Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  August 2, 2019 8:00pm-9:01pm PDT

8:00 pm
agenda item number 8 was a recommended asper usual business. >> thank you, mr. clerk. do we have a motion around the closed session proceedings. >> clerk: we would take a motion to disclose or not disclose the deliberations in closed session. >> i will make a motion not to disclose. >> can we take that without objection? >> thank you. >> any further business. >> clerk: there is no further business. >> this meeting is closed. .
8:01 pm
>> good afternoon and welcome to the frisk planning commission regular hearing for thursday, july 25, 2019. i would like to reminder members of the public that the commission does not tolerate any outbursts or descriptions. please silence your mobile devices and when speaking before the commission, do state your record. i would like to take roll at this time. [ roll call ]. >> commissioners, first on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuous. number 1, 2019-011975pca for the
8:02 pm
job housing linkage fee proposed. i have no other items proposed for continuance and no speaker cards. >> does anyone have public comment on the items proposed for continuous? please come on us. okay. with that, public comment is now closed. >> seconded. >> to continue item 1 to september 19. [vot [vot [vote]. >> so that motion passes. all matters listed here under constitute a consent calendar are considered to be routine by the planning commission. there had been no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission,
8:03 pm
staff, or the public so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this. number 2, 2018-0133 # 87cua at 88 perry street and number 3, 2019-001013cua at 32nd avenue and 3132 clement. i do have two speakers from the public. i would like to confirm that they want to pull that off. >> we will pull that off of consent, put it at the beginning of the hearing and those members of the public who want to provide comment on that item can do so then. >> that leaves us with item 2, commissioners. >> commissioner koppel.
8:04 pm
>> thank you, on that motion to approve number 2 on your consent calendar. [vot [vot [vote]. >> item 4, consideration of adoption of draft minutes for july 11, 2019. >> does anyone want to provide public comment on the draft minutes? with that, public comment is closed. >> thank you, commissioners, on that motion to adopt the minutes for july 11, 2019. [vot [vote]. >> so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 5-0. item 5, commission comments and questions. >> commissioner richards. >> supervisor richards: excuse
8:05 pm
me -- >> go ahead, commissioner moore. >> i'm greatly concerned about reading about market street and also the letter from the disabled association about the adaptive interpretation of what was approved at the 52-market unit building now becoming a corporate rental apartment. i'm looking for the director's comments and support that that is indeed not the type of approval that we should be stuck with because that is not what we approved. >> yes, director, can you. >> thank you, commissioner. i have heard several comments to that effect. the way the -- that the current code works is that anything longer than 32 days, i believe it is, is considered normal
8:06 pm
tenancy. so the code does not distinguish between 32-day rentals and five-year rentals in its current form. itself understand that there is some concerns about this -- many concerns about this and the board members are taking it up. as of right now, there is not an enforcement action that we can take on that. >> i have another issue and that is i was greatly disturbed about a vote in san bruno on a project that had 425 units of housing for that community. it was defeated by one vote, and while each community makes its own decisions about housing, what i found most astounding is that by the numbers. so that's since 2016 san bruno only has built 119 units. the 119 units since 2016.
8:07 pm
the actual number based on state-mandated goals is 1,036 by 2023. that's a very huge deficit to catch up on and simultaneously as san mateo county estimated 72,000 jobs between 2010 and 20 2015. if you use the mathematics, that means every household basically supports 19 jobs. i'm looking at these statistics particularly under the significant pressure that we are sitting here every week, the sp 50 and, and, and, and we are trying to do as best as we can, while our neighbors get away
8:08 pm
with 119 units since 2016. i can only let that stand in the room, but i think at some point i would like to figure out wouldn't there be a state law that first brings everybody else into a comparable performance for each other before further restrictions are imposed on us? i'm asking a very naive linear question, but that is what is on my mind. >> thank you, commissioner. commissioner richards. >> i too have those two subject matter comments. i was looking at the fabulous dancer on the top of a tower and i was looking at single rail transit, one vote killed 412 units on al camino royal. we struggle with cutting back a bedroom because of density. we might not be doing the right
8:09 pm
thing for the community. here we have a whole project being killed. we as commissioners need to be circumspect around feeling that pressure over tiny things like that that make this city livable in the face of this kind of thing that's happening literally right across our boarder. so this is a poster child for why we have an sp 50. i mean, honestly. and i read this and i thought, well, poster child for sp 50. then i came across this one which is in my neighborhood three blocks away, we approved this two or three years ago. so this one here, i just feel like we're being played, i really do. this is an extended-stay america. this is not a housing project. the more i talk to the supervisors office, supervisor mandelman, the more i realize there is a lot of this going on in all of the projects we
8:10 pm
approve. so the problem that we're solving a housing crisis, we're solving a hotel crisis. we're going to hear from members of the community about projects in the mission. three floors of this project, two floors of this are hotel. one of our supervisors is working on a thing in the planning that cuts to this more. i don't want to approve any more projects without understanding what the hell is going on after we approve it. i think this is atrocious and it isn't right. >> president melgar: thank you, commissioner. >> seeing nothing further, commissioners, we can move on to department matters, director's announcements. >> clerk: item 7, review of past events at the board of supervisors, there is no reports from the board of appeals and historic preservation commission. >> first on the land use agenda
8:11 pm
was the ordinance to include a reference to the pulp-specific guidelines in this planning code. this ordinance was originally initiated by the planning commission, but once transferred to the board, commissioner peskin took ownership. you voted to recommends approval on july 17. our own commissioners spoke during comment and applauded the members of the community who engaged in forming the guidelines. supervisor peskin also spoke highly of the process that created the guidelines as well as the guidelines themselves. land use committee voted to pass it to the board unanimously. next the board heard for the cu requirement for employees' cafeteria ordinance. you originally heard this in october of 2018 where you recommended disapproval and again on march 7, 2019, where there was no successful motion to approve or to continue the item resulting in a de facto disapproval. at monday's hearing the
8:12 pm
legislative sponsor provided background on the genesis of the ordinance. he also outlined his proposed amendments which included one expanding the use to all office uses, not just general office, add location that differentiate between break rooms and cafeterias with full-service kitchens, add location operating conditions that exempt certain cafeterias and the cu requirement if they are at the first story, open to the public, designed to the standards for active use, and provide meals that are not majority subsidized. add grandfathering provision and add the conditional use consideration for cafeterias subject to conditional use. many of these were proposed by staff to the planning commission. supervisor peskin proposed amending the grandfather clause to 2017. the speaker was a member of the sf chamber of commerce. they were feeling it would make
8:13 pm
business less likely to relocate in san francisco. after the comment it was moved to accept the grandfather in addition to other amendments and to recommend the ordinance to the full board as a committee report. the next item was an ordinance to legalize nonresidential units at a place known as active space. this commission heard this on may 23, and voted to approve the ordinance with a vote to shorten the time from ten to three years office space. during the hearing a lot of tenants came to speak during the hearing and also requested the change become permanent. it was stated that pvr uses must be protected. after similar comments from members of the committee to preserve the building in the long term, supervisor ronen introduced an amendment to the legislation that would include the commission's recommended modification. the amendment was adopted by the committee and the ordinance was
8:14 pm
then recommended to the full board. next the committee heard the mayor and supervisor brown's small business streamlining ordinance whether to eliminate the quarter-mile buffer around districts plus supervisor pesks had been doing outreach to determine which ruds might want to retain their quarter-mile buffers. they learned that districts 10, 1 and 3 and district 8 would prefer to retain the quarter-mile buffer. the committee directed the clerk to file these at the full board. with that it went forward without recommendation for first reading at the board on july 30. the committee then held a hearing to discuss high-priority pathways to achieving deep clean gas emissions by 2030. supervisor mandelman requested this 100-day report back in his
8:15 pm
march climate emergency resolution. san francisco environment presented key analysis from the focus 2030 pathways report, which planning and other departments peer reviewed, such as the need to decarbonizing new buildings as soon as possible and meet 80% of trips with transit, biking, or walking. a myriad of departments including planning all gave presentations on the respective agency's opportunities and challenges and to tackle many areas. over 45 members of the public gave comment, reiterating the need for bold and urgent action by city leaders and departments. many also asked for follow-up opportunities to continue this urgent discussion with all the supervisors. vice-chair moved that this hearing be moved and passed unanimously. lastly the committee considered the ordinance that would change the abandonment for cus from 18 months to three months. commissioners you may recall you waived your right to hear this. at the hearing no one spoke
8:16 pm
during public comment and supervisor peskined made some brief comments about the proposed change. the committee voted unanimously to send it to the full board with a positive recommendation. at the full board this week, the supervisor's passed its first read -- to continue to work out some concerns from other supervisors. supervisor mandelman's code changes to the sct and zoning district passed its first read. the north of market affordable housing fee and affordable housing fund amendments sponsored by the mayor was was ammed to index the fee and then it was referred back to the committee for review. temporary uses and interim activities ordinance that would allow farmer's markets at the dmv passed its first read. the interim controls to require
8:17 pm
conditional use authorization from a change of use from a nighttime use to another use was adopted. the legalization program for active space passed its first read, as did the pulp specific area guidelines and the north beach period. and that concludes my report. >> president melgar: thank you. >> seeing no questions, commissioners, we can move on to general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except scbrened items. with respect to to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the reach. each member of the public may address the commissioner for up to three minutes. >> president melgar: i have many speakers, but anyone who
8:18 pm
wishes to provide public comment, come on up now. >> thank you, my name is jonathan axlerod. i am here to talk to you about a business called doggie style that has been -- there's going to be a cu that's going to come before you probably in september. they're going to ask for permission to use outdoor space, permission to create a private social club, so -- and also to be a dog kennel. i represent over 121 neighbors. myself, i back up to the project. we've all signed a very detailed letter that outlines what the specific problems with this project are. we'd encourage you to -- i've printed eight copies of it that i'd leave right here. i'd encourage you to pick up one. there's helpful pictures in the back that situate the project. long and short, our concerns come down to three primarily.
8:19 pm
the first one being that their noise, odor, waste abatement plan is entirely inadequate. they're federally trademarked "no bark park," however, there's no such thing. a federal trademark aside, they're going to put noise-emitting collars on dogs that will emit shocks to dogs to stop them barking. all of the experts we've talked to tell us this does not work in a group setting and is cruel and poses a risk to other neighborhood dogs. similarly, there are residential tenants upstairs from the project which is poorly insulated you'll hear today, and as well there are mini residences. this is a common green space. there's probably over 100 homes that share this back yard area. two, also in terms of waste, they're proposing to pick up dog waste every 30 minutes, but they
8:20 pm
recognize that won't pick up all the waste. they've installed some crystalline that is going to potentially absorb it, but they're view is they will wash down the back yard every day, that will have waste flowing into the jersey street way. that poses a risk to those that use that street. outdoor use on jersey street is entirely inappropriate. there are no examples of jersey street that backs that 24th street where there is outdoor use. i could understand stores wanting to keep inventory in their back yards, but having active outdoor use, especially in this case a dog kennel, is just entirely inappropriate. finally you'll hear from the project sponsors that that is the savior of nonvi valley retail. we all use it and are supportive. this is going to be more of a
8:21 pm
problem than a solution, in the sense they want to make a private social club for their $7,500 fee and their subscription fees that will increase rents. thank you and we look forward to speaking to you in september. >> president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is christina murphy. i'm a director at ucsf. i am a third-floor residential tenant and i'm here about the fate of my home and back yard. so we share a back yard with that first-floor unit, doggie style. so imagine waking up one day to your yard being torn out without any notice. our plans were destroyed and some of our items were almost
8:22 pm
thrown away. so basically i hardly believe that this kind of project which is a doggie daycare would be allowed in the zone that we live in. it's in the middle of a residential zone and the backyard, after all, directly borders eight agencies and is in the area of 50 agencies. when i think of doggie daycares being in industrial zones for a reason. naturally there's dogs barking. you can see exhibit b which is literally my living room right above a doggie daycare, dog park, through a 100-year-old window with an astroturf acting as a theater. so basically it's one thing having a neighbor with one to two dogs. it's another thing having eight to ten. we occasionally work from home and it's worse to hear the owners yelling at them actually.
8:23 pm
so i just want to object to the way this project came about, do first, spend a ton of money doing this and ask for forgiveness later. that's all i have to say. >> president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is emily haddis and i'm also speaking in regard to the proposed dollingie style project. i'm a long-term resident of the area. i've been there for five years. i used to live on that block, jersey street, now i moved a little bit up the hill and i use the requarter every single day. having lived on that block i'm alive to the concerns of those before me. i think it's not right to have this in the middle of a residential park and that involves dogs barking all day and dog waste being washed in the back yard.
8:24 pm
i think that's entirely appropriate for the area. i think nowi valley is a bright spot, there's tons of restaurants, retail space, new restaurants coming all the time. those particular blocks in the center of nowi valley, there are very few vacant spaces and those there are being renovated for new business. i know the concept of private clubs has been used as a strategy to fill commercial space in the retail quarters that are dying, but i just don't think that's the case in nowi valley. i think it's an inappropriate use. it's essentially a private dog daycare. we have a dog park. i think it's crazy that people think they need a dog park to pay thousands of dollars to use. lastly, i'm very respectful of rules and process. as mentioned, the owners of this business are completely disregarding the process
8:25 pm
entirely. they're already in operation and they've already held a number of social events involving owners and their dogs in the back yard. they've expressed to us and others that they plan to use the model of uber, which is to build it first and violate all the rules and then ask for permission later when they're successful. with all that in mind, i ask that you consider carefully the feelings of the 100-plus people who have signed that letter in the neighborhood when you take into account the things asked for by these owners. >> president melgar: thank you. next speaker. >> hi, good afternoon. georgia shudish. i want to talk about kitchens today, if i may. may i have the overhead. this is from mary brown's study and those are three samples of the type of housing built on the sunset and what i highlighted in yellow were the kitchens. you can see they're reasonably
8:26 pm
sized. here is the noitra house, the one that didn't get knocked down up on woodland avenue. there's the kitchen there, it's 8 x 14. here is a project that you didn't approve because of the tenants and it has a small kitchen. i mean, i'm glad you didn't approve it because they were kicking out the tenants, but a small kitchen and three bedrooms. just like in the earlier model you could have three bedrooms in these on one level. here is a photo on the noitra house you can see the kitchen. open houses were amazing. this is the wus ter house. and even on pacific heights it had an eat-in kitchen which is sort of an old-fashioned idea. here is an article that says trade disputes raises costs r kitchen updates.
8:27 pm
so between the size and how they're dominating the unit and the cost, to me it raises questions of why are we approving big kitchens. here is an example of one. this is from a 311 that got expired yesterday, no dur, it's in nowi valley. here is the kitchen and it basically dominates the floor and upstairs are four bedrooms. so i guess the question is it's rh-2. putting aside the density thing, couldn't you just have three bedrooms and a kitchen and living room on one level, traditional. i just wanted to raise that before your break, think about kitchen sizes. the way they're doing kitchens in these houses is the kitchen becomes the space and there's extra space that's just out there and i think it's just a marketing tool. even if they say it's a living room and dining room and family
8:28 pm
area, it's just space that's not designated and i think that is an interesting thing to think about in terms of affordability and here is copies for the record. >> president melgar: pu it happen next speaker, please. >> >> good afternoon, kelly hill with save the mission. today i want to bring something back i don't tour attention that we discussed before but seems to be growing at an alarming rate and is impacting the mission. if i could have the overhead, please. in light of recent news reports that is taking 50 units at 21 market, we are
8:29 pm
worried about a fast-growing housing model that is affecting our mission community. you can see on the list here, we're showing a chart with all of the current corporate rentals in the mission, sander, sf corporate rentals, corporate housing by owner zeus, blue ground and come to sf right now with a total of 73 units in the mission that are held off the normal rental market. sander itself typically targets partnerships with new construction projects and therefore in the community's eyes disrupts the expectations of housing units. they currently have 19 multi-unit properties. we have been tracking these companies and specifically sanders they've kept district using units off the traditional market. sfns has 40% -- 606 cap street,
8:30 pm
we just found out, must be a new listing, that all 20 units of new construction are listed on a street that's so important in the mission, so many families and people living in that area historically. the average price 240 a night. that's 742 a month. a few years ago i moved into 1875 mission. almost the entire top floor and the third floor have been corporate rentals. our homeowners association is working to change the ccnrs to eliminate the problems that come with other buildings that you approved recently, 1515, 15 street, 3420-18 street are all corporate rentals that were approved and built recently. we're watching 18011863 mission that we spoke about at the 1863 dr and have talked to you about this before. we're watching this before because this same developer has a history of corporate and short-term rentals and 180 is almost finished.
8:31 pm
as we're tracking sanders the growth rate is concerning. many more buildings could be operating this way instead of becoming real housing solutions for the city. hundreds of millions of venture capital dollars could be pouring into this model that goes against every person who has stood at this podium and tried to make a housing supply argument. we need to stop it. >> president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners, corey smith. thinking about the san bruno project as well and i know we were really disappointed that the proposal got turned out. i'm interested to know what the numbers of the sf 25 presentation. they put out a report maybe about a month ago or so going city by city and seeing what production numbers look like. across the board the state of california local jurisdictions are not at the income and
8:32 pm
housing levels that we need. the san francisco -- 50% or more below market rates. affordable housing is going to qualify for an sp 35 exemption as i understand it. so this is really that balance get lg figured out between state and local control. we know local control has not worked and gotten us into this mess. figuring out where we can improve the situation and figuring out where the state can set minimum standards and to say, city, you can determine where you build it and what it looks like, but yes or no is no longer an option and we think that will lead to a more affordable california which is something we all desperately want. >> president melgar: thank you, mr. smith. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, president, and commissioners. david troop from the neighborhood association. you should have all gotten an e-mail from us this week regarding 2100 market.
8:33 pm
commissioner richards in the previous speaker kind of outlined this problem of market rate apartments being turned into extended stay hotel rooms after projects are entitlement built. our neighborhood is extremely upset about this news on 2100 market. i don't think i've ever gotten as many e-mails, phone calls and social media posts on a subject in such a short period of time. clearly this is a loophole that you can drive an apartment through. it probably demands some kind of legislative solution. but i wonder if it wouldn't be possible to use the conditional use process as a stop gap to require every new housing unit that is entitled, perhaps prohibit furnished rentals, for example, of new housing units. there are plenty of housing units out there already built, hundreds of thousands of them without such a restriction.
8:34 pm
so i don't think we're going to have a problem finding a place for the limited number of those units that might be appropriate. but when we entitle housing and it gets used as hotels, it's not helping to solve our housing problem. we're going to be watching closely and i don't know as a neighborhood how we can support a single new unit of market rate housing without some kind of a solution to this problem. we're going to be back in a month when 55 belcher comes back to you and i think we're going to have to reverse our position and oppose that project if we don't have a solution here. thank you so much. >> president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. audrey realm with the neighborhood council and san francisco coalition. i feel like i'm going to be the broken record because i'm here to talk about 2100 market street. overhead, please.
8:35 pm
so that's what the project looks like. 60 units that's going to be used for corporate rental. i think to echo what other speakers talked about, i think we should talk about the process, change the process so that when somebody shows up here, particularly to get approval for these large projects, they should specify the use and they should stick with that use. if it's going to be all rentals, great, get regular tenants, as opposed to corporate rentals. i want to speak a little bit about corporate -- about local control. local control is not going to be impacting, it's not equal opportunity. it doesn't impact all cities in california equally. the city of san francisco obviously, as all of you know, we do market rate homes real well. we go well above our arena.
8:36 pm
when it comes to affordable housing, i'm afraid that we are not there yet. however, if you look at other cities throughout the bay area, they're far worse than we are. the example that commissioner richards brought to you today is exactly what we are trying to stop. we should not take local control away from the cities that have been compliant in expense of basically making the cities that actually have come through and built houses to punish them. so i would like to actually propose that -- you know, of course this body is not doing legislation, but then maybe you could push for that. the arena performance should matter. so if a city does not come through in terms of the arena performance, then they should be made to do more. we haven't come through in our affordable housing performance
8:37 pm
and i think we should definitely do that. finally, speaking of affordable housing, i'm sure you guys don't know about this yet because this is in nowi valley just july 5, they filed for demolition of this one-storey shop on 24 street and i just want to say this is a perfect opportunity to use home assess for this area. we need affordable housing. i don't know of any onsite affordable housing that was built in nowi valley in recent years. you're going to be hearing from me on this. >> president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is paul wormer. it's been a while since i've shown up in this chamber. guess what i'm going to talk about? i want to raids -- raise one or possibly two issues depending on
8:38 pm
how much time i have. there is a large lot on california street, the 2700 block that used to be a convalescent home. that's now in the process of seeking entitlement. it's seeking entitlement to do two things, a lot split and two rh-2 units because the surrounding neighborhood and rh-2. so what we're going to get is for somewhat close to 3,00 3,000-square-foot condos, four of them, that is wonderful for those who can afford price tags of $2.5 million. i would encourage the planning commission what can be done for projects like this to come in and people are seeking a significant change of use to say, no, this needs to be rezoned for higher density and
8:39 pm
it must be built to the density. it won't make the house any cheaper per square foot, but if someone can afford $1,000 a square foot for a 1,000-square-foot unit, that's a home when they could not possibly get it at $3,000 a square foot or the same price for $3,000 a square foot. so i encourage the planning department to seriously look at when people are coming in with lot splits, large lots, how to do this. the second thing i want to point out is we have a real problem with respect to the nexus study done on market rate housing ver us its direct and indirect demand and i appreciate the devout faith that the market will bring down prices, and i admit i may be in my own news and price bubble.
8:40 pm
i haven't seen when prices come down developers say i can build more and sell to a less-affluent crowd. maybe i'm wrong, and if so i would love to see a report from the planning department that clearly points out that i am wrong, because otherwise the idea that we are putting an affordable housing requirement in on large projects over ten units but ignoring under ten units for affordable housing requirements, we are tossing away a large number of sites in the city that can be used for smaller units even if the price per square foot is exorbitant is more than if they built to the maximum size. >> president melgar: thank you, sir. is there anyone else who wishes to give general public comment. >> clerk: item 3 was pulled off of consent and we'll take that
8:41 pm
matter up now for 2019-001013 cua, clemen avenue. >> good afternoon, elizabeth john of planning department staff. the item before you is a conditional use authorization to allow a formula retail grocery safeway as doing business andronico's within a 16,664 retail space former occupied by fresh and easy. the conditional use is required for the establishment in the space and the non-residential use size that exceeds 5,999 square feet within the neighborhood shopping center district. since the publication of your packets, additional correspondence has been received by the planning department, including 19 e-mails in support of the project and five e-mails opposing the hours of operation.
8:42 pm
i have copies maintained in the docket it's part of the record. the proposed hours of operation stated by the applicant for the store are 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. per code for a commercial use within this shopping center district the principally hours of operation are 6 a.m. to 2 a.m. the following day. a conditional use authorization is only required to operate between 2 and 6 a.m. therefore, the proposed hours of operation are code compliant. for reference, the principally permitted hours of operation for a commercial use in the adjacent nc-1 district is 6 to 11 p.m., the original 1998 authorization for the site allowed hours of operation from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m., with deliveries limited to the hours of operation from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. the 2010 approval for the adjacent tenant space for cvs authorized hours of operation from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. with loading limited to 8
8:43 pm
a.m. to 10 p.m. the department is recommending approval of the project. at this time a condition regarding hours of operation is not included in the conditions of approval, but a condition could be added by staff if so directed by the planning commission. this concludes my presentation and i'm available for questions. >> president melgar: thank you, ms. johntier. we will hear from the project sponsor. review of planning department's >> i'm here on behalf of safeway, the sponsor. i'm going to keep my comments brief. i'm joined by members of the andronico team and we can answer your questions. this would open an existing vacant space. i'm going to put an image up on the monitor, the overhead, for reference. here is the building.
8:44 pm
this space was designed for grocery use. the building was built in 2002 and first occupied by luckies and then fresh and easy which went bankrupt in 2015 and it's been vacant since. today we received enthusiastic support from neighbors, many of which letters of support made it into our packet. neighbors are excited to seeing a grocery return to the space. we have had requests to limit the hours of operation. as elizabeth mentioned retail hours are permitted from 6 a.m. and 2 a.m. and they plan to operate from 6 to 11 p.m. the recent comments were surprising because the sponsor has noted its proposed hours in the neighbor outreach materials and discussions on social media posts early on and they were included in the materials last year which was attended by two
8:45 pm
of the commenters. safeway has committed to being a good neighbor and they have reached out to discuss the root of these request cans, however, maintaining the hours of 6 to 11 is important to andronico's. while they don't anticipate a lot of customers in the early morning or late night hours, it is important for people to be able to purchase things before and after school and work. just for reference, most full-service grocery stores are either 24 hours a day or they typically open at 5 to 6 a.m. for example, the 25th and clement produce market and safeways at webster and final street all open at 6 a.m. the original grocery at this site included hours from 6 to 11 which is the same as proposed here. for those reasons we ask that the hours not be restricted beyond 6 to 11.
8:46 pm
that concludes my comments, but again we're here and we're available for any questions. thank you. >> president melgar: thank you. we will now open this item up for public comment. james argo and norman condy. >> good afternoon, everybody, james argo lincoln park neighborhood association. just for the record, we're delighted to see the space used properly. it's been a long time. some of you were teenagers when we first started with this issue with donald macdonald and richard klein. i think art agos was mayor. personally my family has been on 32nd avenue since 1915 and i'm not a stick-in-the-mud, but we have a slightly different city in the past five years than when these permits were approved. that's our only concern. it's hilarious that back in the
8:47 pm
1980s we were struggling with safeway and then it became albertson and fresh and easy and now we're back to safeway. the city has changed and we have issues with homelessness and those kinds of problems. our only request is that the hours be modified mildly to really address what is a quiet residential neighborhood, different from 7th, different from safeway at the beach. different from so many other areas. we have lincoln park and the ggra. there are more people residing in the parks than there used to be from five, seven years ago. so we'd like to support andronico's small model. we realize there are corporate things going on. that's our request to trim the hours because people aren't
8:48 pm
behaving as well as they used to in general public. that's the problem in our society. i've been in ride-alongs with the police department. they're more social workers than police officers because of our society. i don't want to be a social worker in my neighborhood. they've got great ideas really with the andronico smaller model. i hope it works. we have a fabric of society that i would say a couple years ago, yeah, yeah, open it, everybody is improving their behavior, members of society without addresses and that sort of thing. that is really our concern, quality of life in the neighborhood. unfortunately a lot of people don't behave themselves very well. that's our concern, and i apologize for tof misunderstand. but as we were out last week, wow, 6 a.m., 11 p.m., that's why
8:49 pm
we're here. it's not a game reversal. so again, lincoln park neighborhood association, we're happy to see andronico. we really don't have a lot of faith of the people that are around in terms of being able to control them and keep the quality of life there in the 32nd avenue neighborhood and we don't want to have to be a so o sociological issue. >> president melgar: next speaker. >> we're a low-density neighborhood, single-family houses on the edge of the city. i think what we see here is an issue of perhaps safeway's labor issue issues. we -- this is a store which is about less than 20,000 square foot, probably the smallest
8:50 pm
market in the city. we see no need to operate it as a big-box store. we want it to conform to the neighborhood that it's in, and we'd like to see them more respectful of the way we live in that neighborhood. thank you. >> president melgar: thank you. any other public comment on this item? okay. public comment is now closed. commissioner moore. >> the applicant, has he been here and the neighborhood had any discussions with the applicant and where is the justification of wanting to stay open to the extent that we are supposed to prove it? >> hi. good afternoon, nathalie mathais, senior real estate manager with safeway. apologies. nathalie mathais, senior real
8:51 pm
estate manager with safeway. i just wanted to clarify the question again. if you could briefly recap that. has safeway had conversations with the neighbors on hours, et cetera? >> that's the question and you had neighbors here. what is the essence of your position versus theirs?
8:52 pm
it seemed as though those hours were well received. at the pre-op meeting delivery hours. we were comfortable having the previous hours, refreshing easy hours. this past week i had sent out an e-mail blast to everyone who had i had to collect e-mail addresses over the last year, and the support had been very large. that is when mr. argo had first contacted me with concerns about 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., indicated he may be able to work with us on the 11:00 p.m. .-dot the 6:00 a.m. of was of concern. we did have quite a few e-mails back and forth and we did have a
8:53 pm
lengthy telephone conversation, which we discussed, trying to understand the root of the concern, which he explained just now which was proximity to the park, perhaps urban issues. i shared, and i share this with you as well, doubt whether it is 12 noon or 3:00 p.m., or 6:00 a.m. or 7:00 a.m., those are operational items and social items that as a retailer we need to be addressing regardless of time. we are committed to doing so, and, we have not experienced, i have in our district manager and
8:54 pm
our store manager here, as well. they can help supplement this discussion, if needed. we have not seen major problems at 6:00 a.m., 7:00 a.m. generally, if there are problems they are at 2:00 a.m. or 3:00 a.m., those are off the board right now. we have had those discussions. there has been quite a robust social media discussion on the subject. it has been very supportive of the proposed 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. we do have many customers on different shifts. we have people that are commuting in the early morning, stopping in to get bagels, donuts, ahead of time. we have not experience issues at 6:00 a.m. we do want to be a good neighbor. it seems as though the core
8:55 pm
issue is one that would take place whether it was 6:00 a.m. or 4:00 p.m. we would like to address that. >> thank you. >> with that said, would there be any way you could mitigate, just the neighbors concerns without per se cutting those hours. my office is a way from the church on market safeway, let's just say it's an eventful walk every time. to those neighbors i work near the safeway, but these neighbors may live closer to the safeway, is there anything you can do that would make them feel better. >> believe so, i think we could try to draft a condition of approval and whether we called it a property maintenance and security condition where there
8:56 pm
was specific monitoring of the exterior parking lot -- i've done this another jurisdiction, prior to opening, we meet with the police department and have the store director, and the police department, at least know each other, have perhaps yearly check ins. at 1200 irving we have a designated person at the store as a community contact for the neighborhood group. definitely can have that. i know cvs had a handful of conditions of approval on the maintenance of the parking lot and the landscaping. we can put more into that as well. so, yes. we are receptive.
8:57 pm
>> i would like to ask to describe a little bit more exactly her parameters that you had thought about? thank you. >> nothing else in that neighborhood operates at those hours. like i said it is not a big box store. it is the people do not commute through their. it doesn't -- it is not big enough for that. the neighborhood is a kind of place where people recognize each other in the streets, and we police it ourselves. what natalie has mentioned is things that may are a problem, and right now we do not have that problem developing because of the things that operate in the area are on hours that are visible to the residence there.
8:58 pm
if you operate outside of those hours, we no longer can do that and then it becomes a problem. >> would you give this commission the hours you had in mind? >> 8:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. >> i could see the ten, but i know loading and coming to the city with some eyes, or whatever, is a science of its own. i personally do not feel that this commission has the tools to properly gauge. >> that's not a problem for cb exit, they operate loading at 9:00 a.m. >> we have conditioned loading and unloading at times, i don't see that that is an issue. we've tried to do it, i think on the canyon markets, glen park. i think it is reasonable.
8:59 pm
when i was on that side of the aisle i did it, so i see heads shaking us foz on the front row. i think this can work out for the neighbors on safeway if we put reasonable conditions on this. >> with that said, want to make a motion to approve with the hours proposed, with very specific directions to continue working with the neighborhood in regards to security issues that could quite possibly mitigate the problem that i see. >> thank you. >> would you be open to a delivery window time? if it's going to open at 6:00 a.m., right? i know we have whole foods at 2100 market. i remember on that, the neighborhood condition delivery was more during the daytime versus 4:00 a.m.
9:00 pm
perhaps we can hear from safeway on what you might feel is reasonable? >> i'm going to time you, because i haven't provided comments. i did not hear the deliveries being the issue. i do not want to have -- and post something that the community has not in other places, they have objected. that is not the concern i heard. what i heard was the hours, and the possibility for folks coming from the park and hanging out. i am supportive of this project, as has been proposed with the hours that have been proposed. i think, you know, it is important to note that this particular location has seen a bunch of tenants that have not worked out. i think part of what hasn't worked out is the economics of running a small grocery store in a very low density area. if you are going to have a