basically said please fix the democalcs back in that area for march 2017, because i did a wuk through some of those blocks, and i submitted a bunch of houses that were i thought endangered or changed, you know, some added units, they blew them up, the usual -- the stuff i always say. so when i saw this map, which i really liked, the thing that most impressed me, can i have the overhead, is that area there -- >> president hillis: pull that down a little bit. >> i will. that area there, that's kind of ground zero in noe valley. that's where we've had the three and 4 and $5 million increases in housing. they're alterations, but they're not alterations. they're very expensive. when i started talked about this, i was concerned about

other areas. here, i'll just show you. this is bayview. they're actually asking 1.4 and -- $1.4 million. and here was this ad that was in june. it's all about come to the bayview and get twice as much for your money, and they are all, like, over $1 million. and what they have in common is like the houses in noe valley, the big, blown up interiors. they may not have the vertical additions, but they have the blown up interiors, which are geared toward the techies. here on the map 2020, it's one of the oldest buildings in the city, supposedly, they turn it into utic's, two are still available. there's all this housing out here, but i think people were

evicted from that. i just want to thank the staff and you for doing this, and raise, again, the issue of the demo calcs, because i think speculative fever goes everywhere, and it's spread around the city. as bruce bowen told me, and somebody wrote, it's the money bomb in san francisco. maybe it's tunnel vision, maybe it's the other issues, but that cannot be ignored. it's the speculation on all of these communities and on all of us, because no one likes to see what's going on the last five years. >> thank you. >> president hillis: thank you, miss sciutic. next speaker, please >> good afternoon, commissioners. thank you so much for holding this presentation. my name is sam dennison, i am for market for the masses. one of the biggest issues that

was developed identified out of that workshop, which was a year-long process in the tenderloin, was the neat for data to be able to specifically say what is happening to low-income housing, especially s.r.o.s, and what we got out of that workshop was a great partnership with andy in the planning department to really start collecting that data in a meaningful fashion. i think we can address some of these issues in a much better way by knowing how many units and where and what's happening to them. that's a huge victory in my mind. but now, we've got the hard work, which is to take a look at the picture of the whole city. often we take a look at displacement in the tenderloin, but we've got to look at it as the whole city. this gives us a chance to put the tenderloin and other neighborhoods at risk in how the

city functions together in looking at the questions of affordable housing. it has been noted more than once that this city has attracted high income jobs without being able to provide the housing necessary to compete, and what we see is that impact of people who can compete with lower income people for housing and cannot provide that housing. this is the first tool that i've seen come along in a long while that allows us to look at that dynamic and perhaps address it in the future rather than always trying to catch up with it. i really support this initiative. i see the wisdom in it, and especially i appreciate the community involvement in it. this is something -- you know, this crisis has been in the making 20 years. it's not going to be fixed in two years, and with the community involvement and all the departments coming together, i think we have a real shot at really changing things, but now, as i say, the hard work begin does. thank you to andy -- begins.

thank you to andy for leading this effort, and many in the community are here to support her. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hi, everyone. john deshonsky. we uncovered a lot of things when first starting our company. we're developer and operator of housing and coliving. one of the things that we became alarmed about was just the sheer number of people that were being displaced through the s.r.o. community, and i think you can read our op-ed in the examiner. we made it pretty clear to market rate developers that we would not support any acquisitions or displacement of people in those buildings. so we've worked closely with market street for the masses and compton transgender district, and we'll be happy to lend any support we can to this

initiative just to help sort of quantify what is going on as far as displacement is concerned. our goal is to build net new supply of housing for middle-income and low-income, so to the extent we can be helpful in your efforts here, which e-mail, john@starcity.com, as far as i can be helpful in this initiative, please. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. mr. cohen? >> good evening. peter cohen, council of community housing coalitions. just a few thoughts on this and like you've heard from previous speakers, great compliments to the staff, andy, claudia, gabrielle, the team. this is the kind of work we've wanted to see for a long time, which is fantastic. sitting down and talking to

folks on the ground, that's an approach that's been a little bit missing for some of us, sort of responding to a whole bunch of research and analysis and having all this critical feedback versus calling folks together who have done this all day long and done it year after year and developing the knowledge base and ideas from that is an excellent way to kick this off. i think that's why you've seen very positive strokes from the commenters so far. also in a policy context, the fact the planning department is doing a community stablization strategies and will have policies and recommendations is a very new thing because we've had such a heavy frame emphasis in this city through this economic cycle. if you step out of san francisco, we're very involved in the conversation even at the state. it's very real, the policy framework that's being used in discussing how to solve the region's or the state's housing

crisis is no longer just building stuff. there's actually a very active conversation and substantive policies around protection and production. so it feels we're catching up, oddly enough, to a conversation that's happening outside the city, and this is an excellent way to be able to did that and to link it together with our other production and acquisition strategies. and then lastly, i think to sam dennison's point, what's happening one neighborhood is a reflection of what's happening citywide. so the ability to understand the interconnected dynamics between the mission and the tenderloin or the outer point of the city is critical. i'm not a real estate person, but i've learned enough about it so know that location is key. markets are hot some places, hardly in understanding how they're less hot in other places. so if we're sort of to take a

whole city approach in this, it's important to take a look at a macroand how little markets play off each other. i think that's another smart thing from sam. >> next speaker, please. miss hester? >> sue hester, following up on the conversation by georgia and peter and miss dennison. maintaining the supply of housing that exists already is really important, and this is the right direction. one of my personal frustrations has been the fact that interests he been not the most

educational -- there's been not the most educational things in the planning code, they're in the admin code. and some of us has been paying attention to that when we read 311 notices which don't come to the tenderloin at all because they're not in our district. and i have found out that s.r.o.s, you don't have no notices for when they're converted because it goes under the radar. so there's a lot of work to be done. some of us are doing it. georgia's doing yeoman's work. i can't believe how much work she's doing fighting to preserve housing in the neighborhoods like noe valley. i've lived -- i've lived in marginal income neighborhoods all my life. that's all i could afford, so keeping those working class housing, that's really

important. without them, we would all become $200,000, $300,000 income and on up. part of the city would be really happy on that, because people that make their money on real estate, trading real estate is happy because that's their income, but the values of our city are the values of providing housing for the people who work here, like the hotel workers and the restaurant workers, and the people who make things. and they have to live in the city because they don't live in the city, they cause all kinds of problems with their commute, to themselves and their families, and the city as a whole. so i'm applauding miss nelson for taking a leap off this and consulting and working with people from the community is a really important step. if you need tools, i suggest you

get someone in your staff that is really trained in housing analysis for existing housing because it should not have to come to me to read the plans and the 311 notice and say whoops, there are people that are going to be affected. you have those hearings, they come to you, and explosive and very problematic, so it shouldn't be up to me to get those out. thank you. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. any additional public comment on this item? seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioners? commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: so a lot of good work here. i think it's something that this commission's been talking about and asking for for quite sometime. i guess what today was -- if i can just kind of paraphrase, what all i heard was you're going to tell us what it is you're going to do. you're giving us the framework and the process.

so i guess the first question i have is based on the data that you've already looked at, what are the trends that you're seeing without having to give hard numbers? like, what are we seeing here in the city? any comment? >> good afternoon. claudia florez, planning department staff. we're early on. some of the trends are totally unclear, but we're just starting to map out where the concentrations of where these services are, so where, for example, maybe b.m.r. is concentrates and where small site's concentrated, and so then, we're going to dig into the issues and see why. is it a funding issue? is it a nonprofit capacity issue or so on? other data that we've learned, other dates that we've already seen, such as where are evictions. >> commissioner richards: i'm

sorry. if you could stay. so i believe we're going to be having a hearing on map 2020 next week. if we were to stay on map 2020 in the next few years and approve it, i'd love to hear what the success rate was, so we'd have a big excel spreadsheet of all those things. hey, because of map 2020, these are the things that didn't happen that were bad, these are the things that happened that were good. if i am a real estate speculator, and i'm looking at this map, i would want to invest in the dark blue areas because those are going to become the new noe valleys because they're starting to tip. they become orange, and they become this hashtag -- whatever -- this multicolored one here. i look at visitacion valley, bernal heights, these are the things you're seeing in the real estate section of the newspaper,

part of bayview as miss sciutic had mentioned. question i also have is if we were to upzone the entire city, and you have and/or ang area or keep orange area like west of twin teaks, castro, if we were to upzone these areas, would they still be orange? could we push it back to blue or something else? that's the thing i struggle with is you create more expensive housing for rich people if you just upzone stuff. any thoughts on that? >> yeah, actually, you know, it depends by neighborhood, how much you up zone it. i think up zoning does not necessarily result in more expensive housing, so the addition of housing and especially smaller, more dense housing may actually provide for affordability. since you mentioned it in the

orange area, they're where leased, low-income housing are able to come in. by providing additional density, we might be able to stablize the low-income housing that are there richards richards because people wouldn't be displacing them because they have no other dwelling units to move into. >> yes. >> okay. that makes sense. can we actually do any reversing, can we start reattracting artists back to the city? it looks like for a lot of these things happening, the train's left the station. any way we can start turning the clock back or is this just hey, stablization? >> yeah. that would be, like, super success. i can tell you from finishing the map 2020 status report, that the latino population is starting to grow in the mission.

we hope it continues. we hope we're not able to lose the absolute number. if we can just retain the absolute numbers, and if we can actually grow them, i mean, it's possible, but it's difficult. >> commissioner richards: that's great. one of the -- getting more down a little bit more into the details, one of the notes on the back that i made was i really tried to find where the repaired board was on any one of those lines, and i had a hard time finding where they are. on this grid on the back. >> yeah, it should be in there. let me look at it. >> commissioner richards: yeah, take a look. the other thing is i'm a big enforcement kind of guy, so rent board, that we pass rent laws and people skirt them, where's the enforcement around it. actually went through and highlighted the word enforcement everywhere i could find it. you've got it for hotel conversions, you've got it for

s.r.o.s, but we're kind of missing it around tenant protection enforcement. i think it really needs to be called out. that's where we just recently had legislation passed this year on people who say they're going to move their relative into the unit and they don't. what enforcement do we have around that? i think we need to be more active, and i hope that out of the report that you're going to be having, you might be able to consider more active enforcement of the rent laws. another one to add under the affordable housing fund, the live work off, and i think i have a couple more quick comments -- okay. that's about it for now, but a lot of good work. a lot of good work. can't wait to see what comes out of this. >> president hillis: thank you.

commissioner melgar? >> vice president melgar: thank you. this is really excellent work and needed five years ago, so i'm glad you guys -- particular thank you to andy, claudia and gabrielle for putting this together. i had brought up the issue of transportation. i'm also interested in seeing this map juxtaposed with other data, home ownership versus rental in the housing stock. i think that would be really interesting because we know particularly in southeastern neighbors there are a lot of folks that are house rich and cash poor, and i think in understanding those neighborhoods, it's important in understanding that dynamic. and also, i'd be interested in juxtaposing d.b.i. housing data in terms of violations, so

particularly in areas with high concentrations of rental housing, how that looks like in terms of habitability and housing code violations. you know, when you look at rent control data, so you know the buildings are valuable, have rent controlled tenants, and there's lots of housing violations, what does that mean in displacement and the risk to those neighborhoods. that's really important, too. i'm really glad we put this data together. it's a really smart analysis. i'm really looking forward to see what the next steps are for our city family because, you know hopefully this data is used and used well and often and regularly by folks doing investments in community development, in capacity building and organization. so for example, the mayor's office of housing development are coming to this body, wanting

to have their policy approved, we would know where the development went. for example, i think it's really important that, you know, we know what we're doing and why through an equity lens, so i thank you so much. this is really great work, and i really look forward to hearing from you more in the future. >> president hillis: thanks. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i'm really delighted to here where we are with it. i'm hoping just with as mission 2020, we ourselves will find particular tool ms. ththat help make informed decisions. we reference map 2020 in our decisions because there are certain criteria that need to be followed. i hope we find certain metrics for all areas and you will guide

us with tools to use in decision making very effective in this chamber. >> president hillis: thank you. commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: just wanted to chime in and thank andy and staff and claudia about this work. i just want to commend your community-centered approach. you know, i think so often as we make decisions about policy, we kind of sit in the gap between the code and people's lived experience in every day lives, and we hear often from community advocates that we need more tools to talk about and to address a lot of the pressures that many members of our community are feeling. and so i want to just think this is a great step. as we talked about a little bit,

as time goes forward, developing better definitions of displacemen displacement, gentrification, displacement, exclusion. and what that really means. it's not just about getting evicted, it's about services that mean something to you, losing cultural centers. as i said before, i think now the hard work begins as we engage the community, really make sure we're designing for pulling out the trust and lived experiences of folks who are experiencing these challenges so that we can create the best ways to address it possible. i love the chance that we're taking a citywide approach to this. i think looking at both where people are being displaced and also our exclusionary districts and how we can do things as commissioner richards brought up to make those things more

inclusive and get ahead of the curve so that we're not just constantly trying to catch up. i also brought this idea up that i think as we're looking at this citywide data, just recognizing those districts that are having hyperspeculation and pulling out that data and trying to craft policy sooner rather than later to get ahead of that curve is important. ultimately, i hope that this helps us develops tools across the city from city officials to community organizations and every day people to have a conversation about our shared values, and the more equitiable city that we can create. so excited to work with you and support you along this process. >> president hillis: yes. commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: just a couple of comments. i do like the data overlaying on the map. one of the other questions i have, and i'm not asking you to answer it now, but when we

actually get it, is the story on neighborhoods that go from blue to orange always similar? what's the story? how does the stuff flip from blue to orange? does it follow a pattern, and you can see it coming from a mile away or does each neighborhood have its own kind of distinct reasons for it? any other jurisdictions within the city -- i know we've had a chinatown zoning plan since the 80's. can we point to any successes on communities that have been stablized, both in the city and other areas? it's interesting at night when i don't sleep, i'm actually reading this thing called minneapolis 2040, and all the comments that people are putting in. there's a lot of other cities struggling with the same thing, and i think looking around and seeing what they're doing is a good idea. and i think going back to when miss hester spoke, but

planning's role in being able to understand when we have projects that are in existing buildings with potentially existing buildings, really ferreting out to see what's being affected. again, i don't know what the extent of those are. they're kind of notorious, like 505 grandview, 137 clayton. are they just the tip of the iceberg or the ones that we saw and that's it. i think evictions are the thing that planning can play a role in uncovering. >> president hillis: thank you. just to echo what other commissioners have said, i look forward to the recommendations. i wish we'd started this process a decade ago, but we're here, and i think this is tremendously helpful. so the data is great. i encourage you to be bold in your recommendations, and you're doing this. you're thinking beyond the

planning code and typically what we think about here, so i encourage you to think boldly about this, and things we don't ultimately control, like state law, making recommendations on those issues. two things i would love for you to look into as you're making yo your recommendations is on fund -- funding, where we get funding to take on some of these issues like affordable housing. it would be good to compare, like, general fund, how much we spend on affordable housing versus transportation or recreation and parks. because my general sense is it's not at much, but people would rank this as one of the bigger issues that city's face, so are we putting kind of our money where our mouth is, and it would be great to see that. and then, regional issues and

what we're doing at the regional level. i know m.t.c. is doing something, and it would be good to get a brief on their efforts. what they're doing, i don't think we're going to solve this as a city. it's got to be a regional effort, and how they're going to enforce those issues, it would be good to see. hopefully, we can address these issues and it'll be good to get to that. thank you. >>clerk: seeing none, we can move onto items 15 a and b. [agenda item read]

>>. >> good afternoon, commissioners. rich sucre, department staff. i'm joined by additional staff. the project before you today includes revisions to the development agreement at 1629 market street special use district to accommodate for the usage of affordable housing credits. as a reminder, the planning commission approved the project on october 29, 2017. the proposed project included rehabilitation of the civic center hotel and new construction of five buildings, including a new union hall and a ten story addition to the lesser brothers building. the proposed project would accommodate up to 483 dwelling units, up to 104 affordable housing units for a total of 584 dwelling units, 13,000 square feet of retail and restaurant,

and 33,000 square feet of public accessible and residential open space. in addition, it would include construction of a two level below grade garage with 216 parking spaces as well as development of a negate publicly owned open space at the northeast corner of brady and colton street. for this presentation, you'll pretty much hear from the project sponsor, michael cohen, who'll provide an overview of the project revisions. today we are seeking the planning commission's recommendation to the development agreement and 1629 market street mixed use project. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. mr. cohen. >> good afternoon, commissioners. michael cohen. i think you saw in the materials the origin of this proposed amendment, since we got our

entitlements in complete and nonappealable at the end of last year, we have been spending a lot of time trying to raise the equity to build it. as you know in the current construction cost market, that is somewhat challenging. we have identified a fantastic partner in the state of florida's pension trust fund, but as a condition to moving forward with us, they wanted to make sure that they could use some of the affordable housing credits that had been negotiated with the city previously in order to preserve affordable levels at the south beach marina apartments. if the credits aren't fully used, florida has the right to go back and raise rents. no one wants to see that happen at the south beach marina apartments, so we kind of view this as a terrific two-fer in

that it advances two terrific policy goals. it paves the way for us to move forward with the project, which as rich mentioned, it includes an important park, includes both market rate and supportive housing for formerly homeless individuals. and second, it allows the city to satisfy the commitment that was made to the residents of the south beach marina apartments regarding their affordability. so with that, we urge your approval. i'd also note, i think it was sent into the record, i have a letter of support from local 38 plumber and pipe fighters union. thank you. >> president hillis: okay. thank you. any public comment on this item? >> hello. my name is maria mustagis, and i'm a resident of south beach marina apartments. this is a very important deal

for us to secure our affordable housing. it's very important for this deal to pass so that they can get the credit so we can keep our affordable housing in south beach marina. it would mean 100 families getting to live where we've always lived in our neighborhood. thank you very much. >> president hillis: great. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is gail gillman. i want to remind this commission that this is the first privately funded supportive housing i believe ever, not even in san francisco, but the state of california. this really goes to a testament of a private developer choosing to use their obligation to help our most vulnerable citizens here in san francisco.

currently there are 133,000 individuals in the state of california who on any given night lack a safe, secure home. here in san francisco we have over 7,000, and with these units being build. i also want to note that community housing partnership came together with the south beach residents and helped organize them to come to the city and actually pen the florida credit deal from day we know. wuf he alwaysed believed in -- we've always believed in preservation to housing in low and middle-income families in san francisco. in that framework, we hope that you approve it. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you, miss gillman. next speaker, please. >> cory smith, speaking as an individual. this is going to be around the corner from our office, and this is going to be such an

improvement. we walk between the planning department and city hall, and we know how important the situation is. there's literally people sleeping on the streets, so the opportunity to build housing for them, get them into better living individuals, it's a win-win all the way around, so thank you very much. please approve. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional public comment? seeing none, we'll close public comment. okay. commissioner comments. commissioner melgar? >> vice president melgar: i want to commend this developer and the partners for their creativity and sort of keeping the vision always in focus and being able to do things outside of the box. so i'm very appreciative of that. i think we need way more of that in this city. that's how we're going to solve our housing crisis. so i move to approve, and thank you all for this great project. >> president hillis: second.

>> president hillis: commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i strongly support what is in front of us. we had all taken previous presentations quite seriously. it's a well conceived project with a lot of strength in all aspects of it. this particular small adjustment in terms is really of no consequence to the decisions that we have made as a body to support it. >> president hillis: thanks. commissioner ko commission commissioner koppel? >> commissioner koppel: going to replace six parking lots with public housing, open space, and also preserving the existing buildings on market street, so very supportive. >> president hillis: all right. i'm supportive, also. i think we were all very excited

when we saw this project and approved it originally, the supportive housing, the open space, the design, how you parcelized this site. i go by this often and wonder when this is going to start, so i hope this helps. we look forward to it. thank you. >>clerk: very good commissioners, on that motion to approve the modifications to the planning code agreement -- [roll call] >>clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7-0. commissioners, item 16 case 2014.0376 c.u.a. at 2019 mission street, conditional use authorization. >> president hillis: all right. mr. sucre. >> jonas...okay.

good afternoon, commissioners. rich sucre, planning department staff, here before you on behalf of linda hoagland. -- for the proposed project of 2918 mission street. as a reminder, the project includes development of 75 residential units, 6,700 square feet of class one living space. the project does not include any off street parking. at the sept 28 planning commission hearing, the planning commission adopted a motion to disapprove and directed planning staff to develop a disapproval motion. i've passed out copies of this for your review and consideration. subsequent to the hearing, the department realizes that we could have been more clear in how we conveyed some of the information on the new shadow

study that we presented two weeks ago. we certainly appreciate the impacts. we have heard the concerns from the community and the board of supervisors regarding the new shadow cast and its potential upon the well-being and use and enjoyment of the school yard. as with much of our work within the larger mission, we try to strike the balance between the needs of a community and the new development. however in this instance, our tools to address the impact are constrained. we are limited in the ability to impact the overall massing and design of the project, so our ability to try and reduce the impacts of the shadow are constrained by the application of these state laws. ultimately, it's the project sponsor's discretion to choose the appropriate massing for their project. we will note that previously, the project sponsor did revise the project massing to address impacts on the adjacent alley,

and that they did understand take a re -- undertake a re-zain, but ultimately -- redesign, but ultimately any building built on the site more than 25 street tall, would cast shadow on the school yard. currently, the study only impacts shadow on property under the jurisdiction of the san francisco parks and rec jurisdiction. sadly, there is no requirement or policy for examining shadow impacts on public schools or adjacent properties under the jurisdiction of san francisco unified school district. as a reminder, the shared school yard program had some incorrect information on their website. basically, it had stated that all students would be part of this shared school yard project in the future. currently there are 50 schools citywide enrolled in this program. based on conversations with the shared school yard program director, given the size and other constraints of the

rodriguez school, it is unlikely to participate in this program, and the school's principal also affirmed that they would not support participation in this program. under planning code section 295, the criteria for hawed owe impacts are whether the project would create new shadow that significantly affects the enjoyment of outdoor use facilities or other public areas. at this time i'm going to turn it over to lisa gibson, who will go into additional detail on shadow and seek with a. >> good afternoon, commissioners. lisa gibson, environmental review officer. i'm not going to say too much more, but i did want to first off acknowledge that we did hear

very clearly from the board of supervisors and from the planning commission that we needed to take a closer look at shadows and the effect of the project on the adjacent school yard, and we also heard the remarks from the community about the community concerns of how the project would affect in particular school children. [please stand by]

>> i want to make sure that we're clear about what that means. that thing -- is that there's not a significant impact does not mean there's no effect. there's an effect that we want to acknowledge and it's an adverse effect. it's clear that there would be shading in the school yard during the times when the children would be present, and that that shading is not desirable, and that shadow on school children is -- you know, can affect their development, their well-being, their sense of enjoyment, and some of those things are outside of the factors that we consider as part of our ceqa review, but it doesn't make them less a concern, so i want to clarify that. and also, to note that in evaluating the shadows, we can look at what would be a building that -- at this property that would not cast shadows in this

way, in this manner. so we have a graphic that we can put up, and i've got it here and i'm going to pass along, and i've got some extra copies for the public. this is to reflect an analysis that we did of whether the -- what it would take to have a building that wouldn't cast shadows on the adjacent play yards during the period of activity. so actually, julie, if you don't mind talking through this. >> so we asked the shadow consultant to prepare this. this is sort of an example of the building envelope. i asked what -- to prepare this so that -- [inaudible] >> i'm sorry. so this -- this diagram here depicts the form of the building in a would be required to have no net new shadow on the transitional kindergarten during its morning recess period from 9:00 to 10:00 a.m.

the line that's depicted here, and i'll just show this here, the line along the edge of the gray and yellow would be the limit of the side of the building that would be -- could be constructed and cause no new shadow. that building would be 5 feet tall at the rear of the lot on osage alley, and it could be as tall as 56 feet over at the other edge on mission street. note that the zoning is 55 feet tall in the zoning district. so really, the shadow on the street yard is due to the angle of the sun at that time of day, and virtually any development would cause some -- some element of shading on the school yard. >> thank you, julie. so we thought that was helpful to just at least clarify what aspects of the building would be the cause of the shading, and,

you know, if we had the ability to shape this building differently, what might it loo s like to avoid those shadows, so i think it is helpful to illustrate that it isn't due to the mass of the building with the height increase, and it's even below the allowable height limit for the project. so beyond that, i did want to also note that, you know, we recognize the -- that we have a focus in the environmental review which is different -- when it comes to shadow for our review, we were directed to look at a property type that we normally wouldn't be assessing shadow effects on, which is on a school property that's not in the shared school yard project, but we applied the same approach to that analysis as we do for other properties, which was to assess use and enjoyment.

and when we looked at whether that overall shading that would result, which would be that about 25% of the time that the school yard is used, it would be covered with shadow exceeding two thirds of the yard. so that's a -- that's a number that is -- you know, a -- there's a net increase there that gets us to a quarter of the time, two thirds of the yard being shaded. was that a significant impact when when we looked at would it affect the use and enjoyment to a substantial agree when we prepared the eir. the project sponsor's not willing to change the design, that would result in the need to do an environmental impact report. in the context of our review, we didn't feel we could substantiate that as being the level of impact. it did not seem to be consistent

with previous findings that we've had. even though this is a different nature of effect -- and i want to acknowledge what i heard from the commissioners and from the public was that the nature of concern was about the public health effects on children, about their development, about their -- their exposure to light and how that affects their growth. and also recognizing it within the context of a community that has limited access to open space and resources that would give them that exposure to light. that question seems to be one that is really a very valid question, what are the public health effects? it is not the question that we are asking in the context of ceqa review, and it's not to say that it's not an important one, and it does seem to be a policy consideration that belongs somewhere, and it seems that it would be very -- we would want it to be part of the conversation here today. but i'm letting you know that it

doesn't fit within the scope of the analysis that we do under ceqa. it's not something that we could have expanded it to cover for this project because it's not simply something that we standardly do. >> so just to close staff's presentation, i think for the reasons that we've kind of stated, we would advise the commission to approve the project on the commissional use authorization. we acknowledge that the commission did adopt a motion of intent to disapprove, however, we would ask the commission to reconsider their initial vote in light of this new information. and a representative from the project sponsor's team is present. >> president hillis: okay. thank you. so we will open it up to the project sponsor and public comment. since we've heard this item numerous times in the past, we're going to have three minutes for project sponsor and one minute for public comment. >> i'll be very quick. same thing as last time.

mark loper, reuben junius and rose on behalf of rrti. as you know, the project's ceqa clearance document was appealed to the board of supervisors, and the board's actions regarding that project are the subject of ongoing litigation between rrti and the city and unfortunately until that litigation is resolved, we have no further comment. thank you. >> president hillis: all right. we'll open it up for public comment. i have one speaker card, gus hernandez, but if others would like to speak, please do so. you can lineup on the screen side of the room. mr. hernandez. >> good afternoon, commissioners. gus hernandez with affordable diviz. affordable diviz stands with the mission opportunity in opposition of 2918 mission. i want to start off with the

fact that this is a conditional use authorization and -- can i get the overhead, please? what is conditional use? conditional use is a use that is not principlely permitted in a -- principally permitted in a particular zoning district. conditional uses require a planning commission hearing to determine if the proposed use is necessary or desirable to the neighborhood. so this commission has that power to decide, is this necessary or desirable to the neighborhood? all the comments that i've seen from the neighborhood have said that this is not necessary or desirable. in fact, it may potentially have a negative impact, just like it says right here, negative impact on surrounding neighborhood and whether the outside complies with the general plan. >> clerk: thank you. your time is up. >> that was it? >>. >> clerk: you have one minute. >> president hillis: you have a minute.

>> i sent in my e-mail, as well. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. miss yiannopoulos. >> okay. thank you to the four commissioners who indicated their attempt to deny the project on september 28 because of all the reasons that were litigated or talked about at that time. currently, the shadowcast on the traditional kindergarten play yard is only three to 8% without the project. with the proposed project, you can't escape that 63.4 shadow will be cast on this playground during the hours that the children use it. that's in the morning, because program lasts until 2:00, they don't go out after lunch. so adequate sun light is essential for the physical and cognitive development of young

children, and i hope you take this into consideration and deny this project. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> lisa petrucelli, project to save the mission. the attempt to use a state tool to override our tools to create better projects in the entitlement process puts us all at risk, but especially the youngest in our community who are already beginning their life without a level playing field and the odds stocked against them, and we ask that you use your courage and leadership on behalf of those children in our community to deny this project. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> my name is rafael picazzo,

and i'm here for the denial of 2918 mission street. i know if the developer's kids were going to this school, they wouldn't want their kids not having the sunshine, what little they get. we do need it. it's a community. our kids suffer enough in our community with gentrification coming in, and our kids becoming homeless, living in their cars and going to these schools. we've got to start caring for the native district, the mission in san francisco, and making sure that these kids stay in school and feel comfortable in the schools that they go to. i ask that you please deny this. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is laura yanno. i'm a retired san francisco unified school district teacher. i would like to ask you to please deny this project and please put our children first. the children that we are

speaking about get very little sunshine as it is, have very little opportunity to get out into the light. the school yard is a safe place for them where they may play freely, and they have just as much right to the sunshine as the wealthy kids, which this kind of project would never impact their school yard. i urge you, please, commissioners, to deny this project. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. kelly hill, united to save the mission in our mission, no eviction. i'm glad to see the department kind of environmental persons go back and clarify the shadow study, because two weeks ago, it certainly seems like it was glazed over. it's not glass half empty, glass half full. when the sun's blocked part of the day by an 80-feet tall wall on that graphic, there's no way

to spin that. i'm an engineer, and i think that's an exaggeration that you could only build a 5 foot building. you could carve this bg around that southern site. we're allowing another lot merger. i think you could go back and recarve this building and make it a little bit more friendly to the environment. there's been a little bit of the word bullying comes up. it's the worst word that would come up in a school culture. we're getting bullied, the school doesn't deserve to get bullied, nor the children or the school officials. >> clerk: thank you, sir. your time is up. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> cory smith on behalf of san francisco housing action coalition, again, requesting and encouraging deputy staff to do a housing analysis in this and

every single housing project. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners, eric arguello, calle 24. this is nothing new to us. nothing has changed. the only thing is that you know, if there's any development coming in the future, i think we'll have a better chance of really working with someone instead of mr. tillman, who will not actually talk to us. so i think you guys need to uphold your denial of this project. i think this is not a good project for us all around. i think these kids deserve better in the mission district. it's low-income communities of color tend to not be protected in these communes, whether it's roads running through it, whether it's dust, it's toxic area, in this case, it's shadow. so communities of color always get these impacts, and we need to be protected. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, commissioners.

my name is john mendoza. i'm speaking on this project to deny it. i lived at 121 cypress, two blocks down from this, in an alley next to the pacific bell building, which is nine stories tall. you're not only talking about sunshine, that you never get, but this wind that you're going to get, which is going to be miserable for the kids. please deny this project. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you, mr. mendoza. next speaker, mr. hall? >> rich hall. you know in your hearts that this is the wrong time and the wrong place for this project looming over our school yard with only -- and providing only 10% affordable housing. if it's the wrong time to book end the monster on one end of the mission street and the little monster on the other to

loom over on the other. at the same time we're trying to protect and create a cultural corridor. we spend a lot of time in a lot of places, you know, working to dispel the yimby narrative, this false narrative that p.o.d. is going to save the world and that high density housing is going to be cheaper, and that unpaced growth is sustainable. none of those things are true, and yet, they spend a ton of money trying to intimidate you with lawsuits. i ask for courage. >> president hillis: thank you, sir. any additional public comment on this item? >> hello, commissioners. one of the biggest issues to come out of this entitlement process is the loss of controls.

like any community, our community needs to have input into the entitlement process to ensure that projects are affordable, equitiable, contextual, and that they provide community benefit. these items below are traditionally where communities would have input into the shaping of a project. i oppose this -- this project, and because the community opposes it, and please vote against it. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. mr. cohen? >> commissioners, peter cohen, counsel of community housing organizations. i wasn't intending to speak on the item, but just to reiterate that, you know, one of the frustrating issues that this project