i just want to state for the record, we're not opposed to housing. we don't think we have to make a choice between housing and open space in the trees. we feel very strongly will maintaining this size of the existing green space and the trees, with the population of san francisco and there are a lot of studies and it shown that green space does actually effect the health and well-being of the population to improved air quality and enhanced physical activity and helping people manage stress just getting out and walking in nature and improved social cohesion and equitable to grown space. my trip from laurel heights ironically or not, the only green space i saw was laurel hill. and i think it would reel be a

shame and more than that harmful to lose that open space. it's understanding open green space and hard scaped. it has an impact again on how people con agre con gra gate ane space and the heat related increases as people are more and more concerned about global warming. and water run off. so again, we're in favor of housing and keeping the grown gn space. thank you. >> supervisor yee: next speaker. >> good afternoon. my name is barbra brener. i am here as a neighbor of the 3333 california project. i'm in favor of over turning the planning commission's approval of the developers' plan as currently submitted. i speak in support of building 700 plus units on the site but

with the strategy that is less didisruptive. there's been a pattern of impropriety with the proposal before you. the site would have caused modifications in the design. in addition, flexible retail was never discussed nor was it mentioned in the environmental impact report so neighbors had no ability to consider it and respond. the e.i.r., which was filed, did not analyze alternatives to the proposed project. several issues exist beyond by allowed time limit but i'd like to address just one. trees. mature, historical trees and green space simply cannot be replaced with new plantings and

cement landscaping. eye recognize that the deliberations on this project have gone on for a long time. but the series of misssteps intentional or otherwise, provide compelling reasons to return this proposal back to planning. >> supervisor yee: next speaker. >> good afternoon. i have lived on jordan avenue since 1992. laurel hill is a gem in our city. we have the mature trees and open space landscape. i like the beautiful trees. i oppose the changing in zoning. this is open until 2:00 a.m. with all the traffic and noise that will destroy the character of this area.

the community plan provides the same amount of housing units and affordable senior housing while reserving the greenery of the property and also saying this magnificent trees. please save laurel hill and i hope you give the character of our neighborhood. thank you. >> supervisor yee: next speaker. >> good afternoon. my name is vaness a i have lived in district 2 for 22 years. i understand the prado group is proposing to bulldoze and flatten the hill at 3333 california and sho chop down 200 trees and face the oldest landmark. laurel hill gardens cemetery. as well as the cemetery, for san francisco pioneers u.s. senators and civil war heroes, it's a tree-filled park for san francisco residents. since i noticed the historic

cemetery plaque missing from the red brick wall a few years ago, i wondered why would anyone want to erase this history. it made me sad. well, as a result, it seems that the job of marking and memorializing this important san francisco landmark has been left to its survivors, the trees. some of these large, old growth trees are monument to this lost history. in addition to the history, many studies have reported that the loss of large, old trees leads to an over all loss of urban biodiversity. they are critical ecological structures because relative to their size, they are disproportionate providers of resources crucial to wildlife. it's times of necessary development and help preserve the landmarks that define your cities' rich history. concern neighborhoods are not anti development. but surely these developers have the ability to build with respect to san francisco's

history. thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is bill cutler. my wife and i have lived in laurel heights on california street one block from the site of the proposed development for almost 50 years. we believe the feir should not be approved. it does not address the full environmental impact to our neighborhoods and it's not properly analyzed and contrast prado's proposal with the community are preservation look a look variant. a serious alternatives that builds the same amount of house north four years while preserving most of the green space. the cplv does this without violating current zoning laws, adding retail that will only negatively impact the businesses in laurel village. the owners of super markets have signed a statement detailing these concerns. the e.i.r. did not evaluate impacts on traffic noise or air quality from multiple, flexible retail uses sharing the same retail space.

the i.i.r. only evaluated single use restaurant and retail uses. the local community was never told about flexible retail being included and flexible retail is not allowed anywhere else in district 2 and is not even allowed in the sacramento and fill more street commercial districts. supervisor stefani introduced the s.u.d. after the completion of the feir. the comment was made the changes to the new zoning and subdivision map process are not included in the e.i.r., that's not true. they will have a major effect on the future of laurel heights. and need to be included the introduction of flexible retail by design allowing more than one tenant in a retail space. another disturbing aspect of the plans involve removing the healthy new zealand christmas trees that line california street. these trees are a vital part of our neighborhood and replacing

them with fruitless olive trees to make prado's development look like an extension of laurel village does not justify cutting them down in this era of toxic air and climate change. they're not on prado's property. from the beginning -- >> supervisor yee: thank you. next speaker. >> >> thank you for having us. i just want to say that i can beat everyone here. i have lived there for 0 70 yea. i've seen a lot of changes. bob saw the landscaping for the people working in the office to give everyone a view of the landscape but the neighborhood. we grew up there playing and going to five works, celebrations, all kinds of celebrations and there was never a no press passing sign and no one asked us to leave whether it was u.c. so, it's been a very special place for a lot of people in the neighborhood. and i also would like to mention

with the previous man just spoke about, and that's the traffic. if any of you have driven over euclid street lately, first of all it's destroyed with all the roundabouts. you kent get through and there have been serious incidents and the police are over there giving tickets out. i'd like to also add that to it. thank you. >> thank you. >> supervisor yee: next speaker. >> hi, i'm kelly robertson. if the overhead could be turned on that's great. good afternoon, supervisors. i hope you are all well. i would like to spend a moment discussing the value of the 3333 california site. based on fair market value, the developers have possibly received a windfall of over $100 million when they purchased the property for $90 million. the u.c. system could have received another $100 million to

add vans educational and research efforts. the developer paid $203 per squarely foot for a unique piece of property in a prestigious location. it has fully installed utilities, gas, electricity, water, sewer, transit and has shopping and services and an office building, if it were fully rented could generate $200 million per year in rental revenue. so, for example, unimproved lands in san francisco, utilities in the revenue and sells between 250 and $480 of square foot. land with revenue introducing buildings begin at $1200 per square foot. based on the above 3333 california street has a fair market value of between -- i should move it. $425 per square foot and up to

$500 per square foot even at i discounted rate. based on the above, we would request that the board of supervisors require the 10% of the units in this project, 75, be affordable housing for middle income families and to have that included in the project. thank you, very much for your time and interest. >> supervisor yee: next speaker. >> my name is robin mackie and i live kiddie corner across the other corner of the city. i'm in bernal heights and i've there there since 1980. i'm very concerned. i understand that 200 mature trees will be cut down and these mature trees, just by being alive are combating climate change. your vote may be a local vote. but it's much, much larger.

it's a vote for the future of our planet and your children, grandchildren and future generations. so i urge you, please support the appeal of the e.i.r. thank you. >> supervisor yee: next speaker. i believe that i am younger. many come as representatives representing our families and our friends and you can imagine the runs of thousands represented by teach of us today. these trees, as living networks of individuals, we have addressed the importance of these 200 and 300 trees since the carbon and combating the world altering future of climate change and it's worth considering the trees already destroyed and development efforts before the state. i call upon san francisco to be a leader and commitment towards

socially responsible housing development and up to us here in this almost to consider the impact of this and the many future projects. thank you. >> supervisor yee: thank you. next speaker. >> >> hi, i don't have a voice so it's ok if my friend here reads this. >> she doesn't have a voice. can i read her statement for her. >> supervisor yee: yes. >> this is raz. i believe we can have housing and preserve the already existing trees. these two things are not mutually exclusive. section 16 article 808 and 810 of the urban forestry ordinance of san francisco state it's a crime to abuse, injury, tree within san francisco and during this september 19th, public works hearing, public works forestry expert stated that these trees on the chopping block were healthy, mature, significant all of them so that i would like to know how it's possible the developers of this

project have never been asked if they have plans for preservation. in all the hearings, preservation has never been offered as an o when asked about removal they stated things like there will be a door where these two massive trees are or that retail space should go to the curb across the wide sidewalk. i would ask is it possible for you to move the doorway a couple feet to the left or right or possible to include the already existing trees. all we hear from the developers is these trees will be replaced by sam bellings, it's an afterthought. this should be about quality and not quantity. even 88 samplings cannot do the heavy listing that mature trees provide us. additionally, trees are teched beffectedby public trees. they belong to the people. the city has done a horrible job of informing the public of this merit. up until today, most people didn't know they were at risk when they find out they're shocked and sad and confused. the first question are they sick?

the answer is no and that's verified by public work itself. please remember that if you grant this permit they're able to chop down whatever 200 trees exist on the property. replacement is murder. in this age of climate change protest it's irresponsible to cut down more trees. do not grant the permit and ask for an alternative plan. thank you. >> supervisor yee: thank you. hope you get your voice back soon. next. >> mr. president, duffy i'm a san francisco resident and i come from a state where they chop the forest down. to drive steam boats on the mississippi river. and then after that when all those trees are gone they discovered coal. brilliant. i just believe that there has to be some kind of sim beosis between trees and carpenters. look, we all know we're not going to meet our 2029 climate change goals. so, we got one foot in the grave

what are we going to do put the foot in another grave? i said it over and over, if you wanted to do something about climate change it would not look like what we're doing and this project is a perfect example of that. when we have projects they have to have more benefits. i see we've got a row of suits here. i got to tell you i'm tired of the planning department bringing plans that just don't meet the great and i know it's hard to sustain an appeal. >> i'm a 47 year resident of laurel near california street and a 66-year-old resident of district 2 and i'm certainly generally supportive of building housing on this site and i feel

supportive of a number of aspect but the e.i.r. has flaws. there is inadequate off street parking in the plans. if you have looked for parking in our neighborhood, you already spend anywhere from 10 to 30 minutes any time of the day or evening looking for parking. and that is even true of those of us who have a residential parking permit. the parking permits for this area section f are already over sold by 100% and they immediately adjacent parking areas and it's over sold with residential permits by 124% and so you add 744 units and some will have off street parking and you create an additionellal

parking and creates more and more cars circling all these blocks and creating more emission problems which are not addressed by the current e.i.r. so thank you for your consideration. >> >> hell oh i'm a resident of san francisco and i'm very pleased to be here to warp in what i think of as democracy in action at this hearing. i oak owe most of the prior people have spoken we need affordable housing. i need affordable housing. we need this does not address that unfortunately. but we also need to remember what is it that makes up a city i think it's the people who make up the city. what makes a great city?

it's a feeling of community. maybe it's not true but it's the way it feels because when i community comes together with plans and they're disregarded it feels like the people that live there don't count and so i feel like it needs to be really looking at alternate plans and if you take a drive in that neighborhood, if you take a drive you will see all over in the single-family homes and the low rise apartments that are there, signs in tons of windows saying save laurel hill. people feel like the city of abandoning us and giving away our city to someone who can make money off of it. i ask you to please remember that we've voted for you maybe

it a viable plan. here in opposition to the final approval of the e.i.r. within a few blocks of each other, there are currently three projects in the laurel hill area the california street campus and the lucky penny and 333 california street each has a different project sponsor and each has had a very different outcome and cpmc and the lucky penny have had positive outcomes with the project sponsors working with the neighbors. as the board can see for themselves the 3333 california

street project has not had a positive outcome. this is due in large part to the hardball tactics used by the project sponsors. i am also opposed to the development being the 7 to it would be a much larger size and again, i am opposed to the final e.i.r. certification and i'm supporting the appellant. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. hello, supervisors. thank you for having me here. i'm fill fernandez and i've been a resident of this city and taxpayer since 1973 and i strongly encourage you to deny the appeal.

there a lot of nimby opposition to the project it's a positive forward step to provide housing. >> >> it's not your turn to speak right now. i apologize. >> can you have a seat and we'll give you an opportunity later. >> i'm sorry. this is in support of the appeal or opposition of the project. >> overhead, please. i'm rose. i'd like to bring up something. but there's something in there that wasn't mentioned. a lot of times people say oh we've got 500 some odd trees to replace 500 trees. when is it a tree not a tree?

unequal environmental benefits and there's a website i referenced and times 269 sampling you need 49,765 zap rings and d.p.w. of 1948 and you multiply that minimum 361,695. 91,915,955 if you take all those other trees. i go through and you can see on this slide, what is the equivalent, well there's the cam accumulation. you want economic impact i didn't know what i was doing. sorry. so you got 15 trees move and

7,452,000 and the tree removal trees and it says 1611 and they're not trees and 362 trees for the initial study, i don't know what the number is anymore. so then, you have 530 quote trees and it's 1% of the zap ling equivalent of mature trees removed and include this under sunshine 67.16. maybe i got the wrong section but i turned it in for whoever wants it. >> thank you. >> so, there's an overflow room and i've been informed that the people in the overflow room there's no one in there that is speaking in support of the appellant. so, if there's no i will close public comment. thank you for your comments. ok. so we're going to move on with our hearings. we will have up to 15 minutes

from the representatives of the planning department and public works. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm bruce the city and county surveyor before you is the appeal of tentative map 9956 which is a 739 unit phased final map project located at 3333 california. public works received the application april 9th of this year. a few months later public works received a tentative map. public works circulated the application to city agencies. the department of city planning, the department of building inspection, puc, public works, infrastructure design and construction and traffic a public hearing for the project.

order 201836 to consider approval of the tentative map. kept 27 we granted the map approval on october and it brings us here today and if the board as any questions about the map. >> seeing none. let's continue with the next person. >> good afternoon president yee. i'm here today with other planning department staff to address the e.i.r. certification appeal for the 3333 california street project. the planning commission searched by the final e.i.r. on septembe. finding that the e.i.r.'s adequate objective and complies

with the california environmental quality act where ceqa, the ceqa guidelines and the chapter 31 of the san francisco administrative code to the extent that issues in appeals of the conditional use authorization tentative map decisions are environmental issues they're addressing in the department's ceqa appeal response. the ceqa appeal including the november 7th and november 12th supplemental letters have been fully addressed by the department in the responses to comments document and the memorandum provided to the planning decision on september 4th. i will highlight several issues but all issues are raised. contrary to the appellant, the e.i.r. analyzed a range of project alternatives including two full partial preservation alternatives. the alternatives development

process was robust and considered the significant ant and unavoidable impact of the project as required by ceqa. for the preservation alternatives, the department saw feedback from the historic preservation commission and other preservation experts. appellants submitted product alternatives that the appellant contends should have been included in the e.i.a. and the department reviewed these and determined none of the alternatives is required to be included in the e.i.r. because they're similar to the e.i.r. project alternative evaluated. the comparisons of the site plans to e.i.r. alternatives are klein you haincluded in the res. they are similar to e.i.r. alternative c a full preservation alternative. appellants look similar to e.i.r. personal alternatives e

and d. whether to include these alternatives in the e.i.r. that the department also requested that san francisco public works bureau conducted independent review of the appellant's alternative. public works concluded that the alternatives could not be constructed as claimed by the appellant. the a pal attribute has parking spaces in the alternatives and in particular, they found that appellant's assumptions regarding useable space are not reasonable and public works also concluded that the appellant alternatives would provide mostly small units such as studios and one bedroom units. in the appeal letter, as well as november 7th, supplement, appellant contents that the e.i.r. failed to adequately review potential design modifications to the product which could have been required as mitigation measures to reduce the significant historic

research impact. this is incorrect. in the case of this product, given the -- [please stand by]

>> we've heard a lot of

testimony regarding the trees and climate change. the city understands the importance of this issue. as discussed, the city has an aggressive reduction strategy to reduce the ghgs, including new development. the strategy has been successful in that sf is more than meeting state goals. also discussed in the eir, it complies with the reduction strategy. this is a key strategy in reducing vehicle trips and ghgs. pursuant to senate bill 743 by located housing in a transit-rich area in proximity to jobs. and i would like to note that emissions from vehicles from far worth contributor to climate change than lots of trees. other comments relate to the merits of the project and the merits are not concerns related to the eir appeal but may relate to other appeals and project approvals. the department's response addresses whether the eir prepared for the project meets the requirements of sequa.

the appellant has not provided substantial evidence to support a claim that the eir fails to comply with seqa, the guidelines or chapter 31 of the administrative code. therefore, planning respectfully recommends that the board upholds the commission certification of the final e requiremenirand with that, i'lly colleague, nick foster, to address the conditional use authorization appeal. >> good afternoon. i'm nick foster with the planning department staff. also before the board today is whether to uphold or overturn the conditional use authorization or the ceu for this project. the planning commission on september 5th approved the conditional use for a vote of 7-3 to allow structures to exceed 40 feet in a zoning district and for a planned unit development from select requirements of the planning code. as you've heard, the appellant contends the board shall

authorize this because it's not desirable or compatible with the neighborhood. in granting the cieu, including the new and reused structures, with nonresidential uses. and the commissions found the project is indeed necessary or desirable because it will provide new opportunities for housing with no displacement and new site amenities including 2.y accessible space and new childcare facility. the size is on balance consistent with the policies and objectives of the city's general plan. the appeal also demands specific modifications to the project including the following. limiting the height and modifications to the reuse center buildings and a reduction of the new building near laurel and euclid to preserve more open space and further limits on the

types of nonresidential uses proposed. related to the height of the center buildings, the planning commission supported the overall scale including the height because their placement in the center of the site set back from the public rights of way was a project objective. the project would place shorter buildings along the perimeter between 40 and 65 feet to serve the transition to the taller buildings in the center. a reduction in height of the center building would result in a reduction in dwelling unit count or to keep the unit count consistent, 744, and increase to other proposed new buildings along the perimeter and compromising the compatibility. they won't enable five three bedroom units adding total 41 dwelling units in the flu floors. the project was approved to create a 40-foot wide open pathway in the mill of the existing pathway creating two

separate residential buildings. the appellant seeks to limit this to a new two-story portal. the introduction of the pathway was in direct response to provide a clear visual connection that encourages the public to enter the sites. this creates a permeable site broken down to a human scale. the clear and inviting opening maximizes physical and visual access through the site. the appellant demands fewer new buildings near euclid and a 70-foot setback enables a privately owned open space at the intersection. the commissioner heard a request of the housing potential estimated at a loss of 30 dwelling units. the commission felt this was the right balance between housing and open space. and lastly, the appellant has

zoning control is applicable to the zoning district b in place of the ncs. the controls in these projects are consistent west of the project and the projects sud will create a more continuous linear commercial corridor connecting laurel village at the intersection of california and in doing so, it provides an appropriate transition from the ncs to the ncs two. at the supervisor committee, they further restricted special uses during public comment. supervisors, the planning department worked for years to shape the project into one overwhelming supported and approved at the planning commission. the project represents a unique opportunity to transform an historically isolated site into one activated in the surrounding nakeneighborhood, providing 15,0

square foot childcare facility at the ground floor and dramatically improve the public realm along each front street but particularly along m masoni. it is a thoughtfully designed project with different structures accommodate a scaled density and help to activate street use along california street and promote pedestrian environments along all street frontage. we stand behind this and ask you to deny this appeal. thank you. >> is that the end of the presentation? any other staff members going to be presenting? i see nobody, so i guess that ends that portion. any questions from my colleagues? there was mention by the

supporters of the appellant around the historical property piece. i know you talked about it, but how does this -- can you explain more, if there's any impact and why there shouldn't or should be any issues with this in terms of historical property. ? >> president yi, i'm deborah dwyer and i want to make sure i understand the question that you're asking. the nature of the historic -- the property is a historic resource both for the office building and the landscape that's integrated with it. because the determination was

made that the project would have a significant and unavoidable impact to the resource, we underrinundertook an analysis ad two partial preservation alternatives. >> and i guess what you're saying these alternatives meets the requirements of satisfying the requirements, i guess? >> yes. when you have a significant impact under sequa, you're first to require mitigation measures and we found that mitigation measures for such a large site, it was difficult to look at individual mitigation measures and to see that they would have a meaningful reduction in the impact. a package of improvements that would address the historic resource impact would more

meaning anfully be considered fr the project and that is what we followed for this. >> in this case, the mitigation is planting for trees than existing. >> well, the trees is a separate -- i would say they're interrelated in that the mature trees are acknowledged to be a part of the landscape because the landscape architects that designs the park for the fireman's fund did take into account those trees. as part of alternative's development, we looked at how to balance retaining portions of the landscaped area, including trees in the development of alternatives. but in terms of -- so that's the way that part of the historic resource impact is addressed.

>> supervisor stephanie? >> thank you, president yi. through the chair, i'm just going to touch on some of the questions while we're here. i would like to know how many trees related to this site does public works have jurisdiction over? >> i'd like to ask public works to assist with that. >> good afternoon. public works has jurisdiction over the 15 street trees and 18 significant trees proposed for removal and if i could just take a moment to explain what a significant tree is under the public work's code, that might help to clarify. a significant tree is a tree that's located on private property and it is within ten feet of the public right-of-way.

if that's true, it must meet three sized criteria, a diameter of 12-inches or greater, canopy width of 15 feet or wider and a height of 20 feet or greater. so first, it must be within ten feet of the public right-of-way and if it meets any one of those three sized criteria, it's considered significant under the public work's code. for these trees proposed for removal, there are 18 significant trees and 15 street trees under our jurisdiction. >> and what type of trees are they? start with street and significant. >> the street trees are new zealand christmas trees, all 15 of them are. and the significant trees, i have a list, there are two monterey cypress and six purple

leaf plum, two victorian box, two leland cypress, one new zealand christmas tree, as a significant tree and three maple trees. >> and can you explain the current conditions of those trees? >> yeah, most of those trees are considered to be in fair to poor condition. the two cypress are in, i would say, fair to good condition. >> and how will they be replaced and with how many? >> so, again, just looking at what's under the public work's jurisdiction, the project is proposing to plant 88 street trees and -- >> so we're going from 15 street trees to 88 street trees. >> that is correct. and i will note many street trees would be required for any project that is a new development. they have to plant a tree for every 20 feet of linear

frontage, but many of the frontages don't have any existing street trees. then they're also proposing 49 significant trees. >> and do you know what replacement species we're looking at, what's proposed and why. >> so there are a number of species proposed and our staff are still meeting with the developer to look at species. but currently, the proposal includes some olive trees, some ginco trees -- i can't think of the common name for escalus carnia. let me see if i have that.

i have a list. so those are the three species they're proposing. fruitless, olive, 39 fruitless olive, 31 ginco and 18 horse chestnut. >> thank you, miss short. just quickly in terms of the sequa analysis on page 25 of the planning's response, in terms of the trees as it applies to sequa, i'm wonder wag the projecwondering what theprojecte loss of tree trees? >> the project would not result in an impact related to the trees.

for the purposes of sequa, we look at whether there are special status species, which there are not in terms of trees and with respect to whether the trees potentially provide habitat for migratory birds, we have mitigation measures that address that. >> and i'm wondering, too, if you can just explain whether or not the project conflicts with local tree protection policies and ordinances. >> no, the project would not conflict with the urban street ordinance. we understand that there would be a major encroachment permit but the standards for the urban forestry ordinance are within that. >> and is miss short still here?

in terms of the current trees at site, is it correct that we have 212 trees at the site? >> so we only assessed the trees under public work's jurisdiction, so i don't know total number of trees on the site. >> ok. >> is there anyone from the planning department? >> one moment, please. i will withdraw that question because i think it illustrates a point that this is part of the

major encroachment permit that is the piece of legislation that would allow for us to actually address the trees under the actual jurisdiction of public works. so at this time, i'll wait for the ordinance that actually addresses how many trees are on the property and how many trees we will have in the end. >> supervisor mandleman? >> maybe just to follow on president yi's questions about the resource issues and the developments to consider that preservation. can you just talk a little bit about why the planning commission rejected those alternatives?

the question that was asked regarding the alternatives was related to the findings approved by the planning commission, a separate matter from the eir appeal, so i'm going to refer that question, then, to our colleagues, nick foster and the team for that. the planning commission approved the proposed project it was the version with the greater residential and the arrangement design permeability through the sites through the review design process.

>> supervisor mar. >> thank you, president. actually, i did have a few other questions about the tree removal aspect. >> i just wanted to understand how it includes significant tree removal, in this case approximately 200 mature trees in your analysis and i think in your comments, something about it didn't sit right with me. i think i heard you say that the project is aligned with our greenhouse gas emission reduction strategy because it's a transit oriented development and it's building housing near joshes anjobs and transit and tl

positive. but i seem to hear you say because of that, therefore, it's ok that 200 mature trees are going to be removed. because they're not as significant. we're looking at more aggressive steps to greatly expand it. >> thank you, supervisor mar. so what i want to clarify is that i'm not saying that trees are not important, but i am

saying that under the questions that we look at for the purposes of sequa, we are looking at whether there are special status species on a site in addition to looking at local tree protection ordinances and how the project would comply with such a ordinance. i think what i was trying to say for an infill site, where you're putting housing close to transit, you are going to see other benefits, as well as all

of the requirements that are in the ghg reduction strategy that relates to water efficiency and energy efficiency, besides things that are within the transportation sector but for the purpose of sequa, we would not find this tree removal to be a significant impact. under the criteria that is in appendix g, the sequa checklist. >> great. so you're saying that you really mostly look at the type of trees and the species but not how trees can play a significant role through carbon sequestration in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. that's not part of it? well, so in the different topic

areas, the questions we look at are very specific and with respect to biological resources, it has to do with species that have some special status, like the endangered species act. they have to be listed. in terms of ghg impacts, the city has a qualified ghg reduction strategy, which is a collection of many different laws and regulations and new development has to comply with those. and the city has demonstrated success in reducing its ghg remissions through the application of those laws. >> lisa gibb son, environmental review officer. i would like to, if i may, offer the staff present today can provide further information on this topic regarding the trees and greenhouse gas emissions.

>> president yi, board, i'm the manager of the transportation review and i am with the gas reduction team and there's a relationship between all three of these. i think, supervisor, your question is getting at that relationship and i think the global climate change issue that no individual project can solve. so when we're looking at an individual project effects on greenhouse gas emissions, we're looking at that combined effect from all of the various sectors miss dwyer spoke to. it's not just trees or transportation but it's energy and i water and it's transportation efficiency and the fact of the matter is, by locating a project here or really, almost anywhere in san francisco, you are way more greenhouse gas efficient, even if you are removing trees, which

we acknowledge this project is doing, then locating the project somewhere else. so that is what a lot of these state laws about locating housing and infill sites are about, senate bill 375, senate bill 743, about location of housing to reach our state's overall greenhouse gas reduction goals. and just to give some scales, as in 1990, the state had 431 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent and 132 were from transportation. the net sync throughout the entire state was -7. so -7 versus 152 from transportation sector. and that comes from the california air resource's board, climate scoping point. >> ok. >> thank you. >> thank you.

>> anything else, supervisor mar? any other questions from my my colleagues seeing none, so right now i would like to call up the project sponsor or the representatives to speak up to 15 minutes. come on up. >> good afternoon. i'm dan gershwin representing the project sponsor, laurel height's partners llc. with me is my colleague, greg miller. supervisors, out of respect for your time and given the comprehensive staff, i don't plan to use my full 15 minutes. i would like to focus principallably on the sequa

appeal and i would say why they fail to meet burden and lack merit and finally, i will address the arguments raised by appellant in a letter submitted this morning. sequa is a disclosure of law requiring an eir informs decision-makers as they consider project approval. a standard on to approval is whether the eir is adequate and correct in its conclusions based on substantial evidence. as you've heard from staff and as you've seen in the planning department's appeal, this eir meets and exceeds those standards. appellants documenant's argumene contrary are without merit. similarly, for the map approval, dpw was required to support record evidence. as explained by city staff, the record contains extensive information in these findings,

including that the project is desirable for and compatible with the environment is community, is applicable with the plan and consistent wit thee subdivision. arguments to the contrary lack merit. and i would like to focus this evening on the sequa appeal. they present 18 arguments attempting to attack the eir s efficiency. although appell annual disagrees on these points, it fails to meet the evidentiary burden and substantial evidence in support of the arguments that the eir an