Consistent with the policies and objectives of the citys general plan. The appeal also demands specific modifications to the project including the following. Limiting the height and modifications to the reuse Center Buildings and a reduction of the new building near laurel and euclid to preserve more open space and further limits on the types of nonresidential uses proposed. Related to the height of the Center Buildings, the Planning Commission supported the overall scale including the height because their placement in the center of the site set back from the public rights of way was a project objective. The project would place shorter buildings along the perimeter between 40 and 65 feet to serve the transition to the taller buildings in the center. A reduction in height of the Center Building would result in a reduction in dwelling unit count or to keep the unit count consistent, 744, and increase to other proposed New Buildings along the perimeter and compromising the compatibility. They wont enable five three bedroom units adding total 41 dwelling units in the flu floors. The project was approved to create a 40foot wide open pathway in the mill of the existing pathway creating two separate residential buildings. The appellant seeks to limit this to a new twostory portal. The introduction of the pathway was in direct response to provide a clear visual connection that encourages the public to enter the sites. This creates a permeable site broken down to a human scale. The clear and inviting opening maximizes physical and visual access through the site. The appellant demands fewer New Buildings near euclid and a 70foot setback enables a privately owned open space at the intersection. The commissioner heard a request of the housing potential estimated at a loss of 30 dwelling units. The commission felt this was the right balance between housing and open space. And lastly, the appellant has zoning control is applicable to the Zoning District b in place of the ncs. The controls in these projects are consistent west of the project and the projects sud will create a more continuous linear commercial corridor connecting Laurel Village at the intersection of california and in doing so, it provides an appropriate transition from the ncs to the ncs two. At the supervisor committee, they further restricted special uses during Public Comment. Supervisors, the Planning Department worked for years to shape the project into one overwhelming supported and approved at the Planning Commission. The project represents a unique opportunity to transform an historically isolated site into one activated in the surrounding nakeneighborhood, providing 15,0 square foot childcare facility at the ground floor and dramatically improve the public realm along each front street but particularly along m masoni. It is a thoughtfully designed project with different structures accommodate a scaled density and help to activate street use along california street and promote pedestrian environments along all street frontage. We stand behind this and ask you to deny this appeal. Thank you. Is that the end of the presentation . Any other Staff Members going to be presenting . I see nobody, so i guess that ends that portion. Any questions from my colleagues . There was mention by the supporters of the appellant around the historical property piece. I know you talked about it, but how does this can you explain more, if theres any impact and why there shouldnt or should be any issues with this in terms of historical property. . President yi, im Deborah Dwyer and i want to make sure i understand the question that youre asking. The nature of the historic the property is a Historic Resource both for the Office Building and the landscape thats integrated with it. Because the determination was made that the project would have a significant and unavoidable impact to the resource, we underrinundertook an analysis ad two partial preservation alternatives. And i guess what youre saying these alternatives meets the requirements of satisfying the requirements, i guess . Yes. When you have a Significant Impact under sequa, youre first to require mitigation measures and we found that mitigation measures for such a large site, it was difficult to look at individual mitigation measures and to see that they would have a meaningful reduction in the impact. A package of improvements that would address the Historic Resource impact would more meaning anfully be considered fr the project and that is what we followed for this. In this case, the mitigation is planting for trees than existing. Well, the trees is a separate i would say theyre interrelated in that the mature trees are acknowledged to be a part of the landscape because the Landscape Architects that designs the park for the Firemans Fund did take into account those trees. As part of alternatives development, we looked at how to balance retaining portions of the landscaped area, including trees in the development of alternatives. But in terms of so thats the way that part of the Historic Resource impact is addressed. Supervisor stephanie . Thank you, president yi. Through the chair, im just going to touch on some of the questions while were here. I would like to know how many trees related to this site does public works have jurisdiction over . Id like to ask public works to assist with that. Good afternoon. Public works has jurisdiction over the 15 street trees and 18 significant trees proposed for removal and if i could just take a moment to explain what a significant tree is under the public works code, that might help to clarify. A significant tree is a tree thats located on private property and it is within ten feet of the public rightofway. If thats true, it must meet three sized criteria, a diameter of 12inches or greater, canopy width of 15 feet or wider and a height of 20 feet or greater. So first, it must be within ten feet of the public rightofway and if it meets any one of those three sized criteria, its considered significant under the public works code. For these trees proposed for removal, there are 18 significant trees and 15 street trees under our jurisdiction. And what type of trees are they . Start with street and significant. The street trees are new Zealand Christmas trees, all 15 of them are. And the significant trees, i have a list, there are two Monterey Cypress and six purple leaf plum, two victorian box, two leland cypress, one new Zealand Christmas tree, as a significant tree and three maple trees. And can you explain the Current Conditions of those trees . Yeah, most of those trees are considered to be in fair to poor condition. The two cypress are in, i would say, fair to good condition. And how will they be replaced and with how many . So, again, just looking at whats under the public works jurisdiction, the project is proposing to plant 88 street trees and so were going from 15 street trees to 88 street trees. That is correct. And i will note many street trees would be required for any project that is a new development. They have to plant a tree for every 20 feet of linear frontage, but many of the frontages dont have any existing street trees. Then theyre also proposing 49 significant trees. And do you know what replacement species were looking at, whats proposed and why. So there are a number of species proposed and our staff are still meeting with the developer to look at species. But currently, the proposal includes some olive trees, some ginco trees i cant think of the common name for escalus carnia. Let me see if i have that. I have a list. So those are the three species theyre proposing. Fruitless, olive, 39 fruitless olive, 31 ginco and 18 horse chestnut. Thank you, miss short. Just quickly in terms of the sequa analysis on page 25 of the plannings response, in terms of the trees as it applies to sequa, im wonder wag the projecwondering what theprojecte loss of tree trees . The project would not result in an impact related to the trees. For the purposes of sequa, we look at whether there are special status species, which there are not in terms of trees and with respect to whether the trees potentially provide habitat for migratory birds, we have mitigation measures that address that. And im wondering, too, if you can just explain whether or not the project conflicts with local tree protection policies and ordinances. No, the project would not conflict with the urban street ordinance. We understand that there would be a major encroachment permit but the standards for the urban forestry ordinance are within that. And is miss short still here . In terms of the current trees at site, is it correct that we have 212 trees at the site . So we only assessed the trees under public works jurisdiction, so i dont know total number of trees on the site. Ok. Is there anyone from the Planning Department . One moment, please. I will withdraw that question because i think it illustrates a point that this is part of the major encroachment permit that is the piece of legislation that would allow for us to actually address the trees under the actual jurisdiction of public works. So at this time, ill wait for the ordinance that actually addresses how many trees are on the property and how many trees we will have in the end. Supervisor mandleman . Maybe just to follow on president yis questions about the resource issues and the developments to consider that preservation. Can you just talk a little bit about why the Planning Commission rejected those alternatives . The question that was asked regarding the alternatives was related to the findings approved by the Planning Commission, a separate matter from the eir appeal, so im going to refer that question, then, to our colleagues, nick foster and the team for that. The Planning Commission approved the proposed project it was the version with the greater residential and the arrangement design permeability through the sites through the review design process. Supervisor mar. Thank you, president. Actually, i did have a few other questions about the tree removal aspect. I just wanted to understand how it includes significant tree removal, in this case approximately 200 mature trees in your analysis and i think in your comments, something about it didnt sit right with me. I think i heard you say that the project is aligned with our Greenhouse GasEmission Reduction strategy because its a Transit Oriented Development and its building housing near joshes anjobs and transit and tl positive. But i seem to hear you say because of that, therefore, its ok that 200 mature trees are going to be removed. Because theyre not as significant. Were looking at more aggressive steps to greatly expand it. Thank you, supervisor mar. So what i want to clarify is that im not saying that trees are not important, but i am saying that under the questions that we look at for the purposes of sequa, we are looking at whether there are special status species on a site in addition to looking at local tree protection ordinances and how the project would comply with such a ordinance. I think what i was trying to say for an infill site, where youre putting housing close to transit, you are going to see other benefits, as well as all of the requirements that are in the ghg reduction strategy that relates to water efficiency and energy efficiency, besides things that are within the transportation sector but for the purpose of sequa, we would not find this tree removal to be a Significant Impact. Under the criteria that is in appendix g, the sequa checklist. Great. So youre saying that you really mostly look at the type of trees and the species but not how trees can play a significant role through Carbon Sequestration in reducing Greenhouse Gas emissions. Thats not part of it . Well, so in the different topic areas, the questions we look at are very specific and with respect to biological resources, it has to do with species that have some special status, like the endangered species act. They have to be listed. In terms of ghg impacts, the city has a qualified ghg reduction strategy, which is a collection of many different laws and regulations and new development has to comply with those. And the city has demonstrated success in reducing its ghg remissions through the application of those laws. Lisa gibb son, Environmental Review officer. I would like to, if i may, offer the staff present today can provide further information on this topic regarding the trees and Greenhouse Gas emissions. President yi, board, im the manager of the transportation review and i am with the gas Reduction Team and theres a relationship between all three of these. I think, supervisor, your question is getting at that relationship and i think the Global Climate change issue that no individual project can solve. So when were looking at an individual project effects on Greenhouse Gas emissions, were looking at that combined effect from all of the various sectors miss dwyer spoke to. Its not just trees or transportation but its energy and i water and its transportation efficiency and the fact of the matter is, by locating a project here or really, almost anywhere in San Francisco, you are way more Greenhouse Gas efficient, even if you are removing trees, which we acknowledge this project is doing, then locating the project somewhere else. So that is what a lot of these state laws about locating housing and infill sites are about, senate bill 375, senate bill 743, about location of housing to reach our states overall Greenhouse Gas reduction goals. And just to give some scales, as in 1990, the state had 431 Million Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide equivalent and 132 were from transportation. The net sync throughout the entire state was 7. So 7 versus 152 from transportation sector. And that comes from the California Air resources board, climate scoping point. Ok. Thank you. Thank you. Anything else, supervisor mar . Any other questions from my my colleagues seeing none, so right now i would like to call up the project sponsor or the representatives to speak up to 15 minutes. Come on up. Good afternoon. Im dan gershwin representing the project sponsor, Laurel Heights partners llc. With me is my colleague, greg miller. Supervisors, out of respect for your time and given the comprehensive staff, i dont plan to use my full 15 minutes. I would like to focus principallably on the sequa appeal and i would say why they fail to meet burden and lack merit and finally, i will address the arguments raised by appellant in a letter submitted this morning. Sequa is a disclosure of law requiring an eir informs decisionmakers as they consider project approval. A standard on to approval is whether the eir is adequate and correct in its conclusions based on substantial evidence. As youve heard from staff and as youve seen in the Planning Departments appeal, this eir meets and exceeds those standards. Appellants documenants argumene contrary are without merit. Similarly, for the map approval, dpw was required to support record evidence. As explained by city staff, the record contains extensive information in these findings, including that the project is desirable for and compatible with the environment is community, is applicable with the plan and consistent wit thee subdivision. Arguments to the contrary lack merit. And i would like to focus this evening on the sequa appeal. They present 18 arguments attempting to attack the eir s efficiency. Although appell annual disagrees on these points, it fails to meet the evidentiary burden and substantial evidence in support of the arguments that the eir and rtc are instuff or inadequate. 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