followup 690 Page development pre-app mtg 1/24

[Joanne Schwartz]

4 separate buildings. 3 condos each. 12 condos in total. 1 parking spot per unit. 4 separate driveways onto Page St. Existing trees to be removed. 3 sidewalk trees to be planted between proposed 4 driveways. City mandatory green space will be located on the roof.

2nd planning meeting tba. Will let you know details as available. The presence of property owner, (our Steiner St. neighbor Mr Urbano), was requested by the meeting attendees, for the next neighborhood meeting.

One concern expressed by neighbors is the loss of 5 street parking spots on Page St. and the loss of an unknown number of street parking spaces on Steiner. Another concern expressed was the loss of City Car Share and the loss of existing parking lot spaces currently rented by Mr. Urbano for $250 per spot per month. Loss of existing parking and the additional need for parking generated by 12 new condos is a grave concern expressed at the 1/24 meeting. As we all know, parking and traffic congestion at this intersection is already at gridlock. The question is, can anything be done at this stage of planning, to prevent or minimize a critical escalation of these issues in the future?

[Thea Selby]

Thx for good recap, Joanne.

 

I was the person who was concerned about the city car share going away. I called City Car Share, and they basically said they have no control over what the owner wants to do with the space. The woman I spoke with said she’d check and see if they had any other pods they were looking into to replace that one, which, she said, was really popular (6 cars).

 

Thea Selby

415 773 1841

th...@nextstepsmarketing.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lowerhaight.org" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lowerhaightor...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lowerha...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lowerhaightorg?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Alexandra Jones]

Wow. I have never regretted selling my flat at 668 Page and now I really don't! I'd hate to be there for that construction. I'm sorry to hear about this, it's such a lovely corner as is. But so goes San Francisco!

---

From: Thea Selby <th...@nextstepsmarketing.com>
To: lowerha...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 12:43 PM
Subject: RE: [lowerhaightorg] followup 690 Page development pre-app mtg 1/24

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lowerhaightor...@googlegroups.com.

[r...@3-page.com]

Phew!  This got long, but in a large nutshell:

I recommend calling a meeting of the LHNMA Transportation and Land Use Committee (within a week to 10 days) to:

• list our objections (and justifications for them, citing Planning policy and sound urban design knowledge) and offer solution scenarios that we can agree on.  Neighborhood unity is important!
• invite HVNA Trans/Land Use committee members to the meeting to strategize
• Work WITH project sponsors if possible.  I believe our goal is to get a great project that is a positive addition to the neighborhood, with this developer or another. 
  
• FUTURE:  Write neighborhood policy that is similar to Market/Octavia so as to dissuade bad projects in the future
  

Possible things to do (we can discuss at meeting):

• Contact and establish communication with their Enviro Planner, Heidi Kline, and other planners assigned to the project.  We could ask Planner AnMarie Rodgers (Market/Octavia Plan) for advice and assistance.
• Obtain a letter of concern (garage doors, added traffic) from SF Bike Coalition
• Ditto: Walk SF, Maybe City Car Share
• issue statement: CAR SHARE is a neighborhood-serving shared valuable resource not to be displaced without compensation and mitigation. (get usage stats for the 690 Page pod)
• stress that TREES along Page are mature and healthy and should not be removed or replaced.
• London Breed - at some point we should have a conversation with her. 

FYI: City Planning Principals:

• External details in building facades, entries, stairways, retaining walls and other features provide visual interest and enrichment and are consistent with the historic scale and texture of San Francisco.
• The livability, amenity and character of residential areas are greatly enhanced by trees, more so than by any other single element.
• Parking garages lack visual interest if they have extensive rows of doors, blank walls or exposed vehicles. Extensive curb cuts prevent planting and other enhancement of the street, eliminate curb-side parking and are potentially dangerous to pedestrians.
• B. Restricting entry and exit points minimizes curb cuts.
• Driveways across sidewalks should be kept to a practical minimum, with control maintained over the number and width of curb cuts. 
• Protect the livability and character of residential properties from the intrusion of incompatible new buildings.

We are outside the Market/Octavia planning area, but it has much better planning policies than the SF general plan, and, because of neighborhood similarities, ask that the same principles be applied to Lower Haight deveopment:

• (Market/Octavia) Garage doors disrupt the original architecture and diminish the quality of the sidewalk and street. Where garages have been added to historically significant buildings, seek to return the buildings to the original character. Policies throughout this plan regulate the installation of off-street parking. Those policies should be rigorously applied to historically significant buildings.
• (Market/Octavia)No more than 30 percent of the width of the ground floor may be devoted to garage entries or blank walls. This shall in no case require garage entries be less than 10 feet wide. Where curb cuts are expressly prohibited by this plan, garage entries are not permitted. No façade may feature garage entries that together total more than 20 feet in width. The building area immediately facing the street should support residential or commercial uses, have a human scale, and contribute active uses to the street. Large garage entries are extremely detrimental to a street’s design character and pedestrian safety,. Vehicular traffic crossing the sidewalk should be limited to the absolute minimum necessary to facilitate access to parcels. At least 70 percent of the width of the ground floor facing streets must be devoted to windows, entrances to dwelling units, store windows and entrances, landscaping or planters, and other architectural features that provide visual relief and interest.
• (Market/Octavia) Encourage parking provided in new residential developments to be made publicly available for lease. Encourage private developers to partner with car sharing programs in locating car share parking in new buildings.
  
• (Market/Octavia) Minimum parking requirements are one of the most significant barriers to the creation of new housing, especially affordable housing, and transit-oriented development in the plan area. Providing parking as currently required reduces the total number of units that can be accommodated on a given site and increases the cost of individual units to residents.
• (Market/Octavia) The fundamental principles are:
  • Provide ample and diverse housing opportunities to add to the vitality of the place. Maximize housing opportunities to serve a variety of people. The Plan does so by looking to the prevailing built form of the area and carefully prescribing controls for building envelopes to emulate that form. Controls that limit building area by restricting housing are eliminated in favor of well-defined height and bulk controls and urban design guidelines, encouraging building types more in keeping with the area’s established development pattern, and allowing greater flexibility in the type and configuration of new housing.
    
    
  • Housing can be built more efficiently, affordably, and more consistent with neighborhood character if parking is not required. Because public transit, walking, and bicycling are convenient and attractive ways to get around in the Plan area, residents here often live with fewer cars, or without a car at all. The fact that they need to own, store, and maintain fewer cars not only enables residents to live more affordably, but will also allow new housing to capitalize on the area’s accessibility by other transportation modes. This will ensure that new housing adds life to the area without adding new cars to its streets, be more affordable both to developers and residents, and minimize the negative impacts of parking facilities on neighborhood streets.
  • Concentrate new uses where access to transit and services best enables people to be less reliant on automobiles. New development will be most successful where it minimizes the negative effects of additional automobiles, by building on the area’s superior accessibility on foot and by transit. To this end, the most intense new development should be linked directly to existing and proposed transit services, and concentrated where the area’s mix of uses supports a lifestyle less dependent on cars.
    
  
  

Permitting process overview: http://www.sf-planning.org/index.aspx?page=2753

General Plan: http://www.sf-planning.org/ftp/General_Plan/I5_Urban_Design.htm

Market/Octavia Plan http://www.sf-planning.org/ftp/General_Plan/Market_Octavia.htm

Planning Code: http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/planning/planningcode?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:sanfrancisco_ca$sync=1