creating schedulcreating dead z. the fact they want cure the curd retail is important. parks and open space, somebody brought up the presidio tunnel's project. the trust went to new york to get jim corner and field operations to do the tunnels. these guys have brought corner and field operations to be their landscape architects. they're trying to do something a cut above. i urge you to go forward. we shouldn't be sandbags everything that comes town the e make. >> thank you. >> hell lope. hello. i'm gail star. i'm a resident for over 26 years and i'm here because i'm repeating what everybody has said, the city needs housing, especially on a transportation mode. i'm here as a mother and daughter. in fining senior housing for my father, it was difficult in the

city, especially anywhere somewhat close to us and finding housing for my son, he wanted to be a neighbor he grew up with and there's very little housing. i know that this development won't help my father who's passed away or my son, because it's going to be a few years before it's here, but it will help the neighborhood and it will help the area given the transportation node. i'm i in support of the retail. as it is now, off can do is the bank and market. you have to walk down to philmore enjoy vibrant retail. i urge you to support this development, thank you. >> next speaker. >> good evening, supervisors, staff and members of the community. i'm the director of organizing for the northern california carpenter's union and here to talk on two issues. one is housing.

california is short 3.5 million units of housing. we build roughly 100,000 units a year. we're falling behind. yet we put on hold 744 units, of which 187 of the units are affordable to seniors. half of those units were designed with a family-friendly design and 15,000 square feet of childcare, five acres of open space and it also has efficient and renewable energy systems and waste management that will minimum highs in the project's carbon footprint. the use of green roof, storm water capture systems, solar panel to improve the ecofriendliness of this project. so how can this appeal stand? second issue, jobs. we have a chance to find jobs, job for apprentices, jobs for women and minorities, good head of household jobs with healthcare for whole families. the gc on this job will be web

core. this is a big user of city build. it's an organization that you helped to establish. you see, there is to worker shortage, only an opportunity shortage. and we, the construction trades want the opportunity to build this project. as the do, i meet with directors from all over the country and we are blessed here in san francisco with the development dollars and capable of construction hands, leaders that get it and all eyes are on us. let's not scannedder this opportunitsquander thisopportund quality homes. please deny the appeal on 3333 california, california future rests in your decision tonight. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> good evening. i realize i'm probably toward the end effort comments so i'll be quick. i'm on the board of northern neighbors and we are a district 2 organization, lively, walkable, safe and affordable

throughout our district and we are out here to support this project whole heartedly. we think that more people building more housing is a great thing and it enlivening the neighborhood and it's safer and it increases the businesses and creates a great organization like the jcc and we think that the shopping and the open space and the walkability will be greatly improved by having this project here. we urge you to approve this project without any further delay and also approve the 186 affordable homes for low-income seniors which would be a great benefit because district 2 has built no low-income affordable housing in the past ten years. lastly, thank you, supervisor stephanie for your leadership here. thank you very much. >> thank you, next speaker. >> i'm eddie seagel.

i've lived here my entire adult life. like the previous speaker, i'm a board member at northern neighbors and i love living in in neighborhood and in strong support of this project and hope you deny the appeal. i along with many people in this room who aren't homeowners in sanfrancisco face the progress inspects of increasing affordable rent and buying something to ensure long-term stability, we can forget about it. i have the privilege of a good job and housing security and district 2 has not just built no affordable housing but experienced a net loss because we've destroyed some of those units, a necessary loss. snet loss.i know many supervisoe concerned about the concentration of affordable housing in your districts. please help us to do our fair share. there's 186 units from seniors. almost nothing is better for putting people in the environment in carbon

secularization. i take the 38r to work is and i hope to see my new neighbors on the bus with me and if we don't build this, there 744 worth of humans commuting in san francisco via car. i look forward to meeting my new neighbors and hope you support this project. >> thank you, next speaker. >> we needn't look further than one week ago for a proposition a & e. and we also have a homeless crisis here in the city. it's gut wrenching to read stories about hard-working construction workers that find themselves homeless. if this bill starts today, it's too late that they might find

themselves homeless but how long will we delay projects like this when the people are calling before it's too late for more and more people, thank you. >> next speaker. >> i'm so excited 3333 california has gotten this far. we have not done our fair share. in district 2, we are the most affluent district, the highest incomes of the entire city and put all of the growth in supervisors ronan and hainey's and that means if my property value goes down, that's ok because we are in a housing crisis and so many people are struggling because we have a

$4.3 million housing deficit that we need to make up because we didn't allow this earlier. we didn't allow this 30 years ago. i know that these units off the bat will not be affordable but when my child who is 2 years old now, when she's at the age of potentially owning a home, perhaps they will be affordable. i hope we have many more projects like this in the future and i would like to see us doing more in district two and thank you, supervisor stephanie. >> next speaker. >> i'm nico nagel. i'm representing the san francisco housing coalition, for all homes of affordability. this organization was creating 20 years ago because we had this problem 40 years ago, which is that we delay housing and don't build enough of it and suddenly

we're surprised when we have a resulting crisis in displacement and a lack of affordability. these are ecentral to be building. 744 units is nothing to laugh at and a 25% affordability rate is brutal to build in this city. this project is doing it and they can't do it if we delay it too far. i want to address one thing that we heard from lots of folks which is that do trees have rights? fair enough. it's a fair question. trees are beautiful and they're certainly a resource but this project addresses housing as a human right and i think that is the crisis that we're seeing. beyond that, a little more specifically, the site already

has a large section that is paved. so i think that as an argument is ineffective and to an even greater degree, a lot of that pavement is a parking lot. the national se sierra clubs ags the best thing to do to mitigate our climate issues is to create housing -- dense housing near transit. again, this project does that, 744 units worth of it. i thinks tha think that's all ir you. thank you. >> next speaker. >> good evening, supervisors. i'm robert fruckman and i would like to mention that district 2, where i think most, if not all of it is considered a high opportunity neighborhood by

california which means the people have the highest cancer e of receiving quality healthcare and this is an area where we should prioritize housing. i would like to say one name to you, tracy. it's not the name of a person but it is the name of a city and i would like you to consider that there are 120,000 super commuters in the san francisco bay area and that means there's 120,000 people who commute three miles or more per day and i want you to consider how far away that is. maybe 55, 60, 70 miles away and now consider greenhouse gases emitted by all of the cars on the freeway everyday of the week. and think about 200 trees compared to 120,000 super commuters, many of whom are driving alone in their cars on the freeway, spewing greenhouse gases out of their tailpipes.

what is the action to our climate emergency? to insist the status quo of people commuting from tracey and from north bay is the right answer? we are underbuilt home for decades and our greenhouse gas crisis is a result of that. i would like to ask, is a three-hour meeting to approve dense infill with affordable housing a good solution to answer our crisis, because we have multiple crises. as far as i'm concerned, the longer we wait, the more feet we put in the grave. thank you. >> networknext speaker. >> i'm owen. i'm a sophomore student at the bay school and i am here to provide support for the approval

of this project and the rejection of the appeal. this semester i have been working on researching the housing crisis we have in san francisco. my biggest take away from the interviews i have conducted and studies i have looked at is that san francisco is currently and chronically under building housing for years. and demand for housing far outpaces supply, which is why we have seen price increases that have pushed many from their homes and made san francisco a city which is increasingly less successful. to solve this crisis, we head to build significantly more housing at all income levels. this project allowed much-needed housings to the housing market. all these 744 total units, including 186 on-site affordable home for seniors won't serve or crisis alone but will be part of the solution. we need to stop demonizing

developers and holding up new development for periods. this is necessary to make housing more affordable and accessible. this helps no one except to establish homeowners. sanfrancisco has been definedded for being diverse, inclusive and welcoming to all but the housing crisis we have is threatening that reputation. planning commission and all of you, do you care about these defining values, give your support to the approval of the project. if we don't build more housing, this problem will worsen, driving out more people and threatening the access to the city of cute and future generations. thank you for listening. >> thank you, next speaker. >> each new housing unit created

may open an existing housing space to a new resident speak ag vacancy and i hope everyone present will consider the possibility of either requesting that a tree be planted in front of their residence. residence or volunteer with an organization and continue doing so or that they might plant appropriate trees in their backyards if their yard is presently absent such growth for their personal and responsible enjoyment, and also, subpoena environments are highly apprized by prospective tenants. >> any other public comments? thank you very much for the public for making comments. i'll now close public comments on this issue.

supervisor stephanie, there's five minutes for the right buttal. >> i would like to ask a question of staff before the rebuttal takes place. >> go ahead. >> through the chair, there has been a lot of comment about the trees and i just want to get very clear on it because, of course, it's very important, so i would like someone from the city to come up and clarify this and based on our discussions, ken from the office of economic and workforce development, if you could please speak to the tree issue. >> supervisor ken rich from oed. we've been working closely on this project and i want to go back over and put into a good organization and context what you've heard and then bring up

some more information, as well. so let's talk about the trees in groups. so first of all, there are the street trees and we understand from miss short that there are 15 street trees currently on the street at this site. those are under this jurisdiction of the department of public works. to the extent those trees need to be moved because of the construction, they will be replaced by 88 new street trees under the direction of public works. the project sponsor will work with public works and get those planted and you heard from miss short some of the species considered. the second group of trees are what are called significant trees as miss short explained. the definition are those on private property within ten feet of the public right-of-way and meet size qualifications. currently, there are 18 tree expose 17 are in faiand17 are id

there will be 49 new trees and those are the first two groups. the third group, which i think we've heard a bit about in the public testimony and iity i thik there's confusion is the site as a whole. what i would do so you're fully informed is ask the project sponsor to comeup and describe his plan for dealing with the rest of the trees on the site and then miss short will come up with one final thing to add to the conversation. >> as mr. rich said, on the left-hand side of this image, those are the trees that we've been discussing that were within

the jurisdiction of the city, the 15 street trees along california street and then the 17 significant trees. on the right-hand side, you can see a few different colours. you can see the street trees around the site that will be installed with the proposed project, which total 88. and then you also see the dark green areas with the larger circles and those are 11 different trees that are on the site that are what we're calling key trees that are being retained. and then the gold, which is inside the center of the site are the additional trees that we're adding to the project will total over 500 trees and we're more than doubling the number of trees on the site. this is an image of key trees. you can see there are large oak

trees, cypress trees, monterey pine tree at the corner, at the top of the euclid green and the redwood trees that are on the east end of the site where we're going to be adding a exhibit number of redwood trees. this is the overall site plan and you can see a significant number of trees and over five acres of open space and open area and just to be clear, the trees are incredibly important to us. we incorporated the existing trees into the initial landscape architecture of the project to design the buildings around those trees and also make those key areas publically accessible points. the current site, as you know,

is really a walled off island. to give you an example of one image of what the project will look like when it's completed, we are providing a large number of trees, more than two times as i mentioned and bio diversity and sustainability are designed into the project hav and have bn from the beginning. >> thank you. i'm carla short with the sanfrancisco public works. it's rare that we have a project that works with an arborist before the project is designed to identify which trees are considered note-worthy and important to preserve. so i feel like they should get some positive credit for that. 11 trees that they're calling

key trees and they're all california native trees. there are native oaks, cypress and pine and i think working with an arborist to identify which trees are worth retaining is something we would like every project to do this san francisco. but these trees are particularly important because they're california natives and the oaks are san francisco natives from a habitat perspective so they worked to try to preserve those significant key trees. thank you. >> anything else, supervisor stephanie? then, lastly, i would like to invite the appellant to present a rebuttal argument. you will have up to five minutes. >> thank you. our expect alternative does not

destroy -- over head, please -- does not destroy the california street tree. we keep the development within the property line. and here are the trees. there's not a shred of evidence that there's anything infirm about these trees and i don't believe the arborist report dealt with the street trees. they're very, very robust. we had to raise money to determine whether the site was eligible for listing and to nominate it and that's why we raised early money. we obtained 800 signatures on a petition of residents against the rezoning supporting all residential use of the site and retaining green space. and the project is not transit oriented because it has four passenger-loading zones on the perimeter that will attract uber and undermine the loading goals.

they should be removed from the perimeter and there's no evidence that the developer demonstrated a need for these in the normal application process should be follo followed. when a project has been changed, case law makes it clear it's not an excuse if a shifted project has the same footprint, location and environmental impacts. because you need know the nature of a project to for formulate alternatives. a shifting project is an omission of law, which is a question of law. it is only factual issues that are determined under these substantial evidence rules. sequa obtained many legal issue, such as is the evaluation of the significant effects adequate? or is the range of alternatives reasonable and the court can review those. the misstatements of the community alternative were made by an employee of the developer

who was not an expert and whose credentials are not in the record and this report was then taken to public works and they relied on it and their report expressly says that they relied on his report. we've explained why it was a completely inaccurate misstatement. so here, you see has been renting the property for $5 million a year from the developer and also during their occupancy, he did not have to pay property tax. so he was not in any hurry to develop it. that accounts for some of the time, as does the historical nomination. to me, it's very disturbing that the destruction of the street trees is symbolic of the wanton and unnecessary destruction of the historic site. so we hope that you'll send this back to the drawing board to revise the project in accordance with the design standards.

and as our expert explained, you used all of them that apply and many of them apply. you don't necessarily evaluate them independently as the city argued. also, there's absolutely no evidence that the california street sidewalk needs to be widened. i measured it, it's 15 feet wide. the better street only requires 15 feet at that location. so the construction can be kept inside the property line and doesn't need to be b widened whh was a justic justification for g down the trees. bulldozing the trees is not sufficient justice cas justificr removal of the trees. i would like you to consider changing development agreement for the planning commission and board to approve the development agreement instead of planning

are director. and also, at the planning commission, commissioner richards voted no on the statement overriding sequa findings and that was not unanimous. the omission of an analysis in sequa is an emission so the measure analysis is legal issue. it's was incorrect any use of

the design guidelines. >> is that it? >> yes. ok, i want to say these pub pubc hearings for 22, 26 and 30 have been held and closed. we are now reconvened as the board of supervisors. we will take up the items related to the exemption from environmental review first and that would be items 23, 24 and 25 and we will be making an analysis of the adequacy, act accuracy and completeness of the environmental report, certified by the planning commission for the project at 3333 california street. again, this requires six votes of the board of supervisors. do we have a motion on items 23,

24 and 25? supervisor stephanie? thank you, president yi. first of all, i would like to start by thanking everyone who came out today to give public comment. i do take these appeals very seriously. here at the board of supervisors we sit in a semijudicial role when voting and we have to act on the merits of the information presented to us and the confines of what is actually in our generation. jurisdiction. with that said, i were like to take time to specifically address -- president yi, should i talk about the sequa first or all three appeals? >> probably easier for us to follow as we call out the numbers. so in this one, the review. >> with reregarregard to sequa,t to be clear that the grounds for appeal of an eir center on this question. is the eir adequate, accurate

and objective, sufficient as an informational document, correct in its conclusions and reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the city and whether the planning commission certification findings are correct? the appeal of the eir certification includes 18 claims which you have heard about, not all of them, but we've heard about them, read about them, from the appellant and planning staff and many centered around questions about what is and is not covered in the eir. what we heard was that the sud, special use district amendments, the development agreement and clarifications, construction enhancements, parking reduction and tree removal were adequately covered by the eir. and i want to specifically address some of the claims made about the historic nature of the buildings currently on the property. the eir comprehensively evaluated and determined the project would have a significant and unavoidable impact. thus all alternatives were studied in the eir and rejected

as infeasible in the planning commission timings, 7.0. when weighed against the benefits of this project, namely the creation of much-needed housing, and a more walkable streetscape, the mitigations were found to be sufficient by the planning commission. furthermore, the appellant proposed alternatives that were similar to two alternatives studied in the eir. packages of design changes to mitigate the historic resource were included in four preservation alternatives in the eir, which are not considerably different from the alternatives proposed by the amelants. appel. they argue it should have been included in the chapter but similar alternatives were studied and sequa did not require that an eir consider every alternative or combination of alternatives.

based on evidence presented today, it is my belief the final eir complies with the sanfrancisco admin code, providing an adequate impact of the project and thus, will be making a motion to deny the ail peel and affirm the final eir certification. >> a motion made and is there a second? >> seconded by supervisor ronan and then let's take role call. >> deputy city john givener. >> just to clarify the item that you'll be voting on as a motion to approve item 23 and take items 24 and 25. >> that was the motion. >> role call, please. (role call).

there are ten ayes. >> ok, so the motion passes. we're going to move on to the planning commission's decision -- well, the planning commission's decision is affirmed. we will consider the conditional use appeal, which is items 27, 28 and 29. consideration of the appeal of the conditional use authorization involves analysis of whether the plan's commission's determination to

authorize the project was appropriate. this hearing is quasi judicial. to reverse the plan agency decision or authorize conditional use, we would need eight votes of the board as required. so do we have a motion? supervisor stephanie? >> thank you. to summarize, we heard from the planning department that the alternative plan would not produce 744 units of housing with 58% family-sized unit. the anies werthey were studied r the most benefits for our city and neighborhoods. specifically, the proposal includes 186 units of subsidized affordable senior housing, on-site childcare for 175

children which is more than offered at that site. over five acres of open space, including 2-.9 acres with walkways that integrate the existing neighborhoods and more than what is required of the project sponsor. the proposal maximizes neighborhood reference by offering no those presiding three quarters of the project side. it a leading level, targeted lead gold or better and increase neighborhood resiliency with an awss fee in the amount of one million. the proposal will generate millions in community fees towards jobs, housing, and transportation and millions more in annual property tax revenue by converting a tax except use to a taxable use. the public benefit's this brings to our neighborhoods and our city makes the conditional use both necessary and desirable and for those reasons, i ask today

that we reject the appeal so we can move forward with creating these much-needed homes for families and low-income seniors. >> we're looking at 27, 28 and 29. >> so i can clarify my motion. i would like to make a motion to move item 27 forward and to table items 28 and 29. >> dido you have an amendment to item 27 that you would like to make? >> yes, we do have an amendment that everybody has received. and this is on page 1. we have to make this amendment and i will ask deputy givener to

explain lines one, 22 and 23. >> the amendments that supervisor stephanie circulated 27 and 31 which you'll consider shortly, both merely updating the sequa findings that accompany the motion. >> so supervisor stephanie has made a motion to amend item 27 as described. is there a second? >> seconded by supervisor walton without any objections and we'll pass the amendments. do we have a motion to approve the authorization as amended? >> so moved. >> and motion made and seconded by supervisor safaye.

to prove the authorization, can we take this motion as amended. can we take this motion same house, same call? then the motion carries unanimously. >> mr. president, you've tabled items 28 and 29, as well. >> yes. i believe the motion was to -- >> approved 27 as amended is tabling 28 and 29. >> correct. thank you for the clarification. >> and now we will -- let's move to the tentative map approval. do we have a motion for items 31, 32 and 33?

>> thank you. as public's works described, many relate to sequa rather than the map itself and they are best addressed in the sequa appeal which we just dealt with and i do not want to address the -- i do want to clarify two claims. the first claim is that the tentative map includes inaccuracies. public works describe the fact of the map is accurate and errors are minor in nature and corrected. the appellant -- i think this is important on the record why we're ruling in a certain way. specifically, the appellant claimed the map sheet that lot one has two commercial units and 17 remembe17 residential units. the proposed sconin zoning chans would allow fronting on california street. the public works identifies

condominium parcels, residential or commercial. the two units to facilitate parking for the duplexes which park works considers a non-remember use for purposes of identifying the condominium. this will not allow a public use under the planning code where such code is not permitted under applicable zoning. the claim that the map is accurate is unfounded and this board should reject it. the city failed to not the appellant per the block book in the. we know the city satisfied all reviews and block books are not provided by the public works but by the san francisco planning department. we've been inform ed thi informe block book is not required but are intended to provide the applications for permits on property within the city that is subject to the san francisco planning code that the requester

would not otherwise receive. both planning department and public works satisfied all requirements in this regard. with that said, as we heard, none of the claims made an appeal before us on the tentative map approval, show errors in the. maps anmaps.i ask that you joing the appeal. i would move item 31 forward -- >> so before you do that, would you like to make a simple intercept. amendment? >> the same one made with regard to the ceu just plained by deputy city john givener and i would like to move that. >> the motion to move it and is there a second? seconded by supervisor brown and with no objection, then the amendment passes. and so now the motion is to

approve item 31 as amended and approving the department of public work's determination is to table items 32 and 33. that motion was made by supervisor stephanie and is there a second? seconded by supervisor walton. can we take this item as amended same house, same call? ok, then without objection, item 31, as amended is arrive is appd 32 and 33 are tabled. the final map is approved. call 34-46. 34-36. >> referred without recommendation from land use and transportation committee. item 34 is to create the 3333 california street special use district and to make the appropriate findings. item 35 approves the development

agreement between the city and laurel height's partners, llc for the development of the 10.25 area site located at california street and presidio avenue and make the appropriate findings and item 36, an ordinance to approve a major encroachment improvement for laurel height's partners to occupy masonic avenue, pine street, mayfair to drive and laurel street jan fore purpose of maintaining landscape planters, and other improvements and also to make the appropriate findings. >> supervisor stephanie, would you like to make a motion to amend these items? >> i would like -- i'm not prepared to yet make the amendments on these items.

>> do you want us to come back later? or do you have no amendments? >> well, i would like to make comments about the ordinances themselves. >> ok. >> is that ok. >> you can make a comment? >> ok. >> thank you. i think this merits standing because i think this is an extremely important moment in terms of legislation that we are about to pass. , hopefully. before you is legislation creating a special use district, a development agreement and a major encroachment ordinance to bring to life a project that has been in the making for five years. a project that will bring much-needed housing to district two and to our city, as well as

many other benefits for our community. when this started in 2014, i was a legislative aid to supervisor farrell, i was the person who went to numerous, numerous community meetings at the jcc, people's homes and my office. all along, i have cared deeply about the community, the neighbors who have had their concerns with the project, including the appellants who i know well and i have wanted to make sure that we ended up with a project that would be not just good for the neighborhood, but a project that truly enhanced the lives of our community. obviously, there's disagreement. you've seen people in favour. you've seen people in opposition. that's called life. i knew that i wasn't going to make everybody happy. it's absolutely impossible, but i wanted to stand before you today, colleagues, knowing that in my heart, gut and mind and

it's not just about my heart and gut, but hoping to facilitate a project that would be an incredible add to an already vibrant community. to do that, i knew when i became supervisor that adjustments to the project would need to be made. so what did we do? as you've herbed at length today, the development agreement is for a 744 unit housing project with 186 projects dedicated for seniors. the developer will be responsible for funding on-site senior housing and the development agreement is the best way for the city to ensure that this major benefit is realized. now, the original development, the original proposal had an office building planned for the site across from the jcc and only 558 units of housing. when the neighborhood raised concerns about the office building and the potential traffic that would impose upon

the community, i wor worked to eliminate the office instead dedicate that to affordable housing for seniors. why seniors? we know that there is an unlimited key man for all types of affordable housing, both family and senior housing in our city. and although i cannot solve all of the city's problems with this one project, i knew that i could most definitely hone in on a problem that is important to me and not just in district two but also in the city. and the facts are clear, we are not coming close to meeting the need for senior housing now and into our future. according to the planning department's 2018 housing inventory, in the years between 202014 and 2018 were for senior. the board president has been call for a larger emphasis on the production of senior housing

and i have been there with him. as in my own personal experience, dealing with a sick father, i have immersed myself in what it takes to properly care for our seniors and learned how precious few resources are actually available to them including housing, especially in san francisco. and so we drill down on how to make this project the best fit for the neighborhood. it became clear that there was an opportunity to increase that unit count by changing the walnut building along california street from office to housing. seeing this opportunity to provide 186 units of affordable senior housing in the stand-alone building. this is what is so great about this project. there are senior services on the ground floor. together with childcare services in an innovative partnership with the senior facility. and this is something i could not pass up. it's something i was going to insist upon if we would move this project forward. and what we need to understand about senior housing is that

it's difficult or impossible to provide it in some type of distributed inclusionary manner and the fact we have this whole building opportunity to me was absolutely significant. and in addition, there is an existing senior facility across the street, offering the opportunity to share services and create a senior community in this location. i think we all know or we should if we're paying attention, one effort worse things senior suffers from is isolation and loneliness and the fact we're bringing them together with services across the street in a jcc and a neighbor transit rich and where you can walk to a grocery store, restaurant or movie is something that will enhance the lives of those seniors as we look forward to welcoming them to our neighborhood. the affordable senior building will be on california street, adjacent to transportation and

retail across from the jcc. the development agreement requires direct marketing and a reference in leasing to seniors already living within a three quarter's mile. usually the radius is half a mile but we increased it to include not just district two, but parts of district five and district one, as well. i have come to understand the derth of housing for seniors and how expensive housing can be and how even with family help it can be hard to age in place or find a suitable, affordable home. i am determined to do everything in my power to address our senior's needs, especially when it comes to giving them places to live. that is why i'm proud of this development agreement before you today, which ilene will create more affordable senior homes than we have built in district two over the past decade. it is very telling of the robust community process that we do all agree that we need housing on

the site and i'm proud to have pushed the increase to 744 units and proud that everyone does agree that 744 units at this site is desirable. the remainder of the project, the remainder of the project is designed with multi-bedroom units including a new large childcare center on site to appeal to families hoping to stay in the area. how many times do we hear about families in san francisco and about the lack of childcare and parents who can't get to work because they can't afford childcare or not near where they work? we hear about it all of the time and we try to create public policy around it and we are able to create 58 more slots more children in this site. between the senior housing, childcare centre and family size units, this project will accommodate a wide range of needs while maintaining our community's family-friendly character.

and so since i've introduced this legislation back in july, i heard some additional concerns from the neighbors and i tried, i knew i would not be able to meet every demand. i wish i could but it's not feasible and won't make the project work. i took what i heard and tried the best i could in terms of making amendments to retail that are allowed at the site in the amount of retail. as part of the negotiateds on the retail agreement, i was able to reduce the space from 64,000 feet to approximately 35,000 square feet. we also made certain all of the retail would be placed along california street so that we maintain the laurel village merchant corridor connecting the retail from spruce street to presidio avenue. i addressed retail use based on feedback from the community. and my amendments included limiting the hours of operation

from 6:00 a.m. to midnight and right now it's 2:00 a.m. just like laurel village. they wanted 11:00 p.m. i decided on midnight because i thought it was the best in e ins after croof a compromise. restricting some commercial using and adding a letter to the board file with agreements to work with the laurel village merchants. i believe the retail amendments i made will help to ensure a healthier corridor. today i do have some additional amendments to address concerns about the impact of construction and removal of street trees. i have a package of neighborhood construction enhancements that will ensure the project will use best practises in minimizing the impact on the neighborhood and these are some of the best practises to develop on another project on sacramento street and vital that every developer in a neighborhood follow them. and today's enhancements include sound suppression, efficient

delivery and insulation and emission controls on the construction crews. i understand the construction will impact neighbors and i wanted to do everything i could to make sure the very best construction practises are used on this project. now i want to get to trees, because trees are emotional topics. i was telling someone earlier, trees and dogs, right. they're emotional. it's hard to talk about. it's hard to talk about the loss of a tree or sometimes about the fact you may not be ai able to k your dog along chrisy field -- what am i trying to say, without a leash. thank you. iit's emotional and i get that. i looked hard at the tree issue because i care about everywhere who came up and talked about the trees. i want to address concerns raised. as public works described, the plan is not before us today.

with that said, the site plan was specifically designed to retain key trees. you heard carla short say it, wishes other developers would do this. it was designed to retain key trees on the private portion of the excite celebrate the and cef this. someone mentioned the tunnel tops. i was at that event, too, talking about the tunnel tops opening in the presidio. the landscape architect on the tunnel tops is on this project, as well. so the plan includes saving oak trees on laurel, where townhome is literal little cut in half to highlight one particular tree. as well as cypress plaza, which there is a public plaza built around one cypress tree and i want to be very clear on the tree canopy issue and correct misinformation. while not part of the major

encroachment permit, the project overall will be adding 286 additional trees, bringing the tree count from 226 of the current site, existing trees to 512 trees. the project was designed, also, as lead neighborhood development gold and one of the first projects aligned with the city's new bio diversity guidelines to support aims just as water conservation and quality healthier air. now, again, with the trees, i've looked at the plans for the trees. i sat down with the project sponsor on several occasions to discuss the tree removal and i've been on the site several times to understand the tree canopy and what is being removed and more importantly, what is being added. and for me, i know that we can have tree expos trees and housi. the idea that the project sponsor is willing to create

trees can't be further from the truth. this is not a case of they've paved paradise to put up a parking lot. i would never let that happen. what is before us today is the major encroachment permit. the permit includes enhanced pedestrian access to the site, increased pedestrian safety, to increase pedestrian safety which is much needed, as well as increase to current sidewalk lifts around the perimeter of the project. so accomplish these improvements and the objectives that the overall housing project, the major encroachment ordinance is seeking the removal of 15 street trees and 18 significant trees as we heard. now, as noted in the arborist report, many of the trees on california street are leaning and have circling roots and codominant leaders, mature news christmas trees can uplift

sidewalks as they age and drop fruit litter as the report says and would create serious tripping hazards for seniors in the new affordable housing. so the proposed replacement rept street are fruitily olive trees. the trees recommended by our own city department by the city's bureau of urban forestry due to grout tolerance, strong branch structure and low maintenance requirements. fruitless olive trees are very neat trees and they do not drop debris or fruit and they will be installed at a 24-inch box size meeting the borough of urban requirements. installed in front of laurel village improvement project, creating what i think will be a beautiful long tree canopy on the length of california street. i also want to address the 18 significant trees that were described. as defined -- i don't need to get into the definition.

it's located within ten feet of the property edge of the situation and 25 feet in high with a canopy 15 in diameter or trunk diameter in 12-inches at breast height. of 18 significant trees, only one this good health and that one tree is located directly in the middle of the parcel where 186 affordable senior homes will be built and there will be childcare services. they propose replacing this with 49 new trees and the replacement tree list includes the species we heard about. something supervisor pes kirks n drilled down on was the 88 street trees. thrill arthey revert to the jurn

of pu public works to avoid a fragments structure and we all know and have been dealing with streets and we know that the city has limited funds to maintain the current trees we have under or jurisdiction. so today, i am introducing an amendment that will require the project sponsor to extend the warrant period from three years to six years, to ensure the proposed new trees properly take root and well established with an understanding that at the end of the period public works and the project team will discuss the project sponsors ongoing maintenance of the trees. i want to thank the project sponsor for agreeing that. before i wrap up, i would really like to thank several people because this has been a process. first i want to thank the community for the feedback and input. i know there's been several different opinions on this project and i know several will leave