. it provides an appropriate mix of land uses residential open space, it provides a density with the neighborhood, and has generous public open space. our only concern is the amount of parking. while all parking is underground in order to maximize usable open space, we feel the parking could be further reduced giving this transit oriented location. we appreciate that the project team includes different architects, and landscape architects helping to foster the feeling of a neighborhood built over time, rather than as a single master-planned project. 3333 california street creates a good place for people, and contributes to a walkable environment. if i may speak as past president of the planning commission, i have looked at the community plan without going into detail,

they do not work. >> thank you mr. miguel. we have a shared concern over parking. in lieu. >> thank you, supervisors. i'm here to -- i'm excited to be here today because it sounds like we have a couple of things in common we all want our housing, we all love trees. that is some place start from. where some of us differ, i live down the street at california and arguello, i'm wholeheartedly supportive of this development. every weekend i have a choice of my 2-year-old daughter, do i go down to the commercial corridor on clement street, or do i go down to laurel heights? every single weekend i choose the clement street commercial corridor or because laurel heights does not offer the commercial diversity, or the vibrancy, that is needed to make laurel heights even better. i would love to see this development gets built so that once i have more than one child

and i have two have other apartments in my neighborhood, where i could stay. whereas there is a low amount of apartments in our neighborhood. i wholeheartedly support this. when it comes to trees we are so lucky to be so close to presidio. that is why we need to as much as possible, because we have such a beautiful national treasure that our neighborhood lines. if we add commuters we are just going to keep adding commuters. every single commuter it takes a 400 trees to offset their carbon emission. yes, there will be some trees cut down, but there will be way less commuters because of the quality transit on this corridor. it is the most pleasant muni bus and the entire neighborhood. i implore you all to please support this development. i agree with the last speaker, the community alternative will

not get built. these homes for seniors, and other regular families like me will never come to fruition. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you supervisors. my name is vincent. i am a resident of the neighborhood 415 years. -- neighborhood 15 years. i live there with my wife and two children. we have been renters but we would like to own something in this great city that we all call hours in a project like this would add more units and more options for me, and for many of my neighbors as well. i think many of you all likely no .-dot oakland has, for the first time in a long time, has added more units than san francisco. low and behold, prices there are coming down. it turns out that supply does actually seem to bring prices

down. i think without further delay this project is part of the solution. it is just one part of the solution. i am also a business owner. fortunate enough to have my business be named as one of the fastest growing businesses in the city, by the san francisco business times. one of the biggest challenges that my business faces is finding local employees do not have to travel 45 minutes, or longer to get to their place of work. they are talking about adding greenhouse gases, getting them off the road, living in the neighborhoods where they work as one way to do that. this project hits that mark by adding solutions they may not be living there but they will be able to live elsewhere as prices come down throughout the city. finally, i hope to be able to keep my kids in this neighborhood, as they grow older older. there is a reason why there are so few young people in the city and they end up moving out.

a big part of that is there's no options for those families to live. i am lucky enough to be in a rent control place. i am sitting there waiting to perhaps buy something at some point. with so few options it is making it hard. i hope you can move forward on this as quickly as possible. >> thank you sir. that is the first time i've heard oakland has billed themselves out of their affordability crisis. [laughter] next speaker, please. >> my name is edward siegel, i've lived in san francisco my with the majority of that being a couple blocks away from this project. i love living in this neighborhood and i am in strong support of this project. most people my age in san francisco do not have a realistic prospect of owning a home in this amazing city. i don't have a realistic future because we do have not built enough housing. a good start would be for you to approve a project this one, instead of waiting five years for to get approved. time to make a call.

i have the privilege of a good job, and housing security. district two has expanse a net loss in affordable housing over the last this building alone would ask the number of affordable units we have built in that time alone. i applaud supervisor stefani for getting more housing security to. i am so glad many speakers are concerned about global warming. i am, as well. the 744 units, the previous speakers have stated, people are going to commute in. i disagree i think my favorite bus line in san francisco i do not want to see hundreds more people continuing to drive in from the suburbs in gas guzzling cars. i look forward to meeting all of my new neighbors. i hope you all support this project. thank you. try 20 thank you sir. by the way i only have one speaker card left that i have not announced and that is deborah. if there are any other members

of the public who would like to testify on items three, four, or five line up to my left and you're right the floor is yours. >> thank you. good afternoon, chair peskin and members of the committee. thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak today. my name is leonard, field representative at local 22 here in san francisco. i represent approximately 4,000 members that live here in san francisco and 40,000 in northern california. the carpenters union is here today to fully support prado groups 3333 california street development trade not only will this project bring much-needed housing to san francisco the developer is committed to the use of a union general contractor. it means opportunity for local apprentices to advance her career in construction. it means living wages for the individuals. building this project it means healthcare, retirement benefits. this project will provide hundreds of construction jobs and create opportunity for women

women, minorities and veterans to advance their careers as carpenters. this project will also bring much-needed housing to the area with significant focus on seniors, and families. in conclusion, the carpenters union fully supports this development we ask the committee to support it as well. thank you for your time. >> thank you, sir. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon supervisors. my name is kayla i was lucky enough to grow up on parker avenue. in a house built by my great-great-grandfather just a few blocks away from the proposed development. i am here opposed to the deforestation of this property. i am a gardener, in san francisco, and i'm here taking off a very busy day working on design projects at the bay area. i want to bring to your attention a story written by

richard brautigan who was a poet and author who lived in san francisco, and the bay area in the 80s. this story is called memory of a girl. originally published in 1971. i would like to read it to you now. i cannot look at the environment insurance company building without thinking of her. the building is at presidio on california streets in san francisco. it blue and black building that looks like a minor philosophy plopped down on the side of what was once one of california's most famous cemeteries. laurel hill cemetery, 1854 height 1946. eleven united states senators were buried there. they and everybody else was removed out years ago, but there are still some tall cypress trees standing beside the insurance company. these trees once cast their shadows, they were a part daytime looping and nighttime

silence except for the wind. i wonder if they ask themselves questions like where did everybody go who was dead? where did they take them? and where are those that came here to live with them? why were we left behind? perhaps these questions are two poetic. maybe it would be best just to say there are four trees standing beside an insurance. i oppose the removal. -- insurance company out of california. i oppose the removal. >> next speaker, please. >> my name is barbara glassy, i have lived here 40 years at second avenue and clement. i believe i am in that community. i can walk to fireman's fund. i am a senior, disabled senior but i can walk there. i am in that community, why have i not been told about this? why haven't i had a chance to make some comment about this? i am opposed to deforestation. i am opposed to anything that destroys life.

i would like to bring you a little something -- does this carry through their? not just making fun of halloween halloween. how many of you have ever seen a bat in your neighborhood? they look very small, like this, and then all of a sudden they are huge. trees themselves have a vast underground network of communicating with other trees. if we destroy these trees we do not know what is coming up for the flight of birds. when i moved into my neighborhood 40 years ago i heard birds all day long and i am very close to gary boulevard. now, if i hear one bird, in a day, that is all here. what is going to happen to those birds that constantly use those trees, the insects the bats, whatever there is? i really hope people come look closely at this on what it is doing to the environment and make a better plan. thank you. >> thank you, ma'am. next speaker, please.

>> good afternoon supervisors and planning. thank you very much for the opportunity to speak today. my name. i moved to jordan park -- pamela mendelson. i moved to jordan park in 1987 and was responsible for encouraging all of the tree plantings on that street, 25 years ago. i now live in pacific heights. my kids attended jcc, both of them are pediatricians dentists, orthodontists, that and many other services are located a block within this area and we service them all, along with five and dime and the bookstore. i would like to say that i fully support this project. i am now going to wear my broker hat. i'm a real estate broker and work throughout the city of san francisco. do not be fooled by the press that is reporting a lot of articles about vacancy factors

in this is a very desirable area for many, many merchants. it ranks along with fillmore, chestnut sacramento and hayes. the neighborhood deserves more than banks, coffee shops. a deserves more complementary retail uses a more diverse merchants. thank you. i am in support of this project. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i am here to represent the forgotten people of san francisco. while all of these houses, trees, birds and how pretty the homes are, i don't have the luxury of talking that way. because, there is no nice trees to consider. there is none of those beautiful homes, none of that. what we get downtown is forgotten over and over again by

city hall. they don't seem to care about poor people. you can stop laughing now, i see your face laughing already. i think it is terrible that anyone should sit here and laugh at the plight of people who deserve better. housing, not just for you, or you, your trees, but for every person. the homeless people are growing downtown. we are on the streets while you build condos and houses, and other places for rich people to live. the people downtown are living in blight all the time. up in this place, including mayor breed who never comes to these meetings. she should be here but she never shows up. to hear what the people have to say about how i think she is running things. she is running things wrongly. she is forgetting people.

when she comes downtown, she don't even come to the park. the rest of the places, she doesn't see it, because she gets in her cadillac limousine and rides away. why we continue to live in the same condition. this could be you lady, who is it could be any of you who has fallen into the situation. it could be any of you, just because you have some now, does not mean you have some later. think about what you are doing. because we count too. >> thank you, sir for your testimony. next speaker, please. >> hi. this is the second time i've ever spoken at one of these hearings and certainly not in a room as glorious as this. please forgive me if i'm a little nervous area and 20w nervous it is just fine. -- nervous.

>> don't be nervous. it is just fine. >> i am actually a 56-year-old san francisco native and i grew up here. i live here. first off about this project that i just want to say, i get it. i get the concern about housing and the housing crisis that we are exchanging at this moment. i am a lifetime renter renter in san francisco. when i was 16 my mother and i were evicted from our residence of ten years do it to a landlord move in which never happened. i get it completely. that said, i do feel that we can have housing and preserve our natural surroundings. i'm not sure if you have ever come to see this property but photos do not really do it justice. the only way to really experience it is to go there and walked down the tree-lined street. there are so many studies out there about how much it being in

nature does for humans. even according to san francisco's own tree protection legislation, the significant tree are you aware •-ellipsis tree should be protected. for reference, presidio has 32.8% tree coverage. i also want to say talking to individuals, in the neighborhood, all throughout laurel hill, laurel village all of that. nobody knows this encroachment major encroachment permit is out there. i have talked to people about it they are completely shocked that all of the trees are up for removal. >> thank you very much for your testimony. as you know we are focused on the trees. a little later on, someone will speak for the trees. thank you.

>> hi. my name is deborah and i live about one block from the development site on sacramento street. i want to express my desire to have you support the community alternative. i brought a picture. this is california street. these trees have all been marked to be removed by the city. they all have tags on them. to me they are beautiful. this is walnut to laurel street. it extends from walnut up to presidio as well.

so i want to support our trees. i think it is hard for you guys when you have made decisions for other parts of the city, mostly south of market. we have done a lot of building. i think now you're dealing with a very well established neighborhood. i think we have a lot more feeling about what we want done trying to protect ourselves. not as far as housing i think and i've never heard anyone say that we don't want housing there, you know for myself i would like the retail to become housing. i don't think we need retail. i do want to support our trees and ask that you not destroy 190 of them. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. corey smith.

i want to echo everybody else's sentiment. absolutely appreciate a good urban forest and a good canopy over our city. i think housing people creating homes for people, should be top priority given our situation right now. i understand there will be some misinformation. i do believe that the trees are getting replaced and the total number of trees is increasing on the site. hopefully we can get some answers on the specifics. coming up now on years, we reimagined our store card with stakeholders, this is the highest rated project we have. part of a community process which included 160 community meetings. to get everybody on the same page. there is $15 million worth of fees that will be coming out of this project going to improve the lives of san franciscans. there's a long list of other things i know that are critical, to what this project is

fantastic. the one thing that sticks out and has been top of mind recently. talking about neighborhood association. this would be 186 low income senior homes on the site. as i'm going around to different community meetings around the city, it does have a slightly older population pair they often talk about their desire to stay in san francisco. there's just no options. the ability to downsize, and the ability for seniors to be able to stay in san francisco is just not a reality. these homes are important. my mother, you know, she is not quite there yet. as she moves and as other folks are watching their parents and eventually a get to that age. we want to have options. so the senior homes are really important for the project they are important to the community in the city. we wholeheartedly encourage you to move forward with the project today. thank you. >> next speaker please.

>> good afternoon supervisors. i'm here on behalf of of larry who asked me to speak on his behalf. regarding this project. first i want to commend everybody and bringing it to this point. i know this project has been in planning and people have been talking about it for some time. we want to raise with you is that as the board is considering a developing agreement. i want to remind you of what really has been a long-standing resident in the city, development agreement comes with firm commitments. [please stand by] [please stand by]

stormwater captured and solar panels

which will improve the friendliness of the neighborhood as well. so i urge the supervisors to support this project. thank you. >> thank you sir. next speaker. >> good afternoon supervisors. tim on behalf of the san francisco housing action coalition. and wanted to say i've been tracking this project since before i left the housing action coalition. that's years ago. >> this is a project that represents thoughtful land use. it surveillancely addresses the challenges the city faces how

to increase density that improves housing affordability and how to shrink our carbon footprint. it bears repeating that this is a project that's proposed in a neighborhood that has produced virtually no housing over the last few decades. this raises the issue of density equity. the question of where housing gets built. we've heard lots of folks today say of course they support new housing except when it's built in their neighborhood. and in my experience of housing action coalition, one of the things we noticed was there was a lot of bitterness at the unfairness of the perception or the reality that some neighborhoods have to take all the new housing because other neighborhoods won't take any. we have a chance to spread housing around through all parts of the city. and this is a terrific project to do that. i think you should approve it without any delay

whatsoever. thank you. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon supervisors. my name is christopher peterson. i'm fine with the basic scale of this project. i am concerned about the amount of parking that is being proposed, however. at a time when most major projects around the city are providing significantly less than one to one parking this project is providing significantly more than that. the planning commission has been hearing projects recently where developments are proposing to convert underused residential marking to other uses. this project is proposing various measures but having too much parking would likely undercut the effectiveness of those tdm measures. so i urge the committee to consider looking into reducing the amount of parking provided in the project. thank you. >> thank you mr. peterson. and i think i

share the concerns of previous speaker with the regard to the amount of parking. >> if there are any other members of the public that would like to speak on this item, please line up. >> for the record i'm nolte number two, i was born second as a twin. my name is michael. i did put in a speaker card. and there are actually three items that are before you today in regards to 3333 california. and as far as my opinion on these topics, to the development agreement i do not support because you have to then agree to the eir. and the removal of trees. and i think that the mitigations are not done well. so as far as the major encroachment, same thing i do

not support because again the public works will have to deal with the trees. and they don't have a good track record of dealing with trees. as a matter of fact they've been killing off the trees in san francisco. they have about 7 percent of them they want to remove or more in san francisco after they've -- and they don't have the money to replace the ones they have removed in san francisco. and then special use district i'm neutral on because i'm not clear what that's going to do. but i have taken the time to listen to the public testimony that was done at the planning commission on this topic. so i am aware of the issues. and i am what's called a citizen planner. and i do understand there are many issues that need to be concerned about. and i am a native san franciscoen and i do appreciate the work the

neighborhood associations have done to try to weigh in to make this plan better. but there can be a lot more that could be done. thank you. >> thank you. any other members of the public for items 3 4 5 we will close public comment. i do want to say for the record as to item number 3, i believe the terms of the encroachment permit actually require the permittee to take care of those trees. but i stand to be corrected. before i call on supervisor stefani who is the sponsor of these three items we had some outstanding questions for the lorax who speaks for the trees. mr. rich, who is going to speak to that. >> i will start us out. you can help me if i miss any details and the project sponsor can follow up. the idea is to fold the

permit into your approvals and given there has been a lot of concern about trees we think it's actually appropriate for you to hold us to account here rather than having some action that takes place later. so on that note, the point that i want to make is even if the board were to approve the tree removal now the permit, whenever it's approved, would require the project sponsor to work proactively with the experts at the urban forestry department who would guide them on the sorts of trees that will be replaced. the point here is that in order to build the housing that i think we agree is desperately needed, we have to remove some trees. the landscape plan the project sponsor can speak to in a moment makes an effort to remove as few as possible and organize the new open spaces around places where they can save existing trees. so the point is if the tree removal permit is granted that does

not leave the project sponsor scot-free to do whatever they want. they still have to cooperate with dpw. i would like to call you up to describe how he proposes to move forward and do that cooperation, that they have looked at so far. they don't have a fully-formed landscaping plan yet. mr. rich, your comments are not wholly satisfactory boletes hear from him. >> i would be happy to help on whatever i can after that. >> so supervisor peskin and supervisor haney supervisor stefani the question that came up was about the retention of some of the significant trees on-site. and if i can, i would like to take a little bit -- the questions that i asked in this room that we haven't gotten to parking yet. but the questions i asked in this room specifically

as to the encroachment permit, which are those trees that are on city property, and i'm making the numbers up, because i turned to a different -- just so you all know, relative to the amount of paper that we had to read, it's this file and this file. so it was a lot of paper. but somewhere in there there was provisions in item number 3 which i think said 15 significant trees -- no, 15 nonsignificant trees and some additional -- i can find it. and i was actually asking the city not the project sponsor how section 802, 810a work relative to the replacement the types of trees and what is significant and is that a 36-inch box? i had very specific questions. none of which mr. rich even remotely touched on. so -- and

i mean this is your problem but that was not what i originally asked. and none of that has been responded to at all, which is why i nicely said that mr. rich's comments were not wholly satisfactory. but proceed. >> i'll touch on a couple of things. as mr. rich did say supervisor peskin, we are not at a level of plans yet. so i couldn't tell you the exact size of the boxes that will be put back in. but the street trees, as you mentioned, there are 15 existing street trees along california street that were referenced earlier. they are new zealand christmas trees. those trees will be removed and replaced around the site perimeter with 88 new street trees. the street trees along california that were referenced are going to match the street trees that were recently replaced at laurel village shopping

center. they are fruitless olive trees. there are some medium-sized trees but those will grow into fully mature trees. and the number of trees that are in front of the site, the 15 you referenced, will be replaced with 31 trees in the project. i can't tell you right now the exact box size, but we tend to want to maximize the size as feasible. and we are committed to working with the department of urban forestry and dpw to do that. >> so just so that -- this is a very complicated multifaceted project. and i am very interested in having over 400 units of housing. and i appreciate the fact that you had your come to jesus moment and did 25 percent and all the rest of it. i'm actually focused in this sliver of it on item 3, which are properties of the city

and county of san francisco. so those are very different than property -- than trees on private property. and maybe i just need to defer to the city attorney. all i'm asking for, because i actually did read, not every word of this, but a lot of it. so i'm just maybe city attorney, i'm asking what i think is a very simple question. i found this, 15 street trees replaced by 88 street trees. 19 significant trees replaced by 49 significant trees. and payment of tree removal for 12 trees. what does that mean pursuant to section 800 802 810a of the code. >> i was going to say why don't we have the -- from dpw answer that. >> deputy city attorney john meddle man. >> john mandelman. the replacement

of significant trees, which is under section 810a of the public works code and street trees which is under sections 800 are the same. so it's the same replacement standard that applies. i'll read to you the basics. >> thank you. >> the species needs to be suitable for the site conditions. needs to be a minimum 24-inch box size, have a minimum one and a quarter inch caliper measured at 6 inches aboveground. and there's a few other standards. but i think the critical thing is they need to be an equivalent replacement value. and as one might imagine it's very difficult depending on-site conditions, the age of a tree, to replace the exact same kind of tree or move the tree in different locations. so replacement value is

defined in the public works code. and i think this is probably an important part of this definition that certain trees are landscape material because of their size, species or historical significance cannot be replaced from available nursery stock. in such cases replacement value shall be determined pursuant to the evaluation formula adopted by the international society arboar culture, et cetera. i think as mr. rich had stated that with the experience of the urban forrester they would look at the trees when it comes time to actually replace them and try to determine an equivalent replacement value for the trees that would be replaced, either on-site or in the sidewalk. >> so the way we got from 15, 88 and

19 to 49 plus in lieu for 12 was based on an evaluation pursuant to 800? >> that's correct. when it comes time to remove the trees the replacement species would be guided by the standards in the public works code. >> supervisor stefani. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> just in terms of maintenance of the trees i just want to ask whether or not it will be the city or the project sponsor maintaining the trees. >> that is very clearly set out, it will be the permittee. >> right. but i want to make sure everybody knows that. and i want to make sure, and we can confirm this as well, that it's my understanding we are going from 208 trees to 512 trees, more than doubling, is that correct? >> john, again, john from the city attorney's office through the chair i can't speak

to the number of trees. but in terms of maintenance, for the street trees, which are the ones on the sidewalk, there is a minimum requirement for the permittee to ensure the survivability of the trees. so i think there's a two to three-year initial maintenance period, at which point under pop proposition e responsibility to maintain those trees shifts to the department of public works. unless there's a voluntary agreement between the project sponsor and the city to allow the project sponsor to maintain the street trees. that is to the trees on-site, the major encroachment permit specifies those will be the responsibility of the permittee. >> i'm sorry say that again. i thought this provision on page 5 line 20 through 22 rules, the permittee shall assume all costs for the maintenance repair of the

encroachment pursuant to the permit and no costs or obligation of any kind shall accrue to the public works or any other city department by reason of this permission granted. >> i think there's particular provisions that apply to the significant trees that are in the agreement. the major encroachment agreement. >> so you are saying that the words in the ordnance are super ceded by language in the agreement? >> the permit and the agreement go together. so the board is approving both of those by this ordnance. >> i understand that. but what i'm asking is in so far as it says the permittee shall assume all costs for maintenance and you are saying the agreement actually supercedes

that. >> that provision applies to the long-term maintenance obligations that are associated with the major encroachment which are for select portions of the public right of way. >> so the landscape planners corners differentiated paving but not maintenance of the street trees? >> that's correct. the ordnance can't override proposition e. >> public works once more. we have many development areas, for example, mission bay, various locations, where new street trees are installed. and in many of those cases historically what has been happening based upon approved legislation approvals that after three years maintenance period

those trees are transferred to the city for operational maintenance. however in many cases, the development team or homeowners association decides that they would rather continue the upkeep of these trees after warranty and maintenance period and an agreement needs to be entered between san francisco public works the homeowners association or developer or corresponding groups to have this documented and ensure that future maintenance would then fall to the homeowners association or the development group. if that makes sense. >> all right. >> thank you. that does make sense. i appreciate it. someone has a little experience with trees. i think that's part of the confusion is about the significant and definition of significant. i appreciate city attorney defining that. for the purposes of this conversation, significant is important because the way in which they are treated in terms of the year of the tree, how

old the tree is and the approximatety to the property line of the city determines whether or not the city has the right to ask for the replacement of that tree. not necessarily the size of that tree as defined in what was read into the record. but it's important to note that because they would fall under essentially jurisdiction and protection of the city. i think it is important to note that there's a significant number of trees being planted versus the ones that are existing in terms of replacement. but i appreciate the city attorney making mention of the fact that proposition e was a mandate of the voters. it's not something that can be overridden. and i can say from experience in parts of the city where there are homeowners association and existing agreements between the city and the homeowners often get into conversation about the desire to remove those trees, maintain those trees or switch those trees out. when it falls under the

jurisdiction of the city, the city has the right to protect those trees and determine whether or not they should be replaced of my so i certainly am in favor of anything in the public right of way determining in the jurisdiction of the city for that purpose in particular. i think this is an important part of the conversation. i understand that this is a significant green space and proximity to a lot of people's homes. but i do understand that we are creating, in terms of the proposal the developer will be putting forward, a significant number of trees. i think that allows for the opportunity for the surrounding neighbors to be involved in the process of choosing the types of trees and working with the district supervisor to choose the types of trees. we often do that in my district. we have conversations about the type of tree canopy that people would like to see. so i think that's certainly a worthwhile conversation but i wanted to add my two cents to some of the clarity around significant and in terms of the ongoing maintenance. again, it's important. this

looks like it was sat down between the developer, the city and the permittee to negotiate an appropriate formula for the replacement of trees both significant and not significant and street trees. thank you. >> thank you for those very helpful policy comments supervisor safai. so before i turn it back to the sponsor of these three measures, i would like to associate myself with the comments of the former general counsel of the california coastal commission, mr. peterson and a previous speaker as it lets to parking in what i would say is a quite richly public transit-served area of the city. and mr. rich, if you can address that and any additional changes that this committee might want to recommend should we be in a mood to recommend anything to the full board of supervisors. the floor is

yours. >> thank you supervisors. ken rich. somewhat unusually, the walnut component which is 184 do i have that number right? >> 186. >> senior units is parked at one to one in the current proposal. and we can confirm various folks here from mercy housing can confirm that we don't need that kind of parking in the senior building. so one idea to put out there would be to reduce that down to a .5 ratio. that would have the effect of not only reducing the overall ratio of parking in the project, but it would also allow for stackers to reduce the amount of excavation the project would require which then reduces construction time and construction impacts. >> so correct me if i am wrong but i think the planning commission already insisted

on stackers. >> i don't know. i would ask one of my colleagues. is that the case? the commission did want one to one parking. some of it may be stackers. but what i was suggesting in terms of changing the walnut parking ratio would be a new change. >> and deputy city attorney that would clearly not be a significant change. and as long as we afforded that without recommendation, we could forward that, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> all right. >> the stackers requirement was not in the planning commission motion. it was just the maximum amount of permitted parking within the contained project. >> okay. so you are recommending that the one to one in 186 be reduced to .5?

>> yes. we think that that will allow the larger units in the project were predominantly two and three bedrooms to be a reasonable rate and to be able to reduce parking on the site, reduce those impacts for folks who are generally not going to drive as much. >> yeah. thank you mr. rich for that. we are not done. i think we can do better than that, actually. i mean, i really do. i honestly think that we can do a lot better. i totally agree -- not agree understand that people rightfully are concerned about a decade and a half development on the horizon. and i get that. but the longer-standing impacts and i'm not saying this in the context of ceqa,

is that as our world changes as we are trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as we are trying to get people onto other modes i mean, if i have -- i mean, this was recommended to us unanimously from the planning commission. johnson, koppel moore but i think where they missed it was on the parking. generally the planning commission looks at something like this and gives it the appropriate haircut. so if there's one thing this board of supervisors and this committee can do is give it the maximum feasible parking haircut. and to me, .5 on the senior is a good start, but i think there's more there. do you have a second offer? >> i don't think we have one prepared. but it's certainly within the committee's purview to have that discussion. and we are

here to do that. >> all right. supervisor stefani. >> thank you, chair peskin. if you are making offers i -- based on feedback from the community, i think the fact that it went through the planning commission without a reduction in parking was actually somewhat surprising. but the need for parking in the area was explained at the planning commission. i am comfortable with the reduction from .5 and from 1 to .5. going any lower than that right now i don't feel comfortable with that, based on the fact that a lot of the community outreach and a lot of the feedback i have received has been around parking concerns. and i know, yes, the world is changing, and yes we need to get out of our cars and everything. but maybe we can ask mercy housing, doug shoe maker is here. i think if we land at .5, i think that

would be a good compromise. and i would be comfortable with that. >> mr. schumacher, as to the walnut street phase 3 186-unit land dedicated escrowed senior housing project the floor is yours. >> i'm very comfortable with the .5. i think ordinarily in other parts. city we are able to build with very little parking. this is a slightly higher income than we are used to developing senior housing for. and a location that is not as transit rich as some. so we are comfortable with .5. and we often build with less. >> so you would be comfortable with less than .5? >> in this location, supervisor honestly, we are not familiar with developing housing for seniors at this income in terms of their parking demand in san francisco. it's most of what we develop in san francisco has

been much lower income seniors than this. so i think .5 is the right place to stop on the senior. >> so not to exceed. >> not to exceed. >> all right. deputy city attorneys of which we have a number, this would be a change to the development agreement, correct? because i don't think this is a change -- or maybe it's an sud? sud item number 4. >> yes the committee would amend the sud. whether it would also require a change to the da, we would from v to have to discuss. >> so supervisor stefani and it sounds to me and you are welcome to motion to this committee, but that would actually have to be figured out by attorneys as to items

4 and 5 as it relates to the parking. we may or may not have remaining questions about the trees. supervisor stefani, what is your will? . >> thank you chair peskin on the entirety, on all three items, are you asking me or just trees and parking? >> well you do have some amendments before us on the development agreement item 5 on the zoning map item 4 no changes to item 3. so we should probably discuss those. and then talk about what we want to do with parking relative to items 4 and maybe 5. >> okay. first of all i do want to thank everybody for coming out today. this

has been a project long in the making. i believe one of the public commenters said i've been involved in a long time since i was a legislative aid in 2014. more meetings at the jcc with the committee. i was county clerk for two years while this project continued. came back as supervisor. i've been supervisor for a year and ten months. and we are still talking about this project. so i want to thank everybody who has been involved. the neighbors have put a lot of effort into this, so has the project sponsor. the intent is to come up with a project that fits our community and provides us ohio more housing. not everybody is going to be happy. but i think at the end if we concentrate on getting as much as we can in terms of what fits

within our neighborhood and we focus on affordable housing, which district 2 hasn't developed much over the last decade, and we focus on senior housing which of course i've explained why that is particularly important to me, given what we are seeing with the state of our housing crisis for seniors in san francisco. i also want to talk about the original development proposal. it had an office building planned for the site across from the jcc. the project in the beginning only had 558 units house. the neighbors were concerned about that with all the traffic going in and out from an office building. we worked with the developer to eliminate the office space and instead to build this 186 units of affordable senior housing, bringing the total up to 744. i want to celebrate the fact that despite widespread agreement for some people, but we all do actually agree and it seems everyone is settled that

744 units of housing at this site is acceptable, warranted and even desired. so i want to thank everybody for that. i also want to acknowledge that since i have introduced this legislation back in july, i've heard additional concerns from our on or abouts about the parameters of the retail allowed at this site. as part of my initial negotiations on the development agreement, i was able to reduce the amount of retail space from 60,000 square feet to 35,000 square feet. so we have definitely reduced the size of retail after hearing neighbor concerns. we also made sure the retail would be placed along california street so we maintain the laurel village merchant corridor which connects the retail on california street from spruce street to presidio avenue. i'm committed to making sure we have retail zoning that can allow laurel village to thrive. i know there are many concerns about laurel village. and we know that since ctc left, our businesses

and our merchants have been suffering. we want to ensure also that we have neighborhood friendly businesses in the area. so today i do have amendments that i'm introducing to address the retail based on feedback from the community. i'm also asking that we add a letter of intent for the project sponsor with the following three agreements. and i believe that everyone on this committee has a copy of that letter. the agreements include one, the project sponsor will partner with the laurel village merchants association on cross marketing and branding strategy to increase the visibility of the laurel village shopping center for local residents, specifically highlighting the new retail mix walkability and convenience. two the sponsor agrees that if the two existing grocery stores in laurel village are in operation, that no retail space contained in the 3333 california property shall be leased to a general

grocery store as defined in section 102 of the planning code, except of course with prior written consent of laurel village merchants association. and three in response to concerns about increased parking demand, the developer agreed to create a validated parking program that will guarantee free 90-minute validated parking at 3333 california street for customers of retail on the 3400 block of california street, which is the current laurel village retail. and with regard to the special use district, i'm asking for amendments to address some of the specific concerns i heard from neighbors about specific retail uses and hours of operation. the special use district specifies that the new retail will be zoned ncs which is the same zoning as laurel village. my proposed amendments would restrict hours of operation to 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. and the current zoning would allow businesses to stay open till 2 a.m

and i think we did hear the community on that. i think that's too late. i think 12:00 a.m. is a reasonable compromise. would also remove certain types of commercial uses including auto services, mortuaries and drive-up facilities. i'm asking for an additional requirement of a cu for liquor stores, massage facilities anding a can you agriculture. i want to clarify never permissible under ncs adult businesses are not permitted under ncs and will not be permitted under this sud. there is a lot of misinformation out there. and i absolutely cannot stand misinformation. adult businesses are not permitted under ncs. and they will not be permitted under this sud. i believe that these retail amendments will help to ensure a healthier

merchant corridor while addressing