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 t