was a big loophole and this ab 96 is going to try to close that loophole. it was introduced last week. the goal of the bill is to help save elephants and rhinos from extinction by banning the sale and possession with intent to sell elephant ivory and rhino horns. the bill gets its name from the 1996 global elephant campaign in which an average of 18 elephants are being slaughtered. the u.s. is the second largest importer of ivory and much of the trade is currently legal under the confusing set of regulations that perpetrate the sell of illegal ivy. i don't know 've ivory. the illegal trade of animal products is about a $ 200

billion industry, up there with sex trafficking and drugs and guns of it's calling for the obama administration to institute a moratorium on domestic ivory sales. ab 96 will empower the u.s. fish and wildlife to enforce the law. please join san francisco zoo and stop the killing and stop the trafficking and stop the demand. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> is there anyone who would like to make public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. this was discussion only. it is starting to get a little crowded in here and i know we're running out of seats. so if there is any staff that can move into these seats, so we can allow the public to be seated, we would really appreciate that. and after this item, i will go

pull some chairs out of the back. thank you. so we are now on item 7. commissioners >> you lost a few commissioners. >> should we wait? >> we probably should. >> okay. >> let's do item 8 and come back. >> okay. we're now on item 8 eugene friend recreation center agreement with trust for public land and once this is done, we'll go back to item 7. >> good morning, commissioners. and director of policy and public affairs melinda stockman, capital and planning division. very excited this morning to be presenting to you for

discussion and possible action the approval of an agreement between the city and county of san francisco and the trust for public land. under which tpl will provide rec and park department a grant including in-kind services with an estimated value of $310,000 to develop a feasibility study and concept design for the eugene l. friend rec center and cash in the amount of $50,000 to support rpd project management services. and secondly, to recommend that the board of supervisors authorize the rec and park department to accept and expend the grant. first of all i will start by saying as many of you know much better than i do, eugene l. friend was a long time public servant in the city of san francisco serving on the rec and park commission for 24 years and the recreation center at the south of market is in his name due to a large donation from the friend family. we're very excite that the friend family has come back to

the trust for public land in an effort to recognize that this area is in transition and rapidly growing and that the aging recreation center has a lot of opportunity to better serve a broad diversity of users. eugene friend rec center islocated along the 6th street corridor in the heart of south of market district of san francisco. one-acre site currently include single-story recreation center completed in 1989-1990 and has a full indoor gymnasium, rec and features basketball and volleyball courts, play structure and planting areas. there is no on-site parking. the rec and park department is proposing to partner with the trust for public land to develop a feasibility study that looks at all of the documents that we have and some documents that we don't yet

have. look at the current system and long list of deferred maintenance for the site. the feesibility study equally importantly will look at the existing programming and stakeholders at the site, as well as future programming needs and changing changes in recreation. as you know, the soma neighborhood is currently one of san francisco's neighborhoods undergoing significant grown authentic rapidly changing demographics. this project will be a challenge for trust for public land and rec and park and our architectural consultants to be sensitive to the needs of all and build a beautiful civic center. trust for public land is a national non-profit that has successfully worked with the cities in the bay area for 40 years to ensure that everyone has access to quality parks and open spaces. some of the recent park renovations resulting from this partnership include the hayes valley clubhouse and play ground, balboa park and very

recently the opening of the boeddeker park and clubhouse. the trust for public land and parks and recreation has represented $16 million in investment to the parks in our system. at this point we do not know if the project, if the concept design will be recommending an intense renovation and/or addition or new building. that is the purpose of undertaking the feasibility study and concept design as a duo. our goal is with strong input from an architectal consultant through the rfp process and eugene friend's center and supervisor kim's center will look into the feasibility study and concept design that also includes phasing and cost considerations. in addition, to the gift

in-kind services cal poly l will gift $50,000 to rec and park. phillip vitale is the project manager. we have been working on this project since the fall and trust for public land has outlined a robust community process and have issued a resource request for proposals for architectural services. proposed outreach including monthly updates to the friends of group and supervisor kim's office and three to four community meetings to discuss existing conditions, feasibility study and conceptual design and focus groups with rec and park staff of course, and particular

constituencies. the basic schedule is to complete the feasibility design in the spring and concept design by late summer and i would return to rec and park commission for approval of the conceptual design at the close of the process. at this point, i think i would like to close, phillip vitale was not able to be here today due to scheduling conflict, but the director of the friends and people program for the trust for public land is here and happy to answer questions as well. >> thank you. >> we do have public comment. i do have jennifer isaackoff, do you want to come up in this is the only card i have and if you want to make public comment please feel free to come up after. >> thank you, commission. i just wanted to stand here for a second and appreciate your consideration. we're especially proud to be

embarking on this project. melinda did a great job of outlining our history with the city and our commitment to helping create a livable, loveable city for all san franciscans. this project in particular we're especially proud of because it's really a legacy project, really recognizing civic leadership and volunteerism for parks in san francisco. and also recognizing the multi-generation legacy that those values can have as the family continues to want to put its commitment towards ensuring that that rec center serves not only obviously evolving demographics, but the current residents that live there. so we are excited to bring a very robust community process, deep community engagement and really strategically look at what future recreation needs will be

there? how this rec center can continue to serve as an icon and special place in the neighborhood and also to strategical look to set up the project to attract public and private center to build a new rec center and park. so i just wanted to appreciate your consideration. just move forward interviewing architects yesterday and today and expect to get community outreach going very, very soon. thank you. >> thank you. >> come on up. >> good morning almost noon, commissioner. my name is mish el olivas and member of the friends of park group and also a resident and parent in soma and i want to say that we're so excited for this project to be moving forward. as you know, soma has such a limited amount of public open space and so the rec center is

well-loved and we have a lot of love and commitment towards make the eugene friend rec center the best it can be. we look forward to working with you and the trust for public land to make sure this endeavor is super successful. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> is there anyone else who would like to comment on this item? item 8? being none public comment is closed. commissioners? >> entertain a motion? >> so moved. >> second. >> moved and seconded. commissioner low, did you want to make a comment? >> i just wanted to make the motion. >> okay, it's moved and seconded. all those in favor? >> aye. >> so moved. >> so we are now going back to item 7. >> maybe we want to make an announcement about the seats. >> we do need everyone to take a seat. if there is any staff in here, we would ask that you give up your seat for the public.

i will pull some folding chairs out from the back. >> we have four seats up front.

folks we do have seats up in the front, if you could please take a seat. we are now on item 7 which is the election of officers. so commissioners, i just want to explain the procedure for today. for both the president and vice

president we'll do each separately. i will need a motion and second to open the nominations, and then a vote on that. i will then ask for nominations for president, and for each nomination i do need a second. we will then -- i will need a motion and second to close. we will vote on that. before we vote on the actual nomination, we will take public comment for the presidency. we will vote on that and then we will do the same thing for vice president. okay? so with that, i would ask for a motion and a second to open the nominations for president. >> so moved. >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> okay. do i have a nomination for president? commissioner low, i see your name up here. >> yes. i think we have been blessed these years with the sage and wise -- almost auctioneer leadership -- [laughter ]of president buell. and out of fear he may lift

more money out of my pocket, i would -- for his charities of course -- [laughter ]. i would nominate president buell again to remain as president for the upcoming term. >> thank you. i see commissioner mcdonnell's name. >> for all those reasons stated a second the nomination. >> thank you. i need a motion and second to close the nomination. >> so moved. >> second. >> all those in favor? >> aye. >> thank you. is there any public comment on the motion to elect president buell as president of the commission? being none, public comment is closed. i'm going to do a roll call vote on that. commissioner buell? >> aye. >> commissioner low? >> aye. >> commissioner harrison? >> aye. >> commissioner levitan? >> aye. >> commissioner mcdonnell? >> aye.

>> and commissioner wei? >> aye. >> congratulations, commissioner buell. [ applause ] >> thank you very much. thank you commissioner low and mcdonnell for your kind words and i hope to live up to those expectations and i see that the general manager -- acting general manager would like to say something. >> i know phil would not let this opportunity pass to say thank you to you all and president buell on behalf of the general manager and staff for the interest that you take in your role and the support you provide us. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> so we are now going to do nominations for the vice president. so i need a motion and second to open the nominations. >> so moved. >> second. >> all those in favor? >> aye. >> i will now ask for a nomination for vice president. commissioner levitan, i see you. >> it is with great pleasure

and honor that i nominate allan low as vice president. he is a friend and a colleague and i think the teamwork between him and president buell has been quite wonderful for us. so it is with great pleasure that i nominate you. >> commissioner wei. >> i second. >> commissioner mcdonnell. >> just a brief comment, i think this nomination should require a motown song. [laughter ]. >> are you offering? >> no, but i don't need to propose to anybody, commissioner mcdonnell. [laughter ] >> is there any other nomination for vice president? being none, i need a motion for the nominations to be closed. >> so moved. >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> so moved. >> before we vote, is there any public comment on the nomination for commissioner low to be vice president? being none, public comment is closed, roll call vote, commissioner buell. >> aye. >> commissioner low? >> aye. >> commissioner harrison? >> aye. >> commissioner levitan?

>> aye. >> commissioner mcdonnell? >> aye. >> and commissioner wei? >> aye. >> congratulations, commissioner low. [ applause ] >> okay. >> thank you. >> you are welcome. we are now on item 9, victoria manalo draves park shadow impact from [phro-epz/]ed project at 190 russ street. >> good morning commissioners i'm holy pearson a planner with the rec and park department's capital and planning division and the item before you is an analysis of the impacts of shadow from a proposed development project at 190 russ

street on -- victoria manalo draves park. the proposition k also known as the sunlight ordinance was approved by san francisco voters in 1984 and now codified as planning code section 295. it requires shadow analysis for new buildings over 40' in height, that would cast new shadows on properties under the jurisdiction of the rec and park commission. subsequently a policy memo was adopted in 1989 by the planning and recreation and parks commissions that provides both qualitative and quantitative criteria to assess shadows on a park. as i said the 190 russ street project is just north of folsom street between 6th and 7th streets. and it's just to the northwest of the park. it's a residential project with 10 housing units, six-storis in height and the housing units would be nine of them would be market rate. one would be below market rate.

. >> before you continue, we just want to let everyone know we're in the process of getting an overflow room. we do need to keep the door area unblocked. you luck able to watch it and hear it and hear your name called and what that happens we'll give you plenty of time to come in and give public comment. i apologize, holly. go ahead. >> victoria manalo draves park say newer park opened in 2006. and it has a full basketball court and baseball field. it has two children's play structures. a small community garden. two large grassy areas. walkways, picnic tables and benches. this rendering shows the

proposed scale and design of the 190 russ street project. the building height is 64' 9" and has a small elevator structure that extends to a high of 78' 9". a summary of the qualitative aspects of new shadow that would be cast by the building, the shadow appears from early april through early september. and would occur in the late afternoon and evening within the last hour of the solar day, which is defined in the 1989 memo as "one hour before sunset." the duration of the new shadow would range from 16 minutes to 42 minutes. and the location of the shadow on the park is in the northern corner. i have an image of this in just a minute. the northern corner of the park and it would cover certain park elements including a portion of the basketball courts, the park entrance, and walkway, benches and a portion of the grassy

areas. in terms of qualitative factors, per the 1989 memo shadow impacts on park are measured in square foot hours relative to the theoretical annual available sunday at the paragraph park or taff. this is a quick policy overview qualitative. the memo advises that no additional shadow should be permitted for parks -- that are greater than 2 acres with less than 20% existing shadow, up to the memo recommend has there up to 1% of additional vlado is permissible. again, victoria manalo draves park is 2.5 acres and the existing shadow is 6.35% of the theoretical annual available sunlight. the 190 ross street project

would increase the shadow conditions by 0.07% for a total of 6.42% of total -- i'm sorry, theoretical annual available sunlight. these two show the extent of the new shadow on the day of maximum impact, which is june 21st. and you can see the shadow affects the northern corner of the park, part of the basketball court, grassy areas and walkway. i want to emphasize, another times of years it would be less. in terms of cumulative shadow amy there are currently -- well, three other proposed projects located near victoria manalo draves park, all located one block to the northeast along 6th street and the project 301 6th street, i have updated information since the staff report was completed. there was a preliminary project assessment submitted in 2013.

but no formal project application has been received. for 345 6th and 363 6th street development applications have been submitted and shadow analyses are being prepared, but not ready for release or review. the three buildings are all proposed as multi-family housing and range in height 7-9 stories. this item was first heard by the capital committee in september of 2014 and community members at that hearing expressed concerns about the shadow impacts on the park, as well as about the project generally. the project sponsor golden properties llc 190 ross series requested that the item could be continued in order to have time to reach out to concerned neighbors in the area. so over the next month, the project sponsor reached out to the community through email and phone calls. and offered to provide some specific community benefits in addition to the mandatory development impact fees that they will be paying.

for the developer offered to provide a two-bedroom below market rate in the unit that is not required per the planning code because it's under the threshold of number of units which below market rate housing is required. as well as $25,000 cash gift to the rec and park department to be used specifically for improvemented of victoria manalo draves park. the item was heard and due to continued community opposition, the commission urged the project sponsor to continue to negotiate with the community group and then to return to the full commission when a deal was reached. they met in person with representatives from the community groups that include the south of market action network and south of market community coalition representing a number of community groups and stakeholders as , as well as

meeting with supervisor kim and her staff. as far as staff understands no agreement has been reachedwen the developer and community and the developer's original offer still stands. that concludes my presentation. >> thank you very much. >> one moment, i just want to announce and i will go outside and announce, we have the north light court setup as an overflow room that will be ready in five minutes. you will be able to watch and hear the proceedings and we'll give you plenty of time to come up and make public comment ops we once we call your name, go ahead, commissioner. >> commissioner low. >> prior to public comment, holly, i wanted to clarify what is the project? and the staff report refers to a 9-unit building and in your

presentation you just referenced 10-unit building, is it 9 or 10? >> it's 10, apologies for the con fusion. after some community concern the developer offered to include a ten unit, which is 10. >> because it went over 9, one unit has to be inclusionary housing. >> no, it was proposed as nine units and in order to community concerns the developer offered to voluntary include a below market rate. that was not required. it's still not required per code and it's something that the developer offered for community benefit. >> they are going from 9 to 10 ? >> correct. >> are those plans before the planning commission or planning department? >> before the planning department. i have been told that this is an as of right project and in other words, it conforms with the zoning code and doesn't require any special discretionary approvals by the planning commission. so the

planning commission will be making a finding on the shadow impacts, and the approvaled for the project itself will happen administratively. we have erica. >> that is find. you just want to make sure that the proposed project that we're looking at is a 10-unit project, one aaffordable housing unit out of ten, and those plans have been submitted to planning? >> that is correct. >> okay. >> thank you. let me acknowledge the presence of supervisor kim and we're delighted and honored to have you here with us. i will leave to your judgment, the project sponsor will be making a presentation and if you would like to lead off public comment, we would appreciate that. thank you, supervisor kim >> i have three cards from the public sponsor as a reminder, three minutes on each.

ryan patterson, paul torno and asher mchenry. >> is good morning president bueller and commissioners. ryan patterson for the project sponsor. we're really excited about this project with ten units, with one below market rate affordable housing unit and great community benefits that this project will provide including more than $140,000 of impact fees, as well as voluntary donation to the park. all at less than 1% additional shadow, 0.07% additional shadow at peak. i want to tell you about our outreach efforts. there was the recommendation of the capital committee to do more outreach and we have done

that. the project sponsor reached out to supervisor kim's office and neighborhood groups including friends of the park, senior disability action network and others. there is a series of really productive meetings and out of those meetings came the major change to the project, which is to include affordable housing unit. some of the action group did refuse to come to the table though. we can give you the timeline, but as it has turned out a number of these activist groups are actually opposing this project because of unrelated issues that the owner of the property has experienced on other sites. no evictions involved in this site. but you will see some of these groups are sworn opponents of anything involving the ellis act