>> hello, commissioners. >> overhead,, please." had. >> thank you. i am a resident of laurel heights pic first thing i want to ask is you strongly consider the granting of the 15 day extension to the due date. is a very lengthy and complex document that came out right before the holidays. we are being asked to respond by christmas eve. a few more weeks will not kill the project. secondly, i wanted to show pictures. these pictures and the listing in the california register of historical resources after the unanimous support by the historic resources commission at their may hearing speak for themselves. the historic preservation commissioner further reinforces comments at the recent december 5th hearing. not much needs to be said. the commissioner spoke more eloquently and with more -- the

developer proposes a virtual total destruction of the historically listed site. the black areas indicate the extent to which 50% of the main building will be demolished. the red indicates a bulldozing and total destruction of more than 80% of the historically listed landscaping. it is unimaginable that anyone responsible for san francisco's future could count it as such a mindless destruction of an important part of the past. his of what will be the future of 3333? will we preserve it or destroy it. i will not restate the first five items in red. please take note that the community alternative feels the same number of housing units as the developers propose that would do so in three years, not in 7-15 years as proposed by the developer. it took less than five years to build the tower after all. clearly the developer and planning do not appreciate the fact that san francisco has a crisis and needs housing now, not in 2030 or beyond. housing activists should take

careful attention to this glaring discrepancy. finally, anyone concerned about eliminating climate change should pay special attention to the greenhouse gases that will be released by the two solutions developer's plan generates three times that of the community alternative. thank you. >> thank you picnic speaker, please -- next speaker, please. >> i will be using the overhead. i am with the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods. a well. i strongly urge the commission to grant a 15 day extension to the due date for comments for this e.i.r. it is a lengthy and complex document. on the overhead is a coalition resolution urging the historic designation of the site. i'm here in support of laurel heights improvement association

as they have a proven track record of working with project sponsors to achieve successful outcomes such as the cpm seek california street side and the lucky penny side. that being said, it is my understanding that this project sponsor has been challenging. it is my understanding that because of ongoing challenges that the neighborhood decided to develop, the community alternative. besides maintaining the historical and architectural integrity of the site, the community option offers alternatives. it meets the city's housing goals, does not contain retail component which would compete with existing neighborhood serving businesses, maintains a portion of the office space, which is consistent with the original purpose of the building i would urge the department and the commission to seriously consider the community alternative. >> thank you picnic speaker,

please. >> good afternoon. my name is bill. my wife and i have lived in laurel heights on california street one block from the side of the proposed real estate development for over 45 years. over the decades, we have seen many big changes to our neighborhood to, some positive, and some negative, but this proposal would -- which violates the zoning laws and the character of the district is by far the most disturbing to date. everyone recognizes the need for affordable housing in san francisco. and we support construction of housing on this site. but the current proposal which they want 7-15 years to complete includes unnecessary retail space and creates major traffic problems and includes a plan to mar the beauty just beauty of laurel hill by destroying the majority of 185 old growth trees that afford to lose in an era of

toxic air and climate change. the high density of the proposed project will increase traffic flow and congestion, increase noise and pollution, and contribute to the loss of parking. in a neighborhood where it is already almost impossible to find adequate street parking, even for those of us who have stickers as residents. fortunately, is a much better way to address the need for development at laurel hill that both meets the housing demands and still protects the historic building as well as the beautiful landscaping that surrounds it. it is called the neighborhood full preservation alternative. it provides the same number of residential housing units as another project. it protects the majority of the 185 mature trees, and does not include major retail. it only negatively compete with laurel village shopping centre which borders the site and already has two supermarkets,

starbucks and peta's coffee, ace hardware, three restaurants, three banks, several boutiques, a store, and a variety of other shops. not to mention sacramento street where there are many others. we need affordable housing built without changing the existing zoning laws. and without ten story buildings and using the available space primarily for housing. >> the neighborhood alternative does all that. you can be built in three years. not seven and a half-15. please grant a 15 day extension of the due date for comments on the draft e.i.r. thank you. >> thank you picnic speaker, please -- thank you.

next speaker, please. >> overhead please. hello. i live in the neighborhood. december 24th, what does this mean to you? [laughter] >> it should mean christmas eve, but it doesn't. as it was pointed out, very boldly, 5:00 pm, december 24th , is the due date of the de e.i.r., no exceptions. [laughter] i brought a book i am going to leave. you can give it to toys for tots was this an accident? did no one in planning actually notice this? it begs the question as to why management, why didn't the director of planning, who notice his left do something.

this is not white -- )-right-parenthesis right. this is not proper. this is not what we do to the citizens of san francisco. gives a new meaning to the word public servants. anyone who stands by silently, that is unconscionable act for christmas eve. i personally offended and i think i speak for everyone in the area. i hope i speak for each of you. what is so special about christmas eve. it means many things to many people. all the way from deeply spiritual, to totally secular. across a wide spectrum in society. the week leading up to christmas is a time for peace and reflection. it is time for family and friends to travel across california, across the country, across the globe to be with loved ones. it is time for grandmothers to

teach granddaughters how to bake christmas cookies and prepare meals for santa and his reindeer it is a time for grandfathers to teach grandsons how to hang out outside christmas lights without getting electrocuted. it is not a time of the community should be forced into some arbitrary day, totally arbitrary day to give up their involvement in this special season. on december 24th, 1968, this year is the 50th anniversary on that date. they circled the moon. the first humans to ever venture to another planetary body and they share these photos and a message of joy, piece, and humanity with all the people planet earth. >> we would request an extension >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> good afternoon. my name is judy dome. i have lived near the 3333 california project site since early in the 1970s. i strongly urge the planning commission to grant a 15 day extension of the due date for comments on this draft e.i.r. because it is a long and complex document. i support building more housing in our neighborhood to, and specifically, at the 3333 california street site, what needs to be the right development plan. after examining available plans including the plan proposed by the developer, and an alternative that the neighbors themselves have produced, i am supporting the neighborhood preservation alternative for the

following reasons. one, we do not need more retail in this area. we have plenty of shops surveying the neighborhood now. adding more will make 3333 california not just a residence, but also a retail destination. guaranteeing an unacceptable amount of extra traffic and exacerbating an already stressed on street parking problem. increasing the traffic will make it more hazardous for a large number of seniors using walkers as well as doing endangered mothers of baby carriages trying to come across their already busy intersections. the neighborhood full preservation alternative will retain the same number of units, 558 or the variance of the 734. the neighborhood plan will also keep the unique features of the original version original historic building and landscaping.

that means that some of the old growth trees on the lot can be retained, protecting the ecological aspects of this space for a beautiful clean city. please consider the neighborhood full preservation plan. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hello. with my name is chris dante. i have been on presidio heights two and a half or three blocks from the proposed project. first of all, i do request that the planning commission grants a 15 day extension for comments on the de e.i.r. i come from a very large extent dented family. i don't have time to read it. an extra two weeks to be really helpful. i also protects the full

community residential alternative for 3333. i feel that the group proposal is akin to building a mini city. three blocks from my house. there will be many, many fears, no matter which way you slice it , at least seven, possibly ten , may be with extensions more of noise pollution, traffic, congestion all the things that we deal with downtown, and then it will be permanent. it will just turn our neighborhood into another civic centre. the project is completely out of scale for the surrounding neighborhoods. there are four neighborhoods immediately surrounding, and i feel that is just going to be plunked down in the middle of us among other things, removing the

trees, almost 200 trees and just saying they need to plant more. the trees have been there for decades and it will take many decades for new trees to grow and we don't know if they will grow. who has studied what trees, what if they tear up the sidewalk? when will they be placed there? after the project is finished caught during? who knows. we will be losing that resource, which helps clear the air. anyway, i ask that you reject the proposal and accept the community will preservation residential alternative in its place thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. i live about six blocks from the site of my family and i find ourselves at this intersection all the time. i have a young daughter. we use the j.c.c. regularly. i found out about this recently.

i don't know much about real estate development, but my instinct is that this will be incredibly -- an incredibly huge imposition on the neighborhood. the idea of 7-15 years of construction at this intersection that we rely on constantly to get where we are going. we rely on the bus and the 43 bus and driving past there peerk the thoughts of construction and dumpsters, and board walls and backhoes backing up and trucks beeping for 7-15 years is just really kind of soul crushing. from what i've heard, i would really supports the proposed neighborhood alternative which provides the same housing. but on a much shorter period and with much less impact on the neighborhoods during the instruction construction and at the -- afterwards. i'd also like to request the 15 day extension. it seems like a reasonable thing to do given this clout just before the thanksgiving and the christmas christmas and hanukkah holidays. i would like to ask for that extension as well. >> thank you.

next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is adam. i am here out of work today with a concerned citizen of san francisco to urge you to support the proposed project at 333 -- 3333 california street. it is a step forward in addressing the housing crisis by providing much-needed housing for families and a transit fan friendly neighborhood. is a longtime resident of the neighborhood, i have seen neighbors and friends move out of the city due to the housing shortage on the housing affordability challenges. the combined effects of job creation and slow housing production have created difficult situations for families like mine. the west side of the san francisco needs more housing. the residents in this area have benefited from that job creation a proper -- of property values. and the same residents have

skated by and deepens the housing crisis by maintaining current local zoning. this must change for the long-term sustainability of the city for families like mine. the proposed project creates family-friendly community and the city has seemed rapid flight of young families like mine. san francisco is an innovative city that values inclusion got diversity in community and in this moment of crisis we hope you will support this project and ensure the residents of san francisco have access to more housing. in addition to this letter that my wife and i wrote, i would like to say that if i had to make a few changes to the project, it would triple the size of it.

in coordination with a lot of the buildings that surround the area. and we will do as much as we can't add more housing to the city in general. thank you for your time. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. i think mixed-use is good. we are talking about adding a lot of housing that this neighborhood desperately needs. the area is way too expensive and we need to add as many units as possible. it is great that the city is exploring a higher option for even more housing. could we reduce some of the retail posture. the reason why projects end up with retail and office is because the fees that we put on housing and the delay and the risk means they need to mitigate that by adding in jobs. so if you want to see better balanced projects that have a better job is to housing ratio calculated to think creatively about how our policies are

creating this output. we can see less retail and less office if we make these projects easier to build. if we do modular and bring down costs. these are all things that this body can pursue. i would like to say that i celebrate new year's more than i celebrate christmas. therefore i was strongly opposed the delay tactic that interferes with my right to celebrate new year's. i think it is very important. new year's is something everyone celebrates. not just christians. so it is much broader. we just had hearings all through the hanukkah holiday and i did not see anybody demanding any delays based on the celebration. a much longer event of hanukkah. i did not see anyone demanding delays. these tactics are silly. these people have a lot of time on their hands.

we see they are spending hours at the hearings reading the e.i.r. and we can in fact move quickly. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. i will call a couple more names. [calling names] >> this position has never been fully taking advantage of due to its i love nature. the proposed plan for the site serves two major purposes. it provides serving dutch housing for a city in desperate need of it. i believe that the proposal creates the opportunity for an urban noted that attracts users

from adjacent neighborhoods and has the ability to draw residents from that one neighborhood to another in a way that currently -- it currently does not. all cities need housing. but healthy and usable separate the best ideas from the rest. i encourage the development team to maximize the potential of the site as an urban amenity. in conclusion, i would like to echo other speakers to extend the window for public comment. i also believe that the draft e.i.r. sufficiently it studies the potential environment of impacts of the neighborhood while providing housing to a city sorely lacking it while also providing an urban amenity that would be of use for the adjacent neighborhood and the city at large. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i had the pleasure of being here last year for the lucky penny, in that project went through. i went through anyway because of

neighborhood consensus. i have lived in the area for over 30 years. i was born in the city. we are looking forward to the 95 units that lucky penny is building. we are looking forward to the housing that this project brings what we request as an extension for the draft e.i.r. to put it out thanksgiving, and then ask for something at the end of the year is a busy time for a lot of people. two weeks we hope is reasonable. my name is colleen, and i appreciate this opportunity to be harassed. i hope you will hear our concerns and that they resonate with you and with the commission we support the housing, as i've said. we welcome the change. we are concerned at the amount of retail developer making the prophets, and also i note having been here last year, i think there are people at this event to speak you are being paid back were not part of the neighborhood, and his only skin in the game is to create -- i

don't even want to say the word. as a mention today, as mentioned today, we -- one of the goals of the staff was to keep what makes the neighborhood special. this neighborhood a special. i walk my dog there. my kids have played on the lawn. my mom rents around there and loves the views and just walking around and greeting her neighbors. we really hope that that sends of community specialist can be kept. we appreciate your time, and look forward to the community preservation idea going through. and keeps the housing and drops the retail, and lessons the acts of 7-15 years of construction. thank you for your time. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i would like to take this opportunity to remind members of the public this is the draft environmental impact report and we are here to review or accept comments on the adequacy and accuracy of the document and not the project itself.

>> hello. i also want to strongly urge that you as a commission grants the 15 day extension for the draft environmental reports because it is quite complex and it is a lengthy document. i also fully support the community full preservation residential alternative for 333 california. it takes into consideration the need for housing more than anything related to retail space and also it preserves the historic significance and characteristics of the neighborhoods. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hello. thank you for giving us the opportunity. i also live in the neighborhood like a lot of the people here and i supports increasing housing in san francisco very much. the only thing i do not want is more retail because we have a lot of it on sacramento, masonic

, gary, people can walk to that. right now as i was coming to city hall, it was already congestion, with ten cars trying to get through to laurel intersection. this was at noon. can you imagine what it would be like when you increase retail and more apartments there? and hopefully you will stop that thank you very much. i appreciate your time listening on 3333 california street i have four points i will make. i am a fourth year resident of laurel heights very near the

projects i want to strongly encourage the commission to grant a 15 day extension for this review. it is a lengthy and complex document. and ending it right in the middle of the holidays is difficult for everyone. number 2, i fully support the community full preservation residential alternative for this site. unlike the speaker before me who is constantly here at these hearings, suggesting that we are all -- that is just not the case like one of my neighbors, i was involved in the lucky penny project a year ago, and it was really due to that developer listening to the neighbors that we got that through.

and 95 units are now going up. i'm happy to report, as i walk by the site just a day or so ago , that construction has begun a year later for that. and what disturbs me, it it was said again by the developer earlier this afternoon, that they have had some 140 meetings, from some kind of accounts they keep with the neighborhoods. that is just not our experience for many people. in fact, it is just the opposite i don't believe the developers have been engaged in a meaningful way to come to agreement and not delay this housing we so desperately needs. we are in support of the same amount of 550 -- 552 it said.

558 units or 744 alternatives. we want that to happen. it can happen in three years instead of perhaps a lengthy delay of 7-10 years to get this done. so appreciate your time and consideration. >> our first like to say i support what my neighbor just said entirely and i won't take the time to repeat what he just said, but i would like to ask for the commission to grant an extension for the comments on the d. e.i.r. i am a homeowner, along with my husband in jordan park and it is a humongous project with lots of legs and things to study. i'd appreciate additional time. thank you. >> thank you. >> hello.

i am joanna thompson. i'm also a resident of the neighborhood that will be positively impacted by the addition of housing. my family and i live within blocks and i have lived in the neighborhood for almost 20 years i would really appreciate an extension having book ended the time period between thanksgiving and the christmas holiday. it is a very complicated his and complex document and we have tried to read it and need more time to make comments. we hope you will grant that. not withstanding anybody's personal preference about holidays. it is a busy time of year. i also want to echo what a couple of other speakers have indicated which is that as a proud homeowner in the neighborhood, we are desperate for more housing and for all different income housing. we would love for friends and

people from across the city to join us in this neighborhoods. we just would like to see it done in a way that benefits the neighborhood. we listened closely today to the mission at excelsior conversations about how important it is to be able to maintain some character that draws and keeps people there. we are concerned about the small business owners that will absolutely get pushed out after a multi- decade career ends and sales marketing and business development. i want to applaud the group for their excellent presentation, but i don't think that augmenting the small business owners are doing is actually an accurate depiction. we do hope that you will give us a couple of more weeks and we will look forward to coming to closure and bringing more housing in. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> overhead, please. there is. >> thank you. >> president telus and commissioners, and president of the laurel heights improvement association. this commission, as the decision-maker that is responsible for preparing and certifying the e.i.r. is authorized to grant a 60 day comment period to january 7th by the department is only given a 45 day period, and you don't need special circumstances for a 60 day. forty-five is the minimum required to because this had to go to the state clearinghouse as an areawide significance project with over 500 more housing units they only gave us the minimum. it is not fair to the public to release the draft e.i.r. on a 1r construction period during this time of the year. especially in view of that community opposition to the developer's concept, over 800

residents have signed a petition against his concept in supporting the housing component we have worked successfully with the lucky penny and the cpmc and we had a role there. despite all the meetings with this developer, when we asked him a supervisor his' office with the project was before he went public, he said this is not a negotiation. and the communities supposed to have a role in planning when there is a major rezoning. the e.i.r. admits the project will have a significant impact on the historical resource by destroying the landscaping and half of the building and cutting a hole in it. will also have a significant construction noise that is unmitigated bull. >> we think that is -- unmitigated -- we think that is bogus. you see the developer can

conceal this from the public. are association nominated it. it is now listed on the california register. last week the san francisco historic commission expressed strong support for the resource, and also wanted to know more about our alternative. the fire corporate headquarters and landscaping and building are an integrated composition that was designed to complement each other and promote the seamless integration between indoor and outdoor spaces. no employee was to be more than 40 feet from a window. our community preservation alternative is better. it would have the same number of housing units, it out to preserve the landscaping, for 115-foot cypress tree that is a holdover from the cemetery. we ask if evaluated in the same degree of detail as the other

alternatives in the e.i.r. alternative c., their preservation alternative has 26 less housing units, and it is unreasonably -- there shouldn't be less. we hope for an extension. i have a handout. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> my name is holly. i live one block from 3333 california and presidio avenue i would like to request that the 15 day extension. i fully support the community preservation alternative, i support the last speaker and everything she said. >> thank you. next speaker. i will call some more names. >> hello. >> i'm just waiting for a reset. >> go ahead.

you get extra time. keep going. >> good afternoon, commissioners in regards to the adequacy completeness and the accuracy of the draft e.i.r., get back to the subject of the matter. i urge that the 1224 draft e.i.r. jet deadline be extended 15 days. i would like the overhead, please. as you can see -- thank you so much to the planning department for providing this picture. it is a site of the existing property. over four decades ago, the chronicle described the site as having green lawns and planting to enhance the handsome low lines of the simple building designed by edward b. page. the draft e.i.r. does not mention that the cultural resource of large mature trees from the senate door cemetery that were incorporated into the fireman's fund building site as historic, character defining features like our workhorses and

emitting greenhouse gas emissions. planting trees over a span of 15 years as if that were providing equivalent or greenhouse gases from thousands of vehicle miles travelled associated with the new retail uses to negatively impact everyone's health is very concerning. as you can see from this diagram , you will see masonic avenue here, and pine street from downtown, three lanes one way will be heading pretty quickly up the hill towards the avenue. there's already a lot of vehicles that go through there, and this has not been adequately studied along with what i said. historically, the site was designed to have commercial on california only. i have some records from chronicle. the jordan park improvement association board opposes the retail on the side. i would submit this less than 150 word summary according to sunshine 67.16 for the minutes. thank you so much. >> thank you so much. next speaker, please.

>> hello. i am kelly and i strongly urge the commission to grant a 15 day extension of the due date for comments of the draft e.i.r. it is a lengthy document and we need some time to process it. i specifically wanted to speak to the point of construction duration. fifteen years, seven years seems crazy to me. i did a few things. i looked up a few other buildings. it had a similar unit count. this is at the tent and market. it has 754 units. construction started on novemben march 2014. that is less than three years. the two towers here near the embarcadero, were 709 units and started in july, 2012, finished august 2014. less than three years.

the pair meant -- paramount building technician and third, 495 units started in 2002 -- started in 2,000 and completed in 2002. that is less than three years. all of these projects, soup to nuts. we have very competent construction companies in san francisco to ensure they can manage it. okay. in addition, most people in the neighborhood would like to maintain the height limit in the existing zoning. this is a 40-foot height limit, and in the neighborhood full preservation alternative, the height limit would be maintained it avoids significant shadowing at sunrise and sunset on the east and west sides of the site because existing residences like apartments, neighborhoods and houses will be existed by shadowing at the extreme ends and beginning of the day. our victorian character of our neighborhood should be maintained.

we prize the small-scale residential qualities, but we can embrace new housing too. we can all work together. if the proposed retail component is added, we are subjected to many additional car trips, resulting in additional traffic and debt congestion on already narrow streets. it could be problematic work and our neighborhood already has one large retail shopping center and a target store. thank you for your time. i appreciate it. have a good afternoon. >> next speaker, please. >> my name is mj thomas. i have lived in san francisco all my life except for ten years i have lived within half a mile to a mile and a half the entire time during that .-period-paragraph right now it is close to less than half a mile. i am strongly urging the

planning commission to grant a 15 day extension for the draft e.i.r. i am in favor of retaining zoning as residential only. that was the intention originally by the gentleman who developed laurel heights as well as anti- vista heights. is going to develop this area and unfortunately he died before that happened. i'm not in favor of a 15 -- of 15 years of ongoing construction 50,000 square feet of commercial space, 50,000 square feet of retail, and carving under much of the hill for a three or four story garage with access onto presidio and california, which is already a three ring circus, or out towards laurel, which is opposite the one of two exits of the laurel village parking lots. i am against chopping the building and have, and this

building is part of the california historic site back and i am -- than the plan was to raise the sections by two or three stories. i do not concur with that. the present plans are ludicrous, and to my mind, will be the great urban real estate tragedy of the 21st century. please consider the same alternative plan. also, to point out, we will have a lot of action in that particular neighborhood because two blocks away, in 2019, the children's hospital will be torn down, and there will be 307 units developed their. that is something to consider that we are not without new housing. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is sonja and i strongly urge the planning commission to grant a 15 day extension to the

due date for the comments on this draft e.i.r. in addition i would like to say the community preservation alternative will protect the retail in laurel village where i live. more retail is unneeded, unwanted, and will compete with the small businesses already in place. the addition of the area will add an immense amount of traffic and congestion. they are used to get across a the city. the proposed project would put a huge snarl into the thoroughfares. that is not to mention the noise if you have not visited the area , it is a neighborhood in the traditional sense. the construction would destroy that aspect. my husband and i have lived across on the site. we can see it from our window. we supported the community preservation residential alternative for 3333 california. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is tina. i live in laurel heights and i

strongly urge the planning commission to pleas grant the 15 day extension for the due date of the comments of the draft e.i.r. it is lengthy, complex, and we are in full force into the holidays. thank you. i support traditional housing in the laurel heights community alternative plan for the development of 3333 california street. a 10-acre site. it projects a three year plan buildout rather than the 7-15 year plan construction time. one can imagine the noise, traffic, congestion, dirt, pollution in the air, and on the ground and this will make the neighborhood -- it will make the neighborhood go through millions of tons of dirt to be excavated. the construction takes almost half of a generation assuming the 15 year buildout proposal.

if you had eight -- if you have a toddler in your household, similar to the gentleman earlier here who is supporting the site, the toddler will be in college by the end of this project. and san francisco needs housing right now, not to wait for 15 years. san francisco has a need for housing now. please consider that. i'm sure that people don't want to wait that long. the construction period also brings congestion, chaos to the major commute route which is california street, pine street and others to and from the richmond area, not just for the laurel heights and jordan park presidio heights area. euclid avenue on the site that is planned for retail is hilly and windy and i'm sure you have

driven past it. people with dogs have walked past it. in my personal opinion, it is not conducive to a leisurely or casual strolling or shopping afternoon. i support the preservation of the site for the historical and architectural reasons as well as preservation of the 180 plus rare species of trees. my husband and i call the houses on this 500 block of laurel street across from the site the midcentury ladies, fondly just as others fondly referred to the painted ladies on alamo park -- across from alamo park. i urge the commission to please consider the time extension. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> good afternoon, commissioners >> pull the mic over to you so we can hear. >> i'm a resident of san francisco for 49 years and a resident of laurel heights for the past 15 years. before i begin, i urge you to consider a 15 day extension of the due date for comments of this draft e.i.r. due to its length and complexity. today i would like to explain the history of the restrictions placed on the site by the planning commission and the use of green spaces. the same developer who built laurel heights was going to build a residential track on the site but he died. the school district acquired the property for possible site for her laurel high. decided to locate it elsewhere and sell the site. it would get 50% more money from the sale and they could rezone it as commercial. the district went through attempts of rezoning due to community opposition as can be seen here. finally, a deal was struck with

the community that resulted in restriction and resolutions for 4109 that included 100-foot landscape setbacks along laurel and euclid streets and a ban on retail uses of the site. under the planning code, such stipulations as to character improvements become provisions of the planning code and can only be changed by the board of supervisors. the e.i.r. identifies the concrete pergola atop a terrace planting feature facing laurel street as a character defining resource of the resource. the e.i.r. explains if this midcentury modern design and courtyards created a welcoming transition area where the inside and outside merged. through the years, the community has used the green a landscape spaces for recreational purposes and the public has required

rights on the green spaces. there is talk of that and preserving neighborhood character. laurel hill has been a place where neighbors gather, children learn sports on the parents, in a communities formed. these bonds will not be formed along meandering concrete pathways. i and the entire community strongly support the full preservation alternative that protects the cherished historic feature of these things. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is deborah. i am -- i live about one block from the proposed site and i would strongly urge the planning commission to grant a 15 day extension of the due date for comments on the draft e.i.r.

it is a lengthy and complex document. my concern environmentally has been regarding traffic. i would like to ask that retail and the office sections of the plan be eliminated. the traffic estimates by our neighborhood group has said that there will be 12-15,000 visits in our neighborhood to use their services a day. and timmy to me, 12-15,000 sounds enormous and living already in that area, we already have a lot of traffic problems and parking problems, and i just can't envision more retail and office use.

so in regard to retail, we have the laurel village, we have so much -- there is not a service that we don't have. there's not a restaurant or anything of that type that we need. it is all in our neighborhoods. i think we will have open areas already. mayor breed is trying to help in our city people finding ways to use the brick-and-mortar places because they are not being utilized. why would we add more square footage to that problem quiet anyway, i do support our neighborhood alternative plan and i hope you will consider removing the retail and office areas. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. i will call a couple more names. [calling names].

go ahead. >> good afternoon. my senior citizen husband, i have lived in san francisco since 1976, both as mentors, and homeowners. our two sons were born here, raised here for high school onto college and grad school. they are both young professionals and want to live in the city and have their homes here we were taking care of my parents and we also taking students. we were very excited to hear that this property will be developed. i don't live right near here but i live down the way right now. i am told there is a real

opportunity -- the only thing i oppose -- is frankly awful. one is a physician and one is an economist. >> it is time for people to draft -- digest the draft e.i.r.

whatever it is. anyway. is not just buildings. it is landscapes. [indiscernible] >> he really listened closely to what was going on. and find something that really works and takes into consideration the stuff about walk ability. >> thank you. next speaker, please. i have called all the names i have. if you'd like to speak, line up

on the screen side of the room. >> hello. i live on euclid. i am in support of more housing as fast as possible. i am here in support of the project. that said, i've never heard of the community project before. i don't know if it is in the documentation, and i'm sorry if i missed it in the draft e.i.r. if that is the fastest way to build, sure. i would be very much in support of the community program. i don't know if they have secured developers yet, and i know it is really hard to secure one without retail attached to the project. but if that's the case, that might be a faster way. otherwise if that is not possible, it may be a way to accept retail on the side. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> could we possibly get that

activated? >> i live at 3320 california street across the street from the project's proposed retail. my wife and i represent a group of orgy homeowners and residents who live on that block between laurel and walnut on california street. the draft e.i.r. fails completely to recognize the impact of this project on our group. the developer has been attentive to our interests. they have listen to us. now is a time for the developer, the commission, the department, and the city to recognize the specific and unaddressed impacts of this project, in its current form, will have on our neighborhood. we are 40 residents, in addition there are 11 other neighborhood

occupants whose garages enter california street. with the development proposed, it will become basically untenable. the draft e.i.r. does not address this. it obviously then cannot mitigate something that hasn't been addressed. the proposed intrusion of a lane for construction purposes on california between laurel and walnut will constitute a taking of available parking currently, which would last for years. the proposed imposition of a commercial loading zone on the street side of california street , rather than putting construction staging or construction loading and commercial loading within the confines of the project is

unacceptable, it is an intrusion and taking of existing property interests. it is not address or adequately mitigate because it does not address the effect of taking the streetscape away and taking the view you see in the overheads and putting it behind the project's walls. it is an unacceptable denial of light and air and will create shading on the residents who share our perspective. [please stand by]

except we all have to deal with construction noise if we want the city to be the vibrant city that it is. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm maryanne massenberg and lived from the proposed site since 1972 and were on the