning Commissioners, I am a neighbor opposed to the project at 400-444 Divisadero St and 1048-1064 Oak St as proposed for the following reasons: 37 units of affordable housing out of 186 units is not enough. The project fails to meet neighborhood needs as articulated in the 2016 Affordable Divisadero Community Plan, created by over 500 community members, which calls for 50% affordability in new projects. The developer has consistently ignored community demands for increased affordability on the site while claiming <U+201C>community engagement<U+201D> that <U+201C>reflects the community<U+2019>s vision for this prominent site.<U+201D> The project is seeking five (5) Conditional Use approvals, yet contains no additional public benefit to neighborhood residents and community members. Please support Divisadero neighbors, residents, and community members and DO NOT approve this project. Thank you, -- Hamid R. Bronner principal Arts of The Ancients .com & CRIMSON GATE TEA .COMshow more

2019-06-06 · 4 comments · 2 / 2

Sienna Jane Coile Robrock · email · 2019-06-06 · oppose · source packet

Comments - Public hearing May 23, 2019 = 2015-007816 CUA/ENV
Please enter this into the record for 400-444 Divisadero Street and 1048-1064 Oak Street. Thank you & have a nice day, Sienna Jane C. Robrock Attachments area ~i~~~ couNrp z SAN FRANCISCO a PLANNING DEPARTMENT O~~~S 0 517 PUBLIC NOTICE Availability of Notice of Preparation of Environmental Impact Report and Notice of Public Scoping Meeting Date: May 22, 2019 Case No.: 2017-007468ENV Project Title: … Please enter this into the record for 400-444 Divisadero Street and 1048-1064 Oak Street. Thank you & have a nice day, Sienna Jane C. Robrock Attachments area ~i~~~ couNrp z SAN FRANCISCO a PLANNING DEPARTMENT O~~~S 0 517 PUBLIC NOTICE Availability of Notice of Preparation of Environmental Impact Report and Notice of Public Scoping Meeting Date: May 22, 2019 Case No.: 2017-007468ENV Project Title: SFO Recommended Airport Development P1~ECE1V E~ Project Sponsor: San Francisco International Airport Audrey Park <U+2014> [phone removed] [email removed] Lead Agency: San Francisco Planning Department Staff Contact: Michael Li <U+2014> [phone removed] [email removed] MAY 2 4 2019 1650 Mission St. Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94103-2479 Reception: [phone removed] Fax: [phone removed] Planning Information: [phone removed] CITY &COUNTY OF S.F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT CPCMPC A notice of preparation (NOP) of an environmental impact report (EIIZ) has been prepared by the San Francisco Planning Departrnent in connection with this project. The NOP is available for public review and can be accessed on the Planning Department's website at https://sfplanning.org/environmental-review-documents. Paper copies are also available at the Planning Information Center at 1660 Mission Street, 1st Floor, San Francisco. Referenced materials are available for review by appointment at the Planning Department's office at 1650 Mission Street, Suite 400 (call [phone removed]). Project Description: The project sponsor, San Francisco International Airport (SFO or Airport), is proposing to implement the SFO Recommended Airport Development Plan (RADP), which involves along-range plan to guide the Airport's development. The purpose of the RADP is to plan for forecast passenger and operations growth at SFO through the following measures: mvcimizing gate capacity, geometry, and flexibility; optimizing lobby and security flows and incorporating new technology for passenger screening; ma~cimizing shared-use facilities and baggage handling system flexibility; and maximizing transfer connectivity for passengers and baggage. The proposed RADP includes recommended projects that would accommodate long-term demand at the Airport, forecast to reach 71.1 million annual passengers at the estimated maximum airfield capacity in its existing layout.' The RADP serves as a roadmap for guiding future Airport development in order to modernize SFO, increase the efficiency of Airport operations, and enhance the passenger experience. The RADP is not expected to induce passenger demand, and no airfield expansion or changes are proposed as part of the RADP, nor would the proposed project increase the capacity of the airfield, change aircraft operations or aircraft types operating at the Airport, or affect the propensity of passengers to use SFO. Long-term demand at the Airport is forecast to reach 71.1 million annual passengers, which is the estimated capacity of the existing airfield, irrespective of the RADP. Landrum &Brown, Inc., San Francisco International Airport Aviation Activity Forecast, Apri12014, approved by the Federal Aviation Administration on June 9, 2014. wwwsfplanning.org Case No. 2017-007468ENV Notice of Availability of NOP of an EIR and Public Scoping Meeting SFO Recommended Airport Development Plan May 22, 2019 The EIR will also evaluate a project variant, referred to as the "Boarding Area F Variant," which would include an extension of Boarding Area F and the realignment of two taxiways to maintain access between the boarding areas and runways. Findin :The Planning Department has determined that an EIR must be prepared for the RADP prior to any final decision regarding whether to approve the project. The Planning Department will prepare an initial study and focused EIlZ to evaluate the physical environmental effects of the proposed project. These studies will assess both project-specific and cumulative impacts for all topics. The purpose of the EIR is to provide information about the potential significant physical environmental effects of the proposed project, to identify possible ways to minunize the significant effects, and to describe and analyze possible alternatives to the proposed project. Preparation of an NOP or EIR does not indicate a decision by the City to approve or disapprove the project. However, prior to making any such decision, the decision makers must review and consider the information contair~e~ in the EIR. r . T'he Planning Department will hold two PUBLIC SLOPING MEETINGS during the following times and locations: Thursday, May 30, 2019, at 7:00 p.m. in Room 431 at the San Francisco Planning Department, 1650 Mission Street, Suite 400, San Francisco; and Tuesday, June 4, 2019, at 7:00 p.m. in the Great Room at the Millbrae Community Center, 623 Magnolia Avenue, Millbrae. The purpose of these meetings is to receive oral comments to assist the Planning Department in reviewing the scope and content of the environmental impact analysis and information to be contained in the EIR for the project. To request a language interpreter or to accommodate persons with disabilities at the scoping meeting, please contact the staff contact listed above at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Written comments will also be accepted unti15:00 p.m. on Friday, June 21, 2019, and maybe submitted at the public scoping meetings, at the Planning Department, or by letter or email. Written comments should be sent to Michael Li, San Francisco Planning Department, 1650 Mission Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, CA 94103 or to [email removed]. Referenced materials are available for review at the Planning Department's office at 1650 Mission Street, Suite 400 (ca11415,5759107). If you work for an agency that is a Responsible or a Trustee Agency, we need to know the views of your agency regarding the scope and content of the environmental information that is relevant to your agencys statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency may need to use the EIR when considering a permit or other approval for this project. We will also need the name of the contact person for your agency. If you have questions concerning environmental review of the proposed project, please contact Michael Li at [phone removed]. Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Commission or the Department. All written or oral communications, including submitted personal contact information, may be made available to the public for inspection and copying upon request and may appear on the Department's website or in other public documents. SAN FRANGSCO PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAIGHT ASHBURY NEIGHBORHOOD COI~C~~~,~ ' 1'es ~~'el~c~rn May 23, 2019 1'reside~tt Bruce tiff <rafe ~~i~~~>- ~-esidenr San Francisco Planning Commission And Planner Mary Woods s~~~~ xoel -via email- Rc~crlrclirty Secr~etart mar~-.~v~ods(~sf~ov.or~ .Tim RhoaclS D@8C COmfiIISSIOf18fS: Correspr~~~dinq:%ecrr<U+2022> t~rr~j f;i~ristin Eti~tts )'rettsurer ~)anies Sword _'~'E~ntinc~finy Chair 12icharci Ivanhoe tler~zbership Chair MAY 2 8 2019 CITY &COUNTY OF S.F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT RE: 400 pivisaderocPc~HPc The Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council [HANG], whose boundaries include Divisadero Street, supports new housing at 400 Divisadero, but we do object to the bare minimum of affordable housing units. itup+~rt Clayt[~n Flo;isiny a~zd Land t'se C:hir Karen Mishkin Rei~cIin;7 Cttuir This developer greatly benefited from the upzoning of Divisadero, but is not sharing this benefit with our neighbors who need affordable housing. Furthermore, his project actually creates the need for some 30-40 affordable homes, per Nexus study. That means at best this is a break-even for neighborhood, no net gain. HANG has been working with other neighborhood organizations for years to increase affordable housing. We have worked with leaders of NOPNA and ASNA, as well as having real public meetings and over 500 neighbors' participation. We urge Commissioners to require the developer to provide a minimum of 30% of all units as affordable to households whose income is between 50 and 100/o of area median. ~s~n~rs~xs-aT-L.~~r We also request that you require the developer to provide a better affordable .fie.. ~qt~i~:v housing mix: more one and two bedroom affordable housing units <U+2014> 18 studios, 4 one- bedrooms, and 15two-bedrooms is not family housing. And family housing, workforce Joc~ Cain housing, was what the developer claimed at public meetings. Garlic T..edi~c also call your attention to the fact that many letters of support came from t;hr~sr;.,~~~ v:3;sse outside the neighborhood. catt-in welch We also object to characterizing the two public meetings the developer sponsored as "opportunities for public input." The developer and his consultants talked sun:~hin~~t,F.~~rs and talked. There was no opportunity for public discussion from the floor. Instead of :11~rz~hcnt Liaison public discussion, those present were directed to flip charts to express thoughts and ask questions, which may or may not have been recorded. This practice stifled public input - it did not allow for accurate recording and representation of neighbor comments. Regarding 14. D, it is laughable to read "The Project Site is well-served by several MUNI lines, including the 6-Haight-Parnassus, 7-Haight-Noriega, 21-Hayes, 24- Divisadero, and N-Judah." Neighbors complain daily about poor service on all of these bus and train routes. Only two of them, the 21 and the 24 are within two blocks, and these have poorer service than the other three. Those three require crossing Oak Street, one of the two busiest streets in the western US, and traveling three to five blocks. And then to be passed by a full bus or train. Sincerely, Tes [Teresa] Welborn President PO Box 170518 O San Francisco O CA 94117 www. hanc-sf.orq [email removed]-orgshow more

Michael Ducker · email · 2019-06-06 · support · source packet

I Support 400 Divisadero!
Commissioners - I live on McAllister a few blocks from the proposed project, and I strongly support it's approval as is, with no further changes or delays. We are in a housing crisis, and this project has been delayed far too long. Housing delayed is housing denied. It's a great project - with on site affordable units, and market rate units for middle class San Franciscos. Further, that block of Divisa… show more

Renee Curran · email · 2019-06-06 · oppose · source packet

Oppose 400-444 Divisadero
Please reject the proposal for 400-444 Divisadero. While I happen to believe we should not build any more market rate housing, I recognize that there is some debate regarding this. However, there is no debate regarding whether we need more housing affordable to people with middle-class and lower incomes. The proposed project simply does not provide enough affordable units. The community has asked for 50 percent o… Please reject the proposal for 400-444 Divisadero. While I happen to believe we should not build any more market rate housing, I recognize that there is some debate regarding this. However, there is no debate regarding whether we need more housing affordable to people with middle-class and lower incomes. The proposed project simply does not provide enough affordable units. The community has asked for 50 percent of the units to be affordable, which is not unreasonable and yet the developer is offering only 20 percent. Using our limited supply of land to build a vast majority of luxury-priced units will have devastating effects on the community. Expensive housing has been shown to drive up the cost of land around it, making the possibility of building affordably in the future less and less possible. Already people are being displaced at alarming rates and projects like this will only accelerate this rate. We have at least hundreds of market-rate units sitting empty while people are dying on the streets. Further, expensive housing creates more traffic, as wealthier residents are more likely to drive or use TNC's, and to use delivery services, than working class residents. San Francisco already has too much traffic and too many pedestrian deaths. Our public transit system is currently inadequate for the existing population, so even in the unlikely event that newer, wealthier residents recognize the importance of public transit, there will be no real incentive to use it. The project is seeking five conditional use approvals, yet contains no additional public benefit to neighborhood residents and community members. We should not be giving up the good of the community for the sake of developer and investor profits. The pro- developer, "YIMBY" side has offered only fear-based calls to hurry up and sort it out later. This manner of making policy decisions rarely turns out well. San Francisco is better than that, and surely we can come up with better solutions if we take the time to plan responsibly. Thank you, Renee Curranshow more

Tricia Stauber · email · 2019-06-06 · support · source packet

400 Divisadero Project needs more Affordable Units Built
Hi Folks; Please consider having the developer add more affordable units to the 400 Divisadero Project. Even though 19% is a good starting point, we need more of this type of housing because it is what MUNI bus drivers, nurses, teachers etc can afford. That being said, government needs to step up and build affordable housing. Unfortunately, our Federal government has fallen short of building housing and it appea… show more

2019-06-13 · 17 comments · 14 / 3

Aaron Goodman · email · 2019-06-13 · oppose · source packet

SF Planning Commission June 13th Agenda - Comments / A.Goodman D11
SF Planning Commissioners As I am unable to attend I would like to submit comments on the following items; 4. 2015-007816CUA Divisadero Project I would like to submit my concerns that this project does not meet the affordable RENTAL housing needs of SF residents, or show a solid proposal for green-garden rental apartment communities. We can and should do better in SF for the development of urban blocks and o… SF Planning Commissioners As I am unable to attend I would like to submit comments on the following items; 4. 2015-007816CUA Divisadero Project I would like to submit my concerns that this project does not meet the affordable RENTAL housing needs of SF residents, or show a solid proposal for green-garden rental apartment communities. We can and should do better in SF for the development of urban blocks and open space creation. 5. 2018-013861PCAMAP OCEANVIEW LARGE RESIDENCE SPECIAL USE DISTRICT I have sincere concerns about the proposal, and the need to address impacts on communities due to lacking investment and projects scaled for the density proposed. With each additional year we see more housing being pumped into districts, some legally and some illegally. The lacking services leads to overstuffed bus systems lacking investment in public systems, overflowing trash cans, and damaged parks, libraries and infrastructure. It is critical to ensure investment in public spaces, pools, parks, and of the size and scale needed for the growth proposed. Please think cummalatively on growth impacts domino effect of development and the lacking infrastructural and systems improvements needed from power, sewer water and waste, transit open space, and essential rental housing / social housing needs for all areas. We can see density of varying scales but only when systems are also invested in for the future. (Resident of D11) see prior email sent on this proposal and concerns. Many of the homes in D11 are already seeing mission styled flipping, and redevelopment to obscene and ugly designs. We need to stop the destruction of sound housing. 7. CONNECTSF <U+2013> Informational Presentation The city needs a bigger vision, not just size but in how we approach public transit, for the future, and how to fix existing systems to make a network that works. With the eventual departure of Ed Reiskin, it is imperative that the Connect SF program also be much more open and transparent, going out to the communities and organizations who discuss transit policy, CSFN, WOTPCC, SF Tomorrow.org, TAOSF, Save Muni, Walk SF, and other groups to ensure public input is heard from neighborhoods, not just presentations to planning staff, but open eared transit agencies that absorb and initiate changes based on public input. We still have not seen the Balboa Park Station Area Plan CAC reinvigorated to deal with massive growth impacts. That coupled with item #5 and other items in D7/D11 at Balboa Reservoir, require more inventive solutions by Connect SF now and up front vs 10-20+ years in the future. Please require the SFMTA to meet with organizations on transit policy and solve for the largest common good in these proposals. 8. 2017-016313CWP PUBLIC LAND FOR HOUSING AND BALBOA RESERVOIR Although I am concerned about the un-coordinated efforts by CCSF, and the housing development at the reservoir, (in a similar vein to Parkmerced and SFSU-CSU) the joint impacts must be tempered with adequate transit policy and infrastructural changes. I have submitted memos prior, and attened the Balboa Reservoir meetings and still feel this is the best current option being proposed, however needs such as power generation, adequate direct connection to the Balboa Reservoir, and improved intersection safety for pedestrians and bikes should traverse CCSF from the reservoir to improve connection to the major 2nd hub in SF Balboa Park Station. See examples of "high-lines" for topographical solutions that can directly link to the Tony Sacco Way and over the freeway at CCSF's eastern edge, along with an east side CCSF garage that can service the CCSF and Balboa Reservoir community by designing an off-ramp from the freeway, with a commuter e-rail system across the two sites. Make both sites improved for all. Thank you for reading these comments, and would be happy to meet to discuss with you outside the commission meetings individually on the possible solutions and options. Aaron Goodman D11 SF Resident Balboa Park Station Area Plan CAC (former chair 2+ years) SF Tomorrow Board Member (Transit / Housing / Environment)show more

David Stone · email · 2019-06-13 · support · source packet

I Support 400 Divisadero
Howdy Planning Commissioners in this city government of ours- I am a resident of the Upper Haight (District 5, zip: 94117). I live with my brother to save on rent; he is an SFUSD school teacher (at Roosevelt Middle School). I can make ends meet but I have to subsidize his rent so he can afford to live in the city where he teaches. 400 Divisadero is needed housing with a fair amount of subsidized units that will … show more

David Woo · email · 2019-06-13 · oppose · source packet

Affordable Divis Opposition Letter Re: 400-444 Divisadero St and 1048-1064 Oak St
Dear Commissioners, Please see the attached letter from Affordable Divis regarding opposition to the proposed development at 400-444 Divisadero St and 1048-1064 Oak St due to lack of affordability in the project. Also attached for reference is the Divisadero Community Plan. Sincerely, David Woo Steering Committee, Affordable Divis

Zack B · email · 2019-06-13 · support · source packet

I support 400 Divisadero
Don<U+2019>t know the details but we need to build more housing. I<U+2019>m 33, born in SF, make a good living, and can<U+2019>t afford to buy anything. Zack Brown 4520 Fulton Street

James Hill · email · 2019-06-13 · support · source packet

I strongly support the project at 400 Divisadero moving ahead immediately
I am a longtime local resident who has lived along DIvisidero for 30 years and strongly support the project at 400 Divisadero moving ahead immediately. I have watched it blossom in terms of street life and economic viability over the years. This project is appropriately located to support. Because of efforts to prevent housing in the city, our neighborhood has become out of reach for my own children. The neighbo… show more

Paul Bickmore · email · 2019-06-13 · support · source packet

Support 400 Divisidero!
Hello, What do we need more in our city, services for machines that kill 37,000 folks every year and destroy our planet? Or housing in an already walkable neighborhood? Choose the latter. We need more housing, especially in San Francisco. Thank you, Paul Bickmore

Ivan O'neill · email · 2019-06-13 · support · source packet

I Support 400 Divisadero
I<U+2019>m writing as a D5 resident in support of the 400 Divisadero project and to ensure that we maximize the number of market rate units available to current and future neighbors. There<U+2019>s abundant transit and infrastructure to support these new residents, and I welcome the new businesses and residents the project will serve. I could support efforts to ensure a visually unique and appealing desig… show more

Alex Hinch · email · 2019-06-13 · support · source packet

I support 400 Divisadero
Hello, I<U+2019>d like to register my support for the project at 400 Divisadero. No solution to solving the housing crisis in our great city is complete without more building, and 400 Divisadero is a step in that direction. As a fellow d5 resident, I<U+2019>d love to welcome the new residents to our district that this would bring. Best, Alex Hinch 1626 Pierce Street Apt 404 San Francisco, CA 94115 [… show more

Phillip Kobernick · email · 2019-06-13 · support · source packet

Re: I support 400 Divisadero
As this item has been continued by the Planning Commission, I am continuing my public comment in support of this project. Renters need help. Adding over 180 rental apartments is a small, but crucial part of the relief that we need in San Francisco right now. Please approve this project without delay. Thank you. On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 12:52 PM Phillip Kobernick [email removed]> wrote: Zero displacement? Check. … show more

Curt Mayer · email · 2019-06-13 · oppose · source packet

I do NOT SUPPORT 400 Divisadero
this whole effort is a cynical play on the part of well-heeled out of town developers to take advantage of our housing crisis to make a massive payday, all while destroying the quality of life in this neighborhood. there is not enough parking or transit to support the tremendous increase in density this will cause. NO. I am a resident of this neighborhood, and I vote. --curt mayer

Riley Avron · email · 2019-06-13 · support · source packet

I Support 400 Divisadero
I'd like to express my support for the hopefully uncontroversial conversion of a gas station into 186 sorely needed rental units in our city. I'm a resident of district five and welcome any and all just housing, such as this project. Please approve it. Thank you. -- Riley

Alex Garcia · email · 2019-06-13 · support · source packet

Strong support for housing on 400 Divisadero
It<U+2019>s critical we get more housing in this city. Do not make it impossible to build housing in a city that is sorely lacking it. This project is a step in the right direction for the city. Best, Alex 201 Harrison Street 94105 -- Alex Garcia Call, email, or text with any questions or comments. Cell: [phone removed]

Michael Ducker · email · 2019-06-13 · support · source packet

A neighbor in strong support of 400 Divisadero
Planning Commission, Unfortunately I will be unable to share my remarks in person given the new scheduled time. This is disappointing to me, as I am a local neighbor in strong support of 400 Divisadero. I have many reasons for us to approve this project, now, without further delay: 1. We are in a housing crisis. This project adds hundreds of units at all price points. It has been needlessly and harmfully delaye… show more

Meg Pirnie Kammerud · email · 2019-06-13 · support · source packet

I support 400 Divisadero!
Good morning, I am writing today in support of the project at 400 Divisadero. It is imperative that San Francisco allow the development of new housing throughout the city. We must house the most vulnerable and must protect our middle class. Building more housing is the only way. As a home owner, I am appalled by other haves who fight against growth. Everyone needs a home. SF should not be a playground for only the ri… show more

Mike Pinkowish · email · 2019-06-13 · support · source packet

D5 Support for 400 Divisadero
Hello, I have lived in D5 for over 4 years and San Fransisco for 8 years. As I will be unable to attend the vote for the proposed project in person, I wanted to voice my support for the project. We are in a housing crisis, and I believe the plans for 400 Divisadero should be approved as-is. They represent a meaningful improvement and signal San Francisco's progressive and pragmatic attitude towards addressing th… show more

John Alex Lowell · email · 2019-06-13 · support · source packet

Support for 400 Divisadero with its On-Site Affordable Housing
Dear Planning Commissioners, I am a Hayes Street neighbor since 1995 in full support of the housing construction project at 400- 444 Divisadero Street and 1048-1064 Oak Street as proposed for the following reasons: Empirically I feel 37 units of affordable housing out of 186 units is enough. Note the developer received general approval from members of the Alamo Square Neighborhood Association. Please support this 400… show more

Shelly Sutherland · email · 2019-06-13 · support · source packet

Supporting more housing at 400 Divisadero
Hello, I am emailing my show of support for the project at 400 Divisadero. I live nearby and am a supporter of more housing in our City that lacks housing options for the lower and middle-income levels. Shelly Sutherland

2019-06-20 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

Metro Hotel · email · 2019-06-20 · oppose · source packet

Opposition to 400 Divisadero - Not Enough On-Site Affordable Housing
Dear Planning Commissioners, We are neighbors & business owners (The Metro Hotel) who opposed to the project at 400- 444 Divisadero St and 1048-1064 Oak St as proposed for the following reasons: 1) 37 units of affordable housing out of 186 units is not enough. 2) The project fails to meet neighborhood needs as articulated in the 2016 Affordable Divisadero Community Plan, created by over 500 community members,… show more

2023-07-13 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

Leslie S. · email · 2023-07-13 · oppose · source packet

July 13, 2023 hearing: Record No.: 2015-007816CUA-02 Project Address: 400-444 DIVISADERO STREET AND 1048-1064 OAK STREET
Dear San Francisco Planning Commission: Please find attached our letter and request from Oak Street neighbors in opposition to the application to extend the validity of the project for a period of 3 years. We are emailing this to you today to respectfully request that this letter be made part of the hearing and recorded in the minutes. We request that you and the Commission take into consideration our concerns and gr… Dear San Francisco Planning Commission: Please find attached our letter and request from Oak Street neighbors in opposition to the application to extend the validity of the project for a period of 3 years. We are emailing this to you today to respectfully request that this letter be made part of the hearing and recorded in the minutes. We request that you and the Commission take into consideration our concerns and grant our requests. We will be attending the hearing and will also have a copy of the letter and request. Thank you. Kind regards, Leslie Sullivan Warren Hennig Patrick Lacey Kerry Moller Jiyon Hahn Michael Grimwood Kellie Gater Isaac Johnson Mary Zocca 1 To: Ms. Sylvia Jimenez and SF Planning Commission Date: July 9, 2023 Project Address: 400-444 Divisadero St and 1048-1064 Oak Street Dear Ms. Jimenez and SF Planning Commission, We residents and owners who live on Oak Street, between Divisadero and Scott Street, write you today regarding the Planning Commission<U+2019>s meeting scheduled for Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 1:00 p.m. re: Extension of time of the Conditional Use and Planned Unit Development application (record #2015-007816CUA-02) until June 13, 2025. While we support development of the property, we are opposed to an extension of time. We feel the Owners<U+2019> historical and continuing neglect of and infrequent maintenance of the property have created a public nuisance. California Penal Code (CPC) 371 An act which affects an entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons, as specified in the last section, is not less a nuisance because the extent of the annoyance or damage inflicted upon individuals is unequal. California Public Nuisance Code (CCP) 3480 A public nuisance is defined by California Civil Code Section 3480 as one which affects an entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable number or persons, although the extent of the annoyance or damage inflicted upon individuals may be unequal. S.F. Municipal Health Code 581, 596 prohibiting "public nuisance" S.F. Municipal Health Code 581, 596 prohibiting "public nuisance" on real property "owned, occupied, or controlled by him/her," including "Any accumulation of filth, garbage, decayed or spoiled food, unsanitary debris or waste material, or decaying animal or vegetable matter" and "Any buildings, structures, or portion thereof found to be unsanitary" and "Any matter or material which constitutes, or is contaminated by, animal or human excrement, urine, or other biological fluids"). 2 Since the Touchless Car Wash at 400 Divisadero was partially demolished in 2019, the property has become an eyesore on our neighborhood and a haven for homeless and criminal activity, including: drug dealing, drug use, public intoxication, assault and battery, open fires, littering and garbage dumping, public urination and graffiti. According to SF 3-1-1 records from 2008 to the present, 145 complaints have been filed by the community complaining about the Divisadero/Oak Street property, 102 of those complaints were registered between 2019 to the present. We are unable to get the number of SFPD complaints in time for this meeting. Due to the inadequate fencing installed 4 years ago, garbage dumping and homeless<U+2019> tents appear on a regular basis. In order to be ADA compliant and as such cannot be asked to move, people simply push the fence off the sidewalk and put the tents on the Owner<U+2019>s property. At present, another homeless encampment is growing on their property. (See photos attached showing tents are on the Owner's property.) Under the present circumstances we oppose the extension, unless the Owners agree to actively maintain their property and comply with the following requests: 1. Owners install solid fixed fencing, defining their property line and cannot be adjusted to make room for tents and garbage dumping. (See attached photos pgs. 4 & 5) 2. Weekly property maintenance, i.e., cleaning sidewalks and garbage removal. 3. Removal of the two extra large plastic planters with dead plants, which only serve as open garbage bins and toilets. (See attached photos pgs. 4 & 5) 4. Weed removal from their property behind 1040 Oak Street. (Last time the weeds were removed was last summer of 2022. They are once again overgrown, more than 10 feet tall and are pushing against the new fence. (See photos attached pg. 6)) 3 5. Owners to provide their direct contact information or their representative's information in case we need to contact them regarding their property This is where we live and we want our neighborhood to continue to thrive and be safe and clean. Our community has suffered daily for the last 4 years due to the Owners<U+2019> negligence. We respectfully request that the extension will not be granted unless the requests of our community are met. Thank you, Leslie Sullivan Warren Hennig Patrick Lacey Kerry Moller Jiyon Hahn Michael Grimwood Kellie Gater Isaac Johnson Mary Zocca 4 West facing side view of tents that have been moved partially onto the Owner<U+2019>s property. Now <U+201C>ADA<U+201D> compliant they cannot be asked to leave. Photo taken July 9, 2023 5 East facing side view of tents that have been moved partially onto the Owner<U+2019>s property. Now <U+201C>ADA<U+201D> compliant they cannot be asked to leave. Please note stolen recycle bin. Photo taken July 9, 2023 6 June 2022 Weeds 1040 Oak St - Old Fence. (Area 50 feet deep) June 2023 Weeds and are compromising 1040 Oak - new fence.show more

400-444 Divisadero St AND 1048-1064 Oak St

Hearings

Campaign emails (11)

Comments by hearing (36)