trees don't die overnight. this tree could die over five years. we wonder if a bond if the tree dies so there is assistance in helping to remove it or damage caused by the dying tree could be part of the approve process, also. there are seven foot privacy walls on the property line that affect the ad adjacent property owner. the applicants is working to move those off there. we appreciate the offers they have made and we hope this will come true that there will be some movement of the fences because they will cover the windows of th of the ad of the . the project has had a lot of discussion about afford built. i am more interested in the finished building because i will be living next to it, and they are asking for exceptions to the

bull yotobulk rulings. more of the property is along the bulk street than divisadero. it will make the building feel big. it is on the corner. it is going to be a big building. if there is rules about how big the building can be built, i am asks you to consider this exception to the bulk as making the building bigger and that should be something to be considered. it will be very big. thank you for all of your help. i appreciate that and thank you for everything you do. >> next spea speaker, please. >> i am bill thompson. i own the building along with my wife directly next door to the proposed project.

when the project was first proposed, it was going to be a 16 unit project. it has grown to a 66 unit project. there were architectural elements that had some value, and the present appearance in the neighborhood has been the way it was since built. there have been alterations since original construction. the basic look of the building has remained the same. our big concern about the building is the density. the off street parking in that neighborhood is difficult. in our six unit knowledge next door we have two off street parking places. that is all. five of the people in the building have cars.

>> we have four major concerns about the project. i'm not opposed to the project. i love the idea that there's going to be more affordable housing in the neighborhood, but it's negatively affecting our building. the four main concerns are the

loss of the tree, which is a big, big selling point for me. when i rent out some of my communities, people love the dappled sun light coming into their unit. another concern is the 7 foot property line fence coming into our sight line. our dining room windows are within 3 foot of that property line, so if there's a seven-foot fence there, people are going to be looking at someone else's planters, and they're not going to have a view out of their second story windows. the first story already has problems with the building next door, but we were -- we were built, i think, after that building went into place, and we have a very, very shallow shallow light well because of that and i have some pictures

that i'd like to show you. this is our building. this is -- >> president hillis: can you just pull that mic over toward you so we can hear you. >> okay. thanks. you can see there's a very narrow space here. these are very narrow windows in our kitchens and in our closets, but the large window in the dining area on the first floor is already facing this wall. on the second story, if they're building on the second floor, they put a second foot privacy fence, that means two thirds of my building isn't going to have any views out of those windows, at all. i know that there's sunshine laws. it doesn't mean that we're entitled to sun, entitled to our view, it just means we're

entitled to lose it in public. this is another thing to show you how really small that space is between the property line and our windows. this is the true -- tree. it's pretty large. it probably goes 25 feet, the roots into their property, and if it's cut within 10 feet of the drip line, which goes another 10 feet past that, we're going to have that tree die. i'd like to have insurance, so -- >> president hillis: thank you very much. >> that's it? i can't finish? okay. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please.

>> my name is norman dagleman, and i'm a resident of district five, and i urge a continuance for 650 divisadero. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'll try to be short. i know you guys have been here kwieth a while. my name is charles depane. i'm speaking as a supporter of affordable diviz. we have been -- since the project started, we have been advocating for increasing the affordability with exchange of the added density that was added and rezoned to divisadero. we thank supervisor brown for getting -- for revising the

legislation, and we are -- we are very appreciative of her -- of her communication with the community. what i am here to request is for a continuance. this item has been continued for quite a while, and we are asking for just one more continuance so we can finish the legislation that will impact divisadero and this project going forward. so again we'd just like to ask for a continuance, and we do approve -- we do appreciate that there will be nmore housing. we're not unsupportive of housing, we just want to make sure we finish what has been asked before and to finish this legislation and to increase affordability and hopefully, we get a continuance. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. tim colin on behalf of the 300

members of the san francisco housing action coalition. tom hitand cory couldn't be her tonight. they send me the paperwork. this project has been winding its way through the process for three years. it was endorsed with 12% affordability, and now it's at 20 in a much more thoughtful way. the difficulty and the delays of getting housing approved in this town in large part has caused our housing affordability crisis. this project has got to move forward. if you looked at what urban planning textbooks say is good urban planning, good, high density urban infill, this project checks every box. it did for us, and now it's gotten more affordable.

on the question of the affordability, we're in trouble here. the city's in trouble because san francisco's housing production has been declining for the last two or three years. of course, a large part of that is construction costs, but we keep thinking that we can keep raising affordability, the amount of subsidized housing that a project is supposed to deliver without consequence. and i think if you've got construction costs and affordability, that's a large reason why we're seeing decreases housing production which is -- decreased housing production which is absolutely poison to solving the housing crisis. we're doing worse than we did back a few years ago. i don't understand the calls to delay it again. i can't accept that somehow, you can support housing in a housing crisis, but this is a project, well, we should delay it and see if we can talk about it some more and maybe raise the affordability level.

you've got a pretty good deal here. they've offered to raise the inclusionary. it would be a shame to see it, market turns, things are happening, things are getting difficult, market interest rates are going up, and it doesn't quite work out in the past to sit a while. this shouldn't be delayed another second. i hope you'll approve it immediately. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. my name is richard kay, and i'm with affordable diviz, and i'm here to concur with the other representatives from affordable diviz with a special continuance on this project. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you, mr. kay. i'll call some more names. ronald, philip, and john. welcome. >> thank you, president hillis.

arnold townsend. commissioners, i've been in the western addition, the fillmore, for 50 years. i hesitate to say that because i don't like to think of myself as that old, but i guess it's true. and i say the fillmore now, anyone who doesn't know that divisadero street is the fillmore is a recent arrival. it is and it always has been. actually, i had an entourage of folks with me that had to leave. i've known these developers. in the community there's never been anything that we've asked them to support that they refused, and they operate at the highest integrity. one of the things that we appreciate with this development team is that the properties they already own and manage in the

fillmore, their tenant makes in both a residential and commercial, the tenant mix is diverse, and it's a lot more diverse than divisadero looks right now after having been on it for 50 years, and we certainly hope that these new units will begin to change some of that and also begin to change the people who work in them and what they look like. and so i'm certainly hopeful that will begin to create a new idea of what can happen on divisadero. and then, i am extremely watchful of people who always want to tell developers of affordable housing, it's not affordable enough, and let's make it so nothing gets built. that makes you look good, that you're fore affordable housing. you just don't allow it near you, you always want it

somewhere else. so i'm urging you to absolutely go ahead and approve it. every time we delay a project, we lose a unit or two, and the unit or two that you lose is another affordable unit that could have been in there. i have a good lawyer frent of mine who's a land use attorney who now -- he's based here but now advises his folk not to build here, and if you have to, double everything. double the time it's going to take you and double the money it's going to cost you. if we don't get some sensiblity to this, we're out of business. and then, the folks that used to live here, they have to leave or they can't come back. just put some good sense into development policy and approve this, please. >> president hillis: all right. thank you, reverend townsend. next speaker, please. >> my name's jeff.

i live across the street from the project. i've lived there for 26 years. i certainly think if you're going to build it, you should do the continuance to get as much affordable housing in there as possible if the law is going to change. but my concern is living across the street is 11-b here, it says existing housing and neighborhood character will be preserved and protected. and then, it says the existing housing areas in the surround be neighborhood would not be adversely affected. i have noise concerns. i'd written to chris, and he said write to patrick to find out what the proposed retail step was. patrick didn't return my e-mail. it sounds like the architect says there's going to be some big restaurant with outdoor seating. what -- you know, operating within the permitted hours of operation, that's 2:00 a.m. probably, right? that does not mitigate my noise

concerns. if you're going to approve this, i would like to see something in there saying that you can't have a noisy business right across the street until 2:00 a.m. in the morning because that definitely does not preserve and protect the existing character. that's -- that's pretty much all. thanks. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is philip, it's my first planning commission meeting. we're all renters in the upper haight, and we think that building housing, especially near transit is a progressive san francisco value. i'm thrilled that this project went from 16 to 66 apartments. we need to build a lot more housing. i'm also speaking as a

professional career environmentalist. i want to see more housing built near transit because of the sprawling commutes that are clogging our arteries and polluting our air. right now, the market is rigged against renters in san francisco, and i just wanted to give a personal example of how that's the case. i've been living in the haight for eight years with two roommates -- i'm sorry, two other roommates in a three bedroom apartment. that's how i afford to live in the neighborhood that i love. i'm working to move in with a partner of mine, but in the rent control units that we bid, we're always out bid by somebody else. i know the lack of housing is forcing impossible choices for renters, so again i'm thrilled. i want to be building more housing. i think this is a great example of it. i want to be recycling empty auto shops into housing, empty gas stations into housing. i think this project is great,

and i think you should approve it and stop delaying. thanks. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name's owen o'donnell but i must be a ghost, because a woman that i've never met said i went home because it was past my bedtime, but i'm here. i've lived in the neighborhood for 45 years, and i want to point out that alamo square has a lot of tall buildings on each corner. having tall buildings in our neighborhood is a good thing. it works for us. this building works, and my only concern about it is it's not big enough. i would like it to be 120 to 150 feet because it's on a major transit corridor, and we need housing in this town.

and everybody talks about how we have a shortage of housing, and this commission over the last 40 years is responsibletor that. but i want to tell you a little story to give you an idea of what it means. in 1974, eight families started pacific primary. some people consider it the best preschool in the united states. it's two blocks from where this project is. two years ago, the executive director came to me and said, we have five vacancies, and we usually get 12 to 15 applications. i have none. pacific primary pays a wonderful wage and full benefits, but they had none. she says i think it's the cost of housing, makes it impossible for people to apply to our

school. we need housing. time is money. approval this project, and i'm really looking forward to welcoming patrick and his father to the neighborhood because i think they're great landlords, and they will do a wonderful job in our community. so please approve it tonight. we need it. >> president hillis: thank you, mr. o'donnell, and thank you for founding pacific primary. my kids went there. next speaker, please. >> hello, commissioners. david wu with the group neighbors united. we ask, along with others that have already done so that you please continue the hearing for 650 divisadero until the divisadero affordability legislation is finalized. taking a step back, again, thanking, and thanks to the

organizing and activism led by affordable diviz and community members, this project's original and completely unacceptable level of affordability of only 13% is now being rethought. an even higher level of affordability can be achieved. the community has demanded more level of affordability. listen to what the community is demanding, and allow more time for the divisadero affordability legislation to be finalized. it just will be up next week. thank you. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. any additional public comment on this item? seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioner melgar? >> vice president melgar: so i had a comment for supervisor brown. so many of the public commenters spoke about your pending legislation in front of the board. >> supervisor brown: correct. >> vice president melgar: what would be the effect of the legislation on this specific proposal if it goes through have

you proposed it? >> supervisor brown: if it goes through in december -- i mean, the next board meeting? it means that the 20% will be accepted, that they're accepting the inclusionary of 20%, instead of 19 which would be in january . so they're going to approve the 20% and then the 12-44 mix. >> vice president melgar: just to be clear, it would have no impact on this project as it is proposed. >> supervisor brown: no. all this -- all the legislation that's going through is just approving the percentage on divisadero for this project and other projects that's coming up on divisadero and then anything after, 23% for can does. and what we're trying to do is lineup everything with the inclusionary, the citywide inclusionary percentage, because we think that's really important because divisadero and all over

the city should be lined up with a citywide inclusionary, so that's all it does it pretty much line it up, and it actually increases it 1%. >> vice president melgar: thank you very much, supervisor. and thank you very much for all your work on this. i have been following this project for a couple years and remember when then supervisor brown -- sorry, breed, was struggling to come up with a strategy that works. so i will defer to you and your strategy. i think, you know, this is a vastly better project than when it was first proposed. i'm still not crazy about the architecture, but i think we need the housing, and i think it's a good project, so i will be supporting it tonight. >> supervisor brown: thank you. >> president hillis: anyone else?

commission commissioner koppel? >> commissioner koppel: thank you, commissioner brown. i heard something i haven't heard in a long time, the words middle-income. so even though this project is going to provide a small amount of middle-income, this is a really big deal to me. i -- you can't see it on my phone, but i pulled up mayor ed lee's housing meter, and he had a goal by 2020, 30,000 housing units to be entitled or approved or built, and 50% of those would be slated to be middle-income housing, i know it's not subsidized the same way affordable is, it's just

refreshing to hear even the smallest amount of middle-income housing for people who sometimes make too much to qualify for those b.m.r. units. i think this is going to be happening in a good neighborhood for this. in support of the project tonight, and like the way the project's progressed over the years, gotten more density, more units, and then, you know, with -- with that, has also become a little more affordable because the units have gotten smaller and there's more density on the site with transit, so i'm in full support. >> president hillis: thank you. commissioner fong? >> commissioner fong: yeah, this corridor has changed. i have a question for the architect. that is with the independent music business next door, maybe -- talk a little bit more about the cueing. i'm just trying to prevent problems in the future. as you guys recall, jog my

memory, on 11th street where slim's is, we did something in the sally that designated that as an entertainment corridor that basically says everybody that's moving in or about to buy something nearby recognizes that there are after hours amplified occupant permit. you guys recognize this? i'm curious if that needs to be maybe attach today this. maybe you thought -- attached to this. maybe you've thought about it already. >> we've had several conversations with the independent. we're very sensitive to noise going both ways. first of all, we have no bedrooms on that property line. we purposely put living rooms on that property line. we put bedrooms 15 feet in from the property line. we also discussed a very advanced sound engineer to give us criteria, and that criteria will be incorporated in the structure drawings.

it's a concrete building, so less transmission of noise and shaking. and because it's rental also, everybody signing a rental agreement will be told that there are times when noise and -- will come, and they have to -- you know, it's not a condo where you're going to have screamers, it's going to be rentals. you've got to go with it. so technically, we've done buildings like this before. we know how to insulate buildings. >> commissioner fong: okay. i just want to make sure the supervisor's office, the phone doesn't ring off the hook later. okay. well, i am supportive of this, and i'm not sure others are. i will make a motion to approve. >> vice president melgar: second. >> president hillis: commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: i guess i have a question for supervisor brown. if the legislation for some

unforeseen reason doesn't pass, the project goes to 19% or 13.5? >> supervisor brown: it'll go back to 13.5. that's the grandfather because also, if you recall, the 18 months extension to get site plans in will make it where it goes back to 13.5. >> commissioner richards: and one to 100%, what do you think your chances are. >> supervisor brown: i think it will pass. most of my colleagues have been very supportive of me being able to take it to 20% and then getting the agreements and the assurance from the developers that they would build, and it would be -- they could build it, and then, also, the affordability, the 12-44, they were very happy. and i have to say, a lot of my colleagues on the board, though, were disappointed that they weren't going higher, the height wasn't higher. but i assure them that this was

what the neighborhood really wanted, and so i was holding to 65 feet. >> commissioner richards: okay. great. that gives me a lot of assurance. thank you. i'd like to make an amendment that a licensed arborist is present for a tree treatment plan. we had a situation like that and now the tree is dead. i want to make sure we do everything we can to save the tree. >> commissioner fong: accept that and add that to the motion. >> commissioner richards: one other question for the zoning administrator. we had a question about hours of operation about the restaurant nightclub. i know the independent's right next door. what type of approvals are there that we'd have to give for a restaurant night club? is it permitted? is it conditional use? >> specifically for that type of use or for the hours of operation? >> president hillis: either. >> commissioner richards: yeah. one feeds the other. >> well, i'm looking at these. the hours of operation are

permitted from 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. if you want to go past that, that does require a conditional use authorization. in terms of restaurants and night license numbers and if they are per -- night clubs and if they are permitted in this district and under what circumstances -- >> president hillis: do you want a second, do you have any other questions? >> commissioner richards: not after that. >> restaurants and bars are principlely permitted on the ground floor, in terms of night time entertainment. >> commissioner richards: thank you. >> night time entertainment is also generally permitted to the ground floor, in addition to avenue hours entertainment. >> i am in full support of the amendments that were proposed.

i think i am always protective of this neighborhood. this is my sister neighborhood. i think when i looked at this project, i was excited by being rental housing and also by the new affordability. i think that's desperately need index this time where we need housing, and it's been kicking around as long as some of the commissioners have been on this commission, and i feel specifically with compelling testimony of supervisor brown that the community will get the affordability that it is hoping for, so i'm in full support. >> president hillis: i'm also supportive. thank you, supervisor brown for -- we've been waiting on this project for a while, and the one down the street. we're happy to see new housing on divisadero and on levels of affordability that we really haven't seen. we're still seeing projects at 13 and 14% that have been

grandfathered, so appreciate you kind of finishing this legislation in getting that affordability percentage to 20 and appreciate the neighborhood's concern and diligence in getting those numbers up, so thank you, and look forward to seeing this built. >>clerk: commissioners, there is a motion and a second to approve the project with conditions, adding that a licenses arborist be hired for a tree protection plan. on that motion -- [roll call] >>clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 6-0. zoning administrator, what say you? >> i'll close the public hearing and attend the grant the rear yard modifications with standard conditions. >>clerk: thank you. commissioners, that places you on items 16-a and 16-b.

>>clerk: report number 2007-1347 cua-var, a conditional use authorization and a rear yard -- and a modification. >> good afternoon, commissioners. mary woods, department staff. the proposed project requires a conditional use authorization from the commission and a rear yard modification from the zoning administrator. the applicant is seeking a conditional use authorization to allow development lot size greater than 5,000 square feet and a use size greater than 2500 square feet and a public parking garage for short-term use in the sacramento special use district. the proposal is to demolish the

three existing buildings, which includes a parking garage and two medical-dental buildings and construct a four story mixed use building 40 feet tall, approximately 34,000 square feet, containing 18 dwelling units, six one bedrooms, 12 two bedrooms, 6500 square foot of grocery tail space on the square foot -- gross retail space on the ground floor. the project would provide 63.33 parking spaces consisting of 45 short-term parking spaces on the first and second levels and 18 residential spaces on the third

level. 35 bicycle spaces. the project is also seeking a zoning administrator modification from the rear yard requirement for occupying the last 15 feet of the lot depth. the project proposed to meet its inclusionary housing requirement through the payment of an inlieu fee. staff has received an additional 244 letters related to the project, one letter in support, and 243 letters in opposition. i have the letters if you'd like to see them. the department's recommendation is to approve with conditions. this concludes my summary of the project. thank you. >> vice president melgar: thank you. do we have a project sponsor?

>> good evening, commissioners. c scott emblich on above of tbeha project sponsor. we're having trouble with our gro graphics. this project is on the san francisco commercial corridor. as you can see, the current subject properties are three different properties that occupy almost the entire lot on sacramento street, two of which almost go all the way to the

rear yard. we still have the menu up there. [inaudible] >> the existing buildings on the site are two medical-dental office buildings that are pictured right there. they are older and have parking spaces in the front. next door to that is a parking garage, above ground parking garage that has two curb cuts for cars that go in and out. now, that's going to be replaced by this building. this project will have retail space on the ground floor. on the second floor, it will

have -- [inaudible] >> below ground, there will be parking. parking that -- currently, there are 78 above ground parking spaces at the site. that's going to be replaced by 63 below ground spaces. that's the minimum number of spaces required by the code for this type of development. 18 of the spaces will be reserved for residents of the 18 units. the remaining 45 spaces will be short-term, in and out spaces. it'll serve the retail space here. there's another example of the activates streetscape with the retail space. it'll serve the customers of that retail plus the other businesses on the street who rely on the parking that is kurn currently on the street for their businesses. this will eliminate the

pedestrian parking conflicts that are currently at the site where you have cars travel and parking right on the sidewalk and you have two curb cuts for the parking garage. that'll alling removes with one curb cut for one parking garage. another benefit of the project will be the rear yard. as you can see again, the existing buildings look at a wall of buildings right over the fence. that'll be changed now because we've created a new midblock open space. we're moving -- the new property will be 33 feet back from the rear property line, creating between 66 feet and 106 feet of space from the rear of those residential buildings to the new building. there have been significant number of community outreach events that have been hosted by

the project sponsor. you see in 2014, we had a preapplication meeting for the -- at that point, the latest iteration of this project. in 2018, we had another community outreach to the neighborhood. we've had 46 of one meeting. 30 at another meeting. that was followed up by hundreds of e-mails from the project sponsor's staff to concerned neighbors about their specific concerns. one of those specific concerns was that the prior design of the project had a wall at the rear property line because of the height of the parking garage, and the neighbors on california street says they really didn't want to see that wall. so reredesigned the project to sink the parking further. our project is at grade with their rear yards and creating that midblock open space that enhances everything. we thought, believe it or not,

that we had achieved our objective of getting community buy in. as of ten days ago, we had a letter from the neighbors who had been expressing the most concern, stating they were pleased with the way we had redone the project and they wanted to talk about things like fencing, and you know other accoutrements that we were talking about. in the last few days, we've gotten up to 200 form letters from people in the neighborhood who say they are objecting to the project. those objections take two categories. one they say the project is out of scale for the neighborhood. that is simply not the case. if you take air walk down the sacramento -- a walk down the sacramento neighborhood commercial district, you'll see this building on the block, similar bulk, similar mass. one block down, another building

of the same height and mass. the next block, another building of the same height and mass with retail on the ground level. the next block, another building of the similar height and mass. so this building is light of appropriate what you'll see up and down the commercial district. if we were to take another floor off the building, which i think is what some of the neighbors are asking for, you'd lose nine units of housing, and i don't think that's the right thing for the city or the neighborhood. finally, the form letters you've received also, that is an out of date complaint. all that's required is a rear yard modification for the underground parking garage, which is perfectly appropriate in the situation where the rear yard is going to exist. the only intrusion into the rear yard is underground.

and just to add to the battle of the letters, i've got 47 more obtained today from the neighborhood in support of the project for the record, and let me turn it over to the architect, mr. gee, to tell you a little bit more about the design. thank you. >> president hillis: you can use the overhead, too, if you go back to the --

[inaudible] >> president hillis: all right. >> it's gary gee, gary gee architects. we're the architects for the project. i'm going to use the overhead real quickly. as we -- with this project, we started in 2007 with our e application. one of the things that was very important with the staff was the discussion of the type of buildings that are on this block face on sacramento. as you saw in the previous

pictures, there are buildings such as the spruce restaurant and the other building next to it to the east is a three story brick building, vertical colonnades. we worked with the planning department and what we did was broke the building into 25 foot modules. as you can see on the drawings and on the ground floor, the department asked us to get as much exposure for the retail. we have about 59.5 feet of exposed retail extort frontage, and that is all active use. we have mild small residential lobby on the west side, which is on the right of the image. what's really important here is that the brick colonnades replicate some of the brick buildings across the street. the staff asked us to make the medical dental floor, the second floor, look more like a residential building. so they asked us to make the

upper three floors look like a residential building, and then, create the strong horizontal band for the vertical space that you see in the commercial space, which has 6500 square feet which can be divided into ul ssmaller areas of two spaces. basement level, we have 18 spaces for the residential units. this is required 18 spaces, along with bicycle and bicycle repair station and storage. on the second level that you see, the midlevel, is most of the 32 required medical dental parking, and then on the level below the garage is the 13 retail parking and the other parking that's required for the medical dental. so basically, in -- in our ground floor space, which is very important here -- as you

can see, we tried to open -- the direction of the staff encouraged the very rich urban pedestrian space, and we've got this ground floor exposure, as you can see, the smaller in and out for parking, which is for the remaining 45 -- 43 spaces. so this has been a very good, an excellent experience for ground floor retail space. again, i'm available to answer any questions regarding the building design. again, this is the vertical ground floor retail space that we wanted to show you along with the second floor medical dental. >> president hillis: thank you very much. so we'll open this item up for public comment. we've got a bunch of speak are cards.

john, steve, john burns, noel, roger, linda, matt, julie, ray. and you can speak in any order. >> well, you called my name first, so here i am. >> president hillis: well, that's perfect. >> my name is john herbiel. i'm here representing the simonian trust, we own property down the street. our concerns have to do with air quality. based upon the proposal, they're going to be removing, what, 18,000 cubic yards, okay, which will take over 690 trips with a double trailer, and we're concerned about dirt being blown off the trailer, so they have to be properly tarped, and we should have some restriction on how many truckloads they can do every day.

traffic is also a concern, and parking on the street is another big concern. we have a lot of merchants up and down on the sacramento street corridor who are goes to suffer during this construction. not only because of our the activity and the trucks going back and forth, but with the loss of parking, as well as spaces are reserved for the contractors. we'd like to have some restrictions on that. also of importance to the neighbors, to the retail neighbors in particular, is the fact that we don't want this construction to go on on saturday or sunday which are important days for their retail sales. other than that, we don't have any real problems with it. thank you. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. my name is jason mcdonald. i'm the division president of a large title company here in san francisco. i've been here in san francisco for about 25 years, helping my

associates and partnering with them in some of these development in real estate. i think development as we have all heard this evening has been an ongoing problem here in san francisco. i think this development is a great opportunity to not only get more great housing into a wonderful neighborhood but to also bring great housing with great parking. parki parking is tough. it was tough for me to get here today, find a place to park. i think any time we bring in housing, we can bring teachers in and some of them that can stay. we heard about renting and the expense and difficulty of that. i think this is a great project. it's one of my favorite neighborhoods here in san francisco, but i also think it's a neighborhood that is in need of a refresh in some areas and could use some additional housing, and this is a great project, so i hope you all see these others, and i hope you see the feedback and take a look at this, and i hope you approve it.

thanks. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hi. i'm linda island, and i wanted to make a comment about what the last speaker said. this project in no way is going to be a place that teachers can afford to live. i am a therapist working across the street from the proposed four story building, and i am very concerned about the impact on business owners and therapists in the neighborhood. as a psycho therapist, sacramento street is filled with people like me, trying to work with clients to help them get their mental health to a place that they're happy with. this commercial and residential district has a certain character, and the proposed development far exceeds the

height that most of the dwellings and businesses have. i know they pointed to some buildings that are high, but the majority are really not very hya high at all, and it will vastly change the contrast of that -- character of that street. at the proposed height, valuable southern facing light will be blocked. my office, for example which is directly across the street has one little window that has a tiny corridor to the light source. that will be totally gone, and it will be for all of those buildings directly across the street. homes and offices will be in darkness. yeah, and if -- so if the project is approved, i will have no light with which to work. the scope of the development is such that it could take up to

two years to build. sacramento street is quite a narrow street that has a -- that cars already have very difficulty time bypassing ubers and other people, you know, pulling over on that street. the public will begin to avoid this area for that period of time, so businesses, therapists are -- their businesses are very much going to suffer. it's -- it's really going to be quite heinous to navigate that street. there'll be grid lock, and there'll be huge, huge construction noise for a very long period of time. personally, for me, i am as concerned providing a safe, quiet place for my clients who are coming to talk about their most personal issues, and it is going to be impossible for me to do my work there. it is going to be absolutely impossible to provide that safety for the clients with whom i work, so i do urge you to

reject this proposal. the fact that there are 244 letters in opposition and that this project has taken 11 years i think demonstrates that the neighborhood is not in support of it. thank you. >> president hillis: all right. thank you very much. next speaker. >> hi. i'm matthew holms, and i was here earlier for the whole foods earlier, and ran into my friends in the hallway. just want to say 11 years of staying power to try to get a building permit for 18 units when all we've heard tonight, case after case is the great need for housing. mr. licky's a proven san francisco family. he's done a fantastic mixed use. many of you know the old zim's diner that's been a real boon for the neighborhood.

i think you should consider cpmc relocating eventually, and that's really going to be converted to primarily single-family homes. this provides an apartment opportunity in a very affluent neighborhood which is littered with multimillion dollar houses. it's nice to be able to rent amongst the shadow of giants, and mr. licky did it a couple blocks down the street. he provided parking. i think the spruce will benefit from it. i'll be great to bring a nonchain restaurant or retailer to will licky, and a desirable street -- mr. licky, and a desirable street front. so i urge you to support this development and get a great mixed use project for the neighborhood. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you, mr. holms. next speaker, please. >> my name is steven crolich, and i've lived on locust street for the last 45 years.

i have a group called the presidio heights neighborhood for public safety. and the impact of leakey's properties, especially on the corner of california and locust street has changed the dynamic of that neighborhood. it's noisier, more traffic comes to his garages. to put the garage on sacramento street, i really question how many reservations for cars are necessary since there's already a garage that he owns on the corners of locust and sacramento streets. how many more years are we going to put up with more congestion, for pollution, more traffic on this project? is there a timeline that you know now about how long the project is going to take. is it going to go down and down spruce street or sacramento street or locust street? these are some of the neighborhood questions.

you know, what's really interesting about this, when i moved in this neighborhood 45 years ago, the dust was brown. then it went to gray, and now, it's black. fossil fuels are somewhat damaging, not only our lungs, but our neighborhoods and our buildings. so i don't think we need more traffic and more parking places. just limit it to the requirements that the city has established. i think jeff's a nice guy. i think his property have good intentions. it will change the character of the neighborhood. i don't know if it's going to be the for the worse or for the better, but if you have extra parking like this, people are going to come. we had that issue with the laurel heights -- excuse me, laurel village. they wanted to build another deck to bring in more cars. the neighborhood fought that, and they didn't do it. we have a lot of issues going in with that neighborhood with cpmc being raised next year. there are going to be a lot of

units going in there. and then, we have the university of california where the prada unit wants to put in possibly 550 units. the city has been recommending possibly 700 units. so there's been a dynamic change of the adult of living there. i was jut thinking -- quality of living there. i was just thinking in good humor, if i were 100 years old, what i would think of all of this. thank you. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. mr. colin? >> good evening, commissioners. tim colin on behalf of the san francisco housing action coalition. here's another one. 11 years. how do you -- how do you defend that as a city? i tell people when i travel, working with housing and whatnot in san francisco, and you say things like it takes six, seven, eight, 11 years to get a building permit. and people say stop it. you're exaggerating. they don't believe it, and yet, this is business as usual in this town. the project stands on its own.

this is a perfect example of high density urban infill. couple of observations. i think the city is long past due looking at parking minimums. this is one that might have benefited from not having parking minimums and just taking wha wh what is necessary. the other thing on the height of the project, i've seen this over the years where people are upset and concerned and shocked at the size of this project until someone points out all the other buildings that are of similar size and scale that were built in the 20's and 30's, before we downsized the city. and somehow those are beautiful and they don't raise objection, but god fore bid now we should increase heights and density. what you're being asked to do is please approve a project quickly in the midst of a housing crisis