tv Government Access Programming SFGTV February 1, 2019 12:00pm-1:01pm PST
>> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> hello, supervisors. my name is and harvey back and i think this is a terrible project from 1,000 points of view. it has gone to planning with no notice to the neighborhood. it is outrageous. i don't live there or work they are, but i know the area very well. i walked down to look at it. i could not believe this person is even proposing this ugly, awful thing. we will have this huge 40-foot tall building in just ripping out a garage, tearing down all sorts of stuff, and you have to keep in mind too that no overview, they do not think about how this would affect anybody, and i think that in the near future there will be another construction projects
going on just down the street at the old children touch a hospital building. so if you have this going on too with these dump trucks and moving vans, and p.u.b. eight -- people hauling earth, the place will be a nightmare. please grant the appeal. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker. >> good afternoon, thank you for this opportunity that you have given all of us to express ourselves, i appreciate it. my name is jonathan mar, i'm a psychologist on that block. my livelihood depends on that practice, my practice depends on that space, and that space requires people to be able to access it, to be able to park, and to have a space that is conducive to psychotherapy, at least per my practice. i do support a project that provides more housing, i would
be concerned with a project -- i would want a project that would have less medical and less retail, but mainly i want to add my voice to the concern about this project. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. my name is paula, and i may owner of a business which is right next door to the project. i perform facials, which is going to totally effect the times, relaxation, not to mention parking. it is in a standalone courtyard which is with other businesses, so it is a nice little business which will totally be affected. i understand it's happening, but maybe to make it smaller and less -- over time, my income will totally be affected by the project also. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you, my name is patrick richards, i got emotional, so i
will probably get emotional at this one. i own a business that is most affected by this. i am 3 inches away to the east of this project. he said he had done outreach to the neighborhood, no outreach was ever done to me. here it comes. i own a hair salon. i have worked on sacramento street for 29 years. i have had my business for 19 years. and not just supports me and my family, it supports for hairdressers also. this project will just kill my business. i will have to close. i understand understand there's growth and there needs to be growth, but it scares me also to have so much commercial right next to me. because the other building on the corner of california street has an empty commercial for three or four years now. i don't want a new project and then more empty space right next to me. i want to come and say
sacramento street is lovely, but a lot of us make our living on that street, and a lot of people who live around there. i don't know, who knows, but not the way it is, please. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is roger, and my wife and i are a building owner. we are four doors down from where this project is going to be started. when we found out there was no environmental impact report, my wife immediately contacted supervisor stefani, and she came out to our first meeting, and i want to thank her for getting behind this project, and understanding how important it is for our building, the three tenants we have in the building,
the three businesses we have in the building, and the area. we are not against development, but controlled development. we need to have an environmental impact report or some control put in place on this construction. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors, my name is jack house. my wife and i own the building at 3626 sacramento, and we have owned this building for 37 years early when we bought the building in the early eighties, we went in and did a full seismic redo, rehab, complete upgrade of the building, because at that point it was a junker when we bought it. we went to the planning department, mainly because i had a lot of psychiatrists and therapists who came to me and said, we would like to rent your building, and i said it is not zoned for it yet, so i went to
planning, got permission to get professional medical offices in the building, it was granted. i then, at that time, rented it to psychiatrists and therapists, and i have had them there for the last 30 years, some of them are still there today. they came with me at the beginning, and i urge you to send this back to planning for a full e.i.r. report so that we can get something that is different than the monster that is across the street right now that supposedly will take two and a half to three years to complete. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> high hi, my name is john burns. i live at 3616 and 3618 sacramento street, a two unit building with my family. i just want to emphasize that sacramento street, particularly our block, is a balance between residential, therapists, and retail, and nothing of the size and scale of the proposed building is anywhere near the
entire situation, so i urge you to support our appeal -- we are all for housing, but not for giant retail, and giant office buildings. thank you very much. >> supervisors, i am here to speak on process. i am familiar with the area, my good friend used to live at 3220 sacramento street. this should not have left the planning department in the matter -- in the manner in which it has. to bring so many people here, a lot of them psychologist, psychiatrists, affluent people,
i think the planning department should get a proclamation, and name --dash the name of that proclamation should be the local proclamation. again and again we see people come over here, and again and again, i want to see what the outcome will be. so think about that. having said that, there was another issue that came here, and i came here and spoke only for you all to say that y'all are going to give some commentary or what ever on some amendments. where is the process? this city and county of san francisco, supervisors, is going to the dogs. if you listen to the very astute and stellar constituents of san francisco who have made that block, that street, i see the
expression on your face, and for many of y'all who haven't lived in san francisco, and i represent the first people of san francisco, i have a right to say a little more. shame on y'all. to the planning department, you better get your act together, and to the board of supervisors, i am waiting to see how you adjudicate this case. thank you very much. >> okay. thank you for your comments. are there any other members of the public who would like to speak in support of the appeal? scene none, public comment is now closed. now we would like to have up to ten minutes for representatives of the planning department to speak. where you in line? i'm sorry.
come on up. want to open up public comment. >> my name is jay, my family owns the building directly adjacent from 3637, 3657 sacramento street -- sacramento street project. we recently just finished a seismic upgrades for this building, but we find that given the current project size and scale, we think that not only is this project too large for the neighborhood, but also too large for this block. when looking at the geotechnical report, it shows that this building is built on sand, and we understand that there is a need for development in san francisco, but is there really a need for the commercial and retail spaces? the parking spaces are required for this building and require
three floors down. in addition to having this building be four stories high, it does take a lot of weight and restructuring in order to carry this loads. we are concerned about the safety and the long-term effects for our building as well, and we urge you to take a look at this, and see if we can restructure it so it is more residential instead of the commercial and mixed-use space. thank you. >> thank you. any other public comments? at this time, public comment is really closed. city planning staff, would you like to make a presentation? you have ten minutes. >> good afternoon, president e.e., members of the board of supervisors. i'm don lewis from the planning department. joining me today is wage, the project supervisor, and lisa gibson, the environmental review officer. i will address the appeal.
the guidelines provide a list of classes of projects that have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment. one of these classes is the class 32 development exemption. the proposed project demonstrates each of the required factors for a class three exemption, which was substantiated in our 16 page certificate of determination that we issued. the project is consistent with a general plan. the project site is less than 5 acres and is located in an urban setting, the project site is not a valued habitat for sensitive species, it will not result in any significant impact to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality, in the project will be served by existing utilities and public services. additionally, the guidelines included exceptions to the use of the categorical exemption. they include projects that could have a cumulative impact, and projects at present unusual circumstances that could result in a significant effect.
none of the exceptions apply to this project. whether there are 20 what large developments proposed in the neighborhood, these projects are not close enough to have the potential to create significant, a cumulative impacts. the alleged issues raised by the appellant are typical of those encountered in san francisco's development, or not unusual, and art are addressed by legal requirements including the san francisco building code. with all due respect to those that spoke today, the public testimony raises new no new information or concerns that have not already been addressed in the appeal responses. therefore the department respectfully recommends that they uphold the determination and deny the appeal picture of the board denied the appeal, the board could decide to apply additional conditions of approval on the conditional use authorization to further reduce any impacts. this includes the construction and noise and vibration and cumulative impacts that the appeal argues would occur.
i will now turn it over to aaron to present on the conditional use appeal. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i manager of legislative affairs for the planning department. i will be presenting the case for the planning department on the conditional use. i am also accompanied by mary, the project planner, and elizabeth, the team leader for the northwest quadrant. the decision before you is whether to uphold or overturn the planning commission's approval of the conditional use authorization to demolish three existing buildings, and constructed constructing displays a 40-foot tall, four story mixed use building. the building would contain a proximally 6500 square feet of retail use on the first floor, 10,000 square feet of medical office use on the second floor, and 18 dwelling units on the third and fourth floors.
the project required conditional use authorization for one, a development lot size greater than 5,000 square feet, to, a nonresidential use size greater than 2500 square feet, and three , nonaccessory parking. the appellant racist two main issues in their appeal. first they contends that the proposed lot side exceeding 5,000 square feet is incompatible with the sacramento street neighbor commercial district, second, the appellant contends the proposed nonresidential uses size exceeding 2500 square feet is incompatible with the m.c.d. in response to the first issue, the commission found the project was on balance, consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan on and the planning code. the project addresses the impacts, a large development can have on the surrounding neighborhood by breaking up the proposed project into 25-foot vertical segments. that development pattern is more in keeping with the character of the block and neighborhood. the ground floor retail commercial storefronts were also modulated to emulate the existing size and scale of the
storefront on sacramento street. the project also incorporates an elegant architectural language that has accentuated by contrasting and exterior materials, further helping to blend into the existing neighborhood context. the commission found that the proposed new construction would reduce a per high-quality architectural design that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, specifically with regards to building, scale, materials, and architectural features. the commission did not suggest or make any changes to the design of the building other than to remove one level of underground parking in the garage, and approving the project. in addition, each of the two existing laws currently exceed the 5,000 square-foot threshold, and as such, the sponsor would be allowed to develop each lot with individually without seeking a conditional use authorization for lot size because existing lot size is considered legal nonconforming. regarding the second issue, the nonresidential use size exceeding 2500 square feet, is incompatible to the commercial district, the commission found that on balance, promotes a
policies and rejected the general plan by creating mixed-use infill development site with new retail. the existing commercial buildings all exceed the nonresidential use size, further , the proposed new commercial space is designed to be split up into two smaller spaces. this will allow the property owner to have flexibility, and should the space of renting large space be difficult. to conclude, we carefully reviewed the proposed project and came to the conclusion that on balance, the project met the criteria in the planning code under section 121.1, 121.2, and 303. for these reasons, the commission approved the project, and staff will leave the question in the hands of the board. thank you. >> okay. are there any questions so far from colleagues? supervisor stefani glass glass. >> thank you, president he. first to mr lewis on the ceqa to appeal, i just want to provide
more context to what you heard from the public that came out in terms of the noise, and it was -- i thank you need to explain a little bit more as to why it's exempt from environmental review with regard to the noise. they complained about the demolition or refute removal of the concrete. if you could just explain a little bit more why you have determined it is exempt from further environmental review. >> sure. through the chair, the sponsor provided a list of the pieces of equipment that they anticipate to use in construction. we looked at that and determined we are able to figure out the characteristics of the project in terms of construction. we looked at the noise ordinance and determined which pieces of equipment could exceed the standard of the noise ordinance, which is 8 decibels, 100 feet away, and then we determined, of those equipments that could exceed the nordic -- noise
ordinance, with a resultant substantial temporary periods -- periodic increase in the ambient noise levels. a jackhammer went exceed it talked with annoyed george knows -- noise ordinance provided that they include shrouds or shields that are approved by the director of the building department, as well as there is a concrete saw that could be used that could exceed the noise ordinance. both of those pieces of equipment would be used sporadically, and limited in duration. without saying -- with that said , there would be a substantial temporary increase in the ambient noise levels. additionally, there is no impact pile driving that is proposed, or impact hammers such as excavators with a hologram attachment. there is no nighttime construction. so we feel that this is pretty much a typical construction project in san francisco. we are not seeing any unusual circumstances, acknowledging
that construction noise is definitely an annoyance, but it is temporary and intermittent and localized. >> with regard to this project, how temporary with a jackhammer in be? what is the duration of it? >> what we are looking at in terms of overall construction duration, we are looking at less than two years, the most intensive part of the construction is the demolition excavation. that will be five months. that is not considered a very severe period of time or prolonged period of time. i don't know if the sponsor of's construction contractor is here, but i would imagine the jackhammer, at jackhammer is used temporarily during construction phases, so is a concrete saw, it is used on a limited basis, and also, i just wanted to clarify that these are the only pieces of equipment that we are saying would be used and excavators be used for
demolition, with that piece of equipment does not exceed the noise ordinance. >> with regard to the cumulative impacts of other projects in the area, did you consider the other projects? are there timelines anywhere near each other that would result in you wanting to further analyse cumulative impacts? >> we did look at the construction schedules for both of those nearby developments that are very large projects. both projects are undergoing environmental review. they are not approved, but what we are seeing is there would be a limited potential for construction over lapsing with the 333 california project. if it is approved, and if you look at the most extensive phase of the proposed project, the excavation, the demolition work should be completed several months before the 333 california project starts construction.
>> i have a few questions for mr starr with regard to the c.u. i would like to revisit what our former planning commissioner said about requirements, or have an lots not been merged, they would not have been allowed to develop the commercial square footage, or the medical square footage in a way that this project is presenting. >> i'm not sure i understand the question, but both lots exceed the 5,000 square-foot threshold that requires a c.u. currently, so if they were to demolish those buildings, and jess du toit to individual lots, they could do that without conditional use authorization. >> okay.
also on the minimum parking requirements, i understand the planning commission removed one floor of parking. with the ordinance that recently passed at the board of supervisors, with that have any impact on whether or not certain parking is required for medical and office space? >> there is no parking required now. they chose to remove all parking >> and i will be retroactive this project? >> i have no further questions at this time, but may have additional questions after the project sponsor presents. >> thank you. i see no names on the roster. since there's no other questions , i will now call up the project sponsor, or at the party of interest to speak for up to ten minutes. go ahead. >> thank you. could we get the powerpoint please? >> president he, members of the
board, i am the attorney representing the key properties, the project sponsor. i want to start by over handing you to this sight here. this is the block that shows where the subject property is which has the parking garage it takes up the entire lot and the existing medical office next door. okay, hang on, it is not scrolling. if we could pause just for a second. >> can you pause the time?
>> there we go. thank you very much. okay, this is one of the two buildings that is currently there. it houses medical, dental offices, it has a weird parking situation in the front where you drive over the curb and park in front. also next-door is this parking garage. both would be demolished, and in their place, would be this project. the project provides a lot of benefits for the neighborhood and for the city in general. eighteen new units of housing on the top two floors, the second floor, medical dental use that will allow replacement of what will be lost by demolition next-door. medical dental use was not originally proposed in the project, it was added in after the neighborhood commercial district was rezoned at the urging of the neighborhood to allow medical dental use for the site. on the ground floor, there 6500 square feet of activated ground-floor retail.
this is a depiction of the ground-floor retail. in place of this, inactive, incompatible with the neighborhood ground-floor, we will have activated ground-floor retail. in addition, this again is the current configuration of the site where the existing buildings go almost to the rear property line. when we build our project, we will create a new midblock open space that will benefit not just the residents of the project and the 18 new units, but also the neighbors on california street to back onto the project. the big issue seems to be how compatible is this with the neighborhood? this is a map of the neighborhood which mainly is the sacramento street neighborhood commercial district. let's take a walk down the neighborhood, starting at building a. building a is a building many of you are familiar with. the children's hospital. it is seven stories, as far as the map, it has a floor area ratio of 5.9.
contrast that with the project which is four stories, and has an f.a. rf 2.3. as you move closer to the project, there is this building. another four-story building. again, with a floor ratio that exceeds our project. this is just one block from the project. a five-story building that takes up almost the entire block. continue down the block, here we have another four-story building with a similar f.a. are. this is the building right across the street from our building. again, at the next corner, a three-story building with an f.a. are that exceeds our f.a. are. at the next building, a four-story building with one that far exceeds hours, the next block, again, housing over retail, a f.a.r. that far exceeds our f.a.r. another four-story building with retail on the ground floor, and other four-story building, retail on the ground floor, residential above, just like our
building with a f.a.r. almost exactly the same as our building again, another larger building, larger building, culminating down presidio with a large building, which is four stories over retail, and a f.a.r. that exceeds our building. we think our building is compatible with the neighborhood commercial district. the opponent subject to the four-story height, there are six other stories storage are six story buildings nearby. our f.a.r. is 2.3, eight nearby buildings have greater f.a.r. in their proposal, they say we should set back the top floor. as you have seen in all the pictures, that is not an architectural feature of any of the buildings. there's been a discussion about neighborhood outreach. this project has been in the works for about 11 years, its last iteration was in 2014 when there was a neighborhood meeting preapplication meeting.
there 46 people from the neighborhood that turned out. they had objections. we then went into a long, long process at the planning department to get a project that the department was satisfied with. when we got that project in april of 2018, we had another neighborhood meeting, 30 people attended, we sent up joe sent out hundreds of follow-up e-mails and phone calls to concerned neighbors. the neighbors but in a letter to the planning department and to us in july joseph sorry, june ot was the neighbors were upset about the rear of the property where there would be a wall between the rear of our yard, and the rear of the yard in california street because of a great change. we redesign the project, would drop the rear yard, there is no longer a wall, therefore there is a nice and flat open space that wasn't there before that will help the whole neighborhood we are sensitive to the concerns we heard expressed by many
people. the heartfelt concerns you heard from many people today, what we try to address those concerns, both through the supervisors' office and in discussion with neighbors. there has been a concern that the second floor metal doors medical dental use to be high impact impact use west reading car and trucks and rigs, and all that kind of stuff, know no, the second floor will be neighborhood serving medical dental use as. we already have letters of commitment from a pediatrician and a psychiatric services provider to take over half of the over 5,000 of the square feet of the space, and we will commitment the other space will be similarly low impact, medical dental, therapy uses. we've agreed that the vibration and dust and noise control plans , we have agreed to periodically street clean the streets, and adjacent buildings. we will have an arborist address the tree health issues that were raised, we will do a
preconstruction survey of the neighboring buildings to make sure that if there is any vibratory impact that we address it, and we compensate the neighbors who suffer from that. we hear about the impact on the therapists. what we have agreed to do is provide rent rent-free space in another building so that the therapist, during the phases of the project, at no charge, they can use as other offices to have a quiet environment for therapy. we agreed to a whole range of parking restrictions to address the issue about double parking, and big trucks on sacramento street, and even agreed to restrict parking in front of the residential properties on california street, again to minimize the impact on the speakers that you've heard. construction equipment, we have agreed to stage the dump trucks off site, so you not have cueing and staging on the street. we have agreed to reduce our construction hours beyond what
the code requires, and minimize the impact in the early mornings for the really noise producing activities like demolition, and we will appoint a community liaison to work with neighborhood residents and merchants if issues arise during the process. i think i skipped valet parking and free parking. we will provide free parking in a neighborhood garage for patrons of merchants on the street during the construction. they just have to get a validation from the merchant and bring it down to the garage so they get free parking. we will make sure the construction workers are off site, and we will provide a valet parking for the most disruptive stages so that people can continue to patronize the businesses on the street. how am i doing? the sequent issues i am sensitive to the issues. this will be a disruptive project in the neighborhood. the sequent issues, with all due respect, there aren't any. this is a categorical expansion.
this board sees appeals after appeal after more impactful urban infill development spirit could have listed a dozen here from the last couple of years, but 875 california, 65-foot height seven story building with underground parking -- 2301 lombard, again, 22 residential units with underground parking. 2465 van ness, 235 valencia, it is a routine and appropriate decision by the planning departments. as to the construction equipment i provided, i a plant -- provided a letter to the departments. it confirms that the equivalent that is listed will be the equivalent used. like i said, the real issue here is neighborhood compatibility.
at one end of the street, a block and a half from the project, you have this. as you move down the street, you have this. further down the street, you have this. further down within the commercial district, you have this. if it is a question about neighborhood compatibility, this project is compatible with the neighborhood. i urge you to turn down the appeal. thank you very much. >> thank you. any questions from colleagues? seen no questions, i would like to invite members of the public who wish to speak in opposition of the appeal to please come forward. you have two minutes to speak. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm here on behalf of the san francisco housing coalition speaking out against the appeal today on the basis of the ceqa.
as said by the previous speaker, and by its departments. this is not a trend to issue. one thing that was really obvious to me throughout the duration of public comment is something that we really see with most neighborhoods in san francisco, and they are really special, and they are unique, and all of their unique and quirky awesome ways. when i think about creating new homes and communities, it is how can we provide more people the opportunity to live in those fantastic neighborhoods? i don't view it as all rough all the time. again, looking at the actual appeal itself, i urge you to deny the appeal and move the project forward. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm here to read a support letter and someone who could not be here. >> speak directly into the microphone. >> yes. >> thank you. >> you're welcome.
i would like to once again give my support for the proposed projects. i was at the planning commission hearing back in november, and i thought that the planning commission was fair in their decision on approving the project. we feel that there should not be any more reason to have any more design changes at this point. the block on sacramento street would be improved significantly with the new proposed project. the effects on the construction of the new building would just be a short-term inconvenience. we welcome the new façade, the increased foot traffic, the house and, the additional parking, on the overall change for the better. we sincerely ask all the supervisors to consider approving the project as is. sincerely business owner 3643 sacramento street. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, thank you for your time. i'm here to read a letter on behalf of barney burnett who was not able to be here today.
deer board of supervisors, i am a long-term tenant in laurel heights for the next eight years i want to express my support for the proposed project at 3637 through 3637 sacramento street. i'd be excited to see a new building on the 3600 block of sacramento street instead of the outdated building that currently exists. i've heard from some neighbors that they do not want to see medical offices in the building. i strongly disagree with this idea. many of the doctors on 3838 california are being relocated, or closed due to the increase in rent. it is becoming harder for people like me to visit a dr 's office within reasonable distance. i would very much like to see doctors returned to the new building when it is built. i also would like to emphasize the parking is a very much in need in this neighborhoods. the proposed building will offer parking for customers and patients in the area, and it will also relieve those who have to find street parking. i understand that it maybe an inconvenience to the neighbors
during the construction phase, but in the long term, proposed building will bring in rejuvenated blocks that everyone can enjoy. thank you for your consideration >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, board of supervisors. i'm here to speak on behalf of a business and property owner at 3525 sacramento. dear board of supervisors, is a business owner and property owner, we are excited to hear about the proposed development at 3637 sacramento street. we have worked with the project sponsor in the past, and we believe they will bring a beautiful building to the neighborhood. in fact, they are one of our businesses''s first landlords, and referred -- found them to be fair, responsive, and good people. even though we have only been on the block for ten months, we
agree that additional parking and housing will bring in considerable improvement to the neighborhood. i reviewed the most updated plans with the two levels of parking, and i support the project to be approved. housing and parking is much needed in san francisco. this project is fulfilling exactly that purpose. we ask the board of supervisors to sincerely consider the benefits that this project will bring, not only in the neighborhood, but into san francisco as a whole. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, board of supervisors. i'm here to speak on behalf of precision parking. we do a violate service for spruce restaurant across the street from the site. what i would like to talk to you about today was the lack of parking in general in the area, and the fact that we basically just needed as much as we possibly can. for us personally, this project will be an inconvenience as it is for a lot of people, but we
see the long-term benefits and provide our full support. >> okay. any other public comments? seen none, public comments -- come on a police. is there anybody else? this will be the last one if you are not appear. -- if you are not up here. >> good afternoon, my name is oliver. i manage and represent the owners of one of the adjacent properties on sacramento street at 3663 through 3669 sacramento street. i just would like to express my opinion in favor of the building development project next door at 3657 sacramento. i've known him for many years, and i have seen how the projects have enriched and enhanced to the neighborhoods around them. not only by supplying much needed housing, but also providing retail and office space that helps engage our
retail -- existing retail and commercial districts. i think that in the long run, this project, including the ground floor retail space and second-floor medical office space will bring new vitality into the neighborhood and the block that will be beneficial to both existing retail businesses and residents alike. please vote in favor of this project. thank you. >> thank you. no other public comment. public comment is now closed. lastly, i would like to invite the appellant to present a rebuttal argument. you will have up to three minutes. come on up. >> thank you. as you heard from the many supporters of these appeals, we are willing to compromise, without takes willingness on both sides i've attended all outreach meetings for this projects in the same issue en masse and scale has come up every time since it is proposed. we are happy to see the last minute, like this afternoon at
one p.m., movement on many of our concerns regarding mitigation majors. however, there have been no offers of compromising anywhere on the mass and scale of the building, or the nonresidential use sizes, the retail, and medical office, those two uses account for 70 1% of the required parking. additionally, the planning commission already required removing one level of parking, by the project sponsor has made no change to the sizes. they are just removing that required parking. this is why we are so concerned about the sizes, and the conditional use authorization. it means a lot of parking, which is the bulk of the construction that needs the mitigation majors we support housing on this site. the desire for these larger commercial uses also squeezes the residential institute into two floors of the full area there is no setback relief of
the top floor on sacramento street, and their building is out of scale with the neighborhoods. i hope that you will support our appeal. thank you very much thank you. so at point in this public hearing, for agents 52 and items 56 have been held and closed. we will now convene as the board of supervisors. supervisor stefani, do you have a motion on the other items before us today, which is items 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59. >> thank you, president he -- president he. i have one more question that is appropriate at this time. >> okay. ask a question. >> with regards to housing, i
know 18 units is currently proposed, i ask the question whether or not more housing could be at the site. could you speak to that, and what would be required to increase density. i know we discussed a special use district and how long that would take. >> my understanding is they are at the maximum that the site is eligible. they could do that. >> okay. thank you for that. so 18 is the maximum. >> i guess it supervisor peskin has comments. unless you have questions or comments. >> i will wait for my motion. >> supervisor peskin? >> i will defer to the district supervisor. >> i do want to agree with whoever the speaker is we have broad discretion around the conditional use matter. i take ceqa seriously.
i don't see the case. i think the categorical exemption class 32 was properly issued. i don't want to step on it supervisor stefani's turf, but i think we have broad latitude if we want to revisit, or the district supervisor wants to revisit the conditions of approval. i'm not sure that there needs to be an entire floor of medical office in that neighborhood, i think there are some interesting ideas about additional housing on that site, which i would have liked to hear from the gentleman from the housing action coalition, i'm not sure why he is all excited about the medical office, but it is a free country , he can say what he wants. i don't see that there is any ceqa case here and what that is worth from your supervisor around ennis avenue. >> supervisor fewer? >> thank you very much.
i am a little confused about the medical offices, because one, we heard that they don't want -- the neighbors don't want the medical offices, and yet i heard in a presentation from the project sponsor that the medical offices were not originally there, but added at the request of the neighborhood, so i'm a little confused about why the medical offices are there. it seems that you are surrounded by medical offices, but then the neighbors said, and i could be wrong, we don't want the medical offices, and why are there more medical offices, and yet when a project sponsor spoke, he said that it wasn't included in the plan, but the neighborhood requested medical offices. so can there be clarification? >> so you have a question for the project sponsor. can you please come on up? >> did you hear my question, and please shed some light on this, because i am hearing conflicting facts. thank you.
>> thank you, supervisor. sticking to the facts, not the commentary, here is what happened. in 2014, we had a project that had no medical, dental space in it. supervisor farrell had passed legislation regarding the neighborhood commercial district that did not permit medical, dental there, he then introduced legislation in 2017 saying he wanted to change that. here is what he said. when it was first introduced in may of this year, this legislation put back in place to the original m.c.d. controls not permitting medical services on any story. however, after conversations between, i'm reading from the city's website. between supervisor or supervisor farrell's office, the ordinance was amended to reflect changes in future growth opportunities for the district. for example, california pacific medical centre is closing the california campus. the closing of the institution
could provide opportunities along the corridor for future medical services. in response to that change in the zoning, planning asked us to put medical, dental back in. >> any follow-up questions while >> i do have a question. >> supervisor stefani? >> just for clarification, i obviously, everyone knows i was a legislative aide to supervisor farrell -- farrell. i do have a question whether or not that legislation was passed with regard to this project, or if something entirely different. >> i don't believe it was a project specific. i believe it was about what uses were wanted in the neighborhood, and the result of that was a modification of the project to be consistent with the new use of the permit. i have no reason to believe the legislation would was aimed at
this project. >> okay. did the planning department through the chair take guidance from that legislation to then allow medical use for this project based on that legislation? >> my understanding is that we notified them they are not allowed to do that, and suggested we did not encourage them one way or another. my understanding with the legislation, because i was the manager of legislative affairs when it was past, was because the medical campus was closing down, in the neighborhood was concerned these businesses would leave, and the foot traffic would leave. allowing them on the second floor would preserve the retail on the ground floor, also having offices on the second floor would help in more activity to the street. >> okay. at that time connected to the apartment ever suggest more housing at the site? i know the lucky penny was worked out at the same time where the special use district
was used to increase density, so i don't know if at that time that was something that was brought up. >> it did not come up. they are maximizing the density so we did not encourage anymore. >> supervisor brown? >> yes, maybe it is a project sponsor, how much housing did we lose in this project for the medical offices on the second floor? >> the answer is zero because the maximum amount of housing is what is there. we can't have more housing, which is what you're planning staff just said. >> i'm just saying, when you first proposed it, you are thinking about doing housing there and then it was changed on the second floor. is that -- that is what happened and then it was changed by supervisor farrell to put it to put medical on the second floor. >> i am the project architect doshi has been around the project longer than i have. >> that's what i want to know. when it was first proposed, in i guess 2014 with ground-floor
retail, and then it was housing. so how much -- if that is the case, how much housing was taken away for the second floor? >> the original proposal back in 2014, we had an arch related activity on the second floor, which is allowed by the n.c. prior to 2014, many of the medical dental use was only allowed on the ground floor and not on the second floor. many of the uses that are there now are grandfathered in. if someone tried to put in a new use before the legislation came in, the medical and dental would not be allowed on the second floor, so many of the people that spoke today, if they were to move out and try to move back into a space prior to 2017, it was not allowed. now it is allowed to have that use on the second floor. we didn't lose any housing, we've always had the nine -- nine units per floor on the
third and fourth floor in the project. >> my question was that you never proposed -- there was never a discussion nor you had ever thought about putting housing on the second floor? >> that is correct. >> supervisor stefani? >> one more question, what is the makeup of the 18 units in terms of studio, one bedroom, two bedroom? >> it is six one-bedroom, and 12 two-bedrooms. >> are you done? okay, any other questions? i see none. is there any motion that you would like to make, supervisors? >> thank you. so my office has convenes discussions between the project sponsor and the neighborhood, i've been out to the neighborhood, i've listened to everyone's concerns.
thank you for coming out. at this time, we received from the project sponsor a list of 11 additional conditions that would be part of the conditional use permit. late last night i want to thank the project sponsor for putting those forwards. i think that the neighborhood would like some additional time to review those, and therefore, and i have discussed this with the appellants and with the project sponsor, i'm requesting one week to continue the remaining item. i understand the hearings have been filed, but if we can continue the matter for one week so we can have the neighborhood look at the conditions that have been proposed, i have copies of them, i have given them out to some of the appellants, and we can have further discussions with the project sponsor and come up just come back in one week and take care of the ceqa appeal and the c.u. appeal at that time. >> there is a motion to continue the item to our tuesday meeting on february 5th, 2019. is there a second?
>> seconded by supervisor safai. i guess we can take this motion same house, same call. without any objection, the motion passes. again, these items will be continued to the full board meeting on tuesday, february 5 th. madam clerk, i will go back to item 47, and that is when we had already closed 46 in terms of filing the hearing, and now i want to turn it back over to supervisor walton, if you like, i believe you might have some amendments. >> thank you so much, president yee. the first amendment to item 46 incorporates an adopted january 22nd, 2019 s.f.p. u.c.
commission resolution, number 19 -0024, allowing public utility easements to be determined surplus, and vacated through the construction of replacement public utility facilities. the second amendment his five conditions for vacating the streets by each phase of development through the director of public works, and satisfactory completion of said conditions, which include recording a phase final map, and reserving rights through a temporary public utility easement, until replacement facilities are constructed and operating. i also would like to note that since it came up in the land use committee meeting in october, that ownership of the newly constructed streets and infrastructure will be returned to the city, face by face as they are constructed. this will be done through a thorough city inspection process and subsequent legislative action.
i also understand that mercy housing and city staff are here and present to answer questions. thank you. >> okay, i don't see any questions. so is there a motion to amend -- is there a second? supervisor fewer seconded, colleagues, can we approve item 47 -- let's approve the amendments. colleagues, can be have a motion to amend and second, can we have this same house, same call? okay. amendment is passed. [please stand by]
supervisor fewer would have any comments. >> supervisor fewer: thank you, president yee. i think we'll hear public comment first, and then, i'll make a motion. >> president yee: okay. are there any public comments on this item? seeing none, public comment is now closed. [gavel]. >> president yee: then i would say that the public hearing is now -- well, it's open, but i want to also say that it's my understanding that the appellant has withdrawn the appeal. supervisor fewer? >> supervisor fewer: president yee, that is correct. i make a motion to approve item 49 and table items 50 and 51. >> president yee: okay. thank you. okay. so we have a motion, and now, i need a motion -- by supervisor
safai. madam clerk, roll call, please. >> clerk: on the motion to approve a approve item 49 and table items 50 and 51 -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: so motion passes unanimously. [gavel]. >> president yee: madam clerk, i believe that's the end of our 3:00 special order items, and what i'd like to do is return back to our regular agenda items. i believe we're on item 30. >> clerk: item 31. >> president yee: 3 # is.
madam clerk, please call item 31. >> clerk: it [agenda item read]. >> president yee: supervisor haney? >> supervisor haney: yes. so i have an amendment that's being passed out, which essentially asks us to do the opposite. i want to amend the resolution to state that the board of supervisors determine the type 20 license will serve the public convenience and the necessity of the city and county. i want to thank the p.n.s. committee for hearing this item. and as you all know, there was a challenge where the applicant, patrick mccarty of tank18 was unable to attend. i believe he's actually here