Public Comment on Scope of UC's EIR

Comment on Case No. 2004.0773E, Laguna Hill Residential Project
Scope of Environmental Impact Report

By Rob Anderson
1516 McAllister St.
SF CA 94115

Mr. Maltzer:

1. The most crucial question about the former UC Extension site is about the zoning. What UC is proposing will take that property out of the Public Use classification for a for-profit housing development on which they would stand to make millions of dollars. UC’s public statements to justify the project claim that the huge institution can no longer afford to maintain the site are not credible. According to Jeff Bond, planner for UC, who announced the information at the May 23 HVNA meeting, UC is now paying $2,106,000 a year to lease space at 425 Market St. and 95 Third St. to house the extension operation that used to be at the Haight/Laguna location. Hence, UC’s plea of poverty is simply not credible, since that money could be spent to bring the old site up to a useable standard.

What the EIR should include is a plausible justification for taking this valuable parcel out of Public Use zoning. If, as I suspect, there is no credible justification, except for UC’s desire to cash in on a property they have had tax-free since 1958, all other issues are rendered moot: no zoning change, no housing project.

2. Since there is evidence that UC has deliberately allowed the property to fall into disrepair (see an interview I did with a former UC employee), the EIR should include an opinion from the City Attorney on a legal strategy to reclaim that parcel for the City of San Francisco.

3. The EIR needs to include an extensive traffic and parking study, since Octavia Blvd., the new freeway ramp on Market St., the many housing units already planned for the old freeway parcels, and the increased density advocated in the Market/Octavia Plan make any large new development in that area problematic.