350-352 SAN JOSE AVE

2018-05-03 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

Eddie Stiel · email · 2018-05-03 · oppose · source packet

350-352 San Jose Avenue<U+2014>Notification of Project Receiving Environmental Review, Case No.
2017-015039ENV 2887 Folsom Street San Francisco, CA 94110 May 1, 2018 Megan Calpin San Francisco Planning Department 1650 Mission Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94103 (By email) RE: 350-352 San Jose Avenue<U+2014>Notificati… 2017-015039ENV 2887 Folsom Street San Francisco, CA 94110 May 1, 2018 Megan Calpin San Francisco Planning Department 1650 Mission Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94103 (By email) RE: 350-352 San Jose Avenue<U+2014>Notification of Project Receiving Environmental Review, Case No. 2017-015039ENV Dear Ms. Calpin: I have lived in the Mission District since January, 1992; always a renter, twice no fault evicted (OMI-2004, Ellis Act-2005). My first concern is administrative. The Notification of Project Receiving Environmental Review (NPRER) instructs me to write to you at a [email removed] email address, even though you work for the San Francisco Planning Department. The <U+201C>Planning Application <U+201C> tab on the Property Information Page for 350-352 San Jose Avenue contains your [email removed] email address, so I am sending this letter to both addresses. It seems wrong that people should correspond to city employees and officials to any email address except [email removed]. Likewise, two of the seven Planning Commissioners, Richard Hillis and Rodney Fong, use [email removed] email accounts for correspondence as Planning Commissioners. Because this issue may impact the Freedom of Information Act and the Sunshine Ordinance, I am sending a copy of this letter to the SF Ethics Commission and to the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force to formally inform those agencies so that they can take appropriate action. I have three environmental concerns about this proposed project. First, the new construction will cast new shadow on the adjacent Juri Commons public open space. Second, the project does not provide the required number of off-street parking spaces, leading to increased traffic and street parking congestion. Third, the project density is out of scale to the rest of the street and to the specific part of the Mission District. I also have strong non-environmental objections to this proposed project. Unlike some other NPRER<U+2019>s I have received, this one does not contain a Planning Department staff contact with whom to discuss non- environmental issues. Accordingly, I am sending a copy of this letter to the other Planning Department employees listed on the above noted <U+201C>Planning Application<U+201D> tab--Virnalza Byrd, Elizabeth White and Esmeralda Jardines<U+2014>and to Planning Director John Rahaim and to the Planning Commissioners. The Planning Department should reject this proposed project out of hand because it unnecessarily destroys perfectly habitable rent-controlled apartments leading to the likely permanent evictions of their current residents. Unlike some similar proposals that would lead to <U+201C>renovictions<U+201D>, this one does not combine the existing living space with the proposed new construction. However, the plans show a complete gut rehabilitation of the existing four apartments. All four apartments would undergo complete internal re-orientation. An existing 2 BR becomes a 1 BR, an existing 1 BR becomes a 2 BR, and the other two 1BR<U+2019>s remain 1BR<U+2019>s with a total internal remodel of every room. Clearly, the Property Owner and Project Sponsor are not designing the new apartments for the current occupants. The Rent Ordinance allows for the Temporary Eviction for Capital Improvement (http://sfrb.org/topic-no- 206-temporary-eviction-capital-improvements) with a standard relocation period of 90 days. At the March 22, 2018 Pre-Application Meeting, Project Sponsor Amir Afifi indicated that the proposed construction period would be 12 to 18 months, subverting the intention of the Rent Ordinance. Also at the meeting, the Property Owner disingenuously stated that he had not considered a solution to this <U+201C>problem,<U+201D> which he could avoid if he just left alone the existing apartments. Indeed, the Planning Department should so require. I read the <U+201C>Preliminary Project Assessment<U+201D>, which omits the existence of the current residents. Instead, it focuses on the property rather than on the profound impacts the proposed construction would have on the existing residents; most notably, their likely permanent displacement. The Planning Department has this process all wrong. Your top priority must be to preserve existing rent-controlled apartments and to prevent the eviction, even temporary, of current residents. If 350-352 San Jose Avenue contains developable space allowable under the Zoning Code, then the Project Sponsor and Property Owner can design and build a project without affecting the current apartments and their occupants, once the Planning Department rejects this proposal. Thank you for letting me share my thoughts with you. I look forward to your consideration of the Environmental Impacts of the proposed development at 350-352 San Jose Avenue and to the Planning Department<U+2019>s rejection of it. Sincerely, Edward Stiel Cc: John Rahaim, Director, SF Planning Department SF Planning Commissioners Supervisor Jeff Sheehy San Francisco Ethics Commission Sunshine Ordinance Task Forceshow more

2020-04-09 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

Thomas Schuttish · email · 2020-04-09 · oppose · source packet

Comments for Remote Hearing April 9th Discretionary Review for 350-352 San Jose Avenue
#2017-015039 Dear Commissioners, I support the DR Requestor and his very valid concern over the loss of privacy due to the huge increase in the size and mass and the decks into the rear yard mid-block open space of this large project at 350-352 San Jose Avenue. The tolerances of privacy are pushed beyond what should be acceptable. The adjacent neighbors as well as the DR Requestor deserve a better and a different… #2017-015039 Dear Commissioners, I support the DR Requestor and his very valid concern over the loss of privacy due to the huge increase in the size and mass and the decks into the rear yard mid-block open space of this large project at 350-352 San Jose Avenue. The tolerances of privacy are pushed beyond what should be acceptable. The adjacent neighbors as well as the DR Requestor deserve a better and a different outcome than the current design. But there is also another design issue that needs attention from the Commission. Attached below is a photo taken from historic Juri Commons of the existing rear facade of this A- rated building. Since the rear of the existing building is currently visible from the public right-of-way on Juri Commons (which is the remnant of the old SF/SJ Railroad and a wonderful and unique public open space) and since the expanded building most definitely will be visible from the public right-of-way on Juri Commons, it seems that the fenestration and the decks need a revision to match the age and the quality of the rest of this A-rated building. From the material in the packet, the rear windows and rear doors seem too modern in size and form and the decks and the railings of the decks are not in character and are way, way too large.....the question is: Should there even be decks on the rear facade at all facing Juri Commons? Please compare the photo of the rear with the proposed renderings. The rear decks as proposed are contrary to the age and historic nature of this A-rated building and will definitely be visible from Juri Commons. Please see the photo below of existing conditions as viewed from the public right-of-way on Juri Commons. Certainly the issue of the quality and the type of windows and doors facing a public right-of-way like Juri Commons on the rear facade of an A-rated buildings has been in the news recently and has resonance here for this project as well. This issue is only amplified by the overly large, and potentially unnecessary decks for this A-rated project. If an A-rated building is visible from a public right-of-way, it needs to preserve the attributes that make it an A-rated building. Or replicate them. But to reiterate, I think the DR Requestor has very valid concerns as cited in the Staff Report as being Extraordinary and Exceptional. This needs attention from the Commission to protect the DR Requestor<U+2019>s privacy before approving the major expansion of this A-rated building, located in a very unique and historic slice of San Francisco, an expansion that is visible from not only one public right-of-way on San Jose Avenue, but a second public right-of-way on Juri Commons. Thank you and please take very good care of yourselves in this emergency. This sentiment of course extends to Mr. Winslow as well. Sincerely, Georgia Schuttish Sent from my iPadshow more

2020-04-16 · 9 comments · 1 / 8

Thomas Schuttish · email · 2020-04-16 · oppose · source packet

Comments for Remote Hearing Item # 16 on. April 16th Discretionary Review for 350-352
San Jose Avenue #2017-015039. Dear Commissioners, I am resending my comments again for this DR that was continued from April 9th. Please see below. Thank you. Georgia Schuttish <U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014>&… San Jose Avenue #2017-015039. Dear Commissioners, I am resending my comments again for this DR that was continued from April 9th. Please see below. Thank you. Georgia Schuttish <U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014>-<U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014><U+2014> Dear Commissioners, I support the DR Requestor and his very valid concern over the loss of privacy due to the huge increase in the size and mass and the decks into the rear yard mid-block open space of this large project at 350-352 San Jose Avenue. The tolerances of privacy are pushed beyond what should be acceptable. The adjacent neighbors as well as the DR Requestor deserve a better and a different outcome than the current design. But there is also another design issue that needs attention from the Commission. Attached below is a photo taken from historic Juri Commons of the existing rear facade of this A-rated building. Since the rear of the existing building is currently visible from the public right-of-way on Juri Commons (which is the remnant of the old SF/SJ Railroad and a wonderful and unique public open space) and since the expanded building most definitely will be visible from the public right-of-way on Juri Commons, it seems that the fenestration and the decks need a revision to match the age and the quality of the rest of this A-rated building. From the material in the packet, the rear windows and rear doors seem too modern in size and form and the decks and the railings of the decks are not in character and are way, way too large.....the question is: Should there even be decks on the rear facade at all facing Juri Commons? Please compare the photo of the rear with the proposed renderings. The rear decks as proposed are contrary to the age and historic nature of this A-rated building and will definitely be visible from Juri Commons. Please see the photo below of existing conditions as viewed from the public right-of-way on Juri Commons. Certainly the issue of the quality and the type of windows and doors facing a public right-of- way like Juri Commons on the rear facade of an A-rated buildings has been in the news recently and has resonance here for this project as well. This issue is only amplified by the overly large, and potentially unnecessary decks for this A- rated project. If an A-rated building is visible from a public right-of-way, it needs to preserve the attributes that make it an A-rated building. Or replicate them. But to reiterate, I think the DR Requestor has very valid concerns as cited in the Staff Report as being Extraordinary and Exceptional. This needs attention from the Commission to protect the DR Requestor<U+2019>s privacy before approving the major expansion of this A-rated building, located in a very unique and historic slice of San Francisco, an expansion that is visible from not only one public right-of-way on San Jose Avenue, but a second public right-of-way on Juri Commons. Thank you and please take very good care of yourselves in this emergency. This sentiment of course extends to Mr. Winslow as well. Sincerely, Georgia Schuttish Sent from my iPadshow more

Stephen M. Williams · email · 2020-04-16 · oppose · source packet

Issues With #50-352 San Jose Ave---Request for Continuance and Renotification of Project
David and Corey: On Friday I was contacted by the neighbors of the proposed project at 350-352 San Jose Avenue. I spent the weekend reviewing the Project and its history and I found some real problems with the drawings and notification process that have to be remedied before this goes any further. The Project is slated for a DR Hearing on this Thursday<U+2019>s Planning Commission calendar and I believe it ha… David and Corey: On Friday I was contacted by the neighbors of the proposed project at 350-352 San Jose Avenue. I spent the weekend reviewing the Project and its history and I found some real problems with the drawings and notification process that have to be remedied before this goes any further. The Project is slated for a DR Hearing on this Thursday<U+2019>s Planning Commission calendar and I believe it has to be removed from the calendar and new plans drawn and mailed to the neighbors. Here is what I found and why I believe it has to be reviewed: 1. The 311 mailing was incomplete and did not satisfy the Code. A crucial plan sheet was omitted completely from the set mailed to the community. The south elevation (or <U+201C>left<U+201D> as it is also labeled) was completely omitted from the mailed out packet to the community. When I met with the neighbors (to the south) and tried to understand what was going on it took a long time to understand that their building was not shown in the elevation because that elevation plan sheet (page A-3.2) was completely omitted from the notification. The plan sheets distributed with the Section 311 Notification included only A-1.5; A-2.1; A-2.2; A-2.3; A-2.4; A-3.0; A-3.3 and A-4.1. Failure to include one of the elevations is a fundamental and fatal flaw and requires re-noticeHowever, even if the notification had included that elevation, the elevations as drawn do not meet bare minimum code standards. 2. No plan set for the Project ever has correctly or properly depicted the side elevations; even though the neighbors attempted to engage with the Project Sponsors in a good faith manner, not a single set of plans submitted for this project has ever accurately depicted the neighboring properties or any of the windows, which are the neighbor<U+2019>s primary concern given the proposed new seventy foot (70<U+2019>) horizonal addition;<U+2013> the neighboring buildings are depicted simply as blank boxes. (see attachment hereto).The faulty plans violate Planning Code Section 311(c) (5) (E); (F) & (H) for failure to adequately depict the adjacent properties in the plans and the complete failure to depict any of the many windows, lightwells, doors and other features on those buildings. The second attachment is photos showing the doors, windows and lightwells contained on the neighboring buildings mistakenly omitted from all of the plans. Obviously the Code mandates that <U+201C>each side elevation shall include the full profile of the adjacent building in the foreground of the project, and the adjacent windows, lightwells and general massing shall be illustrated.<U+201D> 3. There are some other real issues with the case as well. It is one of the largest <U+201C>alterations<U+201D> I have seen adding almost 10,000 sq. ft. to the existing historic building and 8 new units. Astounding really with a full new floor under the current building (which will be moved forward on the lot) and a new floor on top of the existing building---an engineering feat that will challenge even the bravest contractor. The rear yard extension is proposed at some 70<U+2019> feet in length based on averaging on a rear yard cottage next door at 374 San Jose Ave. (home of one of the neighbors). The developers claim this building has a qualifying rear wall and that it is 20 feet in height. However, when we measured it with a tape measure from roof to grade it came out as 19<U+2019>2<U+201D>. Not sure how the development team measured the building since they have not had access to the property next door. I have photos of our tape measure and confirmed it is not 20<U+2019>feet in height. At any rate, there are certainly some issues of substance to be discussed as well but given that the plans do not meet the bare minimum required by the code we are asking that the Zoning Administrator require building permit re-notification and create a new review period because the original notification plans do not meet 311 drawing requirements (i.e. showing adjacent fenestration) and the neighbors (and the Commission) need accurate and code-compliant plans to fairly judge this proposal and its impacts on the adjacent buildings.which will be substantial. I have prepared a brief on these issues to submit to the Commission, but given that the plans for the project fall far below the standards, we would prefer that the plans be remedied before review by the Commission. Please let me know at your earliest convenience. Steve Williams Stephen M. Williams Law Office of Stephen M. Williams 1934 Divisadero Street San Francisco, CA 94115 Ph: [phone removed] Fax: [phone removed] Web: stevewilliamslaw.com The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact sender and delete the material from any computershow more

Stephen M. Williams · email · 2020-04-16 · oppose · source packet

RE: Issues With #50-352 San Jose Ave---Request for Continuance and Renotification of
Project David and Corey: May I please have a response one way or the other? I need to file the materials with the Planning Commission if the matter is not going to be continued to have plans drawn that comply with the Code. Steve Williams Stephen M. Williams Law Office of Stephen M. Williams 1934 Divisadero Street San Francisco, CA 94115 Ph: [phone removed] Fax: [phone removed] Web: stevewilliamslaw.com T… show more

Risley Sams · email · 2020-04-16 · support · source packet

Statement in Support of the Discretionary Review 350-352 San Jose Ave
sources. Mr. Winslow, Please find my statement in support of the Discretioanry Review for 350-352 San Jose Ave to be heard on April 16th. I live at 340 San Jose Avenue right next door. Many thanks for your attention to this matter., Risley Sams [phone removed]

Stephen M. Williams · email · 2020-04-16 · oppose · source packet

Neighbor Brief in Support of DR and Opposing Project at 350-352 San Jose Ave---April 16
Hearing #16 President Koppel and Commissioners: Attached is a brief submitted in support of the DR request submitted for the proposed project at 350-352 San Jose Ave. This is submitted as public comment as I do not represent the DR Requestor, Mr. Willis. Please excuse the late submittal but I was first contacted by a neighbor to the south just last Friday. I requested a continuance of the matter from the ZA and… Hearing #16 President Koppel and Commissioners: Attached is a brief submitted in support of the DR request submitted for the proposed project at 350-352 San Jose Ave. This is submitted as public comment as I do not represent the DR Requestor, Mr. Willis. Please excuse the late submittal but I was first contacted by a neighbor to the south just last Friday. I requested a continuance of the matter from the ZA and senior staff because of the irregularities I have found with the plans and the pubic notification procedure but have not received any response to my request. I do not believe this is the type of case that should be heard remotely by the Commission. As set forth in the brief, I believe the neighbors deserve your support in this matter because of the following: 1. The Plans Are NOT Code-Compliant and Omit Basic Mandatory Information Required to Judge the Impacts of the Project<U+2014>the 311 Notification Completely Failed to Include the Southern Elevation (at all) and the Adjacent Properties are Not Correctly Illustrated ---The Side Elevation Plans Do Not Depict the Doors, Windows or Light Wells on the Adjacent Buildings as Required by the Planning Code---the Neighboring Buildings Are Shown as Blank Boxes 2. The Project Eliminates and Luxuriates Naturally Affordable Rent Controlled Housing and the Developers Using Attorney Andrew Zacks, Forced Out Elderly Long-Term Tenants---One Elderly Tenant (40 + Years) Died During the Buy Out Negotiations and the Other Tenant of More Than Ten Years Left---The Developers Grown Children Now Live at the Site---The Project Grossly Violates Every Housing Policy We Have to Retain Affordable Housing 3. The Project is Not Code-Compliant and the 40<U+2019> foot Tall, 70<U+2019> Foot Horizonal Rear Yard Extension (nearly 10,000 sq. ft. of new building) is Absurd for This Modest Neighborhood and the Result of Improper <U+201C>Averaging<U+201D> Under the Code 4. The Project Grossly Violates the Residential Design Guidelines with it Massive Intrusion Into the Mid-Block Open Space, Walls of Windows and 40<U+2019> Foot Height ---Towering over the modest one-story building to the south, Invading Privacy and Blocking Light and the Sight Line to the Mid-Block Open Space..The Dept Specifically Directed the Developers to Reduce the Mass and Rear Extension But That was Ignored. 5. The Project Is Adjacent to a Small City Park (Juri Commons) and it Will Cast Substantial New Net Shadows on the Park and Recreation Open Space 6. For All Intents and Purposes, the Project is a De Facto Demolition with only the Faade of this Important Historic Building being Retained, Lifted, Moved Forward on the Lot and A New Floor Added Underneath and Another on Top 7. All of the Surrounding Neighbors Oppose this Unreasonable and Outrageous Project and Need Your Support---The Dept Was Sent a Petition and Emails of Some 40 Neighbors Opposing the Project But the Analysis Oddly States There is No Opposition. Sincerely, Steve Williams Stephen M. Williams Law Office of Stephen M. Williams 1934 Divisadero Street San Francisco, CA 94115 Ph: [phone removed] Fax: [phone removed] Web: stevewilliamslaw.com The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact sender and delete the material from any computershow more

Jo Babcock · email · 2020-04-16 · oppose · source packet

350 San Jose-Petition #1 & #2
350 San Jose-Petition #1 & #2

Kitty Costello · email · 2020-04-16 · oppose · source packet

Testimony regarding 350-352 San Jose Ave.
Commissioners: I don<U+2019>t know if I will have a way to participate in this virtual hearing, so I am submitting this testimony, and I request that it be read aloud during public commentary on the proposal for 350-352 San Jose Ave. I am co-owner of the property just south of 350-352 San Jose Ave, and my property also adjoins Juri Commons. I implore you to scale down the size of this proposed construction be… Commissioners: I don<U+2019>t know if I will have a way to participate in this virtual hearing, so I am submitting this testimony, and I request that it be read aloud during public commentary on the proposal for 350-352 San Jose Ave. I am co-owner of the property just south of 350-352 San Jose Ave, and my property also adjoins Juri Commons. I implore you to scale down the size of this proposed construction because it will seriously degrade the quality of life for Juri Commons Park and neighbors. 1) First, I protest the fact that this hearing is being held without proper notice to the neighbors who are affected by this tripling of the size of the building at 350-352 San Jose. No notices were posted regarding this virtual hearing, and because of the Covid shelter orders, we are not even able to visit and inform neighbors who will be affected. 2) If we were having this conversation while standing in Juri Commons, rather than looking at plans that don<U+2019>t show the park at all, the harmful impact of this expansion on the park and neighborhood would be obvious. As proposed, the building will be more than twice as tall as the park is wide. The 9 proposed tiered balconies facing the park will give these new residents, and only these residents, an invasive, proprietary view of the park, and will drastically elevate the noise for the park and for all surrounding properties whenever the residents talk out there. 3) There is no affordable housing in the plan which seems more mind-bogglingly short-sighted than ever, especially given the devasting economic impact we are all facing from Covid-19. 4) According to the previous plans for the south-facing edifice, there are 16 windows planned, facing directly toward my property and garden. 16 windows right at my property line! How is this possible? No other buildings here are set up in such an intrusive way with windows looking into and down at other properties. 5) I do not have a problem with the property expanding toward the street. My property would be more affected that anyone else<U+2019>s by this front expansion, and I am okay with it. 6) This one owner at 350-352 is trying to lay claim to the rights of shared space, light, sound and privacy we all share collectively and in a neighborly fashion around Juri Commons. Please don<U+2019>t allow one person<U+2019>s profit to harm our shared quality of life. Please scale this project down! Respectfully submitted, therine Costelloshow more

Stephen M. Williams · email · 2020-04-16 · oppose · source packet

RE: Issues With #350-352 San Jose Ave---Request for Continuance and Renotification of Project
Thanks Corey and I know that your time is at a premium right now.Appreciate if you can get to it before the hearing itself obviously. But the plans are NOT code-compliant and that will be front row center for the Commission I think. One of the side elevations (southSheet A-3.2) was completely omitted from the public mailing (that should be easy for David to confirm) and both of the side elevations fail to show the … show more

Kitty Costello · email · 2020-04-16 · oppose · source packet

Hearing regarding 350-352 San Jose Ave.
Dear Commissioners, Below is my statement regarding the proposed expansion of 350-352 San Jose Ave. But first of all, I protest the way this meeting has been scheduled and is apparently being conducted without any notice to the owners and neighbors whose lives will be adversely impacted by this oversized development next to Juri Commons. I understand that the previous hearing was cancelled due to the pandemic, but no… Dear Commissioners, Below is my statement regarding the proposed expansion of 350-352 San Jose Ave. But first of all, I protest the way this meeting has been scheduled and is apparently being conducted without any notice to the owners and neighbors whose lives will be adversely impacted by this oversized development next to Juri Commons. I understand that the previous hearing was cancelled due to the pandemic, but now it is being planned and conducted in a way that thwarts the neighborhood's intention to participate. Previously there were huge signs put up at the property in question and in the park that adjoins the property, but now, nothing. I only found out that the hearing was happening through a roundabout conversation with a neighbor. This is the opposite of transparent. I have now spent half an hour on the Planning Commission website trying to figure out how to participate live in the meeting (not just passively live-stream or watch after the fact) and I find no link or useful instructions there. In addition, when I talk to other neighbors who have previously sent statements about 350-352 San Jose Ave. to the Planning Department, some of them said they will be unable to participate at all due to not having the electronic means to do so. This meeting setup privileges some neighbors and owners over others and is not inclusive. Below is my statement about the adverse effect the proposed plan for 350-352 San Jose Ave will have on our neighborhood, on Juri Commons and on my property. I implore you to reduce the scale and impact of this plan! STATEMENT FROM CATHERINE COSTELLO, CO-OWNER OF NEXT DOOR PROPERTY AT 374 SAN JOSE, April 8, 2020: I co-own the property immediately to the south of 350-352 San Jose, and my property also adjoins Juri Commons. I have several concerns about the expansion plans for next door. After all the previous commentary given to the Planning Department by myself and my neighbors, it seems little has changed, and in fact the plans for the proposed addition have become even more extensive. I want to say, first, that I do not have a problem with the building being extended further toward the street. My property would be more affected than anyone else<U+2019>s by an addition in the front, and I am not opposed to a street- facing addition. On the whole, building up front is a far less intrusive plan than tripling the size in back where it faces our shared park, Juri Commons. These are my concerns for our neighborhood, our park, and my property: 1) OUT OF SCALE AND OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD <U+2013> We all understand the need for more housing, but what we need is affordable housing, not top-end condos with zero addition of affordable units. This will be even more true after the devastating economic impact of COVID-19. Doubling the number of units in the building would have already been a huge impact for our neighborhood, but tripling the size is completely out of character with the other buildings here. Please scale this down. 2) APPALLING, UNPRECEDENTED IMPACT ON JURI COMMONS <U+2013> The properties that adjoin Juri Commons are all set up so that no one is staring down on people using the park, and no one is looking directly into their neighbors' windows. In the proposed plan, the addition will be more than twice as tall as the park is wide, and the 9 terraced balconies proposed to face Juri Commons will make it so these new owners will have a towering, proprietorial view of everything in the park. How obnoxious. And any time one of them steps out onto their balcony with friends or talks on their phone out there, it will broadcast across the park and all of our properties. Even more obnoxious. Please scale this down. 3) INTRUSIVE PLACEMENT OF WINDOWS <U+2013> The last time a revised set of plans was sent out, I couldn't for the life of me find any drawing or view that showed the windows that are proposed on the south side that faces my property and yard. In the previous plans, there were 16 windows proposed to face my property. How is this possible? Every other property around here is either set way back, or there are no significant windows facing others' properties. If the plans are the same as before, there would be a huge edifice of windows looking down on me in my currently-private garden. Please scale this down. 4) DEGRADING QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ALL PROPERTIES THAT ADJOIN JURI COMMONS. The owner of 350-352 San Jose Ave. wants to take away the open space on their own property and then enjoy looking down on the park and on everyone else's open space and property, while we have an intrusive, noisy edifice degrading our shared quality of life. Please scale this down. As it stands, the planned addition will cause much harm to the quality of life on our block and in our park, and any benefits will not accrue to the neighborhood. The benefit will be primarily to line the pockets of one owner. The owner's plan is a guarantee that no matter who might move into a building that big and intrusive, everyone in the neighborhood will automatically feel unwelcoming toward them. How can one owner's profit be more important than the qualities of neighborliness we now share around our "commons?" Please reduce the size and impact of the proposed structure, especially the part that faces Juri Commons! Kind regards, Catherine Costello 374 San Jose Ave.show more

2020-07-30 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

Jo Babcock · email · 2020-07-30 · oppose · source packet

Reject - 350 San Jose
to: Joel Koppel, President SF Planning Commission Re: DR Hearing <U+2013> September 24 *Send the sketch for 350 San Jose Avenue back to the drawing board! It<U+2019>s too long, too wide, too tall and an insult to our neighborhood *Make the condos smaller; studio size (like mine) *Maintain setbacks and avoid <U+201C>massing<U+201D> (Planning Dept UDAT notes to architect, 20… show more

2020-08-27 · 10 comments · 0 / 10

Tanya Bashaw · email · 2020-08-27 · oppose · source packet

Protect Juri Commons and our community
Dear SF Planning Commissioners: Please protect Juri Commons Park and our Mission District neighborhood. The new owner/investor at 350 San Jose only seems interested in making money and destroying our park & community. Please don<U+2019>t let this happen. Reject SIA<U+2019>s oversized plan. Make the new building smaller with affordable units (not so tall). We enjoy the open park space, the sunlight and… show more

Isabel Delgadillo-Romo · email · 2020-08-27 · oppose · source packet

Juri Commons
As a former librarian in the neighborhood, I would like to add my comments regarding the project at 350 San Jose Avenue. Thank you for your consideration.

Andrew Leichman · email · 2020-08-27 · oppose · source packet

Please stop 350-352 Luxury Development!
Please fairly assess the unreasonable plans for the huge development project planned for 350-352 San Jose Ave and preserve some quality of life for our neighborhood residents. Everyone agrees we need more housing in SF, but to keep building unaffordable luxury dwellings for the very rich hardly answers these needs. Here we are in August 2020, with so many people leaving San Francisco, on San Jose Ave alone, between 2… show more

Salty Fog · email · 2020-08-27 · oppose · source packet

Re: Proposed monstrocity / 350-352 San Jose Ave / building permit application no
#2018.0403.5430 I am against this project in its current form. Please scale this mega-development down to the size of adjacent buildings, anything larger is an affront to the neighborhood. Noted problems with project are many, including: Too large of a building proposed, too many units, too many stories, Excessively disruptive to neighborhood peace and quiet traffic / congestion / safety inadequate str… show more

Elisabeth Krainer · email · 2020-08-27 · oppose · source packet

350 San Jose Avenue
My name is Elisabeth and I live at 376 San Jose Avenue. There<U+2019>s been a lot of opposition to the proposal for 350 San Jose, but the Planning Dept has not listened to our neighborhood. We<U+2019>ve actively opposed the plan for the past 2 years. We know they<U+2019>re going to build something at the 350 site, but as our spokesman, Stephen Williams pointed out; <U+201C>their current prop… show more

Ellen Dorsey Pargeter · email · 2020-08-27 · oppose · source packet

350 San Jose Ave. plans for balconies
8/25/20 SF Planning Commission 1650 Mission Street; Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94103 NO BALCONIES The plans for 350 San Jose are too big and will have negative impacts on Juri Commons and neighbors. In the Planning Department<U+2019>s own documents, they encouraged adding common open space for residents at 350 San Jose, and they told the developer, <U+201C> terraces or decks are not recommended.… show more

Kitty Costello · email · 2020-08-27 · oppose · source packet

Opposition to proposed expansion at 350 San Jose Avenue
Dear Planning Department Commission and Staff and Supervisor Mandelman, I have owned and lived at the property immediately south of 350 San Jose Ave since 1994. I am a retired SF city employee. I worked for over 30 years for the SF Public Library, frequently helping city residents to maneuver their way around the maze of city departments and documents. I am alarmed by the way this approval process has gone and by… Dear Planning Department Commission and Staff and Supervisor Mandelman, I have owned and lived at the property immediately south of 350 San Jose Ave since 1994. I am a retired SF city employee. I worked for over 30 years for the SF Public Library, frequently helping city residents to maneuver their way around the maze of city departments and documents. I am alarmed by the way this approval process has gone and by the nasty impact this proposed development would have on Juri Commons and this entire inner-block area, creating a visual, sound and privacy nuisance. I was especially distressed to learn that in preparation for the last Discretionary Review, the Planning Commission received materials claiming there is no neighborhood opposition to this project. Many neighbors have called and written, including me. How did our voices and concerns get erased? After taking our input in 2018 and reviewing the proposal, the Planning Department instructed the developer to reduce the height, depth and mass of this project because it didn<U+2019>t comply with the Residential Design Guidelines. They also stated a requirement for open space on the property, and that <U+201C>terraces and decks are not recommended<U+201D> for creating open space. (See UDAT meeting notes 10/12/18.) The developer resubmitted plans that were even bigger, with 9 tiered balconies dominating and overshadowing Juri Commons. Plus, the new proposal misrepresented or omitted the impact on adjoining properties and was missing required views. For instance, there was no view showing the side of the building that will face my property, so there was no way to evaluate the impact this 4-story structure might have on my one-story bungalow next door. How did the Planning Department turn around and approve this bigger proposal when it went against its own recommendations? And why am I and my neighbors forced to spend tens of thousands of dollars on DRs and lawyer fees to get the Planning Department to follow through on its own recommendations, or even to assure it has received the documents required to properly evaluate the project? Not to mention the underhanded way the developer is trying to get rid of affordable rental units and replace them with luxury condos. Isn<U+2019>t that illegal? This monstrosity will cast an enormous shadow on Juri Commons, the only recreation spot around here for almost a mile radius. Putting in any balconies facing Juri Commons will be an enormous visual and noise nuisance for the whole inner block. There are hardly any balconies in this inner-block space, and when even one person starts being loud or inconsiderate out there, it is a horrible disturbance to everyone<U+2019>s peace. And you want to let them put in 9 balconies? It<U+2019>s outrageous. The building and balconies would tower over Juri Commons which is currently being renovated ($1.7 million worth of renovations), and as proposed, the residents at 350 San Jose would be staring directly down from their balconies onto the newly installed children<U+2019>s play area. What an intrusive set-up for parents and kids who use the park. No one else<U+2019>s property intrudes on the shared inner-block space, peace and privacy like this proposed expansion would. Please adhere to your own staff<U+2019>s recommendations. Scale this thing way down. Keep rental units. And get rid of those balconies! Thank you. Sincerely, Catherine Costello 374 San Jose Ave.show more

Robin Germain · email · 2020-08-27 · oppose · source packet

Mini Monster in the Mission
I am writing to you to express my very real dismay in regards to the massive development project planned for 350-352 San Jose Ave. I live in this neighborhood, and have for some years. This street is residential, quiet, and boasts one of the few natural green spaces in the Mission, Juri Commons. I am alarmed that more luxury housing is going to be built, in view of the extreme saturation of totally unaffordable ap… I am writing to you to express my very real dismay in regards to the massive development project planned for 350-352 San Jose Ave. I live in this neighborhood, and have for some years. This street is residential, quiet, and boasts one of the few natural green spaces in the Mission, Juri Commons. I am alarmed that more luxury housing is going to be built, in view of the extreme saturation of totally unaffordable apartments continuing to spring up throughout the Mission and Noe Valley. On our street alone I can count about a dozen empty apartments, or apartments that are being used for short-term rentals, corporate housing, or Airbnb, which do not provide any needed housing for SF residents. The fact that another for- profit, luxury development is being pushed through is wrong, catering to excessive Greed on the part of the developers. This project is huge; originally a modest 4 unit historic building, 8 additional units are to be built, complete with a luxury penthouse, all cramped into a tiny space. Please consider the already overwhelming density of our neighborhood. As we have now entered this new era of the Covid-19 pandemic, where social distancing is the new normal, overcrowding for profit is not a reasonable nor desirable option. We must prioritize the greater needs of public health. Further, this giant structure will dominate over the Juri Commons park and nearby apartments, creating shadow, blocking sunlight and air, adding noise & congestion to an already overly densely populated residential area. The spirit of Juri Commons, which has been to provide the neighborhood with an accessible, picturesque, walk through green space would be completely subjugated by this overwhelming, massive structure. There will be years of dust, dirt, noise, & debris that will occur during demolition and then later construction. I urge you to advocate for the health and safety of the residents of this neighborhood & put a stop to this ridiculous project. Sincerely, Robin E. Germainshow more

Marnie Schneider · email · 2020-08-27 · oppose · source packet

Construction on San Jose Ave
AFFORDABLE HOUSING ? My name is Marnie. I live across the street from 350 San Jose Avenue and I OPPOSE the current project! I need affordable housing in this city. Taking away rental units and adding big, fancy, condos is only of benefit for the developer and a few new owners and makes the neighborhood and the city less and less affordable. How can you let them remove rental units when there<U+2019>s woefully… show more

Isabel Diamond · email · 2020-08-27 · oppose · source packet

Regarding proposed development at 350 San Jose Ave
The SF Planning Department is supposed to protect our neighborhoods, correct? But instead of protecting <U+201C>the people of San Francisco<U+201D> the department seems to be favoring the interests of Real Estate companies and millionaire investors. The building proposal for 350 San Jose Avenue should have never gotten this far! The proposal is too big for our street. The oversized building would shadow… show more

2020-09-03 · 3 comments · 0 / 3

Dan Ake · email · 2020-09-03 · oppose · source packet

Juri Commons
9/2/20 re: 350 San Jose Ave, SF building proposal Why is it suddenly okay for one owner to drastically alter the visual and sound space and to build condos that look down on neighbors and a public park? Those of us whose residences face the inner block area and Juri Commons have shared this visual and sound space with a lot of consideration. The new owner is clueless about the civility we have here. Please se… show more

Brian Seitz · email · 2020-09-03 · oppose · source packet

I am opposed to 350-52 San Jose Avenue, San Francisco, 94110
Dear Planning Commissioners & SF Planning Board: As I understand it: Juri Commons park was established in 1976 by the SF Park & Rec Department to protect a narrow strip of old railroad land from any future development. This all happened after neighbors and City politicians had the wisdom to clean up the derelict property and transform it into an enjoyable community space. As an official public park the pro… show more

Renay Davis · email · 2020-09-03 · oppose · source packet

350 San Jose Avenue, S.F.
Dear Commissioners: I am writing in opposition to the development at 350 San Jose Avenue. We do not need and cannot handle any more displacement of working class people from our City. And now is not the time for more luxury units when thousands of people are facing eviction because they've lost their jobs. If the property must be developed, then it should be developed into units affordable to low income an… show more

2020-09-10 · 3 comments · 0 / 3

Douglas Salin · email · 2020-09-10 · oppose · source packet

350 San Jose Ave... Opposition
9/2/20 Dear Commissioners of the San Francisco Planning Dept: Please don<U+2019>t allow the new owner of 350 San Jose Ave to wreck Juri Commons Park! REJECT their current proposal which features luxury condos in the Mission District. Luxury condos don<U+2019>t fit into our neighborhood. The current plan is too large, upper-class and misconceived. The new owner and his architect don<U+2019>t se… show more

Sarah Hickman Emmott · email · 2020-09-10 · oppose · source packet

350 San Jose Ave. from 7 Juri St.
To the Planning Department: My family with young kids and I live next to Juri Commons Park at 7 Juri St. and we oppose the plan to build an oversized condo development at 350 San Jose Ave. It is an affront to everyone else who lives here and tries to coexist in this small inner block space. The existing properties that face the park do not have windows or balconies that loom over the park like this proposal does… show more

Daniel Gill · email · 2020-09-10 · oppose · source packet

Protect Juri Commons
Hello, I am writing to request that you please help to protect Juri Commons and its neighbors. Don<U+2019>t approve the development proposal for 350-352 San Jose Ave. the way it is. The whole thing is out of touch with our new reality and the huge exodus from San Francisco that<U+2019>s been going on since COVID. Many indicators say that for tech companies, the shift to remote working will be permanent an… show more

2020-09-17 · 13 comments · 1 / 12

Brendan Duong · email · 2020-09-17 · oppose · source packet

No to Unaffordable housing at 350 San Jose
To the Planning Department Staff and Commissioners and Supervisor Mandelman: I<U+2019>m writing to ask that you endeavor to allowing the construction of luxury housing at 350 San Jose. In addition I believe that a moratorium needs to be put on building any more unaffordable units citywide. As we are all painfully aware, there are entirely too many people are living on the edge of homelessness now, and it w… show more

Jerome B Bernal · email · 2020-09-17 · oppose · source packet

350 San Jose Ave
9/14/20 RE: 350 San Jose Avenue Dear SF Planning Commissioners, After two years of controversy, I was shocked and distressed to learn that the Planning Commissioners received materials during the last DR Hearing stating that there was <U+201C>no neighborhood opposition<U+201D> to this project. That is totally inaccurate. Several neighbors phoned and wrote opposition emails to the SF Planning Dep… show more

Susie Smith · email · 2020-09-17 · oppose · source packet

350-352 San Jose Avenue
Hello- I am writing in regards to the project at 350-352 San Jose Avenue. I am a 21 year resident and renter in San Francisco, 15 of those years here in Noe Valley. After looking at this project proposal, and knowing that 4 rent-controlled units are to be replaced with 12 luxury units, I was moved to voice my objection to this development. It is obscenely large for the site, will severely impact the whole neighborhoo… Hello- I am writing in regards to the project at 350-352 San Jose Avenue. I am a 21 year resident and renter in San Francisco, 15 of those years here in Noe Valley. After looking at this project proposal, and knowing that 4 rent-controlled units are to be replaced with 12 luxury units, I was moved to voice my objection to this development. It is obscenely large for the site, will severely impact the whole neighborhood<U+2019>s enjoyment of the juri commons, and is not in keeping with the city and specifically this neighborhood<U+2019>s need for affordable housing. On a personal note: Many of my neighbors are home owners who were able to buy 15-30 years ago on working salaries, after renting in the neighborhood. I wanted the same for myself, but instead see these smaller affordable homes torn down one by one only to be replaced with gigantic single family homes and luxury condos, which sit empty. On my block of 29th Street a smaller Edwardian was recently torn down, and replaced with a 6000sq ft $4M mansion, which has not sold and reportedly is going into foreclosure. I know my landlord would love to charge more for our unit, and honestly we would love to invest in our first home with the amount we<U+2019>ve been able to save for a down payment, but the homes in SF in our price range have disappeared. Continuing this pattern of tearing down affordable rental units and starter homes for luxury developments is exacerbating a horrible income divide, hurting middle and lower income residents, and hurting landlords. It upsets me tremendously to learn that not only is this site wrong for the neighborhood in every way, but the assigned planner knew that that the long-term renters of the location were harassed/cajoled to move, and did nothing to stop the proposed project. I understand it must be difficult to be a planner constantly facing these developments all over the city and one might become inured to the bad behavior of these speculators. Likely you all on the planning commission have also read and heard thousands of letters just like this. However, with the impacts of COVID leading to tech exodus, declining rents, and the community value for shared open air space, I urge you to see this project for what it is: a project that is out of place and does not reflect the current needs of San Francisco. Please stop rewarding bad behavior of speculators like this and reject the proposed project at 350-352 San Jose Avenue that will be before you next week. Thank you- Susannah Smithshow more

Helen Jones · email · 2020-09-17 · oppose · source packet

Too big
9/13/20 re: 350 San Jose Avenue Dear SF Planning Commissioners, I am strongly opposed to the above mentioned project going forward. This proposed monstrosity is not suitable for this neighborhood and will have detrimental impact upon residents lives. The proposed height will take it much higher than the existing buildings and will certainly become a light issue for Juri Park and the adjoining properties. The incr… show more

Helen Jones · email · 2020-09-17 · oppose · source packet

Make it smaller.
Dear Planning Commissioners: re: Case No: 2017-015039DRP 350-52 San Jose Avenue What happened to the 4 rent controlled apartments at 350-52 San Jose Ave? Where are the <U+201C>low income<U+201D> units in their proposal? A seventy foot rear extension, plus a fifteen foot front extension? The builder<U+2019>s LUXURY proposal is 3x larger than other buildings on our street. We need… show more

Christine Schilling · email · 2020-09-17 · oppose · source packet

350 San Jose Ave
9/2/20 Dear Planning Commissioners: In reference to: 350 San Jose Avenue My name is Christine Schilling and I am next to the easway of 350 San Jose Avenue. I was appalled to learn during the last Discretionary Review, that the Planning Commissioners received materials saying there was <U+201C>no neighborhood opposition<U+201D> to the 350 proposal. This is false as there were many members on the call… 9/2/20 Dear Planning Commissioners: In reference to: 350 San Jose Avenue My name is Christine Schilling and I am next to the easway of 350 San Jose Avenue. I was appalled to learn during the last Discretionary Review, that the Planning Commissioners received materials saying there was <U+201C>no neighborhood opposition<U+201D> to the 350 proposal. This is false as there were many members on the call in fact over 50 and we did not get to voice our opinion. In addition to the letters and made phone calls to Esmeralda Jardines and David Winslow voicing their opposition to the 350 plan, we are concerned that the proper processes and procedures within the county were not obeyed. We plan to look into this further. According to UDAT meeting notes from 10/12/18, the Planning Department told the developer to reduce the height, depth and mass of their plan to be in line with Residential Design Guidelines, and to add open space on the property. These recommendations were in line with the concerns of neighbors. And legally, Juri Commons should not have any additional shadowing at all because it is an <U+201C>exceptional<U+201D> circumstance, (a public park). Then the developers came back with an even bigger proposal, including a bunch of balconies that were <U+201C>not recommended<U+201D> by the Planning Department, and the bigger plan is approved, this does not prove to voice the concerns of the community at large. We want a shorter, smaller, 2-story plan with 5<U+2019> setbacks on both the North and South side easements. This is extremely important to me because we live near the property line on the ground floor. Without these recommended setbacks, my privacy as a woman will be violated. My safety is my main concern when you allow them to take over our easement that we have had for decades. This creates a security issue for myself and my family. Please use your power to understand my voice as a female with a family who will have continued security issues from the approval of the project. Enforce your own recommendations and reduce the size and impact of this project. Thank you, Christine Schilling 340 San Jose Ave [email removed]show more

Anastasia Yovanopoulos · email · 2020-09-17 · oppose · source packet

For the record re: DR-350-352 San Jose Avenue
Dear Commission President Joel Koeppel and fellow Planning Commissioners, For the record, in advance of the September 24th, 2020 DR hearing here is a listing of the "Pre Buyout Negotiations Disclosure Forms" and the "Owner Move In Eviction" the San Francisco Rent Board has on file for property address 350-352 San Jose Avenue. Buyout Declarations 1). Wednesday Feb. 21, 2018 B 180 575D. A… show more

Chris Roche · email · 2020-09-17 · oppose · source packet

Opposition to Proposed Development at 350-352 San Jose Avenue in S.F.
9/14/20 San Francisco Planning Commission: Everything about the proposed demolition and expansion of 350-352 San Jose Avenue is tone-deaf to the property and to our neighborhood. The project needs to be reduced in size and impact! Regarding the historic nature of the 350 building, the main reason it is historically interesting is because of the passageway that goes under the building from the front to the… show more

Annie Jiao · email · 2020-09-17 · oppose · source packet

Scaling down 350 San Jose Plan
To: The Planning Department and Commissioners Re: Scaling down 350 San Jose Plan I'm a resident of 23 Juri St and I support a downsize of the development at 350 San Jose Avenue. It would be an intrusion for the rest of the properties that face Juri Commons inner- block area. Presently, all the properties that border Juri Commons are set up at diagonal angles so that neighbors are not staring at each other, a… show more

Anastasia Yovanopoulos · email · 2020-09-17 · oppose · source packet

Buyout declarations: DR-350-352 San Jose Avenue
Dear Commission President Joel Koeppel and fellow Planning Commissioners, Re: 350 352 San Jose Avenue The SF Tenants Union brings documentary evidence pertaining to the tenants who lived in the building at 350 352 San Jose Avenue from the SF Rent Board to your attention in advance of the DR hearing on September 24th, 2020. Buyout declarations re: tenants in rent controlled unit #1 and #3. Filed in May 2017 by … show more

Risley Sams · email · 2020-09-17 · oppose · source packet

Proposed 350 San Jose Project
September 12, 2020 Re: Opposition to proposed 350 San Jose Avenue project Dear Planning Commissioners: My name is Risley Sams, I live with Christine Schilling at 340 San Jose Avenue who sent you a letter earlier, voicing her strong opposition to this monstrosity of a project. I too live on the bottom floor of 340 San Jose Ave right next to the easement that runs between my building and 350 San Jose Avenue. I … September 12, 2020 Re: Opposition to proposed 350 San Jose Avenue project Dear Planning Commissioners: My name is Risley Sams, I live with Christine Schilling at 340 San Jose Avenue who sent you a letter earlier, voicing her strong opposition to this monstrosity of a project. I too live on the bottom floor of 340 San Jose Ave right next to the easement that runs between my building and 350 San Jose Avenue. I too was appalled to learn during the last Discretionary Review, that the Planning Commissioners received materials saying there was <U+201C>no neighborhood opposition<U+201D> to the 350 proposal. This is false as there were many members on the call that day, myself included. My name is on the original DR filed opposing this project and I stand fervently against this project along with numerous other neighborhood constituents. In addition to the letters and made phone calls to Esmeralda Jardines and David Winslow voicing their opposition to the 350 plan; we are concerned that the proper processes and procedures within the county were not obeyed. We demand that you look into this issue further and we had to hire an attorney to represent many of us affected by this project to protect us from the planning department<U+2019>s procedural failures in this project. According to UDAT meeting notes from 10/12/18, the Planning Department told the developer to reduce the height, depth, and mass of the developer<U+2019>s plan to be in line with Residential Design Guidelines, and to add open space on the property. These recommendations were in line with the concerns of neighbors. And legally, Juri Commons should not have any additional shadowing at all because it is an <U+201C>exceptional<U+201D> circumstance, (a public park). Then the developers came back with an even larger proposal, including a bunch of balconies that were <U+201C>not recommended<U+201D> by the Planning Department, and the bigger plan was approved! The temerity displayed by the developers in this move not only shows that they do not respect their community neighbors but the Planning Department as well. Obviously, the community at large was neglected in this decision and we cannot believe the project was allowed to move forward in the process. As the closest neighbor to the project living with my Fiance, we want a shorter, smaller, 2- story plan with 5<U+2019> setbacks on both the North and South side easements. This is extremely important to me because we live near the property line on the ground floor which shares the easement and the plans call for an entrance door directly across from our bedroom window! Without these recommended setbacks, our privacy is dramatically affected. Furthermore, strange people will be using our front steps and easement as an entryway to their units which poses a serious safety issue. Safety is my main concern when you allow them to take over our easement that we have had for decades this creates a security issue for myself and my family. Furthermore, our backyard which runs along Juri Commons that enjoys lovely afternoon sunshine will be completely shadowed by this project. It will ruin the sun that comes into my kitchen and alter the quality of life we enjoy. We ask you to enforce your own recommendations and reduce the size and impact of this project. I have lived in my place at 340 San Jose Avenue for nearly 14 years and it is home for me. This project next door if it proceeds as planned will radically alter that. Thank you, Risley Sams Risley Sams 340 San Jose Ave [email removed]show more

Stephen M. Williams · email · 2020-09-17 · support · source packet

Brief in Support of Discretionary Review Request 350-352 San Jose Avenue ; Hearing Date:
September 24, 2020 President Koppel and Commissioners: I am forwarding to your attention a Brief in Support of the Discretionary Review Application for the proposed project at 350-352 San Jose Ave Street --- I represent one of the adjacent neighbors to the south, DR Requestor Elizabeth Kranier. The Parties are working hard on a possible settlement, however if an agreement cannot be reached we hope to win the Co… show more

Elaine Elinson · email · 2020-09-17 · oppose · source packet

Proposed condo adjacent to Juri Commons
Dear Planning Commission Members and Staff: As a Bernal Heights neighbor who often enjoys walking and resting in the park of Juri Commons, I am writing to ask you to reject the proposed condo building that would intrude so rudely on tiny Juri Commons, a special place that so many families, kids and seniors count on for sun and relaxation. This plan for condos at 350 San Jose is all wrong for our community. It is … show more

2020-10-01 · 3 comments · 0 / 3

Joe Butler · email · 2020-10-01 · oppose · source packet

350 San Jose Avenue Discretionary review 24 IX 2020
24 September 2020 President Koppel San Francisco Planning Commission Vice President Moore Members of the Commission via e-mail RE 350 San Jose Avenue Dear President Koppel; and members of the Commission: My name is F. Joseph Butler, I am an architect and member emeritus of the AIA. I represent the Little House Committee in this case. The Nunemacher/Cassidys' penchant for guardianship of the City's… 24 September 2020 President Koppel San Francisco Planning Commission Vice President Moore Members of the Commission via e-mail RE 350 San Jose Avenue Dear President Koppel; and members of the Commission: My name is F. Joseph Butler, I am an architect and member emeritus of the AIA. I represent the Little House Committee in this case. The Nunemacher/Cassidys' penchant for guardianship of the City's Category A Historic Resources is long, and ugly. The preservation community's experiences with either, and/or both gentlemen allegedly include: suspicious fires, showing up to demolish without permit, structural degradation to declare buildings unsafe, 'insider' DBI look the other way privileges, fraudulent CALOSHA claims for non-work related injuries, fraudulent restraining order applications to SF County Sheriff, perjury in Judicial Hearing to enforce or dismiss Restraining Order. I see in the Case report that they allegedly aggressively bought out their tenants, off the record of course, because they know the rules all too well. And I wonder who put out the fraudulent notice under the Planning Department's letterhead during the CEQA comment period? But they are only business partners, so who knows which may allegedly have done what? Newer Planning Commissioners may not recall the illegal demolition of Willis Polk's Judge Selden Wright House c. 1904 at 845 Chestnut Street, or that it took John Rahaim's Staff 6 months to drive one mile to respond to a neighbor's complaint. Since then we have encouraged the Planning Department to hire a Structural Engineer to evaluate both Site Permit Application's Section 317 demolition calcs, as well as reviewing Addenda to Site Permits, that had promised preservation for Staff and your approval, but are structurally designed later to demolish the Historic Resource. For Category A Resources it matters little whether the demolition is tantamount as at 350 San Jose, or completely demolished, as at 845 Chestnut. Simply moving a Category A Historic Resource strips it of its historic significance, in the eyes of the Department you govern. Ask your Staff, if one applies to register a building on a City or State historic resources list, if it has been moved; across town, or only 8 feet, it is generally denied. Siting, Context, Association with events or persons of interest to the City or the State of California, and the degree to which the building still conveys its significance to that period are among the elements of integrity that must be established. In the case of 350, it is Category A simply because it checks all the integrity boxes as a resource.However, in my expert opinion, this project erases Siting and context in an 8 foot slide forward, unnecesary to a rational development here. This project not only ignores, but shades the railroad right of way, now a Park, which ties this building to events important to the area. The original facade, which still conveys the connection to the time of its construction in its style and original materials extant. Inevitable new windows, and a vertical addition visible from a two street rights of way, both doom the ability of this Resource to convey its period of significance. This resulting negative adverse effect renders an Historic Resource today, into a billboard for the continuing neglect for such resources by this Department. Cheaters never prosper, but you can row against that tide and approve the demolition of this splendid example of the City we once were, where elder tenants were protected in their homes, where Historic Resources were protected, where the rules were learned by gentlemen to be abided, not derided. Sincerely, Joe -- F. Joseph Butler, AIA Emeritus 324 Chestnut Street San Francisco, CA 94133 [phone removed]show more

Kitty Costello · email · 2020-10-01 · oppose · source packet

Opposition statement -- 350-352 San Jose Ave.
Dear Commissioners: My name is Catherine Costello, and I reside at and own property next door to 350 San Jose, immediately south of it. I am retired from the City and County of San Francisco after 30 years of service, and I plan to live another 30 years right where I am, God willing. This proposal, as it is, would have an enormous and completely avoidable negative impact on me and on everyone whose homes face Jur… Dear Commissioners: My name is Catherine Costello, and I reside at and own property next door to 350 San Jose, immediately south of it. I am retired from the City and County of San Francisco after 30 years of service, and I plan to live another 30 years right where I am, God willing. This proposal, as it is, would have an enormous and completely avoidable negative impact on me and on everyone whose homes face Juri Commons and this inner block area. This builder has shown less than zero consideration for the building<U+2019>s impact on neighbors. For 2 years they continually submitted plans to your department that distorted or omitted the impact on neighboring properties, until we had to hire a lawyer even to get to a starting point where your department had the correct information and legally-required documents to make your assessment. It is very distressing that it all would have sailed through without us doing that. These builders do not act in good faith. Every time they are asked to consider the impact on others, they offer something worse. We are counting on you to bring some ethics to bear in this situation because they are not the kind of people who are capable of bringing it themselves. No one is trying to stand in the way of added housing. Twelve units can be built without it being a menace to all the other homes here and without towering over and spying down on Juri Commons Park and its newly renovated children<U+2019>s play area. All I am asking is that you stand by and enforce your department<U+2019>s own excellent recommendations, specifically to decrease the mass of the building and to add open space without using terraces or decks. Even one added deck would be a terrible noise and privacy nuisance for the whole inner block. Nine decks facing Juri Commons would ruin the sight and sound environment in this incredibly sweet and treasured block of San Francisco, not to mention that they would stare directly down on the children<U+2019>s play area. How creepy! Please imagine this for yourselves and see that it is wrong. It doesn<U+2019>t have to happen, and you can fix it easily. I personally am aware of 58 emails and letters that have been written to you from residents asking that you reduce the size and impact of this proposal. I pray that city politics have not reached a point where one developer can come in and call their own shots, while everyone who lives here has no say. I hope you won<U+2019>t ignore the voices of a SFUSD teacher, an 8th generation San Franciscan whose family has lived alongside Juri Commons for 3 generations, a City College teacher, a disabled veteran, the longtime head librarian at the Mission Branch library, our SF poet laureate Kim Shuck, and a whole bunch of others. Please scale this project down and don<U+2019>t allow balconies that will ruin the privacy and peace of this inner block area and of our little jewel of a park that provides refuge for so many people. Respectfully, Catherine Costelloshow more

Anna Sears · email · 2020-10-01 · oppose · source packet

Development at 350-352 San Jose
This development will provide luxury housing for a few privileged residents in a predominately working class, heavily minority (Latinx mostly) population who, with the current pandemic, are disproportionately either unemployed, or employed as low wage <U+201C>essential workers,<U+201D> often less than full-time. Not only will this project dramatically change the character of the neighborhood, but it will … This development will provide luxury housing for a few privileged residents in a predominately working class, heavily minority (Latinx mostly) population who, with the current pandemic, are disproportionately either unemployed, or employed as low wage <U+201C>essential workers,<U+201D> often less than full-time. Not only will this project dramatically change the character of the neighborhood, but it will completely nullify the usefulness to the community of the adjacent mini-park Juri Commons. The building is designed to be 4 stories (40<U+2019>) tall and to be built as close as possible to the fence on the south side of park. The symbolism of upper class persons literally looking down from their balconies on the current users of the park speaks for itself. There are no affordable units, let alone low-income units, in the project so it will perforce exclude virtually everyone currently living in the immediate neighborhood. Even more ridiculous is that, as the park is no more than about 20<U+2019> wide at the widest point, this proposed building will overshadow Juri Commons for most of the day at any time of year. Given that the City is currently spending a good deal of money to refurbish the park with greenery and plants, why would the City approve a plan to kill off this same plant life through lack of sunlight? (Some areas of the park, currently projected to be planted, would receive no sunlight at all at any time of day during any season if this building is constructed.) Currently the park<U+2019>s users include children from nearby schools and daycare facilities as well as those living in the neighborhood. These children (as well as the elderly users like myself) appreciate being out in the sunshine even on chilly days. It seems beyond cruel to deprive them of this simple pleasure for the profit of developers who could surely recoup their investment with a much more modest structure and one that does not cast a shadow on a beautiful neighborhood resource. Finally, the proposed demolition of the historic 19th Century structure at 350 San Jose (sparing only the facade) is deeply depressing as it would necessarily destroy the carriage entrance to the rear of the property. This feature may be present in other residential buildings in San Francisco, but none have come to my attention in nearly 50 years of residence in this city. In sum, a project that remodeled the interior of 350 San Jose and used the rear area for construction of a few units with a strict height limit, including perhaps 50% affordable and low income units, might be an acceptable use of the land that would add to housing stock without destroying valuable neighborhood resources and depriving future generations of a much-needed source of comfort and relaxation. Sincerely, Eric Fain 37 year resident at Cesar Chavez and Guerrero, 1 block from Juri Commons Sent from my iPadshow more

350-352 SAN JOSE AVE

Hearings

Comments by hearing (44)