design for this mural. here's a closer look at the current condition of the wall and some of the attagging that we get there. the thematic design would look like this. through the student body out reached, they came up with this. this was deemed to be inappropriate topic. they have come up with an artist, mr. victor reyes, who has designed and installed the mural. he has tremendous street cred with the local tagging and skater community in san francisco. san francisco general would be

responsible for repairing any damage to parts of the mural for the life of the peace. it will be done withnon-fading pigments. it also has au u-v protectorate. sf general will be responsible for cleaning up or getting rid of any tagging, should it occur on the wall. that's pretty much the summary of the project itself. this is not on rec and park property. under the jurisdiction of the parks commission. we thought it was prudent to at least bring this to you for informational purposes so you can see what is going on and provide a point for public comment. i do have someone here from sf general, should you have any

specific questions about the sf general portion of the project itself. other than that, that would be the information we wanted to present to you this morning. >> thank you. >> i do have public comment. >> do you want to go to that? >> ok. >> i represent potrero del sol and when all thbuneneno vista p. he has come to a lot of meetings and he has been very supportive. victor reyes is a well-known artist throughout the country and he is doing this all for us for free. he also has very close ties to the community around the parke. we're looking forward to a big

celebration. hope you come out to the park. thank you. president buell: thank you. >> any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. president buell: commissioner bonilla? >> yes, i am looking at all the letters of support for the project, i did not notice that there were letters from some key stakeholders in the area. i'm referring to the good samaritan center, the horizon, mission neighborhood centers, and there's a list of other organizations that i did not see

letters from. maybe staff or jean can provide me with a little bit more information about the support from these organizations. they are key stakeholders and i want to make sure they are on board with this. can you give me more information on that? i would imagine these stakeholders were invited to these meetings on the discussions for the mural project. >> commissioner, we will certainly attempt to get that information for you. it will go before the arts commission on may 18. >> thank you very much. >> this item was for discussion only. we are on item 15. general public comment continued. is there anyone who would like

to make public comment at this time? item 15, general public comment is closed. we are on item 16, public comment on all matters pertaining to closed session. would anybody like to make public comment on closed session? seeing none, item 16 is closed. commissioners, we need to vote whether to go to closed session to confer with counsel or not. [laughter] >> i'm kidding. i move we do. >> moved and seconded. all those in favor? >> aye. >> i need to ask everyone to please leave the room. we are

>> good afternoon, this is spacial joint hearing between the planning commission and rec and park commission. before i take roll, please turn

off your cell phones, pagers, any electronic devices that may sound off during these proceedings. roll call for the planning commission. [roll call] >> and for the recreation and park commission -- [roll call] >> thank you. commissioners, today before you are two items, and that's on the planning commission calendar. item one is case number 2011.0248-k, james plan recreation center for the first item on the -- it's actually item two on the rec park condition calendar, the jane

fran recreation center formally known as south and market park and south and market recreation center. following staff presentations, we will have public comment or any commissioners' comments and questions, public comment and then it will be in the hands of the joint commission. >> good afternoon, commission. my name is karen. i'm director for planning for the recreation and parks department. so before you is item regarding an increase in the cumulative shadow limits for rec center formally known as south and market park and south and market recreation center. this was heard previously by the rec and parks commission on january 5, the capital committee heard this item and february 17 at the full commission of the recreation and parks commission. full meeting. at that time, the rec park commission reviewed the shadow and adopted the finding of the

shadow cap by the project would not adversely affect the use of the center. since that hearing the planning department notified us due to the manner in which this park was listed on the existing 1989 accommodation memo for proposition k, it requires a joint hearing. in that memo this park is listed amongst a group of parks for which no additional shadow is recommended. based on an assumption the parks in that group were already shadowed 20% or more. was discussed in the previous presentation before the rec park commission, current analysis determined the shadow load estimated to be less than 14%. memos have been included in your packet that address that analysis. so i just wanted to briefly walk you through some of the points outlined in the staff's memorandum prepared by rec park staff. the project would be -- can i use overheads?

i just wanted to quickly show an image of the proposed building. the one proposed as 38th harriet street, the with the win loot above it. i will show you the image of the park. south of market, it's called jean friend rec center. park located at the corner of 6th and harrison. includes rec center, small playground, basketball court, green area, lawn areas and is a very important park. i just wanted to mention current analysis shows it's a shadow approximately 14% and the additional new shadow, which would be broad head by this project is estimated to .044%, which is a little less than half of 1% of additional shadow. the analysis provided at the previous meeting to the rec park commission, we talked about the fact that the additional new shadow would be relatively

small, less than half of new -- excuse me, less than half of the allowable new shadow recommended for parks over two acres in size. this park is less than two acres in size. the shadow would occur in the evening and late afternoon but as there's no recommendation for the amount of new shadow for a smaller park, the analysis presented to the rec park commission at times if this shadow was less than half of the amount recommended for a park -- a larger park. so that relatively small amount would not have an adverse impact on the functioning use of the park. i think i will let planning staff add additional information regarding the memo or any questions you might have about that. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners and planning department staff. we would like to reiterate the findings of our colleagues at rec park. we believe that the shadow budget for jean fin rec center

should be increased up to 0 .44%, which was proposed by the project which you will hear before you subsequently n our talks with rec and park and working with the city attorney, we have made some adjustments to the draft resolution and draft motion, which will be before you later. i would like to present these to you right now if i may. that should be enough. commissioners with the changes before you with the original set deal with the additional of sequel language and also adding the stipulation of -- opening the discussion to change, to remove the jean friend rec center from that list of small park that's were deemed to be shadowed 20% oar more of the time as our colleagues have mentioned, given analysis, we found it to be approximately 14%. so that's what is before you.

also added the monitoring -- excuse me, mmrp, better none as mitigation monitoring program that was completed and signed off in november 2010 and been available for public review since then. as part of the secret changes. i would like to rerate what we believe given the findings we made in the resolutions that the shadow budget should be increased by 0 .44%. that concludes my presentation. i'm here to answer questions. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> project sponsor? >> good afternoon, i'm the

project manager for 38 harriet street. i wanted to provide just a little bit of information for you in general about the project, so you can get a sense of what it is. it is a four-story building with 23 units and we are pleased that it has a lot of really positive characteristics that we would like to share with you. the first and most important is that it meets all of the elements of the applicable zoning regulations. it doesn't meet any conditional use, although it meets the height regulations for the new eastern neighborhoods rezoning as well as open space, and so forth. the project is targeting lead platinum so we are investigating heavily in its sustainability. and we have enhanced storm water management, energy efficiency. we're having solar water heating, sustainable materials.

the project, as you know, is located very near transit, so it's going to be a car-free project. we're going to have ample secure bike parking and we are working on an arrangement with city car share to have a city car share pod placed in front of the building for a resident and neighborhood use. the project also has an enhanced level of affordability as provided for in that neighborhood, which is 22% so it has actually 5 of the 23 units are set aside below market rate. what we would like to point out is the project, even the mark rate is affordable design and we use that term oftentimes to describe projects which have units which are compact or efficient, oftentimes when there's no parking, it can provide for that. so even the market rate unit are

anticipated to sell for about $260,000 or $270,000, which puts them at the very most affordable end of the market rate spectrum in san francisco. and just about $50,000 or so above what the below-market rate unit would be. and, finally, i would like to speak just a moment to the outreach that we have. the outreach we've done over the last year or so we've been working on the project. we had a total of it five meetings. we had two open houses for the community, neighbors in the community groups they were invited to, and we also had presentations in front of the leadership council, ss housing coalition, and i have letters of sue posht from leadership council and san francisco

housing action coalition that i would like to provide, if requested. so we're excited about the project. very green, very sustain able t provides a lot of really affordable housing in the neighborhood that we need. and finally, it's replacing basically nothing. it's just kind of a blighted empty lot right now. just a fence asphalt empty lot that people are kind of throwing trash in. and that we're trying to keep up with. our project is actually quite well in scale with the rest of the developments on the block. in terms of height and bulk and use. so we think it's going to be a grat addition to the neighborhood. and we appreciate your time. >> i want to add one thing. my name is patrick kennedy. i'm a project sponsor too. that is when we first looked to this project, the previous

developer had a 40-foot tall building that was -- and we ascertained that would have a shadow impact of one third of 1% on the building as of right that.s0 would happened inevitably. we asked them to calculate how much additional shadow impalingt our -- impact our project has and he calculated that one-eighth of 1% additional for the five feet. as would like you to understand the as of right development would have an impact of .36 and additional five feet which allows us to do eight units and almost two more affordable units adds only one-eighth of 1%. is our shadow expert here? adam can elaborate on that if you would like. thank you. >> thank you.

>> any questions for us? >> we may later but we're ok right now. i would like to open it up for public comment. i have one speaker card, cheryl o'connor. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is cheryl o'connor and i'm a real estate market professional in san francisco and i specialize in affordable for-sale housing. have i been working for marketing and selling community at baby hunter's point. i want to point out the fact we have a very huge need for affordable houses in san francisco with the median price of homes at 768,000. i would strongly urge you to move this project forward so we can provide 23 more affordable by design and below-market rate homes for san francisco buyers. thank you. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment?

>> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm tim colen, executive director of the san francisco housing coalition and we're fiscal project of green belt alliance. we reviewed this. we have endorsement guidelines we looked at and evaluate projects against. we looked at this a while ago and really liked it. this type of housing falls in our sweet spot. it's small in scale. high density urban in fill in an area that's evolving in this direction. affordable by design, which we really like, no parking and reliant on bicycles with one car share space. this is the type of development that we like. parks and open says are important factors in a desirable neighborhood. we take section 295 analyses seriously. we want good parks and good spaces for people who move into the area but we don't think prop k was intended to prevent projects like this. as to the housing need, you can call this project many things but you can't karl it luxury

housing because it ain't. we've seen a big debate recently about the twitter tax deal, intended to bring workers for knowledge, companies we want to attract and retain and housing like this fits a key role in that objective for san francisco. more recently -- in the recent past, with great fanfare, we adopted a local hire ordinance, that we want workers who are going to be working here to live here. and because we worked with a lot of the trade unions, what they find is the apprentices, sure, they can live here. they're often living with parents and friends and whatnot. but once they start moving into the jobs and moving up, they bail out. housing is terrible and it's very, very expensive here. so you look at this, this is a perfect imagination for this neighborhood. this is the type of housing the eastern neighborhoods want. it should go this way.

it's affordable to people we want to bring in the city and i hope you will adopt it. thank you. >> thank you. bill followed by bruce d. >> thank you, commissioners. i have some material to give you. i made 20 copies, so how many do you need? i see my clock has been running. commissioners, everything you heard is kind of not relevant. if you read that packet, you will see in prop k, there's a large debate over whether or not economic issues held equal priority with sunlight in the parks but whether the environmental issue predominanted, quentin cob, some

people say if you did this, we can never negotiate. that's a bad thing. bill maher, louise rening and a lot of people said if you do this, you cannot negotiate. that's a good thing. the city attorney said as a result of passage of this, you cannot negotiate. but there's either a finding that it impacts or it doesn't. the truth of the matter is that if it does impact and the reason for prop k was to stop concessions. this is a public property. it's a public easement for air and lifmente anybody their same mind would charge money if they were a private owner if they were going to sell it. we're proposing to give it away. we can't buy it back. we can't buy back new parks in those areas. once you build around it, there was nothing but an air shaft. and that's what happened.

almost wiped out st. mary's park, the only one in chinatown at the time, et cetera, et cetera. economic debate was held and decided by the voters overwhelmingly, i might add. the ballot says -- if you read the ballot argument on the front page, you shall if you vote for this, you want to establish permanent standards. if you vote against this, do you want flexibility? that's what the voter handbook says. the arguments in the voter handbook f. i can learn it on all sides, including planning director of the times and many other times, said the same thing. there is no legitimate strategy for changing the amount of sunlight in the park. it was in the study. study said it couldn't take anymore. there's no bases other than you want to allow someone to build, and that is contrary to the law and the express will of the public. save a lawsuit, save a lot of fights, do what the voters asked

you to do, especially rec and park commissioners. the public asks you to keep faith with them. public voted to keep their playgrounds and parks with sunlight. lastly -- >> thank you. >> good afternoon, i'm bruce being from hip housing an affordable housing group in the bay area. i just wanted to reiterate basically what tim said, that this is a fantastic project. it is well designed, beautiful project and regardless of some other comments, i think that there are -- this is a wonderful opportunity to take advantage of a housing that we sorely need in the community. thank you.

>> sue hester. he was heavily involved at the time this legislation was passed and at the time prop k was passed. where the environmental review of the amendment, for this amendment to prop k, please explain the extensive process that both commissions went through to do this amendment. there were years of hearings by the rec park commission and planning commission and the public. when the shadow studies were done to implement the allocations for the downtown parks, this is one of the 14 downtown parks. this was something that went through extensive joint as well as individual hearings. where is the environmental document? where is the analysis of how this confirms to prop k by a neutral party that has real background. the consultant that was paid for by this project sponsor looked

at the project, it wasn't looking at problem k. one of the crazinesses in there is there's a photo of the park that is parking -- that shows cars parked on the baseball court as though that means something. if rec park isn't following the law and is allowing basketball courts to be used as parking facilities, commissioners should stop it. it's not an excuse for there is no impact or shadows. you do not have a neutral document. you do not have a planning process. you are being asked to change prop k, years of work by your staff. prop k was really controversial because developers said it's going to stop projects and voters said, you know, the sunlight on the park is more important and the developers

lost. walter shorensteen tried to undo it. he made a straight shot against it. this includes a city attorney's opinion who said, yes, it means what it says in prop k. you do not have the power to throw it out because you like a project. that's not the issue. the issue is f. -- if there is a 40-foot height limit and that is it, you can't do a 45-foot project. this area had a 40-foot height limit until the eastern neighborhood rezoning. the area was rezoned to 85 feet but it did not allow an 80-foot building to violate prop k. where is your environmental review for the change? where is your analysis, where are your hearings for substantial modification to the allocation that was done are

pursuant to the voters' instructions in section 295? thank you. >> president olague and buel, in june the aforementioned proposition k was passed by the voters almost contemporaneous with that passage and you are in receipt of it, george agnos, city attorney at the time in august of 1984 i think explained in response to questions that came from then supervisor maher that indeed the interpretation that the supervisor is giving you that it was not subject to negotiation is indeed the law. the planning commission and its department hired the university of california at berkeley. in 1987 the university of california produced a draft report to determine