Stonestown Galleria Redevelopment

2018-05-10 · 1 comments · 1 / 0

Aaron Goodman · email · 2018-05-10 · support · source packet

SF Planning - Stonestown Article (SocketsiteSF) - keep the ideas open and not "boxed-in".....
SF Planning Commissioners, SFBOS, SFMTA Board Stonestown needs a transit boost, a connection direct to the L-Taraval, and out to Daly City BART on the M There are inventive solutions discussed prior with the SFMTA staff, on the 19th Ave Traffic concepts, but you need to think bigger and solve for connections and not just the boxes of retail growth. Whole foods targeting Macy's and Target moving in showcase … SF Planning Commissioners, SFBOS, SFMTA Board Stonestown needs a transit boost, a connection direct to the L-Taraval, and out to Daly City BART on the M There are inventive solutions discussed prior with the SFMTA staff, on the 19th Ave Traffic concepts, but you need to think bigger and solve for connections and not just the boxes of retail growth. Whole foods targeting Macy's and Target moving in showcase a concern that retail is making moves here for growth, but is transit lagging in the development of solutions on the westside..? The opposite side of the site Pet-Store YMCA annex, and Macy's Parking areas could be where a tunnel emerges and goes up to grade or aireal and gets south faster than tunneling under ocean and neighborhoods on the east side of 19th. Look at the maps, it makes perfect sense, with access at the pumpkin patch for a mixed use access point also at Stern Grove to support music festivals, tunneling down along Sloat to get underground with less impact on 19th Traffic, and burrowing under homes on the existing planned route from St. Francis Circle... Have the engineers look at the linkage and feasibility up front now! By linking the M-Line and L-Taraval from the Zoo back up 1.8 miles of track approx. you have a LINK/LOOP in the muni system. and can route trains south to daly city on the west- side of Stonestown/Parkmerced/SFSU-CSU and solve traffic issues and connections. Think a little about what is being proposed here, Target and big-chains trying to capitalize on housing development yet no money for transit infrastructure changes....Cross city transit between D10/D11/D7 must be equitably improved or we get nowhere fast. Its already gridlock... It will get worse unless planners and the SFMTA solve for the bigger problems up front. Not a good formula for success...unless you can catch a ride to the mall from the westside of D7 to the east side of D10.... (D11 is the intermodal hub at Glen Park) so plan for upgrading the trains on Geneva Harney and getting people onto transit even a trackless rail solution could be built quicker and implemented sooner to Daly City and Bi-County regional growth can help assist paying for it. Those opposed to housing on this site, were mostly supportive of destroying Parkmerced... I dont believe they should be opposed to density here, and the Planning Commissioners prior asked why this site was not seriously being considered for housing density. I support the moves for increased density here, but once again strongly suggest that it be implemented alongside a heavy dose of mass-transit improvement. A.Goodman D11 SocketSite | Plans for Stonestown Galleria Redevelopment Formalized SocketSite | Plans for Stonestown Galleria Redevelopment Formalized As we first reported early last year, Macy<U+2019>s was in contract to sell its 280,000-square- foot Stonestown Galleria...show more

2021-12-02 · 2 comments · 0 / 2

Aaron Goodman · email · 2021-12-02 · oppose · source packet

The Master Plan to Transform Stonestown into a
Neighborhood Wild sketch but is how people would enter from platform and into stonestown plaza with office buildings on north and south and new ymca complex larger and with underground parking at green space Sent from my iPhone

Aaron Goodman · email · 2021-12-02 · oppose · source packet

The Master Plan to Transform Stonestown into a Neighborhood
Original concept was to loop L taraval back up sloat use 20th and pumpkin patch and stern grove access as a <U+201C>T<U+201D>intersection and route the trains south daylighting it up the ramp by the petco using the YMCA and YMCA annex and petco as new sites for density and a station stop opposite mercy HS with aireal platform and new urban office and housing density framing a green space trees and park an… show more

2022-09-15 · 1 comments · 1 / 0

Vicki Grey · email · 2022-09-15 · support · source packet

UA Movie Theater at Stonestown
Hello, I live within walking distance of Stonestown Center (in St. Francis Wood), and have been to the UA Theater in the back there many, many times. It is as dilapidated on the inside as it is tired on the outside, and frankly ugly. I certainly do not care if it is a instance of some kind of particular architecture that is rare in San Francisco, especially in comparison to what would replace it. We desperately n… show more

2022-09-29 · 2 comments · 0 / 2

Aaron Goodman · email · 2022-09-29 · oppose · source packet

File 220736 vacate of streets - Parkmerced (comment) SFBOS meeting. SFBOS I am unable to attend the hearing but wish to submit comments on the SFBOS hearing on the vacate of streets in parkmerced for first phase work on the site. 1) the muni M line has not developed far or fast enough to consider a direct link to Daly City Bart vs a dog-leg into parkmerced. Too much money spent downtown has crippled any serious west side transit planning and the lack of an L taraval extension up sloat or serious link of transit north to south along sunset or south along the west side of the three major developments coupled with westside multiple housing projects is a huge error in getting the transit systems online to promote use of them during construction phases at parkmerced for workers to get to any sites in the area. 2) the proposed regrading is a huge environmental impact including heavy trucks and methane gas release. The destruction of sound housing in the townhomes with no real reports of obsolescence and opportunity to preserve or provide an alternative infill option at this late stage due to ignoring the 11 unretrofitted towers and proposed towers next to dune and impacted earthquake prior towers at 55 Chumasero and the unknown soil conditions at the 1952 interchange down brotherhood way. 3) no serious consideration of sfsu<U+2019>s enrollment changes and impacts on rent controlled housing was ever seriously investigated post the land grab of UPN and UPS which caused impacts to families and seniors living in parkmerced and stonestown apartments. Many people live in RVs and cannot afford new sfsu housing prices. Nor the flipped costs of units in parkmerced as students leave campus and units get renovated and increased in pricing. 4) the back room negotiations of Chiu with the developer has never been tested legally and if the transition to new ownership occurs post construction with multiple new buildings by different architects what occurs when they try to parcel sites off and sell and the rent controlled protections are challenged? There are serious impacts long range that were used in agreements for other large scale sites. The statements that these agreements are iron-clad may not hold water long range so the concerns for rent controlled housing and the rights of renters citywide becomes a serious concern long term. 5) why should st Francis woods be protected and the housing that was masterplan Ed and developed with 6 national organizations citing the need for protection of the site ignored. Seems that profit vs people still motivates the roles politicians play and the real need for housing is only tongue in cheek when large swaths of housing for millionaires is protected lands without any options for density and the poorer neighborhoods or renters are bulldozed constantly for 20-30 years of construction. 6) finances - what has been shown by the developers on their honesty to follow through on anything besides profits? Robert Rosania was only interested in <U+201C>the preservation of my money<U+201D> not the people who lived there. As supervisors your utmost concern is the rights and protections of people living in this city. Have you done the right thing in going forward on this project when vacancy rates of 30% or more exist in parkmerced currently and SFSU reports similar lacking enrollment and vacancies due to rising costs. Think hard on these issues. We don<U+2019>t need a traffic construction Armageddon on the west side we need transit solutions up front housing protections and rental housing to be sustainably preserved and restored and some common sense injected into the building up of San Francisco. When empty lots and single story buildings exist on many adjacent and near sites in D7 there are better ways to approve housing proposals and in phases and plans that get transit to the forefront lessen environmental methane release and solve our housing issues without destroying entire neighborhoods.. It will be a sad day when the bulldozers start to tear out streets. Even sadder to know that plans for a new era missed the environmental mark by a long and large amount. I just have to look at street trees and lacking efforts at parkmerced the entire time their proposa went forward to know that maintenance and care was not at g forefront or their plans only <U+201C>green-$-greed<U+201D> the real dreams of the developer and sfsu in their land grabs on the west side. Regards Aaron Goodman D11
SF Planning Dept Director / SFMTA Director / Mayor London Breed Sent from my iPhone

Aaron Goodman · email · 2022-09-29 · oppose · source packet

File 220736 vacate of streets - Parkmerced (comment) SFBOS meeting. SFBOS I am unable to attend the hearing but wish to submit comments on the SFBOS hearing on the vacate of streets in parkmerced for first phase work on the site. 1) the muni M line has not developed far or fast enough to consider a direct link to Daly City Bart vs a dog-leg into parkmerced. Too much money spent downtown has crippled any serious west side transit planning and the lack of an L taraval extension up sloat or serious link of transit north to south along sunset or south along the west side of the three major developments coupled with westside multiple housing projects is a huge error in getting the transit systems online to promote use of them during construction phases at parkmerced for workers to get to any sites in the area. 2) the proposed regrading is a huge environmental impact including heavy trucks and methane gas release. The destruction of sound housing in the townhomes with no real reports of obsolescence and opportunity to preserve or provide an alternative infill option at this late stage due to ignoring the 11 unretrofitted towers and proposed towers next to dune and impacted earthquake prior towers at 55 Chumasero and the unknown soil conditions at the 1952 interchange down brotherhood way. 3) no serious consideration of sfsu<U+2019>s enrollment changes and impacts on rent controlled housing was ever seriously investigated post the land grab of UPN and UPS which caused impacts to families and seniors living in parkmerced and stonestown apartments. Many people live in RVs and cannot afford new sfsu housing prices. Nor the flipped costs of units in parkmerced as students leave campus and units get renovated and increased in pricing. 4) the back room negotiations of Chiu with the developer has never been tested legally and if the transition to new ownership occurs post construction with multiple new buildings by different architects what occurs when they try to parcel sites off and sell and the rent controlled protections are challenged? There are serious impacts long range that were used in agreements for other large scale sites. The statements that these agreements are iron-clad may not hold water long range so the concerns for rent controlled housing and the rights of renters citywide becomes a serious concern long term. 5) why should st Francis woods be protected and the housing that was masterplan Ed and developed with 6 national organizations citing the need for protection of the site ignored. Seems that profit vs people still motivates the roles politicians play and the real need for housing is only tongue in cheek when large swaths of housing for millionaires is protected lands without any options for density and the poorer neighborhoods or renters are bulldozed constantly for 20-30 years of construction. 6) finances - what has been shown by the developers on their honesty to follow through on anything besides profits? Robert Rosania was only interested in <U+201C>the preservation of my money<U+201D> not the people who lived there. As supervisors your utmost concern is the rights and protections of people living in this city. Have you done the right thing in going forward on this project when vacancy rates of 30% or more exist in parkmerced currently and SFSU reports similar lacking enrollment and vacancies due to rising costs. Think hard on these issues. We don<U+2019>t need a traffic construction Armageddon on the west side we need transit solutions up front housing protections and rental housing to be sustainably preserved and restored and some common sense injected into the building up of San Francisco. When empty lots and single story buildings exist on many adjacent and near sites in D7 there are better ways to approve housing proposals and in phases and plans that get transit to the forefront lessen environmental methane release and solve our housing issues without destroying entire neighborhoods.. It will be a sad day when the bulldozers start to tear out streets. Even sadder to know that plans for a new era missed the environmental mark by a long and large amount. I just have to look at street trees and lacking efforts at parkmerced the entire time their proposa went forward to know that maintenance and care was not at g forefront or their plans only <U+201C>green-$-greed<U+201D> the real dreams of the developer and sfsu in their land grabs on the west side. Regards Aaron Goodman D11
SF Planning Dept Director / SFMTA Director / Mayor London Breed Sent from my iPhone concerns. thank you Aaron Goodman D11 https://url.avanan.click/v2/___https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/bag092722_agenda.pdf___.YXAz OnNmZHQyOmE6bzo0Zjc4N2IwMTk3MzFkZTAxZDBjNTJmYTI3ODVjZWYzMzo2OmYyYzE6YjE5MDhh Njg0NjRkNDhjZmZkOWJiZThmYTQwMjBkMGQzNGI1M2NjN2ZjM2Q1YWE3N2I3MDMyZWRhZWIxYTk 1NDpwOlQ Sent from my iPhone

2022-11-17 · 4 comments · 4 / 0

Ted Conrad · spoken · 2022-11-17 · support

OEWD presentation

Courtney Pash · spoken · 2022-11-17 · support

Project sponsor presentation

Laura Crescimano · spoken · 2022-11-17 · support

Project Sponsor presentation Eileen Boken -Density and traffic congestion

Jake Price · spoken · 2022-11-17 · support

Supportive of increased density

2023-09-07 · 1 comments · 1 / 0

Charles Whitfield · email · 2023-09-07 · support · source packet

Sierra Club Support for Stonestown mixed-use development project
Please see the attached letter from the Sierra Club expressing our support for the Stonestown mixed-use development project. Charles Whitfield Executive Committee Chair Sierra Club SF Group Serving Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin and San Francisco counties August 15, 2023 To: Mayor London Breed San Francisco Board of Supervisors San Francisco Planning Commission Brookfield Properties Re: Support for Stonestown mixed-use… show more

2023-09-14 · 16 comments · 8 / 8

John Abalos · spoken · 2023-09-14 · oppose

Meeting housing goals, below market rate units

Christie Donnelly · spoken · 2023-09-14 · support

Project sponsor presentation

Ozzy Rohm · spoken · 2023-09-14 · oppose

Maximize affordable units, outreach

Danny Sauter · spoken · 2023-09-14 · support

Opportunity to transform a parking lot to residential

Eileen Boken · spoken · 2023-09-14 · oppose

Reassign remaining office space to housing

Laurie Liederman · spoken · 2023-09-14 · oppose

Ample evidence and agreement, maximize affordable housing

Erika Blythe · spoken · 2023-09-14 · oppose

Need affordable housing, government assistance

Jake Price · spoken · 2023-09-14 · support

Amount of community outreach, housing on west side

Ted Connor · spoken · 2023-09-14 · support

Project sponsor presentation

Joanne Liu · spoken · 2023-09-14 · oppose

More affordable housing

Tiffany Yu · spoken · 2023-09-14 · oppose

More affordable housing big enough for families

Cynthia Gomez · spoken · 2023-09-14 · oppose

Developer track record as a partner, lawsuits

Leslie French · spoken · 2023-09-14 · support

Impressed with community outreach, need housing on west side

Greg Kucera · spoken · 2023-09-14 · support

Community, impressed with developer outreach and listening

Kenneth Russell · spoken · 2023-09-14 · support

Need more housing and walkable areas

Brian Wheeler · spoken · 2023-09-14 · support

Community outreach

2023-11-09 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

Ausra Eileen Boken · email · 2023-11-09 · oppose · source packet

Follow Up to Stonestown Development Project - Case No. 2019-014485CWP
TO: Planning Department Patrick Race Lily Langlois Florentina Craciun OEWD Ted Conrad Planning Commission FROM: Eileen Boken, President Sunset-Parkside Education and Action Committee (SPEAK) RE: Stonestown development project - Case No. 2019-014485CWP REF: Follow up comments to Planning Commission hearing. Sunset-Parkside Education and Action Committee (SPEAK) is submitting these follow up … TO: Planning Department Patrick Race Lily Langlois Florentina Craciun OEWD Ted Conrad Planning Commission FROM: Eileen Boken, President Sunset-Parkside Education and Action Committee (SPEAK) RE: Stonestown development project - Case No. 2019-014485CWP REF: Follow up comments to Planning Commission hearing. Sunset-Parkside Education and Action Committee (SPEAK) is submitting these follow up comments. The current design seems formulaic and is a pre-pandemic concept. The 200 room hotel does not seem well-suited to this site. Also, there are mom and pop motels and Short Term Rentals in the neighborhood which could benefit from this business. Instead, a hotel at Stonestown would compete with local businesses. At least for the time being, the project sponsor has elected to eliminate the hotel and replace it with housing. The office space also does not seem well-suited for this site. Although the office space allocation has been reduced from 200,000 sq ft to 96,000 sq ft, this is still questionable. When the project sponsor for the Potrero Power Station came before the Commission, they stated that little office space would be built in the near term. And, they would build all the remaining office space later as they expected the market to rebound. However, the Office of the City Administrator (CAO) is analyzing the City's portfolio of owned and leased office space for City employees. The goal is to downsize based on the belief that hybrid work will continue to be the norm. SPEAK would strongly urge that the remaining office space for the Stonestown project be reassigned to housing as the office vacancy rate in the City is still approximately 30%. Regarding the institutional uses of 63,000 sq ft, this space is currently vaguely defined as child care and a senior center. Previously, institutional uses also specified medical facilities. SPEAK would strongly urge that a portion of institutional uses be reallocated to housing. There is already the Stonestown Medical Building just north of the project site which has 54,131 sq ft of medical office space. Regarding potential community benefits, both the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works (DPW) have confirmed that the project site will have dedicated Emergency Firefighting Water System pipes aka dedicated AWSS pipes as part of the Stonestown project Development Agreement. This is consistent with dedicated AWSS pipes at the Fifth and Mission (5M) and Pier 70 projects. Stonestown, 5M and Pier 70 are all Brookfield properties. However, the SFPUC states that it has no funding to hook up the Stonestown dedicated AWSS pipes to the City's dedicated AWSS pipes. The Westside expansion of this dedicated AWSS pipe and hydrant system has become even more critical not only because insurers are exiting the California market but also because the Westside is the most heavily wooded part of the City. Stern Grove is just blocks away from the project site. An affiliate of Brookfield Properties is Brookfield Infrastructure. As a community benefit, Brookfield Infrastructure could design/build dedicated AWSS pipes from Stonestown to the Oceanside Treatment Facility. The dedicated AWSS pipes and hydrants would also require an ocean water pump station to maintain a higher water pressure. Housing production and preservation could also be seen as protecting this housing from being red tagged due to damage from earthquakes and urban wildfires. This also protects the City's property tax base. A subsidiary of Brookfield Infrastructure is Poseidon, which specializes in desalination (desal). The SFPUC is pursuing water diversification. The current water diversification project at the Oceanside Treatment Facility is recycled water aka toilet-to-tap. Although toilet-to-tap will initially be used for landscaping in Golden Gate Park and Lincoln Park, there is discussion at the SFPUC about expanding its use to other areas. SPEAK would strongly urge that a desalination facility at the Oceanside Treatment Facility be included as a community benefit for the Stonestown project as a more palatable alternative to toilet-to-tap. SPEAK strongly supports using an Infrastructure Financing District (IFD) to implement these horizontal infrastructure projects. It's SPEAK's understanding that the Stonestown project community working group was by invitation only. It's unclear whether or not these meetings were noticed to the public and whether or not these meetings were documented with recordings or minutes. During a walking tour of the Stonestown project, Brookfield Properties stated that they don't build affordable housing. The affordable housing component of the project would be contracted to another firm. The highest residential towers proposed for the Stonestown project are 18 stories. The adjacent residential towers for San Francisco State University (SFSU) student housing (formerly the Stonestown Apartments) are 10 stories. The proposed 18 story towers are almost twice the height of the adjacent existing towers. This could be seen as out of context. Even the ParkMerced towers are only 14 stories but are also at a much lower elevation. At the Planning Commission informational hearing, despite public comments to the contrary, SPEAK is aware of community opposition to the proposed project from immediate neighbors. ### Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphoneshow more

2023-12-07 · 5 comments · 4 / 1

Laura Crescimano · spoken · 2023-12-07 · support

Design presentation

Eileen Boken · spoken · 2023-12-07 · support

Brookfield projects, provide dedicated hydrants and pipes

Jake Price · spoken · 2023-12-07 · support

Increase in density, retail

Christie Donnelly · spoken · 2023-12-07 · support

DSG presentation

Don Hardeman · spoken · 2023-12-07 · oppose

Concerns regarding shadowing in the park, noise during construction in the neighborhood and nearby schools

2024-02-22 · 1 comments · 1 / 0

(name not recorded) · email · 2024-02-22 · support · source packet

Stonestown Development
Dear President Diamond, Please find attached a letter from the Monterey Heights Homes Association in support of the Stonestown Redevelopment Project. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Best regards, Marie-Cecile Van de Lavoir President Monterey Heights Homes Association.

2024-04-11 · 1 comments · 1 / 0

(name not recorded) · email · 2024-04-11 · support · source packet

Letter of Support from the YMCA of San Francisco for the Stonestown Revitalization Project
Dear President Sue Diamond and Members of the Planning Commission, (cc:d Mayor Breed, Supervisor Melgar, Reuel Cooke, Jamie Bruning-Miles, Takija Gardner, Rachel Del Monte) Please see attached for a Letter of Support on behalf of the YMCA of San Francisco<U+2019>s President & CEO Jamie Bruning-Miles to express our enthusiastic support for the Stonestown Revitalization Project, in the neighborhood of the S… show more

2024-05-02 · 1 comments · 1 / 0

(name not recorded) · email · 2024-05-02 · support · source packet

Stonestown Revitalization Project
Dear Planning Commissioners, As a neighbor of Stonestown and a small business owner for 20+ years,, I am writing you to express my enthusiastic support for the Stonestown Revitalization Project. I believe that transforming the parking lot into much-needed housing is a crucial step toward creating a vibrant and sustainable neighborhood. Increasing housing availability is essential for addressing our city's ho… show more

2024-05-09 · 7 comments · 4 / 3

(name not recorded) · email · 2024-05-09 · support · source packet

Neighbor support for Stonestown Revitalization Project
Dear Planning Commissioners, I'm an immediate neighbor to Stonestown, residing at 3045 22nd Ave, and am writing to express my excitement for the Stonestown Revitalization Project. My wife and I have three children aged 14, 7, and 5. We visit Stonestown regularly to eat or grocery shop and occasionally retail shop. I love the plans for the revitalization project because it adds so much more to the community. The … show more

(name not recorded) · email · 2024-05-09 · support · source packet

NEIGHBOR LETTER: Housing
Dear Planning Commissioners, As a neighbor and San Francisco taxpayer, I am writing to express my support for the Stonestown Revitalization Project. I firmly believe that transforming the parking lot into much-needed housing is a crucial step toward creating a vibrant and sustainable neighborhood. Increasing housing availability is paramount for addressing our city's housing crisis and ensuring that people from … show more

(name not recorded) · email · 2024-05-09 · support · source packet

Stonestown Letters of Support
Hello, I wanted to reach out to make sure that Letters of Support for the project have been received by the commission and added to the project files for the hearing tomorrow. I have been cc'd on most of the letters and am sharing a complete PDF with you. Thank you, Reuel Reuel Cooke Brookfield Properties Manager, Community Engagement [email removed] [phone removed]

(name not recorded) · email · 2024-05-09 · oppose · source packet

Comments on Stonestown upzoning and EIR
Dear Planning Commissioners, As a resident on the West Side, I am writing to ask you to please take the following actions regarding the proposed Stonestown redevelopment project. 1) Require traffic studies and measures to mitigate traffic that is flowing through Ingleside Terraces and adjoining neighborhoods to and from Stonestown. Ingleside Terraces is comprised of 750 households and will be heavily impacted by the … show more

(name not recorded) · email · 2024-05-09 · oppose · source packet

Stonestown Development Project May 9, 2024 S.F. Planning Commission
Hearing The Ingleside Terraces Homes Association (ITHA), representing 750 households located a quarter mile to the east of Stonestown, requests that the Planning Commission: 1.Require traffic studies and development of mitigation measures to control vehicular traffic to and from Stonestown from cutting through Ingleside Terraces and adjoining neighborhoods; and 2.Approve one of two alternatives contained within t… Hearing The Ingleside Terraces Homes Association (ITHA), representing 750 households located a quarter mile to the east of Stonestown, requests that the Planning Commission: 1.Require traffic studies and development of mitigation measures to control vehicular traffic to and from Stonestown from cutting through Ingleside Terraces and adjoining neighborhoods; and 2.Approve one of two alternatives contained within the Stonestown Draft EIR, either: alternative D (maintain existing height restrictions of 65 feet); or alternative E (restrict building heights to 80 feet). Either of these two alternatives will reduce negative impacts on traffic, infrastructure and police and fire protection. These alternatives will also comply with the General Plan<U+2019>s Design Element, complementing the surrounding topography, existing buildings, neighborhoods and the existing public vistas and view corridors. 3. Reject the developer<U+2019>s 5 proposed 190-foot towers and the 90 foot tall buildings along 19th Avenue, which are entirely out of scale and character with the surrounding area and are contrary to the requirements of the Urban Design Element of San Francisco<U+2019>s General Plan. Please do not permit a complex far more massive than the Fontana Apartment complex to separate our communities. ITHA requested in its February 10, 2023 Comments on the Draft EIR that the study area for traffic mitigation measures be extended into the surrounding neighborhoods, but this has not been done. Nor does the Draft EIR address the project<U+2019>s negative impact on public transit capacity, leading to a greater vehicular traffic burden throughout a wide area. Despite ITHA<U+2019>s comments more than a year ago, the Draft EIR continues to be misleading and inaccurate because it does not visually depict the proposed building heights<U+2019> obstruction of public vistas and view corridors currently experienced by the public from nearby neighborhoods, parks and public spaces. ITHA therefore requests that the Commission not approve the Draft EIR as the final EIR for the project. Very truly yours, Paul Conroy, President Ingleside Terraces Homes Association www.ithasf.orgshow more

(name not recorded) · email · 2024-05-09 · support · source packet

Letter of Support for the Stonestown Development Project
Good morning, Please find attached to this email the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce's letter of support for the Stonestown Development Project. Please let me know if you have any questions. Jackson Nutt-Beers, M.A. (They/Them) Public Policy Program Manager San Francisco Chamber of Commerce 235 Montgomery St., Ste. 760, San Francisco,CA (E) [email removed] | LinkedIn

(name not recorded) · email · 2024-05-09 · oppose · source packet

Letter of Support for bike infrastructure in Stonestown Revitalization Project
See letter below. Rachel Clyde Westside Community Organizer Pronouns: she, her ____________________________ San Francisco Bicycle Coalition Promoting the Bicycle for Everyday Transportation 1720 Market St. San Francisco, CA 94102 Bike to Wherever Day is Thursday, May 16th! Join us: sfbike.org/btwd Please note: SF Bicycle Coalition is currently piloting a 4-day work week. Any emails received Friday-Sunday will be responded to on Monday.

Stonestown Galleria Redevelopment – non-billable

Hearings

Comments by hearing (43)