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 that does exactly what we want

it to do. and i think you've taken some really excellent votes tonight, and again, i would say we're long past the time where we can say gee, this might affect neighborhood character in one of the nicest neighborhoods in the city that wants to put in more housing to say, well, gosh, that's -- that affects the character. you've got to figure out ways to integrate height and density at a far faster scale than we're doing right now if we're ever going to get our hands around this housing affordability crisis. please approve it. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> greeting, commissioners. i am an immediate neighbor of the previous property on california and locust street,

and therefore, i live just around the corner from the proposed development. i think that seeing how the previous development went is a good way of knowing how the new development may go or probably will go, and i could talk for an hour about the previous, but i only have two minutes, so i'll only talk about one subject, parking, traffic. traffic has been dramatically worsened by the property development at california and locust streets. the traffic noise is worse, the amount of traffic is worse. the parking is dramatically worse. previously, people visiting us could park at on our block or the next block. now, they can't park at all. dramatic worsening of the parking. there are now continually

blocked driveways. this happens during the day with trucks double parked, and at night -- listen to this. at night, trucks with their engines running deliver at 3:00 a.m. what happened before the development? there were no such trucks, so there's been a dramatic decrease in the quality of life because of traffic alone because of this development. now, i would -- i imagine that the new development will have a similar effect on traffic. i can't see why it shouldn't. now here's the point of what i have to say. apparently, the environmental impact report has been waived for this project, and there are various conditions under which one can waive such an environmental impact report, and it is required that there be no significant change in the traffic assumed for such a waiver. that's obviously ridiculous, so i'm here today to urge you to

recommend an environmental impact report on this project. finally, to misquote shakespeare, to waive -- to not -- to waive such an impact report is something -- there would be something rotten in the city and county of san francisco. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. that was a first for the evening, shakespeare quote. >> that's another first. patrick richards. thank you for hearing me. i'm a business owner. i've worked on sacramento street for 20 years. i've had a business for 19. i'm right nexted to the proposed. -- next door to the proposed. i'm literally 6 inches in between, and i've never heard anything of what they wanted to do. i'm not against change, i'm just against big change. i heard someone say their kid

went to pacific primary. my wife can teach at pacific primary and still does because i own a business and i work really hard for this. this huge project is going to kill my business. very sorry. i'm not -- as i said, i'm not against the change, but just not as big of a change. sacramento street is wonderful. families grow up there. the building that they're showing, i looked at the rendering, that's not a building they came up for for sacramento street. if you look at the cars, they all have european license plates on them, so it's a stock. i love san francisco, i love sacramento street. it's given me and my family a wonderful life, so as i'm saying, i'm not against the whole project, i'm against the scale of the project. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please.

>> hello. my name is julia villis, and this is my husband raymond. he's been there since '75 working, and since '85, we've been in the neighborhood. the project itself, i understand why people get emotional. i would get emotional if i was under those circumstances, but that was a blighted area in the sense of the whole gist of the neighborhood if you walked through and looked at it right now. and i think with the underground parking and having the -- you know, housing in that particular neighborhood would be wonderful, and i approve it. >> especially the parking. >> underground. >> the parking is very difficult, day and night. we're here in support of the project. >> the project, yeah. we were talking about the underground parking versus not

having it like the other project over there on laurel and california. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good evening. my name is alex thompson. i live at 433 locust street, directly adjacent to the property and have lived there for 18 years. i attended the outreach hearings that the project sponsors held. he has not addressed the major complaint of massing and scale of this project or these use of size in the project. i oppose the requested conditional use authorizations. the combined lot size of 14,585 square feet exceeds the recommended size in the neighborhood district by 292%. the sacramento street n.c.d. spans just over five blocks and includes only 105 lots. the existing two lots already

exceed the maximum allowed size and are currently the sixth and tenth largest lots in the district. only 16 lots out of those 105 are over 5,000 square feet. the median lot size is only 3,314 square feet. this new lot would be the second largest behind only menorah park at second and walnut. the frontage of this frontage would be 110 feet. the median frontage on sacramento street is only 27.5 feet. that is four times less than this project. the proposed size creates a mass and facade that is not compatible with the existing scale of the district and does not contribute to the positive visual quality of the district as the n.c.d. code requires. additionally, the sponsor is requesting c.u.a.'s for two nonresidential uses that exceed the district maximum of 2500

square feet. in the sacramento n.c.d., only four c.u.a.'s exceptions. neither of those mixed use developments contains a nonresidential use that is over the allowed size. c.u.a.'s in this district are rare, and this project is asking for three of them. the excessive use sizes require providing 45 off street parking spaces, or 71% of the proposed 63 spaces. this is why there are three underground levels of parking. if the retail and office were each under 5,000 square feet, the required parking would drop to the 18 spaces provided for the proposed residential units. i urge you to not approve the request presented by the project sponsor, the scale of this development is not what the n.c.d. code intends. thank you.

>> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please, and i'll call some names. annie, nick, stella, patrick, jay, brandon, alex. [inaudible] >> president hillis: if your name's called, go ahead. nobody seems to be coming, but if i called your name, just lineup on the screen side of the room. >> hi there. my name is jennifer. i've lived in the neighborhood with my family now for 14 years. i want to speak to you about how the neighborhood feels about the project in general, and i am as you can see, the keeper of all of the letters. i'm going to try to address the e-mail that they showed earlier later, but i want to get through the most important stuff with you now.

so where we are, and i'm glad that mary did a count because we are counts actually higher than mine. not just -- >> president hillis: you need to speak into the microphone. >> oh, sorry. we have represent 90 unique addresses in the immediate neighborhood and 30 is supporting unique addresses. we also have 244 letters and counting. i got more today of oppositions to project, where they have -- my count is # t90. they tried to put 35 letters based in 2015 through, some of them with the persons signing twice. i have that documented, so my count is about 90. either way you slice it, we have way more opposition letters.

the red square -- [inaudible] >> -- all of the orange is opposition. the red square is the proposed prosecute proje project. i also want to mention that as many have mentioned, sacramento street is a really small, quiet, historical street. there are many therapists, many small businesses. i'm sure you guys have all been there for something, and it is quiet. this is a massive project that doesn't belong here. it only adds 18 units of housing. no one is against housing. it's the size and scale of this project that everyone is opposed to. retailers, they are not going to survive this. they've all said unanimously, we will not survive this length of

project. everyone else is also coming on the heels of this laurel village approval project which was very small in comparison. all those businesses suffered greatly over the summer. people stopped coming around. they don't want to shop and run their errands around construction sites. that was nothing compared to this, so i please urge you to please keep the public's thoughts when you're making your decision tonight, and we are willing to negotiate something smaller, but this as is is not appropriate. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening president hillis and members of the planning commission. my name is brandon ponce. i've lived adjacent to the project for 18 years and i am also a licensed professional in the state of california of the this project is not located at a corner lot, it is boxed in, it

is midblock. sacramento street is also very narrow and congested already. there will be extreme difficulty to access in and out for such a large scale project. these restrictive site constraints will stretch out the construction schedule to up to three years, and the many small businesses, they just will not survive this. they are extremely worried. regarding the deep excavation, a massive excavation of up to 50 feet is proposed. the excavation is so deep that the proposed building will be beneath the natural groundwater table by 15 feet or more. this is affirmed by two different geotechnical reports prepared in 2009 and again in 2018. this groundwater combined with settlement, caving of the loose,

sandy material in the area and the sustained vibration from demolition and piling, this is guaranteed to cause damage to the old, fragile adjacent buildings. because of the deep excavation, tie backs are needed to be constructed on adjacent properties to hold the huge retaining walls in place. what about permissions from the adjacent property owners? none of this has been brought up by the owner. we are not okay with this. this is not okay for the lots to be combined. the size of the project, it needs to be scaled back, and the excavation is way too deep for the area. please listen to the opposition of over 244 people who live and work next to this proposed project, and please deny the conditional use authorization.

thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is cynthia silversteen, and my family has owned the property adjacent to the proposed project on the east side for 47 years. i'm a fourth generation san franciscan, and i'm not change of verse. i think the housing is great. the scale -- i don't know if any of you have been out to actually see that block, but this building -- i wish i had a picture of it up, but it's massive, and i am very concerned that my building is going to fall into the hole. i have -- my family has maintained this position since 2012, which was the first contact we had with the developer and miss pulling, so i'm asking you to ask the developer to go back to the drawing board till we have -- i submitted a very detailed

opposition letter. we have light issues. our buildings are typical san francisco buildings, they're right next to each other. like literally, there's probably half an inch between our wall and mr. litke's wall. i -- the only light for my tenants on the second and third floor, and i submitted their photographs in my opposition letter -- comes from that side of the building. it's going to be this massive building. i think there must be a way for the developer to either angle that side of the building, scale back the retail, keep the residential, not go down three floors. i think there's got to be a compromise. i'm certainly willing to make a compromise, but since 2012, i haven't been able to see one. so commissioners, thank you very much. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please.

>> good evening, commissioners. i'll be reading a letter from douglas matthew, who is the owner of regalo cafe located at 3465 and 3415 california street. he wasn't able to come here tonight, but he asked me to read this letter on his behalf. commissioners, i urge you to support the mixed use project sponsored by san francisco locust associates. this well designed plan would bring 18 much needed homes to san francisco, funding towards building affordable homes, new jobs for construction, much desired public parking and the refreshed look to the 3600 block of sacramento street. please approve this project that contributes to the city's goal to build new housing, generate job opportunities and improve streetscape safety to the neighborhood. in addition, i would like to mention that the businesses on sacramento street and in laurel village on california street have suffered from a 25% drop in foot traffic in the last several

years, for neighborhood retail businesses to thrive, we need a minimum critical mass of residents to frequent the businesses. laurel village has a lower density of residents to businesses than most areas in the city, so we could use some higher density housing. automatic in all, i feel this -- all in all, i feel this project would be good for the neighborhood. thank you for listening. >> vice president melgar: next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. i am reading a letter from carol warninsky who wants to be here tonight but was unable to attend. planning commissioners, i have been a renter in suite ha 3630 sacramento street since april 1, 2007. it was from this location that is maintained a private practice

in clinical psychology. on june 29, 2007, sacramento locust associates became the managers of my building. during these almost 11.5 years i've known the lictes, i've known them to be honest with their tenants. there are several drawbacks to having an office in this neighborhood. there's not nearly enough parking, one, there's not enough housing. i believe that the plan put forth by sacramento locust associates will add greatly to the available parking space as well as add more badly needed housing units. the restoration of retail spaces on the ground floor should make

tenants as well as customers happy. i do believe that the completes project will be a -- completed project will be a definite long-term asset to the neighborhood. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi name is nick simpson, and i've been a local banker in the area for the last 15 years. i absolutely love this neighborhood. i am so lucky to work there. i met my wife there. she's a doctor. i left the city to go and work in the peninsula, and part of it was because you had to share an office. we're talking about sharing homes and sharing apartments, my wife had to share an office with another doctor. i think this building helps to alleviate some of the pressure

that's going to come from cpmc moving. i've known jeff for a number of years, and i think you should trust him. i've got a number of people in this room that are on both sides of this, and i think it's something that the area needs and there's a lot of pain that all of us need to go through in order for this area to be improved upon, and i think it desperately needs it, so thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. >> good evening. my name is jim sobel, and i am a commercial real estate broker here in san francisco. my relationship with jeff is i've worked with him for 15 years. i do a lot of work. he is an excellent landlord, looks after his tenants, looks after his buildings in an incredible way. i know there's a lot of opposition to the size and scale of this project, and i think the difficulty is going to be during

the time that it's built. i understand those concerns, but the neighborhood itself will benefit once it's completed, and i urge you all to approve the project. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good evening. i'm reading a support letter on behalf of barbara devini who wants to be here to express her support. dear planning commission and zoning administrator i'm writing to provide support for the project. currently, i am a tenant at 3637 sacramento suite g, and when i became aware of the project, this news could not have come at a better time for the presidio heights neighborhood and the city of san francisco. the demolition and rebuilding of the buildings will allow many benefits for the neighborhood, including, but not limited to,

increases parking, increased traffic, providing increased revenue and medical and dental businesses will return to the building. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is stephanie maldonado, and i am reading this letter on behalf of craig green dld wood who is unfortunately able to attend. he is the principle of the prado group, and that is one of the teams that is working on the 3333 cal project just down the street. dear planning commissioners, we are writing to express our support for the proposed development at 3637 -- 3657 sacramento street. the project would create much needed housing in a walkable and family friendly neighborhood. we reviewed the arkt tekt ral drawings dated march 17, 2017, with the latest revisions, for

the demolition of the two structures and construction of one new mixed use building. we were engaged at a later stage in the community outreach process but have reared that the developer has been -- heard that the developer has been collaborating with the community on the project. we look forward to this project creating a much needed new housing opportunity. very truly yours, craig greenwood. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. our family owns the building directly behind the proposed project on sacramento street. we oppose this project because it proposed to build three floors of below grade parking, and we are very concerned that the depth of this will krakower

building's foundation. we also find that the size of the project will change the character of the neighborhood, and we are concerned that the -- this will negatively impact the businesses in this neighborhood. we don't find that this proposed project is appropriate for this neighborhood. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is maggie chafen, and i really didn't have any intention of saying anything this evening, but 44 years ago, i opened a children's store in the block, dottie doolittle. i think it's inappropriate for me to oppose the project, but i just need to understand who's going to protect me because i've heard so many people say this evening that i'm going to fail,

and i went to work at 5:30 this morning. and i'm -- small business is in crisis. i would have voted against the whole foods, but i just don't know -- it's such a huge project, and it's pretty amazing that i've been there for 44 years. i know i can do this till i'm 80, so any way, i -- i'm going to be there. i just had to say something because i'm right there. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. my name is john burns, and i live at 3616 and 3618 sacramento, right across the street from this proposed

project. i just want to clarify one thing. i don't know if you can see this. you see the top in a section there, i just disagree with the assertion by the architect that this isn't a bigger footprint than what exists. there's sacramento street from my side at the top row there, and as you can see, this four-story project is, you know, definitely the highest and also the widest in the whole street. and we can debate the design, but certainly inconsistent with the kind of early 1900's design of all the other properties. and that's not to say that a new project can'ting consist because there are examples of that, including one that he showed on -- on the 3400 block. the other thing that i'd like to emphasize is -- you know is as

mentioned, laurel village had its modest little street project. it's been going on close to a year now, and so when anybody tells you this is a two year deal. it's going to take much longer than that, and a huge amount of disruption, which will greatly affect retail in the area. so i'm not opposed to any development here, but i think you need to consider something a lot smaller. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> yes. my name's marsha hermann, and i'm speaking in opposition to the size of this project as it is proposed. my husband and i are owners of two small commercial office and retail -- you know, commercial buildings on the street within a block of there, and i have 17

psychotherapy offices, medical offices above the two buildings and two retail spaces. we've owned these buildings since the 80's, and the retail businesses have always struggled there. seven out of eight in one building have gone under in the 30 years. the current one's only been there six months. she seems to be doing okay. in the other building, five out of the six prior businesses went under. the current one has been there 15 years. i've cut her rent substantially when she's needed it, and she's way below market rate. my psycho therapist tenants have been with me for 20 to 30 years. they're on a month to month, 30-day notice agreement with me if they want to leave. the noise from the demolition, the construction, the dirt, and massive amount of trucks that are going to go in and out of this to excavate 40 feet down, it's going to be way over two

years, regardless of what the contractors say, and it's going to cause everybody to leave. for my 30 years of experience, if this -- if the retail tenants go under, i have no financial resource with them. my husband and i are 73 and 78 years old, and we count on these for my retirements. we have mortgages, on these buildings, and it will bankrupt me. it's going to bankrupt businesses of many, many years on this street, too. many of these business owners are older. this is what they've put everything they have into. the cost of putting in more retail space is extraordinary -- what good is it if it tanks everybody that are in the neighborhood? there's empty retail spaces i know on california between laurel and spruce and there's one empty space on sacramento

street. the -- this project is -- it's way too big for the -- you know, for this neighborhood and it's incompatible with the historical character of the block. i fully support a project here of mixed income residential housing. we need that here. i have no objection to that, but we don't need more retail, and the cost of digging down 40 feet for three levels of parking space is going to kill the retail businesses and the medical offices that are currently there. i'm in opposition to this project. >> president hillis: thank you.

>> my name is natasha. i'm a fourth generation native san franciscan. just want to let you know i'm concerned about the complexion of my city. i'm wondering why the commission allows a cookie cutter building to be put on this street, and that you require business owners and property owners when they want to change a building -- i mean, a window in a building, they have to jump through hoops so that it maintains a historical integrity of the building, and yet, this looks like it would be perfect for south of market. but why you're allowing something like this to come in and pollute the neighborhood, i don't understand. [please stand by]

>> that is currently an eyesore. it would add to the beauty and

functionality. the project provides 18 additional apartments that the city needs and aligns with the city's dpoels of increasing -- goals of increasing housing in the san francisco. this will add foot traffic to both sacramento street and lower village. the project adds 64 parking spaces, which 45 will be open to the public. they will benefit from the much needed parking. more than ever, it is critical that the city of san francisco continues to support growth in our brick-and-mortar shopping districts. resulting in increased foot traffic. i have been personally operating in the lower village since 1988 and see this project as a win for the neighborhood. >> president hillis: next speaker, please. >> my family owns the building across the street. i intended to be here as a

neutral person to support mitigation measures that you could adopt if you approve this project. though i do have some handouts here. i was a little offended by the project developer citing our building as one that has the mass that their building does. we're two stories over retail. this is a project of 85,000 square feet. 85,000. in the 15 years that i was on the planning commission, the board of appeals, i never saw a project this size in the neighborhood commercial district. now, maybe since then it's changed, but i never saw something this big because commercial districts were not designed for this kind of mass. this is a small street. it's not lombard street. it's a small narrow street,

despite the pictures shown there that look like it was four or five lanes. you have three restaurants. a cafe. and 15 retail stores on this street. the ones i've talked to are deathly afraid given the fragility of small businesses that many of them are going to go out of business. so the challenge for you, if you're going to approve this project -- by the way, this is not a housing project. this project was originally proposed as retail and medical offices above. and it was the planning commission and the planning department that pushed them to put housing above which was fine. if you eliminated a floor, you could eliminate the medical offices there. not the housing. but getting to my point, the planning department in terms of mitigation measures says leave it to the police department for noise. leave it to sfmta to deal with the traffic.

leave it with the dbi for the dust. you're going to have a big building in there and vacant store fronts around it. don't hand off the responsibility for the mitigation measures to other city agencies. you can put conditions on this project that will help safeguard, help -- can't say guarantee -- help safeguard the measures that the safety and the viability of the businesses that are there. restricting construction hours, restricting the staging of dump trucks. we've all seen what happens downtown. this is not downtown. you have four dumps waiting on sacramento street to go in and take the dirt out and drive out. you shouldn't have them all four there. you maybe have one going in, one going out. little things like that might make the project a better project for the neighbors and particularly the retail

businesses there. >> president hillis: thank you, sir. next speaker. if anybody else would like to speak, now is your time. >> hello. my name is michael. i'm resident at 48 locust street. been there over eight years. and came here tonight because our family -- first born, but my daughter has been born there. we've enjoyed living there. and been responsible landlord to us, he's taken care of us. when we had break-in issues, he stepped up and got everybody together in the building and came up with solutions to increase security in the building. that is something that a lot of landlords i've lived with in the past would not have done. i don't think we can would here in that building if it wasn't

for having high density housing. and so please, i would like you to support this project and please improve it, thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional public comment on the item? commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: so there is a lot i like about the project. additional housing units on a corridor, check. medical offices, we're all getting older, that's kind of a place where i think people go to seek medical care. people have doctors up there. there is hospitals up is there. check. on the ground floor, retail, still makes sense. i think it stitches back to street wall. we have these kind of weird 1960s buildings that really break up the character of the street wall and the commercial corridor. i like the fact that it creates

a rear yard where there is none that exists now. on the flip-side, what i see is, i honestly say, is a project that is too big. the reason i'm saying that is, you're asking for a lot size to combine two lots, even though each one is over 5,000 square feet. we have a very large development. you're asking for a few to make these very large retail and large medical service spaces and then because of that, you need a minimum parking, which then creates a lot of digging and dredging that you're going to ask for hardship variance from the zoning administrator. it's from your own making we're in this situation. i understand where the neighbors are coming from, because we know that business disruption. we talked about fragility of small business. we read about construction problems with the central subway on stockton street. chinatown folks were going out

of business, they asked for handouts from the city. van ness, we just had several businesses go out there because of the construction. front page of the kren chronicle tt. we had a lot of businesses go out because nobody wanted to go there. there was so much construction activity going on. one speaker said they touted the street being transient oriented, if you're touting in ncd, why do you need so much parking? the parking is the biggest problem. going down that much, creates this massive issue for the surrounding businesses and neighbors. and i don't support the lot combination. i think that's getting us into this problem. i liken this building to the building on 24th street in the valley. you have this long building at

100 something feet and it doesn't work. i don't support the project as is, but i think there is a will the of things about it -- lot of things about it, but it needs to go back and parking needs to be looked at. >> commissioner johnson: i'd like to hear from the project sponsors, why you chose the lot mergers and this amount. i would love to hear any comments you have in response. >> a couple of points. the reason for the lot merger is to create the space. it gives you workable medical-dental space. if you break it up into three different buildings, it doesn't work. you're going to lose, even if the developer was willing to do something like that, he would lose probably a third of the housing units. so the design which she can

respond to, is not one linear long block design. it is broken up to have the appearance to the eye of different buildings. so in that, we worked hard with planning staff on that design to make it not just one monolith. so while we completely understand and i wish you had an opportunity to hear from mr. lipky, i thought we were going to have a rebuttal period, who could address the heartfelt concerns of the small businesses and the plans he has to help them with the parking and traffic issues during construction. we get it. but as to the design, there is no way this is going work as three different buildings. >> i'd like to hear from him. i'd like to hear some of the mitigations.

things that you have to address some of the small business owners. i would love that. my name is jeff. i am a sponsor of this project. i have been a builder in san francisco since 1970. and built the building on the corner of california and locust streets, one block away from this proposed building. with charles schwab and u are tenants. i have spoken to people about what impact this construction will have. living and working in the area. the major concerns from my

conversations with the neighbors have been parking, noise, and dust. as for the parking, i believe i have a good solution. we have parking spaces in our building on california street, which is closed and secure. we will dedicate this parking to those working at the site as well as to the neighbors who are inconvenienced and the businesses there for the duration of our construction at no cost to them. dust issues have been reduced significantly since the beginning of constant water spraying during outdoor construction. for projects of this size, the controlling of dust is not an impossibility. it's not a long excavation

period. it will be a month and a half to two months. it's true. six long trucks -- pardon me, parked in a row, that is not happening. that's impossible. we understand it. as to the noise, a project with demolition and excavation can be noisy. we will inform our crews that no demolition or excavation work can begin before 9:00 a.m. and must be finished up at day's end by 4 p.m. we understand that noise in this area is of a major concern. and we will be sensitive to our neighbor's needs. we have lived and worked in this area for generations and we are not building for sale and then moving on. we recognize that the others who live here are our neighbors. we do not want to walk into the

local stores and restaurants and not be able to smile at the people. people that we see all the time. >> thank you. we appreciate that. so, if i may just add some comments. i just wanted the community to hear a little bit of your perspective and also some of the things, some of the mitigations that you've thought of for some of the concerns that have been brought up. so thank you. >> can you repeat that? >> yeah. i just wanted the community to hear a bit of your perspective and some of the -- some responses to some of the issues that they've brought up and i think you've done that very well. >> i think the one thing that hasn't been addressed is the viability of the commercial people there. take a look at hay street, phil

street, lower golf. you want to see active, vibrant areas? they are. and they weren't when i was a kid growing up in the neighborhood. there was no shops there. there were no restaurants. you start adding a few, it multiplies. people are now interested in going into these areas. you can't just leave a few shops that may be making it, may not be making it. vibrancy is the life of the city. >> thank you. so, i'll just wrap up my comments because i know it's a late hour. i've spent time in this neighborhood. my chiropractor is in the building. after that, i go out and stop and hang out and get second hand goods. go over to sweet things, get baked goods. and really love this neighborhood and all of the local shops and businesses.

i hear the concerns about traffic, about impact and at the same time, i think our job as commissioners is really to look at the city as a whole and what some of the big challenges are and how every district and every neighborhood can address some of those challenges. when i think about this parcel and have been in that very strange building, i think that this corridor and this particular block could use more foot traffic, could use more vibrancy. i'm excited by the opportunity for folks to live at this space and for there to be retail on the ground and office space in the middle. i am interested in what commissioner richards shared around parking. i actually think there should be accessibility to parking. especially with doctors' spaces.

i'm usually not for extra parking. i'm a big transit person, i don't have a driver's license, but i would agree, i don't think that we need the level of parking that is here. though i know why the project sponsor has chosen to put that level of parking. i would actually support this project. and i would be interested in having the project sponsor think seriously about some of the conditions for mitigation that have been proposed. you know, thinking about construction on weekend. thinking about shrink wrap on the building. a community liaison that could be available to the community to contact if there are issues that arise and they want to discuss with you. and working with the small businesses in the corridor to ensure they remain vibrant as the development happens.

>> i am generally supportive of housing here. i'm supportive of actually the height. i have thoughts about the design which i think is a little blocky, a little bit big. to the merchants, actually patrick, the gentleman with the tattoos that got emotional, is the only guy i will let touch my hair. i've been to him many times. i'm sensitive to that. there is not too much relief on the sidewalk. do you remember the building we approved on 9th and irving, i think it was lemonade, similar kind of width, but there was something that gave it a little more setback for the neighbors. i don't want a redesign, but those are comments. is there a merchant association

for this portion? and was there any sort of formal discussion with the project sponsor and maybe doing some additional marketing, some signage, some mitigation not just during construction, but to fortfy the street. i'll throw that out as a suggestion. yes. come to the mic please, just for a second. >> yes, we have reached out more than a few times. our biggest ability to communicate with with spruce. they have parking issues. they rent spaces from us now. we explained what we have to offer, which is basically free space for what they rent now. they said they would not be opposed to it. with these kinds of conditions. >> thank you. that's the kind of thing, you

can sit down. >> can i say one other thing? i'll be quiet. >> very quickly. >> they talked about how much parking there is in that area. right now in the garage we have, which is underground, there is more parking than we're actually going to have when we're done. >> so how far down below grade are you? >> three levels. it's about -- >> existing? no, not existing. >> how far down are you now? >> gary? >> existing garage building on the right is two-level building, that's like a half level down. the grade drops about 7 feet i think in that direction on that property line, so it's really about a half level down, like a subbasement level and level above. it's split when you come into the driveway. >> there is a lot of excavation? >> there are 75 parking spaces. >> we're not supposed to get into the economics of it, but i find it hard to believe this

project will pencil out going three stories deep with the garage. and if that is the case, i would be supportive to reduce some of the parking to take some of the weight off this building. i don't know how we get there, but i'd be open that as well. the small businesses and their success, i hate to say this is a little bit about the fear of small businesses and trying to support them, this project won't kill small businesses. they're already in a fragile state. so this could be the final straw, but i want to be clear that development necessarily does not stop or kill small business, but i think that given this particular time where we are, how fragile some of these businesses are and that they're mom-and-pop shops, puts them in a vulnerable space. i just want to be clear, it's not -- it's not construction projects that is killing small

business. in this case, it may be the case, but i want to make that clear. >> president hillis: just on the follow-up on some of the parking issues. what is code -- what does code require? minimum, maximums? we know there is 18 units of housing. i'm assuming it's one for one on the housing. we don't tend to see buildings with a lot of public parking. so what is the rationale and thinking about behind this? >> zoning administrator. this is kind of an interesting project in the sense that the code would require one to one for the residential units and then there is ratio for the retail and medical office and basically that combines up to 32 spaces. that's a grand total of 45 commercial spaces and 18 residential spaces. in this situation, they want the 45 commercial spaces, instead of

being just accessory to the retail and the medical office, to be open to the public. and that's why part of the -- part of what you're asked to make a decision on today is to permit a public parking garage. now, obviously customers of the retail and the medical offices can use that to be available for other people. so in this situation, they're proposing the amount of parking, but they're requesting this flexibility for the commercial parking to be less parking for the general public. >> president hillis: and we're not -- staff is not -- i mean i was surprised to see this amount of parking. maybe you all can give us your perspective. i mean, some of the issues we're hearing about the scale of this project, i think in the construction impact are on the excavation and parking. i'm fine with the kind of what is above ground. i think it looks fine.

i think we've broken up that building enough to make it look like it fits in. i get it. it's not the typical 25-foot lot. but three stories down for parking in public parking mid block? it seems a little like we're going backwards on parking. >> right. i totally hear you. that's what i thought the first time i looked at the project. but you've got to realize there are 78 parking spaces there now. if we're concerned about the small businesses and the survival of the small businesses, they rely on that parking. they need that parking. so we've provided only the parking that the code requires, not a single space more, but we're also reducing the total number of spaces that are currently there. so, it's a double edged sword. i totally get the transit priorities -- >> president hillis: you're different from the project sponsor side and whether there

is one story less of parking below ground? >> no, because i think our neighbors would be totally up in arms if we were taking away an entire floor of parking. a lot of the neighbors and especially the commercial neighbors are supportive of the project because we're restoring the parking. i think it would be pulling the rug out from under them if we suddenly change the project -- >> president hillis: we heard a little bit of both on that. like the scale of the project and how much underground parking is pretty significant compared to what we see elsewhere. >> i understand. but again, it's what the neighborhood relies on now. so, plus, it's what the neighborhood relies on now, plus 18 units of housing that -- >> president hillis: but that's not what is generating the parking need or use. >> that is generating the need for 18 spaces.

>> yeah, right. on one level. >> and then the 78 spaces there that are taken away. replaced with 45 spaces. so i understand what you're a saying about three stories of underground parking and lot of excavation, but given what we're taking away and putting back in, i think it strikes the right balance. >> president hillis: ok. we don't typically allow raised hands and people to come up, but... go ahead. you have to come up to the mic, to the mic, to the mic. tell me who are you again? >> john burns. i live on sacramento street. and the parking, because i used to rent a space that exists now is not the kind of parking they're talk about. it's monthly lonte