Insufficient or inadequate. They believe the circumstance eirs were not enough as well as a different project to be approved. Sequa requires study of a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives, promoting informed decisionmaking and public participation. Here, the eir presented circumstance alternatives including two full preservation and too preservation alternatives. Lhias position is that ten alternatives should have been study. This is unnecessary and not required by sers qua. Sequa. This contains the legally required reasonable range and provides ample information for analysis and consideration by you, the decision makers. And for an additional alternative not in the eir to be legally ar required, it must be different from those presented in the eir and must clearly lessen the projects significant impacts. On the last day of the Public Comment period, lhia submitted narratives and sketches for two projects and followed up with two more after the final er was published just prior to the certification hearing. As determined by th the expertsd supported with substantial evidence, these four appellant plans are not different from the alternative studied in the eir. In addition, the citys architects at dpw determined the feasibility of the plans is highly speculative and these plans would not provide the same number of highquality residential unit as the project before you today. Like the projects in the eir, the appellants plans failed to meet the urban design and housing goals and policies to the same extent and should similarly be rejected. At the 11th hour, they have attempted to recast the four proposed alternatives and their individual components and asserts the secretary standard for historic prompts must be applied as litigation. The Planning Department correctly used the secretary standards to analyze the impacts, as weein as well as ths of the alternatives. This follows the law as well as countless San Francisco eirs. Substantial evidence supports the citys determination, that the individual components of the lhia alternative plans cited in their appeal materials would not substantially or clearly lessen the projects impacts. Put youve heard a lot about trees. As mentioned by staff, sequa impacts are related to whether there environmental impacts to birds or species and they were analyzed and mitigated to less than significant. The rtc document fully explains this. The rtc also explains that in what may be counterintuitive that new trees sequester more carbon than mature tree. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is cited in the rtc document for this proposition. I would also mention that this project has been certified as an ab900 project, which means that it has a commitment to be net zero ghgs. They were explained to be provided for residents and these would not be publically available. The rtc contains substantial evidence that delivery lockers reduce loading impacts as dwell times for trucks and loading times would be reduced so they could get in and out of the building. This is not sequa issue. The appellant fails to meet the burden that the record supports reversal of the Planning Commission and dpw. It did not and cannot provide evidence in support of its evidence. The records supporting the determinations is thorough consisting of multiple years of study and analysis and based on facts and evidence rather than argument and infect allegation. Speculation. This project will transform and underutilized wallofftioff tens sites with 744 new homes. , 185 affordable units for seniors, childcare uses and neighborhood serving retail and commercial uses. We ask you reject these appeals and move forward today. Thank you, supervisors. Thank you. Any questions . I have a question of the proje project, is there a reason why it was infeasible to make a family unit affordable . So this project through the Development Agreement, it was determined that was a specific need for Senior Housing and that affordable Senior Housing should be what was emphasized and the project would provide 25 of its total units a. I believe theyre affordable at an average of 59 of ami and these are affordable units for seniors to allow them to age in place in the city that they live in and that was determined to be the best use and the best approach to affordability for this project and this neighborhood. Ok, and then i guess related to family units, this could be a question to the developers. You know, a lot of times when i see these projects, they will have a lot of open space. Thats really not useable for children and their families. So the open space in this project be friendly to children and the interactive play . Yes, i know that they have designed the open space to be friendly to children. Theres a pretty large proportion, larger than typical proportion of twoplus bedroom unit expos and i think the sponr hopes a lot of families will be representativers anrenters and s for the needs of families who need to be able to use the open space. It cant just be passive. They want to do more with it. Is there, i guess, a project sponsor . Are they here . Yes, they are. So i would like to ask for examples where this is actually true. Sure. Im with the prado group and i would like to address your question. You were asking about familyfriendly amenities on the project. Correct. That includes the childrens space. I believe everybody has heard about the childcare which will serve 175 individuals, familyfriendly. And we also are planning to have familyfriendly amenities within the open spaces similar to the images that are up on the board right now, including some of the areas where were retaining the mature trees on the site or 11 specific heat trees were retaining on the site. And so there are a variety of different open spaces on the project that have been designed specifically with that familyfriendly aspect in mind and amenities base that can be included, including both natural elements and also play elements. Thank you. Im glad to see that. A lot of times the projects are concrete, open space, so i appreciate that. Any other questions . Then, seeing no names on the roster for questions from my closings, at this time, i want to invite members the public who wish to speak in opposition of the appeal and in support of the project. So please come forward and you have to two minutes each for each speakerrer and if youre speaking, go ahead and start lining up to my left, your right. Come on up, first speaker. Im speaking on behalf of our member. Can you draw the microphone close . Sure. Thank you. Im speaking on behalf of operating engineers. The members strongly support the proposed development 3333 california, which will create hundreds of construction jobs for community members. These jobs will pay living wages in a great way for local apprentices and a way in construction. The development at 3333 california would create up to 744 units allowing more people to remain in the city. This project has prioritized Community Input and is a part of the solution and a big step in the right direction and we ask that you deny the Laurel Heights improvement associations appeal of 3333 california project. Thanks for your time. Thank you. Next speaker. Thank you, president yi and members of the board. Allow me to speak today. My name is jewe high julio pyese in San Francisco for the last 30 years and i speak in favour of the 3333 california Street Project. The project will allow a car carpenter like me to continue living in the city of San Francisco. It will help to continue my career as a carpenter working towards retirement and will provide me with the necessary benefits and income to provide for myself and my family. I am full support of 3333 california street and i ask you pass this project, allowing the group for the opportunity to have a responsibility general construct for this project. Thank you. Good afternoon, supervisors. Im marcy glacier and im the ceo of the screwish Community Center of sanfrancisco. Forel 86 years, we have served the people of San Francisco from the corner of presidio from the project site. Im here to speak in favour of your approval of the project and denial of the appeal. Jcc sf provides a vibrant Community Space for people of all ages and backgrounds to gather, explore, connect and flourish. Perhaps many of you learned to swim, played basketball or otherwise have taken advantage of our services. As a nonforprofit, were proud to provide emergency selfse sers and safety respite with our repeated heat and smoke emergencies. The jcc sf believes the 3333 will create a more vibrant neighborhood with more housing, activity and on space and will benefit the proceed community we serve. We understand the need for more housing, especially Affordable House and we are pleased this an element of the proposed development. The project stitches together the neighborhood and this is particularly important to us that the open space enables us to continue to have an emergency evacuation location nearby, which is critical to our communitys serving purpose and support the inclusion of social services and philanthoropic development. Im here to support and talk in favor of this project, giving you the opportunity to just work and also the opportunity to live there. And we represent members, apprentice, community and work with various community entities, city build and one other thing that i want to make sure that is clear up there, we got one of the best companies. They always work with our friends, city build, work with the various unions. Im here to encourage you to move forward with this project. Thank you. Good afternoon, supervisors. Im charles ferguson. I am speaking to you on the presaipresidio heights neighbd and we are by boundary from the presaipresidio line to center d to the center line of arguello, so the presidio gate to the arguello gate. We are, in my opinion, the largest neighborhood available for eligible for Historic District status at the state of california. Most of the homes we are the oldest neighborhood around this project and most of the homes are class a homes that are end titleentitled to be separately eligible for inclusion on historic preservation. We support this project entirely and i want to point out that our neighborhood has 8 hub residents in it and this project in its alternative form is almost the same size. When you add the 3700 california Street Project, which you will be facing pretty soon, which is in our neighborhood, we will have fa far more residents constructed in our neighborhood than we have right now. And we are willing to endure this kind of densification because we think it adds to what the city needs in this particular area. I want to thank and point out to you the developers have voluntarily followed the obligations that have been imposed on the 3700 california Street Project in meeting with the neighborhoods and in getting their input for a long time. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker. Thank you for having me here, soup stores supervisors. Im Phil Fernandez and have lived in the city for 47 years. Ive been a taxpayer all that time. Ive lived in this neighborhood for ten years. I currently live in another neighborhood. I think that this proposal i think this proposal is a strong plus for the city. And i strongly encourage the board of supervisors to deny the appeals that youre hearing today. Because i think that the project meets the goals that have been set by you supervisors to provide more housing to the city. And especially to families and to seniors like misease thank you very much for this opportunity and i encourage you to deny these appeals. Thank you, networks speaker. Next speaker. Im here as a 15year San Francisco renter and im a father of two young children, a Business Owner and employ 40 people of middleincome jobs in the bay area. I mention my 15 years in this city, appears to be a form of currency and other residents when discussing neighborhood issues. I can appreciate how Life Experiences and time can enhance our decisionmaking ability, i think we should be also weary the status quo and our lack of challenging it can have us face these problems indefinitely. It often seems like the ones here the longest are the most likely of wanting to keep things exactly the way they are. So im here to try to challenge that thinking a bit. For San Francisco, the west side and Laurel Heights, in particular, we struggle with the lack of Affordable Housing projects and indeed housing projects in general. When we focus on the concerns of residents that have been here the longest, we fail to look into the future as to what our city will become or is already becoming. Im sure you all know a recent census report notes in San Francisco and in morin county, we have the same population percentage of children under the age of five. In morin, the percentage for 6 to 18yearolds is double and thats not by accident. Theres a lack of housing. I would just like to say that this project appears to be moving us in the right direction and also has affordable Senior Housing which we desperately need, as well. Thank you for approving this project. Next speaker. Good to see you. I am a neighbor in the Richmond District. I represent a group of neighbors called richmond and a member of u. N. B action and i speak in support of the project against the appeal and i strongly urge to approve the 744 homes. I know many have talked to a lot and its great to see you here. Ill be basic. There are people who arent being evicted or maybe they are, but there are people in my neighborhood, people in the city that i know you all have had conversations with time and time again, where they lose their housing situation for whatever reason and they cannot find anything in this city. Were not building enough housing and we have not been building enough housing for decades just because weve met our quotas for market rate, even though rena is below where it should be, we have not built enough housing where my friends who get an eviction notice, who get a rent increase, this the city and my neighbors and your friends and your neighbors, all of them are running into the same situation where they open that craigs list page and see nothing. Building this will not solve anything, will not solve the regionwide shortage but it is step. I have one thing for the overhead, if you please. I have and attending these meetings for years. This process has gone on for years is the following picture is a tweet from a Community Meeting in 2017 that i attended where the appellants made it clear before the eir was published that they intended to raise money to fight it. Please reject the appeal, approve the housing and say yes to my more housing. Thank you. Next speaker. Thanks for listening. Im carly carla, a member of the board, im here on behalf of phra. We support this project and the Development Agreement between the city and county of San Francisco and Laurel Heights partners. Phra urges you to deny all appeals and to approve this project as currently proposed. And its a significant property that will change the neighborhood to some degree but its size and location underscore the importance of successful development. As proposed, this site will bring desperately needed housing appropriate for the setting, the neighborhood and the significant transit corridor on what it is located. Im a neighbor and i live on broderick between bush and pine, three blocks from the project. Ive lived there over 20 years and in the city longer. Not only does this project provide needed housing but will return access to this large parcel. This tenacre site is walled off and rarely visited by any but those who work there. I walk all over our neighborhood and in 20 years, ive only been inside those walls two or three times. I look forward to the pedestrianaccess on the eastwest and north routes on the project. When my husband and i married we found an apartment in the Richmond District we could afford. Likewise, the first home we purchased in the sunset district was affordable. My two youngest children just graduated from college and they live in utah, where they can afford an apartment. The city needs this housing, Senior Housing and a childcare location. Its a beautiful project. I urge you to approve it. Thank you. Thank you, next speaker. Good afternoon, supervisors. Im Terry Mcguire and i live on california street near ovtavia and ive been a member of the board for eight years and currently the board president. We submitted a letter of submission and yesterday we sent a letter to the supervisors supporting this project. Or organization has been following the progress constantly. Its not within our boundaries. Presidio is the western border of our service area or our member area. But any project that is the scope and size similar to this that is close to our boundaries, we monitor its progress and we provide comments and we meet with the sponsors to learn more and to find out how we can possibly improve and shape them. Now we did that throughout the last four or five years with the prado group in this project and every time we met with them, they were responsive and they listened and when we would have the next meeting, we would see change. And the project has improved as it has evolved over the last four to five years and it is time to approve this project. We support it. Thank you. Thank you, next speaker. Supervisors responsibl, im l representing spur. We strongly encourage you to deny the appeals before you today. A full and consistent outreach has kept the neighborhood and the public informed. The project has evolved as a result