Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  November 12, 2019 10:00pm-11:01pm PST

10:00 pm
the planning commission on september 5th approved the conditional use for a vote of 7-3 to allow structures to exceed 40 feet in a zoning district and for a planned unit development from select requirements of the planning code. as you've heard, the appellant contends the board shall authorize this because it's not desirable or compatible with the neighborhood. in granting the cieu, including the new and reused structures, with nonresidential uses. and the commissions found the project is indeed necessary or desirable because it will provide new opportunities for housing with no displacement and new site amenities including 2.y accessible space and new childcare facility. the size is on balance
10:01 pm
consistent with the policies and objectives of the city's 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
10:02 pm
compromising the compatibility. they won't enable five three bedroom units adding total 41 dwelling units in the flu floors. the project was approved to create a 40-foot wide open pathway in the mill of the existing pathway creating two separate residential buildings. the appellant seeks to limit this to a new two-story 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
10:03 pm
70-foot 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,
10:04 pm
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
10:05 pm
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 there's any impact and why there shouldn't or should be any issues with this in terms of historical property. ?
10:06 pm
>> president yi, i'm deborah dwyer and i want to make sure i understand the question that you're asking. the nature of the historic -- the property is a historic resource both for the office building and the landscape that's 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 you're saying these alternatives meets the requirements of satisfying the requirements, i guess? >> yes. when you have a significant impact under sequa, you're first
10:07 pm
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 they're interrelated in that the mature trees are acknowledged to be a part of the landscape because the landscape architects that
10:08 pm
designs the park for the fireman's fund did take into account those trees. as part of alternative's 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 that's the way that part of the historic resource impact is addressed. >> supervisor stephanie? >> thank you, president yi. through the chair, i'm just going to touch on some of the questions while we're here. i would like to know how many trees related to this site does public works have jurisdiction over? >> i'd like to ask public works to assist with that.
10:09 pm
>> 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 work's code, that might help to clarify. a significant tree is a tree that's located on private property and it is within ten feet of the public right-of-way. if that's true, it must meet three sized criteria, a diameter of 12-inches 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 right-of-way and if it meets any one of those three sized criteria, it's considered significant under the public work's 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
10:10 pm
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 what's under the public work's jurisdiction, the project is
10:11 pm
proposing to plant 88 street trees and -- >> so we're 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 don't have any existing street trees. then they're also proposing 49 significant trees. >> and do you know what replacement species we're looking at, what's 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 can't think of
10:12 pm
the common name for escalus carnia. let me see if i have that. i have a list. so those are the three species they're 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 planning's response, in terms of the trees as it applies to sequa, i'm wonder wag the
10:13 pm
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 i'm 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
10:14 pm
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 work's jurisdiction, so i don't know total number of trees on the site. >> ok. >> is there anyone from the planning department?
10:15 pm
>> 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, i'll 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 yi's questions about the resource issues and the
10:16 pm
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 i'm going to refer that question, then, to our colleagues, nick foster and the team for that.
10:17 pm
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
10:18 pm
it didn't sit right with me. i think i heard you say that the project is aligned with our greenhouse gas emission reduction strategy because it's a transit oriented development and it's building housing near joshes anjobs and transit and tl positive. but i seem to hear you say because of that, therefore, it's ok that 200 mature trees are going to be removed. because they're not as significant.
10:19 pm
we're looking at more aggressive steps to greatly expand it. >> thank you, supervisor mar. so what i want to clarify is that i'm 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.
10:20 pm
i think what i was trying to say for an infill site, where you're 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 you're saying that you really mostly look at the type of trees
10:21 pm
and the species but not how trees can play a significant role through carbon sequestration in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. that's 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
10:22 pm
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, i'm the manager of the transportation review and i am with the gas reduction team and there's 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 we're looking at an individual project effects on greenhouse gas emissions, we're looking at that combined effect from all of the various sectors
10:23 pm
miss dwyer spoke to. it's not just trees or transportation but it's energy and i water and it's 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 state's 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
10:24 pm
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 resource's 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. i'm dan gershwin representing the project sponsor, laurel height's partners llc. with me is my colleague, greg miller.
10:25 pm
supervisors, out of respect for your time and given the comprehensive staff, i don't 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 decision-makers 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 you've heard from staff and as you've seen in the planning department's appeal, this eir meets and exceeds those
10:26 pm
standards. appellants documenant's 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.
10:27 pm
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 decision-making and public participation. here, the eir presented circumstance alternatives including two full preservation and too preservation alternatives. lhia's position is that ten alternatives should have been study. this is unnecessary and not required by sers qua.
10:28 pm
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 project's 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 city's architects at dpw determined the feasibility of the plans is highly speculative and these plans would not provide the same
10:29 pm
number of high-quality residential unit as the project before you today. like the projects in the eir, the appellant's 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 city's determination, that the individual components of the lhia alternative plans cited in their appeal materials would not substantially or clearly lessen the project's impacts. put you've heard a lot about
10:30 pm
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
10:31 pm
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 wall-offtioff tens sites with 744 new homes. , 185 affordable units for seniors, childcare uses and neighborhood
10:32 pm
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 they're affordable at an average of 59% of ami and these are affordable units for
10:33 pm
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. that's 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. there's a pretty large proportion, larger than typical proportion of two-plus bedroom unit expos and i think the sponr
10:34 pm
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 can't 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. i'm with the prado group and i would like to address your question. you were asking about family-friendly amenities on the project. >> correct. that includes the children's space. >> i believe everybody has heard about the childcare which will
10:35 pm
serve 175 individuals, family-friendly. and we also are planning to have family-friendly amenities within the open spaces similar to the images that are up on the board right now, including some of the areas where we're retaining the mature trees on the site or 11 specific heat trees we're retaining on the site. and so there are a variety of different open spaces on the project that have been designed specifically with that family-friendly aspect in mind and amenities base that can be included, including both natural elements and also play elements.
10:36 pm
>> thank you. i'm 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 you're speaking, go ahead and start lining up to my left, your right. come on up, first speaker. i'm speaking on behalf of our member. >> can you draw the microphone close? >> sure. >> thank you. >> i'm speaking on behalf of operating engineers. the members strongly support the
10:37 pm
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 height's improvement association's 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
10:38 pm
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.
10:39 pm
>> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm marcy glacier and i'm 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. i'm 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 non-for-profit, we're 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,
10:40 pm
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 community's serving purpose and support the inclusion of social services and philanthoropic development. >> i'm here to support and talk
10:41 pm
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.
10:42 pm
i'm here to encourage you to move forward with this project. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm charles ferguson. i am speaking to you on the pre-saipresidio height's neighbd and we are by boundary from the pre-saipresidio 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
10:43 pm
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 it's 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
10:44 pm
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. i'm phil fernandez and have lived in the city for 47 years. i've been a taxpayer all that time. i've 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 you're hearing today. because i think that the project meets the goals that have been
10:45 pm
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. >> i'm here as a 15-year san francisco renter and i'm a father of two young children, a business owner and employ 40 people of middle-income 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 decision-making ability, i think we should be also weary
10:46 pm
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 i'm 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. i'm 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 18-year-olds is double and that's not by accident.
10:47 pm
there's 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 it's great to see you here. i'll be basic. there are people who aren't 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
10:48 pm
anything in this city. we're not building enough housing and we have not been building enough housing for decades just because we've 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 craig's list page and see nothing. building this will not solve anything, will not solve the region-wide 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
10:49 pm
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. i'm carly carla, a member of the board, i'm here on behalf of phra. we support this project and the development agreement between the city and county of san francisco and laurel height's partners. phra urges you to deny all appeals and to approve this project as currently proposed. and it's 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
10:50 pm
transit corridor on what it is located. i'm a neighbor and i live on broderick between bush and pine, three blocks from the project. i've 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 ten-acre site is walled off and rarely visited by any but those who work there. i walk all over our neighborhood and in 20 years, i've only been inside those walls two or three times. i look forward to the pedestrian-access on the east-west 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.
10:51 pm
it's a beautiful project. i urge you to approve it. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm terry mcguire and i live on california street near ovtavia and i've 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
10:52 pm
constantly. it's 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.
10:53 pm
>> supervisors responsibl, i'm 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 of listening to all parties. results are increased access to and through the property and far more actually useable open space, major modifications to the amount of retail space, an increase in the number of units, parking reductions, attention to both senior housing and childcare. and there are several different architects and landscape architects, so that the feeling of a neighborhood built over time will be there rather than as a single master planned development. as a past president of the planning commission, i've looked at a lot of eirs and have seen a lot of plans. i have looked at the
10:54 pm
alternatives from the appellant and they do not pencil out. spur finds this project to be an appropriate mix of land use in an exceptionally suitable location. we are emphatic that the project's eir is fully certificatable and stand by our testimony to that effect at the planning commission please encourage the project to move forward. it wa.we urge to you affirm thel eir and approve the associated items.
10:55 pm
>> next speaker. >> good evening, president, members of the san francisco barred of supervisors. i'm the lead field representatives of the local 22 in sanfrancisco. represent approximately 4,000 carpenters in san francisco and approximately 40,000 in northern california. and the carpenters union is excited to be here in full support of 3333 california street development. this is a smart development that once approved will be a win for the city, the expect and labor. community and labor. smart development with a responsible general contractor who pays area standard wages and benefits and who participates in state-certified apprenticeship programs which the supervisor was speaking about, creating an opportunity for individuals to work in the trades and have a head of household and advance their career as apprenticemen and journeymen.
10:56 pm
these are workers who can give back to the community by continuing to live and shop right here in san francisco. that's my job speech but idon't think it's insignificant to mention this is 744 units and that is not creating displacement. i've been here for a long time and have seen a lot of oppositions to a lot of projects and nine times out of ten because it's creating displacement. so thank you for your service in considering this development and we ask you deny the laurel height's approval association appeals in order toen sure to ey can enjoy the many benefits. >> next speaker. >> good evening. i'm caroline and i'm a neighbor in pacific heights and have worked in laurel heights over 30 years. i'm familiar with the prado group, well-respected developer
10:57 pm
living up to a production and well-designed project. we need housing on the north side of the town. this is a perfect location for senior housing and it's easier walkable and accessible. the need for childcare is great, as well as the continued need for retail. thank you. >> next speaker. >> supervisors, i have lived in the neighborhood 25 years and my husband and i raised our four children here and i'm support of the project. first because we need housing in the city desperately and this is one of the best places to put it without any displacement. every neighborhood needs to participate and we have a wonderful opportunity to to that. do that. this activates a spot where this is a creepy place and inned ins,
10:58 pm
we have a project that's porous to the neighborhood, engage with it and that's a gift to the neighborhood. the third reason is retail invigoration, having a project to participate and connect the laurel village shopping center to the city center off on masonic and gerry is an expression of local retail which we all appreciate. i'm here to encourage you to move it forward. >> thank you, next speaker. >> good afternoon. i'm ron blatman. i'm here as a neighbor and i have lived here 26 years, a native of the city and a fan board member. i used to be director of business development here in city hall for the mayor's office a long time ago is i'm here to support the project whole-heartedly. it's not everyday we get a project that in a sense is out of the becomes compare box. when the prado group and sks
10:59 pm
came to the neighbors, they brought forth a vision. when most people would have said, this is high-end, we know et cetera high-end, we will gate it and put a barrier around the 11 acres, they said just the reverse. from the get-go, we want to open this up and provide people to hang out and places for kids and we want places that people can walk through and this is not a normal occurrence in the real estate world. i want to give them a lot of credit is the principles of both of the development firms live not too far away and this is people who have personal stakes beyond the financial stake. the retail component is absolutely essential. it's a dead zone on california street. you do a project this big without retail, just walk around the blocks in mission bay and see what this city has done recently for how good we are at
11:00 pm
creating schedulcreating dead z. the fact they want cure the curd retail is important. parks and open space, somebody brought up the presidio tunnel's project. the trust went to new york to get jim corner and field operations to do the tunnels. these guys have brought corner and field operations to be their landscape architects. they're trying to do something a cut above. i urge you to go forward. we shouldn't be sandbags everything that comes town the e make. >> thank you. >> hell lope. hello. i'm gail star. i'm a resident for over 26 years and i'm here because i'm repeating what everybody has said, the city needs housing, especially on a transportation mode. i'm here as a mother and daughter. in fining senior hsi


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on