Committee sends Laurel Heights redevelopment, tree removals and parking proposals to full Board after contentious public testimony

A package of three measures that would enable a large redevelopment of the former UCSF Laurel Heights campus at 3333 California Street was forwarded to the full Board on Oct. 21 after a day of presentations and extensive public comment.

Supervisor Catherine Stephanie, who introduced the measures, said the development agreement would deliver 744 dwelling units, including about 186 on‑site, low‑income senior units, and new publicly accessible open space. “The development agreement before you today is for 744 units of housing with 186 units dedicated to much needed affordable housing for low income seniors,” Stephanie said during her opening remarks.

City planning and economic development staff described the project as a largely residential adaptive reuse with roughly 35,000 square feet of ground‑floor retail, a 15‑year vested entitlement to guarantee delivery of the senior building and wide public‑realm improvements. Nick Foster, planning staff, said the Planning Commission certified the final EIR and recommended approval with modifications.

Dan Saphir, the project sponsor’s representative, told the committee the sponsor had held more than 160 meetings with the community and trimmed retail and refined the design. “To summarize, this is an opportunity to transform a walled off suburban office campus into a walkable, connected, and sustainable mixed‑use community with 744 new homes, on‑site affordable housing, public open space, ground floor shops, and on‑site childcare,” he said.

The project touched off intense public comment. Opponents, including neighborhood residents and tree‑protection advocates, pressed the committee to preserve historic green space and to pursue community alternatives that keep more trees and accelerate construction. Mary Jacoby, who said she owns property across from the site, told the panel she and others “strongly oppose the developer’s project as designed” and urged the Board to consider community alternatives that would protect historic green space and shorten the entitlement timeline.

Supporters including labor unions, the Jewish Community Center and housing groups argued the development will deliver badly needed housing and jobs. Leonard Basoco, field representative for Carpenters Local 22, said the project will create hundreds of union construction jobs and asked supervisors to support it.

A central area of committee scrutiny was tree removal and replacement. Public Works and the project team said tree removals on both public right‑of‑way and private property are part of the major encroachment permit and that the developer proposes replacement and mitigation. City counsel explained the replacement standards under the Public Works Code: replacement stock must be a minimum 24‑inch box with a minimum 1.25‑inch caliper, and when exact replacement is impossible, replacement value is determined under an industry valuation formula. “Certain trees because of their size, species, or historical significance cannot be replaced from available nursery stock,” Deputy City Attorney John Malamet explained, reading the code requirements for valuation and sizing.

Committee members also concentrated on parking supply. OEWD staff proposed reducing parking in the senior building from 1 space per unit to 0.5 to cut excavation and construction impacts; Mercy Housing confirmed it could design the senior building to operate with 0.5 spaces per unit. Committee Chair Aaron Peskin and others indicated they wanted to reduce overall parking to support transit and reduce construction impacts.

Supervisor Stephanie offered a set of amendments intended to tighten ground‑floor retail controls and limit hours of operation (proposed 6 a.m.–midnight), require community benefits such as local hiring and validated parking for the nearby Laurel Village merchants, and to place additional conditions in the Board file. The committee accepted those amendments and, after discussion, agreed to forward items 3, 4 and 5 to the full Board without recommendation so the full Board can consider outstanding appeals and the detailed mitigation commitments.

Next steps: the measures will appear on the Board of Supervisors agenda for a final vote; the full Board will consider the project’s environmental review, the development agreement and the encroachment/tree removal permits and may modify or condition approvals further.