Consistent with the policies and objectives of the citys general plan. The appeal also demands specific modifications to the project including the following. Limiting the height and modifications to the reuse Center Buildings and a reduction of the new building near laurel and euclid to preserve more open space and further limits on the types of nonresidential uses proposed. Related to the height of the Center Buildings, the Planning Commission supported the overall scale including the height because their placement in the center of the site set back from the public rights of way was a project objective. The project would place shorter buildings along the perimeter between 40 and 65 feet to serve the transition to the taller buildings in the center. A reduction in height of the Center Building would result in a reduction in dwelling unit count or to keep the unit count consistent, 744, and increase to other proposed New Buildings along the perimeter and compromising the compatibility.
Minor deviations from the provisions. Please recommend that the new uses that were not described in the draft eir be eliminated including flexible retail which as noted before us and not permitted in district two. Or, social services, or other services because the public was deprived of the opportunity to even comment on this in the e. I. R. As you can see, from the drawing, he used and the developer site plan the modifications shown the Community Preservation lookalike would achieve the same units while both using a required project open space, Natural Green spaces the public has used for Recreational Purposes and retaining historic list of characteristics. We ask you recommend against all of the items today, send this back and have a community and city Planning Project as this one that has been totally dominated by the developer. Thank you. I did call the novelties, let me call a few more speaker cards. [ name indescernible ] if you line up to my left, youre right. Good afternoon. I
The city not the project sponsor how section 802, 810a work relative to the replacement the types of trees and what is significant and is that a 36inch box . I had very specific questions. None of which mr. Rich even remotely touched on. So and i mean this is your problem but that was not what i originally asked. And none of that has been responded to at all, which is why i nicely said that mr. Richs comments were not wholly satisfactory. But proceed. Ill touch on a couple of things. As mr. Rich did say supervisor peskin, we are not at a level of plans yet. So i couldnt tell you the exact size of the boxes that will be put back in. But the street trees, as you mentioned, there are 15 existing street trees along california street that were referenced earlier. They are new Zealand Christmas trees. Those trees will be removed and replaced around the site perimeter with 88 new street trees. The street trees along california that were referenced are going to match the street trees that were
Versus enforceability of what really is underpinning which i completely associate myself with, as a matter of public policy, about whether or not whoever is in that spot, do the community right. Do you end up with a store that does not do the community right, or a vacancy . I am willing to take that bet. Trader joes is willing to live without. Insofar as we are actually changing a piece of formula retail legislation to bring them in. That enticement was here which is precisely why this is on the calendar. I would respectfully, in addition to the change i indicated on page three relatively to the unsupportable finding of a non formula Retail Grocery store being less affordable which i would remove, and i will make a motion to that so it would start with a capital, this one time left on the and tended to support. And then i would agree with the recommendation of the Planning Commission on page five, subsection c, to be eliminated. I would suggest that we keep, on pages six, section e and
They do not work. Thank you mr. Miguel. We have a shared concern over parking. In lieu. Thank you, supervisors. Im here to im excited to be here today because it sounds like we have a couple of things in common we all want our housing, we all love trees. That is some place start from. Where some of us differ, i live down the street at california and arguello, im wholeheartedly supportive of this development. Every weekend i have a choice of my 2yearold daughter, do i go down to the commercial corridor on clement street, or do i go down to Laurel Heights . Every single weekend i choose the clement Street Commercial corridor or because Laurel Heights does not offer the commercial diversity, or the vibrancy, that is needed to make Laurel Heights even better. I would love to see this Development Gets built so that once i have more than one child and i have two have other apartments in my neighborhood, where i could stay. Whereas there is a low amount of apartments in our neighborhood. I wh