690 Page

[Robert Bregoff]

I just received this:

Attached is the announcement that the Environmental Review for the proposed project at 690 Page has started and is taking comments.

We all can comment, but I think it would be effective of a letter was sent by LHNMA and HVNA. 

We need to align on comments to change this project so that it is more in keeping with the values of this neighborhood. 

 

My comments: 

·         Object to dividing lot into 4 parcels (b/c this forces the Project Sponsor (PS) to create 4 garage door openings, eliminating mature street trees and 4-6 street parking spaces

·         Project should here to the Market-Octavia neighborhood plan, even though it is not in the plan area, and construct a maximum of .5:1 parking spaces.  The current ratio of car ownership in this area and Hayes Valley is 40-50% of families have a car.  The project should not exceed this

·         KEEP city Car Share Spaces.  This is a very well-used neighborhood resource.  Studies say that 1 car share replaces 15.3 privately owned vehicles.  6-8 car share vehicles can mean 70-100 more on-street parking spaces are available.  This is a has a huge impact on parking in the neighborhood.

·         If the parcels are not divided, the resulting building can have ONE garage opening to gain ingress/egress to a garage space that will accommodate resident parking and car share vehicles.  We would lose 1 street space, max.

·         Move building back 6-8 feet so that there can be a stoop and a garden in the front, softening the Page Street Frontage.  The PS could also add 2 street-level condos along Page Street, thus, increasing his revenue.

·         The above will need a variance from the planning department.  If he’s willing to do this, we must support him in getting his variance.

·         I would encourage the Owner to investigate hiring a proven architect who is familiar with greenbuilding and urban planning issues. 

·         The preliminary drawings that we saw looked as if the building was going to be “value engineered” into mediocrity. This neighborhood deserves a thoughtfully designed modern project.

 

 

Environmental Impacts:

·         Loss of street parking

·         12 new cars and multiple trips per day per car

·         Loss of mature, established trees

·         Bike Boulevard.  Dangerous garage back-outs should be eliminated

·         Garage openings make sidewalks more dangerous for pedestrians.  This city is proclaimed bike/ped priority.  Project is inconsistent with this policy

·         UNBUNDLE parking from units.  Don’t force buyers to pay for parking that they aren’t going to use.  This could free up spaces to rent to neighbors who need cars, and add revenue to the PS. 

·         They should provide bike parking for residents and investigate rental bike parking as well.

·         Aesthitics: Proposed buildings are not fitting with a corner lot.  Building should be massed consistently with SF lot patterns.  The Steiner side needs architectural interest.  The corner needs a turret-like feature

·          

 

Can anyone think of what else should be added to the list.  Focus on how this building will negatively affect the neighborhood, the sidewalk, street, traffic, bikes, etc.

 

Rob

[Thea Selby]

Wonderful recap, Rob. Did not know the car share statistic. It's astounding. I'm even more pro-car share than I was. A few typos fixed below.

Thea 

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 23, 2013, at 5:06 PM, Robert Bregoff <r...@3-page.com> wrote:

I just received this:

Attached is the announcement that the Environmental Review for the proposed project at 690 Page has started and is taking comments.

We all can comment, but I think it would be effective of a letter was sent by LoHaNMA and HVNA. 

We need to align on comments to change this project so that it is more in keeping with the values of this neighborhood. 

 

My comments: 

·         Object to dividing lot into 4 parcels (b/c this forces the Project Sponsor (PS) to create 4 garage door openings, eliminating mature street trees and 4-6 street parking spaces

·         Project should adhere to the Market-Octavia neighborhood plan, even though it is not in the plan area, and construct a maximum of .5:1 parking spaces.  The current ratio of car ownership in this area and Hayes Valley is 40-50% of families have a car.  The project should not exceed this

·         KEEP city Car Share Spaces.  This is a very well-used neighborhood resource.  Studies say that 1 car share replaces 15.3 privately owned vehicles.  6-8 car share vehicles can mean 70-100 more on-street parking spaces are available.  This is a has a huge impact on parking in the neighborhood.

·         If the parcels are not divided, the resulting building can have ONE garage opening to gain ingress/egress to a garage space that will accommodate resident parking and car share vehicles.  We would lose 1 street space, max.

·         Move building back 6-8 feet so that there can be a stoop and a garden in the front, softening the Page Street Frontage.  The PS could also add 2 street-level condos along Page Street, thus, increasing his revenue.

·         The above will need a variance from the planning department.  If he’s willing to do this, we must support him in getting his variance.

·         I would encourage the Owner to investigate hiring a proven architect who is familiar with greenbuilding and urban planning issues. 

·         The preliminary drawings that we saw looked as if the building was going to be “value engineered” into mediocrity. This neighborhood deserves a thoughtfully designed modern project.

 

 

Environmental Impacts:

·         Loss of street parking

·         12 new cars and multiple trips per day per car

·         Loss of mature, established trees

·         Bike Boulevard.  Dangerous garage back-outs should be eliminated

·         Garage openings make sidewalks more dangerous for pedestrians.  This city is proclaimed bike/ped priority.  Project is inconsistent with this policy

·         UNBUNDLE parking from units.  Don’t force buyers to pay for parking that they aren’t going to use.  This could free up spaces to rent to neighbors who need cars, and add revenue to the PS. 

·         They should provide bike parking for residents and investigate rental bike parking as well.

·         Aesthitics: Proposed buildings are not fitting with a corner lot.  Building should be massed consistently with SF lot patterns.  The Steiner side needs architectural interest.  The corner needs a turret-like feature

·          

 

Can anyone think of what else should be added to the list.  Focus on how this building will negatively affect the neighborhood, the sidewalk, street, traffic, bikes, etc.

 

Rob

--
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.
 
 

<690 Page 3-22-13.pdf>

[Scott]

Rob-

thanks for the lemons. They were delicious!

Why would a large underground lot that could service car share as well as offer lease spots to the neighborhood be a bad thing?

Families, ( which I sure would like to see more of around here) would probably appreciate it.

[Robert Bregoff]

I don’t think it’s a bad thing, as long as whoever uses the parking pays for it, including the buyers of the condos.

Forcing buyers to purchase parking they don’t need adds a minimum of $50K-$100K to the price of a unit.    

If the parking was available first to Car Share & residents to lease, then to neighbors to rent, it would be a positive addition to the neighborhood.

If the lot is subdivided into 4, we will end up with 4 garage doors.  BAD.  If we can prevent this subdivision, the developer could still build the condos, but all on one lot, and with one garage door for the whole development.  Better.

--

[Ahmad El-Najjar]

Hello All,

Can you please make sure to cc me at ahmad.e...@sfgov.org on the final letter.

Best,
Ahmad El-Najjar

--

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.
 
 

--
Ahmad El-Najjar