>> this resolution is adopted. madam clerk, please call item number 30. >> item 30 is a resolution determining that the issuance of a type 42 on sale beer and wine public premises liquor license to a business doing businesses a museum of ice cream located at one grant avenue will not serve the public convenience or necessity of the city, and requesting the california department of alcoholic beverage control deny the issuance of this license. >> supervisor peskin? >> thank you. colleagues, we had a very strange meeting last week, i'm sorry, earlier this week. it all blends together. in a rarity, we actually recommended three out of the four liquor licenses that were before the committee for disapproval.

it is further complicated by the fact that the board has a limited time within which to act , which instantly -- interestingly enough, with all of these items, it has already passed. they were not scheduled timely, and so as i understand it, the a.b.c., which is a state agency, will take our advice, but at this point, it is technically advice. had we rendered it within the 90 day period, they would i think be required to deny the license. i'm looking through the chair -- former chairman andelman, maybe i got that wrong. >> i think it's advisory, no matter what. >> maybe through the president, deputy city attorney, it is my understanding that if, in a public convenience and necessity hearing within the 90 day period , the board of supervisors does not find public convenience and necessity, the a.b.c. will

not, and cannot issue. is that correct? >> that is correct. there was another item on the psn calendar where the 90 days had already passed, and in that situation, that may have been this c.v.s. liquor license. >> actually, it is all up to them. so the item that we all voted just now to say, it will not serve the public convenience and necessity. so in item number 30, which is the item before us, we also recommended, and when it is before you -- what is before us today, it will not serve public convenience and necessity. so the applicant -- the museum of ice cream, which did not reach out to the district supervisor prior to the meeting, has met with my office. i unfortunately was not able to meet, but they did meet with my

chief of staff. interestingly enough, today we got -- although it is undated, which is kind of weird, a letter asking for us to continue this to a future date. we can't really do that, into a reason we can't do that is because then the a.b.c. can issue. what i would like to suggest to the applicant is that because of this weird timing that we are in , is that they withdraw, because we cannot -- right now what is actually before the a.b.c., and this is one grant avenue, everyone is midmarket, is a nine a.m. liquor license, which they admitted was pretty goofy, so what i think we should do is vote this item up today, which is it will not serve the public convenience and necessity , encourage the applicant to withdraw, but we've already lost jurisdiction, and if we continue this further, we will totally lose any of the

notes we have over the a.b.c. i'm trying to work it out with the applicant, but i think we have no choice, or i would recommend that we have no choice but to vote in favor of item 30 as worded with recommendation by the committee last week. >> so supervisor ronen? >> i have a question through the chair to chair mandelman. especially now that i'm no longer going to be serving on the board, i am wondering how the scheduling happened. is it that we are not getting the items in time to schedule, then a committee to have enough time and have an influence over the process, or was it just that the committee was backed up, what happened here?

>> mr president? >> through the president, in response, after that meeting, we had some conversations with the clerk of that committee to better understand what the process is, and typically he will not schedule items for us to hear until he has received all of the background information from planning staff, or the alu that we need to have a complete record for us. that is apparently routinely -- not routinely but sometimes taking longer than the 90 days. and what our office will do, which we will not be doing is we will see those timelines earlier , and he is doing an excellent job of calling and prodding departments to get stuff to a sooner, but it may help to have a call from a supervisor from the chair of the committee's office to encourage folks to get that to us earlier. my understanding is that his

belief is that this state tends to listen to our advice, even as it -- and i was actually honestly not aware there was this difference, a real difference in how the state would -- the state would deal with our determination before and after that 90 days. given that, i think it is even more important that we try to get those within the 90 day deadline. >> okay. through the chair, i do think it's important that we get this right, because why have the process at all if we are missing the deadlines and then can't have any input? it is short -- it is sort of a charade and that does not make us look very good. so if we don't have what we need from the department, it does seem like we should have the hearing, and do what we need to do, because that is not on the board of supervisors, and then

maybe departments will prioritize this accordingly when they need to. so that is just my two cents there. i have some hesitation on this item, you know, at committee, supervisor peskin said he didn't understand why they needed to serve wine at a family museum, and i explained that as a parent of a 6-year-old, it's very hard to find places where your child can play and have fun, and you get to relax as a parent and have a glass of wine, so i couldn't agree with him on that point, however, out of deference for the district supervisor who i think has the best read on their district and what's appropriate, and what's not appropriate, especially in the context of a liquor license, i will defer to supervisor peskin on this one. i do hope that the museum of ice cream does withdraw the request, and starts over from the get-go

and meets with a supervisor's office so we can get this right next time around. [please stand by]

>> move to a special order and -- >> commissioner: item 46 and 47. >> clerk: item 46 is a board of supervisors pursuant to

resolution 375-18 and 376-18 adopted november 13, 2018 continued from january 15th, 2019 to consider an ordinance the subject matter of item 47 ordering the vacation of streets and certain easements and to make the appropriate findings. >> commissioner: okay. we are now sitting as a committee of the whole. does the district chen supervisor wish to make remarks? district 10 supervisor. >> thank you. i'm sponsoring an adoption to allow the project to go forward. as it an important process to alou the public housing revitalization to go forward

with construction of new house and new streets and utilities. i also talk about this in the previous meeting. i've been meeting win community and having conversations with the developer and general contractor on the project. could go through more amendments to push forward. >> commissioner: so there's a motion on the floor to amend. well, before we go to public comments, do the department star wish to make comments? seeing none are there members of the public who wish to speak on this item? and all speakers will be allowed two minutes on this particular item.

>> supervisors i consider this rather important. so i would say a better way to address the supervisors and the public at home would have been some representation from the citizens advisory committee or some other task force on this issue. because this is a rather important issue that not only affects the location and traffic and i know that from planning. i know the [speaking french] has taken it upon himself to push for this action but i think in the future the board of supervisors should have some representation from those at ground zero. thank you very much. >> commissioner: thank you, any

other public comments on this item? seeing none the public comment is is now closed. supervisor walton, i believe you mentioned you have some amendments. >> my apologies, no amendment. this should be moved forward. >> commissioner: okay. seeing no other speakers then, this hearing -- >> clerk: mr. president, i believe supervisor's walton's staff have provided amendments to our office. >> commissioner: so in that case. >> clerk: it's being handed out as we speak. >> commissioner: supervisor walton would i like to go through your staff handout of amendments?

>> commissioner: would you like us co -- to come back to this item after you review. >> can we come back to the agenda and come back after special order? >> commissioner: i believe i have several items for -- we have the sacramento one also. so maybe we could go to that one next. and come back to item 47.

>> i don't want to confuse anybody but the last item meet were items 52 through 59. can we call that? >> clerk: item 52 through 59 i'll begin with 52 through 55 with the public hearing of persons interested in the exception from environmental review from the environment review from the planning department as an exemption for the proposed project at sacramento street to construct a 40-foot story tall and retail on the first floor and 10,000

square foot of medical office use. items 53 through 55 are the motions associated with approving the department's determination of conditionally reversing the motion directing the preparation of findings. item 56 through 59 are the hearing of persons interested the certification of a conditional use authorization for this project located at 3637 through 3657 sacramento street to allow a modification from the rear yard requirement for the demolished buildings and construct a new prime minist minister -- new project previously described and the motions are associate with the conditional use to approve the department's decision to conditionally disapprove the decision's decision and the motion directing the preparation of findings. >> commissioner: okay.

thank you very much, madame clerk. colleagues we have appeals for the project at 3637, 3657 sacramento street in district 2. these appeals are related to planning department's determination of an exemption from environmental review and a conditional use authorization. we are going to hear the two appeals together. after the hearing the board will vote on the determination from the environmental review first. it take six votes to either affirm or reverse the planning commission's determination. if the environmental determination is rejected the conditional use authorization becomes moot. no other approval action can take place and will then be tabled. if the environmental

determination is upheld, we will then vote on the conditional use authorization. it requires eight votes to overturn the planning department's conditional use authorization or impose additional conditions. we need to proceed as follows. up to 10 minutes for a presentation by the appellants or the representative or two minutes per speaker in support of the appeals, up to 10 minutes for a presentation from the city departments. up to 10 minutes for the project sponsor or their representative. two minutes in opposition to the appeal in support of the project. and finally, up to three minutes for a rebuttal by the appellant

or appellant's representatives. colleagues, are there objections to proceeding this way? seeing no objection the public hearing is now open. supervisor stefani. do you have any remarks you'd like to share. >> commissioner: thank you commissioner yee i'll hold my comments and questions and we've been meeting with the sponsors and neighbors and i'll withhold my comments and questions until the end. thank you. >> commissioner: okay. seeing no one else on the roster, i will now ask the appellant to come forward and present their case. you have up to 10 minutes. thank you. >> thank you, president yee and members of the board. thank you for hearing our appeal. my name is alex thompson. i'm an architect and live adjacent to the project and speak first to the conditional

use authorizations on behalf of the appellants. and this is a two-lane neighborhood commercial street. the property owners are shown in purple. 45 businesses that support our appeal are shown in teal. over 00 -- 100 therapist support our appeal are in red and over 160 businesses an business employee shown in orange. i'd like anyone in the audience opposed to the project as it stands right now to please stand up so you can see the overwhelming neighborhood support for this appeal. we do not oppose development. we want reasonable development that fits the scale and change

character and parking that fits the neighborhood and mitigation to help neighbors and merchants during construction. let me quickly review the developers' proposal. it's four stories above ground. it combines two already large lots. it has two stories of underground parking. 6, 500 square feet of retail larger than any other on the street and undefined medical use out of scale with the street. and just 18 residential units over two floors. the project sponsor asked for special permission for lot size, retail size, commercial size and paid parking but the parking department asked for little in

return. here's view of the existing street to give you a view of the neighborhood context and taller buildings are at the corners. the project is a the lot and the windows and pair parapet. this is the proposed building. it is out of context. it is out of scale. sacramento street is a traditional district between the shopping zone and the residential area. this project is out of scale for this street. we've made several attempts to compromise but they are unwilling to change. we proposed more housing and eliminate the office use and

make it housing. it allows for setbacks at the top floor. only one level of parking, reducing excavation reduce the impact to the neighborhood from noise and dust as well as short shorten construction. and reduce the retail area slightly to eliminate the extra required parking and encourage a design that has detail elements such as bay windows, increasing compatibility with surrounding buildings. finally, we ask you require some construction mitigation members. vibration and noise as stringent as present planning in their

january 24th letter, dust control measures and arborists, restrict construction hours and require a staging planned and a community liaison. require dedicated funding to offset impacts to merchants and therapist. we want reasonable modifications, less parking. more parking means more excavation which means longer disruption to neighbors and retailers and therapists an scale to fit the context and smaller retail and commercial use sizes is driving the need for so much underground parking and reasonable mitigation to protect our small, locally own businesses and strong psycho therapy community and we want to limit the impact neighborhood.

thank you and here's brandon ponce to discussion the ceqa appeal. >> good afternoon members of the board. my name is brandon ponce. i live adjacent to the project and am a licensed professional engineer for the state of california for 20 years. i work as a construction manager. i'd like to go through the reasons why the project is not categorically exempt and go over some of the omissions made by the planning department. according to ceqa, a categorical exemption cannot be used if you have any one of the following impacts, one, significant noise. two, significant vibration, three, cumulative impacts, four, unusual circumstance. only one of these needs to apply. we have four. again, ceqa prohibit the use of a categorical exemption if any one of these apply. the first significant impact is

noise. the noise determination was based on incorrect data. the list of construction equipment was incomplete. as part of the project, all three of the structures will need to be demolished. one is a concrete garage shown on the left and two are wood frame structures shown on the right but all in a reinforced concrete slab that will need to be removed. this is an extensive concrete demolition job. again, the noise determination was based on an inaccurate and incomplete equipment list. the sponsor state the only impact needed is one jack hammer. this is not possible. you need large demolition impact equipment such as a ho-ram or break to break up the concrete. they haven't even identified how the concrete will be demolished.

to give you a frame of reference, you can see the three buildings to be demolished in the background and there's six adjacent appreciates that share a lot line with the project. can see how quiet and peaceful our backgrounds are and the ambient noise are around 40 decibels equivalent to the suburb or country side. this figure shows the project site. you can see it's block and the red are the noise monitors. the planning department states a 10 decibel increase is significant and this is at least 40 with the noise levels compared against realistic construction equipment. as the equivalent of standing three feet from a blender. we have documentation to back this up with noise data and calculations.

the second significant impact is vibration. the vibration determination was based on incorrect data. as stated previously under the noise section the list of construction equipment was incomplete. there would be excessive vibration due to large equipment and excavation. calculations show damage to the adjacent building. this is important to know bought vibration is highly dependent on proximity. and a categorical exemption shall not be used with the cumulative projects over the same amount of time are significant. the planning department incorrectly stated there's no cumulative projects. this map shows the project site. the red dash shows the quarter mile radius which is standard

use for analyzing cumulative impact. for cumulative project includes the projects at ucsf and the project at cpmc. all three projects have the potential of occurring at the same time. the fourth point is the project has an unusual circumstance. ceqa states it shall not be used with a significant effect due to a circumstance. san francisco has the highest level of mental health therapists in the city and 3,000 come each week for appointments. a powerful voter was sent to you january 5th by the mental health community and these show the names of the mental health therapists that have signed on to the letter. >> commissioner: so your time has concluded. thank you very much for your presentation.

right now i believe if there's people that would like to speak in support of the appeals, please line up over here and you have two minutes each. line up to your right, to my left. okay. first speaker come on up. >> good afternoon. thank you very much for hearing this appeal. my name is cynthia silverstein. my family has owned the property immediately to the east of the proposed development over 40 years. since 2012, we have consistently made the same points to the planning department regarding

the issues the appellant just spoke about. in addition, the masting you can see in one of the slides that alex had up is so severe that the ten s -- tenants in my building will feel like they're in a cave and we have photographs from inside the offices. our family depends upon the knock support ourselves and if we lose our tenants, we'll lose the building. so i echo everything the appellant just said. >> first of all tease an honor to speak. i'm born and raised on clay street on the back block. i've seen that neighborhood change from irish to african american to the industrial area

and i'm a resident and i believe you can ask for anything but the project is just too big. it changes the flavor of the neighborhood and it does no benefit. it's all market value property and don't believe it belongs. thank you. >> commissioner: next speaker. >> thank you for the opportunity to state the impacts on me and my views. i'm dr. robert friend. i'm a child and adolescent psychiatrist. i've been on this block on sacramento street 40 years and continue to practice full time. i think the engineer's report

has given a good idea of the four different kinds of impacts on this neighborhood. we as therapists depend on a relatively quiet neighborhood. we picked our offices because of that. it's a vibrant mixed commercial use neighborhood. that's also good for us and our patients who also provide the business opportunities for the m merchants on the block and people already complain with the parking difficulties in the neighborhood. this would be very intense in the construction and to have that passed without a full environmental impact report seems out of order. i urge you to support this appeal. thank you. >> good afternoon. i am reading a letter on behalf of someone who cannot be here. i am a business owner and have been a business tenant the past

19 years at 3641 sacramento street. i attended a neighborhood meeting a few years back when the architect working with jeff litke presented the proposal for demolishing the two office buildings and garage side by side and include the building in which myself and my two mate still work in. this past fall the architectural plans had been modestly revised but still revealed two large of this san francisco neighborhood. in addition, apparently a waiver has been granted to forgo an environmental review normally required for building projects. i'm truly dismayed to hear this. i feel environmental impact review is vital. the impact of the demolition and building of a large structure that spans three properties will certainly affect the businesses along sacramento street between

locust and spruce streets and the nearby residents and residences. to waive the review is unwarranted. i'm urging the board of supervisors to rescind the waiver and request the environment report and the sporns reduce the size and a new building in that nestles in as if it's always been there and a footprint that fits gracefully into the scale of the buildings along sacramento street in height, breadth and access. >> commissioner: okay. i want to remind the public that in this take ber -- take chamber we don't allow for noise if you approve or disapprove.

if you approve just wave your hands. thank you very much. next speaker. >> my family builds across the street and i was a former planning commissioner and attended the meeting where this was approved by a 4-2 vote. as a former planning commission, i do believe the commission made a mistake in applying the conditions that are required for the three can't uses required for the project. if this project had been built on two lots separately and they went be allowed to have a four-story over two levels of parking. this will be the largest, if not the second largest building in the neighborhood commercial district called sacramento

street. most buildings are three stories over one level of parking, ground level are slightly depleted. a lot of them are two stories over parking. in order to get this conditional use, they have to show that the development is compatible with the neighborhood. that condition's not met in any of the conditions that are required. furthermore, they need a conditional use to allow for a 10,000 square foot office plate in the building. i would say that there are very few, if any, of the other buildings on sacramento street with a 10,000 square foot plate. in order to prove for that you need to show it is necessary for the use that the conditional use is getting. there was no proof anywhere in any of the testimony this was absolutely necessary.

i think the neighborhood has proposed a nice and good alternative that gives the developer 90% of what he wants and i urge you to look at it with conditions. >> commissioner: house did you serve? >> four years and 11 years on the commission. best years of my life. >> i bet. >> commissioner: next speaker, please. >> i'm jennifer kopchins kiv and our backyard is adjacent to the site. we is have tongue daut have two young daughters and having o outspace say bless city. we are not opposed to some kind of construction. construction is unavoidable in

san francisco right now but construction is a lot easier to live with when mitigation measures rin place and something the neighborhood wants. the neighborhood opposition is indisputable and overwhelming. the developer held one outreach meeting in 2014 and virtually zero communication to the neighborhood until 2018 when the plans were pretty much finalized. while we understand they've been working closely for the planning department for 11 years they failed to bring the neighborhood along on the journey. here's the summary of how the neighborhood feels with the project. -- feels about the project. >> commissioner: can we stop the time? >> thank you.

>> there's 333 individuals who oppose this project versus 12 supporting it and of those 52 are tenants much the developer or monthly parkers. there are 43 unique businesses that oppose this project versus 13 who support it. 127 unique addresses are represented here versus 41. and 103 therapists oppose the project versus 26 who support

just to note, 24 of the 26 are all from one corporation called psychiatric alternatives. their therapists practice all over the bay area. fortunately, it's not too late. no ground he's been broken yet. we'd like to retain the housing and make it more -- [bell] >> commissioner: thank you. >> thank you president yee and supervisor for hearing my concerns on this project. my name is marcia thurman. i've a psycho therapist than been in practice on the street over 30 years. my husband and i have owned the building and the building at 3969 sacramento street since the mid 1980s. we have over 17 psycho therapy offices an retail space.

we're concerned about the detrimental effects this project will have on the neighborhood, business owners and psycho therapists who practice here. the noise and vibrations from the demolition and dirt and congestion and massive amounts of trucks going around for two years could cause most tenant to just leave. if my tenants leave i will not be able to replace them while the project is under construction. we do not need more retail or medical office space. mr. litke has a retail space nearby that has been empty nearly a year and he has shredding waste with trucks sitting that make passing impossible and the food trucks double park. as it stands now the project

could do a lot of destruction. the staff could lose their jobs if the businesses go under. despite this i'm 100% supportive of three floors of needed housing and along with strong mitigations during construction and someone there to monitor their compliance and address their problems as they occur. thank you for your consideration in this matter. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is linda ileland as a psycho therapist i oppose the project in its current form. i'm not opposed to construction but one to this scale that impacts the residents, owners and business community. i see patients who struggle from a variety of disorders. in order to provide quality care

i must establish a quiet, safe environment for my patients but increasing noise pollution and making parking impossible it will cause my patients to associate my office with added stress. as a result many patients will perceive me as inaccessible and those for disabilities my services will be inaccessible and how about my well being how will i get through a seven hour day without ventilation without opening a window without being assaulted by the pollution. i can't do this work. the commission approved this without an environmental impact and no amendments. i urge you to correct their error. please order the environmental

impact so we understand the ramifications for the neighborhood. certain changes and mitigation measures are crucial for the psycho therapy community. first, mr. litke should reduce a level of parking so excavation, dust, noise and time are minimized. second psycho therapists and patients should be provided free parking during construction. free office space in some of mr. litke's building so patients can be seen in a quiet space during construction. >> i'm windy waker i own 31 california street which butts up against the three properties that will be demolished. i have lived there almost eight years and work at home every day. i just adopted a rescue dog who

is reliant on the back yard and my concern is for the size and scale and to have four stories to block the sun and natural light and effect the back yard that is my sanctuary in the neighborhood. people have asked if it's loud to live in california street. it's not loud. the back side is where it's quiet and spent my time and i have the window open generally 365 days a year unless it's raining so i'm concern about the size and scope and impact on my ability to perform my work at home and the quality of my life as well as during construction just the impact of the noise, vibration and air quality and dust and i haven't seen mitigation to take that into account. thank you for consideration -- considering the appeal. >> good afternoon. any name is fred shane and i'm a

psycho therapist at 3628 sacramento which is directly across the street from this particular project. i've been on the street now 41 years and chose the street because it was quiet and it seemed to have a balanced feeling to it. and it has a light feeling and i'm from the midwest so it felt good. the project reminded me when i was in college i did summer jobs working on construction for buildings like this and let me tell you it was hot, it was dusty, it was loud, it was dirty. it took a long time and it wasn't much fun.

the hammers were the worse part of it. my most important concern here is the effect it would have on the patients that i see. a lot of them come in with existing anxiety anyway and there's a lot of stress which adds to the confusion which is already in their lives and i just think all this noise and the added traffic and the largeness of the structure would not be very healthy. thank you. >> hello. my name is sandra salatig working in the sacramento street neighborhood many years and my office is located across from the project site. i have a full-time practice and one of the lead authors that

oppose the project and are asking for a reduction in size and environment report and mitigations are put in place to reduce disturbing the neighborhood and this is just a portion of the larger sacramento street corridor home to hundreds of therapists the last 50 years. i want to impress upon the board the work that goes on in the practice requiring a quiet environment and people come for psycho therapy weekly or more often. it's not a one-off trip to the eye doctor. they have a relationship with the neighborhood and rely on their therapy to be a place of calm. i would like to you imagine being in the office talking

about the death of your phafath newly diagnosed cancer and anxiety. we treat serious and life-threatening issues. if construction goes on, uncontrolled, i fear many of us will be displaced. in conclusion, i want to address the claim the therapy community is split in the neighborhood. that is patently untrue. the bulk of the letters that have been offered in support have been called into question. i have a colleague contacted two of the supposed signers who said they have never seen the form letter and that is not their signature. >> commissioner: thank you. [bell rang] >> hi there. i'm anne aurora and a therapist at 3663 sacramento street the building next to the project.

i treat patient who's suffer from ptsd and depression and various disorders. they come to treatment to heal, to get better and to heal from the trauma that they've experienced and learn skills and tools that can help them cope with their lives more effectively. my office needs to continue to be a safe place for them to do this important work and if the project goes forward it won't be. the constant crushing, drilling and banging that will be part of this construction project for years will not only disrupt my work with my patients but could actually make their symptoms worse. i ask you to consider this very carefully and support this appeal. thank you. >> good afternoon. i'm hailey gonzaba on behalf of

the owner of the property of 3640 sacramento street occupied by spruce restaurant so correctly across the street. we object to the planning department's categorical exemption from environmental review under ceqa. the lat lack of mitigation allows the neighbors tenant and businesses to be negatively impact by noise, dust, vibration and inaccessibility during construction as well as other concerns today. in ab sensence of the i.r. we a for strict mitigation measures and the height and bulk can be more compat able with the surrounding structures and fit the needs of the surrounding tenants. thank you for your consideration and ask you act on behalf of the businesses an tenants as stated. >> good afternoon. i'm dr. eric goahn i've been in

over 40 years. for the past 25 i've practiced in my office across the street from the proposed project. i'm not going to repeat the kinds of details you already heard with the construction now proposed nor will i repeat what has been state by my colleagues about the impact on patients and those as well. during the quarter of a century there's been much change in the neighborhood. some to the benefit, some to the detriment of this neighborhood and this street. and to us who work there during most of our waking lives. the traffic is impossible. the parking is currently beyond impocket and the impact on us already is difficult. however, assuming the reality is the construction will take place, i believe in an unmitigated form with no

constraints it will put forward a situation and challenge to us as to whether we can continue to offer mental health services to the population that we see which include people who are suffering, troubled and at worse disabled. so i beg you to take seriously this appeal. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm stephen colacs with a background of anthropology and lived on the back of sacramento street for 50 years or half a century. our mayor would like to advocate housing and affordable housing as supervisors please raise your hand if you support housing and

affordable housing. thank you. this project is another leaky project. we would prefer that live in the neighborhood not to have medical and two levels of underground parking. to substitute medical we prefer house and affordable housing. it's important to us. the people who have the medical money and power sometimes dislocate those who want to live in the neighborhood to form a community. that's what happened at the other property that jeff owns on california and sacramento. we have 14 wheelers coming in with medical supplies. we have shredders, we have double parking and we have tried to facilitate that by putting yellow and green zones on california street. those are completely ignored. to build a community we need

people. not people coming and going. and the impact of traffic is already a terrible reality. we have 450,000 cars in the city. we have 250,000 coming in during the week. please take into consideration our community. thank you. >> hello, supervisors. my name is susan foslian and i own the building at 3683, 3685 sacramento street. i'm a retailer. probably the first one today. i have my two businesses in 3685 and 3687. i have been active on the street since 1989 and my residence is at 3683 sacramento street. so my daily life happens within 22 steps. my building is a 1905

pre-earthquake and restored it from bougttom to top refitted wh new plumbing, walls, windows and lights and everything to bring it up to speed. it would have been cheaper to tear it down. to start over and just build something. but i love sacramento street. i love the incredible history of sacramento street. i like the look of sacramento street and i love the integrity of our street. i only wanted to modernize my building. the proposed building in the middle of the block will be an entire impact on our whole block plus trucks going up and around spruce and locust and california. we know that. what we don't talk about is the

revenue often but i can tell you there are small retailers on our street who will be impacted with this project when they said it will only be 18 months. trust me, we're looking at three years. i was on bowling avenue and they promised two years and it was four and a half. i love my street. i love the people on the street. i want to maintain the integrity of the street -- [bell] >> i'd like to address you as being in a location where 18 supervisors were prior to 1906. this building was built thereafter with the due respect of this building. you'll notice we don't have

cracks in this building. this was the other city hall fell apart totally. edward robison tay lor was chosen to be the mayor from 1907 to 1910. he did a fantastic job of finding people who knew what to do and how to doit. -- do it and he filled the empty seats with the proper people. there were 18 supervisors at that time. think changed. he didn't. he went back to where he was working as the head and founder of hastings law college. he also was head of leland stanford hospital. he was a doctor also a lawyer. he knew what he was doing and that's the reason they forced him to be there. senator palin forced him to do

that. they twisted his arm pretty good and he stayed for three years. at that time, a term limit was two years. the mayor roth thought him to be the mayor. after he turned him down for two years, jenny roth took over and we had a successful 20 or 30 or 40 years with fine people in politics. i hope you can do the same. god bless. >> my name is bevette silverberg. you heard from my father. i grew up in that neighborhood and knowing the changes and history of it. i'd like to bridge from what my father was describing. you are the keepers of the vision of san francisco. that particular block