their income totally out of line , with affordability in terms of getting shelter for themselves. in some cases, a tragically high amount of their income is spent on shelter. that is our fault. we have found a multitude of ways to slow down and prevent the creation of adequate housing , in this city. we should do something about it. i will give you foster example, which may illustrate the problem. the first house i bought, in san francisco, was in 1970 in the sunset district. i pay $20,000 for the house. in today's dollars, that is about $250,000. that house, that exact same house, would sell today for $1.4 million, perhaps more. we have created this lack of affordability, and we need to do something about it. you, today, have that opportunity to do something, by

approving this project. you could not be looking at a more appropriate project. the site is currently occupied by a genuinely on pre-, sit and significance suburban office of his building which should have never been constructed in a residential neighborhood. it is a great place to put housing. you also have an excellent sponsor. i am personally and professionally up acquainted with the sponsor. he and i worked together, many years ago, when he was starting his career. we worked for a company whose job was to invest on behalf of pension funds, including the pension fund and the city and county of san francisco. due to their enlightened leadership in our hard work, we made a lot of money for that pension fund. your retirees are more financially secure, as a result of our efforts. i am very proud of that. i am aware of his work, i am aware of i have watched it throughout their growth growth. they are a group, they have a

significant -- axis two resources to complete this project on time,, without the pressure to cut corners. i strongly urge you to approve this project, and do so in such a fashion that you send a message to the board of supervisors that we need this project. thank you. >> thank you, sir. it next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is marcy glazer, i am the ceo of the jewish community center of san francisco. i am here today to speak in favor, of the proposed project at 3333 california street. for 86 years, they have served the people of san francisco, from the corner of presidio in california, directly across the street from the project site. we provide a vibrant public community space, for people of all ages, backgrounds together, explore, connect and flourish. you will find little kids, and their caregivers, young adults, families, robust and aging

seniors as well as people like me walking through our doors and for wellness sports activities, hands on our hearts as well as thought-provoking arts and cultural events. over the past several years, we have worked with the city to provide public health and safety respite in the face of smoke, heat emergencies and other emergencies. we believe that 3333 california street development, as proposed will create a more vibrant neighborhood with more housing activity, and open spaces which will benefit the broad community that we serve. we understand the acute need for housing, especially affordable housing for seniors in our city, and are pleased to see this as an element in this project. along with most other social scepter organizations in san francisco. we struggled to help our more than 600 employees find reasonable housing to provide the services that we offer.

we appreciate the public's projects, the open spaces and design that thoughtfully is to just together. we believe this will benefit everybody by encouraging more walking and access to outdoor space in our urban environment. the open space, in this project, allows us to continue to have an emergency evacuation location nearby. which is a very critical to our community serving purpose. i want to make a special note scum of the inclusion of the social services and philanthropic facilities as a use in the s.u.d. proposed ordinance. this designation provides a helpful pathway as we consider how the jc csf will help our community serving uses to our new neighbors including the low income seniors directly across the street from our current facilities. we would like to thank the prado group for its diligent efforts to address community concerns in the past 4.5 years, the jcc has been a regular participant and host for community meetings, led

by the developer of the project. thank you for your consideration. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is charles ferguson, i am president of the presidio heights association of neighbors, commonly referred to as fan. three months ago, i appeared before you and that was in connection of a project at 3700 california street. at that time, i pointed out to you something that i'm going to repeat here. former acting mayor, former supervisor for district to and i worked out an agreement, when the city signed a development agreement for the huge sutter health hospital on venice avenue that required a certain kind of procedure to benefit the neighborhoods around the old

campus, which is in the middle of my neighborhood to actually have a meaningful way to participate in the design of the project. that agreement, which the city signed, and which was honored on that particular property was limited to that property. but, the prado group was foresighted enough to read it, and to implement it. you heard from mr. safir from moment to go, he's had 160 meetings with various neighborhoods and individual groups, from around this project. we think that is really something that should be rewarded and recognized, he had no obligation to do that at all, yet he saw what happened with 3700 california street, and he followed the exact same pattern that we had set up there. secondly, i want to point out to you that my neighborhood is one

of the largest, if not the largest neighborhood in the city eligible for inclusion as a historic district on the state list. we know about historic buildings , and we know this about historic buildings. yes, it is nice to keep them, but they have to be adapted to modern living standards. and modern societal goals. it can be done properly. it has been done, in our neighborhood, over, and over, and over again. i think this particular project, 3333 california street has accomplished that goal with the design they have put in front of you. we recommend that you approve it as it is presented to you today. i just want to add that i have sent in a letter that explains in more detail how it is that we come to support this project.

thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> can you hear me? okay. my name is chris dez b. for nearly 21 years, my family has lived on clay street, three blocks from the project that is proposed. this is not a downtown construction zone. laurel hill is at the intersection of four family neighborhoods, for quiet family neighborhoods. this scale and timeline of the prado groups plan will destroy them, in every way. fifteen years of noise, construction dust and congestion is simply unacceptable. the plan for commercial and retail would destroy laurel village, which already has nearly everything we need. furthermore, chopping down 200 trees, in the era of climate change is equally unacceptable.

commercial and retail operations should be restricted to 10:00 p.m., not 6:00 a.m. until 2:00 a.m. in residential neighborhoods. it is not appropriate. the noise and congestion would in fax, make the new housing that is proposed, less desirable the benefits reported by the prado groups plan are already there. we have the green space. why tear down a hill? why tear down 200 trees? we arty have child development centers. the buildings that are there can be adapted. those buildings were built, in such a way, so that anywhere you are inside the building you would be no more than a few feet from the green space that is there. i do not understand why it needs to be paved over? finally, i support the community alternative which would preserve

the green space without disturbing the park like setting. and, destroying the trees, while adding much needed housing, in the character, and height thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. [applause] please, if you can remain silent. you can wave your hands, but just know clapping. thank you. >> my name is kelly robertson, i live on walnut street. i am in support of the laurel heights effort, our neighborhood group. i think this project is extremely disruptive to our neighborhood. with that said, the city needs housing. due to the scheduling of the immediate process here, i would recommend that the planning department analyzed the two community alternates, again, if possible. in order to make possible changes to the developer's proposal. especially relative to height limits. i think i heard today, there was

an 85-foot tower mansion. if there is an 85-foot tower that is twice as high, as the existing zoning would allow, it's also four times as high as any houses on walnut street. that is a significant vertical change, in the neighborhood. it also creates significant shadow patterns, in the early morning until late day as the sun moves across the sky. there is much more shouting to immediate residence. we would love to keep any new buildings off the green space. those are some of my basic concerns. i also wanted to talk about, in particular, construction duration. i've heard a lot of different numbers, over the last few months. [laughter] you know, 15 years, seven years, et cetera. i thought i would look up some comparable -- comparable, maybe not exactly comparable, if i can have the screen?

we will make do here. so, this is obviously a high-rise building. this is 1500 mission at south van ness. the goodwill was demoed in october of 2017. construction will be hypothetically complete in december of 2020, that is three years and two months. it is fairly difficult, because it is right near market street, van ness, anyway, this project has five and 50 residents. -- 550 residents. the foundation construction start date was march 2016. this was three years and four months. site access again is a bit difficult. it was a dense area with rush-hour traffic and transit. 570 residents. the paramount building, been

around for a couple of years now, at 680 mission street, started construction in 2,000, completed 2,002. 495 residents. perhaps the darth vader of residences. anyway there it is. that is at construction starts november 2011. the point being -- 1020 thank you. your time is up. -- >> grade thank you, your time is up. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i live in the laurel heights neighborhood. i oppose the developer's project , and support the community alternative. because, we support housing, especially the number of units

for seniors. i am really concerned about the retail space. we really do not need all of that retail. we arty have the laurel heights neighborhood, and the shopping area, the village there. i also was concerned that our community alternate plan which takes care of lots of the similar issues, without destroying the neighborhood, or taking 15 years to build, is not considered. i would really want that to be included. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is judy dome. except for one year, spent living in north beach, i have lived on california street since 1970, nearly 50 years. i love my neighborhood. i am aware, however, that the city needs more housing. i am very concerned about a

number of issues on this project, and i want to speak about two right now. one, up to 15 years of construction, let me ask you all something. could you stand having 15 years of continual construction because one your neighborhood? please think about this.carefully, and consider a neighborhood alternative plan requiring only three years of construction. with three stores in laurel village closing just recently. we certainly do not need a retail opportunities. let alone something called flexible retail, at the site. with the possibility of late-night activity, noise, where previously there has been none. retail at this site makes 3333 california street, destination destination, not a residence. since time is short, i will end

with this, i hope all of you will conclude that we need a 30 day extension to allow the community alternative plan to be considered as fully and carefully as the developers plan. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you. my name is anne harvey. i am very familiar with this neighborhood. my sons were born and raised here. this is a very important resource that the city has come and it should be the best of the developer coming with us, they have some good points, but it is not the best there is. i think the laurel heights association has a great project plan, that is a good thing for the bad ones. it doesn't take 15 years to build, does not have so called

flexible, which is ridiculous in this area of laurel village, the place is closing sacramento street. it should be used for housing, but not as being proposed. please give the laurel heights project consideration. thirty day extension considered if need be. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i am going to try to keep it short, because we've already spent way too much time on what is objectively a fantastic project. we need to get this built, we need to get it built as quickly as possible. i agree with maximizing housing. i also think the community plan is fake.

we need to be skeptical when these kinds of community plans going forward, that are not based in something that could actually be feasible, or realistic and are really designed to delay the project. maximizing the housing potential, at this site, is a great idea i wish there was a commitment to making sure we get that done, as quickly as possible. the time is ticking. i spent an our getting coffee, with one of the members who lives in his car, and was spending time, sometimes in the south bay. basically running from the tickets. that is what it is like to live in your car, is to strategize every day about where you can park, so that you won't have to deal with the crisis that is happening here, and the tickets i can line up. we don't have time for these projects to take as long as they do. the dr is that we sat there, were excruciating.

we have to do this all in a much more efficient way. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> excuse my phone, my notes are on here. my name is sarah. i have lived two blocks from the site for the past four years at lie in ambush. my husband has been there for ten years. we have two little girls and i work in the neighborhood, as does my husband who has a business on sylmar street. as a residential neighborhood, i as a commercial agent that does retail deals, throughout the city, i welcome this project. i think this project would benefit other retailers, in laurel village, who have felt the effects of the hospital moving to van ness. it would add to the retail mix that we arty have, and i, for one, would like more local shops and services near my home that me and my girls can walk to. the three retail shops, that the other woman had spoken about, that closed recently on laurel

have had offers, and will be leased quickly. as a real estate agent, i have worked with prado in the past, only seeing their retail space at the we have negotiated various leases, such as valencia, market street. they have only improve these areas but those mix of tendencies, and have been very fair landlords in in terms of retail. i know they will be thoughtful foz when their choice of tenants for this corridor this project is honestly far more beneficial to the neighborhood and what is currently there. i urge you to support 3333 california street project. >> thank you. as you come up, i will read a few more speaker cards. [reading notes]

>> my name is valerie. i'm speaking on behalf of the san francisco housing action coalition. we are pleased to support the project, as proposed. this project has received the highest grade we have ever given. the mix of incomes, retail uses, and proximity to transit, it is hands down and easy support for us. we hope you will support it as well. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i am nancy goldenberg. i am a historical architect. and were retained to assist the community in developing the laurel heights community alternative. i am also a neighbor living in the nearby vista heights

neighborhood. i would like to touch on a few points relative to the site, and the community alternative. first, as you know, this is a historic site. the property is on the california register. it has been through eligible national register. it is significant for, and also for its team of leading landscape architects. the building is integrated into this mature designed landscape. both the building and the landscape were designed to complement one another, and the complex reflect mid 20th century design principles. second, the community response to the project is not the result of enemy is in. the community is in favor of the project that would provide this level of housing, which we all agree is badly needed in our city. it would like to see one that takes into consideration the historic significance of the property.

the third., the community alternative was founded by a nonprofit group, which does not have the resources of the developer. as such, the alternative cannot be as well developed. however it is at least as well-defined as the alternatives included in the e.i.r. the intent of the community alternative was to show that a high level of preservation is feasible, in facts, while preserving the historic character defining features of the property. i reviewed the critiques of the community alternative by both the developer, and public works and there were numerous inaccuracies. as examples, the critiques stated that the would have to be entered from the north, which is not true. a couple of other things as well. i also wanted to point out that my firm did an analysis of the community alternative using a 75% efficiency factor for new

construction, and 70% for the main existing building. i we found that using the same unit sizes, as a developer, we were able, in fact to get the same unit count and mixed as a developer, but without the retail. finally, the community came up with a suggested change to the developers proposed project. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm just going to do something a little bit different, and a quick love story, or rather this is a story of love that was lost. about a year ago i met and fell for a person named chris. he worked very close to where this project would be. he had two kids, from a previous marriage, and was living with his kids in bakersfield, working dead-end jobs, ups and things like that. was able to get his dream job up here in san francisco.

came up but cannot find a place to live for himself, and his kids. he moved his kids to his parents house, two hours away in hollister. what he would do was stay here, where care during the week, and then drive home every weekend to be with his kids. they kicker was, he could not even find a place for himself, during the week, so he lived in his car monday through thursday, and then we drive home two hours, to be at his parents house with his family. our relationship did not work out, because between and the going home every weekend, being away, and you know, that certainly hurt for me. more importantly, it was the hurt for somebody who has a family, and who works, and contributes to the city and cannot live near his job, and has to piece together a sort of life. i think our city can do better. i think this project can help our city do better. i don't think we can wait any longer, and i urge you all to

consider this project. thank you so much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. my name is molly, my a private citizen, i live close to the development. i'm here to support it. i think it is a great project, i think it is a beautiful project. it will take some time to build it, so let's get started. shadows don't bother me. the construction is not ideal, but it is our duty, in this community to provide housing for our neighbors. i am really excited to welcome or neighbors. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> patricia roy, the planning association which goes from chestnut to debose. this is our territory as well. for an association that supported housing for over 40

years, we cannot support this project as presented today, for the following reasons. the project lacks no middle income housing. alternative plans would have solved the middle income housing, without even giving a discussion. the historical building is being decimated, with other plans that could solve the solution. but, there is no commercial property. there is targets, there is trader joe's, and then there is laurel heights. zoning denies the right of the public to have a quality of life. we could eliminate that. there were a back up the developer considering letters of support. it came to my attention to-3 days ago that the jewish community centers already considered a part of this project.

i just want you to be aware, sometimes when people get up and stand, what is behind some of their approval? the commercial section of the project has sizes 6000-7,000 square feet. this denies the right for small businesses to be involved, within this project. the commercial space does not support tourism for the city and county of san francisco. tourists do not come to san francisco to go to formula retail 6000-7,000 square-foot buildings. they are already in their talents. ceqa does not take into consideration the noise factors of the commercial district. misrepresentation of the developer, to our group, stated they would be placing two small restaurants on california, and this weekend we find 30,000. [inaudible] we support most of what laurel

heights is. i think we can send this back from her car more compromises. instructing the planning department to work and study the two alternatives i come up with a compromise. eliminate the commercial, and replace it with 25-35 middle/low income housing units. keep the existing historical building intact. include the stakeholders this time, not have just speeches with different things said. put us all in. with the behavior of the developers require, once, will the low income units to be built first? i don't know. the project has some very good merits, that they have some other things. i think we can do better. that is my speech. one for your files. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> first of all, i object to statements being made that it is better to have a proper due -- obstruct -- construction developer work on site. the truth of the matter is it's better to have a nonprofit developer build apartment buildings in the overall city and county of san francisco. i've demonstrated several times, to the full board, a nonprofit developer building and apartment building complex, for the most vulnerable people and include people in high income brackets, the same time, and as a result the city gets a bigger bang for its about coming and a bigger return on its investment. i want to point out how section 410, of the redevelopment rules and regulations says that all brand-new apartment building complexes is supposed to be 15% of the apartment building complex, it is supposed to be for very low, and low income bracket tenants. that is why you've got so many

homeless people out in the street, because you have not been following that rule and regulation. for example, mission rock has rules and regulations, but they are not doing it. mission rock is 1500 apartment units. 15% of 1500 means that 225 of those apartments is supposed to be for the most vulnerable, very low, and low income bracket people and senior citizens. you are not following that rule or regulation. i demonstrated one nonprofit developer, built 144 units, for $56 million. i demonstrated in nonprofit developer built 86 unit apartment building complex for $57 million. i demonstrated in front of supervisor walton, the technique of a non- developer building apartment building complex, versus the technique he was using, and the city saved $66 million using the technique

of a non- developer up -- building apartment building complex. you have high price-fixing and price gouging are very -- every apartment building complex that comes out of the mayor's office. you set the ami requirement to be at 80 and 90% of the ami scale. that is $97,500 per year, in order to be attended in the building, and have the audacity to say that is affordable housing for low income bracket people. claiming that it is 100% of portal housing. you're setting yourself up for housing determination lawsuit like mission rock. you use hispanic, latino, mexican female, and her daughter to be a pitch person, proposition d, claiming they would love to be a tenant at mission rock. and he filled problem by having a schoolteacher get up there and justified that she would like to be a tenant, too. when it comes time to looking at the requirement to being a

tenant, in the building, your income is not high enough to be a tenant in the god damn building. that's disgusting. i'm really upset with that. that is why you have 28,200 people that are homeless and the overall bay area. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, i am paul wiles, a 40 year resident of san francisco. i currently own a home, a few blocks from the project. i do not represent any organization, and any special interest. i'm not a broker, i'm not in developer, i'm not an investor. i am coming here to speak as a citizen, a taxpayer, and individual who has had long-term residency in san francisco. i object to the project, because i think it is too big of a project for the kind of

neighborhood that we have. i belong somewhere else. or, it needs to be reduced in scale. there are plenty of places in san francisco, where a large project, like this would fit. in the middle of laurel heights, i just don't see it. there are a couple of reasons, which should be obvious, when i say the project is too big for the neighborhood. [please stand by] [please stand by]

>> and you know where they are. they are open spaces, there is a lot of room. there is not room for this project where it is being placed. thank you for listening to me. >> next speaker, please. >> finally get to talk about it. i am lee bishop. i am new to san francisco. i will give an outsider perspective. i moved here my rent is $35,000

a year for a studio apartment. what i have seen this city suffers from circumstances and policies like rent control, which have artificially created a housing shortage in economics 101 you can understand that. i hear a lot of this. you should build houses not here but somewhere else. that makes no sense. i think you can all agree that we have a housing problem here in san francisco. the policies, holding up construction processes are not going to solve the problem. you have people that need housing immediately, you need to minimize red tape. thithis is a wonderful project o give 740 people homes. it is needed now not after tomorrow after more deliberations. bushes and trees are not as important as families. anybody coming here saying this

is a historic building. historic buildings are not more important than families. almost every building is edward buildings from the 1900s they are not significant. these people live in modern cities, in a large u.s. city, it need goes to adapt to catch up like other cities to accommodate for housing. these building restrictions with height restrictions you can't build because somebody is upset by shade is ridiculous. you need big, tall as fast as possible. thank you. >> i will call a few more names. as you come up, lee bishop, carla, david goldbrickner, donald gill son, christina morris. linda glick.

greg scott, barbara colson and gabe. >> i am mark bernstein. my wife and i live at 3318 california street with three kids age 2, 5 and 7. our home is directly across the street from the project. how the property in the surrounding areas traffic streets parking is developed will have a large impact on our family's life. we appreciate the city's need for housing. i imagine few of us would be so noble to be excited about losing open space and trees and vistas with more traffic and less parking and more noise and construction hassles in our neighborhood. nonetheless, we are not so naive to think the proposed growth can be restricted. you will likely authorize new homes, more traffic and more noise across from our home. we get that and will support you. i am here to ask the planning

commission and city to work hard to balance competing interest. the city should not price interest in public transportation by restricting parks paces so much it makes the homes unliveable. to take away parking spaces to limit parking available and congesting the neighborhood has implications for those there. grandparents have trouble walking, they can't visit. carpools can't pick up, lives will become stressful and difficult. the ends can't justify the means. you must balance all of the interests. similarly, that means balancing the entrance between neighborhoods. in my view because they are louder the demand are more catered to than those on california street. it is important for you to know

there are more homes, more families on california street across from the project than the few single family homes on lawyerrel street. the laurel folks lobbied away the early designs. a big mistake. those plans called for more public open spaces, not private gardens, more parks, and the plans had more retail, what makes city living exciting. now, they are advocating to put all of the burden on california street, the part that is residential. that is not smart, not fair. i finally want to conclude by saying the developers have done an extraordinary job at bringing the neighborhood together. i want to speak in favor of the plan. i watched the process, they tried hard to listen. if this project is to be developed i would like proto to lead.

they care about the city and they are reasonable and want to do the right thing. if you want to disrupt the neighborhood, put a smart group in the lead. i hope agiles will -- guys will balance all the needs. >> next speaker, please. >> i am sue with the berry council. we represent the nine county bay and advocate for strong economy for everyone living here. speaking of quality of life when i think of san francisco tvs and have notes and those pushed out what should be the most progressive city. the reason is the years in making 40 years of saying no, no, no to housing. the reason why i think that is important in the context of this situation and this project is

because we keep ignoring the fact that housing delayed is housing denied. we keep calling this a housing crisis why aren't we responding with urgency. you have two projects in front of you, only one is feasible. i just want to address a comment why build this project here? well, we have every city doing the part, every neighborhood should do their part. there is opportunity and space to include more neighbors into your neighborhood. i also just want to applaud the family friendly aspects of this project. half is open space, a lot of units are two plus units. the child care facility so this is a very great quality project, and i totally disagree with the code that says say slow yes and

fast no. we need a lot of fast yes, sirs when it comes to housing. please support the staff recommendation. we support this project. >> next speaker, please. >> commissioners, i am ron mcgill representing spur. i have followed this project since conception. i attended open houses at the jewish center. more directly for the planning association for the richmond where i witnessed the heated debate between the project sponsor and the representative of the hill association as member of the project review committees. the letters are in the packet. i know the neighborhood well.

i am a past president of the board of the park, a senior facility on sacramento city that wraps around the jewish community center. i have seen firsthand the full and consistent outreach the project sponsors made to keep the neighborhood and the public informed. i have witnessed changes to the oakernal project -- original project which are in the final proposal as a result of listening to the public. access to the property is changed, amount open space is changed, modification to retail space is changed, increase in units. when was the last time you had this many four bedroom units in front of you? i can't remember it. this is a project that will provide major benefits to the city, it is well conceived, well designed and will fill the

massive neighborhood void created so long ago by firemen's fund and most recently occupied by ucsf. in my mind it was a draffvesty of land use then and now. it divided neighborhoods. we prided ourself on taking down freeways that divided neighborhoods. this is a very analogous situation. before i leave, i would like to express my appreciation for being allowed to work and interface with john ram, who will be leaving us. john you became director about six months before i joined the commission. it has been my distinct pleasure to work with you these past 12 years both on and off the commission, and i want to thank you for your service to the city. >> next speaker, please.

>> you let me know when time starts. i am peter wonk. my family and i live in the neighborhood of the proposed development. thank you for your time. first i want to say i feel like if we have any kind of concern or objection or question about the development where enemies of people living in cars, people homeless, people looking for an affordable rent, i want to address everyone here. it is a shame that all of us as citizens live with the amount of homelessness and the costs of living as it is. please, if i have questions about the development, please

don't deny my humanity. people living in cars, not right. just because i have questions about development don't make us an enemy. there is a very seductive line of thinking supported by "new york times" articles and a lot of us here read the "new york times" and a lot of consultants here and development groups. if you are against the project, you are a ninby, and that is it. we are not against housing. the one thing and we need more. what i want to pivot on the screen here, this is the corner of laurel and euclid that is currently an open space. i am not sure if it is shown on

the developer's developments. it is a great place to bring dogs after work. my kids 5 and 2 have gotten to no the dogs in the area, thatcher, thunder and lightning dogs there. it is an open public resource, and what is going on here? there is going to be two luxury town developments request penthouse terraces. don't tell me that is mutually exclusive to all of our goals of more housing and development that works so i mean, this is the soul of the city. are we going to let public resources be appropriated for a select few? i don't mean to sound so angry, and i think to the developer and consultants i know the amount of

work it takes so i don't mean to disrespect that, but, please, don't just be intellectually laze the city and call us ninby. look at this and make compromises. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hello, commissioners, i am a life-long san francisco. i was born near san francisco children's hospital. arggel low and lake. i have been going to the jcc since before the earthquake, before the park existed. i am speaking in support of the project as put forth by the developer. i know tensions run high around these things, but in having seen a number of the developers presentations and you have their

material with you. i don't know what more we want from people developing what is unused space in san francisco in the middle of a housing crisis. i don't know what more we want in terms of communitien gagement, a new plan and grid. this is what we should encourage. if you look at this and you have the materials. you have seen them today. if you look at that and say, no, the developers need to go back. what do you want them to do? we have a community alternative plan as you heard it referenced. this next part i don't want to say. it is not what i like saying. tensions run hi, i know you have to assume that the people on the other side are arguing in good faith. when it comes to the community alternative plan, with everything i have seen i just don't think that it is a serious plan. i believe it is a red herring

designed to delay as much as possible change coming to a neighborhood. i believe that, quite frankly, if you were to offer the proponents of the community alternative plan that exact plan, they might just find a way to still oppose it and say, well, this is the thing. offer them a choice between the community alternative plan and the site remaining as it is right now, a building essentially empty that does not fit in with the character of the neighborhood. we all agree with that. you would get a lot of sort of waffling on that issue. i think that people in many ways would like to not see that site change from what it is now, and, you know, it is going to change. neighborhoods change, cities change, even this one. a developer has come in to engage the community and taken so many things into account with open space, city grid,

transportation and retail, and i don't know what more you want. i encourage you to approve the project as the developer has proposed it. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, i live in district two, and i am in support of 333 california project. i have been wanted to live in san francisco ever sinceir was a child. it took me a long time to be able to afford to live here through some luck and saving money and reaching middle age. now that i am here, i see unaffordable it is. i know a lot of friends of mine who have had to leave the city. they can't afford to live here. it makes me sad. we obviously have a housing emergency. i also really belief that every single neighborhood has to band

together to build housing as quickly as possible and stop delaying it. this is feasible. this is a modern city. we are losing creativity, ideas, diversity in the city. i think that is heart breaking. we have to turn this around and build more housing now. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> thank you commission. i am stewart. i have been a resident of san francisco for close to 40 years. almost every day that i am in the city, i drive to the jcc. i go in the front entrance, right across from the front entrance i see this space, and i say to myself, how beautiful it could be if it was developed in a manner that the sponsor has

presented its plans. through all of the technica technicalities aside as to whether the trees should go or stay, elevations should go or be lower. i would ask the commission to focus on one very important issue. the homeless issue, which other speakers have talked about, folks, we can't even approve very small navigation centers. navigation centers that provide housing. what is the matter? the commission can approve a project that helps to take away this stint of not being able to

at least approve a simple navigation center. here we have a beautiful project that would go to alleviator that type of plan. thank you very much. i urge approval of the sponsor's plan. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you, commissioners. i am greg scott, a resident of san francisco for 40 years. i have been on the board of civic heights resident association for 30 of the 40 years. the association endorses and supports this and urges the commission to approve as presented. it is done with a great deal of community input and many revisions have been made in response. it is thoughtful, well designed, it ties together the neighborhood in a beautiful way. it is something we need. it will be a fabulous reuse and

repositioning of the property that has out lived the usefulness in the current form. we endorse and ask the commission to please approve this as quickly as possible. >> i will read a few more names. as you come up. gabriel, herring, caroline bath, julian press man. jay, valerie. >> i am karla. i am a member of the board of pacific heights residents association. phra fully supported 3333 california street. iit is a fantastic project.

i am a neighbor. i have lived here since 1990. ir walk, bus or drive around the property many times every week. my two youngest children just graduated from college. both of them have moved to utah to afford housing. in all of these capacities i am happy to support this project for the following reasons. it adds thoughtfully planned housing, housing the city needs and needs in this neighborhood. at a mixed range of afford built. proto is responsive to neighborhood concerns. it offers greenery and adds commercial space on california street. it is a wonderful chance to incorporate this into the fabric of the neighborhood instead of buildings entirely separated by

a wall. we will have north, south, east, west access through the property reintegrating with the existing grid system. i strongly encourage your support of this project. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> i am will, long-time resident of the neighborhood. i can't express in stronger terms how fantastic this project is. honestly, i have never set foot on the property. it is inaccessible to pedestrian. in my view it has been under-utilized dead zone for most residents of the city. there is low income senior housing, public open space, i don't know what more a developer could do. thank you and i hope you support

the project. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i am michelle. i have lived in san francisco for 20 years. 16 i have been in the heights. i am not an urge investor or homeowner in the project. i do support the community alternative plan and i will tell you why. i would like to say a lot of concessions have been made because of the community pushing back. i think it is great we have 186 units of affordable senior housing. i don't know what affordable mean also. does it mean low, middle income? the deathe devil is in the deta. the developer talks about open space. i think a lot of people assume that means green space that was shown before on the picture. it doesn't. it means any space that is not a building. any inch of concrete he is

putting it where there is grass. he is putting in concrete slabs. i take my dog up there. i just think we can compromise a little more to keep the old trees and still have green space and still meet the housing needs. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> . >> i am david. thank you commissioners for consideration on all of this. i live six blocks from the site, and i very strongly support the need for more housing. i have concerns about the current project which have not been completely addressed. first of all, inclusion of flexible retail concerns me. i don't think businesses should be open past 11:00 p.m. in the neighborhood. that was a recent addition. i would like to look out for the interests of