Balboa Reservoir Project Proposals Comments Submitted Online

Transcription

1 overall design of the site or arrangement of land uses that were presented. local neighborhood, organization, school, or other group? If so, which one(s)? It needs more housing and less parking As many units of housing as possible I am very disappointed with the lack of retail space. To make a vibrant community, minimize traffic, promote environmental stewardship we need a good walk score. None of these emphasize integrated living and commercial space DEVELOPMENT TEAM: AvalonBay Communities and BRIDGE Housing with Mission Housing, Pacific Union Development Company, and Habitat for Humanity of Greater San Francisco Could be denser. The open space is not necessary due to the proximity of Balboa Park. Building should be 2x to 4x as tall, need more units, at least 5k The common green spaces are good, but I hope they take this concern about multiuse integration seriously. I don't know how without cafes, restaurants etc to encourage their use they will not be widely used as well they will do that yet suggested in these renderings. Look at any major city that integrates living and commercial space with green spaces and you find much more vibrant community with less traffic The design interacts well with City College It has way too much parking for a site so close to Bart and retail heavy Ocean Ave. More units More units More units please More units Density is good. Especially 5-6 story buildings. In a housing crisis we can't afford less. This is a big city. Underground parking. Above ground parking is such a waste. Integration of public transit is good They are not in touch with creating walkable multiuse communities. They treat this too much like the suburbs (#3 is better) but we are in San Francisco. Think minimizing cars, maximizing density and walk score These comments above are applicable to all 3 teams I am very disappointed with the lack of retail space. To make a vibrant community, minimize traffic, promote environmental stewardship we need a good walk score. None of these emphasize integrated living and commercial space The common green spaces are good, but I hope they take this concern about multiuse integration seriously. I don't know how without cafes, restaurants etc to encourage their use they will not be widely used as well they will do that yet suggested in these renderings. Look at any major city that integrates living and commercial space with green spaces and you find much more vibrant community with less traffic Density is good. Especially 5-6 story buildings. In a housing crisis we can't afford less. This is a big city. Underground parking. Above ground parking is such a waste. Integration of public transit is good They are not in touch with creating walkable multiuse communities. They treat this too much like the suburbs (#3 is better) but we are in San Francisco. Think minimizing cars, maximizing density and walk score These comments above are applicable to all 3 teams As many units of housing as possible It needs more housing and less parking Building should be 2x to 4x as tall, need more units, at least 5k Could be denser. The open space is not necessary due to the proximity of Balboa Park. More units More units More units please More units The design interacts well with City College It has way too much parking for a site so close to Bart and retail heavy Ocean Ave. I object to several story buildings directly adjacent to Sunnyside, a neighborhood of small, mainly one-story, single family homes. This will completely change the neighborhood character. Needs more housing, more density I like the contemporary style No thoughts Architecture style Could use more housing/density no I think this project has a good mix of uses I like the arrangement of land uses I think they will work well There are lots of housing units and the space There is a lot of parking, which may cause This is a good project is arranged attractively more people to drive Avalon/Bridge Proposal Comments - Page 1

2 overall design of the site or arrangement of land uses that were presented. local neighborhood, organization, school, or other group? If so, which one(s)? DEVELOPMENT TEAM: AvalonBay Communities and BRIDGE Housing with Mission Housing, Pacific Union Development Company, and Habitat for Humanity of Greater San Francisco It is a balanced mixed of houses, apartments, commercial and open spaces. The overall design makes sense, with a nice open space right at the central entrance of ccsf. The team seems seasoned and well experienced. Bay Avalon is a very large company with a big footprint on the city already, so it has its pros and cons. The proposed an interesting design for the I am very concerned about the shared main central park, which seems a good fit for parking proposal. CCSF attracts large ccsf students on break and families to bring amounts of cars in the neighborhood, so it kids. would be nice to have a guaranteed parking lot for ccsf students. The parking is sold under the assumption that residents will take cars out during the day and students will not be there at night. Not sure if a study has been conducted, buy I usually take night classes so i park till 10pm or later. This idea of a shared parking space seemed very unrealistic. Please drop the idea of growing food or having green roofs. They tend to be a maintainace disaster and they never look good. Put more solar panels instead or a roof top patio for people living in the buildings. Fine. This should be the minimum density SFPUC considers. This site is an extremely rare thing: large, currently unbuilt, and within 3/8 mile of BART. The open spaces are similarly scaled throughout: there is no apparent hierarchy to them, and most buildings have minimal open space dedicated to them (buildings A and C seem to have none). Lots of paved plaza areas that seem unprogrammed and residual. Fine the unit count The common landscape proposed: expensive to build, expensive to maintain n/a This one nailed it. This proposal seems to have a good overall mix and type of land uses. I liked how this proposal integrated with the different elements of the surrounding neighborhood and CCSF.? Integration into existing neighborhood, large & small open spaces, number of units, amenities This is the best plan As with all the proposals, I am concerned No about the impact on the Ocean and Phelan intersection, which is already heavily impacted, and other streets used as throughfares such as Plymouth. What is the city doing to improve transit, vehicle, bike, and pedestrian circulation in the surrounding area? Too dense & too many units, not enough open space and no concrete plans for units for sale. I don't think they will work well with the surrounding neighborhoods as they didn't seem to incorporate the desires/concerns of the surrounding neighborhoods or CCSF. Avalon seems like a decent developer but I did not like this proposal. This development is way too dense and I don't see Avalon offering units for sale. I think it could use some more community retail (markets, restaurants, maybe a grocery store) to make it more walkable. I'm not sure I like the small courtyards. Other than that it looks good I don't know over 1000 housing units. Too much parking, not enough mixed-use (retail) 1260 is too many parking spaces for a new development in SF with fewer than 2000 units. Avalon/Bridge Proposal Comments - Page 2

3 overall design of the site or arrangement of land uses that were presented. local neighborhood, organization, school, or other group? If so, which one(s)? DEVELOPMENT TEAM: AvalonBay Communities and BRIDGE Housing with Mission Housing, Pacific Union Development Company, and Habitat for Humanity of Greater San Francisco This is my favorite of the proposals. I think Best of the proposals. the mix of townhouses, apartment buildings, and open space is great. I like the architectural design of the buildings and the layout. I would love to see LOTS of space set aside for commercial use. All these wonderful planned open spaces will be vacant without coffee shops, cafes, bars restaurants, boutiques, etc to draw people out to feel comfortable in the public space. Without these, the community will be a ghost town. I also love the green roof idea, and the community garden idea. I like the other Avalon buildings I've seen. It would be nice to maintain some architectural continuity with the Avalon buildings on Ocean. Architecture, overall layout and land use, green roofs, community gardens, public green spaces. Would like to see space set aside for cafes, restaurants, bars, coffee houses. This could be a great little thriving artsy university community. But without commercial space it will be just another nameless apartment complex with no community or character. Need more commercial space... Nope, thanks for hearing my comments. While I like the way the open space and the roughly gridded pattern, there does not seem to be much retail compared to the number of residential units. Large numbers of units, good open space use. I don't think there will be enough retail to support the local surrounding area, the number of units is a bit low for the size of the lot / demand in SF, the number of parking spaces is high and could induce auto demand in surrounding neighborhoods. This plan includes way too many parking spaces. For a multitude of environmental and technological reasons, private parking spaces are gradually becoming increasingly obsolete. They add needless expense to housing construction and maintenance, generate congestion and pollution (as well as other environmental harms), and negatively impact the streetscape (especially for pedestrians, transit riders, and bicyclists). In an area that is so transit rich,too much space is a wasted on parking spaces that could be used for housing. Most parking required should be for bikes and shared vehicles Avalon/Bridge Proposal Comments - Page 3

4 overall design of the site or arrangement of land uses that were presented. local neighborhood, organization, school, or other group? If so, which one(s)? I think that housing is the biggest need currently facing the community, our young people and City employees and teachers and the proposal does not propose building enough housing units. DEVELOPMENT TEAM: AvalonBay Communities and BRIDGE Housing with Mission Housing, Pacific Union Development Company, and Habitat for Humanity of Greater San Francisco n/a n/a n/a I am concerned that the proposal does not contain enough housing units. We should be doing everything we can to build more housing units close to transit. Currently 40,000 people commute to San Francisco every day, which stresses our regional transit systems and makes commutes bad. At the same time, rents have increased, because SF has added so many jobs without adding enough housing to offset it. Building more housing of any kind helps alleviate increases in rent prices, and last year caused rents and owner move-in evictions to fall. We should build more housing on this area than the developer currently proposes. n/a I support it -- especially the high number of Seems reasonable Sure The high number of housing units. None None Sfyimby housing units Good, but not enough housing Not bad Seems fine Housing Not enough housing I am a SF Resident, living in Central SoMa. I'm in favor of up to 1200 units of transit friendly housing. SF has a housing crisis. It's irresponsible to have a parking lot where housing can be built. The neighbors opposing these plans are selfish and only want to preserve home values. They couldn't care less that thousands of lower to middle class are being priced out of the city each year, including teachers, nurses, govt workers, laborers and union workers. Nice distribution/mix of housing and green space. The terraced public area faces west. Stiff winds always blow from the west. Best slide show of the three. Delelopment should consider steady winds from the west, otherwise, people won't use green space. Avalon/Bridge Proposal Comments - Page 4

5 overall design of the site or arrangement of land uses that were presented. local neighborhood, organization, school, or other group? If so, which one(s)? DEVELOPMENT TEAM: AvalonBay Communities and BRIDGE Housing with Mission Housing, Pacific Union Development Company, and Habitat for Humanity of Greater San Francisco I am shocked by the ghastly proposal to have an unsightly row of townhouses along Plymouth Ave. No breaks, just the back of the townhouses. No emphasis on buffer between their development and Westwood Park. I am shocked by the ghastly proposal to have an unsightly row of townhouses along Plymouth Ave. No breaks, just the back of the townhouses. No emphasis on buffer between their development and Westwood Park. I am shocked by the ghastly proposal to have an unsightly row of townhouses along Plymouth Ave. No breaks, just the back of the townhouses. No emphasis on buffer between their development and Westwood Park. It's ok. There really ought to be much more housing in this transit-friendly location. Given the footprint of the location, there's an opportunity to expand our housing supply by 10,000 units or more. I prefer proposals that maximize the opportunity to address our ***severe housing shortage crisis***. This is the best looking project, however Too much parking there is not enough housing. Sierra Club says 100 units/acre is the minimum density for the environment and fight urban sprawl, so there should be 1,700-2,000 housing units on this site Working with which community? It is currently a PARKING LOT, there is no "community" living here Well known members, it'll be done right Way too much parking at walking distance from a BART station Please add more housing density Good that you have a community room. Community gathering places + community eating areas (preferably like a cafeteria with healthy & vegan options) are important for the residents' happiness for living there. This plot of land is in an area that has crime happening. In your plan, I don't see any barriers around the community to protect against crime. I like the integration of the outdoors with the housing units in this design.? Communal activities, like a community room, gardening, child care. What are the provisions for senior housing? Seniors should be given the choice to live near each other or to live integrated with all age groups. It would also be good to have some communal housing units which could be used by residents for their guests or for aides to help those who are in need of assistance. I don't see anything in the plan about sound insulation. With such density of housing, a big potential problem is sound from other units. Nevada City Cohousing is an excellent model for complete sound protection between units xhttp:// This factor can make or break satisfaction among residents. Avalon/Bridge Proposal Comments - Page 5

6 overall design of the site or arrangement of land uses that were presented. local neighborhood, organization, school, or other group? If so, which one(s)? DEVELOPMENT TEAM: AvalonBay Communities and BRIDGE Housing with Mission Housing, Pacific Union Development Company, and Habitat for Humanity of Greater San Francisco Inserting an entire neighborhood into the middle of a space with no street access is bad design and guaranteed to create terrible traffic congestion on Ocean Avenue which is already terribly crowded. Do not build this neighborhood until you have multiple access points to the property. The City s parking policies are inconsistently implemented and not well thought out or realistic: why should City College students and staff get parking when everyone else is discouraged from driving or owning a car? Why prioritize City College employees for housing? What about bus drivers? Garbage collectors? Other city workers? I think it might be too small and there should be more housing units. Best case scenario we build too many have trouble filling them and it forces prices near by to drop as well Avalon/Bridge Proposal Comments - Page 6

7 overall design of the site or arrangement of land uses that were presented. local neighborhood, organization, school, or other group? If so, which one(s)? DEVELOPMENT TEAM: AvalonBay Communities and BRIDGE Housing with Mission Housing, Pacific Union Development Company, and Habitat for Humanity of Greater San Francisco ALL proposals need to take into consideration the limitations of the current sewer system along Ocean Avenue. Problems resulting from changes in street design, over development and capacity limitations due to an undersized sewer line between Phelan and Miramar have resulted in heavy overland flow and flood risks to low lying areas in and around Ingleside Terraces. These issues have already been brought to the attention of the Balboa Advisory Committee, the SFPUC, the SFPUC Board of Commissioners, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors Safety Commission, as well as Norman Yee s office. In addition, our recent discovery that this same sewer line has had documented excursions during moderate rainfall means that additional tie-ins for new housing and retail units will only exacerbate the problem. The Balboa Reservoir Project cannot be allowed to contribute even a gallon of wet weather flow to a sewer line that cannot handle moderate storm situations. The effects of flooding to low lying areas, namely Ingleside Terraces, due to new developments and wet weather flow have not been adequately addressed in any of the previous reports/studies. Too aggressive and dense for a complex near single housing district. Parking raffic congestion is a concern. Already traffic on Ocean ave is congested and heavy from new buildings going to 280. Buildings adjacent to Plymouth Street are too high. Way too many units...need to go down to 500 units and no more so there can be open space The proposal by AvalonBay/Bridge ranks highest in my opinion in several areas: sensitivity to surrounding neighborhoods, open space configuration and utilization, pedestrian flow, parking, auto flow and traffic mitigation, aesthetics/site design, and sustainability. the way it is now is a good. Can close to Plymouth streets are not welcome. Let the neighbors of that street live without disturbance and leave them some sunshine. You are destroying the neighborhood with this plan. Too many groups involved...it's not going to work I'm impressed by the team -- they seem committed to integrating this project into the surrounding neighborhoods. Avalon build only cheap units that deteriorate too fast. In 20 years, no one will want to live there. traffic and congestion, city coledge is not a University for students living near teh school. Too big... too high... too close to local resident of single family units. we've to forget about this plan. Avalon/Bridge Proposal Comments - Page 7

8 overall design of the site or arrangement of land uses that were presented. local neighborhood, organization, school, or other group? If so, which one(s)? DEVELOPMENT TEAM: AvalonBay Communities and BRIDGE Housing with Mission Housing, Pacific Union Development Company, and Habitat for Humanity of Greater San Francisco Great design good number and mix of housing The proposed housing is too dense and too tall. There is also not enough open space. It seems too dense to me. Various housing types seems like a good idea and exactly what mix is appropriate is the question. Great use of space to provide a variety of uses for the land for children, adults and pets. Integration of art, solar, gardens, walking space is great. There is parking but it's not excessive, given the location this is great. I don't like that housing is pushed up against and Whole Foods / Plymouth Avenue. The architecture looks too much like Mission Bay. Once again it seems too dense to me. I'm concerned about the creation of 'wind tunnels' between the buildings. Also concerned about the access to light and sky with the density proposed. I've had experience with avalon buildings before and it's all been positive They felt like the most corporate of the groups - I don't have a good feeling. I like Habitat for Humanity and would welcome their involvement. The number of units and mixed use of space as mentioned before. I like that there are multiple pedestrian entrances and that some housing is devoted to teachers. There is nothing that I like most. none The overall density, coupled with the fact that there are only two automotive entrances. I foresee incredible congestion at those entrances to Ocean and Phelan Avenues. I am concerned about the traffic on Ocean Ave. as it relates to exiting 280 and then making your way through the traffic as it stacks up at the intersection at Ocean and Phelan. This intersection is already a nightmare with NO additional housing. SFMTA has tried several options on this stretch of road with absolutely NO success. I want to request that the design of the buildings relate somehow to the beauty that was San Francisco prior to this latest building boom which is leaving us with some of the ugliest buildings I have ever seen. We are finally starting to look like the big Eastern cities with their blocks upon blocks of ugly big buildings that look more like prisons that homes. The overall mix and type of land uses is fair to poor: (1) This proposal has the least amount of open space; (2) There is not enough variety in housing types; (3) Having the streets along the sides of the project is not desirable: it is less inviting, it is less safe, and it provides less usable open space. (Streets provide open space that is different than footpaths or parks, which can be used for street fairs, farmers markets, antique car shows, etc.) The overall design of the site and arrangement of land uses is poor. The buildings look like Khrushchyovkas - the lowcost, three- to five-storied apartment buildings that were developed in the USSR during the early 1960s. The park in the middle is good, but who would want to sit in a park in the middle of Soviet housing? I do not believe this development team would work well with the community. There are too many partners, and the AvalonBay development adjacent to the site is not an attractive project. The number of parking spaces provided. The concerns I have are the following: site design; architecture; least amount of open space. I do not recommend Developer Team #1. Avalon/Bridge Proposal Comments - Page 8

9 overall design of the site or arrangement of land uses that were presented. local neighborhood, organization, school, or other group? If so, which one(s)? DEVELOPMENT TEAM: AvalonBay Communities and BRIDGE Housing with Mission Housing, Pacific Union Development Company, and Habitat for Humanity of Greater San Francisco I appreciate the inclusion of open space, but Again, I would like more open space and 2.2 it's far too little in size. Open space is the acres of contiguous open space is too little! most important component of this View sheds are important. Creating view development - we will never have the corridors that offer similarities to what is opportunity to create more public open currently available it a nice component of space. Also, I was confused by the number of this design. Although, this is not my top units. During the initial presentation the choice of the 3 presentations. developer mentioned 500 units and then went on to discuss 1,100 units. I'm assuming that they're planning on the larger number but I am unsure about this. In general, I like the layout of this design with the community space in the center and views of Mount Davidson and the Ocean. Although I like this, this is not my top choice. It's my second favorite. The presenters seemed prepared and professional enough. I was confused by their lead, their mention of 500 and then 1,100 units was concerning. It felt that they were being disingenuous. How will traffic be addressed? This was not clear. The buildings should age well. How will this be achieved. Will this be quality construction? 1. I like the view sheds to Mt Davidson and the ocean. 2. I like the terraced community area (but this would be very windy). 3. I liked he central park / community area. 4. I like the roof top gardens. 500 or 1,100 units? Public transportation limitations. Services are not being discussed or improved prior to development. Addressing traffic? How? What are the proposals for parking on near by neighborhood streets in Westwood Park, Sunnyside and Ocean View? I have heard bad feedback about Avalon. You can hear your neighbors clearly. I've been told that the construction was done on the cheap. How many parking spaces per unit? How will you address automobile congestion? Are you engaging with City College and their development of the Arts Building and of college student parking needs? Lopsided toward residential density. A bit lofty. The shared parking garage seems nice in theory but doomed in practice. Also, this looks like a campus. Keeping autos on a perimeter is a feature that adds to this effect. This development should feel like a neighborhood. Scaling up from Plymouth to CCSF is smart, a necessity. It does not spread the increased traffic evenly. Phelan Ave will become a new parking lot. Also, there are too many residences, not enough compromises for the surrounding communities. The shared garage is a fantasy. I don't like that there is extra parking. We decided on a.5/1 parking ratio in the transportation parameters and we should stick with that. There is no buffer between Westwood neighborhood and the development. A park would be better there. I'm not impressed that they didn't comply with the transportation parameters. I don't like this one very much As I mentioned, too much parking no Avalon/Bridge Proposal Comments - Page 9

10 overall design of the site or arrangement of land uses that were presented. local neighborhood, organization, school, or other group? If so, which one(s)? DEVELOPMENT TEAM: AvalonBay Communities and BRIDGE Housing with Mission Housing, Pacific Union Development Company, and Habitat for Humanity of Greater San Francisco I have serious concerns about the safety and sustainability of more housing development if it depends on the existing sewer infrastructure. As homeowners in a lower lying area of Ingleside Terraces, we already battle flooding during even moderate storms. While we are pleased that there will be increased capacity with the current work on the system in our neighborhood, we know that this work only attempts to bring the existing system up to capacity for the current needs of Ocean Avenue. It would not support the proposed Balboa Reservoir Project. For safety and sustainability, any new development (certainly for anything the size of the Balboa Reservoir Project), would require a new sewer system that would not impact existing lines in and around Ocean Avenue and Ingleside Terraces. Same answer applies to all 3 developers: Way too many housing units for the area. The neighboring infrastructure cannot handle units and SF is pushing families out in support of 1-2 person households. Same answer applies to all 3 developers: Traffic in the area is already awful. No parking, grid locking, double parked delivery trucks, unreliable public transportation. In addition, flooding occurs in surrounding neighborhoods. Adding 1000 units is only going to make it worse for the people living in at risk areas. Fix the problems first before making things worse. Avalon/Bridge Proposal Comments - Page 10

11 overall design of the site or arrangement of land uses that were presented. local neighborhood, organization, school, or other group? If so, which one(s)? DEVELOPMENT TEAM: AvalonBay Communities and BRIDGE Housing with Mission Housing, Pacific Union Development Company, and Habitat for Humanity of Greater San Francisco Horrible units? The existing sewer system cannot any additional units, let alone 1000! The SFPUC has already acknowledged that there are capacity constraints with the sewer system. SFPUC Technical Memos 504 and 505 published in August 2009 document existing problems and issues. Any developer, city official, agency, etc. that allows this project to move forward without building a new sewer system to address the existing capacity issues is being irresponsible and negligent. As a resident of Ingleside Terraces, I am very concerned--frightened, actually--that the existing sewer infrastructure along Ocean Avenue is inadequate even now and CANNOT support the proposed Balboa Reservoir Project. The sewer system in this area already fails and causes flooding of homes in this neighborhood. A NEW sewer system, which WILL NOT IMPACT EXISTING lines in and around Ocean Avenue and Ingleside Terraces, needs to be in place to accommodate the high density of the proposed development with all its new people. Avalon/Bridge Proposal Comments - Page 11

12 overall design of the site or arrangement of land uses that were presented. local neighborhood, organization, school, or other group? If so, which one(s)? DEVELOPMENT TEAM: AvalonBay Communities and BRIDGE Housing with Mission Housing, Pacific Union Development Company, and Habitat for Humanity of Greater San Francisco I think this proposal is a good step toward alleviating San Francisco's the housing shortage. I would have hoped to see more units overall, however. There is not much remaining space to build in the Bay Area, especially in a transit-rich area such as this, so we have a great opportunity to provide housing to as many people as possible. In my opinion, building less than 2000 units here is a missed opportunity. Aside from my thoughts above, I appreciate that the development team is thinking about how demand for parking will go down over time. I do not own a car, and a lot of my friends don't either. I think this is a general trend -- young people don't drive as much, choosing instead to rely on public transit to get around the city. Over time, this trend will allow us to build transit-oriented communities. I like that the proposal provides a decent amount of housing, which will be affordable to a range of income levels. As stated above, I feel that the proposal does not provide as many units as it could. On a such a transit-rich site, we can be ambitious in promoting a car- and parkinglight community, which will allow more housing to be built. Additionally, I feel that the development team is concerned about having the construction fit the context of the neighborhood, so, e.g. they are proposing to put townhouses along Plymouth Street. In my opinion, single-family homes and apartment buildings can coexist in the same neighborhood and on the same street. If putting higher density housing there will provide more people with a place to live, then I think it is definitely worth doing, even if that housing looks different from what is across the street. After all, a community right next to BART, and along several Muni lines is exactly the place to build highdensity, parking-light housing. Please build as much housing as possible. I think the open space and community use is I don't agree with the stepping down of great. For this piece of public land I want to building heights towards Westwood Park. build more housing, as much housing as This land should unabashedly be dense possible. The city is in a housing crisis and development to house as many people as the project should maximize housing units so possible in a place where transportation that more people can afford to live in San access is so good near BART and Muni. Francisco. It has more housing units than the proposal #2 by Related Housing. Avalon/Bridge Proposal Comments - Page 12

13 overall design of the site or arrangement of land uses that were presented. local neighborhood, organization, school, or other group? If so, which one(s)? DEVELOPMENT TEAM: AvalonBay Communities and BRIDGE Housing with Mission Housing, Pacific Union Development Company, and Habitat for Humanity of Greater San Francisco Water conservation efforts have resulted in way too many units as originally proposed. additional capacity in the sewer lines within San we have huge traffic problem on Ocean ave Francisco; however, flooding still occurs in low including getting into and out of the lying areas in certain storm situations. While the freeway! not acceptable Stormwater Management Ordinance does require new large developments to reduce overall contribution of storm water, new developments will still contribute to wet weather flow which will undoubtedly result in more voluminous and frequent excursions as well as increase the risk of flooding within Ingleside Terraces. The sewer line along Ocean Avenue, as well as the portion of line that cuts across Junipero Serra, does NOT have wet weather capacity to accommodate additional users. And while upgrading certain sewer lines in the area allows for the system to hold more waste while the system levels out during moderate storm situations, any new development tying into these lines will negate these benefits. The Balboa Reservoir Project needs it's own dedicate sewer line that does not connect with the Ocean Avenue sewer line or any lines within Ingleside Terraces please listen to neighborhood residents please read answer to A above Should be more dense with additional housing and commercial. Nice arrangement but additional commercial would help enliven the streets. don't know relatively dense housing Far too much parking. This proposal will add to congestion rather than attract the zero/low car households that will support the City's and communities goals. no don't like it don't like it they will do what ever they have to in order don't like it NO PARKING FOR EITHER RESIDENCE OR PARKING to get their project done STUDENTS FIX THE PARKING See above See above See above See above See above I like this design the best. They are really Great arrangement and focus on outside Good, solid team that is trustworthy. Connection to the city, deep understanding Delivery and how much will end up not thank you! addressing the neighborhood needs as well space, walking, and bicycling. as the needs of the new residents that will live in the new development. of real needs and desires of SF residents. getting build. Will enough housing go to those in need - families, teachers, the middle class. Lets keep San Franciscans in San Francisco! Avalon/Bridge Proposal Comments - Page 13

14 overall design of the site or arrangement of land uses that were presented. local neighborhood, organization, school, or other group? If so, which one(s)? DEVELOPMENT TEAM: AvalonBay Communities and BRIDGE Housing with Mission Housing, Pacific Union Development Company, and Habitat for Humanity of Greater San Francisco Having lived in the neighborhood for 30 years, I've seen the positive changes along Ocean Avenue. However, I've also experienced the traffic congestion along Ocean Avenue which I avoid at all costs and instead take side streets to get to my home. When exiting Hwy 280 towards Ocean Avenue, you'll find backed up traffic from the freeway, especially when City College is back in session. Getting from the freeway off-ramp to Junipero Serra can take up to 20 to 30 minutes! Driving along Plymouth Avenue from Ocean to Monterey is crazy as it is with traffic coming from both ways on a narrow street. I can't even imagine what traffic will be like when the townhomes and condos are built and am definitely not looking forward to it. The designs are great as long as there are additional roadways created to ease the congestion along Ocean Avenue and Plymouth Avenue, otherwise, I wouldn't want the project to be built. TRAFFIC concerns! Having lived in the neighborhood for 30 years, I've seen the positive changes along Ocean Avenue. However, I've also experienced the traffic congestion along Ocean Avenue which I avoid at all costs and instead take side streets to get to my home. When exiting Hwy 280 towards Ocean Avenue, you'll find backed up traffic from the freeway, especially when City College is back in session. Getting from the freeway off-ramp to Junipero Serra can take up to 20 to 30 minutes! Driving along Plymouth Avenue from Ocean to Monterey is crazy as it is with traffic coming from both ways on a narrow street. I can't even imagine what traffic will be like when the townhomes and condos are built and am definitely not looking forward to it. Good variety Looks quite good! No problems 1,200 units of housing. Should be even more, but 1,200 is a reasonable compromise. None, except would like even more housing good design of public spaces and connection I like that bridge has extensive experience in to city college. I like the grand blvd. I like the SF and homegrown. southeast transit corner. Building designs are preliminary, but I hope to see less generic modern architecture. Parking seems thought out. Good green spaces. large REIT with little connection to community Since the Reservoir Project is being built on Of the 3 proposals Avalon/Bridge appears public land, the 50% targeted for marketrate housing is an inappropriate use of public least open space. The density would to be the most densely packed, with the land. probably block views of the Pacific Ocean, the Farralons, as well as the El Rey Theatre landmark at Ocean/Victoria that can be presently be seen easily under the current existing condition. Unlike the City Team, at least this Avalon/Bridge proposal tries to address the reality of the current existing condition of student parking. Of the 3 proposals, Avalon /Bridge is the only one to try to more realistically address the community s concerns about parking. But even then, the proposal falls short of full mitigation of adverse impact on student, staff and faculty needs. Unlike the City Team, at least this Avalon/Bridge proposal tries to address the reality of the current existing condition of student parking. Of the 3 proposals, Avalon /Bridge is the only one to try to more realistically address the community s concerns about parking. But even then, the proposal falls short of full mitigation of adverse impact on student, staff and faculty needs. Privatization of 50% of the PUC Reservoir property with market-rate housing is an inappropriate use of a public asset. If selected, Avalon/Bridge needs to commit to paying for all of SFCCD s costs to replace parking lost to the Reservoir Project. Avalon/Bridge needs to commit to paying for all of SFCCD s costs to replace parking lost to the Reservoir Project. Avalon/Bridge Proposal Comments - Page 14

15 overall design of the site or arrangement of land uses that were presented. local neighborhood, organization, school, or other group? If so, which one(s)? DEVELOPMENT TEAM: AvalonBay Communities and BRIDGE Housing with Mission Housing, Pacific Union Development Company, and Habitat for Humanity of Greater San Francisco The overall mix is appropriate. I like the panoramic view that would be available from City College. I don't know enough to opine. I like the overall scale of the development, including the amount of housing it would provide. I also like proposal to include educator housing. I am concerned about the proposal to build a parking garage for shared use by residents and City College. That would circumvent principles regarding limits on parking for residents. In addition, the expense of any parking provided for City College should be paid by those who actually use the garage, not subsidized by the residential development. City College should get serious about encouraging its faculty, staff, and students to use transit. No. I liked that it was not wholly prescribed. Flexibility is more important than trying to create perfect plans. I appreciate that the parking structure is off to the side, making it equally reachable for CCSF Performing Arts patrons, CCSF teacher housing, and reservoir residents. I ve been listening to podcasts from the director of Mission Housing, and I like him. I like how they are designing their open spaces for everybody to use, and not just for poor people. I haven t heard as much nice things from Avalon. I like that it has a lot of housing without locking up the land in really big buildings. I m concerned about the large number of parking spots. The roads to reach the parking are really few, and I want the cars to be moving slowly. With this large number of partners, I want to know whether it will be able to achieve its goals if any partners have any problems, especially the nonprofit partners in the age of Trump tax cuts. The Balboa Reservoir CAC said the proposal has no buffer against Westwood Park. I think this claim is factually incorrect. I think the row of townhouses will actually be a better buffer against traffic into Westwood Park than the parks in the rest of the proposals, especially if Westwood Park adopts a RPP in accordance with the recommendations of the TDM framework. The vague # of units proposed "up to 1100"? doesn't indicate all the factors that will play into building the # of units, and type---50% affordable breakdown needs clarification--- 50% of what #?? excellent that lower height buildings along Plymouth but how tall? and taller built along Phelan. the team is large but experienced in our community---have not liked the Avalon Bay architecture along Ocean---feel much of the design limited for cost savings? which is concerning that the design will not be compatible with Westwood Park homes and surrounding neighborhoods, Sunnyside. I believe it was stated that this project in internally financed? if true, the implementation would occur without external limitations of financing opportunities Questions about the phasing in of various parking facilities? shared space with City college, residents and future patrons of a proposed performing art center--not addressing current traffic and parking demands already a problem in this neighborhood-- The roadway, egress onto Ocean Ave appears inadequate with all proposals--so with up to 1100 potential units, I do not think it is feasible to have these many units. Also with 50% 2 bedroom units, and parking ration 1 unit to.5 parking, this project is not addressing real needs for parking. They didn't think about how many people and parking they could put into livable acres without generating higher levels of stress. They also didn't think what 4,400 or more people would do to the stress levels on the surrounding neighborhoods. The buildings have no character like the surrounding neighborhoods. They have no room to store items, humans are pack rats. Its like putting ten pounds into five pound bag. Very ugly project. Reminds me of the Pink Palaces in the Fillmore back in the 60's. Another failed house project of the city. That's a good question... But I don't have a crystal ball... to see into the future... Based on the last eighteen months the city hasn't really listen to the surrounding community. Things would be different if they did... The proposal was not thought out from the Same as the answer to question d. feed back from the surrounding neighborhoods. They did listen to the city on what the city wanted number of people (Ten pounds) to insert into a very small area(into a five pound bag), Just like how many people can fit into forty nine square miles. I had a good laugh on the dog and pony show and how rushed each team was reading there positive scripts with no negativity everything was rosy. Smoke and mirrors... Money talks every other concern walks... Is there a formula (ratio) for the amount of stress to the amount of allocated spaces... Avalon/Bridge Proposal Comments - Page 15

16 overall design of the site or arrangement of land uses that were presented. local neighborhood, organization, school, or other group? If so, which one(s)? DEVELOPMENT TEAM: AvalonBay Communities and BRIDGE Housing with Mission Housing, Pacific Union Development Company, and Habitat for Humanity of Greater San Francisco Too many units, too tall buildings, only % ownership, open space graphic seems "misleading,"... i.e., the actual CONTIGUOUS open space of Reservior Park is actually small, no child care center (?), no significant buffer to Westwood Park, unclear solution to parking needs. In the presentation, they mentioned creating a good neighborhood, a place people "want to be"... (which is good, of course), but they did not mention trying to be a good fit for the surrounding area. Their plan reflects a similar attitude. The development could/would be an extension of Avalon/Ocean. They appear to want to set up a high-density rental income stream. The plan/proposal had beautiful artwork. See #1-#3 This is public land. The "take-aways" from so many meetings is that neighbors/community want a neighborhood/community "fit," and there is concensus to put in affordable housing units. This plan seems to benefit the developer more than "the public"... the area and affordable housing needs...(affordable housing needs are better served by alot of ownership of "perpetual" affordable homes). the layout seems too rigid, and the central public space seems less exciting than team#3's. This proposal had the best mix of housing and land uses - kids play, dog run, etc. like the concentrated the green space in one place, but wished for more dynamic layout planning. I would like to se more open space. Alos, I would like to see more greenbelt toward CCSF and Riorden so better engage the use of the site with Sunnyside residents. Some retail ground floor - coffee shops, cafes, etc. would make it less of a private space and better integrate the space between Sunnyside an Ocean. Would be nice to have some water in the landscape design. big green space area. boring layout, less welcoming once build. reminds me of existing public housing layout... Yes, they seem to be on the right track. varied housing, varied public amenities Needs more open space Nice integration of Unity Plaza. Would like to see more open space and more play structures for kids of all ages. What Team #1 got right: -Putting backyardto-backyard interface on the Westwood Park Team #1 plan for auto circulation seems side. -Diagonal entryway on the southeast. - Shared parking idea, whatever the practicality of it will be. What is unappealing are the razor-thin "vistas," the lack of a large contiguous public open space, and the blocky multi-unit buildings on the east side. destined for trouble. SF Planning and SFMTA should open San Ramon on the west to auto traffic, and remove street parking on one side on Plymouth to Ocean -- otherwise the City is allowing Westwood Park off the hook, and shifting resultant auto congestion onto streets of Sunnyside. We may not have WP's fancy historic pedigree, and Sunnyside's streets may not be as narrow as WP, but we still should not be asked to bear the burden of all the new auto traffic. The original planners of WP in 1910s fully expected that the then-dead-end streets of that new neighborhood would someday be opened and connected with adjacent neighborhoods. Don't make the same mistake they made in the 1980s with Dorado Terrace and the dead end on Elwood on the west. One has heard stories about the tenantunfriendly practices of Avalon Bay -- raising rents. This has prejudiced me against them, although I have tried to assess their proposals apart from this. I felt Team #1's presentation was self-promoting in the extreme, as opposed to Team #3, who did a much better job of not just talking about themselves, but actually presenting concrete, well-developed ideas. On the other hand Mission Housing has a good reputation. But in either case, I have no real-world evidence for their responsiveness to local concerns. Backyard-to-backyard interface on the west --Automobile bottlenecks forming into this is what all the single-family houses of massive parking garage. Traffic impacts on the area have, and is a natural way to treat Sunnyside, letting Westwood Park get off this edge. The two other teams did not do without taking up their fair share of the this. Diagonal thoroughfare from the changes. Narrow, stingy-feeling open space southeast edge -- doing a better job of public park. integrating interior with Ocean Ave. It was nice of them to think of SF educators in the housing arrangements. Avalon/Bridge Proposal Comments - Page 16

17 overall design of the site or arrangement of land uses that were presented. local neighborhood, organization, school, or other group? If so, which one(s)? DEVELOPMENT TEAM: AvalonBay Communities and BRIDGE Housing with Mission Housing, Pacific Union Development Company, and Habitat for Humanity of Greater San Francisco Strong mix of different housing types and open spaces. The design fits the neighborhood well. The high density and number of future residents will add a lot to Ocean Avenue. No significant concerns. Others have complained of parking but the parking seems appropriate for the neighborhood. I think that there should be taller buildings There should be less open space, as Balboa with more housing in them. Our city, region, Park is within a 10 minute walk. and state is in a housing crisis and this is an unused transit-rich parcel of land ready to be utilized to its full potential. The team was seems knowledgable and they already work within the San Francisco community. I like the taller buildings near transit. There are not enough housing units. The buildings are NOT tall enough. The density should be increased. The Reservoir Park area faces west where This is a very dense design for the site. the afternoon winds come. This area may be There are many 4-5 story buildings that will too wind-swept to be a useful play area. visually create "blockages" in views, feeling, and ambiance. There is no buffer area created between this development and the current two-story houses along Plymouth Avenue. This development may loom over the houses on this street and block sunlight into the Plymouth houses and backyards. I like the recreation spaces created (soccer, BB) and the dog park. I like their use of rooftops for green areas. I like that they have a more realistic parking ratio, 1:1. Hopefully 500 shared spaces will accommodate the many CCSF students who will be displaced by this development. Not sure this is realistic or not. I'm very concerned about 1100 units going into this space and the extra foot and vehicle traffic this will create in the neighboring vicinity. MUNI buses and the K train are at capacity during commute and school hours (and during Giants baseball season). Bringing more people will stretch the current transportation infrastructure, as well as the pedestrian and vehicle areas. I really like the mixed housing and the town see above. Additionally, I think they should I'm very impressed with Habitat for homes provide a viable opportunity as a take into account to wind factor on the open Humanity, Bridge housing and Mission single family home alternative. I appreciate spaces. housing. I do not like some of the existing the 1:1 parking but feel that anything designs of Avalon Bay and do not like what amount over 600 homes is too much density. they have done on Ocean Ave. I think they We don't have the infrastructure in this part are an eye sore to the community. of town to support that. I also think there should be a green buffer between this development and Mt. Davidson Mannor/Westwood Park. I like the parking, past developments of Mission, Bridge and Habitat. Too much density, no green space between Westwood Park, aesthetics of the buildings Way too many units with way too little parking! Too much housing. Need more parks and open space for dogs. I only know about Avalon rentals on Ocean Ave. seems like they are trying to monopolize the area. main concern is about the large amount of parking proposed Not enough parking for residents or CCSF students. No. Avalon/Bridge Proposal Comments - Page 17