And these are the drawings showing you the context of the buildings. Again, our landscape, as you can see, this end lot is much wider. This is approximately 35 feet and landscaping it, putting in a new fence, which is a willow, wood fence horizontally laid in there. This is a condition, like you see from visitation. This large tree in the center is on park property and that will remain. Heres the church building. Again, i think one of the concerns from the last Planning Commission meeting was a view from the park. This is a new landscape were proposing. Heres the fence, the willow wood fence mounted horizontally that we designed with our landscape architect. Heres leland avenue street. And heres raymond avenue street. Other views we generated this is a quick plan of the house on a triangular lot on leland. This is the culdesac as it is now. The area has been excavated, 598, 596. Again, just the floorplan showing the relationship to the Property Line to the house with landscaping on the side of the house. Again, the rendering. This is what it looks like from the street. We modlate where the buildings are going. The church sits on a 10foothigh terrace. And thats why its you have the steps here and the landscaping. Again, our landscaping, again, on the street, as you can see, and im available to answer any questions that you might have. President hillis all right. Thank you. We may. First, well take Public Comment in support of the project and opposed to the d. R. Mr. Smith . Good afternoon, again, corey smith. Obviously a little bit away from what were typically going for or advocating for on an active basis. Its not park land. And its sipping singlefamily homes. And specifically, the word is, families. It will be an opportunity for families live in san francisco. We want access to the park to be maintained and continue to be used by the community. Were speaking against the d. R. And want the project to move forward. Thank you. President hillis thank you. Any additional Public Comment . Seeing none, ms. Martin, 2minute rebuttal. Sorry. I have to get assembled. Several years ago, the Planning Department held the eastern neighborhoods master planning process. Originally vis valley was included, but dropped without notice or reason. We have suffered from piecemeal rulings that have been a problem. In the past, theres been a denial of master plan and allowed our neighborhood to be used for what the rest of the city doesnt want in affluent neighborhood. Our main concern is that the land not be built upon, particularly on the raymond side. If the land were to be sold, there is possible financing with the vis Valley Developers fee, which our organization initiated. Malia cohen supports our efforts to save open space at the 590 leland site. Theres been a slow reduction of the park. In the recent past, housing was build on private property adjacent to mclaren park, creating a fortress around the park. The easy access and visibility has been denied to our community. The city needs to adhere to the general plans. Shadowing, public accessibility, and integrity has to be taken seriously the focus is on housing and muchneeded amenities. Planning should look at the entire vis valley neighborhood and think about creating a Healthy Community in a highneeds neighborhood expecting 5,000 to 10,000 new units of housing in the near future, which, by the way, we promoted from the beginning. This project adds no value. It just diminishes our neighborhood. Allowing it to go forward is shameful treatment of a community that has supported highdensity housing that other neighborhoods reject. President hillis thank you, ms. Martin. Project sponsor . 2minute rebuttal. Commissioners, just pack from my diagram here. As we pointed out, the pathway that many of the public has referred to is still intact right here. This is the pathway. Some of the work has gone in here, but this is the pathway. Sorry. This is the pathway that many of us refer to. There are already tall trees that you saw here thats on the public property that casts shadow. We had discussions with malia cohens office and their aide. And in all of our discussions, we were not aware of any positions taken by the office, but we kept them apprised of public concern. The housing, which is noted here, is when the lot the lots were never divided. The lots were actually combined for billing purposes to one lot and then resplit through a compliance letter so that the intention of urban development for this site is the continuation of singlefamily housing. Its the type of structuresable uses that is predominant in this neighborhood and we feel its compatible and it adds to the neighborhood by adding more housing. In this development, theres an opportunity for this site to be a buffer between the more established housing and the other housing and the park because of the landscaping and buffering that we propose on the site. We would like the opportunity to develop this property. We feel its a good value project for an infill project, particularly for a site where the structure is unutilized and vacant right now. Weve had numerous breakins on the church and Police Reports where weve been asked to get vandals and vagrants out of the property. So its been a problem for us to manage it and would like to develop it into singlefamily homes. President hillis that closes this portion of the hearing. Well open it up for commissioner comments and questions. Commissioner melger ill start. So its been a year since we saw this presentation. And im wondering if i could ask the d. R. Requester if there has been any progress made. I remember a year ago, you had talked about the conversations you had had with the parks folks about can you come up . Thank you. This is, as you know, private property and were limited as to what we can do, but youve had a year to have discussions. Did you make any progress . In terms of rec and park, i have to be careful what i say. We have had discussions, but its im not allowed to reveal. I know it sounds strange, but i cant say. Yes, weve had talks. And theyve been theres been some support in rec and park and i think if you recall there was a vote to support aquisition of the site and one of the Things Holding it up is financing. And we could get the financing quite possibly through developers fees. When we talked to supervisor cohen, i dont know how much it would cost. My concern is that it not be built on. We had to stop home depot. We had to get Community Planning going there. Once you build, its all over. We will never be able to do anything at that space. Its not an enormous amount of money. Ive been on Transportation Authority cac and different groups and 1 million or 2 million. Its a lot of money to me but in terms of the city, its not that much. In terms of the value that will be added by this land to that open space is im measurable. And i dont have an answer. I know that the community does not want it. We have different groups. We work with kids. There as school right there. Theres senior housing. I dont think that as jim mentioned, the land, where it comes in, it narrows down. Theres that theres two paths that are a sidewalk and a pathway, that are proposed to rec and park and dpw and, you know, the powers at be. Commissioner melger okay. Thank you. My question was only about if you made any progress during this year. I have a question for the project sponsor, if thats okay. So when we heard this the last time, there was a lot of concerns from the neighborhood that were raised about the path going from raymond avenue culdesac down to the Community Garden and i understand that theres no impingement from the project, but i remember that you had put up pictures of a very tall fence and, you know, i remember my worry being, well, so the kids are used to going down that concrete path right now a the at sort of left edge of the top of the hill. And now you will make them go around . And im wondering if you put a big, tall fence how that will go. So you showed some pictures of a newly designed fence, but i didnt get a sense of it. Can you show them again or if you have a better sure. Im one of the sponsors. Weve met many times with the d. R. Requesters and in one of the earlier ones, they raised the question. We sat there eight hours, four hours one day, four hours another, not holidays. We didnt see a single student. There was a lot of suspect activity at the end of ray monday, if anything. We didnt see anybody in two Different School days walk up and down. There were a couple of people with dogs walking, excuse me, maybe in all that. Theres a distinguish ed panel speaking against the item, but with every item, 293, you will see a lot of pictures that we took that show that almost none of the issues, if not all of them, are invalid. Were not blocking anything. Most of the area, as it is, of our area, is already already has a structure on it. Were not taking anything from the park. I have a lot of pictures here showing you up a the garbage thats all over the place. Commissioner melger i understand. I wasnt questioning that stuff. I was asking about the fence, if its been redesigned or if we can look at it. May i add something . We got an urgent call from rec and park asking us to meet them at the site. We get there, talk to them. They were concerned that we would block the path. We show them everything. We talked. We asked if they had any interest. They said they had none, but maybe they dont know. I cant say. The only concern is that they were going to redevelop or do something with that path that goes sort of along visitation avenue, that were not touching it, not putting anything on it. We have a slide showing 37 to 36 feet from our lot. There is no issues of soil. Its flat. Its full of garbage, but its flat. Thats what rec and park told us over a year ago when we met them there. They had tremendous concerns that were going to destroy the path or do something. Its out of our private property. Were not touching anything. Commissioner melger thank you. My question was about the fence. Nothing else. [laughter] i have this problem with my wife, too. I dont answer her questions right away. Let me pull that up real quickly. This fence. Theres another image, too, let me get to that, right here, that shows a fence to the right of raymond right here. This fence. Its a willow wood fence. Its made so that you can see through it, so its not a solid barrier. Commissioner melger all right. You can see the landscaping. Its more like a filter. Commissioner melger okay. Thank you. Thats better. President hillis commissioner moore . Can i ask a question on that same topic . Behind that and adjacent to 590 between the City Property and 589 raymond where you are showing that fence, what is the use of that land . Thats a side yard for that house. President hillis so it has a large side yard . Correct. Let me get to a site plan. Commissioner moore which one are you referring to . President hillis raymond avenue along the culdesac. This is the 35footwide that you saw with the rendering. This is a side yard to this house. And its landscaped. President hillis has there been any discussion about is that . Its a large side yard. Its nice for the property to have that side yard, but im wondering, is there any is there any way to somehow utilize that in a better way with no fence or remains an open easement between your development and the City Property there . I well, i think whats important to note there is that the site is very steep in this area. It also drops off very quickly. Its not as flat in this area where the as it is out along where the trail is. So this is if you can see it, theres a drop about 40 feet from this curb height to this curb height. President hillis yeah. What is the drop from that curb height at the corner to the to where the building starts at 589 . Probably 4 or 5 feet. I think you see it here on this let me get to this image. You see heres the if you can see the dotted line, thats where the street is in front of the house and heres the high point of the triangular corner, okay . So theres a drop. It goes down from there. [please stand by] the very large building is at the edge of the open space and the building is the maximized single residential in comparison to what is adjoining to the south. And im wondering why you pushed that particular building against the Property Line. If i could have the image up on the screen, we have the site plan here that shows it might appear on the garage level plan where the building and stairs are against the Property Line, but as it goes back, this footprint steps back. This is at grade. Commissioner i am using the overall site plan which is a cumulative image of all pieces together that outlines the building footprint as coming all the way to the property edge. And i dont know if that has changed. The one that we submitted to the staff is this one where it actually steps back, and its not against the Property Line. Commissioner for the commission, i am referring to this drawing. Dated 12162017, so thats for todays packet. Is the lead page and each of the five buildings with the building in question highlighted in yell yellow. That is 598 leland, correct . Correct. That is the only one this sits aggressively on the Property Line. This is what was submitted to staff. Commissioner that is accurate to what is in the drawing set. If you look at the, i guess, its hard because theyre all labelled 590. And the one package for 596 leland, you will see there is more detail provided. Right. And this diagram, i think this is the pdf sent to the staff, it is part of the record. What we do notice sometimes is when we send the pdf to the staff and they go and print it, the clarity of the prints that come from the Printing House arent the same as we get in our office. But if you look at this one here, this is 598 leland that shows the footprint in sort of that orange color and then the landscaping that is against the Property Line and the fence is there. If the building is not intended to be against a triangular Property Line, it is intended to have landscaping and grade. Commissioner and i dont have the one you are referring to. I have a site plan similar to what you are showing, and id be happy to show you the copy here. Sure. Commissioner im concerned that one building makes the project look rather massive. I dont have anything the buildings otherwise are fine. They are large. They fit the neighborhood. It is definitely a kind of like developerdriven housing. And is not spec housing and the building that looks similar architecturally i think they are fine. It is just that they are very large. And because they are large and you have a very sensitive site on which they occur, there is a little bit of crowding at the edges. That would be the best way i would describe it. Is there a way to that 598 lela leland, kind of the last jog of that property, could you eliminate that . I think we could work with staff to, how can i say, remove the love handles that you see on the side of the building. Commissioner right. The last 1 3. The last 1 3. Yes. Commissioner if you look at your design. And kind of emulate the 25food module already been expressed. Commissioner and the bedroom on the main floor and extra room on the top floor. I agree with that comment. I think that would be a good kind of effort. I dont think were at a place, at least im not comfortable in a place to deny this project. Its private land. I get that the folks from the area have worked hard to maximize open space in the neighborhood, and thats a kind of been supportive of development in the neighborhood. And this is not a cityowned site. There doesnt seem to be any Movement Towards i think that suggest would create more massing relief between the City Property and the family house. Yes. Commissioner commissioner moore . Commissioner moore since there is no reaction from park and rec, which i would have liked to have had to go through the larger ideas, hear their larger plan, and get a feel for what they think, i feel that what is really in front of us is five residential buildings which come forward as design on a large lot, subdivided into five individual lots. And that is basely cha it is. Theres nothing wrong with the unit. I think the modification that we are talking about here at least aleaves some of my anxiety of the alleviates some of the anxiety on my part and the more flowing nature of the garden next to it. And thats where i am. Commissioner is that a motion . Do you want to adjust the 598 leland portion project to maintain that 25foot, i think, width of the building throughout . And the module. Commissioner so you wouldnt bump it out at the last. Correct, correct. Second that if that is a motion. Commissioner its a motion, yeah. President hillis we have a motion and a second, jonas. If i understood that correctly, its just the motion is to take dr and approve the project with the amendment that the 598 leland project maintain the 25foot module to be consistent with the other properties. On that motion, commissioner fong. Commissioner koppel. Commissioner richards. Commissioner president hillis, excuse me. Thank you. That motion passes unanimously 50. That is it, right. So meeting adjourned. Thank you. They tend to come up here and drive right up to the vehicle and in and out of their car and into the victims vehicle, i would say from 1015 seconds is all it takes to break into a car and theyre gone. Yeah, we get a lot of breakins in the area. We try to i just want to say goodbye. Thank you. Sometimes thats all it takes. I never leave anything in my car. We let them know theres been a lot of vehicle breakins in this area specifically, they target this area, rental cars or vehicles with visible items. This is just warning about vehicle breakins. Take a look at it. If we can get them to take it with them, take it out of the cars, it helps