425 BROADWAY

2017-015678 · 425 BROADWAY

31comments

13in person

18emails

5hearings

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

Hearings

approved continued denied / withdrawn · 5 hearings · hover a marker for the date and outcome

Comments by hearing (31)

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

2021-10-07 · 2 comments · 2 / 0

Rafa Sonnenfeld · email · 2021-10-07 · support · source packet

425 Broadway - Case No. 2017-015678PRJ/CUA
Good Afternoon, Please find attached our organization's communication related to the project application for 425 Broadway, which we understand is being heard at on October 14th. YIMBY Law believes the City is required to treat this project under the standards of the Housing Accountability Act, and therefore this project is required to be approved. Best regards, -- Rafa Sonnenfeld Paralegal he/him YIMBY L… Good Afternoon, Please find attached our organization's communication related to the project application for 425 Broadway, which we understand is being heard at on October 14th. YIMBY Law believes the City is required to treat this project under the standards of the Housing Accountability Act, and therefore this project is required to be approved. Best regards, -- Rafa Sonnenfeld Paralegal he/him YIMBY Law 57 Post St, Suite 908 San Francisco, CA 94104 [email removed] 10/1/2021 San Francisco Planning Commission 49 South Van Ness Ave, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94103 [email removed] Via Email Re: 425 Broadway Street 2017-015678PRJ/CUA Dear San Francisco Planning Commission, YIMBY Law submits this letter to inform you that the Planning Commission has an obligation to abide by all relevant state housing laws when evaluating the above captioned proposal, including the Housing Accountability Act (HAA). The crux of the issue is whether the project approval would require any action abrogating or overriding the general plan designation and standards for the site. The Conditional Use Authorization currently being considered certainly falls well within the bounds of the General Plan. The proposed development project at this site calls for construction of two new mixed-use buildings reaching heights of 5-stories (56 feet) tall on Broadway and 7-stories (64 feet) tall on Montgomery St. with approximately 51,625 gross square feet of residential use, 4,940 gross square feet of retail use, and 18,735 gross square feet of design professional oce use. The proposed project includes a total of 41 dwelling units, with a mix of 15 one-bedroom units, 21 two-bedroom units, and ve three bedroom units with three dwelling units provided as on-site aordable units. California Government Code 65589.5, the Housing Accountability Act, prohibits localities from denying housing development projects that are compliant with the locality<U+2019>s zoning ordinance or general plan at the time the application was deemed complete, unless the locality can make ndings that the proposed housing development would be a threat to public health and safety. Conditional Use Authorization and the Housing Accountability Act It is a common misconception that any additional approvals for a project besides a simple site permit automatically renders the Housing Accountability Act void. This is not the case. The Housing Accountability Act applies so long as the residential development complies with the objective general plan standards in place at the time of application submission. (j) When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, including design review standards, in eect at the time that the housing development project's application is determined to be complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to approve it upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written ndings supported by substantial evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist: (1) The housing development project would have a specic, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a "specic, adverse impact" means a signicant, quantiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identied written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. (2) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identied pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density. . . . (4) For purposes of this section, a proposed housing development project is not inconsistent with the applicable zoning standards and criteria, and shall not require a rezoning, if the housing development project is consistent with the objective general plan standards and criteria but the zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the general plan. If the local agency has complied with paragraph (2), the local agency may require the proposed housing development project to comply with the objective standards and criteria of the zoning which is consistent with the general plan, however, the standards and criteria shall be applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density allowed on the site by the general plan and proposed by the proposed housing development project. (California Government Code 65589.5) Though a conditional use permit requires additional authorization, it does not push the project beyond the bounds of the general plan. By its very nature, a conditional use is one that is permitted by the general plan provided certain prerequisites are met. The extra level of scrutiny does not mean that the project is no longer general plan compliant. In this case, a conditional use permit is being sought in order for the Project proponent to be granted waivers to which they are entitled under California state Density Bonus law. Those waiver, for Height (Section 250), Bulk (Section 270), Rear Yard (Section 134), and Dwelling Unit Exposure (Section 140), are granted via the State Density Bonus (AB 2345) law are themselves ministerial, and thus this project is HAA compliant. YIMBY Law, 57 Post Street, Suite 908, San Francisco, CA 94103 The Project proposal is zoning compliant and general plan compliant, therefore, you must approve the application, or else make ndings to the eect that the proposed project would have an adverse impact on public health and safety, as described above. Yimby Law is a 501(c)3 non-prot corporation, whose mission is to increase the accessibility and aordability of housing in California. I am signing this letter both in my capacity as the Executive Director of YIMBY Law, and as a resident of California who is aected by the shortage of housing in our state. Sincerely, Sonja Trauss Executive Director YIMBY Law YIMBY Law, 57 Post Street, Suite 908, San Francisco, CA 94103show more

Danny Sauter · email · 2021-10-07 · support · source packet

425 Broadway - Letter of Support
Good morning Commissioners & Staff, On behalf of North Beach Neighbors, please find our submission of a letter of support for the 425 Broadway project attached. Please let us know if you have any questions, and we look forward to participating in the discussion of this project when it is heard at the commission soon. -- Danny Sauter North Beach Neighbors Chair, Planning & Zoning Committee North Be… Good morning Commissioners & Staff, On behalf of North Beach Neighbors, please find our submission of a letter of support for the 425 Broadway project attached. Please let us know if you have any questions, and we look forward to participating in the discussion of this project when it is heard at the commission soon. -- Danny Sauter North Beach Neighbors Chair, Planning & Zoning Committee North Beach Neighbors P.O. Box 330115 San Francisco, CA 94133 northbeachneighbors.org October 6, 2021 TO: San Francisco Planning Department RE: 425 Broadway Proposed Development North Beach Neighbors is a San Francisco non-profit organization comprised of nearly 300 dues-paying members. Since 1981, we have advocated on behalf of the neighborhood to create a vibrant, inclusive community. With these goals in mind, we write to you today to express our support for the proposed development at 425 Broadway Street. Our organization supports this development as it is infill housing that will transform a parking lot wedged between two underutilized buildings. We believe the location, a stretch of Broadway that has been challenged for decades, is in need of further mixed-use activity and ground floor activation. Finally, we have been encouraged by the evolution of the design and massing of the building and feel it will be a positive contribution to the adjacent buildings and neighborhood setting. We state our support with a strong preference of the following: A greater commitment to public space. We look forward to a landscaped Verdi Place, and we expect the public space to remain accessible. We would welcome additional landscaping or contribution to nearby streetscapes with trees or sidewalk gardens. Flexible use and community space. We have concerns regarding the high concentration of office space in the current climate. To mitigate this, we ask for the space to be ready to be flexible in its use until it is filled. We would be happy to partner to make this space available to nearby nonprofits, schools, and community organizations, for their use as we wait for office work patterns to recover. We look forward to continuing to engage on this project to make sure that it contributes to the incredible neighborhood of North Beach. Sincerely, Bruno Kanter President, North Beach Neighbors Danny Sauter Chair, Planning & Zoning Committeeshow more

2021-10-14 · 2 comments · 2 / 0

Steven (25) X4902 Vettel · email · 2021-10-14 · support · source packet

425 Broadway conditional use hearing October 14
Hello Commissioners. I am writing on behalf of Montgomery Place LLC, the project sponsor of the 425 Broadway mixed use that is before you this Thursday. The project is comprised of 41 condominium dwelling units, ground floor retail space, and primarily below grade design professional office space. Your Commission package contains the draft motion, CEQA exemption, and project plans prepared by Ian Birchall & As… Hello Commissioners. I am writing on behalf of Montgomery Place LLC, the project sponsor of the 425 Broadway mixed use that is before you this Thursday. The project is comprised of 41 condominium dwelling units, ground floor retail space, and primarily below grade design professional office space. Your Commission package contains the draft motion, CEQA exemption, and project plans prepared by Ian Birchall & Associates. Two significant developments have occurred with respect to the project since the date of our September 28 Commission brief and publication of the Commission packet. First, in consultation with Planning staff, the number of on-site inclusionary affordable units has been increased from 3 units to 5 units, with a corresponding reduction in the partial in lieu fee. An amended draft motion is being prepared for your consideration on Thursday in order to document this increase in the number of on-site units. Second, the project has now been endorsed by North Beach Neighbors and by the owners of Broadway Studios, the adjacent place of entertainment at 435 Broadway. Attached are these two additional endorsement letters. Previous endorsements by the Housing Action Coalition and YIMBY Action are in your packet. The Entertainment Commission also endorsed the project with appropriate noise attenuation measures that are included in the draft motion. Also enclosed is our brief dated September 28. Please let me know if you would like to meet (virtually) or be provided any other information from the sponsor team prior to Thursday<U+2019>s hearing. Thank you. Steven L. Vettel He/Him/His [email removed] D [phone removed] C [phone removed] he 235 Montgomery Street 17th FL San Francisco, CA 94104 www.fbm.com This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com North Beach Neighbors P.O. Box 330115 San Francisco, CA 94133 northbeachneighbors.org October 6, 2021 TO: San Francisco Planning Department RE: 425 Broadway Proposed Development North Beach Neighbors is a San Francisco non-profit organization comprised of nearly 300 dues-paying members. Since 1981, we have advocated on behalf of the neighborhood to create a vibrant, inclusive community. With these goals in mind, we write to you today to express our support for the proposed development at 425 Broadway Street. Our organization supports this development as it is infill housing that will transform a parking lot wedged between two underutilized buildings. We believe the location, a stretch of Broadway that has been challenged for decades, is in need of further mixed-use activity and ground floor activation. Finally, we have been encouraged by the evolution of the design and massing of the building and feel it will be a positive contribution to the adjacent buildings and neighborhood setting. We state our support with a strong preference of the following: A greater commitment to public space. We look forward to a landscaped Verdi Place, and we expect the public space to remain accessible. We would welcome additional landscaping or contribution to nearby streetscapes with trees or sidewalk gardens. Flexible use and community space. We have concerns regarding the high concentration of office space in the current climate. To mitigate this, we ask for the space to be ready to be flexible in its use until it is filled. We would be happy to partner to make this space available to nearby nonprofits, schools, and community organizations, for their use as we wait for office work patterns to recover. We look forward to continuing to engage on this project to make sure that it contributes to the incredible neighborhood of North Beach. Sincerely, Bruno Kanter President, North Beach Neighbors Danny Sauter Chair, Planning & Zoning Committee 34102\14388670.1 435 BROADWAY SF LLC 435-443 Broadway San Francisco, CA 94133 September 30, 2020 Mr. Steve Saray 425 Broadway San Francisco, CA 94133 Dear Steve: Thank you for the virtual meeting with your team last September 16th, 2021, explaining the architecture and design for two new mixed-use developments on 425 Broadway Street, San Francisco, California. We would like to confirm that you will have an open courtyard garden at Verde Alley and will not block the windows of our property next door building at 435-443 Broadway. These windows provide light and airflow to our building. If you have any changes, please inform us as soon as possible.. Thank you for your consideration in your design in this beautiful project. If we could be of assistance, please let us know. We welcome and support your new development to the neighborhood. Sincerely, Karl Pleskot and Frances Valdez Members, 435 Broadway SF LLC STEVEN L. VETTEL [email removed] D [phone removed] September 28, 2021 Hon. Joel Koppel, President San Francisco Planning Commission 49 South Van Ness Avenue, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94103 Re: 425 Broadway (Case No. 2017-015678CUA) Conditional Use/State Density Bonus Hearing Date: October 7, 2021 Dear President Koppel and Commissioners: I am writing on behalf of Montgomery Place LLC, the project sponsor of the 41-unit 425 Broadway project (the "Project") within the Broadway Neighborhood Commission zoning district and 65-A-1 height and bulk district. The sponsor team has worked diligently and tirelessly with the Planning Department for the last 3-1/2 years to refine the project, resulting in an exceptional project that advance the City's housing goals, while preserving the integrity of the adjacent Jackson Square Historic District. The Project proposes to replace a 144-space private parking garage with two mixed-use buildings, one facing Broadway and one facing Montgomery Street within the North Beach/Jackson Square neighborhood. The Project includes 41 for-sale dwelling units (1-, 2-, and 3-bedroom units), 4,940 square feet of ground floor retail space on Broadway and Montgomery Streets, five predominantly below grade design professional office suites (a retail use under the Planning Code), and 17 residential parking spaces. Neither building exceeds the applicable 65- foot height limit. Conditional use approval by the Commission is sought because the project site, at 13,641 square feet, is somewhat larger than the 10,000 square foot conditional use threshold in the Broadway NCD, and three of the seven commercial spaces in the building are slightly above the 2,999 square foot use C/U size threshold. Certain density bonus waivers are also requested and described below. Two-thirds of the project's square footage is residential; 9% is retail; and 25% is design professional office space. On Broadway, the dwelling units begin on the third floor to minimize potential conflicts with nearby places of entertainment; on Montgomery Street, away from the places of entertainment, the residential units are on the second floor and above. This mix of uses is fully consistent with and implements the policies underlying the Broadway NCD zoning district set forth in Planning Code Section 714: San Francisco Planning Commission September 28, 2021 Page 2 The Broadway District controls are designed to encourage development that is compatible with the existing moderate building scale and mixed-use character, and maintain the district's balance of entertainment uses, restaurants, and small-scale retail stores. . . . Most commercial uses in new buildings are permitted at the first two stories. Neighborhood-serving businesses are strongly encouraged. . . . Nonretail offices are prohibited in order to prevent encroachment of the adjoining downtown office uses. . . . Housing development in new buildings is encouraged above the second story. The project architect is Ian Birchall & Associates. Your Commission packet includes the full plan set, including renderings, floor plans, elevation, sections and materials. Using the State Density Bonus Law, the Proposed Number of Dwelling Units was Increased from 34 Units to 41 Units. A maximum of 34 residential units and 34,102.5 square feet of commercial use is permitted on this site. At the urging of the Planning Department, the sponsor proposes using the State Density Bonus law to add 7 bonus units for a total 41 units, but keeping the commercial retail space (23,675 square feet) well below that principally permitted. No density bonus increase in height above the 65-foot height limit or any reduction in required open space is proposed. The Project will fulfill its inclusionary housing obligation through a combination of three on-site BMR units (10% of the base project) and payment of the Affordable Housing Fee. Four waivers of development standards are requested through the State Density Bonus: building bulk, rear yard, unit exposure, and height. The need for the first three of these waivers is driven principally by the need to accommodate a public sewer easement that bisects the site, requiring two separate buildings organized around the 20-foot wide Verdi Alley open space, rather than a single building. Verdi Alley is a public street running from Montgomery Street 58.5 feet westerly, but is a private alley owned by the sponsor west of that point with the sewer easement below. No development standard concessions are sought. The fourth waiver, for height, is associated with the 65-A-1 height and bulk district in which the Project is located. Within this district, the Planning Commission has discretion to not permit building height above 40 feet despite the 65-foot height limit, pursuant to Section 253.1 of the Planning Code. Because a building any shorter than 65 feet would not accommodate the 41 dwelling units, including the 7 bonus units, the Project is entitled to a waiver of this subjective Code provision. The Project's Mix of Uses, Design and Noise Attenuation Features are Responsive to the Neighborhood Context. The Project site is at the border of the Jackson Square Historic District to the south, the Broadway entertainment district to the north and east, and Telegraph Hill further north. As described above, the Project's mix of uses is compatible with the several places of entertainment within 300 feet. There are no residential units below the third floor on Broadway, and only six bedrooms face Broadway on the upper three floors. Pursuant to guidance from the Entertainment Commission, a full acoustical report by Charles M. Salter & Associates was prepared to determine the STC ratings necessary in the Project's window and wall assemblies to San Francisco Planning Commission September 28, 2021 Page 3 prevent disturbances to Project residents from nearby places of entertainment. The Project will incorporate those requirements. At its September 21, 2021 meeting, the Entertainment Commission unanimously recommended approval of the Project to the Planning Commission, with the addition of certain conditions of approval consistent with the Salter study. We have agreed to those conditions and they are included in your draft motion. The Project also includes small retail spaces on both the Broadway and Montgomery Street frontages, consistent with the Broadway NCD zoning and neighborhood norms. Finally, the five modestly-sized office suites in the Project will be limited to occupancy by design professionals, a use compatible with and supportive of the many other design businesses within Jackson Square. With the guidance of the Department's preservation staff, the Project has been designed to be in conformity with the character defining features of the Jackson Square Historic District. The primary faade materials are masonry tile and stucco; the windows are deep set punched openings; top floor setbacks are incorporated into both the Broadway and Montgomery facades; and the more modern prismatic faade is limited to the interior of the site facing Verdi Alley. The Department's Historic Resource Evaluation Part 2 determined that the Project is compatible with and will have no adverse impacts on the historic district. Finally, in consideration of downtown views from Telegraph Hill, the building height is limited to 56 feet on Broadway and 64 feet on Montgomery Street, comparable to the height of other buildings within Jackson Square. The Project Does Not Caste Any Significant Shadow. The Planning Department determined that the Project will not cast any shadow on any Recreation and Park Department property. At the request of the Department, we also commissioned a shadow analysis to determine whether the Project would cast any shadow on the John Yehall Chin Elementary School property a block and one-half to the northeast. As shown in the analysis attached as Exhibit A, only a small occasional shadow cast late in the afternoon/early evening will affect primarily the school's trash area and one parking space. The Project Sponsor Conducted Significant Community Outreach. The project team has undertaken significant outreach in the community, including with the North Beach Neighbors, Telegraph Hill Dwellers and nearby places of entertainment. Attached as Exhibit B is a log of those outreach efforts. As of today's date, the Project has received the endorsement of the Housing Action Coalition and YIMBY Action (copies attached), and we are aware of no formal opposition. No party opposed the Project at the September 21 Entertainment Commission hearing. Pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act, the Project is Entitled to Your Approval. Under the Density Bonus Law, "[in] no case may a city, county, or city and county apply any development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a San Francisco Planning Commission September 28, 2021 Page 4 development meeting the criteria of [the Density Bonus Law] at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by this section." (Cal. Gov<U+2019>t. Code 65915(e)(1)). Accordingly, we submit that this State Density Bonus project is entitled to the requested conditional use approval, as well as our requested bulk, rear yard, unit exposure and height waivers. Even without these provisions of state law, the Project would warrant the Commission<U+2019>s approval. It meets the objectives and policies of the General Plan, particularly the Housing Element, the Planning Code Section 206.6 density bonus requirements, the Urban Design Guidelines, and the Priority Policies of the Planning Code. The Project is well designed to be compatible with the Jackson Square Historic District and nearby places of entertainment. The Project will add 41 new units to the City<U+2019>s housing supply, including on-site inclusionary units, as well as an over $2 million payment to the City<U+2019>s Affordable Housing fund, and will also pay significant transportation, child care and school impact fees. We look forward to the October 7 hearing. Please contact me prior to the hearing if we can provide any additional information. Very truly yours, Steven L. Vettel cc: Christy Alexander, planner Montgomery Place LLC Ian Birchall & Associates 34102\14346177.2 EXHIBIT A Net New Shadow Fan of Proposed Project Proposed Project occasional shadow frequent shadow Yehall Chin Elementary School East Playground Yehall Chin Elementary School West Playground 1 2 1 2 425 BROADWAY FULL YEAR NET NEW SHADOW FAN DIAGRAM FACTORING IN EXISTING SHADOWS DURING SECTION 295 TIMES Yehall Chin Elementary West Playground Max Affected Area of Playground by Net New Shadow of Proposed Project 1 2 1 Handicap Parking Space 2 Equipment Storage / Trash Yehall Chin Elementary East Playground Not Affected by Proposed Project N ian birchall and associates 177 post street, suite 920 san francisco, ca 94108 t: [phone removed] f: [phone removed] www.ibadesign.com project contact: Ian Birchall /002 Montgomery Place LLC 1630 Oakland Road #A215 San Jose, CA 95131 Richard Chen - Manager jhrchen@gmail .com REVISED DRAWINGS RESPONSE TO PLAN CHECK LETTER DATED 08/14/2019 EXHIBIT B 425 BROADWAY Community Outreach Meeting Matrix: last updated on 21_0928 by SH for IB+A No. Date of Meeting Meeting/Call with: In perso Tel. Zoom Emails Website Attendees Contact: Email Tel Notes / Main issues brought up Meeting organizer Pro Neutral Anti GENERAL COMMUNITY OUTREACH TELEGRAPH HILL DWELLERS 1.1 xxMar18. Telegraph Hill Dwellers, Planning & Zoning Committee x https://www.thd.org/about Stan Hayes Ian Birchall Stan Hayes, Chair, Planning & Zoning Committee [email removed] Email exchange and phone calls with IB. IBA 1.2 6Apr18 Telegraph Hill Dwellers, Planning & Zoning Committee x Stan Hayes Ian Birchall Stan Hayes, Chair, Planning & Zoning Committee [email removed] IBA's project presentation to the Planning & Zoning Committee Telegraph Hill Dwellers 36 unit scheme with approx 26,300 sf of design professional office use.. 2 retail spaces along the streets and garage parking for 39 cars (18 resi and 21 commercial). Non state density bonus project. IBA /THD 1.3 8May18 Telegraph Hill Dwellers, Planning & Zoning Committee x Stan Hayes Stan Hayes, Chair, Planning & Zoning Committee [email removed] IBA rec'd letter expressing the consensus of the committee from Stan Hayes (LETTER 1) Concerns expressed: Height and scale prposed project must be compatible with historic resources. open space and parking should be eliminated. greater housing affordability verification of the right of way shadowing of nearby elementary school. THD 1.4 22Jan19 Telegraph Hill Dwellers, Planning & Zoning Committee x Stan Hayes Ian Birchall Stan Hayes, Chair, Planning & Zoning Committee [email removed] IBA's 2nd presentation to the Planning & Zoning Committee Telegraph Hill Dwellers 36 unit scheme Concerns expressed: height scale size of the project suggestions to trim office space 100% affordable project considerations. compatibility with the Jackson Square Historic District IBA / THD 1.5 21Feb19 Telegraph Hill Dwellers, Planning & Zoning Committee x email from Stan Hayes Stan Hayes, Chair, Planning & Zoning Committee [email removed] IBA rec'd letter expressing the consensus of the committee from Stan Hayes (LETTER 2) Concerns expressed: height and mass are too great and must be in scale with surrounding buildings. project must be compatible with historic resources lost opportunity for onsite affordable housing THD 425 BROADWAY Community Outreach Meeting Matrix: last updated on 21_0928 by SH for IB+A No. Date of Meeting Meeting/Call with: In perso Tel. Zoom Emails Website Attendees Contact: Email Tel Notes / Main issues brought up Meeting organizer Pro Neutral Anti 1.6 19Nov20 Telegraph Hill Dwellers, Planning & Zoning Committee x Stan Hayes Ian Birchall Christy Alexander Stan Hayes, Chair, Planning & Zoning Committee [email removed] IBA rec'd letter re THD's comments on the environmental review of the project at 425 Broadway Street forwarded to IBA by the Planner Christy Alexander (LETTER 3) Concerns expressed: building height requirements of compatibility with the architectural and cultural character and features of the Jackson Square Historic District Extension and Broadway NCD. building form materials windows shadow impacts 1.7 24Jun21 Telegraph Hill Dwellers, Planning & Zoning Committee and full Board x Ian Birchall, Vidhi Patel, Steve Saray, THD Planning + Zoning Committee (Stan Hayes, Stewart Morton, Nadya Williams, Al Fontes, Lance Carnes, Nancy Shanahan, Nick Ferris, Mary Lipian, Greg Giachino, CJ Carol Verburg, Constance Deng, Michael Stan Hayes, Chair, Planning & Zoning Committee [email removed] IBA's 3rd presentation to the Planning & Zoning Committee Telegraph Hill Dwellers 41 unit scheme Concerns expressed: height scale size of the project concern over quantity of office space + use quantity of onsite affordable units and inlieu fees brick compatible with historic distric questions regarding lighter material suggested terracotta questions regarding response to THD letter to Planning questions regarding viability of groundfloor retail NORTH BEACH NEIGHBORS 2.1 19Nov18 North Beach Neighbors x http://northbeachneighbors.org/ Bruno Kanter V.P., North Beach Neighbors [email removed] 415921 5456 IBA project Presentation to the P&Z committee Bruno's response: "Thanks for coming out last night and including us in your process. I'll let you know if the group has any questions. Looking forward to see the project develop." IBA 425 BROADWAY Community Outreach Meeting Matrix: last updated on 21_0928 by SH for IB+A No. Date of Meeting Meeting/Call with: In perso Tel. Zoom Emails Website Attendees Contact: Email Tel Notes / Main issues brought up Meeting organizer Pro Neutral Anti 2.2 10Dec18 North Beach Neighbors x Steve Saray Ian Birchall Vidhi Patel North Beach Neighbors (approx. 50+ attendees at the meeting) Bruno Kanter Danny Sauter Trish Herman Susan Pate Gino Bellessa + Tam Koster Findre Chinoise Emanuele Sartori Rod Freebairn <U+2013> Smith Bruno Kanter V.P., North Beach Neighbors [email removed] 415921 5456 IBA's project presentation at the North Beach Neighbors' neighborhood meeting. Comments and key questions: has any community space been proposed? considered bay windows? any concerns re. filling office space. will the community have a chance to comment on the number of affordable units proposed at this project? very nice project. How can we support the project? Bruno Kanter for NBN 2.3 28Jan19 North Beach Neighbors x Bruno Kanter V.P., North Beach Neighbors [email removed] 415921 5456 IBA requested the North Beach Neighbors to consider providing us a letter in support of this project. Response: "Happy to get a letter together. Were there any changes requested by Planning or anything different than what you presented to us? Are there final drawings after the dust settled so to speak?" IBA 2.4 23Feb21 North Beach Neighbors x Danny Sauter North Beach neighbors President [email removed] 415562 6441 Danny enquired if IBA could share updated plans and if we could present at their Planning & Zoning committee in March. IBA response "We have just finished the latest responses to City Planning. I will discuss your request with the project sponsors and get back to you." 425 BROADWAY Community Outreach Meeting Matrix: last updated on 21_0928 by SH for IB+A No. Date of Meeting Meeting/Call with: In perso Tel. Zoom Emails Website Attendees Contact: Email Tel Notes / Main issues brought up Meeting organizer Pro Neutral Anti 2.5 16Jun21 North Beach Neighbors x North Beach Neighbors Full Board and Planning and Zoning Committee Danny Sauter North Beach neighbors President [email removed] 415562 6441 IBA's project presentation at the North Beach Neighbors' neighborhood meeting. Comments and key questions: architecturally very attractive; huge improvements from prior design retail space how large is it, can it be subdivided any concerns re. filling office space, especially due to pandemicrelated vacancies how the SDBL is calculated like the overal mass thinks it fits nicely with th context like the overal mass thinks it fits nicely with th context PRE APPLICATION MEETING 3.1 18Dec18 Pre App meeting x Steve Saray Steve Vettel Ian Birchall Vidhi Patel Dominic Li Mandri Andrew Diamond Gamze Basar IBA's project presentation at the PreApp meeting Comments and key questions: did the sponsor consider a State Density Bonus project? would you be willing to present to the Top Of Broadway CBD Land Use Committee.? TOB CBD should be able to provide a letter of support after we have had a chance to review the project with our committee. possible outreach to the North Beach Merchant's Association and the NBBA North Beach Business Association. IBA SFHAC (San Francisco Housing Action Committee) 4.1 25May21 SFHAC x https://www.sfhac.org/project reviewcommittee/ Ian Birchall, Steve Saray, Vidhi Patel, Sasha Heuer, Jake Price, Corey Smith, Kayle Barnes Jacob Price Development + Operations Associate (Membership, Fundraising, Communicatio ns, Project Review + Tours) [email removed] IBA gave brief description of the project. SFHAC outlined general review and advocacy process, + membership options IBA 425 BROADWAY Community Outreach Meeting Matrix: last updated on 21_0928 by SH for IB+A No. Date of Meeting Meeting/Call with: In perso Tel. Zoom Emails Website Attendees Contact: Email Tel Notes / Main issues brought up Meeting organizer Pro Neutral Anti 4.2 7Jul21 SFHAC x https://www.sfhac.org/project reviewcommittee/ Project Review Committee Jacob Price Development + Operations Associate (Membership, Fundraising, Communicatio ns, Project Review + Tours) [email removed] 4.3 1Sep21 SFHAC X https://www.sfhac.org/project reviewcommittee/ Ian Birchall, Steve Saray, Vidhi Patel, Steve Vettel, Corey Smith, Corey Smith [email removed] Meeting to discuss SFHAC advocacy options and strategy YIMBY Action 5.1 16Sep21 YIMBY x yimbyaction.org Ian Birchall, Vidhi Patel, Gillian Pressman Gillian Pressman [email removed] IBA gave brief description of the project. YIMBY outlined general review and advocacy process IBA 425 BROADWAY Community Outreach Meeting Matrix: last updated on 21_0928 by SH for IB+A No. Date of Meeting Meeting/Call with: In perso Tel. Zoom Emails Website Attendees Contact: Email Tel Notes / Main issues brought up Meeting organizer Pro Neutral Anti PLACES OF ENTERTAINMENT (POE) OUTREACH Broadway Studios + FAME Venue 6.1 10Jul19 Broadway Studios + FAME Venue (Events venue located at 435 Broadway, San Francisco, CA 94133 (next door on Broadway) x https://www.broadwaystudios.com/ Ian Birchall Vidhi Patel Francesca Karl B. Pleskot Jake M. Schpero (CM Salter) Francesca Karl B. Pleskot [email removed] [email removed] 415272 2743 415559 5010 10_0710 Meeting with Francesca + Karl Pleskot at 10 am. IBA distributed meeting notes on 19_0711 IBA IBA Francesca Karl B. Pleskot 6.2 IB+A presented updates to the project. QUESTIONS + DISCUSSION ITEMS: FAME windows along Verdi Alley will they be blocked? No, those will be open to Verdi Alley Acoustical issues an acoustical consultant has been retained to provide the STC ratings for windows and walls to prevent noise. Buyers will be required to sign off on disclosures that they are along an entertainment corridor. Fresh air will be ducted into each unit so that residents don't need to rely on natural air ventilation from windows price units will be sold for unknown at this time since that process is 2+ years away; will be sold at market rates; 3 BMR units onsite sequence of construction both building will be build at the same time timeline looking at 2+ years for permitting and construction Verdi Alley name staying the same? yes, it will be retained POE Outreach process, have others been contacted yes, we have reached out to all POE's within a 300ft radius. We met with Monroe and they are supportive. Vanity declined a meeting. The others never responded to our requests. COMMENTS: building looks great would be a good addition to neighborhood will send through any additional neighborhood contacts that we think would be good for you to reach out to 415272 2743 415559 5010 [email removed] [email removed] Ian Birchall Sasha Heuer Francesca Karl B. Pleskot Steve Saray Steve Vettel https://www.broadwaystudios.com/ x Broadway Studios + FAME Venue (Events venue located at 435 Broadway, San Francisco, CA 94133 (next door on Broadway) 9/16/21 @ 11am 425 BROADWAY Community Outreach Meeting Matrix: last updated on 21_0928 by SH for IB+A No. Date of Meeting Meeting/Call with: In perso Tel. Zoom Emails Website Attendees Contact: Email Tel Notes / Main issues brought up Meeting organizer Pro Neutral Anti The Penthouse Club 7 Only email correspondence. See Contact Log for more information. NO MEETING TO DATE The Penthouse Club (Adult entertainment club / restaurant located at 412 Broadway, San Francisco, CA 94133 (building across the street d ) x Hue 8 Only email correspondence. See Contact Log for more information. NO MEETING TO DATE Hue (Nightclub & lounge located at 447 Broadway, San Francisco, CA 94133) x Bennett Montoya [email removed] 19_0717 GoToMeeting set up for presenting the project to Bennett. (Bennett cancelled the Wed, Jul 17, 2019 video conference at the last minute.) Top Of Broadway CBD (NO LONGER EXISTS) 9 Only email correspondence. See Contact Log for more information. NO MEETING TO DATE Top Of Broadway CBD x Dominic LiMandri District Director Top of Broadway CBD [email removed] 619241 1900 Monroe SF 10 8/18/2021 @ 2pm Monroe SF (Nightclub located at 473 Broadway, San Francisco, CA 94133) x https://www.monroesf.com/ Steve Saray, Steven Vettel, Ian Birchall, Vidhi Patel, Sasha Heuer, Payam Marvin Payam Arvin [email removed] 415323 8515 IB+A presented updates to the project. Payam said the project looks great and looks forward to something being built. Offered to provide letter of support. Payam's only question was whether or not the proposal included the Crowbar building and if we know whether or not that building was sold. We told him "No, it is not included and we don't know the status of that building" IBA 425 BROADWAY Community Outreach Meeting Matrix: last updated on 21_0928 by SH for IB+A No. Date of Meeting Meeting/Call with: In perso Tel. Zoom Emails Website Attendees Contact: Email Tel Notes / Main issues brought up Meeting organizer Pro Neutral Anti Horizon 11 Only phone/email correspondence. See Contact Log for more information. NO MEETING TO DATE Horizon (Horizon <U+2013> Restaurant and Lounge located at 498 Broadway, San Francisco, CA 94133) x x Shon Stubbee 925817 9461 if any issues contacting Shon, please try Ronnie Lau at 415509 6770 Cosmo Bar and Lounge 12 Only email correspondence. See Contact Log for more information. NO MEETING TO DATE Cosmo Bar (The Cosmo Bar and Lounge located at 440 Broadway, San Francisco, CA 94133) x Calvin Louie [email removed] Bamboo Hut 13 Only email correspondence. See Contact Log for more information. NO MEETING TO DATE Bamboo Hut (Tiki Dive Bar located at 479 Broadway, San Francisco, CA 94133) x https://www.bamboohutsf.com/ Max Young [email removed] 415722 6299 Project Address: 425 Broadway Project Sponsor: Montgomery Place, LLC Date of HAC Review: July 7th, 2021 Grading Scale = The project meets the high standard set by local jurisdiction and/or HAC = The project exceeds HAC standards = The project far exceeds HAC's standards and exhibits creativity in its proposed solutions Criteria for HAC Endorsement 1. The development must have been presented to the HAC Project Review Committee 2. The Project must score a minimum of on any given guideline Guideline Comments Score Summary HAC is pleased to endorse 425 Broadway, as the project will bring 43 homes to a currently underutilized site in a neighborhood that has not built much housing in recent decades. The project utilizes the state density bonus and employs a strong urban design, ultimately helping to alleviate San Francisco's housing shortage. Land Use This building converts a surface level parking lot into a mixed-use, multi-family project that includes office, retail, and residential space. The committee commends the project's location, as the area is well-served by public transit and has built little housing in previous decades. The committee also supports the team's decision to include office space instead of parking. Density The project will consist of 43 for-sale homes. The committee commends the project team for increasing the density by 20% through the State Density Bonus. While we would like to see the project utilize the entirity of the 50% bonus, we understand the need to be responsive to neighbors. Affordablility This project includes 3 on-site affordable homes and an in-lieu fee of approximately $2.5 million. By combining on-site with in-lieu fees, this project brings more affordable homes to one of the most affluent parts of the city. Parking & Alternative Transportation The project is in a transit-rich area and includes 17 parking spaces, as well as 53 total bike spaces. We are exceptionally happy with the project team exceeding a 1: 1 ratio for bike parking, and would also encourage the team to explore adding bike parking at grade. We are likewise pleased with the small number of car parking spaces (all of which are unbundled), and encourage the implementation of additional TDM strategies to become GreenTRIP certified. Preservation n/a Urban Design There are light wells in the basement office spaces to provide natural light, as well as usable open space for 8 of the 41 units. Building amenities include a roof deck on the Montgomerey building as well as landscaped space between the two buildings. The Committee appreciates the faades on Verdi alley, as well as the activation of the alley. Upper floor levels of the buildings facing Broadway and Montgomery have been set back and improved in response to feedback from the City. We would like to see the project team plan for possible ADU conversions for the retail on Montgomerey. Environmental Features This building meets the City's requirements. The project team is aiming for LEED Gold equivalency, with a design that is all-electric, includes PV array units, VRF HVAC, and employs a variety of water conservation measures. Community Benefits The Committee commends the project for the positive impact it will have on the alley and the improvements to the sidewalk/pedestrian experience. The Committee also believes adding housing and design office space is a community benefit, and commends the building's design for blending in with the area's general aesthetic. We encourage the project team to continue engaging with union labor as they are seeking a general contractor. Community Input The team has received letters with feedback from the Telegraph Hill Dwellers and North Beach Neighbors. In response to feedback from the City, the project team changed the proposed rainscreen cladding to brick tile. YIMBY Action advocates for welcoming communities where everyone can thrive. yimbyaction.org San Francisco Planning Commission City Hall 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, CA 94102 September 17, 2021 RE: Support for 41 new homes at 425 Broadway Dear Planning Commission: YIMBY Action is pleased to support the proposed project at 425 Broadway. This project would bring 41 new homes to San Francisco, helping to address our staggering citywide housing shortage. It would also allow more people to access the rich cultural and commercial opportunities of the Jackson Square neighborhood, and bring more customers to local businesses. The project<U+2019>s conversion of a parking garage into mixed-use development also helps create a more environmentally friendly and healthier San Francisco. YIMBY Action is a network of pro-housing activists ghting for more inclusive housing policies. Our vision is an integrated and environmentally sustainable society where every person has access to a safe, aordable home near jobs, services, and opportunity. San Francisco<U+2019>s severe housing shortage is causing skyrocketing homelessness and poverty, crippling our economy, and leading to debilitating commutes that 1 exacerbate our global climate crisis. These impacts fall disproportionately on our city<U+2019>s low-income workers and families, and disproportionately on people of color. The segregationist practice of denying housing in our highest-opportunity neighborhoods additionally marginalizes communities of color. If we strive to be a society that advances racial and class justice, we must do more to ensure abundant housing in all of our city<U+2019>s neighborhoods. This project will help address the housing shortage and ensure a welcoming San Francisco where everyone can thrive. Best regards, Laura Foote YIMBY Action, Executive Director YIMBY Action advocates for welcoming communities where everyone can thrive. yimbyaction.org 2show more

Corey Smith · email · 2021-10-14 · support · source packet

Petitions Signers Supporting 425 Broadway
Members of the San Francisco Planning Commission, On behalf of the Housing Action Coalition and YIMBY Action, please see the attached document with petition signers in support of the 425 Broadway proposal. Here is a link to the Housing Action Coalition's report card of the project. Please note that there have been updates to the project since our July review. These updates are not reflected in the report car… Members of the San Francisco Planning Commission, On behalf of the Housing Action Coalition and YIMBY Action, please see the attached document with petition signers in support of the 425 Broadway proposal. Here is a link to the Housing Action Coalition's report card of the project. Please note that there have been updates to the project since our July review. These updates are not reflected in the report card but we view the changes as positive (ie more affordable housing). Please let me know if you have any questions. Respectfully, Corey Smith Deputy Director, HAC -- Corey Smith | Pronouns: He/Him Deputy Director | Housing Action Coalition 95 Brady Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 Office: [phone removed] | Cell: [phone removed] Email: [email removed] | Web: sfhac.org To opt out of all HAC emails, respond to this email with "unsubscribe all". First name Last name Email Zip code Comments Timestamp (EST) Townsend Walker [email removed] 94109 A perfect place for new housing in a community with shops, stores and transit. 2021-09-16 17:41: Tom Lockard [email removed] 94133 As a long term resident of North Beach I strongly support the proposed development. 2021-09-16 15:22: Weston Cooper [email removed] 94133 Excited for more neighbors, as well as more customers for neighborhood restaurants and business. 2021-09-21 17:32: Ignacio Barandiaran [email removed] 94611 I fully support this project, we need more housing now! 2021-09-16 14:47: Kate McGee [email removed] 94133 I live 8 blocks away and am in support of the project. 2021-09-16 17:16: Alex Noor [email removed] 94133 I live a block away and 100% support this project. North Beach is one of the best neighborhoods in the city and I want more people to be able to enjoy and experience it. 2021-09-16 19:18: Nicholas Marinakis [email removed] 94133 I live in North Beach and strongly support more housing here 2021-09-21 17:32: Kate McGee [email removed] 94133 I live in North Beach and support this project. 2021-09-22 13:57: Steven Aiello [email removed] 94952 Nice re-use project. Keep it up! -S 2021-09-21 17:38: Davey Kim [email removed] 94109 Nob Hill resident, who wants to see more housing, especially smaller units to add our housing supply! More neighbors mean more support for our iconic local businesses! We need more ridership on our transit lines as well! 2021-09-21 12:16: brett Gladstone [email removed] 94117 Please approve this well designed project. We do not need parking as much as we need parking. 2021-09-21 18:36: Millicent Tolleson [email removed] 94109 Support this better use of the land to create housing! 2021-09-16 14:59: Mona Lovgreen [email removed] 94111 Supporting more housing and this development. 2021-09-21 17:33: Jacinta McCann [email removed] 94109 This is an excellent infill development proposal and adds much needed housing. 2021-09-22 01:20: Victoria Wallis [email removed] 94108 This project is wonderful and will brighten the community! North Beach is impossibly difficult to build new housing and I really hope this succeeds. 2021-09-21 14:34: lisa church [email removed] 94108 We need this and 1324 Powell Street! 2021-09-16 14:30: Jose Gonzalez-Brenes [email removed] 94109 Why. only 41 homes? Shouldn't we build with higher density? 2021-09-16 14:24: Michael Pacheco [email removed] 94105 Yes - More market rate housing! 2021-09-16 15:38: Evan Sipe [email removed] 94133 Yes! I support new affordable homes in North Beach that encourage alternatives to driving, and maximize this transit-rich location. 2021-09-16 14:23: Jack Gardner [email removed] 94109 You may also add "The John Stewart Company" as a corporate supporter. 2021-09-23 16:13: Zack Subin [email removed] 94112 2021-10-09 15:12: Raul Maldonado [email removed] 94132 2021-10-07 14:43: Sasha Heuer [email removed] 94110 2021-10-05 18:45: Simon Cai [email removed] 2021-09-26 14:43: Tory R. [email removed] 2021-09-25 17:33: Jonathan Buenemann [email removed] 94123 2021-09-24 19:09: Neil Shah [email removed] 94105 2021-09-24 12:44: Timothy Buck [email removed] 2021-09-24 10:50: Alex Myers [email removed] 2021-09-23 23:08: Anne Fougeron [email removed] 94111 2021-09-23 11:58: Daniela Ades [email removed] 94109 2021-09-22 14:25: Simon Blount [email removed] 94104 2021-09-22 02:13: Danny Sauter [email removed] 94133 2021-09-22 00:58: Raquel Bito [email removed] 94105 2021-09-21 21:02: Raquel Bito [email removed] 94105 2021-09-21 21:01: Hector Rubio [email removed] 94111 2021-09-21 20:44: Andy Lynch [email removed] 94107 2021-09-21 19:57: [email removed] 94010 2021-09-21 19:26: Christina Sheffey [email removed] 94109 2021-09-21 19:13: Myoko Shallenberger [email removed] 94109 2021-09-21 19:10: Avishai Halev [email removed] 94133 2021-09-21 18:54: Beverly Mills [email removed] 94109 2021-09-21 18:14: Thais Miller [email removed] 94109 2021-09-21 18:12: Chad Fusco [email removed] 94109 2021-09-21 18:08: Diane Filippi [email removed] 94133 2021-09-21 18:06: Annie De Lancie [email removed] 94133 2021-09-21 17:57: Brad Dickason [email removed] 94611 2021-09-21 17:46: Julie Heinzler [email removed] 94109 2021-09-21 17:41: dorian hollis [email removed] 94109 2021-09-21 17:38: joan rost [email removed] 94109 2021-09-21 17:36: Brian Lese [email removed] 94109 2021-09-21 17:32: Ziwei Hao [email removed] 94109 2021-09-21 17:30: Suzanne Gregg [email removed] 94131 2021-09-21 14:12: Antonio Quilici [email removed] 2021-09-20 20:05: Ira Kaplan [email removed] 94133 2021-09-20 14:53: Joey Babbitt [email removed] 94133 2021-09-20 14:45: Marie Torres [email removed] 2021-09-20 14:38: Chris Heriot [email removed] 94110 2021-09-19 19:25: Molly Bierman [email removed] 2021-09-19 11:32: luisa james [email removed] 2021-09-19 03:01: Jennifer Gee [email removed] 94111 2021-09-18 22:16: Angelina Perez [email removed] 2021-09-18 19:41: Julia Vetromile [email removed] 94108 2021-09-18 19:33: Kevin Utschig [email removed] 94110 2021-09-18 16:38: Robert Fruchtman [email removed] 94117 2021-09-18 15:59: Zack Subin [email removed] 94112 2021-09-18 01:26: Kelsey Frost [email removed] 2021-09-17 23:57: Luvia Silva [email removed] 2021-09-17 23:21: Jessica Perla [email removed] 94107-3739 2021-09-17 14:54: Kevin Samples [email removed] 94108 2021-09-17 12:38: Ali Moss [email removed] 94117 2021-09-17 06:39: Dan Federman [email removed] 94117 2021-09-17 00:17: Scot Conner [email removed] 94123 2021-09-16 20:22: Corey Smith [email removed] 94117 2021-09-16 20:18: Gabriel Zitrin [email removed] 94109 2021-09-16 20:02: Louis Magarshack [email removed] 94116 2021-09-16 18:45: Steve Marzo [email removed] 94112 2021-09-16 18:30: John Holtzclaw [email removed] 94133 2021-09-16 18:17: Teddy Kramer [email removed] 94133 2021-09-16 16:55: Jeska Dzwigalski [email removed] 94133 2021-09-16 16:36: Cindy Downing [email removed] 94619 2021-09-16 16:11: David Casey [email removed] 94111 2021-09-16 15:57: Karen Wong [email removed] 94108 2021-09-16 15:56: Lindsay Haddix [email removed] 94108 2021-09-16 15:47: TK Polevoy [email removed] 94108 2021-09-16 15:37: Raul Maldonado [email removed] 94132 2021-09-16 15:29: Michiko Scott [email removed] 94706 2021-09-16 15:20: Joseph Swaub [email removed] 94104 2021-09-16 15:14: Melanie Stein [email removed] 94133 2021-09-16 14:52: Dylan Hunn [email removed] 94110 2021-09-16 14:39: Harold Metzger [email removed] 94109 2021-09-16 14:35: Charlene Chambliss [email removed] 94612 2021-09-16 14:32: Charles Ayers [email removed] 94103 2021-09-16 14:30: Matt Babcock [email removed] 94109 2021-09-16 14:29: Mark English [email removed] 94108 2021-09-16 14:27: Michael Chen [email removed] 94109 2021-09-16 14:25: Vamsi Uppala [email removed] 94109 2021-09-16 14:21: Corey Smith [email removed] 94117 2021-09-10 19:26: 00 EST 50 EST 57 EST 13 EST 16 EST 56 EST 29 EST 16 EST 26 EST 25 EST 59 EST 04 EST 10 EST 02 EST 21 EST 10 EST 17 EST 44 EST 02 EST 17 EST 26 EST 01 EST 58 EST 33 EST 01 EST 36 EST 44 EST 46 EST 17 EST 09 EST 51 EST 44 EST 18 EST 46 EST 18 EST 56 EST 21 EST 01 EST 02 EST 31 EST 26 EST 50 EST 47 EST 20 EST 58 EST 50 EST 05 EST 16 EST 45 EST 21 EST 01 EST 05 EST 15 EST 28 EST 06 EST 59 EST 40 EST 54 EST 12 EST 18 EST 51 EST 37 EST 25 EST 05 EST 21 EST 25 EST 39 EST 00 EST 13 EST 29 EST 30 EST 00 EST 57 EST 12 EST 20 EST 56 EST 08 EST 51 EST 39 EST 54 EST 45 EST 23 EST 08 EST 20 EST 26 EST 42 EST 22 EST 16 EST 00 EST 50 EST 26 EST 44 EST 14 EST 33 EST 26 EST 14 EST 02 EST 09 ESTshow more

2021-11-04 · 5 comments · 2 / 3

Maggie Dong · email · 2021-11-04 · oppose · source packet

Request Continuance for 425 Broadway CUA 11/4/21 Planning Commission Hearing
Dear Commissioners, Please see attached. We are requesting a continuance for the 425 Broadway CUA that is schedule for this Thursday's Planning Commission. Sincerely, Maggie Dong (she/her) Planner Chinatown Community Development Center Phone: [phone removed]| Email: [email removed] 1 5 2 5 G ran t Av e nu e S an Fra n ci sc o, C A 9 4 13 3 TE L 4 15 . 9 84 . 14 5 0 FAX 4 1 5 .3 6 … Dear Commissioners, Please see attached. We are requesting a continuance for the 425 Broadway CUA that is schedule for this Thursday's Planning Commission. Sincerely, Maggie Dong (she/her) Planner Chinatown Community Development Center Phone: [phone removed]| Email: [email removed] 1 5 2 5 G ran t Av e nu e S an Fra n ci sc o, C A 9 4 13 3 TE L 4 15 . 9 84 . 14 5 0 FAX 4 1 5 .3 6 2. 7 9 92 TTY 4 1 5. 9 8 4. 9 91 0 w ww .c hi n at ow n c dc .o rg Properties professionally managed by Chinatown Community Development Center do not discriminate based on race, color, creed, religion, sex, national origin, age, familial status, handicap, ancestry, medical condition, physical handicap, veteran status, sexual orientation, AIDS, AIDS related condition (ARC), mental disability, marital status, source of income, or any other arbitrary status. November 2, 2021 Joel Koppel, President San Francisco Planning Commission 49 South Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA 94103 Dear President Koppel and Members of the Commission, On behalf of the Chinatown Community Development Center (CCDC), I am writing to urge the Planning Commission to grant a continuance for item 2017-015678CUA regarding the 425 Broadway project to address our ongoing concerns. CCDC is a nonprofit community development organization that aims to build community and enhance the quality of life for San Francisco residents. We work closely with low-income, monolingual, immigrant families living in single room occupancy hotels (SROs) particularly in the Chinatown and North Beach neighborhoods. We support the concerns that have been made by the Telegraph Hill Dwellers and the SRO residents of 401 Broadway. The concerns include inadequate outreach to neighborhood-serving organizations, residents, and property owners of nearby buildings; health and safety issues related to the design of the proposed project; and the issue of state density bonus projects not meeting the affordable housing needs of San Francisco and the loss of local zoning controls. These issues are pervasive to all of San Francisco and are especially problematic in Chinatown and the surrounding neighborhoods including where the proposed project is located. New market-rate housing development combined with the state density bonus will fuel gentrification and displacement in an area that is already experiencing the loss of long-time residents from Ellis Act evictions, condominium conversions, and skyrocketing rents. 1. Outreach Concerns At 401 Broadway, there are 39 low-income households living in the building, with a vast majority speaking primarily Cantonese. The project sponsor failed to comply with Section 333 of the San Francisco Planning code, which requires notices to include the languages spoken by a Substantial Number of Limited English Speaking Persons. We are particularly disappointed that the project sponsor has only gotten support from groups that do not represent the residents of the neighborhood and is choosing to ignore the serious concerns that adjacent neighbors are raising. Even after we shared this feedback with the project sponsor, there was no subsequent effort to conduct any outreach to the residents. 2. Health and Safety Concerns With the 425 Broadway buildings being taller than 401 Broadway, the light wells would be insufficient at providing enough sunlight and ventilation and would also impact the residents who currently do not have access to natural light. The 401 Broadway residents are also concerned about fire truck accessibility on Verdi Alley as the fire escapes are located on the south side of the building. The Broadway corridor is seeing an increase in market-rate housing and office space development in an area that has been seeing a decline in working-class residents. While this project does not directly displace residents or community-serving businesses, the cumulative effect of creating unaffordable 1 5 2 5 G ran t Av e nu e S an Fra n ci sc o, C A 9 4 13 3 TE L 4 15 . 9 84 . 14 5 0 FAX 4 1 5 .3 6 2. 7 9 92 TTY 4 1 5. 9 8 4. 9 91 0 w ww .c hi n at ow n c dc .o rg Properties professionally managed by Chinatown Community Development Center do not discriminate based on race, color, creed, religion, sex, national origin, age, familial status, handicap, ancestry, medical condition, physical handicap, veteran status, sexual orientation, AIDS, AIDS related condition (ARC), mental disability, marital status, source of income, or any other arbitrary status. housing will fuel real estate speculation, gentrification, and displacement. The impact that low-income residents face from being forced out of their own neighborhood is immeasurable. 3. State Density Bonus Concerns The purpose for utilizing the state density bonus provides that an incentive is allowed if <U+201C>required to provide for affordable housing costs<U+201D>. The concession for non-residential uses is antithetical to the state density bonus law which incentivizes more residential density. We are also puzzled by the circumvention of local zoning control that results in more office and less housing being built on the site. For these reasons, we ask the commission to grant a continuance for item 2017-015678CUA for the 425 Broadway project. Sincerely,show more

Steven (25) X4902 Vettel · email · 2021-11-04 · support · source packet

RE: Request Continuance for 425 Broadway CUA 11/4/21 Planning Commission Hearing
All, the 425 Broadway project sponsor is agreeable to a four week continuance to December 2, 2021. I have just got off the phone with Maggie Dong at CCDC, who requested the continuance. Maggie has agreed to facilitate an outreach meeting with the residents of the 401-407 Broadway building, some of whom are not proficient in English. We hope to schedule an initial meeting for next week.

Stan Hayes · email · 2021-11-04 · oppose · source packet

THD COMMENT LETTER - Opposition to 425 Broadway (Case No. 2017-15678CUA)
President Koppel and Commissioners - On behalf of the Telegraph Hill Dwellers, please accept this letter OPPOSING the project at 425 Broadway as it is proposed. Please feel free to contact us if you would like to discuss any of our comments. Regards, Stan Hayes Co-Chair, Planning & Zoning Committee Telegraph Hill Dwellers November 2, 2021 Joel Koppel San Francisco Planning Com… President Koppel and Commissioners - On behalf of the Telegraph Hill Dwellers, please accept this letter OPPOSING the project at 425 Broadway as it is proposed. Please feel free to contact us if you would like to discuss any of our comments. Regards, Stan Hayes Co-Chair, Planning & Zoning Committee Telegraph Hill Dwellers November 2, 2021 Joel Koppel San Francisco Planning Commission 49 South Van Ness Avenue, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94103 (Via email: [email removed]) RE: OPPOSITION to 425 Broadway (Case No. 2017-15678CUA) Dear President Koppel and Commissioners, On behalf of the Telegraph Hill Dwellers (THD), we express our opposition to the mixed-use project at 425 Broadway as it is proposed. This project is comprised of two mixed-use buildings <U+2013> one on Broadway and a second building on Montgomery Street, legally separated by Verdi Place, a 20-foot- wide public right of way from Montgomery, and a city-owned sewer easement reserved within the former extension of Verdi Place. We are concerned about the size and design of the two buildings, their lack of compatibility with other nearby buildings in the Jackson Square Historic District Extension where the project site is located, and the failure to the Planning Department to analyze important health and safety impacts of the buildings (including geotechnical, structural, shadowing, and traffic) by declaring the project exempt from all CEQA review. We are also concerned that the project would not only impact the health and safety of the residents of the adjacent SRO hotel, but would also contribute to gentrification leading to the displacement of low-income and senior residents of multiple Single Room Occupancy (SRO) hotels in the immediate vicinity of the project. In addition, we are concerned that the project<U+2019>s posted notice did not comply with the requirements of the Section 333 of the San Francisco Planning Code, which requires such notices to include the languages spoken by non-English speaking persons <U+2013> here a substantial number of the residents of the nearby low-income SRO hotels and apartment buildings speak only Cantonese. Also, we note that the draft motion for the project appears to authorize a <U+201C>public parking garage<U+201D> (see Draft Motion, Exhibit A, <U+201C>Authorization<U+201D>). No such garage is shown on the project sponsor<U+2019>s plans, nor has it been discussed earlier. If incorrect, the draft motion should be revised. Health, Safety and Livability Impacts on Adjacent Low-Income and Senior Residents Most importantly, we ask the Planning Commission to consider the project<U+2019>s adverse and direct impacts on the health, safely and liveability of the very low income and senior residents of the immediately adjacent SRO hotel at 401-407 Broadway (New Rex Hotel), home to 39 low-income households occupying rooms with limited exterior windows. The height and bulk of the proposed Montgomery building, which would be located along Verdi Place, the 20-foot wide east-west facing public right-of-way, would block light and air to all south- facing windows of the New Rex Hotel, while the height and bulk of the proposed Broadway building, towering over the New Rex Hotel, would block light and air to its West-facing windows despite two proposed matching air wells. November 2, 2021 Page 2 The project sponsor<U+2019>s own shadow study (see Figure 1) provides substantial evidence that that these windows would be in near-perpetual shade. These shadow impacts on the low-income and senior residents of the immediately adjacent New Rex SRO hotel are specific and direct adverse impacts on public health and safety and on the physical environment that would allow the Planning Commission to deny a requested incentive, concession, or waiver if it makes a written finding of such adverse impacts. Gentrification and Displacement Broadway is a major corridor for very low-income housing, including numerous SRO hotels and low rent apartments in addition to the New Rex Hotel. Other immediately adjacent SRO residence hotels (see Figure 1 and the project sponsor<U+2019>s photos in Figure 2) include the Golden Eagle SRO residence hotel at 400 Broadway (118 rooms), On Lok SRO for seniors at 1000-1010 Montgomery (41 rooms), and the SRO residence hotel at 381-389 Broadway (49 rooms). While the construction of the proposed new market-rate housing development at 425 Broadway does not directly displace existing residents or community-serving businesses, the cumulative effect of creating high-end unaffordable housing at 425 Broadway, together with the market rate housing proposed nearby at 955 Sansome and 875 Sansome, will stimulate further real estate speculation almost certainly resulting in the gentrification of the Broadway Corridor, leading to the loss of affordable housing for the very poor and the displacement of very low-income, monolingual families from their homes. Required Commission Actions For the project to proceed the Commission must: (1) adopt findings to approve requested Conditional Use Authorizations; and (2) adopt findings that the requested State Density Bonus waivers and incentives will result in actual cost reductions for the affordable housing in the project, and that the requested waivers and incentives will not negatively impact public health, safety, or historic property. In addition, the Commission must adopt the Department<U+2019>s determination that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 1. Please Deny the Project<U+2019>s Requested Conditional Use Authorizations. To grant a CUA, Section 303 requires the Commission to find that the proposed use, at the size and intensity contemplated, is necessary or desirable for, and compatible with, the neighborhood or the community; and that the proposed use size will not be detrimental to the health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity. o Please Deny the Office Space CUA. Non-residential use sizes in the Broadway NCD are limited to 2,999 sq. ft. unless the Commission grants a CUA. Here the project is requesting a total of 23,675 sq. ft. of non-residential use, of which 18,735 sq. ft. is for office use, more than six times the 2,999 square feet non-residential use limit for this district. As shown on the project sponsor<U+2019>s plans (Figure 3), the inclusion of the proposed non-residential office use would substantially increase the height of each of the buildings. This excessive amount of office space unnecessarily expands the size of each of the two buildings, while millions of square feet of office space in the City go unleased. Given the project<U+2019>s significant impact on the health, safety and liveability of the low income and senior residents in the immediately adjacent SRO hotel due to the project<U+2019>s size and height, together with the project<U+2019>s role in fuelling the gentrification of the Broadway Corridor leading to displacement of low-income, monolingual families, we believe the Commission cannot make the required findings to November 2, 2021 Page 3 grant this CUA. The request to exceed the non-residential use limit as proposed is not necessary or desirable for or compatible with the neighborhood and will be detrimental to the health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity. Please deny the CUA to allow the project to exceed the non-residential use limit in the Broadway NCD. o Please Deny the CUA to exceed 40 feet in height in the Broadway NCD. The project sponsor has requested a CUA to allow each of the two buildings to exceed 40 feet in height. Planning Code Section 253.1 requires the Commission to make specific findings before a CUA can be approved for a new building in the Broadway NCD that would exceed 40 feet in height and prohibits the Commission from approving any new building that exceeds 65 feet. In addition to the Section 303 findings listed above, the Commission is required by Section 253.1 to find that <U+201C>The height of the new or expanding development will be compatible with the individual neighborhood character and the height and scale of the adjacent buildings.<U+201D> The project is located within the Jackson Square Historic District Extension, which is listed on the California Register of Historic Places. The buildings in this historic district are characterized by 2- to 3-story brick regular building forms with string courses, cornices, and deep window and door openings. By a significant margin, the proposed Montgomery building would be the tallest building in the historic district, rising 76 feet above its base on Montgomery Street. As illustrated by the project sponsor<U+2019>s own rendering reproduced in Figure 4, the project sponsor<U+2019>s characterization of the Montgomery building as 64 feet in height is substantially misleading. The figure clearly shows that the Montgomery building is actually 76 feet above Montgomery Street. There are two separate buildings proposed on this downward sloping site, separated by a strip of land that cannot be built upon <U+2013> a public right of way (Verdi Place) and a city-owned sewer easement. By all logic, the height of each of these buildings should be calculated separately. If so, the Montgomery building would exceed the 65-foot height limit for this site and, therefore, could not be approved by the Commission. Given that the height of the proposed new buildings would not be compatible with the character of the Jackson Square Historic District Extension and would exceed the height and scale of the adjacent historic buildings on Broadway, we do not believe that the findings required by Planning Code 253.1 to grant a CUA for heights above 40 feet can be made. Further, as discussed above, granting a CUA for the heights of these buildings would be detrimental to the health and safety and general welfare of persons residing in the vicinity <U+2013> specifically to the low-income residents in the adjacent New Rex Hotel. Further, the material of the buildings is incompatible with the character of the historic buildings in the surrounding historic district. The <U+201C>thin brick tile<U+201D> as specified on the plans is incompatible with the district, as is the dark black color of the Broadway building and a significant portion of the Montgomery building. Please deny the CUA to allow the project to exceed 40 feet. 2. Please Deny the Project<U+2019>s Requested Incentives/Concessions and Waivers. Because the project proposes to use the State Density Bonus Law, the Commission must adopt findings related to the requested waivers and incentives or concessions. According to the Department<U+2019>s staff report for the November 4th hearing, the project is requesting an incentive to exceed the non- residential use limitation of 2,999 sq. ft. and three (3) waivers from Planning Code development standards including waivers from the minimum requirements for Rear Yard (Sec. 134), Dwelling Unit Exposure (Sec. 140), and Bulk Limits (Sec. 270). November 2, 2021 Page 4 o The Commission Lacks Information to Adopt Findings to Allow the Incentive. The State Law provides that an incentive is allowed if <U+201C>required to provide for affordable housing costs.<U+201D> CA Govt. Code Section 65915(k). The Planning Director<U+2019>s Bulletin No.6 (updated June 2021) at page 5 provides that: <U+201C>[T]he Planning Commission must adopt findings that the requested incentives will result in actual cost reductions for the project, and the requested waivers and incentives will not negatively impact public health, safety, or historic property.<U+201D> We are aware of no financial proforma or other financial data available to the Commission as would be necessary for it to adopt the required findings. We therefore urge the Planning Commission to require an adequately detailed financial proforma and/or other financial data prior to adopting findings that the requested incentives will result in actual cost reductions for the affordable housing in the project. o Please Deny the Requested Incentive and Waivers. The State Density Bonus Law allows the Commission to deny a requested incentive, concession, or waiver if it makes a written finding, based on substantial evidence, of any of the following: <U+2022> The concession, incentive, or waiver would have a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety or upon the physical environment, <U+2022> The concession, incentive, or waiver would have a specific, adverse impact on a property listed on the California Register of Historic Places, or <U+2022> The concession or incentive would not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions required to provide for the affordable housing units. The project<U+2019>s requested incentive would allow the inclusion of 18,735 square feet of <U+201C>professional office<U+201D> space in the proposed project. The Commission can deny a requested incentive, concession, or waiver if it makes a written finding, based on substantial evidence before it, that the concession, incentive, or waiver would have a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety or upon the physical environment. As discussed above, we believe there is substantial evidence, based on the project sponsor<U+2019>s own shadow study, that the frequent shadows on the adjacent the SRO hotel at 401 Broadway (New Rex Hotel) that would result from the project<U+2019>s requested incentive and waivers would have a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety of the residents of the hotel, allowing the Commission to deny the requested incentive as well as one or more waivers. The elimination of the office space from the proposed project would reduce the height of the buildings, mitigating the specific, adverse impact on public health caused by project<U+2019>s shadow impacts as well as the specific, adverse impact on historic resources. Unfortunately, there is inadequate financial information available to the Commission to make a finding that the incentive or a waiver would not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions required to provide for the five units of affordable housing in the project. November 2, 2021 Page 5 o Urgent Need to Develop, Adopt, and Apply Objective and Standardized Procedures for State Density Bonus Projects. We are concerned that there has not been a sufficient demonstration of the project<U+2019>s qualification for the incentive/concession or waivers requested by the project sponsor under the State Density Bonus Law and that the Department has not developed, adopted, or applied an objective, quantitative, and standardized procedure for making such demonstrations. As a result, the Commission has insufficient information before it to make the required findings. And, as members of the public, we are also entitled to adequate and publicly available financial and other justification for the requested density bonus incentives and waivers, with more detailed and meaningful financial and other analyses submitted to the Commission to more fully demonstrate that the requested waivers will not negatively impact public health, safety, or historic property. 3. Please Reject the Categorical Exemption and Require Environmental Review. We urge the Commission to reject the project<U+2019>s flawed determination that the project is exempt from environmental review and to require an EIR. The Department<U+2019>s conclusion that this project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) effectively <U+201C>scopes out<U+201D> and bypasses without analysis the significance of the environmental impacts of this project and, where appropriate, their mitigation. Such impacts could include, without limitation: <U+2022> Geotechnical - impacts of building excavation and construction on adjoining older, particularly susceptible buildings, especially the SRO residence hotel at 401-407 Broadway, which was constructed in 1907 and that would be vulnerable to excavation and construction impacts on two of its four sides, as well the building at 435-443 Broadway, also constructed in 1906, located immediately to the west of the proposed Broadway building <U+2022> Health and safety - impacts of loss of light and air on low-income and senior tenants of nearby SRO residence hotels <U+2022> Displacement <U+2013> impacts of the introduction of new market-rate luxury condominiums on the continuing availability and viability of nearby SRO residence hotels and other low-income housing in the project vicinity <U+2022> Historic resources <U+2013> impacts of the proposed building scale, massing, and design on the California Register-listed Jackson Square Extension Historic District in which the project is located <U+2022> Cumulative effects <U+2013> combined impacts of the proposed project and other currently proposed projects nearby, in particular the effect of the proposed project on shadowing of the John Yehall Chin Elementary School itself and on its two playgrounds combined with shadowing of those same locations from the proposed projects at 955 Sansome and 875 Sansome. November 2, 2021 Page 6 * * * Thank you very much for your consideration. Sincerely, Co-Chair, Planning & Zoning Committee Telegraph Hill Dwellers cc: Kathrin Moore, Vice President [email removed] Deland Chan, Commissioner [email removed] Sue Diamond, Commissioner [email removed] Frank Fung, Commissioner [email removed] Theresa Imperial, Commissioner [email removed] Rachel Tanner, Commissioner [email removed] Jonas Ionin, Secretary [email removed] Claudine Aspagh, SF Planning [email removed] Aaron Peskin, District 3 Supervisor [email removed] Figure 1. Shadowing caused by proposed project at 425 Broadway, also showing locations of SRO residence hotels <U+2013> based on project sponsor<U+2019>s shadow study (darkest blue shading is the most frequent shadowing). On Lok SRO SRO Golden Eagle SRO New Rex SRO November 2, 2021 Page 8 Figure 2. Project sponsor<U+2019>s photos showing SRO residence hotels at the corner of Broadway and Montgomery, at 401-407 Broadway (New Rex, 39 rooms, SW corner), 400 Broadway (Golden Eagle, 118 rooms, NW corner), 1000-1010 Montgomery (On Lok, 41 rooms, NE corner), and 381-389 Broadway (49 rooms, SE corner) November 2, 2021 Page 9 Figure 3. Section showing extent of proposed office space (gray shading), excerpted from project sponsor<U+2019>s plans November 2, 2021 Page 10 Figure 4. Physical height above Montgomery and Broadway for two proposed buildings at 425 Broadway (Montgomery building = 76 feet, Broadway building = 56 feet)show more

Corey Smith · email · 2021-11-04 · support · source packet

Re: Petitions Signers Supporting 425 Broadway
Good morning Commissioners, I've attached an updated petition signer list ahead of Thursday's hearing. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best, Corey On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 12:41 PM Corey Smith [email removed]> wrote: Members of the San Francisco Planning Commission, On behalf of the Housing Action Coalition and YIMBY Action, please see the attached document with petition signers in s… Good morning Commissioners, I've attached an updated petition signer list ahead of Thursday's hearing. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best, Corey On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 12:41 PM Corey Smith [email removed]> wrote: Members of the San Francisco Planning Commission, On behalf of the Housing Action Coalition and YIMBY Action, please see the attached document with petition signers in support of the 425 Broadway proposal. Here is a link to the Housing Action Coalition's report card of the project. Please note that there have been updates to the project since our July review. These updates are not reflected in the report card but we view the changes as positive (ie more affordable housing). Please let me know if you have any questions. Respectfully, Corey Smith Deputy Director, HAC -- Corey Smith | Pronouns: He/Him Deputy Director | Housing Action Coalition 95 Brady Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 Office: [phone removed] | Cell: [phone removed] Email: [email removed] | Web: sfhac.org To opt out of all HAC emails, respond to this email with "unsubscribe all". -- Corey Smith | Pronouns: He/Him Deputy Director | Housing Action Coalition 95 Brady Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 Office: [phone removed] | Cell: [phone removed] Email: [email removed] | Web: sfhac.org To opt out of all HAC emails, respond to this email with "unsubscribe all". First Name Last Name Email Zip Code Townsend Walker [email removed] 94109 Tom Lockard [email removed] 94133 Weston Cooper [email removed] 94133 Ignacio Barandiaran [email removed] 94611 Kate McGee [email removed] 94133 Alex Noor [email removed] 94133 Nicholas Marinakis [email removed] 94133 Charles Whitfield [email removed] 94114 Michael Chen [email removed] 94109 Steven Aiello [email removed] 94952 Davey Kim [email removed] 94109 brett Gladstone [email removed] 94117 Millicent Tolleson [email removed] 94109 Mona Lovgreen [email removed] 94111 Jacinta McCann [email removed] 94109 Victoria Wallis [email removed] 94108 lisa church [email removed] 94108 Jos Pablo Gonzalez-Brenes [email removed] 94109 Michael Pacheco [email removed] 94105 Evan Sipe [email removed] 94133 Jack Gardner [email removed] 94109 Cindy Downing [email removed] 94619 John Holtzclaw [email removed] 94133 Raul Maldonado [email removed] 94132 Julia Vetromile [email removed] 941081041 Gabe Zitrin [email removed] 94109 Scott K [email removed] 94122 Bilal Mahmood [email removed] 94105 Matt Babcock [email removed] 94109 dorian hollis [email removed] 94109 Beverly Mills [email removed] 94109 Colin Kerrigan [email removed] 94103 Jennifer Gee [email removed] 94111 Mark English [email removed] 94108 Joey Babbitt [email removed] 94133 Ziwei Hao [email removed] 94109 Armand Domalewski [email removed] 94115 Chris Heriot [email removed] 94110 Zack Subin [email removed] 94112 Ali Moss [email removed] 94117 Danny Sauter [email removed] 94133 Andrew O'Shea [email removed] 94109 Anne Fougeron [email removed] 94111 Frances Fisher-Wolff [email removed] 94109 Anika Steig [email removed] 94117 Harold Metzger [email removed] 94109 Andrew Rowny [email removed] 94114 David Stone [email removed] 94122 Andy Day [email removed] 94115 luisa james [email removed] 94109 Neil Shah [email removed] 94109 Ira Kaplan [email removed] 94133 Adam Buck [email removed] 94158 Myoko Shallenberger [email removed] 94109 Spencer Guthrie [email removed] 94118 Karen Wong [email removed] 94108 TK Polevoy [email removed] 94108 Thais Miller [email removed] 94109 Sasha Heuer [email removed] 94110 Sabeek Pradhan [email removed] 94105 Dan Federman [email removed] 94117 Luis Ramirez [email removed] 94110 Louis Magarshack [email removed] 94116 Marie Torres [email removed] 94109 Rishabh Kumar [email removed] 94133 Andres Salerno [email removed] 94109 Scot Conner [email removed] 94123 Chad Fusco [email removed] 94109 Tory R. [email removed] 94133 Corey Smith [email removed] 94103 Ansh [email removed] 94114 Raquel Bito [email removed] 94105 Ben Donahue [email removed] 94117 Brian Lese [email removed] 94109 Suzanne Gregg [email removed] 94131 Ross Ahya [email removed] 94110 Diane Filippi [email removed] 94133 Krish Ahya [email removed] 94404 [email removed] 94010 Charles Ayers [email removed] 94103 Charlene Chambliss [email removed] 94612 Matt Graves [email removed] 94103 Steve Naventi [email removed] 94102 Vamsi Uppala [email removed] 94109 Teddy Kramer [email removed] 94133 Brad Dickason [email removed] 94611 Carol Chandler [email removed] 94114 Ewan Barker Plummer [email removed] 94122 Antonio Quilici [email removed] 94109 Jonathan Buenemann [email removed] 94123 Dominique Meroux [email removed] 94134 Raquel Bito [email removed] 94111 Aisling Peterson [email removed] 94102 Sachin Agarwal [email removed] 94122 Kevin Samples [email removed] 94108 Jeska Dzwigalski [email removed] 94133 Hector Rubio [email removed] 94111 Daniela Ades [email removed] 94109 Barry Chauser [email removed] 94116 Luvia Silva [email removed] 94110 Kevin Utschig [email removed] 94110 Angelina Perez [email removed] 94109 Simon Cai [email removed] 94108 Oliver Baseley [email removed] 94103 Akhil Gupta [email removed] 94107 Molly Bierman [email removed] 94123 Avishai Halev [email removed] 94133 Silas Wilkinson [email removed] 94606 Dylan Hunn [email removed] 94110 Deepti Rajendran [email removed] 94110 Lawrence Dann-Fenwick [email removed] 94121 Christina Sheffey [email removed] 94109 Jonathan Tyburski [email removed] 94117 Lindsay Haddix [email removed] 94108 joan rost [email removed] 94109 Gabriel Handford [email removed] 94043 Robert Fruchtman [email removed] 94117 Andy Lynch [email removed] 94107 Keshav Agrawal [email removed] 94105 Corey Smith [email removed] 94117 Steve Marzo [email removed] 94112 Jessica Perla [email removed] 94107-3739 Joseph Swaub [email removed] 94104 Michiko Scott [email removed] 94706 Emily Johnston [email removed] 94114 Ravi Mulani [email removed] 8479124971 Kushal Amin [email removed] 94041 Chelsea Harrison [email removed] 94110 Timothy Buck [email removed] 94133 Alex Myers [email removed] 94108 Lizzie Siegle [email removed] 94108 Radha Ahya [email removed] 94115 Annie De Lancie [email removed] 94133 Melanie Stein [email removed] 94133 Richard McCoy [email removed] 94118 Julie Heinzler [email removed] 94611 Jessica Perla [email removed] 94107 David Casey [email removed] 94111 Kelsey Frost [email removed] 94109 Simon Blount [email removed] 94104 Jaya Verma [email removed] 94102 Ishan Chhabra [email removed] 94107 [email removed] 94107 Rikhil Bajaj [email removed] 10036 Vivek Goyal [email removed] 94301 Personalizied Message Time Stamp A perfect place for new housing in a community with shops, stores and transit. 2021-09-16 17:41:52 EST As a long term resident of North Beach I strongly support the proposed development. 2021-09-16 15:23:49 EST Excited for more neighbors, as well as more customers for neighborhood restaurants and business. 2021-09-21 17:33:51 EST I fully support this project, we need more housing now! 2021-09-16 14:47:52 EST I live 8 blocks away and am in support of the project. 2021-09-22 13:57:45 EST I live a block away and 100% support this project. North Beach is one of the best neighborhoods in the city and I want more people to be able to enjoy and experience it. 2021-09-16 19:20:23 EST I live in North Beach and strongly support more housing here 2021-09-21 17:33:05 EST More housing means more diverse, more equitable, more vibrant cities, and protects the planet from harmful urban sprawl 2021-10-29 15:21:02 EST More housing near transit would be great. More people who can support local businesses would be great. More homes for people struggling to make it is great. 2021-09-16 14:25:34 EST Nice re-use project. Keep it up! -S 2021-09-21 17:38:54 EST Nob Hill resident, who wants to see more housing, especially smaller units to add our housing supply! More neighbors mean more support for our iconic local businesses! We need more ridership on our transit lines as well! 2021-09-21 12:17:03 EST Please approve this well designed project. We do not need parking as much as we need parking. 2021-09-21 18:37:34 EST Support this better use of the land to create housing! 2021-09-16 14:59:31 EST Supporting more housing and this development. 2021-09-21 17:34:02 EST This is an excellent infill development proposal and adds much needed housing. 2021-09-22 01:20:16 EST This project is wonderful and will brighten the community! North Beach is impossibly difficult to build new housing and I really hope this succeeds. 2021-09-21 14:34:39 EST We need this and 1324 Powell Street! 2021-09-16 14:30:30 EST Why. only 41 homes? Shouldn't we build with higher density? 2021-09-16 14:24:38 EST Yes - More market rate housing! 2021-09-16 15:39:17 EST Yes! I support new affordable homes in North Beach that encourage alternatives to driving, and maximize this transit-rich location. 2021-09-16 14:23:21 EST You may also add "The John Stewart Company" as a corporate supporter. 2021-09-23 16:14:17 EST 2021-09-16 16:12:46 EST 2021-09-16 18:20:38 EST 2021-10-07 14:43:28 EST 2021-09-18 19:33:45 EST 2021-09-16 20:04:31 EST 2021-10-31 16:56:05 EST 2021-10-29 13:56:46 EST 2021-09-16 14:30:02 EST 2021-09-21 17:39:05 EST 2021-09-21 18:15:11 EST 2021-11-01 19:15:57 EST 2021-09-18 22:17:05 EST 2021-09-16 14:28:03 EST 2021-09-20 14:46:26 EST 2021-09-21 17:30:30 EST 2021-10-29 14:18:51 EST 2021-09-19 19:26:26 EST 2021-10-09 15:13:32 EST 2021-09-17 06:40:19 EST 2021-09-22 00:58:27 EST 2021-11-02 00:11:24 EST 2021-09-23 11:58:30 EST 2021-11-02 11:45:00 EST 2021-10-29 14:08:55 EST 2021-09-16 14:35:55 EST 2021-10-29 22:02:21 EST 2021-11-01 18:35:45 EST 2021-10-29 16:24:47 EST 2021-09-19 03:01:19 EST 2021-09-24 12:44:44 EST 2021-09-20 14:53:30 EST 2021-10-29 13:24:57 EST 2021-09-21 19:11:09 EST 2021-11-01 22:04:47 EST 2021-09-16 15:57:35 EST 2021-09-16 15:37:48 EST 2021-09-21 18:13:17 EST 2021-10-05 18:46:05 EST 2021-10-29 22:21:41 EST 2021-09-17 00:17:16 EST 2021-11-01 17:54:10 EST 2021-09-16 18:46:08 EST 2021-09-20 14:38:40 EST 2021-11-01 17:27:49 EST 2021-11-01 17:29:42 EST 2021-09-16 20:25:26 EST 2021-09-21 18:09:05 EST 2021-09-25 17:33:01 EST 2021-09-10 19:26:09 EST 2021-10-29 15:06:55 EST 2021-09-21 21:01:30 EST 2021-10-29 13:41:32 EST 2021-09-21 17:32:19 EST 2021-09-21 14:12:38 EST 2021-10-29 21:58:24 EST 2021-09-21 18:07:17 EST 2021-10-29 22:24:08 EST 2021-09-21 19:26:22 EST 2021-10-29 16:09:48 EST 2021-09-16 14:33:08 EST 2021-10-29 15:23:08 EST 2021-10-29 13:33:48 EST 2021-09-16 14:21:34 EST 2021-09-16 16:56:12 EST 2021-09-21 17:46:14 EST 2021-10-31 15:13:53 EST 2021-11-01 23:28:52 EST 2021-09-20 20:05:28 EST 2021-09-24 19:09:55 EST 2021-10-29 17:15:29 EST 2021-09-21 21:03:05 EST 2021-11-02 12:19:46 EST 2021-10-29 13:26:05 EST 2021-09-17 12:40:21 EST 2021-09-16 16:38:16 EST 2021-09-21 20:45:39 EST 2021-09-22 14:26:17 EST 2021-11-01 14:15:08 EST 2021-09-17 23:21:00 EST 2021-09-18 16:39:02 EST 2021-09-18 19:41:37 EST 2021-09-26 14:43:33 EST 2021-10-29 22:11:53 EST 2021-10-31 07:29:19 EST 2021-09-19 11:32:13 EST 2021-09-21 18:55:15 EST 2021-10-30 14:03:52 EST 2021-09-16 14:40:07 EST 2021-10-29 22:41:19 EST 2021-10-31 14:15:28 EST 2021-09-21 19:13:54 EST 2021-10-29 16:40:54 EST 2021-09-16 15:48:21 EST 2021-09-21 17:37:24 EST 2021-10-29 13:46:22 EST 2021-09-18 16:00:09 EST 2021-09-21 19:57:40 EST 2021-10-29 22:17:20 EST 2021-09-16 20:18:13 EST 2021-09-16 18:33:07 EST 2021-09-17 14:54:43 EST 2021-09-16 15:14:58 EST 2021-09-16 15:20:22 EST 2021-10-29 21:08:52 EST 2021-10-30 16:45:39 EST 2021-10-29 22:12:10 EST 2021-11-01 22:43:51 EST 2021-09-24 10:50:46 EST 2021-09-23 23:08:17 EST 2021-10-30 12:28:35 EST 2021-10-29 22:03:02 EST 2021-09-21 17:58:18 EST 2021-09-16 14:53:18 EST 2021-10-30 10:24:11 EST 2021-09-21 17:41:43 EST 2021-10-29 13:26:37 EST 2021-09-16 15:59:47 EST 2021-09-17 23:57:39 EST 2021-09-22 02:13:51 EST 2021-10-29 22:02:43 EST 2021-10-29 22:16:13 EST 2021-10-29 23:08:52 EST 2021-10-29 23:31:33 EST 2021-10-30 18:41:49 ESTshow more

T Flandrich · email · 2021-11-04 · oppose · source packet

2017-015678CUA 425 Broadway Planning Commission Hearing 11/4/2021 IN OPPOSITION
Dear Commissioners, ***I support Chinatown Community Development Center's request for continuance *** As the Co-Founder of the North Beach Tenants Committee, as a decades long resident of North Beach and as someone who lives five blocks from the site of this project, I write in opposition to this particular project. This surface lot should indeed be used to create housing, but only the type of housing that … Dear Commissioners, ***I support Chinatown Community Development Center's request for continuance *** As the Co-Founder of the North Beach Tenants Committee, as a decades long resident of North Beach and as someone who lives five blocks from the site of this project, I write in opposition to this particular project. This surface lot should indeed be used to create housing, but only the type of housing that is most needed in this community to house workers in all need to applaud the use of this space at 425 Broadway Street for housing. I am, however, extremely disappointed that this is not the desperately needed 100% affordable housing project that our community needs. Displacement and unaffordable housing has played a huge role in destroying the very fabric of our community and forced our essential workers not only out of our city, but to the outer boundaries of the Bay area. Our hope has long been that truly affordable housing would be built on any & all underutilized space here in District 3 allowing for our displaced neighbors to return. This project excludes their return and as well as housing for our restaurant workers, baristas, those who work at entertainment venues, in other words, affordable rental housing for those who keep the city running and are struggling to remain in the city. The current project proposal also impacts our low-income residents in nearby residential hotels and this is a huge concern we have. The New Rex Single Residential Occupancy Hotel(SRO) at 401-406 Broadway immediately adjacent to this site, Broadway/Montgomery is the 39 room home to 61 tenants. These are extremely low-income elders, families, the majority of whom are monolingual Chinese. I visited this SRO at the peak of "shelter-in-place" due to concerns around food access and spoke directly with several tenants there. What I noted during this mid-day visit was that it was dark, that there was little natural light, as well as the fact that it felt quite damp. With the height of this project, as well as the windows no longer fully open on both the west and rear sides of the SRO, diminished light & ventilation, I am concerned about the health & safety of these 61 people. The fact that community outreach did not include these residents, nor those in the 3 SROs at this intersection, is especially disturbing. There is a lack of a racial & equitable lens as it applies to these residents. The L shaped development plan of the two buildings will impact the health & safety of these tenants. This project would indeed be detrimental to our Chinatown/North Beach communities. We need affordable rental housing to house those who serve our communities: the teachers at the nearby elementary school, the preschool teachers/workers at Wu Yee, staff at On-Lok, workers at the entertainment venues along the Broadway corridor, restaurant workers, those at grocery stores, delis, hotel workers, retail shop workers, medical staff at clinics and nearby Chinese Hospital. Many of these workers were residents here, displaced with Ellis Act evictions, speculators buying buildings, and converting them to condos, while only more and more luxury condos are built. Gentrification has meant that many of our BIPOC neighbors are now commuting from Antioch to continue working here & maintaining family & cultural ties. Market rate condos will only serve the developer's pockets: he can build, make immediate windfall profit and leave. We in this Northeast corner will continue to suffer the loss of our neighbors, our affordable housing, and never reach the RHINA numbers for affordable housing for the low-income to middle-income housing. There is an extremely limited amount of space left here in one of the most densely populated areas, whatever available land must be used for the housing we most need. The sponsor, HAC, YIMBYs -those in support of the project, have not witnessed the past decades of our neighbors being unable to remain here as rents skyrocketed and incomes have not risen to keep up with housing costs. They do not have deep roots in our communities, I feel it necessary to focus my comments on community needs. This project, 41 market rate condos, the unprecedented mass of office area space, the deliberate attempt to not use all available space to build affordable rentals and create neighborhood serving services, all will serve the developer only. Proof of community needs, the need for affordable housing here: a 75 unit 100% affordable housing project built in 2015 at Broadway/Sansome had 6000 applicants. Some families were able to use their Displacement Certificate of Preference here, and yet it still meant that 5,925 people were not able to find the needed affordable housing. The Planning Commission must deny this project. The above describes our communities' needs, and now to address the specific impact on immediate neighbors to this project site. An additional reason to deny this project is that it will indeed have a detrimental impact on the adjacent New Rex Hotel. I have visited with tenants at the 401-407 Broadway SRO Hotel Rex here in July 2020, during Shelter In Place, as well as on October 27th. Tenants were bewildered with project plans and fearful of impacts. Major Concerns: Health & safety for 60 residents in adjacent Rex SRO Hotel- Fire exits at windows on 2nd/3rd floors, history of Fire on 2nd floor meant Fire Dept ladder truck used Verdi Place to access building (Public Right of Access) Large windows in corridors means access to full sunlight, ventilation throughout hallways & into rooms Proximity to Bay and fog means greater than normal humidity levels, serious health hazard for seniors especially Long-term Tenants on Oct 27 voiced concerns of safety and diminished air & sun Majority of residents are monolingual Chinese seniors and and some families w/ small children Lack of Community outreach, and in their language, as well as not reaching out to the other 3 SROs nearby There are no Community, Neighborhood services in the current plan, rather, a bloated area for offices in an area with so many vacancies along Montgomery and Pacific Avenue Ex. the nearest laundromat for the 4 SRO buildings here is 6 very long blocks away, up hill. The question is, are you going to leave the existing, long time, low-income residents to try to survive as mushrooms in the dark, harming their quality of life? Not fulfilling the policy requirement for creating more permanent affordable housing. Will you allow the sponsor to create "amazing views" for the few, so that a developer can fulfill his single desire to create immediate windfall profit for himself? See his ad:425 Broadway in San Francisco, CA - prices, reviews, condos for sale | iNewHomes I implore you to deny this project today and help us get the type of housing we most need. Gratefully yours, Theresa Flandrich North Beach Tenants Committee Decades long advocate for North Beach/Chinatown Image 1-New Rex Hotel corridor leading to window, fire exit clearly marked in English on left side, and in Chinese at window. Drop down ladder from balcony outside window at 2nd floor residential level (10/27/21) Image 2- staircase leading from 2nd floor level down to 1st floor, then to ground level entrance/exit door on Broadway Image 3-partial view of some windows of Rex Hotel facing west at parking lotshow more

2021-12-02 · 4 comments · 2 / 2

Steven (25) X4902 Vettel · email · 2021-12-02 · support · source packet

425 Broadway conditional use hearing December 2
Dear Commissioners. I am writing on behalf of Montgomery Place LLC, the project sponsor of the 42-unit 425 Broadway mixed use State Density Bonus project that is before you next Thursday, December 2. The hearing has been continued 3 times since its original hearing date, and we are ready to proceed on December 2. Attached is a letter responding in some detail to a letter of opposition submitted by Telegraph Hill… Dear Commissioners. I am writing on behalf of Montgomery Place LLC, the project sponsor of the 42-unit 425 Broadway mixed use State Density Bonus project that is before you next Thursday, December 2. The hearing has been continued 3 times since its original hearing date, and we are ready to proceed on December 2. Attached is a letter responding in some detail to a letter of opposition submitted by Telegraph Hill Dwellers on November 2 and a continuance request submitted by CCDC on November 3 (we agreed with CCDC to a 4-week continuance). As described in the attached letter, we have met twice with CCDC and the residents of the SRO building at 401 Broadway since November 3 and believe we have addressed their concerns. We also have the support of North Beach Neighbors and several nearby places of entertainment on Broadway. One other item to note is that the project has added a 6th on-site BMR unit and now totals 42 units (36 market rate and 6 BMR units), compared to 36 market rate and 5 BMR units in the original 41-unit package. The amount of design professional office space has been reduced to accommodate the added BMR unit. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss the project further with you prior to December 2 or to set up a virtual meeting with the project team. Please email me a good time to talk or call me at [phone removed] at your convenience. Thank you and have a wonderful Thanksgiving holiday. Steven L. Vettel He/Him/His [email removed] D [phone removed] C [phone removed] he 235 Montgomery Street 17th FL San Francisco, CA 94104 www.fbm.com This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com STEVEN L. VETTEL [email removed] D [phone removed] November 22, 2021 Hon. Joel Koppel, President San Francisco Planning Commission 49 South Van Ness Avenue, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94103 Re: 425 Broadway (Case No. 2017-015678CUA) Conditional Use/State Density Bonus Hearing Date: December 2, 2021 Dear President Koppel and Commissioners: I am writing on behalf of Montgomery Place LLC, the project sponsor of the 42-unit 425 Broadway project (the "Project") in response to letters you received from Stan Hayes of the Telegraph Hill Dwellers on November 2 opposing the Project. Mr. Hayes's letter contains significant factual inaccuracies and asserts several incorrect legal arguments, as describe below. This letter also responds to the November 3 request from Maggie Dong of Chinatown Community Development Corporation requesting a continuance of the November 4 hearing. We agreed to a 4-week continuance, and during that time we have addressed the issues identified by Ms. Dong. The Project at the southwest corner of Broadway and Montgomery Street is a mixed use condominium development consistent with the policies and zoning regulations of the Broadway NCD zoning district. Pursuant to the State Density Bonus law, and at the urging of the Planning Department, we increased the number of dwelling units from the 34 allowed by the Broadway NCD zoning to 42 total units, including 6 on-site inclusionary units. (The original 34 unit scheme had no on-site units but proposed to instead pay the Affordable Housing Fee). The project also includes eight small commercial suites, mainly below and at grade, five for design professional only offices and three ground floor retail storefronts, totaling 22,935 square feet of commercial use, well below the 34,102 square feet principally permitted by the Broadway NCD zoning. No public parking is proposed; the project includes only 17 residential parking spaces. Health, Safety and Livability Impacts on Adjacent SRO Residents. The project is adjacent to the 401 Broadway SRO building. We made several project modifications on account of that adjacency and have met twice with the building residents and representatives of CCDC (on November 10 and November 17) to finalize those modifications in response to issues raised by the residents. San Francisco Planning Commission November 22, 2021 Page 2 1. Light wells. 401 Broadway contains 32 SRO units, with the windows of 27 of the rooms opening onto Broadway, Montgomery Street and Verdi Alley, with five SRO units facing lightwells on the west face of the building. Our project will not affect the Broadway and Montgomery facing rooms, and our project maintains the 20-foot wide Verdi Alley separation between the south wall of 401 Broadway and our Montgomery building to maintain light and air to the south facing SRO units. To address the lightwell windows on the west faade of 401 Broadway (which provide light and air to a kitchen, bathrooms and a stairway, in addition to the five SRO units), we will incorporate matching light wells in the Broadway building<U+2019>s east faade. As shown in the attached drawing, the matching light wells will provide a 7<U+2019>-3<U+201D> separation between the two buildings. Our light wells will have no transparent windows facing 401 Broadway, will be painted white to maximize reflected light, will incorporate fresh air input to provide air flow into the 401 Broadway windows facing the light wells, will incorporate heliostats to direct sunlight into the light wells, and will have access doors so that our building<U+2019>s staff can remove any debris that may fall into the light wells. These modifications met with the consent of the residents at our November 17 meeting. The light wells are also fully consistent with the City<U+2019>s Residential Design Guidelines (pages 16 to 17) which encourage matching lightwells in adjoining buildings to address light and air impacts. 2. Verdi Alley landscape improvements. The SRO units on the south side of the hotel overlook Verdi Alley, which currently serves as a paved entry into the parking garage on our site. We will transform Verdi Alley into a landscaped pedestrian way open to the public, including hotel residents, and our Montgomery building is a full 20 feet away from the hotel property. 3. Construction period measures. We have incorporated construction period noise, air quality and vibration control measures into the project to minimize disruption to the hotel tenants. We have agreed to review those measures with the residents prior to their finalization and will provide a project liaison during construction for residents to contact with outstanding concerns. 4. Laundry facility. At the request of the residents, we will pay to install two washing machines and two dryers within the 401 Broadway building provided the owner of 401 Broadway agrees and a location in the building with access to plumbing and electric service can be found to install the washers and dryers. There are currently no laundry facilities in the building. Please also note that the Zoning Administrator has determined today that the Department's notice of the Commission hearing and the signs posted at the site by the Project sponsor appropriately contained Cantonese language notice language and comply with all Planning Code requirements. San Francisco Planning Commission November 22, 2021 Page 3 The State Density Bonus law requires the City to grant development standard waivers needed to facilitate the bonus units, plus one development standard concession, and not disapprove the project based on any subjective conditional use standards. In this case, we seek and are entitled to a waiver of the rear yard, bulk limits, and unit exposure requirements for a few units because those standards would physically preclude development of the bonus units. We are not seeking a waiver of the 65-foot height limit, any reduction in open space, or any increase in commercial space. We are also entitled to our single requested concession, which is to permit two of the five design professional office suites to slightly exceed 2,999 square feet in size, based on the documented expense to the project of further subdividing those two suites into four very small ones. Contrary to state law, Mr. Hayes requests that the Commission exercise conditional use authority to disapprove the Project based not on objective Planning Code standards but on discretionary considerations, including his speculative gentrification arguments. He also requests that the Commission deny the three requested waivers and single concession, a request directly contrary to state law. We submit, and the Planning Department housing staff has confirmed, that under state law the Commission is without authority to deny conditional use authorization to this State Density Bonus project or deny the requested waivers and single incentive. "In no case may a city, county, or city and county apply any development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development meeting the criteria of [the Density Bonus Law] at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by this section." (Cal. Gov<U+2019>t. Code 65915(e)(1)). Even without this state mandate, the project meets the applicable conditional use criteria. Design Professional Office Space conditional use. Design professional office space is principally permitted in the Broadway NCD at the second floor and below up to a total of over 34,000 square feet, provided no single suite is larger than 2,999 square feet. Thus, contrary to Mr. Hayes's assertion, no conditional use authorization is required for the 17,995 square feet of design professional office space proposed, demised into five separate office suites ranging from 1,829 to 3,363 square feet in size. Conditional use is only needed under Planning Code section 121.2 because two of the five suites exceed 2,999 square feet (one is 3,348 and one is 3,363 square feet). The three retail storefronts and the other three design professional office suites are each smaller than 2,999 square feet. Section 121.2 does not restrict the total amount of commercial space in a project, only the use size of each commercial suite or storefront. The two suites, only slightly larger than 2,999 square feet, easily meet the criteria of Section 121.2, and in any event we are entitled to this single Density Bonus concession because of the significant additional cost the project would bear to further demise these two suites into four smaller ones, each with its own entry. Height above 40 feet conditional use. The project's two buildings are 56 feet tall (Broadway building) and 64 feet tall (Montgomery building) as measured from Broadway, both below the 65 foot height limit. Nonetheless, Mr. Hayes requests that the Commission disapprove San Francisco Planning Commission November 22, 2021 Page 4 any height above 40 feet, per Planning Code section 253.1. That Code section contains subjective standards the Commission may consider when reviewing projects between 40 and 65 feet in height in the 65-A-1 height and bulk district. However, because imposition of a 40-foot height limit would physically preclude the 42 density bonus dwelling units, we submit that the Commission is without authority under state law to deny this conditional use approval. Even if the office space (nearly all of which is at grade or below grade) was eliminated from the project, it is not physically possible to fit 42 units into a 40-foot tall project. This is especially true on Broadway, where in consideration of our place of entertainment neighbors we have not located dwelling units facing the street below the third floor. In any event, our project meets the criteria of Section 253.1. The Planning Department issued a Historic Resource Evaluation determining that the size, massing and design of the project is consistent with the Jackson Square Historic District Extension. A copy is attached. The Commission may not deny State Density Bonus development standard waivers if the development standards would physically preclude the bonus project. The Planning Department has confirmed that application of the Planning Code's rear yard, bulk and unit exposure development standards would physically preclude the project, including the bonus units. Accordingly, the City may not enforce those standards; rather, the City must grant the waivers pursuant to section 65915(e)(1) of the Government Code. Mr. Hayes's argument that the City may deny waivers based on a finding that the project would adversely affect public health and safety is incorrect. That is the standard by which the City may deny a concession or incentive (section 65915(k)), not the legal standard applicable to waivers (section 65915(e)). To the contrary, there is no ability by the City to deny the waiver of a development standard that would physically preclude a density bonus project. There is no evidence that two of the eight commercial suites exceeding 2,999 would create a significant public health or safety impact. As discussed above, the project is principally permitted under the Broadway NCD zoning to contain up to 34,102 square feet of commercial space with no conditional use requirement, provided each commercial space is 2,999 square feet in size or smaller. Accordingly, no concession or waiver is required for the 17,995 square feet we propose. The only conditional use concession we seek is for two of the eight commercial suites to exceed the 2,999 square foot conditional use threshold, each by less than 400 square feet, in order to reduce project costs. This single concession has no impact on the size of the project, it height, its adjacency to the 401 Broadway SRO building, or any shadow impacts in the area. Denial of the concession would only require costly interior modifications to those two suites but no reduction in the total amount of office space. Accordingly, although a concession or incentive may be denied if the concession or incentive would cause significant public health or safety impacts, there is no evidence of that here. There is also no evidence that the use size concession has any impact on the Jackson Square Historic District Extension because, as noted above, denial of the concession would not reduce the size or alter the design of the project; it would only increase the number of San Francisco Planning Commission November 22, 2021 Page 5 commercial suites from eight to ten. In any event, the Department's preservation staff has concluded that the project is compatible with and will have no adverse impact on any historic resources, including the Jackson Square Historic District Extension. The Planning Commission has no authority to overrule a Class 32 CEQA exemption issued by the Planning Department. As you know, pursuant to Article 31 of the Administrative Code, CEQA exemptions are issued by the Department and are not appealable to the Planning Commission. Accordingly, Mr. Hayes's request that the Commission reject the Department's exemption determination is without legal merit. In any event, the Department conducted extensive environmental analysis of the project before issuing the exemption determination, including historic resource, geotechnical, noise and vibration, air quality, and open space shadow analyses. As a modestly sized infill project with no significant adverse environmental impacts, including no historic resource impacts, the Class 32 exemption determination was properly granted. For all of the above reasons, we request that the Commission abide by the State Density Bonus law and approve the project with the waivers and single concession to which it is entitled. Mr. Hayes presents no evidence or argument that would support the Commission ignoring state law and rejecting the project. We also request that no further continuances be granted. The Project was originally scheduled for an October 7 hearing and has already been continued three times. We have met twice with the 401 Broadway residents and CCDC since the last continuance to finalize the project modifications requested by those residents and described above. Very truly yours, Steven L. Vettel cc: Kathrin Moore, Vice President Commissioner Delan Chan Commissioner Frank Fung Commissioner Theresa Imperial Commissioner Sue Diamond Commissioner Rachel Tanner Jonas Ionin, Commission Secretary Claudine Asbagh, planner Sup. Aaron Peskin Stan Hayes, Telegraph Hill Neighbors Maggie Dong, Chinatown Neighborhood Development Corporation Montgomery Place LLC Ian Birchall & Associates 34102\14433031.2 Historic Resource Evaluation Response Record No.: 2017-015678ENV Project Address: 425 Broadway Zoning: Broadway NCD (Broadway Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District 65-A-1 Height and Bulk District Block/Lot: 0163/002 Staff Contact: Jonathan Vimr <U+2013> [phone removed] [email removed] Part II: Project Evaluation Proposed Project: Per Drawings Dated: Demolition / New Construction Alteration August 19, 2021 PROJECT DESCRIPTION <U+2022> Demolition of existing parking lot/structure <U+2022> Construction of two new buildings <U+2022> Building 1 is a mixed-use, seven story structure fronting Montgomery Street <U+2022> Building 2 is a mixed-use, five story structure fronting Broadway <U+2022> Portions of both structures would also run along Verdi Alley, which is currently occupied by the existing parking lot DISTRICT COMPATIBILITY ANALYSIS The proposed project<U+2019>s conformance with the District<U+2019>s Character-Defining Features: As proposed, the project would demolish an existing, non-historic and non-contributory parking lot/parking structure and replace it with two new buildings alongside associated improvements to Verdi Alley. The parking lot/structure occupies a single L-shaped lot with frontage along Broadway to the north and Montgomery Street to the east and is located roughly at the center of the Jackson Square Historic District Extension (<U+201C>JSE<U+201D>). Listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, the JSE is a distinct district but also effectively extends the original Jackson Square Historic District<U+2019>s northern boundary up to the centerline of Broadway between Sansome and Kearny Streets. As noted in the nomination form for the JSE, the predominant building type is a commercial block of two to three stories with vernacular classical revivalist cornices and deep-set windows in a regular pattern. Though brick is the most ubiquitous cladding material in the district by a good margin, stucco is the second most common facing material. And as in the original Jackson Square Historic District, the JSE nomination states that <U+201C>there are a few buildings on larger lots, and a few taller ones, but these do not intrude.<U+201D>1 1 Anne Bloomfield, <U+201C>Jackson Square Historic District Extension,<U+201D> California Register of Historical Resources Nomination Form (Sacramento, CA: California Office of Historic Preservation, 1982), Section 7b. Historic Resource Evaluation Response, Part II Record No. 2017-015678ENV 425 Broadway 2 The project follows this pattern as it occupies the single largest lot in the JSE, and would construct two structures that, while taller than the typical three stories, are unobtrusive and well connected to their context. The Montgomery Street structure (<U+201C>Building 1<U+201D>) follows the strictly defined stepping pattern established its downhill neighbor (909 Montgomery), rising two stories above it in height and being comparable to that of the structure directly across the street (930 Montgomery). The design of Building 1 further relates to the district and its context by utilizing brick cladding to transition from the neighboring 909 Montgomery to the remainder of new building, which is clad in a lightly toned stucco system. And while the higher volumes of fenestration as well as angled bays along Building 1<U+2019>s Verdi Alley elevation are more distinct from the character of the district, these are restricted to a secondary elevation, provide differentiation from the historic buildings, and are ameliorated through the use of a flat front and more uniform fenestration at the Montgomery Street faade. Compatibility is also achieved via recessed windows throughout, simple abstracted cornices, and decorative brick string courses to better articulate that portion of the faade. Relating directly to its surroundings and not intruding on the lower-scaled portions of the district, clad in the two most common materials in the district, and subtly incorporating typical features like string courses and punched openings, Building 1 is sufficiently compatible with the character of the JSE while being differentiated primarily through its broken up massing and treatment of the secondary, Verdi Alley elevation. The new Broadway structure (<U+201C>Building 2<U+201D>) achieves general compatibility in a similar fashion. It features a flat faade with recessed, almost uniform fenestration, and the entirety of the four-story portion facing Broadway is clad in brick with solider coursing used to articulate the faade and create an architectural cap. The topmost, fifth level is setback to provide relief to the neighboring historic structures and is clad in a white stucco matching that used along much of Building 1. The ground floor storefronts are readily contemporary but do relate to the surrounding district through incorporation of a traditional<U+2014>albeit abstracted<U+2014>composition of bulkhead, display, and transom. Secretary of the Interior Standard for Rehabilitation No. 9 states that new construction will not destroy historic materials, features and/or spatial relationships that characterize a property, and also that <U+201C>new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity<U+201D> of a historic property and its environment.2 With their height, window systems, setback upper levels, and irregular elevations along Verdi Alley both of the new buildings appear to easily achieve sufficient differentiation from the historic district. But they also utilize the JSE<U+2019>s two most characteristic cladding materials, feature flat and uniform front facades and setbacks for the aluminum window systems, incorporate details such as string courses and cornices without creating a false sense of history, and are of a scale directly tied to neighboring structures. Finally, the project replaces a parking lot with two largely compatible structures, effectively <U+201C>filling in<U+201D> the only lot within the district that is not yet developed with a building(s). With the JSE being typified by commercial block structures, the project fits well within it and returns Verdi Alley to a pedestrian-accessible area rather than a portion of a parking lot. See Cumulative Impacts Analysis comments for additional information. PROJECT DETERMINATION Based on the Historic Resource Evaluation in Part I, the project<U+2019>s scope of work: Will cause a significant adverse impact to the individual historic resource as proposed. Will cause a significant adverse impact to a historic district / context as proposed. Will not cause a significant adverse impact to the individual historic resource as proposed. Will not cause a significant adverse impact to a historic district / context as proposed. 2 Anne E. Grimmer, <U+201C>The Secretary of the Interior<U+2019>s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings,<U+201D> (Washington, DC: US Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Technical Preservation Services), 2017. Page 76. Historic Resource Evaluation Response, Part II Record No. 2017-015678ENV 425 Broadway 3 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS As discussed in detail above, the project is differentiated from but largely compatible with the JSE. This, paired with the fact that the project would not demolish a contributory property<U+2014>or even a building<U+2014>and would alter one of 32 parcels within the district, ensures that it could not cause an adverse impact resulting in material impairment to the JSE or any of the neighboring districts and potential historic resources. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS The project site is located within the JSE, but also borders the original Jackson Square Historic District, is within two blocks of the Old Ohio Street Houses Historic District and is within the survey area included in the community-initiated North Beach Historic Context Statement (<U+201C>HCS<U+201D>), which remains in draft form.3 With that said, the project would not result in the removal or alteration of any contributory property and is largely compatible with the JSE. As such the project would not result in any cumulative impacts to historic resources. 3 While no findings have been made and the draft HCS has yet to be reviewed, finalized, or adopted by the Historic Preservation Commission, the community group sponsoring the HCS has indicated their belief that a new, expanded North Beach historic district could potentially represent the entirety of the expanded survey area (exceeding thousands of properties in total), with almost all properties within it being contributory. Historic Resource Evaluation Response, Part II Record No. 2017-015678ENV 425 Broadway 4 PART II: Principal Preservation Planner Review Signature: Date: 9/16/2021 Elizabeth Gordon-Jonckheer, Principal Planner Northwest Team & Historic Preservation, Current Planning Division CC: Christy Alexander, AICP, Senior Planner Northeast Team, Current Planning Division Racial & Social Equity Plan Team, Community Equity Division HRER PART II ATTACHMENTS: Architectural Plans, dated: August 19, 2021show more

Steven (25) X4902 Vettel · email · 2021-12-02 · oppose · source packet

425 Broadway
Hi Jonas, we are trying to hammer out an agreement with CCDC and the residents of 401 Broadway and have agreed with them to ask for a one or two week continuance? Can we get on the Dec. 9 or 16 calendar? Thanks. Steven L. Vettel He/Him/His [email removed] D [phone removed] C [phone removed] 235 Montgomery Street 17th FL San Francisco, CA 94104 www.fbm.com This email has been scanned for email relat… show more

Sue Hestor · email · 2021-12-02 · oppose · source packet

425 Broadway - NO OUTREACH BY SPONSOR TO CHINATOWN or tenants of SRO hotel at
401 Broadway Staff packet for 12/2 hearing on development of 2 parking lots at 425 Broadway shows that there was ZERO outreach to Chinatown by project sponsor. Staff packet sent 11/25 has 9/28/21 sponsor's brief (pp 95-113) with their its outreach matrix (102-113). Details outreach for input only to Telegraph Hill (102), North Beach (103) , SF HAC (105), YIMBY Action (106), night clubs (107). Outreach bega… show more

Corey Smith · email · 2021-12-02 · support · source packet

Re: Petitions Signers Supporting 425 Broadway
Good afternoon Commissioners, Ahead of this Thursday's hearing, please see the attached list of updated petition signers. Best, Corey On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 10:04 AM Corey Smith [email removed]> wrote: Good morning Commissioners, I've attached an updated petition signer list ahead of Thursday's hearing. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best, Corey On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 12:… Good afternoon Commissioners, Ahead of this Thursday's hearing, please see the attached list of updated petition signers. Best, Corey On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 10:04 AM Corey Smith [email removed]> wrote: Good morning Commissioners, I've attached an updated petition signer list ahead of Thursday's hearing. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best, Corey On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 12:41 PM Corey Smith [email removed]> wrote: Members of the San Francisco Planning Commission, On behalf of the Housing Action Coalition and YIMBY Action, please see the attached document with petition signers in support of the 425 Broadway proposal. Here is a link to the Housing Action Coalition's report card of the project. Please note that there have been updates to the project since our July review. These updates are not reflected in the report card but we view the changes as positive (ie more affordable housing). Please let me know if you have any questions. Respectfully, Corey Smith Deputy Director, HAC -- Corey Smith | Pronouns: He/Him Deputy Director | Housing Action Coalition 95 Brady Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 Office: [phone removed] | Cell: [phone removed] Email: [email removed] | Web: sfhac.org To opt out of all HAC emails, respond to this email with "unsubscribe all". -- Corey Smith | Pronouns: He/Him Deputy Director | Housing Action Coalition 95 Brady Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 Office: [phone removed] | Cell: [phone removed] Email: [email removed] | Web: sfhac.org To opt out of all HAC emails, respond to this email with "unsubscribe all". -- Corey Smith | Pronouns: He/Him Deputy Director | Housing Action Coalition 95 Brady Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 Office: [phone removed] | Cell: [phone removed] Email: [email removed] | Web: sfhac.org To opt out of all HAC emails, respond to this email with "unsubscribe all". First Name Last Name Email Zip Code Personalizied Message Time Stamp Townsend Walker [email removed] 94109 A perfect place for new housing in a community with shops, stores and transit. 2021-09-16 17:41:52 EST Tom Lockard [email removed] 94133 As a long term resident of North Beach I strongly support the proposed 2021-09-16 15:23:49 EST Weston Cooper [email removed] 94133 Excited for more neighbors, as well as more customers for neighborhood 2021-09-21 17:33:51 EST Wima Bolio [email removed] 94102 Good 2021-11-18 20:13:43 EST Ignacio Barandiaran [email removed] 94611 I fully support this project, we need more housing now! 2021-09-16 14:47:52 EST Kate McGee [email removed] 94133 I live 8 blocks away and am in support of the project. 2021-09-22 13:57:45 EST Alex Noor [email removed] 94133 I live a block away and 100% support this project. North Beach is one of the best neighborhoods in the city and I want more people to be able to enjoy and 2021-09-16 19:20:23 EST Nicholas Marinakis [email removed] 94133 I live in North Beach and strongly support more housing here 2021-09-21 17:33:05 EST Sandy Rodgers [email removed] 92223 If you follow through you will encourage more cites. 2021-11-16 15:23:27 EST Charles Whitfield [email removed] 94114 More housing means more diverse, more equitable, more vibrant cities, and protects the planet from harmful urban sprawl 2021-10-29 15:21:02 EST Michael Chen [email removed] 94109 More housing near transit would be great. More people who can support local businesses would be great. More homes for people struggling to make it is great. 2021-09-16 14:25:34 EST Hal Gordon [email removed] 94110 More housing please! 2021-11-02 21:42:11 EST Steven Aiello [email removed] 94952 Nice re-use project. Keep it up! -S 2021-09-21 17:38:54 EST Davey Kim [email removed] 94109 Nob Hill resident, who wants to see more housing, especially smaller units to add our housing supply! More neighbors mean more support for our iconic local businesses! We need more ridership on our transit lines as well! 2021-09-21 12:17:03 EST JOHN BERGE [email removed] 94112 Perhaps the reviews needed for this project were not fully complete. But complete rejection? No thought about the desperate need for low income housing in this town? This only adds to nationwide discussion/shaming that 2021-11-03 20:46:08 EST brett Gladstone [email removed] 94117 Please approve this well designed project. We do not need parking as much as 2021-09-21 18:37:34 EST Robert Bregoff [email removed] 94117-2409 Support housing! 2021-11-05 15:15:49 EST Millicent Tolleson [email removed] 94109 Support this better use of the land to create housing! 2021-09-16 14:59:31 EST Mona Lovgreen [email removed] 94111 Supporting more housing and this development. 2021-09-21 17:34:02 EST Megan Nguyen [email removed] 94103 The community needs housing! Please ensure that home are affordable and built below market rate. Having community benefits and access to transit are critical and everyone deserves a safe home to return to! 2021-11-09 12:42:41 EST Jacinta McCann [email removed] 94109 This is an excellent infill development proposal and adds much needed housing. 2021-09-22 01:20:16 EST Victoria Wallis [email removed] 94108 This project is wonderful and will brighten the community! North Beach is impossibly difficult to build new housing and I really hope this succeeds. 2021-09-21 14:34:39 EST Alan Billingsley [email removed] 94114 We need more housing of all types, and this well designed project is especially welcome. The location in a particularly dense and walkable location is particularly appropriate. And nearby businesses need the support 2021-11-09 12:22:33 EST lisa church [email removed] 94108 We need this and 1324 Powell Street! 2021-09-16 14:30:30 EST Jos Pablo Gonzalez-Brenes [email removed] 94109 Why. only 41 homes? Shouldn't we build with higher density? 2021-09-16 14:24:38 EST Michael Pacheco [email removed] 94105 Yes - More market rate housing! 2021-09-16 15:39:17 EST Evan Sipe [email removed] 94133 Yes! I support new affordable homes in North Beach that encourage alternatives to driving, and maximize this transit-rich location. 2021-09-16 14:23:21 EST Darren Mckeeman [email removed] 94133 Yes! More housing! 2021-11-02 21:36:09 EST Jack Gardner [email removed] 94109 You may also add "The John Stewart Company" as a corporate supporter. 2021-09-23 16:14:17 EST Corey Smith [email removed] 94103 2021-09-10 19:26:09 EST Vamsi Uppala [email removed] 94109 2021-09-16 14:21:34 EST Mark English [email removed] 94108 2021-09-16 14:28:03 EST Matt Babcock [email removed] 94109 2021-09-16 14:30:02 EST Charlene Chambliss [email removed] 94612 2021-09-16 14:33:08 EST Harold Metzger [email removed] 94109 2021-09-16 14:35:55 EST Dylan Hunn [email removed] 94110 2021-09-16 14:40:07 EST Melanie Stein [email removed] 94133 2021-09-16 14:53:18 EST Joseph Swaub [email removed] 94104 2021-09-16 15:14:58 EST Michiko Scott [email removed] 94706 2021-09-16 15:20:22 EST TK Polevoy [email removed] 94108 2021-09-16 15:37:48 EST Lindsay Haddix [email removed] 94108 2021-09-16 15:48:21 EST Karen Wong [email removed] 94108 2021-09-16 15:57:35 EST David Casey [email removed] 94111 2021-09-16 15:59:47 EST Cindy Downing [email removed] 94619 2021-09-16 16:12:46 EST Jeska Dzwigalski [email removed] 94133 2021-09-16 16:38:16 EST Teddy Kramer [email removed] 94133 2021-09-16 16:56:12 EST John Holtzclaw [email removed] 94133 2021-09-16 18:20:38 EST Steve Marzo [email removed] 94112 2021-09-16 18:33:07 EST Louis Magarshack [email removed] 94116 2021-09-16 18:46:08 EST Gabe Zitrin [email removed] 94109 2021-09-16 20:04:31 EST Corey Smith [email removed] 94117 2021-09-16 20:18:13 EST Scot Conner [email removed] 94123 2021-09-16 20:25:26 EST Dan Federman [email removed] 94117 2021-09-17 00:17:16 EST Ali Moss [email removed] 94117 2021-09-17 06:40:19 EST Kevin Samples [email removed] 94108 2021-09-17 12:40:21 EST Jessica Perla [email removed] 94107-3739 2021-09-17 14:54:43 EST Luvia Silva [email removed] 94110 2021-09-17 23:21:00 EST Kelsey Frost [email removed] 94109 2021-09-17 23:57:39 EST Robert Fruchtman [email removed] 94117 2021-09-18 16:00:09 EST Kevin Utschig [email removed] 94110 2021-09-18 16:39:02 EST Julia Vetromile [email removed] 941081041 2021-09-18 19:33:45 EST Angelina Perez [email removed] 94109 2021-09-18 19:41:37 EST Jennifer Gee [email removed] 94111 2021-09-18 22:17:05 EST luisa james [email removed] 94109 2021-09-19 03:01:19 EST Molly Bierman [email removed] 94123 2021-09-19 11:32:13 EST Chris Heriot [email removed] 94110 2021-09-19 19:26:26 EST Marie Torres [email removed] 94109 2021-09-20 14:38:40 EST Joey Babbitt [email removed] 94133 2021-09-20 14:46:26 EST Ira Kaplan [email removed] 94133 2021-09-20 14:53:30 EST Antonio Quilici [email removed] 94109 2021-09-20 20:05:28 EST Suzanne Gregg [email removed] 94131 2021-09-21 14:12:38 EST Ziwei Hao [email removed] 94109 2021-09-21 17:30:30 EST Brian Lese [email removed] 94109 2021-09-21 17:32:19 EST joan rost [email removed] 94109 2021-09-21 17:37:24 EST dorian hollis [email removed] 94109 2021-09-21 17:39:05 EST Julie Heinzler [email removed] 94611 2021-09-21 17:41:43 EST Brad Dickason [email removed] 94611 2021-09-21 17:46:14 EST Annie De Lancie [email removed] 94133 2021-09-21 17:58:18 EST Diane Filippi [email removed] 94133 2021-09-21 18:07:17 EST Chad Fusco [email removed] 94109 2021-09-21 18:09:05 EST Thais Miller [email removed] 94109 2021-09-21 18:13:17 EST Beverly Mills [email removed] 94109 2021-09-21 18:15:11 EST Avishai Halev [email removed] 94133 2021-09-21 18:55:15 EST Myoko Shallenberger [email removed] 94109 2021-09-21 19:11:09 EST Christina Sheffey [email removed] 94109 2021-09-21 19:13:54 EST [email removed] 94010 2021-09-21 19:26:22 EST Andy Lynch [email removed] 94107 2021-09-21 19:57:40 EST Hector Rubio [email removed] 94111 2021-09-21 20:45:39 EST Raquel Bito [email removed] 94105 2021-09-21 21:01:30 EST Raquel Bito [email removed] 94111 2021-09-21 21:03:05 EST Danny Sauter [email removed] 94133 2021-09-22 00:58:27 EST Simon Blount [email removed] 94104 2021-09-22 02:13:51 EST Daniela Ades [email removed] 94109 2021-09-22 14:26:17 EST Anne Fougeron [email removed] 94111 2021-09-23 11:58:30 EST Alex Myers [email removed] 94108 2021-09-23 23:08:17 EST Timothy Buck [email removed] 94133 2021-09-24 10:50:46 EST Neil Shah [email removed] 94109 2021-09-24 12:44:44 EST Jonathan Buenemann [email removed] 94123 2021-09-24 19:09:55 EST Tory R. [email removed] 94133 2021-09-25 17:33:01 EST Simon Cai [email removed] 94108 2021-09-26 14:43:33 EST Sasha Heuer [email removed] 94110 2021-10-05 18:46:05 EST Raul Maldonado [email removed] 94132 2021-10-07 14:43:28 EST Zack Subin [email removed] 94112 2021-10-09 15:13:32 EST Adam Buck [email removed] 94158 2021-10-29 13:24:57 EST Sachin Agarwal [email removed] 94122 2021-10-29 13:26:05 EST Jessica Perla [email removed] 94107 2021-10-29 13:26:37 EST Steve Naventi [email removed] 94102 2021-10-29 13:33:48 EST Ben Donahue [email removed] 94117 2021-10-29 13:41:32 EST Gabriel Handford [email removed] 94043 2021-10-29 13:46:22 EST Bilal Mahmood [email removed] 94105 2021-10-29 13:56:46 EST Anika Steig [email removed] 94117 2021-10-29 14:08:55 EST Armand Domalewski [email removed] 94115 2021-10-29 14:18:51 EST Ansh [email removed] 94114 2021-10-29 15:06:55 EST Matt Graves [email removed] 94103 2021-10-29 15:23:08 EST Charles Ayers [email removed] 94103 2021-10-29 16:09:48 EST Andy Day [email removed] 94115 2021-10-29 16:24:47 EST Jonathan Tyburski [email removed] 94117 2021-10-29 16:40:54 EST Dominique Meroux [email removed] 94134 2021-10-29 17:15:29 EST Emily Johnston [email removed] 94114 2021-10-29 21:08:52 EST Ross Ahya [email removed] 94110 2021-10-29 21:58:24 EST Andrew Rowny [email removed] 94114 2021-10-29 22:02:21 EST Jaya Verma [email removed] 94102 2021-10-29 22:02:43 EST Radha Ahya [email removed] 94115 2021-10-29 22:03:02 EST Oliver Baseley [email removed] 94103 2021-10-29 22:11:53 EST Kushal Amin [email removed] 94041 2021-10-29 22:12:10 EST Ishan Chhabra [email removed] 94107 2021-10-29 22:16:13 EST Keshav Agrawal [email removed] 94105 2021-10-29 22:17:20 EST Sabeek Pradhan [email removed] 94105 2021-10-29 22:21:41 EST Krish Ahya [email removed] 94404 2021-10-29 22:24:08 EST Deepti Rajendran [email removed] 94110 2021-10-29 22:41:19 EST [email removed] 94107 2021-10-29 23:08:52 EST Rikhil Bajaj [email removed] 10036 2021-10-29 23:31:33 EST Richard McCoy [email removed] 94118 2021-10-30 10:24:11 EST Lizzie Siegle [email removed] 94108 2021-10-30 12:28:35 EST Silas Wilkinson [email removed] 94606 2021-10-30 14:03:52 EST Ravi Mulani [email removed] 8479124971 2021-10-30 16:45:39 EST Vivek Goyal [email removed] 94301 2021-10-30 18:41:49 EST Akhil Gupta [email removed] 94107 2021-10-31 07:29:19 EST Lawrence Dann-Fenwick [email removed] 94121 2021-10-31 14:15:28 EST Carol Chandler [email removed] 94114 2021-10-31 15:13:53 EST Scott K [email removed] 94122 2021-10-31 16:56:05 EST Barry Chauser [email removed] 94116 2021-11-01 14:15:08 EST Rishabh Kumar [email removed] 94133 2021-11-01 17:27:49 EST Andres Salerno [email removed] 94109 2021-11-01 17:29:42 EST Luis Ramirez [email removed] 94110 2021-11-01 17:54:10 EST David Stone [email removed] 94122 2021-11-01 18:35:45 EST Colin Kerrigan [email removed] 94103 2021-11-01 19:15:57 EST Spencer Guthrie [email removed] 94118 2021-11-01 22:04:47 EST Chelsea Harrison [email removed] 94110 2021-11-01 22:43:51 EST Ewan Barker Plummer [email removed] 94122 2021-11-01 23:28:52 EST Andrew O'Shea [email removed] 94109 2021-11-02 00:11:24 EST Frances Fisher-Wolff [email removed] 94109 2021-11-02 11:45:00 EST Aisling Peterson [email removed] 94102 2021-11-02 12:19:46 EST Edward Sullivan [email removed] 94116 2021-11-02 14:06:55 EST Justin Hallman [email removed] 94117 2021-11-02 21:38:35 EST Shahin Saneinejad [email removed] 94112 2021-11-03 07:56:16 EST Milo Trauss [email removed] 94131 2021-11-09 13:35:47 EST Kyle Ahlers [email removed] 94110 2021-11-16 12:32:05 EST Michael Tomczyszyn [email removed] 94132 2021-11-16 15:30:29 EST Timothy Green [email removed] 94110 2021-11-16 20:49:50 EST Mac Hart [email removed] 94133 2021-11-18 22:44:16 EST Joan Smith [email removed] 94904 2021-11-23 11:51:38 EST Nicholas Lipanovich [email removed] 94118 2021-11-23 18:15:04 EST Aaron Almanza [email removed] 94110 2021-11-23 18:44:45 EST Laurie Fraker [email removed] 92243 2021-11-24 00:43:08 EST EVERETT YOUNG [email removed] 94103 2021-11-24 10:30:07 EST Sandra Biddulph [email removed] 94107 2021-11-29 14:57:09 ESTshow more

2021-12-16 · 18 comments · 12 / 6

Steven (25) X4902 Vettel · email · 2021-12-16 · support · source packet

425 Broadway
Commissioners, I am writing on behalf of the project sponsor of the 425 Broadway project to advise you that the sponsor has reached an agreement with Chinatown Community Development Center regarding certain project revisions to address the concerns of the residents of the SRO hotel at 401 Broadway. These revisions are: 1. A 360 square foot coin laundromat with pedestrian access from Verdi Alley during business hou… Commissioners, I am writing on behalf of the project sponsor of the 425 Broadway project to advise you that the sponsor has reached an agreement with Chinatown Community Development Center regarding certain project revisions to address the concerns of the residents of the SRO hotel at 401 Broadway. These revisions are: 1. A 360 square foot coin laundromat with pedestrian access from Verdi Alley during business hours will be added to the 425 Broadway building in the location shown in the attached. Currently, there is no laundry facility in the 401 Broadway building, such that his new laundromat will provide a significant community benefit to these residents and others in the neighborhood. This revision will also reduce the size of one of the two larger office suites to below 2,999 square feet, such that the density bonus concession we are seeking for non- residential use size will only now be needed for one of the office suites. 2. The two light wells in the western faade of the Broadway building will be enlarged with 3- foot wide open to the sky extensions to Verdi Alley (south lightwell) and Broadway (north light well) to increase light and air access to the light wells in the 401 Broadway building. The Broadway extension will not alter the Broadway faade as shown in the attached renderings or any other exterior revisions except along the private area of Verdi Alley where the project elevator is moved 3 feet to the west. All of other elements of the 425 Broadway project remain unchanged, including the 42 proposed dwelling units, including 6 on-site inclusionary units. With this agreement in place we are not aware of any requests for a further continuance, and we look forward to presenting the project for your consideration tomorrow. Please feel free to reach out to me if you have any other questions or concerns prior to the hearing. Steven L. Vettel He/Him/His [email removed] D [phone removed] C [phone removed] 235 Montgomery Street 17th FL San Francisco, CA 94104 www.fbm.com This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.comshow more

Sue Hestor · email · 2021-12-16 · oppose · source packet

425 Broadway - Entire submission to Planning Comm for 12/16?
What is the entire submission to Planning Commission on 12/16 hearing on 425 Broadway? 425 Broadway Staff packet includes Draft Motion <U+2013> Conditional Use Authorization with Conditions of Approval Exhibit B <U+2013> Plans and Renderings Exhibit C <U+2013> Environmental Determination Exhibit D <U+2013> Land Use Data Exhibit E <U+2013> Maps and Context Photos Exhibit G - Project Spons… What is the entire submission to Planning Commission on 12/16 hearing on 425 Broadway? 425 Broadway Staff packet includes Draft Motion <U+2013> Conditional Use Authorization with Conditions of Approval Exhibit B <U+2013> Plans and Renderings Exhibit C <U+2013> Environmental Determination Exhibit D <U+2013> Land Use Data Exhibit E <U+2013> Maps and Context Photos Exhibit G - Project Sponsor Brief - 9/28/21 Steve Vettel to Joel Koppel - at p 95 Exhibit H <U+2013> Inclusionary Affordable Housing Affidavit Exhibit I <U+2013> Anti-Discriminatory Housing Affidavit Exhibit K <U+2013> First Source Hiring Affidavit Correspondence - 11/2/21 - Chinatown Community Development (Maggie Dong) to Joel Koppel letter - at p 130 12/1/21 - email from Theresa Flandrich (North Beach Tenants Committee) to Joel Koppel w/map of Ellis Act Evictions - at p 132 11/2/21 - Telegraph Hill Dwellers (Stan Hayes) to Joel Koppel letter - Opposition to project with map of SROs at Montgomery/Broadway, Photos of SRO on 4 corners of intersection, section showing extent of office space proposed, rendering showing building heights - at p 134 I believe there has been at least one other submission by Mr. Vettel on behalf of project sponsor which went directly to Planning Commissioners. This project uses State Density Bonus provisions. Are there other submissions by organizations on behalf of or individual tenants in the SRO at 401 Broadway that is surrounded by proposed project? Are there other submissions on 425 Broadway which have gone directly to Planning Commissioners? Specifically has there been any submission to explain why project sponsor did NO outreach to organizations in adjacent Chinatown zoning district (only North Beach and Telegraph Hill) and NO outreach to the low income residents of the SRO at 401 Broadway. Nothing has been posted under Pre-Hearing Correspondence for 12/16/21 regarding 425 Broadway. Please (a) send me any additional correspondence that has already gone directly to Planning Commissioners on proposed project at 425 Broadway, (b) immediately post that correspondence on Department website for 12/16 hearing. Thank you. Sue Hestorshow more

Sue Hestor · email · 2021-12-16 · oppose · source packet

425 Broadway - Entire submission to Planning Comm for 12/16?
at a minimum there is Mr. Vettel's submission of 11/22/21 to President Koppel which lists as cc 6 other Planning Commissioners, Commission Secretary, Claudine Asbagh, Sup Peskin, Stan Hayes of THD, Maggie Dong of Chinatown Neighborhood Development Commission (sic), sponsor Montgomery Place LLC, and project architect Ian Birchall & Associates. The packet includes Ms. Dong's letter which states that she d… show more

Steve Vettel · spoken · 2021-12-16 · support

Project sponsor

Ian Birchall · spoken · 2021-12-16 · support

Architect's response to questions and comments

Sue Hestor · spoken · 2021-12-16 · oppose

Site is for 100% affordable housing

Christopher Roach · spoken · 2021-12-16 · support

Great use of unutilized property, transit oriented development

Paul Maldonado · spoken · 2021-12-16 · support

Support

Robert Fruchtman · spoken · 2021-12-16 · support

Support, laundromats

Ira Kaplan · spoken · 2021-12-16 · support

Support

Corey Smith · spoken · 2021-12-16 · support

Parking into housing, support letters

Joey Babbitt · spoken · 2021-12-16 · support

Parking into housing

Milo Trauss · spoken · 2021-12-16 · support

Good for the city

Teddy Kramer · spoken · 2021-12-16 · support

Vacant parking lot to be turned into housing

Stan Hayes · spoken · 2021-12-16 · oppose

Should be 100% affordable housing

Theresa Flandrich · spoken · 2021-12-16 · oppose

Lack of outreach to the most impacted

Steven (25) X4902 Vettel · email · 2021-12-16 · oppose · source packet

RE: 425 Broadway
I understand the rendering exhibit I sent earlier was corrupted so am resending that exhibit here.

Maggie Dong · email · 2021-12-16 · support · source packet

Support Letter from CCDC for 425 Broadway Project (12/16/21 Planning Commission)
Dear Commissioners, CCDC is submitting a support letter for the 425 Broadway Project that is scheduled for tomorrow's Planning Commission hearing. Please see the attachment. Sincerely, Maggie Dong (she/her) Planner Chinatown Community Development Center Phone: [phone removed]| Email: [email removed] 1 5 2 5 G ran t Av e nu e S an Fra n ci sc o, C A 9 4 13 3 TE L 4 15 . 9 84 . 14 5 0 … Dear Commissioners, CCDC is submitting a support letter for the 425 Broadway Project that is scheduled for tomorrow's Planning Commission hearing. Please see the attachment. Sincerely, Maggie Dong (she/her) Planner Chinatown Community Development Center Phone: [phone removed]| Email: [email removed] 1 5 2 5 G ran t Av e nu e S an Fra n ci sc o, C A 9 4 13 3 TE L 4 15 . 9 84 . 14 5 0 FAX 4 1 5 .3 6 2. 7 9 92 TTY 4 1 5. 9 8 4. 9 91 0 w ww .c hi n at ow n c dc .o rg Properties professionally managed by Chinatown Community Development Center do not discriminate based on race, color, creed, religion, sex, national origin, age, familial status, handicap, ancestry, medical condition, physical handicap, veteran status, sexual orientation, AIDS, AIDS related condition (ARC), mental disability, marital status, source of income, or any other arbitrary status. December 15, 2021 Joel Koppel, President San Francisco Planning Commission 49 South Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA 94103 (Via email: [email removed]) Dear President Koppel and Members of the Commission, On behalf of the Chinatown Community Development Center (CCDC) and residents of 401 Broadway, I am writing to support the Conditional Use Authorization for the 425 Broadway project (2017- 015678CUA). We have all reached an agreement on the revised plans that include incorporating lightwell extensions and laundry facilities for the residents of 401 Broadway, both of which were previously requested by the residents. CCDC is a nonprofit community development organization that aims to build community and enhance the quality of life for low-income San Francisco residents. We work closely with low-income, monolingual, immigrant families and seniors living in SROs particularly in the Chinatown and North Beach neighborhoods. We have supported the residents of 401 Broadway throughout the community meetings and negotiation process with the project sponsor. After numerous meetings with the project sponsor, we are glad that there have been modifications made that satisfy the needs of the 401 Broadway residents. We look forward to working with the project sponsor in ensuring these are manifested. For this reason, we urge you to approve the Conditional Use Authorization for the 425 Broadway project (2017-015678CUA). Sincerely, Maggie Dong Planner cc: Kathrin Moore, Vice President [email removed] Deland Chan, Commissioner [email removed] Sue Diamond, Commissioner [email removed] Frank Fung, Commissioner [email removed] Theresa Imperial, Commissioner [email removed] Rachael Tanner, Commissioner [email removed] Jonas Ionin, Secretary [email removed] Claudine Asbagh, Principal Planner [email removed] Aaron Peskin, District 3 Supervisor [email removed]show more