10,000 square feet, per planning code 121. 1. And merger of a lot greater than 5,000 square feet in the rto district 121. 7. These are the entitlements before you. The existing structure at 1965 market is historic. In 1924, it was built as a mortuary and funery chapel. A third floor was added in 1933. The building is eligible for the National Register with commercial development and north neighborhood for its distinctive Spanish ColonialMission Revival architecture and the savings and loan established. The project would retain the 1965 historic facade and retain the uses for interpretive display to be permanently installed in the retail space. The project sponsor has elected to utilize the state and city bonus as implemented by planning code 206. 6. In accordance with the departments policies, theres been a 96unit project. Because the sponsor is providing 14 Units Available to lowincome households, the project is eligible for one concession they seek the concession to allow development above the 50foot height in that area within the district to permit three additional residential floors. This project seeks the accommodation to allow the density and prevent the project from impacting the Historic Resource. If they cannot do this, it would preclude 36 units on the site and reduce the units that could be constructed from 96 to 60. And also reduce the number of inclusionary units to about 8. 7, you using the 14. 5 requirement. The user has asked about height as the concession and thats attached. On november 16, the Planning Department issued a Community Plan and exemption and it was found to be consistent with the e. I. R. The department has received five letters of support and three letters opposing the project. Those have been passed forward and are included in the packets. Letters of support from district 6 Community Planners, merchant of upper market, San FranciscoHousing Coalition and upper Market Community benefit district. Those in favor are supportive due to the housing proposed, especially considering its proximity to jobs and transit. Those in opposition to the project state that the construction will cause environmental harm. Staff did receive a phone call today from some of the clinton park neighborhood and they had concerns in regard to the massing at the back of the project. And they were concerned about outreach from the project team. The Department Recommends approval with conditions for the following reasons the project complies with the applicable requirements of the planning code and is consistent with the general plan and octavia plan, especially for highdensity housing in the neighborhood. The project is an appropriate project that replaces a surface parking lot and adds 96 dwelling unit including Affordable Housing units. The project is consistent with the california state density bonus law. The project will not result in the loss of the ability of the Historic Property to convey historic appearance and design consistent with the Historic Preservation commission and preservation staff. Comments and respect the appropriate character with appropriate massing and scale. Im available for questions. I have carly from our housing Implementation Team to address any density questions you may have. President hillis thank you. Project sponsor . Welcome. Thank you, president hillis. I want to introduce the team. And heres who we are. Im prowler inc. We have jeff keller and eric grover, who are the law firm that own and occupy the building and the developers, david baker, represented by will bloomer. We also have had on our team charles chase from Architectural Resources group. Its unusual in that its local. Most of the team members live or work within easy walking distance of the project. I live a few blocks away and will does, our land use lawyer does. And jeff and eric work in the building every day. Its across from the giaenant giant safeway on duboce. Its the gateway to upper market. We understand that its a very important site. And we take the responsibility of developing this site very seriously. The area is characterized by a mix of uses and scales. You see onestory buildings, ourstory buildings, eightstory buildings. Theres the whole foods, the mint on the bottom. On the left, eightstory buildings and even in the upper righthand side, theres a 1920s building thats eight stories. Its a mix of scales. And the site is zoned for 85 feet. Its a 1924 category a historic building, formerly a funeral home. Its interesting in that it started as a funeral room and then it was turned to office and retail and now turned into housing and retail. Its a Third Generation of adaptive reuse of this building. Jeff and eric bought the building to house their law offices. They invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in upgrades to the building. We never thought about proposing to demolish the building. We like the building very much. And we brought on charles chase to help advise us and worked closely with the hpc staff and your staff to try to come up with a design that best preserves and respects the existing building, and i think weve succeeded at that. So we identified significant historic aspects of the building and were preserving those. Heres what it looks like today. The site is the existing building in the middle and that parking lot next door on the left. It doesnt include the pet food store on the right. We wanted to not just preserve the existing building, but respect it. Can i have the next slide . Oh, heres the program. Its 96 new homes. 14 are 2bedrooms. All of them on site. Its our intent that it would be an ownership project. Retail space, currently fed ex, we hope to bring back, but retail space will remain the same size as it is now. Half a parking space per unit. And you cannot beat this location for transit access. Next slide, please. At the recommendation of we are set back 35 feet. At the edge, 35 feet of building and 35 feet of footprint. So we set way back and the other move that we did to maintain a feasible project, again, at johns suggestion, was reusing the state density bonus to move some of the mess to the parking lot site. So two big moves, lowering it and moving some of the mass on to the next floor. We designed it to read as three separate buildings. Weve been out talking to people for a long time. Heres some of the things that we heard from your staff, from hpc and the neighbors and the Neighborhood Groups. People really felt strongly and we agreed that it should be a background building. Theres a lot going on on that ground floor and we didnt want to compete with it. So we wanted something reserved, above it. Were using traditional residential materials on all the surfaces, stucco, thin brick, and so we tried to not compete or distract from the existing building. We also heard that people wanted active ground floor. This is important to us as well. You can see along duboce, those will be stoops. I will show you what those residential entries look like in a moment. On the right, you can see the existing retail entrance. Next slide, please. And this is the character along duboce. The other thing is, people didnt want blank walls. This is what it will look like across Market Street from safeway. We tried to make it an attractive facade on that side. We heard a lot from your staff, from the neighbors. We had 18 Community Meetings and we think that that input has really improved the proposal and were very thankful for that input. This is the preapplication meeting. We invited all the neighbors within 300 feet to come and see the proposal. It was very wellattended. Heres a list of neighborhood meetings. Doesnt mention Eureka ValleyNeighborhood Association that they voted last night to endorse the project. Every Neighborhood Group to whom we presented the project when their boards of directors had a chance to consider it, endorsed it unanimously. So Eureka Valley, the ccbd, the merchants, and the Housing Coalition. Were very proud of the project, grateful for the input weve got. Were very proud of the support that weve received from your staff and from the neighbors and wed like your support as well. Im available to answer questions. Will is available. The owners. At your service. President hillis thank you. Lets first open this up to Public Comment. And then we may have questions for you. I have one speaker card, robert luddin. If others would like to speak, please come forward after mr. Luddin. I have some handouts that will explain what im about to talk about. If i have enough. Thank you. Hello. Im here to urge the commission not to approve the application as currently designed. Its not intended to stop the project but to tweak the project in a way that respect the guerrero street fire line Historic District. In the packet in front of you, you will see Additional Information which was in my opinion missing from the application in the sense that no information to the east of the project down duboce was represented with the project. So we have the scale issue of an 85foot building next to the Historic District with a 40foot height limitation. So that increased height is a significant issue. So the two issues is that it will impact the guerrero street Historic District and the project does not meet the intent of the stepdown zoning from Market Street to transition from the height of Market Street down to the neighborhoods to the east. The proposed added three floors, i respect that they will bring on housing and its a great idea. I think theres a mass in configuration that would be more gracious to the neighborhood to the east that should be considered as they move forward with the project. The shifting of the story from market to duboce, indicates that the duboce street elevation is like the Market Street elevation. Its not. Duboce is not market. Duboce is residential. The second half of the street to the east is very low. And the projects height right there, creates a sheer wall against that, is detrimental to the neighborhood. In the packet on page 89, there as plan that shows the views of the project, which are contained in the packet presented by the applicant. What is interesting about that is those views are all none of them show east down duboce and i think thats significant, that i included in the diagram to show you how it might be impacted. So in summary, the i heard a beep. Have to think of my summary here. I would urge the commission to avoid the potential for creating a precedent by approving the taller building in such a sheer wall against the neighborhood. And that the applicant should be asked to modify the design to step down to the neighborhood with the same elegant respect they showed the existing historic structure theyve shown to 1965 Market Street. Thank you. President hillis thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, members of the commission. Im an engineer from one design and my client im representing my client who owns 1975 Market Street, the adjacent property, the pet store next door. There are two main concerns that my client has. The first concern is the setback. The 35foot setback, and how that figure was arrived at. Given that my client owns the corner property, its a grate way property and were concerned that development here could be detrimental to the future development my client has and having to match adjacent s setbacks in adjacent buildings. And any view lines could be interrupted by the potential building at 1975, that the potential impact on the view lines could not be detrimental to the development of 1975 market given its stature at the corner as a gateway to market and delores. Other issues we have as well, theres very little detail about the basement shown on the draft documents and we understand its still very early in the process, and still a lot of work that needs to be done, but theres talks about the basement excavating adjacent to my clients property. There will be excavation into the water table, so were concerned about dewatering the site. And were concerned that any dewatering could have a negative impact on my clients property. Were also concerned as well about the serpentine bedrock, naturally occurring asbestos that will be released into the air as part of the excavation. So we wanted to voice our concerns and make sure that the project sponsors is fully forthcoming in working with my client in presenting the plans. It seems theres a lot of inconsistencies. The elevations shows a well facing the west and the plans dont show that and the specific regard to the setback for the above the second floor. Thats the issues that we have at the moment and open to continuing dialogue with the project sponsor. President hillis thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, corey smith, San FranciscoHousing Coalition, here in support today. Its a significant corner. Its a couple of blocks from our offices and i use that fed ex all the time. Im familiar with it and really an upgrade in terms of use of land. Were taking a parking lot and office and building housing on it. Benefits of good architects, we were impressed at the way to work in historical aspects into a new, modern project and even spoken earlier, were at the Third Generation of adaptive reuse, which is fascinating to watch. A couple of things that have changed. Were aware that there is more bike parking now than was previously proposed and the opportunity along Market Street where we can have more bike parking and less car parking. And hoa fees, which weve talked about. Its a big deal. Its a challenge. We were very frustrated by the legislation from last years june prop c that put the fees outside of the feasible range. It sounds like it will be coming back. And anything that we can do to be pushing on the state level in order to figure out a way so we can actually have condo projects have bmrs on site without hampering those residents is critical and wed love to work on that. Were in support. Please move it forward. President hillis thank you, mr. Smith. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, commissioners. First of all, i would like to adopt what the first speaker said. Duboce street is basically residential. Going down to guerrero, its residential. An 8story building on the corner, does not keep up with what the neighborhood has in terms of residence. That brings me to the point that both commissioners moore and richards, mentioned, you are not in favor of parking places. And i understand that the city has a lot of density problems, traffic problems, but i think its unrealistic to think that they will take away a major parking lot, three of them, that contain a total of, i think its, 9,000 square feet, and all theyre going to do is put on top of that residences, 96 units, and add no more add additional Parking Spaces and put in bicycle things. And i understand that people are using bicycles. And i understand its a transitrich area, to use your statement, but nonetheless, my being there by experience shows that parking is becoming extremely limited for the people who are residents in that area. And if you added additional units, you will not have Parking Spaces sufficient to service everybody. What do you do if somebody in the unit decides to get a residential parking permit. What reasonable limitations exist to prevent people who obtain those units from having multiple cars . I find the theory is great, but im not sure that the practice is 100 . And so i really i really think there has to be a little bit of review of the parking situation as well as the height limitation that is being proposed for this neighborhood. Thank you very much. President hillis thank you. Any additional Public Comment on this item . Seeing none, well close Public Comment and open it up to commissioner comments and questions. Commissioner melgar . Commissioner melger first of all, i want to comment the project sponsor. I understand it was the directors idea for a very creative use of the state density bonus law and im pleased that we are getting the 14. 5 inclusionary units. Thats a great goal. My question is about the demolition of the existing portion of the building. Is that occupied right now . Are there tenants residentially in that portion of the building . Is it all offices . Theres a fed exkinkos. Above our offices, primarily the offices of the project sponsor. Commissioner melger on the back, theres three stories . All office soffices . Yes. Commissioner melger so theres a threestory portion that will be demolished. Is it okay if i ask the architect . Let me quickly bring us to the plan as well. If i can get that up. And you can see so weve designated the existing walls in red. As you mentioned, the pieces in back, there would be a small portion the one bedroom that you were mentioning sorry. You have to talk into the mike so we can record it. There is an existing portion of that building that would i would need to get the other plan, but theres a small portion of that threestory piece that would be retained. Commissioner melger okay. Thank you. President hillis commissioner moore . Commissioner moore i have a question. Could you speak about the challenge, tapering the building down to guerrero . Its a discussion that we also had with the whole foods building and im wondering what your thoughts are on that. Im not sure i can answer that. Were happy to have 85 feet there. The height above the existing building is 85 feet. So were happy to have it within the same building. Certainly, its the top of the hill and the height is appropriate under the urban Design Guidelines to have height at the top of the hill. It will read as three buildings, it will be connected internally and its all the same building. Commissioner moore the question im asking, the duboce street elevation to the east does not really have a transition to lower buildings adjoining. Have you thought about that . Is that nothing we have to consider . Staff can answer it. Perhaps the architect can speak to that. We heard somebody speak about it today and thats why im raising the question. I wonder if i might ask commissioner moore absolutely. David baker, the architect. I think that were surprised how good it looks and i think there is variation in San Francisco. So i think in every building, you dont have to hack away at it to match the building next door. That is my direct answer. And i think it would be really difficult for us to justify we would not be getting our density bonus if we start to carve away, because we had to set back so much over the Historic Resource and it was a lengthy its not only reduced in height, but set back up to 35 feet and it was just that site became not valueless, but incredibly compromised. It was a tradeoff. Commissioner moore i think the general big moves of the site are fantastic, transferring height on the duboce street side. Im raising the question in response to the one person that spoke about the transition from 85 feet to a low building without any notching its interesting to me. Its a truism that you are supposed to do that. And i think i would typify it as a snagletooth. There was the old zoning that you built up. If you look downtown, there are enormous buildings next to twostory buildings. We dont really notice that. I think its shocking to people when they think about it, but it exists and its the character of San Francisco to have the variations. In the mission, for instance, there are 10story buildings on mission street. If you ask people to name the buildings, many people wouldnt know which they were because theyre there. Excuse me. Sfgov, can you go to the computer, please . Maybe since my name was evoked earlier, i will weigh in. I think were de see this as a corner building and as a gateway. And duboce is a residential street, but also a broad and busy and very busy street from a traffic standpoint. So as a corner building, it made more sense to have that mass there and i think the tradeoff to a certain extent was being more respectful to the historic building, which is why we suggested the massing being moved. While we would have in other situations like the delores building, where whole foods is, we did that stepping down. In this case, i think the thinking was that this was a largely that building is a full block long. This building is much smaller and has a corner presence, which is why were comfortable with the height at this location. Commissioner moore its interesting to hear your thoughts. I follow that. I just wanted to have the question be answered by you and i kind of see what you are saying. Thank you. I, too, appreciate your comments. This is a different context than what weve seen on some of the Market Street projects, where you are stepping down to 15th street or 14th street, where the where its unlike duboce, where its busy and wide. To me, it reads like the 1920s, 8story buildings that we see throughout neighborhoods, midblock and elsewhere. Its appropriate to have height there. It doesnt i dont think its jarring. Theres a bit of a tradeoff from having it on market and along the historic building, which adds to Market Street and pushing on to duboce, which can take it and handing that height. I appreciate this project and the design changes that have happened. I like that it reads as three buildings, instead of across the street where we have the building that doesnt quite do it for a residential building. So im extremely supportive. Commissioner koppel . Commissioner koppel i was just about to make a motion to approve. Do you need anything . Commissioner moore no. I wanted to acknowledge the thoughtful discussion about picking up the question and discussing it is important rather than just glossing over it. The person that asked the question and that we discussed it it. President hillis and taking into account the revised motion we had today in front of us. Second. If there is nothing further, a motion seconded tie prove this matter with conditions as amended and submitted by staff. [roll call] so moved. Motion passes unanimously. President hillis and commissioner johnson is here. Commissioner johnson aye. Motion passes unanimously 60. That will place us at discretionary review cal ander. 590 leland avenue. You continued this matter to march 2, 2017, but a vote of 42. Commissioners johnson and koppel against. Commissioner fong, you were absent. You continued this matter indefinitely then by a vote of 60. On november 2, without hearing, continued this matter to january 18, 2018, by a vote of 51. Commissioner fong, in order for you to participate today you need to acknowledge that you reviewed the previous hearing and materials. Commissioner fong yes, thank you for the reminder. Im prepared. Given the time thats occurred since the original hearing, regular time . President hillis yes. Good afternoon. The item before you is a request for discretionary review for the proposed project at 590 leland avenue, abutting John Mclaren Park. It proposes to demolish a Church Building and construct five new threestory, singlefamily homes. One request for discretionary review was filed. Concerns are neighborhood compatibility, park improvements, the church, natural habitats, accessibility, and site aquisition. Following the request for d. R. , the Design Advisory Team reviewed the project. The proposal does not include or create exceptional or extraordinary circumstances with regard to the buildings design. As the commission has explained, the project has a history of continuances and most notably, when the project was heard and continued on january 12, it was continued contingent on the Planning Commission providing a memorandum in response to a letter that was submitted by dr. Michael vassey, ph. D. , San FranciscoState University department of biology, explaining and indicating the potential presence of the San Francisco spine flower. The project the Environmental Review concluded that no rare plants were observed by biologists during the rare plant surveys at the project site. Therefore, the environmental Planning Commission concluded there would be no environmental effects and that the project is exempt from Environmental Review pursuant to 15332 of the ceqa guidelines. 2014. 0936drp. In evaluating the proposal, the five threestory, singlefamily homes are in compliance with the general plan. This concludes staffs presentation. Im happy to answer any questions. President hillis d. R. Request here from the planning alliance. Welcome ms. Martin. Hi. President hillis you can put it down on the overhead and it will come up. Its upside down. Im fran martin, planning alliance. The general plan clearly states that view corridors from Public Open Space must be kept for the common good. The following quote illustrates the intention to protect views. Overlooks and other viewpoints for appreciation of the city and environs should be kept and establishing viewpoints at key locations. The developers own illustration of the leland avenue buildings show how they will obstruct views of the bay from the park. Setbacks only alleviate the massing from the street. It does not change the views. Department staff states, the Department Finds that the project is not located in a view corridor protected by the general plan. Why are we not protected . Staff sites quality of street views map that rates street views as excellent, good or average. Excellent or good is north and west. There is a derth of excellence in the southeast. If this is the case, it makes sense to encourage views whenever possible in a neighborhood lacking them. If those in the north have beautiful views, why cant we . The Planning Department has determined that the nearest important view is nearly one mile away and leland is not identified as an area of importance for the general plan. The result is that it makes it easier for developers to build wherever they want in the southeast without consideration of view corridors that impact adjacent open space. You have no views, therefore you are not allowed to have any. Its another instance of aesthetic injustice. The reason mclaren park identified preservation of views as a primary goal, the proposed 590 leland has destroyed views of the bay and the mountain. It has low income families, seniors and children. There are those in the department as well as Landscape Architects that support preserving the intelling hit integrity of the open space. Whenever there was a problem, red park was called to fix it. The public traversed it routinely. Our concerns focused on the continuity of the entire strip of land from the middle school to hahn avenue. The facilities played by mercy housing are separate situations that will take many years to complete. Eventually, they will be linked to the pathway and open space were trying to enhance and preserve. The staff analysis does fought take into account future landscaping improvements that will not be composed of native plants. If 590 is allowed to be developed, the entire block will be insignificant shadows a good portion of the day, regardless of the building heights. The native plants there will be at risk. There is no evidence that locally west of the leland sight, no contiguous or s substantial habitat. On the contrary. The day after i saw the report, i went out there and there was a little plant, little proton. On the contrary, theres a significant grouping at the northwestern edge of the site, in peril of being destroyed by lack of sunlight, created by the shadows. They need a sun lit environment to survive. Another specimen is gone now, covered by dirt. What remains is ecological ly remains. The city strives to build housing at the expense of open space and biographic all areas losing our habitat and diversity. President hillis well open it up for Public Comment for those supporting the d. R. And opposed to the project. I have a couple of speaker cards, chris barnett, tim grouden, linda lekeizer, charlotte hill, and herman ye. You can speak in any order. Welcome. Good afternoon, mr. President and the commissioners. Im chris barnett. Bear with me while i get my notes open here. President hillis if you want to line up on this side, it makes it easier for people that want to get in and out of the room. Im commenting about the proposed development at 590 leland from the perspective of someone who has been a 30year resident in San Francisco. I sat on the Redevelopment Committee for a number of years and participated in a lot of Community Meetings, so im sensitive to the development and the changes in the immediate neighborhood. As a longterm resident of the city, sensitive to the wider changes and impact or need for housing or open space. Im going to digress a little bit because my company, sterling arts services, fine art framers, were a 37yearold Company Based in San Francisco and were in the middle of relocation to west oakland. And widely recognized as one of the best firms in our field, because of the real estate pressures, were in the process of making the move. Were grateful for the opportunities that are coming with this. And i do see it as opportunity, but my perspective, ive noted that in a Small Company were a bellwether of larger economic realities. And were leaving San Francisco because Companies Like ours are untenable here. And i dont want to decry the changes that have come with the tech boom and theres been upside for the city and all of us. But there are a lot of inequalities and changes that are not so positive. So cycling back to the local 590 leland, its a beautiful location. And when you visit the site, as you saw from fran martins pictures, its beauty is obvious. Considering the longrunning issue of limited accesaccess, t vision us longterm residents have longed for from our government and the sweeping changes that have pushed so many residents out of San Francisco can be encapsulated in the loss of a resource of open space before us today. I strongly urge you to learn from our past, consider where we are and this space, in the short term, the financial benefits of building houses, are probably higher in the short term, but medium to long term, mercy housing, other projects that will infill in the neighborhood, this piece of land connects the neighborhood beautifully in ways that much of the perimeter does not. I encourage you to reconsider this project to proceed. Thank you. President hillis thank you. Next speaker, please . Good afternoon, commissioners. Im going to talk about the connectivity from the area to mclaren park. 590 site plans at the northwestern edge will not give adequate clearance for pathway proposed to be built parallel to each other from the middle school south. Students will use them daily. The developers indicate a narrow space at the edge of the site and no sidewalk. Thats where the red arrow or red circle is. As identified in the recent mclaren park visioning plan. The main public passageway providing park connectivity passes through the 93 narrow area. It will be at raymond and visitation avenues. If the 590 leland Development Goes forward, due to soil instability where the raymond avenue turnaround meets the higher visitation avenue, the area my be shored up and dpw needs to alter a portion of the turnaround to safely accommodate the sidewalk and pathway. It appears to have been no discussion between planning, dpw, the developer and rec and park about this situation. What will be the effect on overall design, number of availing Parking Spaces, and most importantly, safety. The proposed development will be will jet into existing open space, forming a visual barrier compromising open space and visitation avenues. Only eastern parkways for children walking to and from their homes. Were considered about safety issues where open space will be narrowed and a blindspot created on public park land. Thank you. President hillis thank you. Next speaker, please . Good afternoon, commissioners. Im herman yi, urban spouts, nonprofit that works in the sunny dale housing project. And i would like to echo the concerns about the pathway. I work with an Afterschool Program at the boys and girls club, were partners. And many of the youth go behind the garden at 1654 sunnydale and go up the playground and up visitation. Its the main way that cars get up and down the eastern part of mclaren park. So theres definitely i would like to encourage the commissioners to consider the safety issue there with children walking up and down and ensure that there is enough space for the for all walkers to walk up and down that part of the park. And just to also say that the children that i work with very much value the open space and they are actively tending open space in the sunnydale project as well as the gardens, just bordering it. So i would just like to also mention that as well and would like to thank you for your consideration. President hillis thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello, commissioners. Im linda lighthighser and ive been a parked a vehicle park advocate and volunteer for 15 years. This will impact the Community Garden in particular. This garden is part of a 12 million bond appropriation thats been granted to mclaren park. For the first time in decades, mclaren park is finally get being some infrastructure and capital improvements. We worked very, very hard on designs. The picture doesnt show you where the building is. Its the pictures at the top of the building, the top of the beds, will be located. It will create a wall there that will cast shadow and seriously impact the ability for people arriving at that side of the park to get into the park. One of the things in the bond planning and envisioning, working on entrances and access points. Mclaren park is our Regional Park for the southeast section of San Francisco. Its vital that people in all the comments surrounding the park have good access into the park and to take advantage of it. Blind spots, dark areas, shadows, are the detriment to Community Gardens and the antithesis of what we were hoping that this area will become. We spent a lot of time working on this. Had we known that this property was privately held, that this land was not part of the park because for decades and decades, the city of assumed it was, even rec and park assumed it was. They maintained it. So the shock we had when this property was sold is now further along in the Development Process and we find that really disheartening. Were seeing our open space in spite of the fact that were being asked to appreciate and unite around more density losing any amount of open space creates a bad sign for the future of our city when open space is so needed. Thank you. President hillis thank you. Next speaker, please . Hello, commissioners. Im adrienne bolsega. Ive been a part of this valley for 25 years and i was shocked when i got there. I didnt know what it was like to experience children that didnt really have food, single parents, and not a Healthy Living situation. Or come to a school that was not very healthy. So i got involved and started working with the neighborhood and started doing a part of the greenway. In my time at visitation valley, ive learned a lot about land and children and i want to explain to you what its like, the southern part of the John Mclaren Park. Think of the park as a big circle and so if we start south of the east, we have a school, with a fence around it. We have condos and a house. We have the bottom of the hill. We have another school with a fence around it. We have a senior center, with a fence around it. Then we have the area that were talking about. Its the last segment thats open. Its right along visitation avenue. You cross the ave, and you have a golf course with a huge fence around it. So much of the land south of John Mclaren Park is fenced. We have one segment left for an entry into John Mclaren Park and its the area were talking about. If you were to enter John Mclaren Park from visitation ave, this is what it would be like. You would enter. The kauffman Swimming Pool on the left. A childrens garden. On the right, open space. The garden that you see here. On top of this, north of this, pg e is putting a rain water storm garden. And then we have the church that will be demolished. So it really would look lake three houses inside of a park. Its visually, no one knew that that land wasnt part of the park, because the church, its a visual, upstanding building. So i just want to say for the health of the neighborhood, its very important that we think about the future and how were going to deal with the children of the neighborhood. And i want it say one more thing. This avenue for the children goes to visitation valley middle school. The principal got a principal award for the year because he introduced meditation to that school. Everyone meditates at that middle school. Thank you it. President hillis thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi. Good afternoon. Im charlotte hill. And i worked for 15 years. I would see how the students use the path and i noticed after there was a project with rec park to improve the path, not only were the students using it, but there were a lot more adults going into mclaren, using that path. So anything that could impact the safety of the path as a potential for people not entering the park would really be a shame. So im also hear today to talk to sorry, in place of people that are not here. We have three surgeries, two at work, and two flus, people that were going to speak against this project. And they represented people from california native plant society, the mclaren Park Community project, which you saw the drawing for, neighbors, and members of the mclaren park come on collaborative. President hillis thank you. Any additional Public Comment . Project sponsor, you have 5 minutes. Let me open my power point presentation. Before you is the images of leland on the left and raymond on the right. This is approximately 13,000 square feet. What we did for the staff is they asked us to draw a map, which is in your packet, which shows the urban Development Pattern of this area, especially along raymond street, along here and on the on leland avenue. This shows you the boundaries of the site, which i think in our Previous Commission hearing, there was confusion, and we wanted to clarify that. The existing path that is used is always it always will be intact here and i will show you in our building structure drawing here, again, this is the north block face of rave monday and thats the south block face of raymond. And theres the south block face on your right of leland and then north block. Here in this diagram, it shows that the existing path. This is visitation. This is raymond. Heres the paths along there now. Our site, this is approximately 36 feet from this corner to visitation. In this area, 106 from this Property Line to visitation here. These trees are here. They will be staying in place. The five homes this is the development that the lady referred to along the Community Gardens, on the end of leland culdesac. Heres a development of five homes, one, two, three, four, five. Two on leland and three on the raymond side. What we also showed here, too, i think there was confusion about the landscaping. We have some areas where the lots are wider. Weve plan to put landscaping to screen the buildings. You can see were keeping the midblock open space here. Typical floor plans for the houses, 4 bedrooms on raymond. On leland, 3 and 4 bedrooms. I will go through them quickly. Raymond street profile of the new buildings. Theres existing buildings here. What you see, too, in our landscape elevation, this is the condition of the raymond culdesac. Our clients are taking on their own response to clear some of the trash thats being dumped out here. The Church Building is there. Theres a 40foot height difference between the cushion the corner from the