2023-11-09 · 25 comments · 11 / 14
Tujia Catalano · spoken · 2023-11-09 · support
Project sponsor presentation
2395 Sacramento Street Hearing tomorrowDear Michelle and the Planning Commission, I am writing to provide input on the proposed development at 2395 Sacramento Street. I live at 2019 Webster Street with my wife and two children, aged 10 and 5 years old. The proposal will negatively impact our property and the neighborhood in the following ways: 1. Garage exit on Webster Street - the exit is positioned directly across from my driveway and will contribute … Dear Michelle and the Planning Commission, I am writing to provide input on the proposed development at 2395 Sacramento Street. I live at 2019 Webster Street with my wife and two children, aged 10 and 5 years old. The proposal will negatively impact our property and the neighborhood in the following ways: 1. Garage exit on Webster Street - the exit is positioned directly across from my driveway and will contribute to congestion. School children walking to Hamlin and SF Public Montessori and other local schools walk along Webster Street during morning and afternoon hours, so the proposed location of the garage exit poses a safety hazard. Additionally our master bedroom is in the front of the house and headlights from exiting vehicles would shine directly into our bedroom and living room. 2. Less natural light due to the height of the proposed structure 3. Nighttime construction schedule - My wife and I work in the Financial District and need to work stock market hours, which means we are up early and need to sleep at night. We also have two school aged children that attend local San Francisco public schools (San Francisco Public Montessori and Tule Elk Park Early Learning Center). Allowing construction past 10 pm would be detrimental to our physical and emotional health. I would like to see analysis of the following changes: 1. Move the garage exit to Sacramento Street which does not face any residential housing and has less daily foot traffic. 2. Limit the height of the structure to meet San Francisco city requirements 3. Not allow construction during night time hours We cannot attend the meeting in person as we have a return-to-work policy and must be in our offices in the Financial District four days per week. Thanks for your consideration, Karen Veraa and Elizabeth Perry 2019 Webster Street Homeowners [phone removed]show more 2395 Sacramento StreetDear Commissioners, I am the owner of the 12-unit apartment building at the corner of Sacramento Street and Webster. This project will cause nuisance for the residents in my building. 1. The height of the building will generate strong wind on Webster Street which is already a wind tunnel. 2. The project will block light from my building. 3. As people are working at home nowadays that will cause major destruction to t… Dear Commissioners, I am the owner of the 12-unit apartment building at the corner of Sacramento Street and Webster. This project will cause nuisance for the residents in my building. 1. The height of the building will generate strong wind on Webster Street which is already a wind tunnel. 2. The project will block light from my building. 3. As people are working at home nowadays that will cause major destruction to the people in the building. I strongly oppose this project. Philip Chan 2401 Sacramento St.show more RE: 2395 Sacramento Street HPC 11/1/2023Michelle, Attached please find the brief we would like to have included in the PC packets. Also, attached are the support letter documentation copies (same except the petition is an updated version since the HPC packets went in). Thanks, Tuija Catalano Partner Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP O: (415) 5679000 C: (925) 4044255 [email removed] www.reubenlaw.com PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE - Notwithstanding … Michelle, Attached please find the brief we would like to have included in the PC packets. Also, attached are the support letter documentation copies (same except the petition is an updated version since the HPC packets went in). Thanks, Tuija Catalano Partner Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP O: (415) 5679000 C: (925) 4044255 [email removed] www.reubenlaw.com PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE - Notwithstanding the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or the applicability of any other law of similar substance or effect, absent an express statement to the contrary hereinabove, this email message, its contents, and any attachments hereto are not intended to represent an offer or acceptance to enter into a contract and are not otherwise intended to bind the sender, Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP, any of its clients, or any other person or entity. The information and any attachments contained in this email and any subsequent email string may be privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think that you may have received this email message in error, please notify the sender at the email address above. If you have received this email in error, you are instructed to delete all copies and discard any printouts without reading the information contained within. show more 2395 Sacramento Street, Request for Continuation of HearingNovember 3, 2023 Rachel Tanner, President, SF Planning Commission Jonas P. Onion, Commission Secretary Michelle Taylor, Senior Planner RE: 2395 Sacramento Street, Request for Continuation of Hearing (2022- 004172CUA) Dear Ms. Tanner, The Pacific Heights Residents Association respectfully requests a continuation of the scheduled public hearing to consider a Request for Conditional Use Authorization for the … November 3, 2023 Rachel Tanner, President, SF Planning Commission Jonas P. Onion, Commission Secretary Michelle Taylor, Senior Planner RE: 2395 Sacramento Street, Request for Continuation of Hearing (2022- 004172CUA) Dear Ms. Tanner, The Pacific Heights Residents Association respectfully requests a continuation of the scheduled public hearing to consider a Request for Conditional Use Authorization for the subject property at the corner of Sacramento and Webster Streets in the Pacific Heights neighborhood. We have been approached very recently by multiple members of our Association who object to various aspects of the project, asking for our assistance in securing additional time so that their concerns may be adequately studied, heard and considered. While these project neighbors have various reasons for raising objections to specific attributes of the project as proposed, including the zero setback, significant height differential to immediately adjacent residential buildings, and loss of historic assets, what concerns our board directly is the lack of outreach to the impacted community by the development team, and the rapidity with which the project is moving through the the review and approval process. The complexity of the multi-building project, the numerous development standards waivers requested, and the time required to understand and fairly assess the 65 pages of project plans are entirely inconsistent with the amount of time afforded between the posting of the documents and the scheduled hearing and decision on the requested CUA. We note as well that members of the PHRA board met with developer representatives and neighbors over a year ago to discuss plans for the proposed project. At that time we raised several concerns about the project, including the height and bulk of the building relative to those adjacent to it, and the shadows it would cast on certain neighboring properties. We also expressed concern about the proposed modern facade of the new construction not blending well with the existing historic residential properties adjoining and across Webster Street, and the diminishment of the historical detail of the existing structure. Most importantly, we asked the developer to keep PHRA and the neighbors informed and to seek their input and feedback as the project evolved. The project was only recently again brought to our attention, not by the developer but by PHRA members and by the required mailed hearing notices, not having heard anything from the developer in the intervening 12 months or more. These neighbors have recently expressed their dismay and dissatisfaction at the same project shortcomings that we discussed, and at having been kept out of the loop rather than engaged as requested. The PHRA is not opposed to the housing project per se, and we hope that it can go forward in some shape and contribute to abating the very real housing shortage in San Francisco. We are however concerned with the insufficient effort on the part of the development team to engage the impacted neighborhood residents in creating solutions that avoid the most onerous of impacts to the existing adjacent residences. We simply would like these San Francisco residents to be granted the additional time they need to try to resolve these differences with the development team, with the involvement of SF Planning staff. Thank you, L. Greg Scott Steve Pickrell Board President Pacific Heights Residents Associationshow more Comments for 2395 SacramentoDear Commission Secretary, I am writing to submit my comments and objections regarding the proposed development at 2395 Sacramento Street, which is scheduled for an upcoming hearing tomorrow. As a concerned resident located immediately next door to the project, I am keenly interested in ensuring that any new development respects the character, heritage, and environmental quality of our area. My objections are grounde… Dear Commission Secretary, I am writing to submit my comments and objections regarding the proposed development at 2395 Sacramento Street, which is scheduled for an upcoming hearing tomorrow. As a concerned resident located immediately next door to the project, I am keenly interested in ensuring that any new development respects the character, heritage, and environmental quality of our area. My objections are grounded in several key concerns that have been identified through careful consideration of the project<U+2019>s potential impacts on the surrounding community. These concerns encompass areas such as historical preservation, environmental quality, public safety, and the overall well-being of the residents and visitors to our neighborhood. I strongly urge the Planning Commission to take these objections into account during the hearing. It is imperative that we maintain the standards that make Pacific Heights not only a beautiful and historically rich area but also a neighborhood that prioritizes the health and safety of its inhabitants. I believe that with thoughtful planning and adherence to our established community standards, it is possible to achieve a development outcome at 2395 Sacramento Street that benefits all stakeholders. I look forward to the Commission<U+2019>s careful consideration of these points. Thank you for your attention to these matters. Sincerely, Jonathan Clark [phone removed] 2018/2020 Webster St. Insufficient wind impact analysis: The project lacks a thorough study on how its construction will affect wind patterns and potentially create hazardous conditions. I'm waiting for Kei Zushi to respond to a wind study report I commissioned by a 3rd party. Incomplete historical preservation assessment: The assessment overlooks the full range of impacts the development may have on nearby historical resources, especially 2018 Webster St which I have spent a decade bringing back to life. Vibration impacts from construction not fully evaluated: The potential for construction-related vibrations to damage nearby structures has not been adequately assessed. Excessive Noise Disruption: The proximity of bedrooms to the construction site (inches) could lead to excessive noise disruption, especially during the night, affecting the sleep and well-being of residents. Failure to Provide Noise Impact Notices: Inadequate notification to residents about the potential for increased noise levels due to night construction, denying them the opportunity to take preemptive measures. Non-Compliance with Nighttime Noise Standards: Potential non-compliance with local nighttime noise standards given the close proximity of living spaces to the construction activities. Inadequate Noise Mitigation for Night Work: The mitigation measures may be insufficient to protect nearby residents from noise during the limited night work permitted. Impact on Residential Quiet Enjoyment: Night construction noise may significantly impact the quiet enjoyment and habitability of neighboring bedrooms. Insufficient Vibration Damping Measures: Vibration from night construction may be felt more acutely during quiet night hours, necessitating special damping measures. Need for Enhanced Noise Monitoring: Given the proximity to sleeping areas, there is a need for enhanced noise monitoring to ensure compliance with noise thresholds during night work. Potential for Sleep Disturbance: The construction noise has the potential to cause sleep disturbances, which can lead to long-term health consequences for neighbors. Psychological Stress from Anticipated Noise: The anticipation of night construction noise could cause psychological stress and anxiety for residents, particularly during sleeping hours. Impact on Special Populations: Sensitive populations, such as children, the elderly, and those with health issues, may be disproportionately affected by night construction noise. Violation of Quiet Hours: The construction could potentially violate municipally mandated quiet hours, disrupting the legally protected peace of neighboring residents. Lack of Noise Barriers: The absence of adequate noise barriers or soundproofing techniques to shield the neighboring property's bedrooms from night construction noise. Inadequate Noise Insulation Planning: The project fails to provide a detailed plan for noise insulation to protect the adjacent historic building from increased noise levels. Potential for Structural Noise Transmission: The zero setback may lead to direct noise transmission through shared structural elements, which has not been addressed. Insufficient Sound Barrier Implementation: There is no plan to implement sound barriers between the new construction and the historic building to mitigate noise impact. Non-Compliance with Noise Regulations for Historic Structures: The project may not meet specific noise regulations or guidelines that protect historic structures. Failure to Evaluate Noise Impact on Historic Building Integrity: The project does not adequately evaluate the potential for noise to impact the structural integrity and livability of the historic building. No Assessment of Acoustic Shadowing: The project has not assessed the phenomenon of acoustic shadowing, which could result in unpredictable noise patterns affecting the historic building. Lack of Alternative Construction Methods to Reduce Noise: The project does not consider alternative, less noisy construction methods that could be used to minimize the acoustic impact on the historic building. Insufficient Mitigation for Resonance Effects: The project does not address the potential for resonance within the historic building's structure due to construction noise. Lack of Contingency Plans for Excessive Noise Transmission: The project lacks contingency plans to be implemented if noise transmission adversely affects the historic building. Failure to Consult with Acoustic Engineers: There is no evidence of consultation with acoustic engineers to devise strategies to protect the historic building from noise. Inadequate Pre-Construction Sound Testing: The project has not conducted pre- construction sound testing to establish baseline noise levels for the historic building. No Commitment to Adaptive Noise Management: The construction plan lacks a commitment to adaptive management strategies to reduce noise transmission as needed. Inadequate cumulative environmental impact analysis: The environmental review does not consider the combined effects of this project with other existing or anticipated developments in the area. Insufficient public notice and outreach: The development process has not provided enough opportunity for public awareness and feedback on the project's impacts as relates to revised plans. Inadequate air quality impact assessment: The report underestimates the potential for increased air pollution from the construction and operation of the development. Violation of local land use plans: The project's design and intended use appear to conflict with the stipulations of local land use regulations. Inadequate mitigation for traffic congestion: Proposed measures to reduce increased traffic congestion from the project are insufficient or inadequately detailed. Privacy concerns from new lot line windows not addressed: The development's design includes windows that may infringe on the privacy of neighboring residents. Modifications to a landmark building not in compliance: Changes to a historic building do not comply with local landmark preservation standards. Incomplete cultural resource impact study: The project's potential effects on cultural resources have not been fully explored or documented. Insufficient emergency access planning: The development's design does not include clear and accessible routes for emergency vehicles putting residents at risk. Inadequate infrastructure support for the project: The existing infrastructure may not be able to support the added strain from the development's increased density. Inadequate water supply and sustainability analysis: The project's impact on local water resources and long-term sustainability has not been properly examined. Failure to consider the impact on local utilities: The analysis overlooks the strain the project could place on existing utility systems, such as electricity and sewage. Non-compliance with zoning regulations: The development does not adhere to certain requirements set forth in the area's zoning regulations. Public comments not adequately considered: Community feedback and concerns have not been sufficiently incorporated into the planning process. Incomplete archaeological resource impact analysis: There is a lack of comprehensive study into the project's potential disruption of archaeological resources. Failure to address tree removal and landscaping changes: The environmental implications of tree removal and alterations to existing landscaping are not thoroughly addressed. Increase in hazardous materials during construction not addressed: Potential risks from the use or release of hazardous materials during construction have not been fully considered. Inadequate community character and cohesiveness consideration: The project's impact on the existing character and social fabric of the neighborhood is not thoroughly examined. Insufficient analysis of economic impacts on surrounding businesses: The potential negative economic effects on local businesses due to construction and increased competition have not been adequately evaluated. Increased crime due to construction not evaluated: There has been no analysis of how construction activity might affect local crime rates. Light and glare impact not fully studied: The assessment does not fully address the impact of additional light and glare from the development on residents and the environment. Improper traffic impact assessment: The current traffic analysis fails to accurately predict the impact of additional vehicles from the development on local traffic conditions. Risks to pedestrian safety not fully addressed: There are significant concerns that the development's design does not sufficiently safeguard pedestrians, especially in areas of high vehicle traffic with low visibility. Reduction in Natural Light: If the project results in a significant reduction of natural sunlight during the day due to increased shadowing, it could exacerbate symptoms of SAD for specific residents who rely on natural light for their wellbeing. Failure to Consider Health Impacts of Light Deprivation: The project's environmental review has evaluated the potential health effects of decreased light exposure for individuals with SAD. Inadequate Mitigation for Light Reduction: Project does not propose mitigation measures to offset the reduction in light which creates adverse effects for individuals suffering from SAD. Insufficient Construction Scheduling Considerations: Failure to adjust construction schedules to minimize noise impacts during night hours when residents are most vulnerable. Inadequate Resident Compensation for Noise Disruption: Lack of a compensation plan for residents who will be adversely affected by the noise during the construction period. Health Risks from Chronic Noise Exposure: Potential health risks associated with chronic exposure to high noise levels, which can affect cardiovascular and mental health, especially during rest periods at night. Inadequate Provision for Temporary Relocation: For the most intense periods of night construction, there may be no provision for temporary relocation or other accommodations for affected residents. Lack of Real-Time Noise Monitoring and Response: The project may lack a system for real-time noise monitoring and response to immediately address noise levels that exceed permitted thresholds during night hours. Inadequate dust control measures during construction: There are not enough measures in place to control dust emissions during the building process. Inadequate Measures to Prevent Dust Ingress: The project's construction plan does not provide sufficient measures to prevent construction dust from entering nearby properties, which can lead to health issues and the need for frequent cleaning. Failure to Account for Increased Cleaning Costs: The development does not address the increased burden and costs for neighboring residents and businesses who will need to clean their premises more regularly due to construction dust. No Plan for Continuous Cleaning of Surrounding Public Areas: There is a lack of a clear, continuous cleaning plan for public areas that may be affected by construction dust and debris. Absence of a Health Impact Study on Dust and Vermin: The project does not include a health impact study assessing the effects of increased dust and potential rodent problems on nearby residents. Loss of views from neighboring properties not considered: The project does not account for the potential loss of scenic views for existing residents. Construction timeline disclosure inadequate: The project's construction timeline has not been clearly communicated to the public. Cultural resource preservation non-compliance: The development's plans do not meet the requirements for preserving identified cultural resources. Existing neighborhood scale not properly considered: The project does not take into account how its scale might disrupt the current architectural harmony of the neighborhood. Property aesthetics impact analysis insufficient: The potential for the development to negatively alter the aesthetic appeal of the neighborhood has not been fully assessed. Increased demand on public services not addressed: The additional demand the development will place on public services like schools, parks, and waste management has been overlooked. Insufficient retail impact evaluation: The impact of the development on local retail establishments, including potential business displacement, has not been considered. RM-1 zoning regulation non-compliance: The project does not comply with the Residential-Mixed, Low Density zoning regulations. Waste disposal during construction planning insufficient: The plan for managing waste produced during construction is not adequate. Public access to planning documents lacking: Critical planning documents are not readily accessible to the public for review. Public health protection measures during construction inadequate: The project lacks sufficient measures to protect the public's health from construction-related hazards. Impact on historic landmarks from construction not addressed: The construction's potential to damage nearby historic landmarks has not been evaluated. Building scale and massing analysis inadequate: The proposed building's scale and massing may not be in harmony with the surrounding area, and this has not been adequately assessed. Long-term structural safety evaluation insufficient: The project's potential long- term impact on structural safety, especially in relation to seismic activity, has not been fully studied. Construction impact on local wildlife not addressed: The effects of construction on local wildlife habitats and migration patterns have not been considered. Hazardous construction equipment planning inadequate: Plans for managing and mitigating risks from hazardous construction equipment are lacking. Disruption of local businesses not analyzed: The project's potential to disrupt the operations of existing businesses during construction has not been assessed. Public realm and streetscape plan non-compliance: The development's design does not align with public realm and streetscape plans for the area. Historical architectural merit assessment inadequate: The evaluation of the project's impact on buildings of historical architectural merit is incomplete. Impacts on historic Pissis architecture not considered: Specific impacts on the architecture of Albert Pissis, which is historically significant, have not been addressed. Landmark Number 115 regulations not followed: Regulations related to the landmark designated as Number 115 are not being followed in the development plans. Sandstone exterior impact analysis lacking: The effects of construction on the sandstone exteriors of neighboring buildings have not been studied. Local historical context impact not addressed: The project's impact on the local historical context, including nearby landmark buildings, has not been adequately considered. Historical landmark visibility not considered: The potential for the development to obscure or diminish the visibility of local historical landmarks has not been evaluated. 40-X Height & Bulk Districts non-compliance: The project exceeds the height and bulk limits established for its district. Cooper Medical College legacy impact not assessed: The impact on the legacy and site of the Cooper Medical College has not been taken into account. Cultural landscapes disturbance not evaluated: The potential disturbance to cultural landscapes by the development has not been thoroughly investigated. Inadequate Dust Suppression Measures: The project fails to present a robust plan for dust suppression, posing a direct threat to the air quality in adjacent bedrooms. Insufficient Analysis of Diesel Emissions: The environmental review lacks a detailed analysis of diesel emissions from construction machinery and the impact on nearby residents. Non-Compliance with Air Quality Standards: The project may not comply with local or state air quality standards, especially concerning particulate matter close to residential sleeping areas. Potential Health Risks from Airborne Particulates: The project does not adequately address the health risks associated with airborne particulates resulting from construction activities. Lack of Real-Time Air Quality Monitoring: There is no plan for real-time air quality monitoring during construction to ensure that dust and diesel emission levels remain safe. Inadequate Mitigation for Diesel Machinery Proximity: The mitigation measures proposed are insufficient to protect neighboring residents from the proximity of diesel machinery. Failure to Address Cumulative Air Quality Impact: The project's environmental review does not consider the cumulative air quality impacts when combined with existing local pollution sources. Insufficient Protection for Vulnerable Populations: The project lacks specific measures to protect vulnerable populations, including children and the elderly, from construction-related air pollution. No Contingency Plans for Air Quality Exceedances: The project does not provide contingency plans to be implemented in case air pollution levels exceed safe thresholds. Lack of Adequate Ventilation Solutions for Neighbors: The project does not propose adequate ventilation solutions for neighboring properties to mitigate the infiltration of construction-related pollutants. Inadequate Barriers to Dust and Diesel Particulate Matter: The project fails to include the installation of physical barriers that could effectively reduce the migration of dust and diesel particulate matter into nearby homes. Failure to Limit Construction to Low Wind Days: The project does not include plans to limit dusty construction activities to days with low wind conditions to prevent the spread of pollutants. Lack of Specific Measures for Diesel Spill Prevention: There is no detailed plan for preventing and managing diesel spills, which can contribute to ground and air pollution. Inadequate Evaluation of Filter Efficiency for Local HVAC Systems: The project does not consider the efficiency of HVAC air filters in neighboring properties, which may not be adequate to filter out construction-related pollutants. Insufficient Consideration of Project Proximity to Sensitive Receptors: The planning documents do not sufficiently consider the exceptionally close proximity of the project to sensitive receptors, such as bedroom windows. Historical Colusa Sandstone impact not analyzed: The potential impacts on historical Colusa Sandstone structures have not been studied. Article 22A <U+2013> Maher Ordinance non-compliance: The project may not be in compliance with the Maher Ordinance, which addresses soil and groundwater contamination. Soil and water contamination risks not assessed: Risks of soil and water contamination as a result of the development have not been adequately studied. Slopes of 25% or greater impact not reviewed: The impacts of developing on slopes of 25% or greater, which can present significant engineering challenges, have not been reviewed. Seismic and geotechnical concerns not addressed: Seismic and geotechnical aspects of the development have not been given enough attention in the planning process. Increased structural loads impact not analyzed: The project's impact on structural loads, especially in relation to neighboring buildings, has not been properly assessed. Health Code Article 38 <U+2013> Air Quality non-compliance: The project may not meet the requirements of Health Code Article 38, related to air quality standards. Seismic hazard <U+2013> Liquefaction not considered: The potential for liquefaction, which can be a significant risk in seismic zones, has not been considered in the project's design. Archeological resource disturbance potential not assessed: The project's potential to disturb archeological resources has not been fully assessed. Emergency vehicle access not properly planned: The development plan does not ensure that emergency vehicles will have adequate access to the site. Stormwater Management Plan Deficiencies: The project's stormwater management plan is insufficient for handling the increased runoff from a 30-foot vertical wall with no setback. Insufficient Runoff Mitigation Measures: The project lacks comprehensive strategies to mitigate water runoff, potentially affecting adjacent properties. Unaddressed Water Damage Risk: There is an unaddressed risk of water damage to neighboring properties due to inadequate runoff planning. Erosion Control Measures Overlooked: Essential erosion control measures appear to be overlooked, posing a risk to the structural stability of nearby lands. Deficient Drainage Infrastructure: The construction plan fails to enhance drainage infrastructure to accommodate the runoff from the new vertical face. Potential Flooding Risks: The project presents potential flooding risks to neighboring properties, with no evident mitigation strategy. Water Discharge Regulation Non-Compliance: The construction plan might not comply with existing regulations governing water discharge, impacting adjacent properties. Lack of Hydrological Impact Assessment: The absence of a hydrological impact assessment fails to predict the runoff effects on the surrounding area. No Water Retention or Catchment Systems: The project lacks water retention or catchment systems necessary for managing increased runoff. Inadequate Protective Landscaping: Protective landscaping to mitigate runoff is insufficiently planned, which could lead to water intrusion issues for adjacent properties. Zero Setback Implications: The zero setback design does not provide a buffer zone for water runoff, potentially leading to property damage. No Contingency for Runoff-Related Damages: The project does not outline a contingency plan or compensation mechanism for potential runoff-related damages to surrounding properties. Foundation Undermining Risks: Risks of undermining the foundations of nearby properties due to runoff have not been adequately considered. Lack of Waterproofing for Adjacent Buildings: The project fails to plan for necessary waterproofing measures for neighboring historic buildings. Absence of Runoff Monitoring Plans: Regular monitoring of water runoff during and after construction is not included in the project plans. Missing Runoff Mitigation Equipment: There is no commitment to providing essential runoff mitigation equipment to safeguard neighboring properties. Runoff Contamination Concerns: The potential for runoff to carry contaminants has not been addressed, which could pose health and environmental risks. Runoff Contamination Concerns: The potential for runoff to carry contaminants has not been addressed, which could pose health and environmental risks. Missing Runoff Mitigation Equipment: There is no commitment to providing essential runoff mitigation equipment to safeguard neighboring properties. Insufficient Evaluation of Tribal Cultural Resources: The preliminary archaeological assessments may not have sufficiently identified sensitive tribal cultural resources that could be present on the site. Need for Ongoing Consultation with Native American Tribes: There is a potential lack of continuous engagement with Native American tribes to ensure their cultural resources are protected throughout the development process. Potential for Unidentified Cultural Resources: Given the history of the area, there could be undiscovered cultural resources significant to Native American tribes that are at risk due to construction. Inadequate Mitigation Measures for Tribal Resources: The mitigation measures proposed may not fully protect the integrity of tribal cultural resources during and after construction. Cumulative Impacts on Cultural Landscapes: The project could contribute to a significant cumulative impact on cultural landscapes that hold value for local Native American tribes. Lack of Comprehensive Cultural Resources Assessment: The project's cultural resources assessment may have failed to account for the full spectrum of tribal cultural values and resources. Monitoring and Protection During Construction: The project may not have a clear plan for monitoring potential impacts on tribal cultural resources during construction activities. Accidental Discovery Protocol Deficiencies: The project may lack a detailed accidental discovery protocol for handling tribal cultural resources unearthed during construction. Cultural Sensitivity Training for Workers: The project may not provide adequate cultural sensitivity training for construction workers, which is necessary to prevent inadvertent damages to tribal cultural resources. Impact on Traditional Practices: The project's impact on the ability of Native American tribes to conduct traditional practices within the area may not have been considered. Inadequate Recordation and Documentation of Tribal Resources: The project may not include appropriate measures for the recordation and documentation of tribal cultural resources, which is essential for historical preservation. Disruption to Residents' Sleep Patterns: The direct illumination from car headlamps could disrupt sleep patterns, leading to potential health issues for the affected residents. No Strategy for Headlamp Glare Reduction: The project lacks a strategy for reducing or redirecting headlamp glare from vehicles exiting the garage. Insufficient Mitigation Measures for Light Intrusion: There is a lack of effective mitigation measures, such as landscaping or architectural design features, to prevent headlamp light intrusion into neighboring homes. Violation of Right to Privacy and Enjoyment: The project's garage design may violate residents' right to privacy and quiet enjoyment of their homes by allowing car headlamps to shine directly into living spaces. Potential Increase in Stress and Anxiety: Constant exposure to sudden bursts of light from headlamps can increase stress and anxiety levels among residents. Lack of Light Trespass Regulations Compliance: The project may not comply with local light trespass regulations designed to protect residents from unwanted artificial light sources. Inadequate Design Considerations: The project design does not seem to take into account the necessary orientation or shielding to prevent headlamp light from affecting neighboring properties. Adverse Effects on Mental Health: The invasive nature of headlamp light, particularly during evening hours, could have adverse effects on the mental health of residents. Need for Light Impact Assessment: There appears to be no detailed light impact assessment to understand the potential ramifications of headlamp glare on neighbors. Failure to Account for Light Spill-Over: The project plans do not adequately address the prevention of light spill-over from the garage into neighboring properties. Absence of a Photometric Analysis: The project lacks a photometric analysis to quantify the intensity of light that would be cast into neighboring homes. No Consideration of Dimming or Directional Lighting: There is no consideration given to dimming systems or directional lighting for vehicles exiting the garage to minimize light disturbance. Lack of Shading or Screening Installations: The project does not propose the installation of shading devices or screening that could block light from car headlamps. Inadequate Nighttime Lighting Controls: There seems to be a lack of nighttime lighting controls that could be used to mitigate the impact of car headlamps during the night. Potential for Decreased Property Value: The nuisance caused by car headlamp light intrusion could potentially decrease the property value of affected residences. Failure to consider alternative project designs: The planning does not show evidence of considering design alternatives that might mitigate the project's negative impacts. Significant Trees at Risk: The project calls for the removal of protected "Significant Trees," which is in direct conflict with their importance to the community and city. Internet Access Interruption: The construction could disrupt the sole source of high-speed internet access for nearby residents due to extra height buildings blocking microwave signals.show more Maria Mesa · spoken · 2023-11-09 · support
Housing is a priority, BMRs Approved
Mike Chen · spoken · 2023-11-09 · support
Great addition to the neighborhood
Katherine Petrin · spoken · 2023-11-09 · oppose
Designated landmark, type of affordable housing
Jen Campbell · spoken · 2023-11-09 · support
Need more density
Nadine Pauley · spoken · 2023-11-09 · support
Repurposing underutilized building is important
Candace McKenzie · spoken · 2023-11-09 · oppose
Require developers to a CEQA analysis
Melanie Tringale · spoken · 2023-11-09 · support
Affordable housing
Mark Riser · spoken · 2023-11-09 · oppose
Insufficient treatment of a historic building
Annette Billingsley · spoken · 2023-11-09 · support
Modernize a historic building
Lily Alberga · spoken · 2023-11-09 · oppose
Affordable units, dangers of having the garage on Webster Street
Samia Rahmani · spoken · 2023-11-09 · oppose
Request for continuance to allow a review of the EIR
Atlas Rahmani · spoken · 2023-11-09 · oppose
Incomplete evaluation, historic preservation
Jonathan Clark · spoken · 2023-11-09 · oppose
Density Bonus law, wind study
Jonathan Bunemann · spoken · 2023-11-09 · support
Thoughtful reuse of a historic building
Bridget Maley · spoken · 2023-11-09 · oppose
Will change the character of a designated landmark designation
Jake Price · spoken · 2023-11-09 · support
Thoughtful urban design, perfect place to add family size housing
William Duncanson · spoken · 2023-11-09 · support
Design presentation
2395 Sacramento St x WebsterHi, We are unable to attend the Hearing today for the above project, but as neighbors, would like to express some of our concerns. We bought a home kitty corner to the projected project on Sacramento street last year; 2121 Webster #301. Our apartment looks directly onto that project and the corner of Sacramento and Webster. Concerns: There is already a lot of traffic on that corner with the medical offices, buses an… Hi, We are unable to attend the Hearing today for the above project, but as neighbors, would like to express some of our concerns. We bought a home kitty corner to the projected project on Sacramento street last year; 2121 Webster #301. Our apartment looks directly onto that project and the corner of Sacramento and Webster. Concerns: There is already a lot of traffic on that corner with the medical offices, buses and pedestrians; not alway safe, and their development will create more hazards in the neighborhood with the large addition. We are not on a high floor, and the height of the additions, will impact our daylight. There is also concern for what will happen with the airflow: the height and density will redirect the flow down the street (which can already be windy) We love the historical building across the street, and are also concerned that the preservation and integrity of the bldg., will remain intact. We are hoping that the developer will reconsider the impact of the project, and bring it down to a smaller, safer, and friendlier size for the neighborhood Please consider the impact of the project for the close neighbors, and the neighborhood thank you nancy peterman goldstein 2121 Webster St #[phone removed]show more YES to new housing on 2395 Sacramento StreetDear Commission Secretary, My name is Michael Sacks and I'm writing to express my strong support for bringing new homes to 2395 Sacramento as the project will add much-needed infill housing to the San Francisco's Pacific Heights neighborhood. The project team has exhibited tremendous thoughtfulness in creating a well-designed, and well-located project. Some highlights of the project include: 1. Complimenti… Dear Commission Secretary, My name is Michael Sacks and I'm writing to express my strong support for bringing new homes to 2395 Sacramento as the project will add much-needed infill housing to the San Francisco's Pacific Heights neighborhood. The project team has exhibited tremendous thoughtfulness in creating a well-designed, and well-located project. Some highlights of the project include: 1. Complimenting the neighborhood: The proposal will preserve and modernize a historic building. By transforming the underutilized building into family-oriented housing through creative urban design, the project will compliment and add to the surrounding neighborhood. 2. Adding Density: The project will utilize the state density bonus, bringing 24 homes of varying sizes and income levels to a high-resource neighborhood. 3. Great Land Use and Alternative Transportation: Located in a transit rich area, residents of the building will have access to several Muni stops. The project also includes 42 bike parking spaces, exceeding city requirements, and underscoring a commitment to alternative transit options. I urge you to approve this wonderful project so we can add desparately needed housing to San Francisco! Regards, Michael Sacks [email removed] 1808 Vallejo St, Apt 1 San Francisco, CA 94123show more