3333 CALIFORNIA ST

2018-05-03 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

Arab American Grocers Association (Aaga) · email · 2018-05-03 · oppose · source packet

Public Comment Re 1600 JACKSON STREET
Please see attached public comment. Best, The Arab American Grocers Board DECEIVED cou~rp~ 4s ~; ~~p SAN FRANCSCQ APR 2 62018 ~ a PLANNIl11G QEPARTMENT ~'3s~. 0'~5 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Notice of Availabilit of an Initial Stud Y Y CP~PC 1650 Niissien St. SuFte 4Q0 Date: Apri125, 2018 San Francisco, CA 941(13-2479 Case No.: 2015-014028ENV Project Title: 3333 California Street Mixed-Use Project Reception:… Please see attached public comment. Best, The Arab American Grocers Board DECEIVED cou~rp~ 4s ~; ~~p SAN FRANCSCQ APR 2 62018 ~ a PLANNIl11G QEPARTMENT ~'3s~. 0'~5 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Notice of Availabilit of an Initial Stud Y Y CP~PC 1650 Niissien St. SuFte 4Q0 Date: Apri125, 2018 San Francisco, CA 941(13-2479 Case No.: 2015-014028ENV Project Title: 3333 California Street Mixed-Use Project Reception: 415.55$.6378 State Clearinghouse No. 2017092053 Zoning: Residential, Mixed, Low Density [ILM-1] District F~~ 40-X Height and Bulk District 415.5a$.f409 Block/Lot: Block 1032/Lot 003 Planning Project Sponsor: Laurel Heights Partners LLC Intarmatior Don Bragg, [phone removed] [phone removed] Lead Agency San Francisco Planning Department Staff Contact: Julie Moore <U+2014> [phone removed]; [email removed] This notice is to inform you of the availability of the Initial Study for the 3333 California Street Mixed-Use Project, described below. The Planning Department previously determined that this project could have a significant effect on the environment, and required that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared. An Initial Study has now been prepared to provide more detailed information regarding the impacts of the proposed project and to identify the environmental issues to be considered in the Draft EIR. The report is available for public review at the Planning Department's Negative Declarations and EIRs web page (htt~://www.sf-~lanning.org/sfce~adocs). CDs and paper copies are available at the Planning Information Center (PIC) counter on the first floor of 1660 Mission Street, San Francisco. Referenced materials are available for review at the Planning Department's office on the fourth floor of 1650 Mission Street. (Call [phone removed]) Project Description: The project site is an approximately 10.25-acre parcel in San Francisco's Presidio Heights neighborhood. The project sponsor, Laurel Heights Partners, LLC, owns the site and leases it to the Regents of the University of California, which uses the site for its University of California San Francisco Laurel Heights Campus. Prior to the project sponsor's recent acquisition of fee title to the site, the project sponsor had entered into a 99-year pre-paid ground lease with the Regents, the former owner of the site, in 2014. The campus contains afour-story, 455,000-gross-square-foot office building with athree-level, partially below-grade parking garage at the center of the site; aone-story annex building at the corner of California and Laurel streets; three surface parking lots; and landscaping or landscaped open space. The project site does not include the SF Fire Credit Union building at the southwest corner of California Street and Presidio Avenue, which is on a separate parcel. Current uses on the campus are office, research, child care, and parking. The project sponsor, Laurel Heights Partners, LLC, proposes amixed-use project for the 3333 California Street site. Under the proposed project, the existing annex building, surface parking lots, and circular garage ramp structures would be demolished. The existing office building would be partially demolished and divided into two separate buildings (Center Buildings A and B), expanded to include new levels, and adapted for residential use. Thirteen new buildings would be constructed in different locations around the site: the Plaza A and Plaza B buildings (residential and retail uses) along California Street between Laurel and Walnut streets; the Walnut Building (office, retail, and child care ~;~ ~,- ~~r.~f~~l ~~~~,i~~ ~.~r ~~~7~9 ~~: [phone removed]. I Para Information en Espanol Llamar al: [phone removed] I Para sa Impormasyon sa Tagalog Tumawag sa: [phone removed] Notice of Availability of an Initial Study Apri125, 2018 Case No. 2015-014028ENV 3333 California Street Mixed-Use Project uses) along California Street east of Walnut Street; the Masonic Building (residential uses) along Masonic Avenue; the Euclid Building (residential and retail uses) near the intersection of Euclid and Masonic avenues; the Laurel Duplexes (residential uses) comprised of seven townhomes along Laurel Street; and the Mayfair Building (residential uses) near the intersection of Laurel Street and Mayfair Drive. Overall, the proposed project would include 558 dwelling units within 824,691 gross square feet of residential floor area; 49,999 gross square feet of office floor area; 54,117 gross square feet of retail floor area; a 14,690-gross-square-foot child care center; 428,773 gross square feet of parking with 895 parking spaces; and 236,000 square feet of open areas. Parking would be provided in four below-grade parking garages and six individual, two-car parking garages serving 12 of the 14 units in the Laurel Duplexes group. New public pedestrian walkways are proposed through the site in a north-south direction between California Street and the intersection of Masonic and Euclid avenues approximately along the line of Walnut Street and in an east-west direction between Laurel Street and Presidio Avenue along the line of Mayfair Drive. A project variant that would replace the office space in the Walnut Building with residential uses, would add three new residential floors, and would reduce the retail space is also being considered. Under the project variant there would be 186 additional residential units, for a total of 744 residential units within 978,611 gross square feet of residential floor area; no office space; 48,593 gross square feet of retail floor area; a 14,650-gross-square-foot child care center; 435,133 gross square feet of parking with 971 parking spaces; and 236,000 square feet of open areas on the project site. Anticipated approvals required for the proposed project or project variant include, but are not limited to, the following: adoption of Findings of Consistency with the General Plan and priority policies of Planning Code section 101.1; approval of planning code and zoning map amendments; approval of Special Use District; approval of Conditional Use Authorization/Planned Unit Development; approval of Development Agreement, if applicable; approval of street vacation/dedication associated with the development of Corner Plaza at Masonic and Euclid avenues and the Pine Street Steps and Plaza at the Masonic/I'ine/Presidio intersection; approval of sidewalk widening legislation; and adoption of resolution to modify or waive Planning Commission Resolution 4109. T'he Planning Department has determined that an EIR must be prepared for the proposed project and project variant. Accordingly, a Notice of Preparation of an EIR and Public Scoping Meeting was issued on September 20, 2017, and a public scoping meeting was held on October 16, 2017. The Planning Department also determined that preparation of an Initial Study would be appropriate to focus the scope of the EIR. Preparation of an Initial Study or EIR does not indicate a decision by the City to approve or to disapprove the project. Prior to making any such decision, the decision makers must review and consider the information contained in the EIR. The purpose of the EIR is to provide information about potential significant physical environmental effects of the proposed project and project variant, to identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and to describe and analyze possible alternatives to the proposed project or project variant. sn~ feHtacisc~ 2 BLANNiFIPa ~EPAHT741fiR1Y Notice of Availability of an Initial Study Case No. 2015-014028ENV April 25, 2018 3333 California Street Mixed-Use Project Further comments on the scope of the environmental analysis to be considered in the EIR are welcomed, based on the content of the Initial Study. Comments are most helpful when they address the environmental analysis itself or suggest specific alternatives and/or additional measures that would better mitigate significant impacts of the proposed project or project variant. In order for your concerns to be considered fully, please submit your comments by 5:00 p.m. on May 25, 2018. Written comments on the information and analysis presented in the Initial Study should be submitted to Julie Moore, San Francisco Planning Department, 1650 Mission Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, CA 94103 or emailed to [email removed]. If you work for an agency that is a Responsible or a Trustee Agency, we need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information and analysis presented in this Initial Study that is relevant to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency may need to use the EIR when considering a permit or other approval for this project. We will also need the name of the contact person for your agency. If you have questions concerning environmental review of the proposed project, please contact Julie Moore at [phone removed]. Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Commission or the Department. All written or oral communications, including submitted personal contact information, may be made available to the public for inspection and copying upon request and may appear on the Department's website or in other public documents. sar, ~R~aaci~co g PLANNfNG 6EPA~iTM1ENshow more

2018-12-06 · 2 comments · 0 / 2

Zarin Randeria · email · 2018-12-06 · oppose · source packet

IMPORTANCE OF PRESERVING THE HISTORIC PROPERTY AT 3333 CALIFORNIA Street, San
Francisco, CA San Francisco Planning Commissioners: As a concerned citizen of San Francisco and a resident of Laurel Heights we are very concerned about the developers totally ignoring the concerns of people who live in the neighborhood and their NON-RECOGNITION OF THE HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS PROPERTY. 1. In an earlier public meeting the developers did not even mention that 3333 California Street, San… Francisco, CA San Francisco Planning Commissioners: As a concerned citizen of San Francisco and a resident of Laurel Heights we are very concerned about the developers totally ignoring the concerns of people who live in the neighborhood and their NON-RECOGNITION OF THE HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS PROPERTY. 1. In an earlier public meeting the developers did not even mention that 3333 California Street, San Francisco, CA, if of Historic Significance. 2. You should support the Neighborhood Full Preservation Alternative because: A. It has the same number of residential units as the project (558 with a 744 variant). B. It would retain the character-defining features of the historically significant landscaping including the beautiful Terrace designed by Eckbo, Royston & Williams and the majority of the 185 mature trees that would continue to absorb greenhouse gases. It is important for you to know that people from our neighborhood and other neighborhoods regularly use the green space on this site for recreation playing with their dogs, having impromptu picnics and simply visit with one another. This SPACE IS VERY IMPORTANT TO OUR COMMUNITY. C. We support using all the space for housing which is affordable and can accommodate the diverse population of our City. By using all the space for housing, some units would be large enough for middle-income families. We do not need retail space as that would compete with the merchants at Laurel Village Shopping Center. D. Any construction to re-formulate this space needs to be built in approximately 3 years rather than the 7-15 years the project applicant wants. 3. We recommend that some of the 44,306 square feet of retail in this Alternative be used for 24 residential units so the Alternative has the same number of residential units as the proposed project. This Alternative would have retail along California Street but not also at Euclid, which the proposed project would have. Additionally, the applicant should explain the exact type of replacement windows proposed and why the proposed "new rooftop addition" that would distinguish it from the original building yet be compatible with Midcentury Modern design principles. 4. The proposed project as designed by the developers is an unattractive mass of nondescript buildings crammed onto the site with concrete pathways and ALMOST NO GREEN SPACE which is vital for our City as more and more of it seems to be cement and concrete. 5. There is no need to destroy this historically significant site because alternatives are available which will achieve housing production by building on the parking lots. Thank You! Zarin E. Randeria 38 Lupine Avenue San Francisco, CA 94118show more

Lohn Rothmann · email · 2018-12-06 · oppose · source packet

Specific gwuetions about thre proposed project
Dear Dan and Dan, [Quoted text hidden] John Rothmann [email removed]> To: Kathy Devincenzi [email removed]> Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 7:21 PM ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Dan Safier <r~safier@nr~adogrouQ com> To: John P.othmann [email removed]>; Dan Kingsley <dki:,gs~ey@sksre ccrn> Cc: Kathy Devincenzi <kr~zvincanzi~c~ma'sl.com>; Catherine Carr <~atherin~ a.car~ @gmai;.c~ V~>; … Dear Dan and Dan, [Quoted text hidden] John Rothmann [email removed]> To: Kathy Devincenzi [email removed]> Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 7:21 PM ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Dan Safier <r~safier@nr~adogrouQ com> To: John P.othmann [email removed]>; Dan Kingsley <dki:,gs~ey@sksre ccrn> Cc: Kathy Devincenzi <kr~zvincanzi~c~ma'sl.com>; Catherine Carr <~atherin~ a.car~ @gmai;.c~ V~>; M.J. Thcmas [email removed]>; Richard Frisbie <fr~~~~ay!~~a~~rri~;!.corn> [Quoted text hidden) ~~ H W h~l ~ '~' ' r .a i fN_:': _ _ 4 __ K . a~ : O v ~( w. ~ ~' _ a <U+2022>- ,,ry ". _ . .___ ~ J y~ ___ ______..___<U+2014>.__. _.<U+2014>____. ._ .__ ._. A x k hz7 ~q \ W < 9 ~k = ~~: a ~3s, 4 .,.. ~F l a ~ ~~:; --- a MAYFAIR DR. ~;, \ rn v w l\ ww __ ,._ . C'1 w p EUCLI[ w' x' c. b Source: Laurel Heights Partners. LLC (2018) ~ ~. 3333 C~L~P'OR~~A ST~~T 1'~IX~D<U+2022>VS~ P~O~CC7 2015-014028ENV / ;~ ~' i~,~ ~,(~ ~Y LEGEND Existing Building ~"a ~=~p New Building ~: ~~~~ f t y ~1~ VIF~I LOOItING SOUTHEA~S~i , O FIGURE 6.5: ALTERNATIVE C: FULL PRESERVATION - RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE SITE PLAN ~J h~l h+l M~~I W . ~ ~~~~. ~<U+2022> ~:~,.: ~~ _. .. __ ''~> ~. . ~, ,. ~~. , ,, ,,,_ .. ~, 1 <U+2014> 6 ara _. ~ ;- r ,. e ~ ~ ~~ ,.,. .. _ - .. ~ < i_. 'j'~: :i . Cross ~ E, ~ r "~~ ~,~ ~ ~~~~ '~ n* "~4y~ Traffic e ~ - ~+ ~, r ~v Ahead I ~~ ~ ,~ I ~ ~~ ~ ~t ~ ~ _, ~ ~ a~- ~~C S~ .CSC ~'+i ~ Lt ...' ~ ~ '_ _ a , z ~ : E ~,,;~ 1, t .<U+2014>+.,:.' '.. ~'?'~ ~. ~ ~ ._. ~ _ L i , <U+2022>.4A, ~ fir' '~ _ . a ~ ,~., - ~ 4 '(t a ~t t 6n r S~ ~5~ ~, ,. ,~ .~ T ~ <U+2022> ~ ,, , +y Y ip ~ ,~' ~. a ~.h ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ;"'icy ~' '+ r+,ye~.~ Y -w. ,: ~~~ f ~ - ,~ ? w ~ ~w ti ~..f i ~ i'~ ,% a t t <U+2022>~ ~ ~ ~, e ~ ~ 5~~ ~ Rs ~ i.,' - , ~tk ~ .~<U+2022>- t ~~4 , ~ ~ ~ Y' i :;. ~ ~y ~ ~ , . ., ~ f ~~ ~~ ' r r~ ... .~ ._ - r ~,y~m w ~ <U+2022> ~ '.:,tom I /~ ,r I~ ~~ ~_ <U+2014> ~- _~ ~ _.'' .~ ar, ~ ~,. _fix .-~zzRs,.~ y _~ .~'r~- <U+2022>~~v~'<U+2022>'r~L ~? .. ~ Iii ~~_ ~ ~ A I ' ~<U+2022>~ R' . ~ ~ ~ ~ j ~~ ~, i ~a. d A ;'. ter: ~, ~,: .~ , ~'~~ t ~ ~ ~X~~ '~ E P~4 _- - 1 -;__ 4 F ~# a w,s+T" . .r~.n ~ ~~ ~i ~;, 1 \ ~al ~ ~' \~ f ~l ~' ~ ,% - '~ _. ,~ ~ ~~o <U+2022>ro x ~ 1 '! ~ ~ ~ ~ F~ ~ = ~ ~~, ~ s I .. ... n ,. 4 'r, ' -..mow.. w% y '~ ., r~ w The next slides show the horizontality of the composition as the building steps down the hillside. As the nomination explains, the horizontality of the architecture both in its long, low wings, and in the specific design features of the wings<U+2014>the division of floors by continuous thin edges of concrete and the walls of the floors consisting of long repetitions of similar rivindow units<U+2014> helped to balance the massing of the Office Building with the surrounding landscape. These photos of the windows show the modern aluminum materials and the long repetitions of similar window units and the modernist design of the vertical and horizontal dividers in the windows evoking modern art forms. Also, the exterior glass walls provided views into the landscape of the outdoor spaces and at certain times of day reflected landscape features (trees, lawn, walls, patterned pavement, etc.), adding yet another level of integration between interior and exterior spaces. P. 21. This reflection can be seen on these slides. In 1984, the glass of the windows was tinted, the aluminum frames of the units of the windows were painted brown and the bottom panels of ceramic coated glass were changed from blue to brown. As the nomination explains, this change did not alter the essential features of the building or its "design as a glass box open to its immediate landscape and to distant views:' 10 Next, we see the exquisite outdoor Terrace<U+2014> which was set on the east side of the building, framed by the Office and Cafeteria Wings, where it was "protected from the prevailing west wind" and on a portion of the site that had been graded to provide "a good view of a large part of San Francisco." Here a biomorphic- shaped lawn was framed by a patio, whose exposed aggregate pavement was divided by rows of brick that aligned with the window frames of the building. ~~ Benches attached to the niches of the zig-zag of the seat wall, which enclosed the eastern side of the Terrace, provided places for employees "to relax in the sun during lunch or coffee breaks" P. 21 ~2 Here we see the views of the Transamerica Pyramid and other notable buildings from the Terraceo 13 In these photos we see the brick aligned with the window frames of the building. 14 It created a boundary ~nrall along sore sides of the property and was transformed into low retaining walls that defined a series of planting beds along the some sides of the property. f w h~~1 F~+y H W J~~~i' a1~~~ 1 ~~;~_1'. i~C,J~IL.ITit.i;~i ~Ui<U+2022>.~ t,~i .~.~3ii i i~iii~l3~t3~ Li?iiii)iitiu~ Fe~~.ary 8, ZOl I _~_ ire pcir~cl f nr <U+2014> 1 ~ ~ ~. _ <U+2014> - - -- _<U+2014> ~iV~i'Si jl Q;~.'y111tU~it1~ ~ c~~ ai.. a Prerc~red by ~-_ . ~, _ ~ i ~ , ~ ~ i. i The materials Rockrise used for the student housing, their scale, their immediate access to the outdoors <U+2014> particularly the sliding glass door and wide balconies <U+2014>and their siting and landscaping, which landscape architect Lawrence Halprin designed, all conform to the principles of the Second Bay Region Tradition. In terms of integrity Aldea 10 retains a high degree of integrity of location, design, setting, workmanship, feeling and association. Some materials have been replaced, such as wood railings or siding, but these alterations are visually compatible. Therefore, Aldea 10 appears to be eligible for listing NRHP/CRHR under Criterion C/3 as an intact example of Second Bay Region Tradition. ?45 Parnassus Avenue/Faculty Alumni House Built in 1915, this two-story building occupies a heavily wooded lot at the southeast corner of Sth Avenue and Judah Street. The L-shaped building faces northwest and wraps around a small enclosed courtyard covered with brick pavers. Textured stucco clads the structure. The primary window type is wood sash, casement. The clay the-clad, cross-gable roof features exposed rafter tails. The main entrance, which faces the courtyard at the northwest corner of the building, consists of a round projection with a conical roof clad with clay tiles; its door is framed by a deep shaped opening. Three wood, glazed double doors are located at the first story on other side of the main entrance. At the second story, each facade contains four sets of paired casement windows with shutters featuring prominent rivets. The second floor of the west-facing facade overhangs the first and is supported by machicolations. Each gable end features a paired double door at the second story that opens to a sma11 balcony supported by decorative brackets. The Faculty Alumni House is not known to be associated with persons of significance and therefore does not appear to be eligible for the NRHP/CRHR under Criterion Bf 2. It does, however, appear to be eligible for the NRHP/CRHR under Criteria A/1 and C/3, for its association with significant developments in the history of UCSF and as an excellent example of Spanish Eclectic architecture with high artistic value. Built for dental students in 1915, the building marks the first attempt to address st~d~nt~~sa~,tie=af-~~-r~ssraa~~creatis~~igs-alsacoosd' u~ted--b~xhe_deuxalstudents followed within a few years. Thus the building expresses early attempts to foster student life at UCSF, rendering it eligible under Criterion A/1. With its stucco cladding, clay the roof, heavy brackets, - rounded entrance and carved archway, the Faculty Alumni House also stands as a fine example of Spanish Eclectic architecture, which was entering its peak of popularity in 1915. The building has not been moved or undergone significant alterations and stands in a residential neighborhood that has changed little since 1915. It thus retains its integrity of location, setting;-design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. 3333 California Street/Laurel Heights Building Built in 1957, this four-story building has an irregular plan and occupies the approximate center of an irregular-shaped city block. The intervening spaces are filled with extensive landscaping or parking lots. The concrete slab floors extend beyond the wall surface to form projecting cornices at each floor, and --- - luminam=sa5hwindow~wa~~wit~rc~a rtes-thy= -- - - exterior walls. Brick veneer covers the walls in certain locations, and the roof is flat. The main entry opens on the north side of the building and features a covered entry with the roof supported on large square brick piers, a small ground-level fountain, and sliding aluminum doors. The Laurej Heights building appears to be eligible for lining in the NRHPJCRHR under Criteria A/1 and C/3. It stands as the most prominent postwar commercial development in the Laurel Heights neighborhood and dramatically transformed the former cemetery site, rendering it eligible for the NRHP/CRHR under Criterion A/1. No persons of significance are known to be associated with the building; thus it does not appear to be eligible under Criterion BJ2. While Edward B. Page was not the most prominent architect in San Francisco during the postwar period, his resume does accord him master Carey ~ Co. ,Inc, 46 <U+2014>_ - _ <U+2014>I-~S~~I~+stexac R~<U+2022>~x~~ c ,.r~e"'> ~c-ise~adi~~rr~da - -~e~r-a~=Q a --- architect status. More importantly, this main building at the Laurel Heights campus is an excellent e.cample of mid-century Modernism and the International Style. Its horizontality makes it a particularly good regional example of the architectural style. For these reasons the building appears to be eligible for / the NRHP/CRHR under Criterion C/3. The Firemen's Fund Insurance Company Building at Laurel Heights retains excellent integrity. It has not been moved and its surroundings have not undergone many alterations. Thus the building retains its integrity in all seven categories <U+2014>location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. 513 Parnassus Avenue/Medical Sciences Building Built in 1954, this L-shaped building rises 17 stories on a steel structural frame and forms the east boundary and part of the north boundary of the Parnassus Heights campus' Saunders Courtyard. The north elevation faces Parnassus Avenue and features ten structural bays. Masonry panels clad the first and tenth bays. In the remaining bays, masonry spandrels with horizontal ribbing separate horizontal bands of aluminum windows. Four exhaust shafts enclosed in masonry panels project from the wall surface and rise from the second story to above the roof line. The ground floor features floor-to-ceiling aluminum windows separated by dark masonry panels at the structural columns. Monumental stairs rise approximately four feet above the sidewalk level to the main entry, where three columns support a flat entry roof. On the south and west elevations facing Saunders Courtyard, masonry panels cover the wall surfaces and separate horizontal bands of aluminum windows. Projecting metal brackets used to support exposed mechanical pipes and ducts attach to the wall surface in line with the stnictutal columns. The Medical Sciences Building was constructed at a time when UCSF was undergoing its most significant metamorphosis since the Affiliated Colleges were founded in the 1890s. Enrollment skyzo~ke~~d_duringshe ps~~warTe_~. and~he institi, ;nn re eiv d unpres~s~n~esll~els_ of oe vernn~ent =_ funding for research and curriculum development. New buildings were added rapidly to meet the demand and reflect the growing prestige. Within this context, MSB appears eligible for listing in the NRHP/CRHR under Criterion A/l, for its association wit events or historic themes of significance in <U+2014> <U+2014> UCSF's history. It also stands as a good example of mid-century hospital architecture and the shift from Palladian Style campuses to International Style, highrise buildings. Blanchard and Maher, while not the most prominent architects in the San Francisco Bay Area, also rise to the level of master architects and this building stands as one of the firm's most prominent buildings in San Francisco. Thus, MSB appears to be eligible for the NRHP/CRHR under Criterion C/3. The building is not known to be associated with persons significant to history and therefore does not appear to be eligible for the NRHP/CRHR under Criterion B/2. MSB has undergone some alterations but appears to retain a good degree of integrity to convey its -- R,rt~~. 'b... .~..... s~e~-been-recaved ar3d cofl~~~=~~~,~-U~~.~ ~es~ita~anc~~l~~ <U+2014> Clinical Sciences building, down the road from LPPI, and among hospital and medical school facilities. Thus it retains its integrity of location, setting, association, and feeling. The building has undergone some alterations, most notably a new exit to Saunders Court and a glass shaft containing a stairwell and vents on the west elevation. As these alterations occur on secondary elevations and are not notable on the primary Parnassus Avenue facade, they do not significantly detract from the building's overall design, materials, and workmanship. Thus the building retains a good degree of integrity in these areas. 707 Parnassus Avenue/School of Dentistry Built in 1979, this L-shaped building rises four stories and steps back to form terraces. The lot contains a parking lot to the south and a partially wooded green space at the north. This reinforced concrete Carey ~ Co., Inc. 47 h~~l M aY~~a r-e t ~~'i tz~;e r~i I ci 90 ~~'t'uvrl Strcct, ~Sau Eraiictx~>, C' \ Sl I~I Iti 1)~ite: l~eln~uary 28, 101Fi ~1s. lYlary ~V<~ods Planner -North West Quadrant San Francisco Planning Dep:utrnent 1650 Mission Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94103-1414 RI?: ~3~33~-3 California St. Dc~ elopme:nt bear Ms. titi'c~ocls: <U+2022> I am writing regarding the development of the 3333 California Street development, currently the UCSF Laurel Heights Campus (the "Site"). It is my understanding that the San Francisco Planning Departrnent is working with the developer of the Site regarding the initial project plans for the proposed development. The owner of the fee interest and the developer of the Site are limited in their joint ability to develop the Site because the owner of the Site does not have free and clear tide; rather the general public holds a permanent recreational interest in all of the open space at the Site. Therefore, any development plans at the Site may not unpinge upon this open space. The general public holds a permanent right of recreational use on all of the open space at 3333 California and such rights were obtained by implied dedication. Dedication is a common law principle that enables a private landowner to donate his land for public use. Itnplied dedication is also a common law principle and is established when the public uses private land for a long period of time, which period of time is five (5) years in California. In 1972, the California legislature enacted Civil Code Section 1009 to modify the common law doctrine of implied dedication and to limit the ability of the public to secure permanent adverse rights in private property. Here, however, the e~cisting open space at the Site was well established and well used as a park by the general public long before the completion of the consti-uction of the full footprint of the improvements at the Site in 1966. Therefore, the general public has permanent recrearional rights to the open space at the Site; the rights were obtained by implied dedication prior to the enactment of Cal. Civil Code Sec. 1009 in 1972. Even if the general public had not secured permanent rights to recreational use through implied dedication prior to 1972, the public and countless individuals have acquired a prescriptive easement over the recreational open space. The recreational use has been conhinuous, uninterrupted for decades, open and notorious and hosrile (in this context, hostile means without permission). Every day, individuals and their dogs use the green space along Laurel, Euclid and along the back of the Site at Presidio. Individuals ignore the brick wall along Laurel and regularly use die green space behind the wall as a park for people and for their dogs. The use of the Site has not been permissive. For example, the owner of the Site has not posted permission to pass signs in accordance with Cal. Civil Code Sec. 1008. If such signs ever were posted, they have not been reported at least once per year. Although it is counterintuitive, an owner t~ically posts such signs to protect against the public securing adverse rights. Onc: might assume the owner of the Site has not posted such signs, as the ciwrier is aware of the pre-existing and permanent recreational rights the general public has secured to the open space. Because the ~~ public's rights to the open space were secured decades agv through implied dedication, it is not necessary for the general public to rely upon its prescriptive easement rights oudined in this paragraph; rather it is another means to the same end. It is important that the Planning Departrnent understand these legal issues as any project plan (or any Future project description in an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the Site) cannot include development of the open 11nd over which the public has a secured pen7ianent rights of recreational use. It would not be a concession by the owner/developer to leave the open space undeveloped and allow public recreational use as the genera] public holds permanent recreational rights to this space. It is important to note that even the open space behind the walls that has been used as park space is also included in this dedication to the public. According to well-established case law, a wall or fence is not effective in preventing the development of adverse property rights if individuals go around the wall, as is the case here. In sum, the open space at the Site cannot he developed as the public secured such rights through implied dedication prior to 1972 (or, alternatively, by prescriptive easement). In reviewing the development plans for the Site, the City cannot decide to allow development of any of the open space as the recreational rights to the space are held by the public at large. Any project description in the future EIR for the Site that contemplates development of any of the open space would be an inadequate project description and would eviscerate any lower impact alternative presented in the EIR. One only need to look to the seminal land use case decided by the California Supreme Court regarding this very Site' to see that an EIR will not be upheld if the project alternatives are legally inadequate. It would be misleading to the public to suggest that a lesser impact alternative is one that allows the public to use the space to which it already has permanent recreational use rights. In sum, please be advised of the public's permanent recreational rights to all of the existing open space at the Site and please ensure that a copy of this letter is placed in the project file. Sincerely, Meg FitzgeraCc~ ~1ar~aret N. I~iV~erllcl ~~'ith coi~ie, t~>: ~'Iark Farrell, Su~>er~~itior D ui Safr, Yr.id<~ Grc~i.ip I~attiy DiVici~uzi, Laurel I Icihts Itl~~yrc,~ci7ic<U+2022>ni i~ssc~ciatic~ri Robert Charles FricSe, Esq. Laurel I-Ieigits Improvement Association of San Francisco, [nc. v. The Regents of the University of California, 47 Cal. 3"' 376 (1988). ~I h~ w C 1'l.*y pIAHNIsTC COlt6U.33I0H RF302,UT IQ8 II0. 4109 R8~90W$Di ThAt Proposal No. Z-52.62.2<U+2022>, an ~pglinatian to et~aage the Use Diatriat Claaaitiaatioa oS the here3nntter de- soribed para~l of land from a, k'irat Residential District to e~ Cnrmaara3nl District, be, snd the aeme is hereby d.PPAOVID; aub- ~ect to the.stipuletiona submitted by the applicant nad set forth hereiat Coaanenaing at a point cx~ the 9/L of Calitornin Street diataat thereon 18'T set xeat of the N/L of Preeidio dvsane (praduaed), thence Reat~rly oa ae~fd line 707.3?5 teat to w.c~tra to the 2e~t having a radius o! 15 =eet, thence 23;b62.feet meaeurad on tha arc of the ourve to the left to the BfL oS IaureZ Street, theaoe southerly on the $/L oS ianrel Street 127.227 Seet to the curve to tha let't hsviag a radius of 60 feet, thence 77,113 Peet measured oa the aro of the curve to the Iett to n. aurva to the right having a radius oS' 12D feet, thence 149.1,53 teed measured on the era of the cvsve to the right to a curve to the a~.g13~ having a rsdiue o~ 4033 i'eet, thence 388.710 teat measured on the aro o= the curve to the right to a curve to the l~tt having a radi- us oS 20 feat, theaca 35.188 feet measured oa the aro o~ the curve to the left to the north eat line of Euclid Avenue, thence 8 73 12:~ E oa tYie northaeat line ot Eu- clid Avenue 57.x,934 reef to a curve to the left having ~ radtna of 6b feat, thence 42.318 foot, measured oa the' aro oS tho enrvs to the let't .to the aortYs~+ eatsrly 13ne at E[aaonia Avenue propaaad axtenaSon), thence N 35 b4~ S; 380.66 feet to tha arc of a curve to the left hn4ing s radius or 425 test, thence 254.178 t'eet. measured on the era of the curve to the left, thence F 52. 38~ 2$.74'~~ 1R', 28 .860 feet to the point of commeacs- meat. Being the major portion or Lot 3A~ BlocY 1032, ooataining 10.2.717 e.crea, more or 7.eaa <U+2022> RE40LYED, F'tJ~TRTI~A, That ti~a ohange mall be sad at a.11 tiraee remain contingent upon obaerv~nce by the ovrner or awnera and by his or their auccea~ora Sn interest or the conditions aoa~ tamed in tze rolloxing stipulations ss to the uss o~ thn land e.i'tected. 1. The charao~Cer of the improvement for com~aercial puspoaea of bhe aubfect property, or s~ny port3ot~ there- of, slsall be limited to a building or buildings dea3~a- ed as proteaaional~ inati~utioaa.l o~ office builaiaga, includSng service bu3ldiug~ which ere normsllT accea- sary thereto. 2. The aggrege~te gross floor area or a3.1 such bui2dinga, calculated oaoiu~ive oP oelZara, of be~ement areas used only t'or atorsge or services incidental ~o the operation and msintenaace of a building, and of indoor or other covered autouwbile parking specs, ehaZl not exceed the total area of tho property allotted to such use. :: . _ _ .. ~ -2 Sy For each ti4e tu~dred equate rest of groae floor area is sucD building~e, oaloulated ea is atipulntton 2, above there sha21 be reserved and kept available on the property or the portion thereon allotted to such une, one oft-etr~st autoaabile psr3tiag apaoes or equi- valsa~ open epaae anitabl.e t'or the ultimate provision of auoh parking apaoe ae needed for the aocamm~odetion of users o~ the promisee. 4<U+2022> 8o euoh building, other than a minor nccee~orJ building hav3ag q t'loor area c~ not more tYsan ~lQO d4uaz'e Seet~ a2~s11 ocoupT any por~iaa of the properCT shioh is within I80 feet oS tha line o? the Su~lid Avenue bound- arp theraot~ or which is ~rithiu S00 feet o! the easter- 2y line of I,aure~. Street and aauth oP the nortberlp line oS l[ay~air Drive extended<U+2022> 5. Tt the subject gropert~~ or any portion thereof, is developed ae a alts Sor residential building, auah buildings ~.tsell ba limited as followsi s<U+2022> $o reaiden~ial building other than a one- ta~ally dxelling or a ~o-Samily d*oiling shall occupy any portion of the property which i~ eithin 100 Seet of the Suolid 1~venue boundar7 line therevt, or which is ~rithin 100 rest of the eaater2y line a! laurel 3treeb and south o! the northerly Zine of btayYair Drive eatan8ad<U+2022> b<U+2022> No dwelling within the said described por- ~ion o3' the subjeot area ak~il occupy a parcel 02' lead havi.r~g as nraa of less thna thirty throe hundred (3300) square feet, nor aball e~ such dwelling covdr nsore than t'itty percent (50~) at the<U+2022>area o! such parcel or be leas than tw0lvo (I2<U+2022>) feet troca any other such dwelling, or bs set haoY lees than ten (7.0) feet from any presently esistlag or future public street, or Have a height is ~xceaa oS torts (40) feet,'me4surad and regulated as set forth is partistent section o~ the Building Gode o~ the City anii County of Sea Franoiaco. o. Na residential building in other portions of the subject progeny abell have n ground coverage 3n eacesa of fifty percent (50~) of the area al- lottied to such building. 6. Developmaat of the eub~ect proper~p, or or arxy separate portion thereof', for commercial use sa stipulated hernia, null include proviaion9 t'or appropriate end reaaonabla landscaping of the required oyes spaces, end prior to the isswance o2' a permit for any building or buildtnga there sha12 be submitted to the City Planning Commiasioa' for Approval ea to oontormity xith these etipuZatiorse, a site plan aho.siag the character and location of the proposed ..t - r .~3~1'.. w 3 ~ building or buildings, and related parYlag apacea and landscaped areas upon the proper~T, or upon auah eparate portion thereo3' ae ie 411ottad to such D~iilding or buildings. It shall b~ undere~ood that apgroval of any such ple~n shall not preclude subsequent approval by the Co~mm3.aaion of a revised or alternative plan xbich coaPorma ~o thaee atipu- lat ionn . I hereby aertifT that the t'oragoing resolution man adopted bT the CitT planning Commission at its apeoial meeting oa HoTem- ber L3, 1955, e.rad I tut~ther cartitT Chet the stipulations set Porch in the said reaa2ution mere submitted is a wrritten atate- ~neat placed as tile. ' Jos h ola;:Jr. Sec star / Ayes Commissioners KildufP~ Towle, Devine, ;bfilliatms Noes None Absent: Co~nisaionera Brooks, Lopez, Priace Passed: November 13, 1952 ~,~i~'.~to AT RtQ@t5T QF iu~:a~i~1~7~ i:v,~ri'3~~ ..s1:t~.~ IY~f S~'~1P1~.'1:e~v At.__._~? .AIn . Pnt (O~ ..M t~'~+<U+2022>~ ~4 JAN 8 -1953 oEr~~~ ncrn~ns Isr~ F iR 1 ~ Z . ~.~: , ~ ~ ~ ~M~ ~~ ' Li uta4lori i~ us C ittra ~r oC I rorem~~~e ~~~.n. Ka,.~, .. aL or a o v s c ~t;~~;t ~<U+2022>v~~+,~a /'~ oNiCi;~t Tf:K Sin PL'HtiC~SCC! UIiLSIbls JCI1.10I. U~8LCICL~ b+~s~ tl~r oa:c~<U+2022>r of LLo abar~ ~~rapt<U+2022>rLr daacribod, end tl.e opplicant ~n k~c<U+2022>opoaal K~<U+2022> ~-Sa.~2.2 t'or recla~si!'~c~+t4un W~Pi<U+2022>eo!' frog a ~~coucl fte~lcienLi~al Uia4r<U+2022>ict, to h Commarctal Uist.rict. sut ter t,uursi; t,al'us<U+2022>d Cl~a ~~it<U+2022>Y ~'laeuiiti~ (:oata~asion of Lt~e GiLy ~,i~d Gvuntiy of :+pit rrur~clsco vn O~t~atK.r 23~ 19'>~i htrtrl~y A~,rnag t.~KL the a+~ici pt'or~rrty at~n]I i,~: d rv~.lop*<U+2022>d only ua set i'ortl~ .isi ttie i'ol L~xin~ ~bipulativn;~ ~ which if t+ct<U+2022>a;~i~~~f try t.ha r~Hi~i Cft.y Ylx+~uiut; c:~rtunluaiou t;hnit t~s ~~n~;~es<U+2022>vr<U+2022>1! uy the n~pltttnt, and try it,s nuccoaaoi<U+2022>~ in interest Pui<U+2022> 4s lore; us th p1~lK,rt,y rrmai~~~ ttt t.i~n roue cle s~it'icatin (~:<U+2022>N:;rt~Ll,y so+~t:<U+2022>,t~L. 'Pti~, uvnif:r !'~ii<U+2022>~.t~er a~r4rn Lint n~~ im~~ruYnurent~ s~.~+;~ i>e cc~ i:.tt~u~:c~<U+2022>~i use yr~jd ~si<U+2022>c~~,~rty 1n tiolr.~ei~t 02' Li~~ condi6to~+u tiei<U+2022>ein:,YL~r :;v1, Cui<U+2022>tti, o~id ~~eeu~:c~la~sa 1.1~i~t Wye raCl:,a:~i!'icFatiuii ~~t tl~~e pro~~~~rty Co r~ tiomanrcial lli:,tt'1l:L Z9 Ly Lt:v loincti~ciorM'a : ~L1un mL+l~: coci- tin ~~~~~t., t~tit! wilt ~<U+2022>u~rutLn ac~ntia ;rt~C ia~ila~a f~u<U+2022>Ll~us<U+2022> rrcln:;~tE'ir:d~ upon ~cil,orrnco tv Lliese 3tipulat,i~n:.. ~ 7. Ti.~r cl~t~r~ccte<U+2022>r a t. ti im~u~v~~m!1ut !ur cum r~~:<U+2022>ctc~l. I~~uj~usea +~Y titer+ rub,inat pra~~.~rty, nr nny <U+2022>artiun Lt.treu!', s1u~11 l+e ~iu~lt.ucl Lo ri 13uiliiic~- ,,t<U+2022> biill~tltt~;e drt:l~;s~rd as ps<U+2022>t~Y+:E~siauol inst,i~utivras~l oT oS't'ico t<U+2022>ul]din~a~ lnclt~dfn~; so~w~ch 1~iicti~t:~ wi,lel~ s.~<U+2022>a :i~~~~n:+~17y r+ac<U+2022>~:ssury thrs<U+2022>~<U+2022>ta. ~<U+2022> 4'tse nt;~.;s~g~,~ta ~i<U+2022>c~aa i l+,or ur<U+2022>Nn eel' nll aucii t,uil.~in~;s, cr~lcu]:~t<U+2022>~ii e:xcl~~;:tve ~sr c~13t r:i, v!' bnas~~na~nt nr~~:~a ,~~.~sd only !'nr ~~orni.;o ar sr.rviCoa ~YYC~t~RZ2LA1 to Lf:e ~r~~rution +~rni Iilii31iL1'i1:1SiCU' ~f ri irui ~,ii:~~,~ :it st of ilt~l~c~r<U+2022> ear oti~+~i<U+2022> eK, y~,i<U+2022>"a acti6cunoLita p~:<U+2022>kie~~ c~~uco, atu~ll nob uxc~ed Wid L~La] i rua ui' t<U+2022>hr~ P~'up~~rty r11uL~ed La such uri~a. 3. t~'ai<U+2022> pearl, five t.ndi<U+2022>od s~itanr<U+2022>e Frrt vi' t.r~as iloor~ rxrru is~ ~ auclt b~ii.L~lini;n, enleuls~4cd nb in KLf.F>islnt.f.vr ~, ~+~~~'<U+2022>, tr~ei'a ci++.li. ~ t~~; 1<U+2022>Y:T!i'YUtj and krE~t, uYrillablt~ an t2,a ~~i<U+2022>op~~s'LY flr Lt,e ~~ortiun thcc<U+2022>ur.i H11oLLv~) Lo xiicl u:sn n~i~: i~t1~-uLr<U+2022>~rt +~~+tU~nubila p~t'klu~; 3F'nCr,, <>r nS~t1~Y:ltf~1lC oprn space as:#ct~ba~ tar tt~e t2lLimuLe ,:<U+2022>avitstoa oi' ::uct, p~+i<U+2022>klne; A~~ntp p~ t1~~~it+~'l !'ttiY t,l.r ~+r,COaan~d+tt,i0n VS' t~t3+~T8 UT tl~e pt'tstni:,ttE. tY 4. !Iv ~uc3i 1,~c17diu~;, UthNi<U+2022> tt~nn a uii:enr t+c~esat~ryr t~utltiin~, lin~in~; a !'loot ai'tra of rrlb ~wre ti~an 4C0 agciartl feei.~ at.al~ occuPY yny pc~r~lo:i v!' tl~a ~~c<U+2022>fl;N~r~y wl~lcl, in withfn JGQ 1'cct c~!' tlia line vi' Lf:r F;uclit) Avenue iroun.4ury thErre~of~ or wljlcls ie w~L~+iis aG0 faet of Lt ~ puat~i<U+2022>1y line ni i.aurrl ~t2'rr.(, ttt1:~ no~iti~ of ~i,e norLti~ r!y lit a of ! '~~fat r 1 rlva vxLHu<l~~d. u<U+2022> u .~. t ,;, ,' r% 1;~' t.r w tif~~;fl~~ 1~ ~~r~ ~~~ ' -2- S. ~f dot elopod the eut~~ect p~<U+2022>oiwrty~ or euy F>orLl~~~~ b~ei<U+2022>co!' la lar bulldi~i~;s, bu~lal~i~s va a sito raa~ctcntinl suck shell Le limit~:d as ~'ol1UKa: a. M~ rsaldan61a1 u+iildinr uti~ur L1iar~ H one. Pamil~ ~++ellli~g oi<U+2022> ~ Lv+o-1'umlly dwo111~iK at:all occupy nr r f+ortion of Ll+e ~ t~o~<U+2022>ti<U+2022>~y wl~lcli is Ktchln 200 1'cot oY ttw ~uclld Avenue boundttry line tl~sreuC~ ur xF~ic] !a xtL~to 1W f~<U+2022>ec oT also eastorly line o! Laurel ::trect r+r~d south oP bi~M nort2:erly 1Sna of HuyTuir Urire exLendad. L. No dwelling within CI1P. ani~! descril,ed ~~or- t'~on of Lhe r~u1~,J+~ct r~r~c~H at~all aceupy r+ parcel oS l~rtd ha~i~~p ap area o!' leap El.~~n shirty three tnu dt~e:d I93~) ~q~~nre i'Aot~ nor Lcall any such dwel!!n~ corrr more Ll~an fi~'Ly ~~rrcn~ (;tr,:~J of ~t~R ~,r~n nT such ~~ r<U+2022>cel o:<U+2022> be leas tf.r,n t,elve 12) Sect ~ra~~ ony ~Ll~ai<U+2022> arch dwr,1 ~i:+<U+2022> ~ or he act bhcic ]era than ten (10) icet from nny :u<U+2022>euer,tly exist~nr; or !'uts~rs n~~bltc e.trr..~l~ yr buve a ~ hai~liL in oxcnaa o!' ~'orL3 (4U) f~et~ a E<U+2022>usus<U+2022>a~ci n, d ~ rvgulr~t~<U+2022>d r~~s e,r.t i'~ rtl~ lu l~ox<U+2022>tin<U+2022><U+2022>nt auctlars vT t'~o ~uildia~; Coda oT tt~a City and Cuuiit~~ ut' :i:ui ~ F~<U+2022>ne~c t,co . ti c. 1io :<U+2022>esidentit+l uuilciir~l; i.n oLlu~r 1~urLiur~u v1' Ll~o aut~,lnCt ~ra~x~rty :shell h+~ve n vt<U+2022>vu~l~i rovr.i<U+2022>c~~-e Sri excoua uY 1'i1Ly ~~crccut (~0,~ oT U.i4 u:~oa r+11aL- t~d to such t+uildiiz~. G. Uevalo~n+<U+2022>nt oY G~e t~uF~3~<U+2022>ct 1+rV;~~~s<U+2022>Ly, ur ~t atsy s~<U+2022>i~uraLr. ~+artiuu thrtreoi', t'oT coinmc<U+2022>rcir~I uan ~a stt~~ult~Le~d h~ c~~~in, ~l~rsl] L~c]u.id pro viafoa far n2,~i~, rira~e r,~~~~ re:+~a~~n:+hlo ln:~dac~pinf; of Gt:o rec;uircd spun apacea~ and ~~<U+2022>ic>r to tier. L!:lUi1I1CY_ a1' r. ~~as<U+2022>- ~ait fur n:~y quil~it +!; ~~r Lui'ltlirif;a L6E~r~i ~;tiall I.o :suLml:Lted ~u the City 1<U+2022>lannln;; Coimni~bion, tur r~pl~~<U+2022>ov:~l sus ~c~ cor.t'<U+2022>~i<U+2022>mS.ty xitil~ tt~e~v ssti~<U+2022>t1lAt1Vtl9~ u ~LLe plug cisorricii; ttie ct;w,<U+2022>ncLc~i<U+2022> ~u~~! lvaa- tion ~~i' Li.n ur~u~ya~] h:tt7~ltr~~ qr inaiftlle~1;a~ Used ri<U+2022>lntcl pt+t'i.i~i~; at~pces nnct lends~cnpcd areas ui~on tl,e Nitiopecty ~ ar ui un such aepsraLu poi<U+2022>ttrni tildrv~~C a~ Ja eilott.r:~i L+, t~urt~ uuildirir; ur bufldln~;s. It r~a]1 lie w~doro~ood t1.t,L t+E~~rUvul. of :,r~! ~uc:~ ~~lati :~iu,il nit ~~rec]u~ie h~~b5eyuc~:~t ~~~ ~i'arnl by Lhc ~emrnlsslun oi' a rcviad oc<U+2022> el~ernatlre ~~~r,n whiv~~ cw~t'~stinK t.0 tt~d:,A e~ty~]at3uts~. r.----- Subscribed and ; r+orn t..~ b~~ t'o re ~o~ Ni 1 a 13 ~h dqy of M vta~b~r, ggr <U+2022><U+2022> ,Lim' ~~ ~~;~, ~ ice' ,aunty r:Y~r a ~nd ~cir f.F.a City anti County vF :+tau Franclsc4, ;;taLO' of C~lt~'Orn1 a. <U+2022> <U+2022>~ <U+2022>, ~ . L1: ~ ~. ahNe'+~A.+VI..~U Uti3 r tnt) ~Cil~x.I. u1.:.~'Pnl(:T i u public cor ~oruti~~ fl ~ ., sty _ C~ <U+2022>.. ~+:~' .___ v ui~~o~i~r~~r6F~~:~t~oi' ~iit City ~ . ? , rsnd-4bw~ty vl' :;an Prancirsao ~~~ ~i <U+2022>M W H w H W S FATE OF CALIFORNIA -THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BRAWN, JR., Governor OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION P.O. BOX 942896 SACRAMENTO, CA 94296-OOD1 [phone removed] Fax: [phone removed] calshpoC~parks.ca.gov August 31, 2018 John Rothman, President Kathryn Devincenzi, Vice President Laurel Heights Improvement Association of San Francisco 22 Iris Avenue San Francisco, California 94118 RE: Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, Determination of Eligibility National Register of Historic Places Dear Mr. Rothman and Ms. Devincenzi: am writing to inform you that on August 29, 2018, Fireman's Fund Insurance Company was determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). As a result of being determined eligible for the Nafiiona~ Register, this property has been listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, pursuant to Section 4851(a)(2) of the California Code of Regulations. There are no restrictions placed upon a private property owner with regard to normal use, maintenance, or sale of a property determined eligible for the Nafiional Register. However, a project that may cause substantial adverse changes in the significance of a registered property may require compliance with local ordinances or the California Environmental Quality Act. in addition, registered properties damaged due to a natural disaster may be subject to the provisions of Section 5028 of the Public Resources Code regarding demolition or significant alterations, it imminent threat to life safety does not exist. If you have any questions or require further information, please contact Jay Correia of the Registration Unit at [phone removed]. Sincerely, 1 ---__ _ --- ---------_.... 4 ~ Julianne Polanco State His#oric Preservation Officer Enclosure August 31, 2018 Previous Weekly Lists are available here: htt~.;/wvvw.nps_. yov(histoor~/nr/nrlist htm Please visit our homepage: http://~nr~vw.nps.gov/nr/ Check out what's Pending: hops<U+2022>//~~~~nnv nps.gov/nr/~endinq/pendinq.htm Prefix Codes: SG - Singfe nomination MC -Multiple cover sheet MP <U+2014>Multiple nomination (a nomination under a multiple cover sheet) FP -Federal DOE Project FD -Federal DOE property under the Federal DOE project NL -NHL BC -Boundary change (increase, decrease, or both) MV -Move request AD -Additional documentation OT -All other requests (appeal, removal, delisting, direct submission) RS <U+2014>Resubmission WEEKLY LIST OF ACTIONS TAKEN ON PROPERTIES: 8/16/2018 THROUGH 8131 /2018 KEY: State, County, Property Name, Address/Boundary, City, Vicinity, Reference Number, NHL, Action, Date, Multiple Name CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY, fireman's Fund Insurance Company Home Office, 3333 California St., San Francisco, RS100002709, OWNER OBJECTION DETERMINED ELIGIBLE, 8/29/2018 DECEMBER 13, 2018 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ~~~~~ M.J. Thomas [email removed]> IMPORTANCE OF PRESERVING THE HISTORIC PROI Street, San Francisco, CA 1 message Zarin Randeria [email removed]> D~cer~~w l3~ ~o~ ~ Reply-To: Zarin Randeria [email removed]> I QVl V~ I Vl ~ 0 ~'1 Wl l SSI O VI San Francisco Plannin Commissioners: g o ' As a concerned citizen of San Francisco and a resident of Lai ~~~ 0 ~ ~r.~~ about the developers totally ignoring the concerns of people w NON-RECOGNITION OF THE HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE OF CITY & CC.iUC<U+2022>=~~~ +;~~- ;=.~= 1. In an earlier public meeting the developers did not even rr ~~ti'~G~' "~ ~ ~ -~ San Francisco, CA, if of Historic Significance. 2. You should support the Neighborhood Full Preservation Alternative because: A. It has the same number of residential units as the project (558 with a 744 variant). B. It would retain the character-defining features of the historically significant landscaping including the beautiful Terrace designed by Eckbo, Royston &Williams and the majority of the 185 mature trees that would continue to absorb greenhouse gases. It is important for you to know that people from our neighborhood and other neighborhoods regularly use the green space on this site for recreation playing with their dogs, having impromptu picnics and simply visit with one another. This SPACE IS VERY IMPORTANT TO OUR COMMUNITY. C. We support using all the space for housing which is affordable and can accommodate the diverse population of our City. By using all the space for housing, some units would be large enough for middle-income families. We do not need retail space as that would compete with the merchants at Laurel Village Shopping Center. D. Any construction to re-formulate this space needs to be built in approximately 3 years rather than the 7-15 years the project applicant wants. 3. We recommend that some of the 44,306 square feet of retail in this Alternative be used for 24 residential units so the Alternative has the same number of residential units as the proposed project. This Alternative would have retail along California Street but not also at Euclid, which the proposed project would have. Additionally, the applicant should explain the exact type of replacement windows proposed and why the proposed "new rooftop addition" that would distinguish it from the original building yet be compatible with Midcentury Modern design principles. 4. The proposed project as designed by the developers is an unattractive mass of nondescript buildings crammed onto the site with concrete pathways and ALMOST NO GREEN SPACE which is vital for our City as more and more of it seems to be cement and concrete. 5. There is no need to destroy this historically significant site because alternatives are available which will achieve housing production by building on the parking lots. DECEMBER 13, 2018 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ~~~~' M.J. Thomas [email removed]> IMPORTANCE OF PRESERVING THE HISTORIC PROPERTY AT 3333 CALIFORNIA Street, San Francisco, CA message Zarin Randeria [email removed]> Reply-To: Zarin Randeria [email removed]> San Francisco Planning Commissioners: Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 11:57 PM As a concerned citizen of San Francisco and a resident of Laurel Heights we are very concerned about the developers totally ignoring the concerns of people who live in the neighborhood and their NON-RECOGNITION OF THE HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS PROPERTY. 1. In an earlier public meeting the developers did not even mention that 3333 California Street, San Francisco, CA, if of Historic Significance. 2. You should support the Neighborhood Full Preservation Alternative because: A. It has the same number of residential units as the project (558 with a 744 variant). B. It would retain the character-defining features of the historically significant landscaping including the beautiful Terrace designed by Eckbo, Royston &Williams and the majority of the 185 mature trees that would continue to absorb greenhouse gases. It is important for you to know that people from our neighborhood and other neighborhoods regularly use the green space on this site for recreation playing with their dogs, having impromptu picnics and simply visit with one another. This SPACE IS VERY IMPORTANT TO OUR COMMUNITY. C. We support using all the space for housing which is affordable and can accommodate the diverse population of our City. By using all the space for housing, some units would be large enough for middle-income families. We do not need retail space as that would compete with the merchants at Laurel Village Shopping Center. D. Any construction to re-formulate this space needs to be built in approximately 3 years rather than the 7-15 years the project applicant wants. 3. We recommend that some of the 44,306 square feet of retail in this Alternative be used for 24 residential units so the Alternative has the same number of residential units as the proposed project. This Alternative would have retail along California Street but not also at Euclid, which the proposed project would have. Additionally, the applicant should explain the exact type of replacement windows proposed and why the proposed "new rooftop addition" that would distinguish it from the original building yet be compatible with Midcentury Modern design principles. 4. The proposed project as designed by the developers is an unattractive mass of nondescript buildings crammed onto the site with concrete pathways and ALMOST NO GREEN SPACE which is vital for our City as more and more of it seems to be cement and concrete. 5. There is no need to destroy this historically significant site because alternatives are available which will achieve housing production by building on the parking lots. Thank You! Zarin E. Randeria 38 Lupine Avenue San Francisco, CA 94118 ~~C~~~ Kathy Devincenzi [email removed]> Re: DEIR, Case No. 2015-014028ENV Project Title: 3333 California Street Mixed-Use Project Zoning: Residential, Mixed, Low Density [RM-1] Zoning District 40-X Height and Bulk District Block/Lot: Block 1032/Lot 003 Applicant/Agent: Laurel Heights Partners LHP 1 message victoria underwood [email removed]> Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 10:08 AM To: [email removed]" [email removed]> Cc: [email removed]" [email removed]> Please see my letter attached for your review and consideration regarding the above. Thank you, Victoria Underwood ~~ 3333CALSF Draft EIR 12-2-2018 Response.docx 27K FOR DECEMBER 13, 2018 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING ~~~ev~~~ 13 ~0~8 O ~/~/j yV~ ~ S5 l o h ~I.e~ o ~ L h tM CITY ~. COUNT't' ~~- ~.~ P~F~~dNING DEPARTMENT RECEPTION DESK December 4, 2018 City Of San Francisco -Planning Commission Commission Chambers, Room 400, City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, San Francisco, CA 94102-4689 Commissions. secretaryC~sf~ov. or Re: Case No. 2015.1014028ENV Project Title: 3333 California Street Mixed Use Project Zoning: Residential, Mixed, Low Density [RM-1] Zoning District 40 X Height and Bulk District Block/Lot: Block 1032/Lot 003 Applicant/Agent: Laurel Heights Partners LHP Dear Planning Commissioners: This letter is in direct response to the Draft EIR, Volume2c: Appendices D-G, published November 7, 2018. I have read the report and I have a number of comments and concerns. The Notice of Public Hearing was posted at the corners of the 3333 California location, but both pages failed to be posted providing informative and critical information to the public. 1. Your name and email contact address and phone number 2. The Planning Department's website address in order to download the Draft EIR document assessment 3. The Notice of a Public Hearing before the Historic Preservation Commission on Wednesday December 5~ at 12:30 p.m. at which the Historic Commission is to make its comments on the Draft EIR. 4. Notice to the Public that public comments to the Historic Preservations will be accepted from 11/8/2018 - 12/24/2018. The Draft EIR states that the project would have a Significant and Unavoidable with Mitigation impact on noise because it would "expose people to or generate noise levels in excess of applicable standards or cause a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels." (page 4.D.36) The estimated consfiruction period is 7 to 15 years<U+2022> The Draft EIIZ states that the project would have a Significant and Unavoidable with Mitigation impact on historic architectural resources because the project "would demolish portions of the office building... and remove all of the project site's existing designed landscape elements and features, including, but not limited to, the curvilinear shapes in pathways, driveways, and planting areas; integrated landscape features, including planter boxes and seating; brick perimeter walls; and the concrete pergola and terraced planting feature facing Laurel Street." (p. 4.B.41) The DEIR admits that the project would be expected to generate higher Vehicle Miles Traveled than retail, office or residential average projects in the area. The DEIR compares the project with city average data but not with actually measured traffic conditions in the project area. However, the DEIR concludes that the project would have an impact on traffic that would be Less Than Significant with Mitigation. (page 4.C.74) The DEIR claims that reducing the retail parking supple would mitigate the Vehicle Miles Traveled impacts o the project. (page 4.C.80) The DEIR estimates that the project would generate 10,057 daily automobile trips (page 4.C.58). This is probably an understatement because another EIR for a mixed use project estimated 13,000 automobile trips generated by the retail square footage alone (approximately 54,000 square feet), and the proposed project also has 558 or 744 residential units and a 49,999 square foot new office building that would generate additional vehicle trips. The EIR Intersection Operations Analysis (Page 9,Task 7.2) has focused on transit timing on California Street. To say that Applicant's Proposed Project will have little or no impact on transit and traffic flow on all surrounding streets, simply is NOT true. As it is currently during the commute, Masonic Avenue is solid cars between Presidio and To m Euclid during evening commute hours and that is with the right most lane on Presidio with the additional lane to Euclid; both of which are to be removed as part of Applicant's Proposed Project. As it is currently, for every southbound vehicle that stops on Presidio at the Presidio/Pine/Masonic light, three now utilize the right most lane up to Masonic or Euclid. That means that if 3 to 5 cars stop for the traffic light, 9 have driven up Masonic and no are longer sitting waiting to turn right at the light. But, if you eliminate that right most lane, those cars will have to wait for the light to change and back up to the SFFD Credit Union Building at Presidio and California. Additionally, Muni buses have a shift change and buses are coming off California onto Presidio Avenue; add one or two buses and traffic on Presidio will back up to California. The impact for anyone familiar with these intersections is clear. I just have to look out the window. The idea that you can add three total ingress/egress active driveways on Presidio next to the SFFD Credit Union ingress/egress garage driveway and then do the same on Masonic and, not overload all the surrounding streets as the Applicant's Proposed Project does by using criteria from other sites without understanding these major thoroughfares, will be disastrous. You could end up backing traffic all the way down to the financial district. The DEIR claims that project impacts on air quality, geology, hydrology, vegetation and other matters would be less than significant. During the 15-year construction period the developer is requesting, the developer would be able to apply for changes to make the project bigger, expand the retail and increase the heights and amounts of development. This suggests further entitlements and profiting from real estate speculation on the back of the neighborhoods affected by the proposed Project. The Applicant is trying to make us all believe that their proposed project is for the better good and will address the more immediate issue the City has for additional and affordable housing. It is ludicrous that it would take 15 years of construction to accomplish that. It is clear that anyone who supports the Proposed Project and the proposed construction schedule does not live within the unmediate proximity of this site. I, along with many of my neighbors, have opposed the developer's concept from the beginning. We are in of the need for additional and affordable housing in our neighborhood. We stand against the Applicant's proposed project because it would be destructive to the neighborhood. The developer's proposal is too massive, too commercialized and out of character with the neighborhood and, since we know now about the Historic Preservation Commission s assessment about the value of the existing historic building and landscaping, we continue to wonder how the Applicant has been able to push a plan that would do so much damage to the site and the neighborhood so far down the road. We have objected to the destruction and removal of the existing green areas. We've asked the Applicant of the Proposed Project for an alternative preservation plan that is consistent with the design and aesthetics of the condominiums directly across the street from the Project on California Street between Laurel and Walnut (for example) without touching any of the green and landscaped areas on Masonic, Euclid or Laurel. The neighborhood has expressed its desire to have the Applicant redesign the proposed Project so preserve as much of the site as possible and complete critically needed residential housing in the shortest time possible. We've written letters to the Applicant, addressed these issues in person with the Applicant at the Developer's poster-board sessions and at the Scoping Meeting at the JCC with the Planning Department but we have yet to see a design that warrants serious consideration by the neighborhood or the City. I believe the Project, as proposed, will have an enormously, negative impact on the neighborhood and surrounding areas. The proposed uses and high density of the proposed project will increase traffic flow and congestion, increase noise and pollution and increase the loss of parking, etc. The proposed removal of the green spaces and mature trees and plants will unnecessarily impact the local environment and deprive the surrounding area from continued public use. The increased noise from the Proposed Project, including construcrion activities, will adversely affect nearby sensitive receptors including existing residential housing units surrounding the 10-acre site, the elderly residential facility at the JCC across the street from the site and child care uses at the JCC. There is no reason ar justification for relocating the Child Care Center from its current location on the existing site. We know that the existing zoning limits heights greater than 40 feet at Euclid and Masonic and no retail is permitted. To m A Community Alternative Plan (hereinafter referred to as "CAP") is being created to reflect what we believe will preserve the entire Historical Building. The design will include re-purposing of the Historical Building to residential use. 'The "CAP" will preserve Eckbo Terrace, Children s Childcare Playground, along with the Redwood trees, and preserve all Historic Landscaping. The existing green spaces on Laurel, Euclid, Masonic and Presidio will remain intact in this redesign. The "CAP" will accomplish the Applicant's goal of providing 558-744 housing units (Variant) by a design of three or four, four-story buildings on the existing surface parking lots facing California Street; with no retail or office. As we understand it, the housing units facing California Street in the CAP will be consistent with the design and aesthetics of the condominiums directly across the street as mentioned above. The number of trees and landscaping to be removed will be substantially less in the CAP Plan. We have not seen the fully-designed CAP but we whole heartedly support the draft of a plan that we have seen because it is less destructive and can be completed and on line satisfying the immediate need for additional housing within the timeline of three to five years; not 15 years. Applicants Proposed Plan does not serve any of us well. They have had every opportunity to redesign and submit an Alternative Preservation Plan and they have refused to do that. My sincerely hope is the Planning Department will want to consider the CAP which is timely and less impactful to the neighbors and the many neighborhoods and stop the negative impact that will undoubtedly occur by approval of the Applicant's Proposed Plan before this goes any farther. Thank you. Victoria Underwood 510 Presidio Avenue San Francisco, CA 94115 Victoria.underwoodQatt.net cc: LaurelHeights2016Qgmail.com To mshow more

2018-12-13 · 36 comments · 5 / 14

Tina Kwok · spoken · 2018-12-13 · neutral

Extension, community preservation alternative

Linda Glick · spoken · 2018-12-13 · neutral

Extension

Debra Seglund · spoken · 2018-12-13 · oppose

Extension, community preparation alternative, retail

Anne Harvey · spoken · 2018-12-13 · oppose

Extension, walkability

Arielle Mouller · spoken · 2018-12-13 · support

More housing as fast as possible

Joe Catalano · spoken · 2018-12-13 · oppose

DEIR fails to recognize negative impact to this adjacent neighborhood

Ed Munnich · spoken · 2018-12-13 · support

Committed to the people in need of housing

Maryanne Massenburg · spoken · 2018-12-13 · oppose

Parking and traffic

Corey Smith · spoken · 2018-12-13 · neutral

Housing

Joan Varone · spoken · 2018-12-13 · neutral

Construction schedule

Donna Elschiler · spoken · 2018-12-13 · neutral

Asbestos contamination

Arlene Filippi · email · 2018-12-13 · oppose · source packet

3333 California Street, Planning Commission Meeting Today
Good Morning Commissioners, I am very much disappointed that I am not able to attend today's meeting regarding 3333 California Street. For your information, I am thoroughly familiar with the Developer's Proposal (which I find to be intrusive to say the least) but strongly support the Community Full Preservation Alternative. The Alternative is of great importance to my fellow neighbors, to my family and t… show more

Cristina Morris · email · 2018-12-13 · oppose · source packet

3333 California Street
Dear Madams/Sirs, I previously wrote you about 3333 California Street. In addition to the substantive concerns, please consider the following: I strongly urge the Planning Commission to grant a 15-day extension of the Due Date for Comments on this DEIR. It is a lengthy and complex document. Given the holidays and the importance of the issues to the surrounding neighborhoods and the city generally, an extensio… show more

Janet Frisbie · email · 2018-12-13 · oppose · source packet

3333 California Street development
Planning Commissioners, Please grant a 15-day extension of the 45-day comment period on the Draft EIR from December 24 to January 8, 2019. The project construction would last for 7-15 years and there is substantial community opposition to the developers concept. Sixty (60) days are allowed by law and have been granted for complex or controversial projects. Last week the SF Historic Preservation Commission expresse… show more

Sonia Doland · spoken · 2018-12-13 · oppose

Extension, retail

M.J. Thomas · spoken · 2018-12-13 · oppose

Negative impact

Leigh Lutenski · spoken · 2018-12-13 · support

OEWD presentation

Rose Wilson · spoken · 2018-12-13 · neutral

Extension, landscape I urge -- 12/24 DEIR deadline be extended 15 days. On 12/5, HPC had remaining questions on neighborhood alternative. Over 4 decades ago, The Chronicle described site as having: "pleasant green lawns and plantings that enhance the handsome low lines of the simple building designed by Edward B. Page." DEIR doesn't mention that the cultural resource of remnant large mature trees from … show more

Eileen Boken · spoken · 2018-12-13 · oppose

Historic designation

Adam McDonough · spoken · 2018-12-13 · neutral

15-day extension, negative impacts

Roger Miles · spoken · 2018-12-13 · neutral

15-day extension

Dan Safier · spoken · 2018-12-13 · support

Project presentation

Richard Frisbie · spoken · 2018-12-13 · oppose

DEIR comments due date

Judy Doane · spoken · 2018-12-13 · neutral

Negative impacts

Kelly Roberson · spoken · 2018-12-13 · neutral

Extension, construction time scheduled

David Goldbrenner · spoken · 2018-12-13 · neutral

Construction impacts

Krisanthy Desby · spoken · 2018-12-13 · oppose

Full preservation alternative

Laura Clark · spoken · 2018-12-13 · neutral

Mixed use is good

Alex Yuen · spoken · 2018-12-13 · support

Support

Perviz Randeria · spoken · 2018-12-13 · neutral

15-day extension

Kristin Johnson · spoken · 2018-12-13 · neutral

Extension

Joanna Thomson · spoken · 2018-12-13 · neutral

More housing

Kathy Devincenzi · spoken · 2018-12-13 · oppose

Extension, community presentation alternative

Holly Galbrecht · spoken · 2018-12-13 · neutral

Extension

Adam McMichael · spoken · 2018-12-13 · neutral

More housing

Bill Cutler · spoken · 2018-12-13 · oppose

Neighborhood character

2018-12-20 · 2 comments · 1 / 1

Marsha Nonn · email · 2018-12-20 · oppose · source packet

Thursday, December 13 , 2018 Planning Dept. Hearing, RE. 3333 California Street DEIR, Case No. 2015- 014028ENV
Mr. Ionin: Unfortunately due to unforeseen circumstances, we are unable to attend today<U+2019>s Planning Dept<U+2019>s meeting regarding the subject matter. We are residents and home owners in the Laurel Heights neighborhood and we strongly urge the Planning Commission to grant a 15-day extension of the Due Date for Comments on this DEIR. It is a lengthy and complex document. Thank you. Marsha and Wolfgang Nonn

Anne Harvey · email · 2018-12-20 · support · source packet

3333 California Street-URGENT
I am Anne Harvey and I am writing to you on behalf of my husband, a professor emeritus at the University of San Francisco, and our two sons, physician and an economist to strongly urge the Planning Commission to grant a 15- day extension of the Due Date for comments on the DEIR for 3333 California. It is a lengthy and complex document. And for some unknown reason, the Planning Department has refused to extend the ti… show more

2019-01-10 · 3 comments · 1 / 2

Marie Mcnulty · email · 2019-01-10 · support · source packet

Case No. 2015-014028ENV; Project Title: 3333 California Street Mixed-Use Project Zoning
Please see my attached letter supporting the Neighborhood Full Preservation Alternative Plan, regarding the above referenced project. Thank you. Marie McNulty 3169 California Street, #2D San Francisco, CA 94115

Barbara Brenner · email · 2019-01-10 · oppose · source packet

3333 California Street- Support for Neighborhood Alternative Plan
To whom it may concern: I am writing in opposition to the developer<U+2019>s plan for 3333 California Street. The proposal is objectionable for several reasons: Architecture is not in line with existing neighborhood character. Retail stores and offices will bring in too much additional traffic and are unnecessary. Existing local stores are more than sufficient for the needs of the neighborhood. Parking is curre… show more

Gary Laufman · email · 2019-01-10 · oppose · source packet

3333 California St.
I am in Support for the Community Alternatives. I am in Opposition to the Developers<U+2019> Destructive Proposal. I am saddened by the decline of the quality of living in San Francisco. If you<U+2019>re not planning to protect or improve the quality of living in SF then why do it ? Gary Laufman San Francisco resident for 30+ years 3251 Washington St. #301

2019-07-11 · 1 comments · 1 / 0

Kristy Wang · email · 2019-07-11 · support · source packet

SPUR endorses 3333 California Street (Laurel Heights)
Dear Supervisor Stefani and Planning Commissioners, Laurel Heights Partners, LLC presented the 3333 California Street project in Laurel Heights to SPUR<U+2019>s Project Review Advisory Board at our May 2019 meeting for review and consideration. SPUR is generally focused on policies, plans and codes rather than on individual projects. In order to make infill development easier, we prefer to help set good rules… show more

2019-08-22 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

John Nulty · email · 2019-08-22 · oppose · source packet

333 California
Dear Commissioner, 3333 California Street RE: Case # 2015-014028 The former Fireman<U+2019>s Fund Insurance Company property on 10.2 acres has been bought by a private for- profit developer. The developer seeks variances and changes to current open space the neighborhood enjoys. Also the project sponsor want to take 10-15 years to built 15 buildings and add retail to an existing. West of location Laurel Vi… show more

2019-08-29 · 23 comments · 2 / 21

Sonya Dolan · email · 2019-08-29 · oppose · source packet

Voicing my Concern: 3333 California St.
Dear City Officials, I am writing to you today because I feel that the neighborhood community where I have lived and worked for the last 10 years, is being threatened by a developers plans, that if acted upon, will adversely affect my quality of life and everyone living in our neighborhood, the flow of traffic and the environment. I am writing, because I feel that the needs and wants of a developer are being put … show more

Nancy Yee · email · 2019-08-29 · oppose · source packet

3333 California Street, Record Number: 2015-014028CUA/PCA/MAP/DVA September
5,2019 Planning Commission Hearing. Dear Commissioners, I live in Laurel Heights. I support the Community's Proposal and Oppose the Developer's Proposal that includes Flexible Retail. I respectfully ask for a 30 Day Continuance. I respectfully ask that the Commission send the Developer's Plan back for changes more compatible with the Community Plan which is No Retail and No 15 years. Thank yo… show more

Patricia Tai · email · 2019-08-29 · support · source packet

Support for Community Proposal to Develop 3333 California Street - September 5, 2019
Planning Commission Hearing Dear Planning Commissioners, I have lived in Pacific Heights for 21 years. I walk to Laurel Village weekly to do shopping. I am active in the community including volunteering at one of our local public elementary schools. I understand the importance of community, more housing and beautiful green space. I am writing in support of the Community<U+2019>s Alternative to the D… Planning Commission Hearing Dear Planning Commissioners, I have lived in Pacific Heights for 21 years. I walk to Laurel Village weekly to do shopping. I am active in the community including volunteering at one of our local public elementary schools. I understand the importance of community, more housing and beautiful green space. I am writing in support of the Community<U+2019>s Alternative to the Developer<U+2019>s Project at 3333 California Street, Record Number:2015-014028CUA/PCA/MAP/DVA which the Commission will be discussing at its September 5, 2019 Hearing. Members of the Community have spent countless hours and personal resources developing a plan that supports the City<U+2019>s goals of increasing housing and retaining green space. Their efforts should be respected. I support the Community Alternative Plan that builds the same number of housing units as the Developer<U+2019>s plan while maintaining the beautiful green space that has graced our neighborhood for year. Cities around the World are adopting tree planting plans because of the benefits that green landscapes provide from cleaner air to making our streets safer. Walk SF actively supports tree plantings and maintenance in San Francisco to reduce pedestrian fatalies and to reduce speed on our City streets. To destroy these beautiful trees and historic green space to develop housing is unnecessary and counterproductive as the Community plan demonstrates. I oppose the Developer<U+2019>s plan because we do not need additional or flexible retail in our neighborhood. We have great local retail in Laurel Village. There is good shopping on Sacramento Street, Geary Street, Fillmore Street, California Street and Clement Street. Muni provides great service to Union Street, Chestnut Street, Japantown and Union Square for additional retail opportunities. Please don<U+2019>t sacrifice the beautiful trees and green space for unneeded retail. The 15-Year Construction period included in the Developer<U+2019>s plan is unnecessary and would disturb the neighborhood for too long. The Community alternative provides for project completion in seven year. There would be less excavation and demolition in the Community plan. There would be less disruption to local retail and neighborhood traffic and less environmental damage from loss of street trees, construction traffic and water run off during the rainy season. I support the Community<U+2019>s proposal which provides additional housing, preserves historic trees and green space and reflects the best interests of the neighborhood and the City. I oppose the Developer<U+2019>s proposal that adds no more housing than the Community plan, destroys historic green space and trees and includes flexible retail. I ask the Commission to grant a 30 day continuance. I ask the Commission to send the Developer<U+2019>s plan back for changes more compatible with the Community proposal for no flexible retail and a shorter construction period and preservation of our beautiful trees and green space. Thank you. Patricia L. Tai 2022 Broderick Street Sent from Mail for Windowsshow more

Judy D'este · email · 2019-08-29 · oppose · source packet

3333 California Street - proposed development
RE: 3333 California Street / Record Number: 2015-014028CUA/PCS/MA/DVA Dear Commissioners, I have been a resident on Pine Street near Presidio Avenue for 28 years. I oppose the developer<U+2019>s project as proposed and support the COMMUNITY ALTERNATIVES. This neighborhood is residential and peaceful, with trees and hills and lovely victorians. People locate here for the serenity of the area, not for ni… show more

Ann Prato · email · 2019-08-29 · oppose · source packet

3333 California Street Development Project
I am a longtime resident in Laurel Heights. I oppose the developer<U+2019>s project and support the Community Alternative Plan. Both plan have 744 units including 184 units of affordable senior housing but the Community Plan will not be built on historic green space and will be built in a much shorter time due to less excavation, demolition, noise, air pollution and traffic disruption. The developer<U+20… show more

Kathy Peck Denny · email · 2019-08-29 · oppose · source packet

Important from neighbors and businesses at 3333 California Street, Record Number: 2015-
014028CUA/PCA/MAP/DVA September 5,2019Planning Commission Hearing. Dear Commissioners and SF Officials Please Support the Community's Proposal and Oppose the Developer's Proposal that includes Flexible Retail. We beseech you to please provide a 30 Day Continuance. We ask that the Commission to please Send the Developer's Plan Back for changes more compatible with the Community Plan, No Retail, No … show more

Michael Coholan · email · 2019-08-29 · oppose · source packet

3333 California Street, Record Number: 2015-014028CUA/PCA/MAP/DVA September 5,2019
Planning Commission Hearing Dear Commissioners: In advance of the September 5, 2019 Planning Commission Hearing regarding the 3333 California Street project, I felt compelled as a native San Franciscan and a 36 year resident of Laurel Heights to request the following considerations from each of you: 1. I support the Community Alternative proposal and oppose the Developer<U+2019>s project 2. The Comm… show more

Victoria Underwood · email · 2019-08-29 · oppose · source packet

3333 California Street - Planning Commission Hearing 9-5-2019
Attached please find my letter to the Commissioners in advance of the 9/5/2019 Planning Commission Hearing. After months of quiet, we have been inundated with yet another round of drawings, review report and new zoning legislation. If all this weren't enough, orange tags went up on 19 trees at the 3333 California site and, more specifically, on all the sidewalk trees from Presidio Avenue to Laurel on Californ… Attached please find my letter to the Commissioners in advance of the 9/5/2019 Planning Commission Hearing. After months of quiet, we have been inundated with yet another round of drawings, review report and new zoning legislation. If all this weren't enough, orange tags went up on 19 trees at the 3333 California site and, more specifically, on all the sidewalk trees from Presidio Avenue to Laurel on California as to their pending removal. A hearing is set for 9/18/2019. While this is not something that directly calls upon the Planning Commission, the reason given for the removal should concern everyone. "Tree Removal Major Encroachment Permit Application. Demolition, excavation and site preparation to construct new buildings" We haven't gotten through the architectual drawing process, no plans have been approved yet, the BOS approval will be required, final approved construction drawings will need to go out to bid, a schedule set based on lead times and material deliveries will be needed and expected. So, that we are looking at nothing happening until basically after the Holidays and into next year at the earliest. The neighborhood is under assault by this Developer and now with this premature removal request for mostly healthy trees and the capture of the sidewalks we utilize everyday we find ourselves in yet another battle that needs the "reasonableness" test. With the Amazon burning and the importance of saving trees because they produce oxygen and help to eliminate carbon dioxide, this removal request isn't taken lightly and the neighborhood will also be attending the hearing at the S.F. Public Works - Bureau of Urban Forestry on 9/18/2019. The LHIA plan attempts to save the flurishing tree population at the site as much as possible including the trees tagged for immediate removal. Please see the attached latter. Thank you. Reference: 3333 California Street Record Number: 2015-014028CUA/PCA/MAP/DVA September 5, 2019 Planning Commission Hearing.show more

Erik Olson · email · 2019-08-29 · oppose · source packet

3333 California Street, Record Number: 2015-014028CUA/PCA/MAP/DVA September
5,2019 Planning Commission Hearing Dear San Francisco Planning Commission, I write with regard to the 3333 California Street, Record Number: 2015- 014028CUA/PCA/MAP/DVA September 5,2019 Planning Commission Hearing. I will not be able to attend this hearing in person but wanted to notify you of my thoughts. I am a resident of Laurel Heights. I own a condo on Lupine Avenue and live there with my wife and tw… show more

Laura R. · email · 2019-08-29 · oppose · source packet

3333 California Street, Record Number: 2015-014028CUA/PCA/MAP/DVA September
5,2019 Planning Commission Hearing Dear San Francisco Planning Commission, I write with regard to the 3333 California Street, Record Number: 2015- 014028CUA/PCA/MAP/DVA September 5,2019 Planning Commission Hearing. I will not be able to attend this hearing in person but wanted to notify you of my thoughts. I am a resident of Laurel Heights. I own a condo on Lupine Avenue and live there with my husband and… show more

Cristina Morris · email · 2019-08-29 · oppose · source packet

California Street, Record Number: 2015-014028CUA/PCA/MAP/DVA September 5,2019
Planning Commission Hearing. Dear Sirs/Madams, I am writing in support of the Community plan for 3333 California Street. I object to the Developer<U+2019>s plan based on the following: The developer<U+2019>s plan should include and respect the changes requested by the community alternative plans, a copy of which you have. Additionally, we request NO retail, especially flexible retail. This is … Planning Commission Hearing. Dear Sirs/Madams, I am writing in support of the Community plan for 3333 California Street. I object to the Developer<U+2019>s plan based on the following: The developer<U+2019>s plan should include and respect the changes requested by the community alternative plans, a copy of which you have. Additionally, we request NO retail, especially flexible retail. This is a quiet residential neighborhood and we don<U+2019>t want the type of noise and congestion businesses which are open late would bring to this area. Further, the Sacramento Street and Laurel Village businesses would be adversely impacted by any more retail. I walked the neighborhood today and there are 4+ empty businesses on those streets; one which has been empty for months. We have adequate retail with the Target Center and Trader Joes. Additionally, the neighborhood cannot support a 15 year project as the developers are proposing. The impact on residents should be considered above all else, especially those adjacent to the site. In addition to the points above, I am copying my recent email to Supervisor Stefani: I think the Supervisor should consider the following: 1. Preserving as much as possible the historic green space of the site. 2. Honoring the historic designation of the buildings as classic mid century architecture. 3. Inevitable traffic and congestion impact on the neighborhood if the developers' plans are not modified. 4. Evaluation of whether the developers' reliance on the current tech-dominated economy supports this massive project considering the future economy of the city. E.g., many new developments are vacant and not renting or selling as the market is changing and more people flee San Francisco and California due to taxes, expense and political mismanagement. Many businesses are relocating out of state. 5. Monitoring the number of vacant commercial spaces in the neighborhood on California and Sacramento streets...there are many currently empty. It is evident that no more commercial development is needed in the area. Again, look at the economic trends. Please allow a 30 day continuance so that the proponents of the community alternative can evaluate the impacts of flexible retail, social services and philanthropic facilities, which were not included in the original EIR. Finally, please listen to and seriously consider the residents<U+2019> concerns. We know our neighborhood better than any developer. Thank you, Cristina Morris (Presidio Heights) Sent from Mail for Windows 10show more

Krisanthy Desby · email · 2019-08-29 · oppose · source packet

September 5 meeting regarding 3333 California St.
Regarding: Record #2015-014028CUA/PCA/MAP/DVA 3333 California Street September 5, 2019 Meeting with San Francisco Planning Commission Hearing Dear Members of the Planning Commission, I would like to comment on the The Prado Group<U+2019>s (The Developer<U+2019>s) Plan for 3333 California Street. Our family has lived in Presidio Heights since 1999. We have enjoyed the shade offered by the flowering… Regarding: Record #2015-014028CUA/PCA/MAP/DVA 3333 California Street September 5, 2019 Meeting with San Francisco Planning Commission Hearing Dear Members of the Planning Commission, I would like to comment on the The Prado Group<U+2019>s (The Developer<U+2019>s) Plan for 3333 California Street. Our family has lived in Presidio Heights since 1999. We have enjoyed the shade offered by the flowering eucalypti along California Street, and the verdant landscaping both inside and outside the property around the entire block. Laurel Village provides virtually everything we need: groceries, children<U+2019>s clothing, gifts, hardware, and so on. Four children<U+2019>s playgrounds are nearby. With the new development as planned by The Prado Group, our quiet neighborhood is about to be destroyed. I am asking you to approve the Community Alternative instead, which preserves the neighborhood green space and character. The Prado Group's plan to remake the 10-acre site will disrupt the neighborhoods nearby for a decade and a half with noise and congestion, and the result will destroy their character permanently. I have listed just a few of the impacts below: 1. Chopping down 200-plus trees inside and outside the property and paving over the green space 2. Adding an overwhelming amount of commercial and retail space 3. Flexible retail, allowing businesses to run from 6AM to 2AM 4. 15 years of construction will ruin the businesses nearby, especially Laurel Village, and add considerable noise and air pollution Point 1: in this era of climate change, removing mature trees that take up carbon and filter the air is a mistake. Not only that, but the trees offer a buffer against the noise of the very busy corridors along the entire perimeter. Having such a large green space should be preserved, not paved over. Point 2: additional commercial and retail space is not needed. Laurel Village and Sacramento St. shops provide 90%+ of what we need: groceries, clothing for children & adults, coffee shops, hardware & kitchen stores, a pharmacy, gifts, and more. Furthermore, there are empty storefronts everywhere; internet retail has taken over. In just one example, AG Ferrari<U+2019>s closed years ago and nothing has taken that space. Point 3: Flexible retail does not belong at the nexus of quiet residential neighborhoods. Being open for business from 6AM to 2AM only invites more cars, congestion, and crime, not to mention noise 20 hours every single day. I doubt, by the way, that anyone would wish to live on a property with all of that merely steps away. Point 4: 15 years is far too long for a construction project. It should take no longer than 3. These are neighborhoods, not a downtown space. Laurel Village will struggle due to the pressures of construction and unnecessary competition from a gargantuan project next door. I would venture to guess that the new project, once built, will struggle to fill the spaces at 3333 California Street thanks to internet retail while pressuring Laurel Village as well. In short, our neighborhoods will be severely and negatively impacted by this project in every way. I have not even listed many of the other things in The Prado Group<U+2019>s plan which are unacceptable. All together, the property at 3333 California St., our four neighborhoods and Laurel Village are a jewel. I beg you to consider the consequences of disrupting and destroying a historic, verdant, lovely part of the city. Respectfully yours, Krisanthy Desby Clay Streetshow more

John Burns · email · 2019-08-29 · oppose · source packet

Comments on 3333 California Street, Record Number: 2015-014028CUA/PCA/MAP/DVA
September 5,2019 Planning Commission Hearing RE: 3333 California St Proposed Development Dear Members of the Planning Commission, My wife and I live in Presidio Heights at 3616-18 Sacramento St at Locust about 3 blocks away from the subject property and have been following this proposed development closely. Although we recognize that the City is in great need of middle and lower income housing, we do not su… September 5,2019 Planning Commission Hearing RE: 3333 California St Proposed Development Dear Members of the Planning Commission, My wife and I live in Presidio Heights at 3616-18 Sacramento St at Locust about 3 blocks away from the subject property and have been following this proposed development closely. Although we recognize that the City is in great need of middle and lower income housing, we do not support the developer<U+2019>s plans as currently proposed. We do support the Community Alternative Plans that build the same number of housing units as the developer's plans - 744 units including 185 units of affordable senior housing - and are better because they do not build on the historic green space and will be built in a shorter period of time because they involve less excavation and demolition. The specific areas of the proposed development that are most concerning and need modification are: We oppose adding retail uses to the site as there is adequate retail in Laurel Village and surrounding areas with many vacancies for plenty of growth. The prolonged 15 year construction period would jeopardize the survival of Laurel Village merchants, such as the independent quality groceries of Cal-Mart and Bryan's. The project phasing over the 15 year period is not definite and the Planning Commission has no guarantee that the developer will complete the senior affordable housing on a definite schedule. Flexible Retail uses, which were not evaluated by the EIR, should not be allowed at all in this project (they are not allowed anywhere else in District 2 or in the Sacramento or Fillmore Street commercial districts) as they will bring adverse uses to our otherwise well planned neighborhoods. We urge this Commission to require the project be redesigned according to one of the well planned Community Alternatives. These alternatives do not remove the significant trees along California Street and retain more on-site Redwoods and trees on the historically significant Eckbo Terrace. We respectfully request that the Commission continue this hearing for at least 30 days to allow time for all parties to review the newly proposed Flexible Retail and the final EIR. Sincerely, John and Usha Burns 3616-3618 Sacramento St. San Francisco 94118show more

Marsha Nonn · email · 2019-08-29 · oppose · source packet

Planning Commission Hearing - September 5, 2019, 1:00PM - 3333 California Street
Developer's Project TO: Myrna Melgar, Commission President Joel Koppel, Commission Vice President Frank S. Fung, Commissioner Rich Hillis, Commissioner Millicent A. Johnson, Commissioner Kathrin Moore, Commissioner Dennis Richards, Commissioner Jonas Ionin, Commissions Secretary We live in Laurel Heights. We oppose the Developer<U+2019>s proposal for this project and support the Community alte… show more

Janet Frisbie · email · 2019-08-29 · oppose · source packet

September 5, 2019 Planning Commission Hearing
Dear President Melgar and Commissioners, I live in Laurel Heights, in fact, right across the street from the UCSF campus and will be severely impacted by the proposed development as will all the neighborhoods surrounding the 3333 California Street property. Kindly continue this hearing so that the District 2 residents have sufficient time to study what is in the final EIR particularly the possibly detrimental effects… show more

Steven Zeluck · email · 2019-08-29 · support · source packet

3333 California Street, Record No. 2015-014028CUA/PCA/MAP/DVA
Dear Sirs/Madams, I live in Western Addition (aka Lower Pacific heights), at Sutter and Presidio Avenues. 1. I support the Community Alternative Plans that build the same number of housing units as the developer's plans - 744 units including 185 units of affordable senior housing. As a senior myself I highly value the senior housing, if not for myself then for others. 2. As I spoke in an earlier email… show more

D Gilson · email · 2019-08-29 · oppose · source packet

3333 California St. - 5 September 2019 Planning Commission Hearing
Dear Commissioner, I am a resident of Laurel Heights and request that you consider the following points concerning the proposed project at 3333 California Street: Support Community Alternatives to the Developer<U+2019>s Project I support the Community Alternative Plans that build the same number of housing units as the developer<U+2019>s plans - 744 units including 185 units of affordable senior h… Dear Commissioner, I am a resident of Laurel Heights and request that you consider the following points concerning the proposed project at 3333 California Street: Support Community Alternatives to the Developer<U+2019>s Project I support the Community Alternative Plans that build the same number of housing units as the developer<U+2019>s plans - 744 units including 185 units of affordable senior housing. The alternative plans are superior to the developer<U+2019>s proposal because they do not build on the historic green space on the property and they limit the disturbance from construction to seven years rather than the 15-year period proposed by the developers. A protracted construction period would jeopardize the survival of locally-owned independent business in the Laurel Village shopping area. Remove Flexible Retail Which the EIR Did Not Evaluate The EIR failed to evaluate impact on traffic, noise and air quality from multiple flexible-retail uses sharing the same retail space. The EIR only evaluated single use retail and restaurant uses. Flexible retail is not allowed anywhere else in District 2 or in the Sacramento or Fillmore Street commercial districts. Retail Operations Limit hours of retail operation from 6 am to 11pm. Do not allow retail to operate until 2 am. Prohibit outdoor amplified sound. Prohibit the non-residential uses including nighttime entertainment, fast food restaurants and a homeless navigation center. Order the Project Redesigned like one of the Community Alternatives I urge the commission to require the project be redesigned according to the Community Preservation Lookalike Variant or the Community Full Preservation Alternative Variant 2. The Lookalike Variant replicates the developer<U+2019>s site plan with key changes that retain the historic characteristics of the parcel. Alternative Variant 2 retains the 744 units including 185 units of affordable housing, but does not demolish major portions of the main building. Hearing Continuance I respectfully request that you continue this hearing for 30 days to allow time to review the impacts of the new information on flexible retail uses and the final EIR. Thank you for your consideration, Donald Gilson 33 Heather Avenue 3333 California Street Record Number: 2015-014028CUA/PCA/MAP/DVA September 5, 2019 Planning Commission Hearingshow more

Barbara Cohrssen · email · 2019-08-29 · oppose · source packet

3333 California Street
August 28, 2019 RE: 3333 California Street Record Number: 2015-014028CUA/PCA/MAP/DVA September 5 Planning Commission Meeting Dear Folks I live on Pine Street, 1.5 short blocks from the proposed project at 3333 California Street. I am very concerned about this potential project. My concerns are related to noise, dust, increased traffic, vehicle emissions and the chang… August 28, 2019 RE: 3333 California Street Record Number: 2015-014028CUA/PCA/MAP/DVA September 5 Planning Commission Meeting Dear Folks I live on Pine Street, 1.5 short blocks from the proposed project at 3333 California Street. I am very concerned about this potential project. My concerns are related to noise, dust, increased traffic, vehicle emissions and the change in the character of the neighborhood. I am opposed to the developer<U+2019>s project and support the community alternative plan. The Community Alternative Plan will build the same number of housing units and will include 185 units of affordable senior housing. The Community Alternative Plan is superior to the one of the developer<U+2019>s because it will be built in a shorter period of time and involves less excavation, demolition and neighborhood disruption. I oppose the addition of retail to this site. There is adequate retail in Laurel Village, Sacramento Street, Traders Joe<U+2019>s and Geary Street. And if there is retail on this site, limit it to operation from 6 AM to 10 PM. Anything later is too disruptive to this neighborhood. I oppose the use of outdoor amplified sound. The traffic in the neighborhood is already above the LEQ for night time. And, please, prohibit the following non-residential uses: Nighttime entertainment Adult businesses Massage parlors or any type Amusement, game, arcade Restaurants of any type Public facilities Student Housing Tattoo parlors Homeless navigation center Short term residential occupancy units Shared workspaces Please, please, continue this hearing for at least 30 days to allow time to review the impacts of the new information on flexible retail and the final EIR. And, please, send the Developer<U+2019>s plan back for changes more compatible with the Community Plan, with no Retail activity on this site and if possible a shorter construction period. Barbara Cohrssen 2970 Pine Streetshow more

Elisa Yee · email · 2019-08-29 · oppose · source packet

3333 California Street, Record Number: 2015-014028CUA/PCA/MAP/DVA September
5,2019 Planning Commission Hearing. Dear Commissioners, I live in Laurel Heights. I support the Community's Proposal and Oppose the Developer's Proposal that includes Flexible Retail. I respectfully ask for a 30 Day Continuance. I respectfully ask that the Commission send the Developer's Plan back for changes more compatible with the Community Plan which is No Retail and No 15 years. Thank you for… show more

Adam Mcdonough · email · 2019-08-29 · oppose · source packet

3333 California Street, Record Number: 2015-014028CUA/PCA/MAP/DVA September
5,2019 Planning Commission Hearing Commissioners, As a 10-year resident of Laurel Heights, I'm writing to express my support for the Community Alternative Proposal, and opposition to the Developer's Proposal, at 3333 California Street. The Community proposal includes the same number of housing units, preserves the green space we all cherish, and can be built in a shorter time period than the Develop… show more

Hugh Carroll · email · 2019-08-29 · oppose · source packet

3333 California, Save Laurel Hill !
Hi, I have lived at 3433 Sacramento #2 street for 9 years and I support the community<U+2019>s proposal and oppose the developer<U+2019>s proposal (especially flexible retail). I work from home, and my office is looking out the back of our building, at 3333 California. Please issue a continuance for 30 days! Please send the developer<U+2019>s plan back for changes more compatible with our community… Hi, I have lived at 3433 Sacramento #2 street for 9 years and I support the community<U+2019>s proposal and oppose the developer<U+2019>s proposal (especially flexible retail). I work from home, and my office is looking out the back of our building, at 3333 California. Please issue a continuance for 30 days! Please send the developer<U+2019>s plan back for changes more compatible with our community plan, particularly no retail, and no 15 year window! The architecture of the property and the landscaping are truly unique, and it is a hidden gem in this gorgeous city. I walk up there to enjoy the view and the relative peace and quiet of the sanctuary. There are so few places like this anywhere, let alone in this time and place where the rush to develop is predicated on short term demand and the opportunism of development and construction. Recognizing the future, that the density will increase and housing is sorely needed, I am not averse to change. However, after 25 years in SF, my appreciation for Presidio Heights is deep. This neighborhood is different, and a true neighborhood. Thus the importance of improvements, expansion, and change being in the hands of locals, and being for the better of those who live nearby. Generations of neighborhood residents will be affected every day by this development. To not have a say in what happens to our home makes no sense and feels like betrayal, violation of decency, like theft. I am fine with construction, development, and change. It is inevitable. If handled properly and responsibly, no problem. If controlled by anonymous investment-backed developers, then I feel my days in the neighborhood may be numbered. 3333 California Street, Record Number: 2015-014028CUA/PCA/MAP/DVA September 5,2019 Planning Commission Hearing Hugh Carroll, LC, MIES Business Development Manager - West Traxon | e:cue - North America OSRAM SYLVANIA, Inc. 200 Ballardvale Street Wilmington, MA 01887 Cell: [phone removed] [email removed] www.osram.us/traxonshow more

Marlayne Morgan · email · 2019-08-29 · oppose · source packet

Re: 3333 California Street, Record Number: 2015-014028CUA
Correction- the Commission hearing on this project is scheduled for September 5, 2019. On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 3:18 PM Marlayne Morgan [email removed]> wrote: August 27, 2019 Dear President Melgar and Commissioners: As a community member interested in land use and transportation planning, I have been following the proposals for the development of 3333 and 3700 California for some time. These are the large… Correction- the Commission hearing on this project is scheduled for September 5, 2019. On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 3:18 PM Marlayne Morgan [email removed]> wrote: August 27, 2019 Dear President Melgar and Commissioners: As a community member interested in land use and transportation planning, I have been following the proposals for the development of 3333 and 3700 California for some time. These are the largest parcels to become available for major housing developments on the west side of the city in decades, due to the shift of the previous medical institutional uses to Van Ness Avenue and Mission Bay. Shifting to the new locations required intensive research on the impacts of these institutions on the surrounding areas. A city-wide Coalition worked on the relocation of the CPMC hospitals over an eight year period, resulting in significant changes to the original proposal from the project sponsor and a community driven Development Agreement. It does not seem that the same level of attention is being given to the impact on these vacated sites on California Street for the two proposed large housing developments, starting with 3333 California. At the very least, there will be significant impacts on the California and Sacramento transportation lines and traffic corridors, adjacent medical office uses on California and Sacramento, retail on California, Sacramento and Masonic Streets as well as impacts on the surrounding residential neighborhoods. In addition to the 744 units proposed for 3333, there is a cumulative impact on this area with the additional 238 new residential units at 3700 California and the 121 new housing units approved for the Lucky Penny site on Masonic. The project sponsor needs additional time to present all the details of his proposal both to the Commissioners and to the general public. Two things in the current proposal seem especially odd- building new retail in an era of empty storefronts and requesting permission to complete the project over a 15 year period. Therefore, I would request that time be reserved on 9/5 for an in-depth presentation by the project sponsor, and that approval of the existing proposal be continued until a later date. Regards, Marlayne Morgan President, Cathedral Hill Neighbors Co-Chair, Van Ness Corridor Neighbors Council Transportation Chair, CPMC H2J2 Coalitionshow more

Mark Davis · email · 2019-08-29 · oppose · source packet

3333 California Street
Dear San Francisco Planning Commission; As a resident of Presidio Heights and a small business owner in the Cow Hollow neighborhood I am writing to express my concerns, opinions and preferences for the very significant proposed project at 3333 California Street. I am all for growth and development but in a controlled and appropriate manner. In particular, I want to strongly emphasize the following: No retail sho… Dear San Francisco Planning Commission; As a resident of Presidio Heights and a small business owner in the Cow Hollow neighborhood I am writing to express my concerns, opinions and preferences for the very significant proposed project at 3333 California Street. I am all for growth and development but in a controlled and appropriate manner. In particular, I want to strongly emphasize the following: No retail should be part of this project. Laurel Village is right next door with 2 coffee shops, 2 grocers, a few restaurants, retail, wine shop and more. Not to mention Trader Joes, Target and Geary Street retail just a few blocks away. At the very least, REMOVE FLEXIBLE RETAIL from the developer<U+2019>s proposal. If retail succeeds in being part of the project please limit its hours of operation to 11:00PM at the latest. Prohibit night time entertainment, adult businesses, massage parlors. tattoo parlors, gaming arcadesetc. Reduce the proposed build out schedule. 15 years? The developer wants to disrupt our neighborhood with construction traffic and congestion for FIFTEEN years, that is absurd. Put yourselves in our shoes, would you want to live through that much disruption for that long? Cut that build out to 1/3 or 5 years. Support the Community Alternatives. Again, not opposing the development just very specific aspects of it. I am all about more housing units and the developer can achieve a profitable number of units AND preserve many more of the existing trees and the treasured green space than they are proposing. And please send the proposal back to the design team requesting the design be more in keeping with the neighborhood architecture. This is not SOMA, China Basin or the Mission. I strongly urge you vote consistent with the above points in mind. Yes to more housing, well designed housing. No to more retail and for sure no to a 15 year build out. 3333 California Street, Record Number: 2015-014028CUA/PCA/MAP/DVA September 5,2019 Planning Commission Hearing. Respectfully, Mark Davis Mark Davis: Architect AIA, LEED Green Associate 2088 Union Street, Suite 3 San Francisco, CA 94123 [phone removed] www.markddesign.comshow more

2019-09-05 · 60 comments · 37 / 20

Robert Hall · email · 2019-09-05 · oppose · source packet

Comments of 3333 California Street, Record Number: 2015-014028CUA/PCA/MAP/DUA
President Myrna Melgar and Commissioners San Francisco Planning Commission 1650 Mission Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94103 Re: 3333 California Street, San Francisco, CA Record Number: 2015-014028CUA/PCA/MAP/DUA Certification of Final EIR, CUA, etc. Planning Commission Hearing: September 5, 2019 Please take into account the environmental effects a massive development would have on … President Myrna Melgar and Commissioners San Francisco Planning Commission 1650 Mission Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94103 Re: 3333 California Street, San Francisco, CA Record Number: 2015-014028CUA/PCA/MAP/DUA Certification of Final EIR, CUA, etc. Planning Commission Hearing: September 5, 2019 Please take into account the environmental effects a massive development would have on the grounds of 3333 California Street before moving ahead with the Prado/SKS project. 3333 California Street has the potential to be world-class development project that combines the best practices of green building, healthy community open space design and enriched habitat for local biodiversity. Instead of a mega-complex, a limited expansion and re-use of the current building would keep tons of building material out of landfills and limit the carbon effects of the cement needed to create multiple giant structures. The cement industry is one of the primary producers of carbon dioxide, a potent greenhouse gas. In addition, concrete dust caused by demolition can be a major source of dangerous air pollution. The world<U+2019>s leading climate scientists have warned there is only a dozen years for global warming to be kept to a maximum of 1.5C, beyond which even half a degree will significantly worsen the risks of drought, floods, extreme heat and poverty for hundreds of millions of people. Please consider the Planning Department<U+2019>s sustainability goals before proceeding with a massive build out: https://sfplanning.org/project/sustainable-city Improving biodiversity on the grounds must also be considered in any approved project. I recently conducted a survey of the flora and fauna (Please refer to my observations on iNaturalist: https://www.inaturalist.org/calendar/bilgepump100/2019/5/20) . While the vast open space shows potential for improvement where lawns can be reduced in size and traditional landscaping could be updated with habitat-friendly plantings, there were several species on the property worth protecting. The large historic coast live oaks must be preserved. Science shows that they benefit over 300 different species. Also of note were breeding birds such as song sparrow, Nuttall<U+2019>s white-crowned sparrow and bushtit. Survey results: 3 Fungi/lichen 2 <U+201C>Other<U+201D> animals 12 insect species, including bees and butterflies 9 Bird species 4 CA native plant species 7 San Francisco native plant species 9 Bird species 3 Breeding bird species: Song sparrow, white-crowned sparrow and bushtit The recent UN Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services report stated that the biodiversity crisis may even surpass the climate crisis in severity. Please ensure that any development you undertake doesn<U+2019>t accelerate the catastrophe and also adheres to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved Biodiversity Resolution: https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/r0107-18.pdf My recommendation is to limit the scope of this project and enhance the grounds to benefit wildlife and the health of the community. Sincerely, Robert Hall 1946 Grove St. Apt. 6 San Francisco Comments in Word Doc attachedshow more

San Francisco Tree Campaign · email · 2019-09-05 · oppose · source packet

3333 California Street Save 200 Trees
Dear Commissioners: Community Leaders Fight to Save 34 Trees at 3333 California Street SAN FRANCISCO, CA (8/29)- Local community leaders are speaking out regarding plans to remove 34 trees along the UCSF Laurel Heights Campus. According to John Nulty, Public Figure, <U+201C>The developer of 3333 California wants to remove 15 street Trees and 19 significant trees for total of 34 trees on 10.25 acres. Property … Dear Commissioners: Community Leaders Fight to Save 34 Trees at 3333 California Street SAN FRANCISCO, CA (8/29)- Local community leaders are speaking out regarding plans to remove 34 trees along the UCSF Laurel Heights Campus. According to John Nulty, Public Figure, <U+201C>The developer of 3333 California wants to remove 15 street Trees and 19 significant trees for total of 34 trees on 10.25 acres. Property bound by California Street, Presidio Avenue, Masonic Avenue, Euclid Avenue and Laurel Street. We want to stop the removal of these trees and protect them for the future generations. Please sign, share and comment on this petition. Removing such a large number of trees runs counter to the City<U+2019>s environmental efforts to reduce global warning....<U+201D> See: https://www.change.org/p/mohammed-nuru-save-34-trees-at-3333-california-street? recruiter=698519&recruited_by_id=4909c880-d82e-012f-9ea6- 4040d2fbfbbf&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=share_for_starters_p1_view&utm_content=bandit- starter_cl_share_content_en-us%3Av4 Furthermore, <U+201C>We need people to sign this petition in order to stop the developer from taking 34 trees have a hearing on September 18, 2019 at City Hall (San Francisco) 9AM in the morning most people work and can not come to this hear at DPW. The Same project is in front of Planning Commission on September 5, 2019 at 1PM at city hall room 400. This large project with the project sponsor is asking to excavate 400 feet down in portions of the site for 971 underground parking space and would excavate 40 feet down for 3 levels removing over 2 million cubic feet of soil and rock. The developer want asking for 15 years to construct the project of 13 new building, The for-profit developer would be destroy historical resources demolish the Fireman's Fund Insurance Company Home Office that listed on the California Register of Historical Resources. The community does not want this 10.25 acres property rezoned, conditional use authorizations, and wants to added new commercial spaces were Laurel Village shops and Target center and others all ready meet the need of the residents...<U+201D> According to the Draft of the Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) published on November 7, 2018, <U+201C>The project sponsor, Laurel Heights Partners LLC, proposes a mixed-use project for the 3333 California Street site. The University of California San Francisco (UCSF) Laurel Heights Campus currently occupies the 10.25-acre site, which is owned by the Regents of the University of California, subject to a 99-year pre-paid ground lease to the project sponsor. The campus contains a four-story, 455,000-gross-square-foot (gsf)1office building with a three-level, partially below-grade parking garage at the center of the site and two circular garage ramp structures leading to the garage levels; a one-story annex building at the corner of California and Laurel streets; three surface parking lots; and landscaping or landscaped open space. The project site does not include the SF Fire Credit Union building at the southwest corner of California Street and Presidio Avenue. Current uses on the campus are office, research, child care, and parking....<U+201D> Furthermore, <U+201C>There are 210 trees on and adjacent to the project site, including 15 existing street trees along the California Street frontage. Ten mature trees on the site would be retained, if viable, and 185 trees on the site would be removed, including 19 significant trees (i.e., trees within 10 feet of the public right-of-way that meet specific height, trunk diameter, and canopy width requirements). The 15 street trees along California Street would be removed and replaced. Both the street trees and the significant trees are protected under city ordinances; removal requires a permit from San Francisco Public Works. Thus, a total of 34 protected trees on, and adjacent to, the project site would be removed. The 10 mature trees to be retained would require anchored tree-protection fencing and implementation of tree health-related measures such as mulching, pruning, and pest protection during construction....<U+201D> - Jose Ricardo G. Bondoc https://sanfranciscotreecampaign.blogspot.comshow more

Emily Abraham · email · 2019-09-05 · support · source packet

Letter of Support for Approval of 3333 California Project
Dear Planning Commissioners, On behalf of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, I would like to offer you my letter of support for the approval of the 3333 California. Please see attached for the letter of support. Thank you for your time and consideration, Emily Abraham Emily Abraham Public Policy Manager San Francisco Chamber of Commerce 235 Montgomery St., Ste. 760, San Francisco, CA 94104 (Direct) [phone removed] (E) [email removed]

Jane Natoli · email · 2019-09-05 · support · source packet

Please move 3333 California forward to the Board of Supervisors
Dear Members of the Planning Commission, Hello, my name is Jane Natoli, an organizer with Grow the Richmond and a board member at YIMBY Action. I am writing today to express my support for the 3333 California development proposal. I request that you approve the conditional use permit, the planning code and zoning map amendments, and certify the EIR. As someone in the neighboring Richmond who goes there frequently and… show more

Chris Wright · email · 2019-09-05 · support · source packet

Letter from Committee on Jobs re 3333 California
Importance: High Hello SF Planning Commission Staff, I may not be able to attend tomorrow<U+2019>s meeting in person and was told by the Planning receptionist that I could forward to you a letter from our organization regarding an item on tomorrow<U+2019>s agenda. I apologize for not getting it to you sooner. Attached is the letter on our official letterhead, and below is the text version. Please shar… Importance: High Hello SF Planning Commission Staff, I may not be able to attend tomorrow<U+2019>s meeting in person and was told by the Planning receptionist that I could forward to you a letter from our organization regarding an item on tomorrow<U+2019>s agenda. I apologize for not getting it to you sooner. Attached is the letter on our official letterhead, and below is the text version. Please share this with the commissioners. Thank you. Chris ___________________ September 4, 2019 President Myrna Melgar and Commissioners San Francisco Planning Commission 1650 Mission Street, 4th Floor Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94103 Dear Commissioners, On behalf of the Committee on Jobs, an association of many of the City<U+2019>s largest private-sector employers that advocates for a vibrant local economy shared by people working and living in San Francisco, we ask for you to approve the 3333 California project before you on September 5th. First and foremost, this project will create more than 700 new homes for San Franciscans at a critical time when we are in desperate need of additional housing supply. Please note that a quarter of all these new homes will be earmarked for low- income seniors. This is the kind of responsible development we need to help address our housing crisis for the long term health of our local economy, and to maintain the diversity and inclusiveness that is at the core of who we are as a City. However, this is not just a housing project. The proposal will also bring 35,000 sq. ft. of new retail space that will add to the vitality of the area and generate new economic activity and new employment. Also, the project provides a new childcare center for working families and dedicates five acres of land to open space that will be more easily accessed than the current site allows. In terms of immediate economic impact, the overall construction budget of $732 million will support an estimated 250 jobs, of which 206 will be direct at the project site. Construction of the project will also generate approximately 3,000 job-years on- site and 1,500 job-years elsewhere in the City as a result of indirect and induced spending effects. Long term, the new development is estimated to generate approximately $8.7 million in local Prop 13 property tax each year, of which $5 million will go to the City<U+2019>s General Fund. The project will also generate an additional $1.4 million in charges, for a total annual property tax revenue of $10.2 million, in addition to other impact fees. Keep in mind that the property is not currently generating property tax revenue because of UCSF<U+2019>s property tax exemption as a public institution. Also, those living there are expected to generate approximately $21 million in taxable retail spending in the City, which will generate $210,000 in local sales tax revenue annually. Given the tremendous importance of providing a new supply of housing and the substantial economic benefits resulting from the project itself and those that will live and conduct business there once it is complete, we urge you to approve the 3333 California project. Sincerely, Chris Wright Executive Directorshow more

Sylvia Melikian · email · 2019-09-05 · support · source packet

3333 California Street
Dear Commissioners: As a 24 year resident of Jordan Park, I am writing this letter in support of the proposed project located at 3333 California St. This is a well thought out and beautifully designed development that will provide approximately 744 units of needed housing, along with office, retail and child care space in a location that has many transit options. The lack of housing is one of the most critical … show more

Lisa Congdon · email · 2019-09-05 · support · source packet

3333 California
Please find attached a support letter for the proposed project at 3333 California from Openhouse. LISA CONGDON | Project Manager Prado Group, Inc. 150 Post Street, Suite 320 San Francisco, CA 94108 [email removed] T: [phone removed] | D: [phone removed] I C: [phone removed] www.pradogroup.com This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized t… show more

San Francisco Tree Campaign · email · 2019-09-05 · oppose · source packet

3333 California Street
RE: 2015-014028ENV/CUA/PCA/MAP/DVA Dear Commissioners, The San Francisco Tree Campaign is opposed in the plan to remove 200 trees. We have an online petition: https://www.change.org/p/mohammed-nuru-save-34-trees-at-3333-california-street Sincerely Co Chair of San Francisco Tree Campaign https://sanfranciscotreecampaign.blogspot.com SFNEWSFEED.USTHURSDAY, AUGUST 29, 20193 MINUTES

Enrique Landa · email · 2019-09-05 · support · source packet

Power Station - General Plan Initiation today at Commission
Commissioners, Proposed General Plan Amendments for the Power Station Project will be initiated by Planning Staff this afternoon. We will take the opportunity during that hearing to provide you with recent project updates in response community concerns and your feedback from our April informational hearing. Specifically, the project has been updated to both allow for the preservation of Station A, and also mainta… Commissioners, Proposed General Plan Amendments for the Power Station Project will be initiated by Planning Staff this afternoon. We will take the opportunity during that hearing to provide you with recent project updates in response community concerns and your feedback from our April informational hearing. Specifically, the project has been updated to both allow for the preservation of Station A, and also maintain 2600 residential units on the site <U+2013> feedback we heard from you loud and clear. We will also provide an overview of the community benefits package that the project will deliver. The project will be before you next on October 10th, for EIR Certification and Approval. If you would like an individual briefing on any aspect of the project or would like to visit the Power Station, my colleague Tina Chang and I would be happy to meet with you at any time. We look forward to seeing you later this afternoon and continuing the conversation on the Power Station. Enrique Enrique Landa Partner Associate Capital [email removed] [phone removed] Direct The following message was sent via Countable from one of your constituents. ********** Our city needs more housing for everyone. That is why, as a resident of San Francisco, I am writing to you in support of the proposed mixed-use development at 3333 California Street. I am proud to have lived in San Francisco for the past number of years. But it pains me to live in a city with such expensive housing costs. Our housing crisis stems from a shortage of housing. One proven strategy to address the cost of housing is to build more of it. The proposed 3333 California mixed-use development in Laurel Heights answers these needs by providing 744 new housing units. These units are not just studios - approx. 58 percent of total homes are family friendly: two, three, and four-bedroom homes. The City has set an important goal of producing 5,000 new housing units annually for the next 20- years. The 3333 California project alone can help the city meet almost 20 percent of that important annual goal. The 3333 California project has been guided by strong public policy and is balanced by community input. Throughout the development process, the Prado Group held over one hundred and sixty community meetings, engaged with the community, city leaders, and collaborated with two design-focused community advisory groups. These community leaders all provided helpful suggestions that will improve the project and enhance the neighborhood while providing much needed new housing. Basedshow more

Caroline Bosch · spoken · 2019-09-05 · support

Support

Bill Hudson · spoken · 2019-09-05 · support

Support

Gabe Citron · spoken · 2019-09-05 · support

Support

Peter Wong · spoken · 2019-09-05 · oppose

Homelessness, cost of living, loss of public resources

Ron Miguel · spoken · 2019-09-05 · support

Support

Sumara Cisneros · spoken · 2019-09-05 · support

Housing crisis, family friendly

Mark Bernstein · spoken · 2019-09-05 · support

Balance competing interest

Lee Bishop · spoken · 2019-09-05 · support

Housing problem

Paul Wiles · spoken · 2019-09-05 · oppose

Opposition

Patricia Vaughey · spoken · 2019-09-05 · oppose

Opposition

Molly Alarcon · spoken · 2019-09-05 · support

Support

Nancy Goldenberg · spoken · 2019-09-05 · oppose

Community alternative

Stewart Aranoff · spoken · 2019-09-05 · support

Support

Madeline Hill · spoken · 2019-09-05 · support

Support

Laura Foote · spoken · 2019-09-05 · support

Maximize housing, community plan

Anne Harvey · spoken · 2019-09-05 · oppose

Community alternative

Judy Doane · spoken · 2019-09-05 · oppose

30-day extension

Kelly Roberson · spoken · 2019-09-05 · oppose

Community alternative

Charles Ferguson · spoken · 2019-09-05 · support

Support

Marcy Glazer · spoken · 2019-09-05 · support

Support

Kathy Devincenzi · spoken · 2019-09-05 · oppose

Secretary of Interior Standards

Emily Gosack · spoken · 2019-09-05 · support

Design presentation

Dan Saphir · spoken · 2019-09-05 · support

Project presentation

Leigh Lutenski · spoken · 2019-09-05 · support

OEWD presentation

Sarah Brett-Schwartz · spoken · 2019-09-05 · support

Support

Barbara Gualco · spoken · 2019-09-05 · support

Mercy Housing response to questions

Greg Scott · spoken · 2019-09-05 · support

Support

Will Hollerin · spoken · 2019-09-05 · support

Support

Javier Flores · spoken · 2019-09-05 · support

Union support

Leonard Desoko · spoken · 2019-09-05 · support

Union support

Maryanne Massemberg · spoken · 2019-09-05 · support

Support, except parking

Melanie Stein · spoken · 2019-09-05 · support

Support

Herbert Weiner · spoken · 2019-09-05 · oppose

30-day extension

Larry Mathews · spoken · 2019-09-05 · neutral

Residential only

Eileen Boken · spoken · 2019-09-05 · oppose

Community alternative

Kathy Peck · spoken · 2019-09-05 · neutral

30-day continuance

Bob Atkinson · spoken · 2019-09-05 · support

Support

Jake Shemano · spoken · 2019-09-05 · support

Support

Carla Hassegen · spoken · 2019-09-05 · support

Support

Lynne Segway · spoken · 2019-09-05 · support

Support

Adam McDonough · spoken · 2019-09-05 · oppose

Community alternative

Jane Natoli · spoken · 2019-09-05 · support

Support

Michael Chen · spoken · 2019-09-05 · support

Support

Wendy Stoval · spoken · 2019-09-05 · oppose

Livability

Gabrielle Hagne · spoken · 2019-09-05 · support

Support

Don Wilson · spoken · 2019-09-05 · oppose

Community alternative

Barbara Brenner · spoken · 2019-09-05 · oppose

Community alternative

Christina Ortega-Norris · spoken · 2019-09-05 · oppose

Community alternative

Barbara Corsin · spoken · 2019-09-05 · oppose

30-day extension

David Goldman · spoken · 2019-09-05 · neutral

Flexible retail, construction

Michelle Ewald · spoken · 2019-09-05 · oppose

Community plan

2019-09-12 · 1 comments · 1 / 0

Dennis Hong · email · 2019-09-12 · support · source packet

Re: Support the 3333 California Proposed Development - Planning Commission Hearing Tomorrow
9/5 Good morning Kaitlin, its Monday, Sept 9, 2019. I'm responding to your email of (9/4/2019)- below. I'm a native San Franciscan. Seventy five plus years.Own a home here in the city, district 7. I attempted to sign this petition. I did not know it was so complicated, it did not accept me. I do not use Facebook and the other social media, which I guess makes me the minority. But again I did attend the… 9/5 Good morning Kaitlin, its Monday, Sept 9, 2019. I'm responding to your email of (9/4/2019)- below. I'm a native San Franciscan. Seventy five plus years.Own a home here in the city, district 7. I attempted to sign this petition. I did not know it was so complicated, it did not accept me. I do not use Facebook and the other social media, which I guess makes me the minority. But again I did attend the full 9/5/2019 meeting. It was a bit longer than my schedule allowed. Was there an extension for this DEIR Certification (30 days)? I had originally requested for a hard copy of the DEIR, only because the online doc seems to consistently crash my system. Either way I'm still trying for a copy of this doc, however I'm in full support of this project. From what I was able to see online, it's another fine job by the SF Planning Department. Here are my personal comments and response to the DEIR. Sorry for my rambling email. Other than asking for a quick turn around for this project. We need housing, this project has done a grand job with the housing issue/s and open space. Great community out reach. I could not had asked for anything more from this project. I often shopped around the Laurel Village and miss several retailers that have since gone and currently leaving. With all the opposition and delays I can see why we can't get there fast enough. Need to certify this before the State and or the Feds get involved with more delays. Simply put, after eight years of reviewing and commenting on these DEIRs this is one of the projects that exceeds its scope of most of the DEIRs that I have personally commented on with my opinions. Enough said, lets move on. Please use my email in full support of the project at the next hearing and my input for this project. I may also add some additional comments in support if there is another hearing. But rest assure, you have my support. I have also cc'd the Board of Supervisors, the Planning Commission if this comes up again and Mr. Zushi referencing this Project. If you have any questions or concerns to my email, please feel free to chime back to me. Best, Dennis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Wednesday, September 4, 2019, 5:33:47 PM PDT, Kaitlin Roth [email removed]> wrote: Good Evening, Thank you for your support of the 3333 California proposed development. We request that you please consider further showing your support by signing the petition linked below and attending the Planning Commission hearing tomorrow as well. Show up and speak. The Planning Commission Hearing is on 9/5/2019 at 3 pm at San Francisco City Hall (1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 400). We would ideally like our supporters and public speakers to show up early (around 2:45 pm) to secure a seat in the main hall and turn in your public comment card. We are first on the agenda, and we expect public comment to start around 3:30 pm. Sample support talking points will be shared with you in advance. Please provide us with your best email and cell # (for timing update texts) to stay connected on the day of the hearing. If you are able to join, we would be grateful for your willingness to engage in the public process! Sign the support petition. This link is to our Petition Page to show public support. Please visit https://www.causes.com/campaigns/923904-build-the-proposed-3333- california-st-development and sign the petition. YOU CAN forward this link to invite your other friends and supporters to do the same. Thank you again for your support. We look forward to seeing you tomorrow! Regards, Kaitlin Kaitlin Roth Investor Relations and Project Coordinator Prado Group, Inc. 150 Post Street, Suite 320 San Francisco, CA 94108 [email removed] T: [phone removed] | C: [phone removed] www.PradoGroup.com This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply [email removed], and delete the message. Thank you very much.show more

2019-09-19 · 1 comments · 1 / 0

(name not recorded) · email · 2019-09-19 · support · source packet

Constituent Message
on Community and District Supervisor feedback, the development team changed the design multiple times and has now added 186 new, on-site affordable housing units, a quarter of all project housing, for low-income seniors. In the long term, 3333 California represents the types of solutions our city needs. In the short term, it is an opportunity for more families to stay and thrive in our incredible city. I urge you… show more

2022-07-14 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

Kelly Roberson · email · 2022-07-14 · oppose · source packet

Housing Element<U+2019>s Draft EIR - Comments from a Resident
Hello All, I hope that you are well. After reading about the prosed Housing Element<U+2019>s proposed changes, I started to feel rather unwell due to the subversion of the public comment process for the SF Housing Element. The proposed Housing Element's EIR process has not been an open or transparent and without public hearings whatsoever. The public has received no notifications on this subject. Ok, ma… Hello All, I hope that you are well. After reading about the prosed Housing Element<U+2019>s proposed changes, I started to feel rather unwell due to the subversion of the public comment process for the SF Housing Element. The proposed Housing Element's EIR process has not been an open or transparent and without public hearings whatsoever. The public has received no notifications on this subject. Ok, maybe the Planning Department, or its subcontractors, has met with a handful of selected focus groups, but has the department meet with the large residential neighborhood groups whose members are potentially hugely impacted by any changes to the zoning regulations? Planning Department's website buried this critical issue preventing an openness and transparency. In fact, it's quite the opposite-it's opaque and secretive, or worse selective. As the Washington Post states, "Democracy Dies in Darkness." Clearly a once-in-a-generation change to the heights, size, bulk, density as well as the character of neighborhoods cannot take place without significant neighborhood group input and public involvement <U+2013> because these areas and families will be the most greatly impacted. Turning to current events, COVID has clearly, and perhaps permanently, reduced the need for people to work or be downtown at all. SF Schools have experienced declining enrollment by around 3,500 students. Compass Realty<U+2019>s June report said that housing values are decreasing due to interest rate fears. Investing in real estate now is risky. SF Muni has fewer riders now <U+2013> only 54% of weekday pre-pandemic ridership. As a city, we are reducing for the foreseeable future. The contraction will not last forever <U+2013> of course. What specific language in the Housing Element<U+2019>s development goals recognize scale for BOTH contracting or expanding local economy? Getting hyper local, because I live near the 3333 California housing project, I<U+2019>ll ask what regulations are required of the developers to ensure that the excavated soils, possibly contaminated with 100 year old mortuary chemicals, are not gently wafting across the street to the JCC<U+2019>s preschoolers and neighborhood areas? Because nothing is as fun as mixing toxins and toddlers. Just when we thought we could occasionally pull down the N95 mask Last but not least, how does the Housing Element document the necessary water allocations for any additional residences? Logic would suggest that the water resources would be known in advance before building more units. According a Report to Supervisor Preston dated Jan 31, 2022 prepared by the Budget and Legislative Analyst<U+2019>s Office, there are around 40,000 vacant units in 2019. Well, that<U+2019>s a refreshing relief in drought years. Fewer residents to draw on the limited water supply. The Housing Element<U+2019>s <U+201C>Impact UT-1<U+201D> on page 108/109 of 616 pages (or Page S-82), starts to touch on this point (maybe?), but the result is <U+201C>No feasible mitigation available.<U+201D> Perhaps I<U+2019>m not reading this correctly, but it does not give one confidence. Page S-99 may reference this as well. Many people, especially me, would appreciate a series of charts listing 1 - Our water reservoirs<U+2019> volume variations (naturally this varies) over the last 30 years. 2 <U+2013> San Francisco<U+2019>s and the Peninsula<U+2019>s per capita consumption over the last 30 years. 3 <U+2013> Volume of water purchased for other regions/sources. 4 <U+2013> Possible volume gains from treated/decontaminated water. This basic numeric data would explain what development levels might be sustainable and add to the Housing Element report<U+2019>s credibility and transparency. It does not matter how diverse, respectful, and fun loving a city could be <U+2013> no water is still no water. Thanks for your time. Be safe! Be Well! Kelly Roberson 431 Walnut #2show more

2024-10-17 · 1 comments · 1 / 0

(name not recorded) · email · 2024-10-17 · support · source packet

3333 California St Item 12 on Thursdays calendar-please include in packet to commissioners from Presidio Heights Association of Neighbors
Dear Commission Staff, Please include my organization's letter of support for item 12. It is an attached pdf file. Sincerely, Bruce McKleroy, president of PHAN Bruce G. McKleroy 891 Beach Street San Francisco, CA 94109 DRE#: 01234408 Mobile: [phone removed] Broker and its agents have not and will not verify any of the information contained in those Documents that were prepared by other people; and Broker makes… show more

3333 CALIFORNIA ST

Hearings

Campaign emails (8)

Comments by hearing (133)