[Neighbors] Amendment D

[Wendy Barker via Neighbors_nobhill-nm]

Thank you Govinda,

Mr. Davis thank you for helping preserve our beautiful neighborhood. 
Respectfully,
Wendy

Mantra: May you be happy. May you be healthy. May you be at peace. May you be free. 

> On Oct 10, 2017, at 5:49 PM, Veronica Salinas via Neighbors_nobhill-nm <neighbors_nobhill-nm at mailman.swcp.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Neighbors:
> 
> This is the e-mail I sent yesterday to Pat Davis requesting that building heights in Nob Hill and Highland between Graceland and San Mateo stay at 67 ft. instead of the proposed 89 ft. I also requested that we keep the stepdown requirements for commercial buildings that abut residential zones along Copper and Silver.
> 
> Please see the letter below for additional details.
> 
> -Govinda Haines, Nob Hill resident
> 
> 
> 
> To Councilor Davis:
> I have reviewed your proposed amendment D regarding commercial building heights in Nob Hill and Highland. While I support the proposals to retain current height limitations in Lower Nob Hill and to retain the 100 ft. neighborhood edges provision, there are major negative consequences to the amendment as written.
> 
> First, Nob Hill and Highland will lose most of the stepdown requirements in our current Sector Plan (for example, along Silver and much of Copper). The neighborhood edges provision only protects R-1 and R-T properties, but our current Sector Plan requires stepdowns to transition zones (proposed MX-T zones), other residential zones (proposed R-ML and R-MH zones), and streets like Washington. We will lose all these stepdown requirements along with the 26 ft. height limitation for the Golden Eagle Trading Post/Planned Parenthood lot (it will go up to 42 ft.).
> 
> Second, the commercial height limitation in Highland (and a block of Nob Hill, including the De Anza) is being raised from 67 ft to 89 ft. This height increase does not make any sense. The standard MX-M height limitation of 45 ft. plus some of the allowable bonuses would approximate the current height restriction of 67 ft. in our sector plan. Why are decision makers including special language to increase heights in Highland to greater than currently allowed? These heights, coupled with the elimination of stepdowns on Copper will violate the solar rights of single story residential properties just North of Copper; these properties will be put in complete shade on winter solstice.  
> 
> What is the motivation for eliminating most of the height transitions (stepdowns) in Nob Hill and Highland? Planners keep saying that transitions are extremely important, then they eliminate them in areas where they are most needed for maintaining our walkability and character. Our single story historic residential neighborhood is our primary asset in Nob Hill and Highland and what makes it such a great place to live and work.
> 
> Why are we raising commercial heights yet again in Highland? If decision makers continue to create a large mismatch between existing single story historic development (e.g. Highland Theater) and allowable building heights with no plan to integrate the two, we are almost guaranteed to get poor development.
> 
> Please keep Highland heights where they are (67 ft.) and extend the neighborhood edges provision to protect MX-T, R-ML, and R-MH properties along Silver and all of Copper in CPO-6.
> 
> -Govinda Haines, Nob Hill
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Neighbors_nobhill-nm mailing list
> Neighbors_nobhill-nm at mailman.swcp.com
> https://mailman.swcp.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/neighbors_nobhill-nm
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.swcp.com/pipermail/neighbors_nobhill-nm/attachments/20171011/c44b687f/attachment.html>