Versus enforceability of what really is underpinning which i completely associate myself with, as a matter of public policy, about whether or not whoever is in that spot, do the community right. Do you end up with a store that does not do the community right, or a vacancy . I am willing to take that bet. Trader joes is willing to live without. Insofar as we are actually changing a piece of formula retail legislation to bring them in. That enticement was here which is precisely why this is on the calendar. I would respectfully, in addition to the change i indicated on page three relatively to the unsupportable finding of a non formula Retail Grocery store being less affordable which i would remove, and i will make a motion to that so it would start with a capital, this one time left on the and tended to support. And then i would agree with the recommendation of the Planning Commission on page five, subsection c, to be eliminated. I would suggest that we keep, on pages six, section e and make the change and that asked ms. Florez about at line 11 which is to change in the file number from 182 18 up to 19. One more clerical change which was to amend of the lot references on page two, insofar as lots 15 and 28 were subdivided and are now lots 15198 and i think the way you are an amendment that said 15 198, and i dont know, mr. Gartner gartner, i would personally say 15 through 198 inclusive. That is up to you. Deputy City Attorney, job gartner, that is fine. Either way works whatever the community prefers. Apparently i have done my weekend reading. If that is acceptable to you, supervisor brown, i would make that motion as i just set forth. That is acceptable. I want to grocery store. God bless. I want to grocery store, too, or this would not be on for the first time in 100 years. Let the record show that there is a girth of Grocery Stores long before there was a formula retail band in this part of the city. Without objection, we will take that amendment and without objection we will forward the item as amended with a recommendation the full board. Next item, please. Three through five together. Item three, ordinance approving project to occupy portions of presidio avenue, masonic avenue, pine street, euclid avenue, mayfair drive, and laurel street adjacent to 3333 california street for the purpose of installing and improvements; waiving conflicting requirements under public works codes and appropriate finding. Item four, 190844. 3333 california street special use district. Ordinance amending the planning code and zoning map to create the 3333 california street special use district; and making environmental findings, item five, 190845. Laurel heights partners, 3333 california Street Project. Ordinance approving a Development Agreement between the city and county of San Francisco and Laurel Heights partners, llc. Thank you. This project which is over 10 acres in a very rare piece of land in San Francisco lies in supervisor safai district and we are joined by supervisor. Nine. The floor is yours. Thank you. Im going to be brief in my opening remarks and simply set the stage for the Department Presentations on three pieces of legislation pertinent to this project. Before you is a special use districts, a Development Agreement ordinance and a major encroachment ordinance. The site come as you just mentioned is the current ucsf Laurel Heights campus which is currently in office park fence in by a brick wall. The Development Agreement before you is for 744 units of housing with 186 units dedicated to muchneeded Affordable Housing and low income seniors. The developer will be responsible for finding onsite Senior Housing in the Development Agreement is the best way for the city to assure that this major benefit is realized. My understanding is that we have presentations from three departments today, planning, office of economic worth of Course Development and public. We also have a brief presentation from the project sponsor. I am ready to dive into those presentations, if that is okay . Lead to dive. Let us dive. Sf gov tv, please. Good afternoon, commissioners. Im nick foster with Department Staff. Im joined with several colleagues by the Planning Department. All of whom are available to answer specific questions during your deliberations after providing a brief overview of the project. I will hand the presentation over to owd, public works as well as the project sponsor representative. Well provide a more detailed overview of the project. The items before your consideration a part of a suite required approval to facilitate the proposed mixeduse project located at 3333 california street. Community items and ordinance submitting planning code and zoning map amendments. Finally and ordinance approving a major encroachment permit. On september 5, 2019 the Planning Commission heard and consider the testimony presented on behalf of the project sponsor, Department Staff and took action on the following items. Certification of the final Environmental Impact report pursuant to the sequel. Adoption of sql findings, adoption of recommendation for approval and map amendments. Adoption of a recommendation of approval for develop an agreement and lastly approval request for conditional use authorization and planning develop men. Now onto the project itself. This project is located at 3333 california street which is redeveloped at the project site with residential retail childcare, open space and parking uses. Existing 14,000 squarefoot annex building, would be demolished and the existing a proximally 455,000 squarefoot Office Building would be partially demolished and reused. With residential use above three stories of each building. The project would then construct 13 New Buildings ranging from either fourstory townhomes to six story Apartment Buildings either residential only or mixed building containing nonresidential uses on the first and second floor. Overall, the project received a total of 744 dwelling units with 25 provided as onsite senior affordable units with a proximally 35,000 square feet of retail area. 847 Parking Spaces in 839 bicycle Parking Spaces. Related to the site plan the project will provide approximately 52 of the overall lot area and grade level open space. Some of this would be privately. In total the project would include a total of approximately 2. 88 acres of a privately owned, publicly us assessable area. The project would include streetscape improvements to strengthen the network of existing sidewalks, street crossings including improvements along travertine, masonic, euclid avenue, laurel street. These improvements meet goals and objectives of the cities that are streets. On july 30th of this year, a planning code text ordinance was introduced that established the 3333 s. U. D. [reading notes] subject to the controls of the planning district including subsequent retail use, and other nonresidential uses. The ordinance was specify offstreet parking for childcare use established for the housing and meet space requirements, establish procedures for permit approvals and distinguish a development restriction on the property otherwise known as the city Planning Commission resolution 41. 09. Change the height and the bulk of the site. That concludes my prepared remarks. I want to hang my presentation to my colleague. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, supervisors. I am from the office of Economic Development on the project manager on this project. The project before you today represents a significant contribution to the efforts at housing, particularly Affordable Housing in all parts of the city while remaining contextual to the neighborhood. The proposed Development Agreement includes a broad package of Community Benefits in exchange for the entitlement. During which the project sponsor will build up the project. The benefits are specifically targeted to the neighborhood and are appropriate for the smaller scale of this project. As is the 15 year da term which is shorter than the city. The da benefits are onsite Affordable Housing. Over 2 acres of rehabilitated and publicly accessible open space and additional private residential open space. Which of the developer will fund, operate and maintain. The key element of this redesign space is that it opens up the site by creating a network of accessible public pathways from all directions. It will preserve the existing green lawn at euclid avenue as public open space. The general operating rules and regulation vision for the open spaces are specified in the da and are consistent with the public parks in the city. Additional benefits include 14,000 squarefoot Childcare Center with 10 reserve for low income families and provider will work with San Franciscos office of early childcare and education to facilitate scholarships for these families. Enhance commitments and streetscape Pedestrian Safety and improvements are included. And negotiated Fire Department auxiliary water system v. I want to focus on the key project benefit which is the Affordable Housing plan. 25 of the projects units will be onsite Affordable Housing for low income seniors. A mix of studio and one bedrooms will make up the 185 units reserved for senior households with an average income of 59 of the ami. With an additional unit Onsite Building manager. The affordable building will be located on california street adjacent to supporting ameniti amenities, retail transit and colocated with the Childcare Center. Residents within a threequarter mile radius of the site will receive targeted marketing and intended preference for units. The terms require the project sponsor to complete and open the senior building before more than 386 market rate units are completed. This project includes no city subsidies. Which means that that is in the third phase . Roundabout, yes. What security does the city have to ensure that that will actually happen . Great timing. Thats information im getting ready to provide on my next as security for the city the project sponsor is also required to see out on each of those market rate units into an escrow account to be used to fund the senior affordable building. If the development is not completed and available for its intended residence the da specifies that the city has the right to acquire the scene or at no cost and to use the escrow funds to complete the senior building starting year 12 of the term. The city and developer are currently working with the Housing Accelerator Fund to try to expedite the construction of that senior affordable building. These affordable units represent a significant benefit from the project and will be a major increase in the Affordable Housing stock in the Northwest Side of the city. By the way, we did not rehearse that, nor did we work to match our ties today. No, i pride myself on being get on my feet. So thank you for that. At this time i will hand over this portion of the presentation to my colleagues. We have a lot of questions about trees, so be prepared. Good afternoon. Engineer, Infrastructure Task force. San francisco public works received an application from the developer to do the following within the public rightofway that falls under what we call a major encroachment permit. That would include the elimination of specifically what we call a swift language is a lane of traffic that goes there without stopping at various intersections. Wall street and presidio and on masonic and travertine avenues. In those cases the sidewalk will be widened to provide better Pedestrian Access and crossings to those areas. As part of this, as you can see on the drawing, there are proposed future stairs, steps, low retraining walls, planners and various landscaping features that leads to the develop insight. These elements are, in this case, are more than what public works can normally approve on encroachment permit administratively. As part of the Development Agreement the developer, as well as the Planning Department has identified the need to remove of street trees and significant trees along the frontage during the development, and there is a proposed replacement of trees in the area. Because of how the Development Agreement and everything is structured in consultation of the City Attorneys Office we determined it is more appropriate to combine both the tree removal permit with the major encroachment permit making it into an ordinance instead of a resolution. I will be here to answer any questions you may have. I dont know if this is in your wheelhouse, this is that public works code section 800 which is the urban forestry ordinance and significant tree portion of the part of the public works code. Some of these are trees on public land. Some of the trees that are slated for removal are on private land. But within this ordinance, which is item three on our calendar, which is the major encroachment permit legislation, refers to the removal of 15 street trees and 19 significant trees with the required replacement of 88 street trees and 49 significant trees and the payment of an in lieu fee for 12 trees. Can you explain all of that to us. Thats probably not in your wheelhouse where youd wheelhouse . Perv the public works, obviously street trees in the public rightofway falls under jurisdiction of the public works. There is a permit associated with it. You need to apply for, and there is postings on hearing requirements for said removal. There are also specific regulations as it regulates to the size of trees within a certains distance from the public rightofway that will trigger this removal requirement also. As is listed, these significant trees is identified. Does that mean a significant tree gets replaced with a 36a 48inch box. I mean, presumably if we are removing trees and replacing it with 88, they are smaller boxes. Presumably, and i have not looked up the codes, although maybe be our deputy City Attorney is to look them up. Does this mean box sizes on replacements . What is the in lou fee . From my understanding it has been the replacement of trees you always want to try to replace them at the same size, if not it is negotiated for the removal of trees and sizes correspondingly. The inlieu fee in this case would be when trees cannot be replaced upon removal. As is is Additional Charge for the in lieu. I would like to have a more specific answer. This is obviously a huge change in land use for a former insurance sites, former university of california site that has been the subject of a very, very famous court decisi decision, and Laurel Heights decision in 1984 it cited many ceqa cases. But we have all been inundated with many, many emails. The three members of this committee, and im sure supervisor stefani. Many, if not most of them, actually have to do with the trees, both within the public rightofway and on the private property. The general preponderance of the emails have to do with the replacement with lollipop trees. Im trying to get to the bottom of if this is like like for like. I for one is a member of this panel who am in no mood to rubberstamp anything need to get to the bottom of the tree issue which seems to be causing great concern to a number of our constituents. If i may, we would like, if we could during the Public Comment. To dig into the answer on this question, talk to the landscape people with the project sponsor and then bring back to you, after we come back from Public Comment a specific answer to your concern. Thank you. Anything you want to add, i do not mean to cut you off. That definitely seems to be the gist of what we are hearing. Public works will provide any information ultimately prior to construction and permitting on these facilities. Thank you. Are there any additional presenters from the city and county of San Francisco. Alright right, seeing none. I will open this up to supervisor stefani. I believe we are going here briefly from the project sponsor. 1020 absolutely. Absolutely. Good afternoon, supervisors. I am dan with Laurel Heights supervisors. I will try to be brief and am available to answer questions afterwards. Over the past 4. 5 years weve had over 120 hundred hundred 60 meetings with this project and it has evolved significantly from its initial ppa based on community and city input. The project will provide 744 muchneeded Housing Units on the west side of San Francisco where very little has been built over the past 50 years. 186 of those homes as you heard will be onsite affordable Senior Housing, 25 of the total homes rather than the 18 required. We have also expanded the neighborhood preference up to three cores of a mile from half a mile. 58 of the non senior homes will be familyfriendly two, three, four bedroom units. The existing site was developed as a suburban office park in the middle of a neighborhood and is disconnected from its surroundings. Our proposed project design removes the walls and breaks down the scale of the existing site, reconnecting it to the city grid. The project includes more than a comprising half the property to design for pedestrians who have incorporated more generous and comfortable sidewalks and eliminated slip planes in a distant to pedestrian improvements. In addition we are implementing a sitespecific program all the project is required to provide 50 of the applicable target points we will implement 75 and we are contributing an additional 218,000 towards buses above and beyond the project requirement to enhance and support the transit first policy. The projects the ground retail component is now limited to california street and will reconnect the fabric and hands pedestrian and approve the walkable options and for the neighborhood, the groundfloor retail is now 35,000 square feet consisting of neighborhood shop space. This is a 68 reduction in commercial space from the original proposed 110,000 square feet. The retail will create visual interest and human scale where the current site brick wall creates an uninviting barrier and gap in the retail fabric of california street. To summarize, this is an opportunity to transform a walled off suburban Office Campus and a walkable, connected and sustainable mixeduse community with a 744 new homes onsite Affordable Housing, public open space, groundfloor shops and onsite childcare. Thank you. Thank you. Any additional presentations. Seeing none. Why dont we open this up to Public Comment and we have a number of speaker cards. If you will line up to my left, youre right, starting with mary jacoby, michael nolte. These may be different items. We called altogether. Why dont we start with that, if you will line up to my left, youre right and if you would like to speak, if you want to submit speaker cards over here in the red block red box. First speaker, please. Is your name mary jacoby . Youre on the right track to go on wrong way again. You set the ami scale of 59 . That means that the lowest income tenant in the building has got to make an income of 51,700 per year and 47,400 per year. Youre talking about Affordable Housing acting like youre helping people. That means everybodys income that is between this cannot be a tenant in the building. That is called pricefixing and price gouging. You do that every god damn time and you have the audacity to sit up here and act like you are helping people. That means Senior Citizens that has income, that is not making that much money, cannot even put an application to be a tenant in the it is clear . Another thing youre doing, you are discriminating based on age discrimination, youre only providing housing opportunity for seniors, and low income brackets. That is not low income bracket. The low income bracket starts at the top of the scale, not down 25 of the scale in the middle of the scale down to the bottom of the scale. Those of the people that is homeless out in the god damn straight. Those of the people as polka for an order to get that issue addressed like the rest of the people that are always speaking up for. That is not only housing discrimination, pricefixing and price gouging you are discriminating based on age. That is age discrimination. You have a situation for Senior Citizens on low income brackets, but not joined by Senior Citizens that are not Senior Citizens and low income brackets. You are in a violation of state law pertaining to the act. Violation of the 14th amendment for a due process and equal protection under the law. That is not equal protection dividing housing opportunities for high income brackets and not people in low income brackets. What do you have to say about that . Next speaker, please. Thank you. My name is mary jacoby. My husband, peter jacoby, and i own the property at 41 and 43 immediately above lee euclid. And the 3333 project in question. We strongly oppose the Developers Project is designed. We support either of the Community Alternative plans that oppose construction of the same numbers of muchneeded units of living space and senior Affordable Housing. Also protecting historic green space of cross from our building. The need for housing is at its greatest right now. To approve a plan that takes 15 years to complete is absurd when there is an alternate that would take half that amount of time. Additionally absurd it is to destroy the green space and trees and views when there is a way to develop a numbers of housing without ruining the charm of the neighborhood, or spending twice the amount of time doing it. More retail space is neither needed nor wanted considering there is adequate retail in Laurel Village and sacramento street, including trader joes and gary street. In supporting one of the Community Alternatives you would be thoughtfully developing muchneeded housing as well as meeting standards for historic properties. In other words the old Firemans Fund building and its surroundings. I thoughtful evaluation would not permit flexible retail, which is not allowed anywhere else in in district to, or in the sacramento fillmore Street Commercial district. Please do limit hours of Retail Operations val foz. Next speaker, please. Sir, if you will take either one of those microphones. There is one to your left or went to your right. I need the overhead. Stepped to the right, but whatever you want on the overhead it will magically appear. There you go. It only magically appears part of it. All right, it will magically appear the rest of it, if he would slide it up just a hair. There you go. Explained to me where the magic is . I want them to see it all at once, but thank you very much. Sir, i need to start your time. If he will step up to the microphone. We, by the way, have both of those in our file. But go ahead. Good afternoon, i am richard frisby. The Commission Recommended this project as a planned unit development. Planning code section 304 provides to you these may include commercial uses only to the extent of such use is necessary to serve residents of the immediate vicinity subject to limitations for the nc one district. However, the special use district would go further and give the developer of highly intensive neighborhood shopping center, commercial uses up to 6,000 square feet. The Committee Shall recommend changing the controls to and one which would close at 11 00 p. M. , allow less intense use and require conditional use authorization for commercial spaces. It allows a host of highly intensive uses. Also, under no circumstances be accepted from any height limit. The commissions motion unlawfully proposes to pass off light height limit increases up to 90 feet 92 feet. Minor deviations from the provisions. Please recommend that the new uses that were not described in the draft eir be eliminated including flexible retail which as noted before us and not permitted in district two. Or, social services, or other services because the public was deprived of the opportunity to even comment on this in the e. I. R. As you can see, from the drawing, he used and the developer site plan the modifications shown the Community Preservation lookalike would achieve the same units while both using a required project open space, Natural Green spaces the public has used for Recreational Purposes and retaining historic list of characteristics. We ask you recommend against all of the items today, send this back and have a community and city Planning Project as this one that has been totally dominated by the developer. Thank you. I did call the novelties, let me call a few more speaker cards. [ name indescernible ] if you line up to my left, youre right. Good afternoon. I am a a member of operation engineers. I am in support of this project. You know, i am proud to support the proposal at 3333 california street. This project will create housing that we desperately need in San Francisco. While developing the Laurel Heights neighborhood for families. The development at 3333 california would create up to 744 units. This added housing will help keep more people in the city without pricing people out and will bring new homes into the San Franciscos. 3333 california will also provide muchneeded space, more than 5 acres of open space, neighborhoods can relax and friends can spend time with one another. With most units designed for two or more bedrooms, the project would be a fantastic place to raise a family. 3333 california offers so much for so many. It will provide a lot of, you know, good living wage jobs to a lot of good hardworking Union Laborers and workers in the construction and keep people working. And provide us with a lot more housing and open spaces. Just makes the city more beautiful. I hope you can support this project. Thank you. Are you done . Yet. This will not come out of your time, but i assume operating engineers are members of the Building Trades council, is that correct . Yes, sir. Im under the understanding they have remaining concerns about this project, are you aware of those . I was not sure about that. I am just speaking as a citizen of San Francisco. Okay. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. I want to point out that section 101 of the San Francisco environment code requires city officials implement what is called the precautionary principle and conducting conducting city affairs. This mandatory principle requires that a thorough signed based evaluation announcements of alternatives that present the least threat to human health and the environment. In this instance we are talking about the wholesale chopping down of 200 trees on one parcel, and the city has failed to examine whether there any alternatives. We know Climate Change presents the most existential threat to us humans and to our environment. Earlier this year the board passed a Climate Emergency resolution. The purpose of which was to revise its Climate Action strategy. In july of this year the department had a Climate Action strategy which was essentially a reiteration of their Successful Initiative that we have right now but added that the city desperately needs to sequester more carbon or we will absolutely not meet our climate goals. The department of the environment noted the most effective tool for Carbon Sequestration which we need to be doing his trees. San francisco already has the worst canopy of any major city in the united states. Last year we lost 2507 trees. Based on record, there has been no evaluation whether or not this raising is absolutely necessary. Based on presentation at a hearing in september, the reasons proposed were largely for ease of construction. According to our department of the environment we have only ten years before the impacts of Climate Change are irreversible and according to the development plans, construction will not even be close to completed by then. We need to stop doing business as usual and require and implement section 101 of the environmental code and implement the precautionary principle in conducting this evaluation. I respectfully request that this ordinance be held pending such an evaluation. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. I am with the bay area council. We advocate for strong quality of life and a Strong Economy for anyone who lives here. I just want to elevate some of the points made. We are in support of this project. 744 and muchneeded homes in San Francisco. Our annual goal is 5,000. This would actually make a big impact towards that target. Going back to some of the points made where they would provide a Childcare Center, 175 children, lowering the retail from 110,000 square feet to 35,000 square feet and going above and beyond with 25 for lowincome seniors. I think that is a demonstration of the developer listening to the Community Going above and beyond and providing familyfriendly aspects to this community. We talk about how every city needs to do their part, but every neighborhood need to do their part. In the past ten years, no low income units have been built. That is 80 ami or below. This would be about the same number of homes. And just in terms of what some other folks have elevated as an alternative. The difference between that project is that this one is actually feasible. We recommend approving the staff recommendations report. Thank you. Not to quibble with you, but the change from 1825 , given the fact that this is a p. U. D. And requires extraordinary approvals, you can read about it in the newspaper because i said it publicly at the time. Coalition for San Franciscos neighborhood here on my own behalf. I would strongly urge the lutc to fully review the new community variance which are as follows, the Community Preservation lookalike variance, and the community full preservation alternative variance, too. The Laurel Heights community has a proven track record of negotiating with developers at california street. This developer, however, has proved to be challenging. That is why the community has gone to such lengths to develop alternatives. There are significant issues with onsite retail, especially flexible retail. The neighborhood already has an abundance of brickandmortar retail. Another issue is the 715 year entitlement process. This is overly generous and does not hold the developers feet to the fire to produce housing sooner rather than later. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. I am the chief operating officer of the Jewish Community center San Francisco. Im here to speak in support of the proposed project at 3333 california street. For 86 years we have serve the people of San Francisco from the corner of presidio and california. We provide a vibrant Public Community space for people of all ages and backgrounds to gather, explore, connect and flourish. He will find it little children, school age youth, young adults, families, robust and aging seniors as well as folks in midlife, like myself walking through our doors for wellness and sports activities, handson arts and recreation as well as thoughtprovoking arts and cultural events. The jcc believed the 3333 california street development, as proposed would create a more vibrant neighborhood with more housing, activity and open spaces. Which will benefit the Broad Community that we serve. We understand the acute need for more housing, especially Affordable Housing for seniors and our city. We are pleased to see that this is an element of the proposed project. We appreciate that the project includes publicly accessible open spaces and the design thoughtfully stitches together the neighborhood by continuing the street grid. We believe this will benefit everyone by encouraging walking and access to outdoor space in an urban neighborhood. The open space in this project also allows the jcc to continue to have an emergency evacuation location nearby, which is critical to our Community Serving purposes. The jcc also supports the conclusion of social services and philanthropic facilities as a use in the special use district. This designation provides a helpful pathway as we consider how to serve our growing community. We would like to think that prado group for its diligent efforts to involve the community in the past four years. Jcc has been a regular participant in the project. Thank you. Let me call out a few more speaker cards. In lieu good afternoon. My name is judy dunn. My husband and i have lived in Laurel Heights, one block from the side of the proposed Real Estate Development for over 45 years. We recognize the pressing need for more Affordable Housing, in San Francisco and support construction of housing on this site. The current proposal, which prado wants 715 years to complete includes unnecessary retail, threatens the quality of life, forever changes the Natural Beauty of laurel hill and destroys the majority of 185 old world trees. We simply cannot afford to lose it an era of Climate Change. This project should be redesigned to keep off the green space and protect the mature trees. Including 15 healthy new Zealand Christmas trees that line california street from presidio avenue up to laurel. By proposing 16 new businesses be added to the plan, prado changes what should be a Residential Development into a retail destination. Furthermore the proposal of flexible retail allows almost an unlimited range of commercial uses on their definition of what is allowed is deliberately vague. We dont need more retail in our neighborhood. Laurel village has two supermarkets, starbucks, peets coffee. Liquor store, ace hardware, bigelow cafe, three banks, pharmacy, multiple doctors, dentists and psychotherapy offices. Several boutiques in a variety of other businesses. There is a much better way to address the need for development that meets both the Housing Demand and still protects the Historic Building and beautiful landscaping surrounding it. It provides the same number Laurel Heights improvement association. First, according to the bay guardian this developer previously promised to build Affordable Housing in has the laurel Street Project in then backed out and paid the fee to the proposed 3333 Development Agreement would be a bad deal for the city. It specifies one option that would allow the developer to build 386 at market rate units and then avoid building the Affordable Housing by giving the city where the proposed on the building is to be built. That would be called the walnut lands, along with a rental gap the bills were paid paid less than 200 per foot for the property. The cost of that land is very low. Also, there is a second option if the developer does not transfer the land to the city, the city can accept the fair market value of the walnut lands, but the land is burdened by the Affordable Housing requirement. It would not appraise for market value without that burden. Weve asked for information on these two options, but have not been provided it. The city should have a budget analyst perform a Detailed Analysis of these options. The developer has told us that the in lieu fee is too high, you should recommend these two options be omitted and change the agreement to make the developer pay the full 58 milliondollar in lieu fee required by planning code section 415. 5 if he doesnt build the Affordable Housing, because it is the only effective incentive that will force him to build it. Supervisor stefani has introduced another measure that would allow the lucky penny developer to get out of building the housing and pay the fee, although he promised a year ago in his s. U. D. To put it in. It is very expensive to build Affordable Housing, and it looks like these two other Viable Options will probably be pursued in this manner. I am sorry, is your time. Next speaker, please. Chair peskin, supervisors, my name is susan. Im here representing eight owners in an Apartment Building on the corner of presidio and pine. What i wanted to say, not that i am opposed in any way to additional housing, which everyone has said we all want to have. We would take pause and be able to go back and do more collaboration with the developers looking at the two alternate proposals to get a good solution. Pausing to do that, and even take some time would save a lot of time if its going to take seven, 12, 15 years to finish the development that is being proposed by the developer. Use time wisely, right now, that could save a great deal of time and getting those affordable units and also the other residential units built. The alternate proposals would possibly allow for your building, instead of a extended time that is in the proposal. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is john nolte here representing San Francisco tree campaign. The project at 3333 california street, referred to as item 35 on the agenda, the project withheld i heard on septembef the Planning Commission and did not know that the committees that the impact of the project was going to appeal since the committee [inaudible] the item was hard on september 18, 2019 and has not been decided on. I think there should be a hold on the trees because it has not been decided on by dpw. You are asking to be voting on this today, you should not be doing so. The committee has not voted on the removal of the trees or anything. I ask that the committee uphold on this, and also significant trees on the site are from the laurel hill cemetery, in 1958. These trees are approximately 61 years old, and only one fifth of their lifespan has been used. They have another 250 years ago. I find that there should be continued, and also alternate plans by the community should be addressed. I have a petition of people that have signed and remarked on the tree removals at the site. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi. My name is chris, and ive lived in Presidio Heights for over 20 years. I have closely followed the plans for the development at 3333 california street. I strongly oppose the prada group plan. It will completely destroy for family neighborhoods, chop down nearly every tree in an era of climate disruption and deface the very thing that makes our neighborhood special, a green pleasant, parklike oasis which is quiet and calming to an otherwise busy corridor. Instead i support the Community Preservation lookalike variance for the community full preservation alternative varia variant. Preservation green space, preservation of Laurel Village, master build out of necessary housing instead of 15 years and sensitive to the needs of the city in the neighborhood. The developer speaks of the area not being connected to the city grade. I would argue that laurel hill is the green heart of the grid that connects our neighborhoods to each other. His plan replaces the trees with cement, and crowds the land with gray and black towers and buildings. Even the hill is being leveled. He is cutting out the heart of this area, and also destroying the grid of trees that go from presidio, to laurel hill, Golden Gate Park furthermore, the permit they are seeking would forever disrupt the family character in our neighborhood with businesses being open from 6 00 a. M. Until 2 00 a. M. Tell me a family that wants to live a few steps away from businesses open for 20 hours . We have been fortunate to live in a calm, green corner of a bustling city. The mixture of architecture is living colorful history from victoria to the present. If the prado group plans shows no sensitivity to the neighborhoods and its surroundings. Adopt alternative thank you. Next speaker, please. I am in favor of the Community Proposal also. I have nothing to add from what everyone said. Four generations of my family have lived steps away from this property, since my grandfathers time my family has been there, we have use this property after school, walking to the jcc. We use to swim at when we were kids. I am in favor of scaling it back a little bit with the Community Proposal. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello, i am kathy peck. I own a home in the neighborhood built in 1880, before doorknobs. I worked at 3333 california street for many, many years. I am right in the neighborhood. Im a little nervous, sorry. Take your time. Okay. I feel is poor taste of the Developers Plan for adult strip malls, housing towers and deep concrete threestory plus underground evacuation pits for destination parking, exposing our neighborhood to tons and tons of greenhouse gases, heavy traffic and congestion while we are killing off significant urban forest green trees and spaces in our wildlife. Delaying the building of any real Affordable Neighborhood housing. [inaudible] please, we pray that you will help us save our neighborhood environment, green space and give us beauty and keep our Affordable Housing for families and seniors. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. My name is janine black and i live directly across from the green space at presidio and where masonic begins. The view from my window is that of these green spaces, where people can bring their dogs and be together, and have a little bit of a respite from the intense traffic that is there prior to this construction. While i am in supportive of new housing, i strongly oppose the Developers Project and support the Community Alternative. My college age son and i bought our place directly across the street, and i try to imagine what it would be like to have construction going on 415 years. To do that, i think about this foryearold boy who lives in the building next to ours. I can imagine, if it were to take 15 years, his entire childhood memory would be that of construction, the traffic, the dust, the vibration from the time he enters kindergarten to the time he finishes high school and perhaps even college. I strongly encourage you guys to take a little bit more time and to really preserve the green spaces that are left. Thank you. Mr. Miguel . Let me shout out a few more speaker cards area cards. If you will line up to my left, youre right. Supervisors, i am wrong miguel, i followed this project since its inception. I have seen full and consistent outreach that has kept the neighborhood, and public form. I have witnessed several changes to the original proposal, as a result of listening to the public. These included increased access to and through the property, the amount of open space, modifications to the amount of retail space, and an increase in a number of units and other enhancements. This project review Advisory Board finds this development to be an, and welcome used for the site and endorses 3333 california. This is an exceptionally suitable location. It provides an appropriate mix of land uses, residential open space, it provides a density with the neighborhood, and has generous public open space. Our only concern is the amount of parking. While all parking is underground in order to maximize usable open space, we feel the parking could be further reduced giving this transit oriented location. We appreciate that the project Team Includes different architects, and Landscape Architects helping to foster the feeling of a neighborhood, built over time, rather than as a single masterplanned project. 3333 california street creates a good place for people, and contributes to a walkable environment. If i may speak as past president of the Planning Commission, i have looked at the community plan, without going into detail, th d