>> president hillis: let's open this item up for public comment. and i have one speaker guard, cindy gomez, but clearly there are others that would like to speak. welcome. >> i'm paul barera. i'm with the filipino cultural district. thank you for reviewing this item this afternoon. we would like to voice support for the hotel project at 744 harrison. it is located in the cultural district, just down the street from the filipino heritage center, home of the by -- bilingual program. today the streets are named

after filipino historical figures. the filipino community appreciates the lee family's willingness to work with our community on this program, especially aiding after school programs and jobs in the hotel facility. we would also like to thank you them with the neutral car check. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. our 18,000-square-foot community gardens has been there for over 30 years and it's very popular public open space with about 300 gardening beds that are provided to local seniors at no charge. of course, we realize this building would cast some shadow.

it costs about 200,000 shadow hours a year, not quite. we approached the developer and asked for mitigation of that impact. the gardens being 30 years old needs a complete rebuilding and we're -- it's about a $500,000 project overall. we're 2/3 of the way through it. and -- but we still have more to go. we have had -- there's a precedent set that before the city agreed to donate $1 on every hour of shadow to the future improvements of the gardens. we prevailed upon them to do that and they agreed, and we think it's a reasonable approach to mitigating shadow on public and community spaces not covered by the sunshine ordinance at all, such as our garden. as it happens, this project's shadow, about half falls on our

service area, not on the act of open space in our gardens. and so we asked for 50% of that amount and the developers agreed to participate -- $100,000. and we believe that is satisfactory mitigation. in general, a small hotel like this is neighborhood-scaled and we think they're a positive addition. the reason is, they bring 24-hour life to the neighborhood. there is 24-hour staff on the desk, at the street level. that definitely improves the neighborhood's security and safety, especially on an alley such as this is. and that's really a welcome improvement. i can also tell you that hotel operators take much more interest in neighborhoods than office building operators. there are two office buildings on this block. i speak from experience. they care, because of course,

they have to care for the sake of their clients and guests. that, as well, is a positive piece of neighborhood building. all in all, this is a welcome project. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. ms. gomez? >> good afternoon. cynthia gomez, research analyst and hotel workers union. this project is joining a pretty long and storied history of hotel developers that sign agreements that will allow hotel workers to unionize and, therefore, guarantee them the opportunity the kind of affordable healthcare living wages that are essential. one of the distinguishing factors is that this sponsor came to us voluntarily to sign this agreement early on in the process. another distinguishing factor, as far as san francisco goes, it sets the record for the smallest

project that has made this commitment. so it has set the bar for including all different sizes in these agreements. we're happy to be standing with our community partners, who are also supporting this project. so thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm bernadette sea, filipino american foundation. we run the after school program at the filipino education center. it's a newcomers school. the project sponsor, it's been unique in the relationship with us, in that they came to us early on to listen about what we do, and to understand it, and

incorporate that in their project allowing a plaque to be there and coming to several events to build relationship with us and that's key in becoming a community partner. they demonstrate that, not just when they need you for this hearing. so i thank you and support them. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional public comment on this item? seeing none, we'll close public comment commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i think this is a wonderful project. i'm really excited about it. it's not just the architectural configuration, how it fits. i like the story that mr mr. elberling as long-term steward of the area tells us about the park and open space. the one question i have is, do we have a hotel operator?

>> we don't have an operator. we've spoken with a few and are in that process. >> commissioner moore: this is obviously -- since this is a very sophisticated project and i'm looking towards director rayham, it's one of the things where the community and every facet of the community supports the department and spent a tremendous amount of time and architecture has done a great job and the project could potentially, if no operator shows, because it's a small hotel with an unusual group housing operation, we can lose it. what guarantees do we have to have this project delivered to us? >> the project you are approving is a hotel with -- i forget the number of group housing rooms.

>> commissioner moore: nine. >> so it could not turn to residential without your approval. >> commissioner moore: no. it takes some skill to do something like this. it's not a run-of-the-mill, okay, we're going to do a hotel. this is special. and what guarantees do we have that this will be delivered in its current form? >> so the typical process is if a project comes in that's substantially not in keeping with what you see in front of you, it would have to come back to you. and a judgment call is made by the zoning administrator if the project were to change the hotel operator in and of themselves is not under our control and it often changes over time. the uses that you see here, configuration, number of rooms is whatted you see here with going up and down by only 5% to 10%. that's the rule of thumb.

if it went up by 5% or down by 10%, we would bring it back to you. other than that, the project you are approving today is essentially fixed pretty much as you see it. and there's always a judgment call on the architecture and how much the architecture changes and whether or not we bring it back to you with the architecture. our strong desire would be to see it continue on. >> commissioner moore: it could be dumbed down. >> president hillis: we could include in the notion that part of the approval is the design and quality of materials being presented to us. if that's in the motion and those get dumbed down later, the zoning administrator has more to stand on. >> commissioner moore: i would make a motion to add the qualifiers and the aspects that do, indeed matter, including the

subtlies and the compromises and engagements that have been discussed today. if that is indeed what we're able to do, i make a motion that we approve. >> second. >> president hillis: there's a motion seconded to approve this matter with conditions as amended to include a condition that if significant design changes did occur the project would return to the planning commission on that condition. [roll call] >> so moved, commissioners. motion passes than unanimously 6-0. that places us on item 14,

002825cua, 1965 market street. this is a conditional use authorization. >> good evening, elizabeth jonckheer, planning department staff. i've just passed forward a revised motion that you should have been emailed yesterday, which includes some red line changes, as well as some afterpacket materials. the project before you would remove a portion of the existing building at 1965 market street as well as the surface parking

lot on duboce avenue. a new 8-story residential building is proposed on the existing surface parking lot and vertical edition is proposed above 1965 market, which is an historic resource. the addition would be set back by approximately 35 feet along market street and 15 feet along duboce avenue. it would include below-grade parking, 52 one-bedroom, 43 two-bedroom, and one studio unit. it would include 14 on-site, affordable units, pursuant to the housing program. the housing project includes 97 class 1 bicycle parking spaces and historic facility as well as

a repair station and additional 12 class 2 spaces near the pedestrian entrances as approved by sfmta. the project is with two zoning districts. the project seeks conditional use authorization for a development of a large lot, over 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 colonial mission 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 department's policies, there's been a 96-unit project. because the sponsor is providing 14 units available to low-income households, the project is eligible for one concession they seek the concession to allow development above the 50-foot 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 that's 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 francisco housing 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 high-density 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. i'm 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 here's who we are. i'm 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. it's unusual in that it's 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. it's across from the giaenant

giant safeway on duboce. it's the gateway to upper market. we understand that it's 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 one-story buildings, our-story buildings, eight-story buildings. there's the whole foods, the mint on the bottom. on the left, eight-story buildings and even in the upper right-hand side, there's a 1920s building that's eight stories. it's a mix of scales. and the site is zoned for 85 feet. it's a 1924 category a historic

building, formerly a funeral home. it's 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. it's 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 we've succeeded at that. so we identified significant historic aspects of the building and we're preserving those. here's what it looks like today. the site is the existing

building in the middle and that parking lot next door on the left. it doesn't 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, here's the program. it's 96 new homes. 14% are 2-bedrooms. all of them on site. it's 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 john's 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. we've been out talking to people for a long time. here's 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. there's a lot going on on that ground floor and we didn't want to compete with it. so we wanted something reserved, above it. we're 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 didn't 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 we're 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 well-attended. here's a list of neighborhood meetings. doesn't mention eureka valley neighborhood 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. we're very proud of the project, grateful for the input we've got. we're very proud of the support that we've received from your staff and from the neighbors and we'd like your support as well. i'm available to answer questions. will is available. the owners. at your service. >> president hillis: thank you. let's 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 i'm about to talk about. if i have enough. thank you.

hello. i'm here to urge the commission not to approve the application as currently designed. it's 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 85-foot building next to the historic district with a 40-foot 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 step-down 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 it's a great idea. i think there's 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. it's not. duboce is not market. duboce is residential. the second half of the street to the east is very low. and the project's 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 that's 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 they've shown to 1965 market street. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, members of the commission. i'm an engineer from one design

and my client -- i'm 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 35-foot setback, and how that figure was arrived at. given that my client owns the corner property, it's a grate way property and we're 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, there's very little detail about the basement shown on the draft documents and we understand it's still very early in the process, and still a lot of work that needs to be done, but there's talks about the basement excavating adjacent to my client's property. there will be excavation into the water table, so we're concerned about dewatering the site. and we're concerned that any dewatering could have a negative impact on my client's property. we're 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 there's a lot of inconsistencies. the elevations shows a well facing the west and the plans don't show that and the specific regard to the setback for the -- above the second floor. that's 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 francisco housing coalition, here in support today. it's a significant corner. it's a couple of blocks from our offices and i use that fed ex all the time. i'm familiar with it and really an upgrade in terms of use of land. we're 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, we're at the third generation of adaptive reuse, which is fascinating to watch. a couple of things that have changed. we're 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 we've talked about. it's a big deal. it's a challenge. we were very frustrated by the legislation from last year's 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 we'd love to work on that. we're 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, it's residential. an 8-story 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 it's unrealistic to think that they will take away a major parking lot, three of them, that contain a total of, i think it's, 9,000 square feet, and all they're 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 it's a transit-rich 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 i'm 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, we'll 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 director's idea for a very creative use of the state density bonus law and i'm pleased that we are getting the 14.5% inclusionary units. that's 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? >> there's a fed ex-kinko's. above our offices, primarily the offices of the project sponsor. >> commissioner melger: on the

back, there's three stories? all office soffices? >> yes. >> commissioner melger: so there's a three-story 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 we've 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 there's a small portion of that three-story 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? it's a discussion that we also had with the whole foods building and i'm wondering what your thoughts are on that. >> i'm not sure i can answer that. we're happy to have 85 feet there. the height above the existing building is 85 feet. so we're happy to have it within the same building. certainly, it's 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 it's all the same building. >> commissioner moore: the question i'm 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 that's why i'm raising the question. >> i wonder if i might ask -- >> commissioner moore: absolutely. >> david baker, the architect. i think that -- we're surprised how good it looks and i think there is variation in san francisco. so i think in every building, you don't 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 -- it's 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. i'm raising the question in response to the one person that spoke about the transition from 85 feet to a low building without any notching -- >> it's interesting to me. it's 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 two-story buildings. we don't really notice that. i think it's shocking to people when they think about it, but it exists and it's the character of san francisco to have the variations. in the mission, for instance, there are 10-story buildings on mission street. if you ask people to name the buildings, many people wouldn't know which they were because they're 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 we're comfortable with the height at this location. >> commissioner moore: it's

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 we've seen on some of the market street projects, where you are stepping down to 15th street or 14th street, where the -- where it's unlike duboce, where it's busy and wide. to me, it reads like the 1920s, 8-story buildings that we see throughout neighborhoods, midblock and elsewhere. it's appropriate to have height there. it doesn't -- i don't think it's jarring. there's 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 doesn't quite do it for a residential building. so i'm 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 6-0. that will place us at discretionary review cal ander. 590 leland avenue. you continued this matter to march 2, 2017, but a vote of 4-2. commissioners johnson and koppel against. commissioner fong, you were absent. you continued this matter indefinitely then by a vote of 6-0. on november 2, without hearing, continued this matter to january

18, 2018, by a vote of 5-1. 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. i'm prepared. >> given the time that's 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 three-story, single-family 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 building's 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 francisco state 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 three-story, single-family homes are in compliance with the general plan. this concludes staff's presentation. i'm 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. it's upside down. >> i'm 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 can't 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. it's 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 we're 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, there's 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: we'll 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. i'm 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. >> i'm commenting about the proposed development at 590 leland from the perspective of someone who has been a 30-year resident in san francisco. i sat on the redevelopment committee for a number of years and participated in a lot of community meetings, so i'm sensitive to the development and the changes in the immediate neighborhood. as a long-term resident of the city, sensitive to the wider changes and impact or need for housing or open space. i'm going to digress a little bit because my company, sterling

arts services, fine art framers, we're a 37-year-old company based in san francisco and we're 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, we're in the process of making the move. we're grateful for the opportunities that are coming with this. and i do see it as opportunity, but my perspective, i've noted that in a small company we're a bellwether of larger economic realities. and we're leaving san francisco because companies like ours are untenable here. and i don't want to decry the changes that have come with the tech boom and there's 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, it's a beautiful location. and when you visit the site, as you saw from fran martin's pictures, its beauty is obvious. considering the long-running issue of limited accesaccess, t vision us long-term 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 in-fill 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. i'm 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. that's 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 turn-around meets the higher visitation avenue, the area my be shored up and