[ applause ] >> thank you. that concludes our commendations for today. it is now 3:00. madam clerk, let's go to our 3:00 p.m. special order. >> items 47 through 50 comprise the appeal of determination from exemption for 590leland avenue. [ stand by ]

>> president breed: colleagues, if there are no objections, we will proceed in this way. this hearing is now open, and i will turn this over to supervisor cohen for opening remarks. >> supervisor cohen: thank you, madam president. good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. kind of a little bit with a heavy heart we are here to take on this issue. i'd hoped that we'd be able to resolve some of the things that you're going to hear about today in the community forum, but nonetheless, we've gathered to hear about a project that was scheduled to be built should this hearing -- should we affirm this -- the findings

of the planning department. the location is 590 leland street, and leland is a beautiful street in the valley, in visitation valley in one of the southernmost parts of san francisco. it's absolutely a wonderful charming part of the city, believe it or not where prices areville affordable. and so i thank you for hearing this item. the planning department's issuance of a categorical exemption under ceqa is being challenged here by the appellant, who i have tremendous respect for, by fran martin. she's done a lot of very, very hard work on the ground over the years prior to myeelection, and ensuring that visitacion valley gets its fair share in resources and planning dollars. sadly, i am in agreement with her -- with many of the issues

that she's bringing up today that it just still doesn't feel like we're getting what we are entitled to as being a part of san francisco in terms of getting the full experience from the planning department. we've been fighting for years to get a planner dedicated back on the corridor to assist us with the businesses, and most importantly, with the vacancies, and we haven't had anyone in this position for several years since 2011. but with that said, fran has been an organizing force. she's been instrumental in many of the projects that are happening in this part of san

francisco. she's contending this project is inappropriately considered an in-fill project. there will be harm from the development on biological resources and the view corridor from public land will be negatively impacted by the project. now, with that, i'd like to begin this appeal hearing, and i'd like to turn it back over to the clerk of the board to -- to begin this process. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor cohen. okay. we will open up this hearing, and i'd like to ask the appellant or the appellant representative to come forward. you will have up to ten minutes for a presentation. [ inaudible ] >> president breed: ma'am, if you have any questions, could you speak into the microphone, so we can hear what you're saying. there's a microphone at the

podium. >> sorry. i didn't want to take up my ten minutes doing that. my name is fran martin and i'm associated with advicetation vall -- visitacion valley. nearly 20 years ago, our community created the planning alliance in response to home depot plans to build a big box store there. along the way, we initiated and worked with supervisor maxell to create the visitacion

valley -- [ inaudible ] >> >> what we get is further neglect. the award winning greenway and outside door classroom attests to our commitment for advocating open space to our neighborhood. [ inaudible ] >> we do not want to be here today. by we, i mean the over 200 people that have signed a petition against the 590 development and local and citywide environmental and outdoor education groups. if this project were located midblock, we would not be opposing it, however, it is a threat to open space. the city has abrogated its responsibility to the neighborhood and has led the 590 issue to the detriment of small community planning. they have forgotten what it is to serve the public and plan for the greater good.

we have been forced to be here because the planning department has upheld a categorical exemption for this product. unfortunately my colleague is in london, so i will read you hear synopsis of the planning with the pending ceqa analysis. as you can see from the photos, it is -- [ inaudible ] >> there is various statements in the city's general plan, all of those materials prepared for previous hearing saying this is a no-no. prior to 2014, blocking views from public parkland would have been considered a significant and unmitigationable effect under ceqa. unfortunately, this is 2018, and the state is operating under new rules, listed in the public resources code. according to prc 21099(d) 1 --

[ inaudible ] >> planning it calling this project an in-fill site project and claiming the loss of views does not need to be analyzed. number one, in its actions planning has been inconsistent in treating the project as in-fill. most notably in response to the planning commission january 2017, planning staff directed the project sponsors to produce a view analysis which they did. why if views don't need to be analyzed? two, it is not entirely clear that the site does not qualify as an in-fill site. there is two parts to the definition as demonstrated in a separate communication. it clearly does not meet one of them. so planning must be claiming that the presence of a church building on the lower part of the up sloping site constitutes previous development. this seems a stretch.

number three, even assuming it is an in-fill site, why not -- [ inaudible ] >> -- section d 2 a, quote -- [ inaudible ] >> or section 21099 -- i can't read it -- e, which says this section does not affect the authority of a public agency to establish or dot thresholds of more significance that are more protected with the requirement, unquote. [ inaudible ] >> -- that an ordinary person would understand the word in-fill to mean, and that in any case, there are exceptional circumstances here that overwrite any technical

argument. now back to me. everyone in the valley lacks adequate access to mclaren park the second largest park in the city due to steep topo graphy and steep walls bordering the park. we have no easy access to open space although we live adjacent to mclaren park. [ inaudible ] >> the parcel of land at 590

leland is the -- [ inaudible ] this is an issue of social economic environmental and aesthetic justice. our neighborhood is not only san francisco's forgotten neighborhood, it is also one of the most disen franchised and powerless. we understand the importance of affordable high density housing. we see the children in our neighborhood that live in the projects. what we do not need is $2

million homes blocking a significant portion of the only open space available to them on the open pathway to school. san francisco should no longer be a party to harming our neighborhood. it is time to start helping us rather than being part of the problem. we do our part, please do yours. now i'm going to show some photos. this kind of difficult to read -- shows the site, which is here, and this is all topographically inaccessible to mclaren park. the golf course is here, and this is sunnydale housing, which cannot get into the golf course. here's -- here's the site in question, and here's the area from the middle school down to hahn avenue and john king senior housing is right there. this shows the impact of shadows -- whoops -- well, any way. this is the site, and these are the shadows that will stretch across that land. this also shows the shadows from a two story building stretching across where the three buildings will be going

on raymond, and if they were one story higher, it would go out even further. here's a -- [ inaudible ] >> but any way, this shows -- this is existing conditions, and this is what -- how the views would be obstructed. this shows obstruction from these -- this is a site, and this is where the views would be obstructed. this is the site existing now, and you can see this is the only flat space. to the left is -- yeah, to the left is john king senior housing. i've got photos of elders walking down the middle of the street and they've got nowhere to go in the area. here, it shows how it's flat there. here's another view from the site, another view. one thing that came up was

there's maps of most important views in the city, and they're graded as excellent, good, and average, something like that. ours are only average, and this is one of the few areas where we have views from public space. otherwise, it's all housing or it's too steep to get to the site, and -- what else? any way, i'll finish early. give you guys a break. these are the children i work with. i want you to remember them because they're the ones we're speaking for today, and i'm going to leave that there while our other speakers speak. [applause]. >> there's no applause.

>> thank you. are there -- we will now open it up to public comment. are there any members of the public who'd like to speak in support of the appeal? this is your time now. >> hi. i'm phyllis chiu, and thank u you, supervisor cow hen for all your support for us. we really appreciate it. this is very underserved visitacion valley community, and despite 90 leland site will have over 200,000 square feet of five mansions that will split up on five areas of this site to remind as daily reminders of multimillion dollar haves versus the have notes. the have notes have to go and

wa -- have notes have to go and walk-through the senior housing area right now the stair area right on the church site, which will be gone, otherwise, effectively cutting them off from the valley below, which is a rain garden that's being put into the community garden, plus an empty theater for outdoor education. and right across the street, is goes into the recreation area with the swimming pool, basketball courts, and flows into sunnydale projects, which are being rehabbed for the people who are there. we have worked so hard to try to keep this place -- keep the kids from the sunnydale area from having more violence in

their lives and disrupting themselves and their families and really just tearing it part not only their families, but also the surrounding community. it impacts us all. and so we've been working with the police. this site right now is mainly undeveloped over an ancient sand dune with some rare native plants. it's adjacent to mclaren park, right across the street, and then, of course, people can get onto it as, you know, steeper pathways to get up into the park itself. the project, the 590 leland project would effectively cut everybody else off so it no longer flows through. it's just like taking a forest and putting a road through it, and you effectively cutoff two sides completely so they become

two separate things, not just one whole flowing community. for what i am wanting to say is i'd love to see the supervisors who have the power to -- >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> gamp. my name is chris barnet. i'm a 20 year resident of visitacion valley and i've been extensively involved with land use issues over the years. i was on the visitacion valley cac when we had development. i participated in other committees. i'm opposing this development, and supervisor cohen thank you

so much for acknowledging the procedural aspect of this, and maybe the completely consideration of that. you know, on paper, i can see how this is a perfect space for five homes. it was legitimately being wired. the developer went through their process to do this, but this is an opportunity sliding out of the grasp of the city. visitacion valley i have to remark to people who become quainted with the neighborhood how it was developed without a view of how density would reach out to that part of the city and time, and so i welcome the density of housing that we have planned, and so i think this particular site is really critical for all the reasons that fran and phil were mentioning, view corridors, a site that's potentially ada accessible for people when they're so view. imagine if patricia's green was opened up for development in hayes valley and somebody

legitimately bought it for five homes versus what it serves in that community. this is the potential we're giving up if we develop this land this way. i wish as fellow san franciscans, i could take you to walk the neighborhood and how i know it and how i know its connection to the park, and this is a key piece that we're about to lose if this goes forward as planned, so thank you very much for considering this issue, and i hope that you'll help us find a good resolution. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisor doe. my name is jim growden, and i live in visitacion valley. i'm a member of the visitacion valley planning alliance, and i designed some of the aspects of the greenway -- visitacion valley greenway, and i just want to take a couple minutes of your time at that tuto talk

aesthetics and views. the -- i also teach the children at the greenway, and it is important for them to have this open space views in the valley. we are so deprived of so many thing does t things the other neighborhoods have, and i would say we're pretty much neglected by the rest of the city, and i just wanted to close with saying that when we have our planning alliance meetings, we take in consideration all the development that's going on there, and we have to consider the future residents of the

valley. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> hello, supervisors. my name's linda lightheiser, and i'm here to speak because of the tragedy that the situation brings us to, a loss of land that up till now, up until the last few lands when this parcel was purchased, we all believed was part of mclaren park, an open space that would live on forever. we have found that this situation is not the first time. in the 1980's, there was another parcel within mclaren park perimeter where people also assumed it was part of the park because it was open and people were using it as if it was a park. in the case of 590 leland, even some of the gardeners and park staff who have been there for

many years assume that the land behind the little church was public land, so it came as a huge shock to all of us when this parcel was purchased at a very small amount of money and at an auction when had we been -- had the opportunity to know that parcels adjacent to parkland could be purchase this had way and then developed took us all by surprise. so we've all been working at this for years. we are so committed to mclaren park for the open space that it needs to be for all the development that they're having in the southeast. we're asking developers to help us mitigate the problems of parkland being adjacent to properties and not being able to access them. so i'm hoping that it's not too late, that this body can have some interested solution that's we could all work on together to protect the park from further erosion by development, but also, to save this parcel. thank you.

>> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is audrey rodd rodderi. urban proud has been working in partnership with the urban housing, to build an active open space is through this extended construction period. increasing access and opportunities to grow food, by and for the community. this past year we have begun to hire and train sunnydale youth to build and manage these spaces and with a million dollar investment we'll be continuing to grow our green job training program, increasing paid opportunities for sunnydale and valley youth to connect our urban farm at june jordan, the largest school garden in san francisco to the network of community gardens within sunnydale, to the

greenway and gardens of visitacion valley. we are committed to continuing to find resources and supports to manage and maintain these vital open spaces. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is hunter ridenour. i've lived in san francisco for about five years and i've lived in visitacion valley for about six or seven months, and fran was the first person i met there, and she immediately introduced me to the visitacion valley greenway and i was just blown away because it was an amazing space, and i've really fallen in love with the area since then, and i've done a lot of exploring, walking through mclaren park and having explored this space where this site is up for debate, i see

potential for a project that would stimulate more growth in the community, similar to what the greenway has done, which fran has organized and supports along with many others. and i see potential for something that would feed the community, including a garden and these sorts of things that are actually going to engage the citizens instead of, nothing against housing, but i just don't see what it's going to bring to the community, what it's going to introduce to the community, as opposed to creating a structure that will create shade and basically form a wedge in the structure of this very, very important and very delicate community that needs your nurturing. so with that in mind, just support -- support the growth of our community gardens.

thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is connie walding, and i've been volunteering in vis valley for about ten years, with fran, and i am all for continuing and not developing that open space because i think it's very important for the integrity of the neighborhood. i'm going to make it very short. thank you so much. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. are there any other members of the public who would like to speak on behalf of the appellant? now's your opportunity. >> good afternoon. my name's jen, and i'm here to support preserving open space in mclaren park. that should be a agabenefit to family and community.

i've lived in vis valley for over 20 years and have watched it progress of the greenway throughout all these years. everything we all have done has been for the good of the community, especially for our elders and children. i believe you should not allow construction at 590 leland, that you'll create lots of -- lots of youth and open space. please help our community. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. madam president? bre>> president breed: thank . are there any other members of the public who would like to provide public comment in support of the appeal. seeing none, public comment is closed, and we will now turn to

the planning department. you will have up to ten minutes for presentation. >> good afternoon, president breed, members of the board. i'm josh pollock, senior environmental planner with the planning department. joining me with lisa gibson, rick cooper, and esmeral esmeralda jardines, scene i don't remember planner. the item before you is a callical exemption for the proposed project at 590 leland avenue. to provide you with a brief summary, the project involves demolition of an existing church building and construction of five new single-family homes -- >> before you get into the brief summary of the project, can you please just define for us, what exactly are the limitations or the parameters that we are restricted to review this project under? what specifically can we -- can we do and can we not do when it comes to ceqa? i want to just start the framework because i think there's a little bit of

misinformation outlet there, and then, we can correct the record, but specifically, this body is charge today do what. it's a ceqa peal, and what does that mean? >> thank you for the question through the chair. so the decision today is to uphold the commission's exemption and uphold the appeal or return the project for additional environmental review. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. >> thanks. so the project involves demolition of an existing church building and construction of five new single-family homes at 590 leland in the visitacion valley neighborhood. three of the residences would front raymond avenue while two of the residences would front leland avenue. the project is adjacent to mclaren community garden, and is across the street from mclaren park. on february 12, 2015, the department determined that the project was categorically exempt under the california environmental quality act or

ceqa, under class 32, which applies to in-fill development projects. following a full discretionary review analysis on january 18, 2018, the planning commission approved the proposed project. the appellant raises issues related to biological resources, views, shadows, site acquisition by recreation, and parks, among other issues. the planning department has carefully considered the concerns raised, and we conclude that the categorical exception for the project was appropriately issued. the appellant has provided no evidence to support the assertions that the project would have significant impacts that would disqualify the project from being exempt from environmental review. we would like to briefly summarize our responses to each issue. regarding biological resources, the appellant asserts that the project would affect two sensitive plant species, including the san francisco spine flower and the california croton. as described in the planning

department's appeal response, this is incorrect. consultanted bioologists surveyed the project site three separate times, prepared a detailed inventory of 34 plants on the site and found neither the san francisco spine flower nor the california croton at the project site. on march 9, 2018, planning department staff, consultant bioologist and the appellant met at the site. neither plants were observed on the project site. two california croton plants were found outside the project site on park and recation's own land. staging areas for construction would occur along the raymond avenue and leland avenue frontages, and would not occur west of the property line on recreation and park's own land. no easements have been ought sought or granted to stage construction on park and recs property. in addition, the site would be

fenced off during construction. the proposed wall offense that would be constructed by the -- [ inaudible ] >> -- and the proposed residential development would be set back about 30 feet from the property line at that location. therefore, the project would not have a significant impact on the two california croton plants to the adjacent parcel. with regard to aesthetics, the appellant argues there was an incomplete analysis of the loss of views. in fact as stated in the department's response, aesthetics were not considered as part of the environment cal review precisely because this is what ceqa requires for residential in-fill projects within a transit priority area like 5 # 0 leland. the project clearly meets the criteria of code section 2905(d) 1. this includes the criteria of

being on an in-fill site. as defined by this provision of the ceqa statute, in-fill site includes the lot that is located within an urban area that has previously been developed. the project site was previously developed with a church and therefore meets this definition. for these reasons, the appellant's claims about inadequate analysis of visual resources are without merit. it should be noted, however, that affects on views were considered as part of the discretionary review for this project which found that there would be minimal loss of the extent of quality of views for the locations analyzed. esmeralda can answer any questions you have about the discretionary review hearing. as stated in the department's response, planning code -- however, the proposed buildings would range in height from about 24 feet to 32 feet, thus,

the ceqa determination properly did not analyze shadow effects on the adjacent parcel, pursuant to section 295. in addition, the project shadow itself was found not to have a substantial effect on the total amount of sun light, the california croton plants would receive throughout the year and therefore would not affect the viability of the plant. lastly, appellant suggests the exemption that the policy should have analyzed the exemption by rec and parks. however, that is not required under ceqa. in conconclusion, flusion, the continues to find that the ceqa determination complies with the requirements of ceqa and the callical exemption is the appropriate environmential review determination. the appellant has not provided any substantial evidence that there is a reasonable possibility of significant

environmental impacts due to unusual circumstances. therefore, i urge you to uphold the department's ceqa determination and deny the appeal. this concludes my presentation. planning staff is available for any questions that you may have. thank you. >> president breed: supervisor cohen? >> supervisor cohen: thank you. i actually have three simple questions that i want to direct to the planning staff. appellant has directed questions to street views and what i presume to be the view corridor. from the views on raymond avenue in the southern direction, my question is is there anything in ceqa that would allow you to consider views in your determination about this project's eligibility? >> my name is lisa gibson, environmental review officer and through the chair i'd like to respond to supervisor cohen. to ber your question under ceqa, we are prohibited from considering aesthetic impacts as noted by josh pollock in his presentation, ceqa does

prohibit us us from projects that qualify as in-fill development projects within transit oriented sites. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. my second question, is there -- well, it's more of a -- a little bit of a statement first than a question. there is a senior center and a visitacion valley middle school that's located not far from the project site. does this project disrupt access to public lands fore those community members? >> no, it does not. the project was basically designed to allow continued access to the park to occur. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. that's important. and then, my third question is the appellant claims that there's a loss of ada accessible space. can you speak to the project's impact on the ada access on

public property? [ inaudible ] >> regarding accessibility, the appellant states that a portion of the project along raymond avenue could be used as ada accessible open space. the project is located on a private parcel and would not affect public open space or ada accessible open space. in addition, the most level portion of the subject parcel along raymond avenue is uneven, and is not ada accessible corn cone all right. next question about shadows on public open space. so the appellant claims that the site could -- excuse me, that the appellant claims that the development will cause a hawed owe on the pathway -- shadow on the pathway in the native plant landscaping. could you address that, please. >> so regarding shadows, the appellant states the shadow analysis is inadequate. so when we're looking at shadows under the planning code section 295, any new shadows

restricted by any structure that's exceeding 40 feet in height, so the proposed buildings range from height from about 24 to 32 feet. >> supervisor cohen: so one of the i think stronger arguments that the appellant makes about -- or brings it to our attention about in-fill, and considers this to be an in-fill project, and i think that is where the greatest discrepancy rests between the appellant and the planning department's determination. from what i understand, from numerous meetings with the appellant and other community members is that they are interpreting this particular parcel as one unique parcel,

and we all agree there's existing construction at the church, an abandoned church at this point, and you guys are saying this is actually not one parcel but three -- or excuse me, five, five parcels, can you explain to me how on the map, when you look at it, it looks like one, but you're arguing that it's five. >> on july 14, 2014, lot 019, which is the lot that the existing church currently is on, was sub divided into lots 061, 062, 063, 064, and 065, and the project sponsor who's here can speak more to the history of how these lots existed, they previously exited at five were merged into one and then subdivided

subsequently on 2014. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. i want to say that the appellant says that it's one, and the planning department says that it's five. thank you for that clarification. i no further questions, colleagues, i don't know if you have any questions at this particular point. i think it's pretty open and shut. >> president breed: thank you, supervisor cohen. seeing no names on the roster, i would like to ask for the project sponsor to come forward. you have up to ten minutes for a presentation. >> members of the board of supervisors, my name is david

rubbenstein. i'm one of the sponsors of this project. we're asking to build five good sized single-family homes, the kind of homes, single-family homes, decent sized that the city can use. we purchased the property -- you were just told that we purchased in auction. we purchased the property via the mls. it was listed. the owner listed it. we saw it on the listing. anybody could have looked at it. it was for sale. it was brought through escrow. there was nothing here that was -- again, it's one of those misleading things that i want to fix and correct in the ten minutes that we have, because on the mls, it was advertised. anybody could have purchased it. we met with the planning department, we did all the

right steps that one should do. we met with the planning did he want to get predesign ideas for this project. no variances in this project. everything is in line with the planning code. in addition, in full compliance with the potential design guidance. so after the -- we purchased it, two weeks later, we get a call from the supervisor's office, reached out to us regarding rocks. rocks is a wonderful not for profit organization that rented part of the space, and the concern was that they serve kids in the community, and what is going to happen with them. actually, no rocks, kurt is a great guy who runs it, and i know him through the soccer community in san francisco. and i know we met with them, talked to them and said that they can stay at long as they

want. we immediately waived all their rent. we just figured we're coming into this neighborhood, we're getting into something that is such a wonderful organization, and we just waived the rent. we waived the rent to the other two organizations that's used it part-time. they sent us some checks once in a while, we never asked them for money, and that's the way it was. in late 2015 r 15-2016, we that you we could break ground. we asked kurt from rocks if they could vacate so we can break ground in june. we were contacted and advised that's their biggest time of the summer. of course we understood it, we delayed it again. at the time, that was our

understanding is. not only that, we were going to go into a very crucial step of the construction snoot winter that could have even delayed us more. little did we know then that that's not the case, but again, i'm just giving you our state of mind regarding what happened there. overall, our potential loss of rent was probably 100,000, but again, this is not the kind of thing we really were worried about, and we were happy to do it for the community. we met with the appellant and the group five times. we made numerous design changes to accommodate the appellant group and other community members which set us back again in time and cost, but we did what we need to do. surprisingly, the appellant filed a discretionary review with the planning department mplt the discretionary review again caused delay of another 1.5 years, and i'm not going to get into the details, but it was not exactly with full disclosure, the way the

appellant behaved, but we'll leave this aside. it took numerous committee meetings and tremendous amount of cost for us. the planning commissioners considered all of the appellant's complaints, they looked at a few design issues that they brought up and went through all of them with basically a fine toothed comb. we spent a lot of time. the planning commission voted unanimously to approve the project and to reject the appellant. the major point here that i have to emphasize is all the issues in front of you today have been raised, considered, and reviewed by the planning commission. there's nothing new here that hasn't been addressed in the two discretionary review meeting does with the commissioners before them. the city is losing close to 100,000 a year in real estate taxes. the community is losing the economical impact and social and other contribution that's

five families can bring to the neighborhood. we've spent tens of thousands of dollars trying to secure the place from break-ins and removal of trash, which if i don't run out of time, i will show you. the immediate neighbors actually are the biggest victims here, due to the continued break-ins and necessary police action. just this morning, we were called because the police was there. and some that used to -- some neighbors that used to support the appellant told us that they no longer do so, but they don't want to say it in public. just to make a few other points that i picked up, just to be clear, this is a private land. this is not part of any public land. we are not prohibiting any access to anywhere. this is not true. the kind of park -- we just googled it. it's 312 acres. this is less than a third of an acre, and it's, again, a private land. i'd like to go quickly through

some slides to show you some pictures. i want to point again this is supposedly where the people come and hangout and look at the view. by the way, after we built, there will still be view, and i'll show it to you in a second. by the way, this was a -- just from google map, this was not even our picture. you can see over here, all that. so just quickly, i'm going through and showing you, this is exactly the end of raymond, and this is how it looks, and this is what we've had to deal with for the last five years to clean a lot of it, and we've spent tens of thousands. this is all supposedly in the flat area that's not that flat in raymond. so again, tremendous amount of

garbage all the time, and you can see that these pictures are taken at different times of the year. you can see the rain. every time it rains, that's what we see. and more garbage, and a little bit more garbage, and again, these are all different pictures from different times on different days and so on. of course, now, let's get to couple of other ikt approximates. i just want to, again, -- pictures. i just want to, again, make clear -- so if you can see here, the blue is the caution tape defining the lot line. the red is the path that connects leland to raymond. look at this -- look at the space in between the -- this is the path that rec and park considers the path between it, and this is the lot's corner. and a few more pictures here of the same thing.

this is actually something to show you that -- at the narrowest point up on imd ra, and it's -- this 37 feet between visitacion avenue and the parcel, there's a lot of room for people to walk by and still be okay, and it immediately opens up. there is no -- we do not block any access to the park, we do not do any of that. some other things, with respect to -- well, some of garbage pictures, but i'm sure you've had enough of that. let me show you something else. this is what rec and park has been doing, and i think it's amazing, and it's wonder chl, butchl, -- wonderful, but i haven't heard anybody complain to rec and park about any rare species of anything. i think they do an amazing job making the garden bigger for the community. but for us, it was 1.5 years of

delay, and 150,000, 200,000 worth of costs, because supposedly there's some flowers in our area that has never and never never been found, but when rec and parks goes and disturbs an area two or three times the size we might, then there's no complaint. it's just a little bit -- some people would call it hypocrisy, but i don't want to use the word like that. this is just a few more pictures to show you how beautiful it's going to be there for the neighborhood, and we've heard a lot of misleading information, especially in the discretionary review, the two meetings. it's all on tape, it's all on video. you've heard some of it today, and i hope that you will consider the good and -- of the project and approve the project to go forward. thank you very much.

>> president breed: thank you. are there any members of the public who would like to speak in opposition of the appeal, you will have up to two minutes. >> good afternoon, supervisors. cory smith on behalf of the san francisco housing action coalition speaking against the appeal and in support of the project. certainly not the typical type of project that we are up here speaking in support of. there was a couple of factors that we looked at. number one, we always talk about choices and options for people to live in. single-family homes is one of those options, and then, another word was families, we saw this as an opportunity to bring family housing to a place that has none. we would just also ask that you vote based on the california environmental quality act as the planning department has laid out. thank you. >> president breed: thank you. are there any other members of the public who would like to speak in opposition of the

appeal? >> good afternoon. my name is lisa marie stuggart. i'm now reaching that point in my life where i'm ready to settle down and purchase a home. i don't want a condo or one bedroom studio. this is an attractive option. it's near a park. there's a chance for something really great to be happening here. please don't take that away. >> president breed: thank you. are there any other members of the public wishing to speak in opposition of the appeal? seeing none, public comment is closed. all right. the appellant will have up to three minutes for rebuttal.

>> i had a speech prepared here, but what has been said is really outrageous. first off, in terms of the plants, we had dr. michael vasey from state college come out and he discovered the plants in the first place, and then we have naturalists from rec and park who discovered them in the first place, and when esa came out to do their study, they -- they didn't find anything. we had to take them there and show them where the plants were. but that's not even the issue now. the issue is about whether this is in-fill space or not. when we were in a supervisor's office the other day, planning told us that the site is called 590. it's one single site. we were looking at it, either way, you have to look at the perimeter of the site. if it's less than 75% with the boundaries surrounded by housing or buildings, then

that's considered -- it's not considered to be in-fill. if you look at it as a totality, it's not in-fill. if you take the top three lots, which is all we're interested in now, they are -- they're surrounded on three sides by open space. so no way is that in-fill space. we really want that to be looked at more carefully through a lenses of not promoting housing which is what the planning department is about. they've -- they don't follow their own general plan, and they've completely ignored the rows and the urban design elements of the -- of the general plan. in terms of views, i mean, i -- i just cannot believe that they can go out there and say there are no views, and that the flat

space there -- there's no other flat space in that general area except down by the community garden. and that is -- you know, people who are elderly, i've seen them walking down the street. in the middle of the street, they do it on a daily basis, from john king steecenter. i know this is private property. i realize it's not flat, but there are ways to get the property -- when we tried to start the greenway, we were told it was impossible. we were told that by schlage lot and willie brown, and look where we are now. any way, i still dispute what they're saying. thanks. >> president breed: thank you. with that, this hearing has been held and is now closed. this matter is before the board of supervisors at this time. supervisor cohen, i will turn it over to you.

>> supervisor cohen: thank you. i -- seeing that there are no names, i figure that there's no discussion. i think that this is pretty much an open and closed -- unfortunately, this is not a discretionary review, this is a ceqa appeal, and as i was trying to layout before we began this discussion is that there's a very limited scope as to which we can evaluate this project, and that is only through a ceqa lens. and so with that, i believe that the project being developed on private property violates no planning codes. and to be fair, i'm very uncomfortable with the size and the scale of -- of this project. i share the community's concern that although a single-family home may be bought -- excuse me, will be sold, we sl have--e no assurances that it will be airbnbed out.

although that is in violation of the planning code. we already have very restricted public transportation access and -- and very restricted parking. so we're talking about a lot of constraints that will be placed on -- on the vis valley neighborhood. so these issues and the fare that are kind of manifesting are very real, and i want to dignify them. the challenge is that this project has been approved by the planning department and it's gone through the proper channels, and the argument that the appellant has raised does not cut muster. it does not rise to the level for us to deny this project

from moving forward. so with that, i ask that you join me in upholding the planning department's determination and allow this item to move forward. thank you. >> president breed: okay. seeing no names on the roster, does that mean -- >> supervisor cohen: yes. >> president breed: that you'd like to -- >> supervisor cohen: to make a motion to vote yes on item 48, and we will table items 49 and 50. thank you, colleagues for hearing us out. >> president breed: supervisor cohen has made a motion to approve item 48 and table items 49 and 50. [please stand by for captioner switch]