hotter. maybe for parks to have shadow, it might be harder, i don't know. i'm just coming from a person that is homeless, you know? with housing development, it really helped. thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> next speaker >> hello commissioners. i live in san francisco since '82. i have had three children since. so you can see how many people more since then. i lost my condo in 2010, and me and my daughter, in the housing crisis and i was divorced and me and my daughter were homeless. i couldn't find an affordable place to stay and i lived in the shelter for ten months and she lived in another shelter for eight months. so somehow i

lived in ccr, and i understand that we need a park, but at same time, we need someplace to stay. i would ask people not to be like me, not to be homeless and to have housing and apartments here. i am supporting this project. thank you, sir. >> thank you. >> good morning. my name is margaret and i'm a native san franciscan. i support this project because it's not a huge building. i don't know what they are going to build there in they don't put the building there. i know the park. i frequent it. it's nice but the building going up there sounds like a great deal. it's ten stories -- what is going to go there

instead? i think what i am trying to say is all the stuff that was brought here to today, a lot was irrelevant to the project. so i hope you support it. >> thank you. >> my name is levi. i just wanted to make it short and quick. i do support the project, because i think we have a more important issue of affordable housing. and the whole shadow issue, quite frankly no disresect is the most asanine thing i heard. if no shadows you would tear the trees out of the park because of the shadows. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker. >> good morning -- good afternoon, commissioners, i'm from the housing program and veterans equity center in south of market. first of all i want to thank especially general manager

philip ginsburg and commissioners allan low and mcdonnell for your previous comments in the committee around this issue and i hope a lot of those comments were transferred over to the larger group here today. because i think what we're talking about is a park and being stewards for this very important park. this is a park that many in the community have been work on for decades. this has been a miraculous trade back in 2000 something. i was there at the time and we actually got an award for the park. i believe neighborhood beautification fund and we are very proud of the park. it's a beautiful park. your developer especially was amazing, at designing this. since then, there has been an eastern neighborhoods planning process, that was contentious and had a lot of issues in it,

but shadows was something that was really left off the discussion because there was such a debate around the issues of housing and jobs and affordability. you are not the planning commission, but the recreation and parks commission and your voice needs to be brought back to planning to say it's a really relevant point in the issue. we help people apply for the bmr programed programs and affordable housing programs. this project is not stressing affordable housing, but it's a bmr program and it's great that we have one more unit but in reality we're talking about thousands of units that are luxury and nine of these units are luxury as well. this is an issue around shadows in the park and the precedence it will be setting. so i hope

you support this issue and deny this project or send that message. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker and then i have two more cards, charles and albert. >> good afternoon, my name is herbert smith. i don't have anything against the project, but i would appreciate if you would all not build a project and not worry about the park. because a lot of people need housing and it would be very nice to let the project go up. thank you, have a nice day. >> thank you. >> next speaker. >> hi my name is albert. i just want to make sure -- i support the project. >> thank you. >> next speaker. >> my name is charles williams and i'm really short on time. i support it. >> thank you.

>> is there anyone else who has not made public comment -- come on up? >> good afternoon, supervisors. commissioners, sorry -- >> please -- [laughter ]. >> i'm sorry. sorry about that. city hall. anyways my name is angelica with the south of market action network,soman for short. thank you for your leadership and hearing us out today, especially the leadership of mr. low. first off, it's no secret that san francisco is experiencing an overall displacement crisis and we need to build for affordable housing. however, at the same time, the city needs to balance that we need to catch up on building that infrastructure. we have a lot of people in the neighborhood district 6 has the highest influx of new residents, but at the same time, that infrastructure of open space has not caught up to

it as many of the speakers had spoke earlier. in 2003-2004, bessie carmichael was built. at that same time, it took us over a year to work with the rec and park to actually get this park built. it didn't just pop out of nowhere. it tookpt community's efforts to get the name and also to get the park built, which in 2006 it finally was there. and then in january, 2009 city and county of san francisco adopted the plan and this youth and family plan had two goals. one was to provide affordable housing in the area defined and two, intended to protect and

enhance youth and families et cetera. this project does not meet those goals. building market rate housing is not going to house the people that need it in the neighborhood. thank you. >> thank you. >> did you want to speak? if you want to speak, come on up. >> this one? >> either. >> okay. hi, my name is pete lee. >> you can lift that microphone up. >> oh, yeah. [laughter ] >> cool. my name is still pete lee. i've spent -- i don't know -- four, five years working with kids in the tenderloin. and one of our -- one of my favorite parks is the park in question right now. and i don't know -- it brings a lot of beautiful memories.

it's just -- man i'm really stuttering -- and the park just means a lot to the kids in that area and the kids in that neighborhood. i would hate to see the -- i don't know some kind of big shadow from a condo to cast over the kids. >> thank you. >> richard, did you want to speak? come on up. >> good afternoon, commissioners, mr. mark buell, congratulations. >> thank you. >> i wanted to comment about the people who showed up to speak today. a good plethora of community people and i have

been going over this a little bit and i spoke a little bit at committee and thought about things like lighting and making further reviews of our facility there. the park itself. so if we look at this, and you try to balance things out and i was looking at all the different input that has gone into the project and i wanted to think about how can the park facility be enhanced and its utilization in the community? so i wanted to bring in things like making further use of softball hard ball playing that isn't just little kids with the homerun fence. i thought that was great the kids getting a homerun fence, but further use of our facilities. so i wanted to bring in again and rereiterate

what lighting might do to the park, lighting up the park around the basketball court and baseball, you enhance what is existing or include a clubhouse? that is not totally the responsibility of the builder. that is more the park administration. that is what i wanted to see to bring out across to you, that you could enhance the utility of such a small area in south of market. so if you can bring it out, and i don't know if it's going to be at this time, perhaps in the future. thank you. thank you. >> if anyone else wants to speak, i do need you to come over to line up on this side and please do that now. if you want to speak, come on up.

>> hi, my name is joann and i support this project and it's time to improve our environment. so please vote, yes, yes, yes, on this project. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> next speaker. >> hi there. >> good afternoon, my name is raymond, with somcan and deal 20 youth unfortunately they have school and couldn't be here today. most of them, they live in the neighborhood, in district 6, tenderloin and soma and treasure island and during elementary and middle school they went to bessie carmichael. district 6 doesn't have a high school and so most of the youth actually have to travel far away. and they lost contact with

some of the folks that they know from elementary or middle school and it's where they can meet each other and hang out and enjoy the day; right? you heard it a lot. i know district 6, we need housing. we need affordable housing. but at the same time, with this topic, i am more considering about the livelihood of the people in this community, the youth, the young ones that play, the workers that work in this neighborhood. that utilize, as you heard earlier, they come for their lunch break to enjoy the sun and eat their lunch. we have a vibrant community and this park has been used for a lot of things, community events. it's been used for after-school programs, basketball, to walk your dog. i just walked my dog there yesterday. it was fun. so please consider. it's not just about the shadow, but about the livelihood of the people in the community. thank you. >> thank you. >> does anyone else want to

speak on this item? if you want to speak, please come up now. we're going to be closing public comment. >> hello, my name is leonard low and i'm for the project. we're always talking about no enough housing and here we have the person who will put up the money and do the housing. what else can you say? he is going by the rule and not breaking any. i don't understand -- we need living space also. as along as he is within the boundary, i don't see why not. thank you. >> thank you. >> is there anyone else who wants to speak? >> my name is aiden. i just want to say the shadow

is negligible. what about the property rights and what about the mayor's housing plan? [speaker not understood] thank you. >> thank you. >> does anyone else want to speak on this item? being no further public comment, public comment is closed. >> thank you. commissioner low? >> our prime directive to build more housing and produce more housing must be recognized. i believe its what to be recognized in the context of building a livable city and community and parks play -- parks open space and recreation

facilities play an important role in building a livable community. and sustainable community. we've heard this in prior commission hearings, on district 6. it's park-deficit, 0.17 acres compared to 2 acres in district 2. we formed task forces to find open space opportunities to address this. after a year of looking, hard-look, even with collier's international assisting us, we haven't done a deal and that highlights the lack of opportunities for open space and parks in district 6. i think that emphasizes the importance of victoria manalo draves park and as stewards how we have to protect that park and increase the accessibility

in high-needs neighborhoods such as district 6. now we're guided by the 1989 shadow memo in order to evaluate the impact of this park. there are two standards with two criteria that we have to follow: quantitative criteria and qualitative criteria. while the shadow -- additional shadow cast is 0.07%, we have heard before at this commission and debated whether there should be a cumulative shadow analysis comparing to the other three projects that are in the pipeline? again, i feel like i am yelling into a hole, because not too many people followed me down that hole, but i still want to emphasize, when we take a look at significant cumulative shadow impact of all projects, do we just accept the first one

in line, because that developer had put the application in earlier, or should we look at it aas as a whole? second, i'm not sure we're applying the correct quantitative criterion. i'm going criticize the 1989 memo again, where there is a reference there are some parks, although within this category, which is two-acres or more; who have surrounding height limits, that preclude the possibility of any new shadow. i don't know what that means because around all parks there is a height limit. but what was that sentence supposed to mean in evaluating shadow? because if it falls into that category, no shadow

should be allowed. if there was an '80s time machine, i would like to go back to 1989 and ask the author, what did you mean when you wrote this? i don't know. of course, that quantitative criteria is what we call "victim opinions." but it's not authority. it's just the ramblings of a commissioner. [laughter ] sorry. so i do think in taking a look at the qualitative criteria of the 1989 memo, that we cannot support this project. the qualitative criteria has two categories, one is the shadow charactericks, size, duration and location of the

shadow. it's up to 45 minutes and in an active recreation area. we have heard testimony relating to sunny hills and the need for sunshine and space. i don't think it satisfies that category as shadow characteristics as it would shorten the sunlight hours of the park, possibly detering use by the community and looking at the value of the other category is value of the sunlight, time of day, time of year and the memo specifically says that for neighborhood parks where there is shadow in the afternoon, that must be preserved. and i think the community has put an exclamation point on the value of that sunlight. we have heard adjectives suchs

a "sacred land." the legacy and history of the park and the safety and spiritual connection to the park. i think that adversely affects the recreation experience and the connections that the community enjoys to this park. so i think this is not just a significant adverse impact on the park; i think it's a significant and adverse impact on the community that uses the park. so i would like to move -- make a motion that it is the advice of this recreation and parks commission to the planning commission pursuant to planning code section -- before i make the motion. there is one other category that we need to address, which is the public served by the shadow caster. i do want to acknowledge the developer's offer to provide an affordable housing unit. that is required by code, if he

goes to ten units. so if it was ten units he would be required to provide one affordable housing unit. whether it's nine units and one of the nine units is affordable housing, i do want to acknowledge that is a generous gesture. but i don't think it overrides the qualitative -- the -- failure to meet the qualitative criteria. i would like to move the advice of the recreation and parks commission to the planning commission, with the planning code section of the sunlight ordinance that the proposed project at 190 russ street does not meet the qualitative criteria of the 1989 memo and will have a significant adverse impact on victoria manalo draves park. >> commissioner levitan. >> i will be brief, because as usual my colleague,

commissioner low has perfectly articulated, ironically, for the second time on this topic, that we have spoken about this recently. and not to sound like a broken record for those who have heard me say this, but i don't believe there is any such thing as a good shadow. and so which people say, it's not much shadow, or it's not bad shadow, those are often people that don't spend time in parks and certainly don't know what it feels like to be in a park with shadow, especially with children. for the people who are turned out today, this neighborhood does not have open space. and we are charged with a few things as commissioners. and the most important is the public trust. and the public trust to make sure that the quality of life it's relates to open space and recreation is protected and i was fortunate enough to be born and raised in this city and fortunate enough to raise

children in this city and commend those who came out today and raising families in the district. this park matters and the shadow on the park matters. we look at greatest good for the greatest number of people. i agree, commissioner low, i cannot support this project either. >> we have a motion and i am going to assume a second to the motion. >> that is a second. >> from commissioner levitan. i want to weigh in on this before we vote. i was strongly persuaded by supervisor kim and commissioner low and commissioner levitan, this is a part of town that is rapidly growing with high density housing. that housing doesn't come as single-family detached with a nice yard, where you can play with the kids. parks are immensely important and it's pointed out there are the fewest parks per capita in this part of town. so the microscope is on these parks when there is a shadow cast. so it is a qualitative issue.

it's an issue that is an active area of the park. it's the entrance to the park. if it were the other end, it might make some difference, but quality of shadow makes a huge difference. and so i'm going to support this resolution to advise the planning commission that there is an adverse effect. i also want to go out beyond that and just simply restate for my personal standpoint, and i believe it would be the standpoint of my fellow commissioners, that the sponsor should not misconstrue that there is some other politics involved in this. i wasn't aware of any of those politics frankly. i haven't been lobbied by not one person on either side of this issue. so we have a serious responsibility to parks and the quality of life related to parks in this city and that is the single issue we're looking at the here and i hope you

understand that. would you call the roll for this. >> roll call vote, on commissioner low's motion, commissioner buell? >> aye. >> commissioner low? >> aye. >> commissioner harrison? >> aye. >> commissioner levitan? >> aye. >> and commissioner wei? >> aye. >> motion passes. >> thank you. >> we'll taking a ten-minute break and >> we are in session. >> okay, we are on item 10 washington square restroom renovation. contract amendment. >> >> good afternoon, commissioners, general manager, mary hobson from the capital

division. before you is a request to modify the contract for the construction of washington square restroom. to an amount not to exceed $1,160,000. this amount is in excess of 10% above the original contract value, which was $979,000. you may recall this commission approved award of contract to fine line construction back in april. this project, the scope of work includes the demolition of the existing is restroom and construction of a new restroom at washington square park. the project went into construction in june. and has been proceeding slowly since then. we're at approximately 75% complete and anticipate the project being completed next month and open to the public towards the end of the month. so you will probably see a report on that next month.

but we did run into a few problems during construction, which resulted in change orders. we have provided you a list of change orders approved so far and pending. the majority of which we contribute to unforeseen conditions, the greatest item, which is about 14%, is associated with pg&e's direction to us to change the connection of power service to both the restroom and the park lighting. the project originally contemplated connecting to the power service at the existing location on filbert street, but for reasons unknown or unclear to me, pg&e directed us after the project started to connect on columbus street, which required the contractor to trench and install conduit

around the children's playground and through grove of trees resulting in increased contract costs. at this time we believe we'll finish the project with the change orders shown here and we do not anticipate going over this threshold and with that, i would like to request that the commission approve our increase in contract and i'm available to answer any questions that you have. >> is there any public comment on this item, the washington square restroom renovation? being none, public comment is closed. >> mary, so 14% of the these change orders are site conditions and you are saying that the biggest of that is the issue of the electrical connection. >> correct. >> what would come in second?

>> we didn't cover when the foundation was 3' deep and anticipated it would be a 4" slab on-grade. >> so excavation. >> excavation and disposal and added time associated with the demolishing of that building which probably could have been a bomb shelter, the one we had torn down. >> thank you. seeing no questions, entertain a motion. >> so moved. >> second. >> moved and seconded. all those in favor? >> aye. >> so moved thank you. >> we are now on item 11, 900 innes, award of contract. >>