Neighbors appeal Sacramento Street project’s CEQA exemption and conditional‑use approval; board continues cases to Feb. 5

San Francisco supervisors on Jan. 29 heard hours of testimony from neighbors, business owners and a concentrated community of psychotherapists who urged the board to reject the planning department’s Class 32 categorical exemption and to overturn a planning commission conditional‑use authorization for a proposed four‑story project at 3637–3657 Sacramento Street.

What the project proposes: Demolish three existing buildings and build a 40‑foot‑tall, four‑story building with about 6,500 square feet of ground‑floor retail, roughly 10,000 square feet of second‑floor medical/office space and 18 residential units on the third and fourth floors. The sponsor also sought conditional‑use approvals for (1) a development lot size greater than 5,000 square feet, (2) a nonresidential use larger than 2,500 square feet, and (3) non‑accessory parking.

Why the neighborhood appealed: Appellants said the project’s scale was out of context for the mid‑block Sacramento Street commercial district and argued the planning department incorrectly applied the CEQA “Class 32” infill exemption. Neighbors and a large coalition of local therapists told the board the demolition and deep excavation for underground parking — including concrete demolition — will produce significant, prolonged noise and vibration, risk damage to adjacent buildings and create dust and air‑quality problems. Therapist and neighbor groups said the street hosts hundreds of weekly therapy appointments and that predictable quiet is essential to patient care.

Engineers and neighbors presented measurements and calculations estimating that realistic construction equipment would raise ambient noise far above thresholds the department cited, and that vibration levels could damage structures directly adjacent to the work. Brandon Ponce, a licensed engineer, told the board the planning department’s construction‑equipment list was incomplete and understates both noise and vibration risks.

Planning department response: Don Lewis, director of the planning department’s environmental review unit, defended the Class 32 infill exemption. He said the site is under five acres, located in an urban setting and that the project is consistent with the general plan; he added department analyses found no unusual circumstances, no significant cumulative impacts and no protected habitat. Environmental review officer Lisa Gibson and project staff said planned noise‑control and dust‑control measures and limits on construction hours would mitigate typical construction impacts.

Project sponsor view: Scott Emblidge, attorney for the project sponsor Licki Properties, said the project’s floor‑area ratio and height are compatible with nearby buildings and pointed to other four‑story and larger structures on nearby blocks. Emblidge described concessions offered by the sponsor — an arborist plan, preconstruction surveys, staged hauling off‑site, free temporary office space for therapists during disruptive phases, valet and off‑site parking for construction workers and a community liaison to respond to problems during construction.

Board action: After hearing roughly two hours of public speakers and rebuttals, Supervisor Kate Stefani — the district supervisor — asked for more time to permit neighbors and the sponsor to consider newly offered conditions. Stefani moved to continue the environmental and conditional‑use appeals to the full board meeting on Tuesday, Feb. 5 so the neighborhood could review a list of additional conditions the sponsor provided late the prior evening. The motion, seconded and unopposed, carried.

What remains: The board will first vote on the CEQA determination (requires six votes to reverse the planning department). If the board reverses the environmental determination, the conditional‑use matter will be moot. If the environmental ruling stands, supervisors will consider whether to affirm or overturn the planning commission’s conditional‑use approval (which requires eight votes to impose changes or overturn the commission). Planning staff told the board the project could include additional conditions of approval if the board concludes mitigation is required.

Numbers and specifics provided on the record: Project parcel: 3637–3657 Sacramento Street; proposed retail ~6,500 sq. ft.; proposed medical/office ~10,000 sq. ft.; proposed residential: 18 units (planning staff said 6 one‑bedroom and 12 two‑bedroom units). Planning staff said the project’s excavation/demolition phase would be most intensive and estimated roughly five months for the most intensive demolition and excavation work.