that's the 40-foot-high building, which under prop k, does not have to come before you on shadow. at 6:30, the gray color is the existing. you will see that the 40-foot building starts to go into the area of where the basketball court is. by the time you get to 7:00, it started to cover part of the basketball court. by 7:15, it started to move down. and then this is where you see that a 65-foot building will take over the tip of the northern children's play area, but not the rest of it and not the one on the south. by 7:35 p.m., which is the largest shadow for this day,

because every other day the shadow will be less, you will see that, again, between six- and seven-story building, the difference is minimal. if you looked at the shadow that will be cast by a 40-foot building, which they can build without any consideration of prop k, that actually started to cover the entire basketball court and it also covered the children's playground. so when we evaluate, one of the guidelines also mentioned is that the commission should look at not only the quantitative shadow, but the qualitative. how does it impact users? most of the users are morning in

the weekday and in the afternoon, and on the weekend, about even between morning and afternoon, about 50 to 56 people. in the evening, you will hear testimony that there are very few people during this period, especially children, because they're home having dinner and parents take them home. what was not mentioned earlier, the rec and park commission this morning voted 4-2 finding that when they look at the benefit of the project in terms of the project, versus the shadow it's cast and the time it's cast, they find that the shadows don't have any significant impact on

the park. now one of the things that you heard from the planning department staff about the project benefits, when you look at the three heights of the building, a 40-foot building means that we will use 20 units of housing. same thing -- you take one floor off, you will use nine units of housing. also, when we are looking at it, we also have four replacement units and the tenants working with the housing units, all of them have signed an agreement, they've picked out the

replacement units that will be provided to them. they have been -- they also picked out the unit, if this project is approved, that they will move into. all of them have done that. and the other projects completed and they will be executing in the next couple of days. so the project sponsor has done everything he can to make sure that the tenants that will be displaced temporarily will be well taken care of. i think i would now let -- give the time to the occupant. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm happy to present our work today. brad terrell, senior design associate. my colleague, amir, will help me

with a couple of pictures the parcel has seen several proposed iterations. so let me touch on the site and the evolution of the project that's before you. among the iterations, the project was produced at 990 russ street and the frontages as folsom street. we were retained in 2016 to assume the project before you today. our proposal provides 63 units total with an affordable housing component reduced in massing from those previously proposed. so i have three points to touch on simply with the project. this is the site here. the site at the intersection of folsom and russ streets. the rear yard provided works to complement the midblock open

space that's established. the building is composed to differentiate and reduce the massing. toggle to the diagrams. first, a primary vertical fissure breaks it into two and defines the entry. second, a third volume is in the back to provide outdoor area. further articulation at the street provides high ceiling and raised entrances at russ and final adjustment of the building shapes the building as it corresponds with the neighbors. the folsom street side is a rhythmic elements with horizontal bands and raised stoops animate the approach at russ.

>> you can come up in any order. go ahead. >> hello, commissioners. i am with the south of market community action network. is unclear why this was not held as a joint hearing between recreation and park and the planning commission. this hearing should have been held jointly between the two body so planning had a chance to weigh in on topics that were voted on by the recreation and park commission. the proposed project before you would cast a shadow on the park.

for eight months out of the year with an average shadow time of over 70 minutes that includes the park entry, basketball court , children's play area, grassy areas and the dog portion and the benches. this also includes a period in late june where the shadow was president for up to hundred minutes. during that time the sun does not set until 8:30 pm. the impacts from the shadows will continue to affect park users after the shadows have passed due to the fact that any wet surfaces in the park that are shaded will continue to be wet, damp, and cold for any period for -- for a longer period after the shadow passes. also we have some more images. this shows the existing area as

it is now with the proposed project. you can see the scale, size, and design of the proposed building are completely out of character with the existing area. there is the proposed project. again, looking at the existing area. the scale and size of the project seems to be monstrous in the area where it is proposed. we strongly urge you to vote know today on this project that would add more chip -- more shadows to this area. there will also be displacement of commercial businesses with no plan on how many will return. especially considering the new commercial space will be priced

at a higher rent. we urge planning to please not plan in silos, and to think of planning for whole compute -- complete communities. adding housing with new families while simultaneously adding shadows to the only full-service park in the south of market is bad planning. thank you. >> thank you. neck speaker, please. >> good afternoon, planning commissioners. thank you for your support of our community, and we are here today to express our concern in opposition to this project. particularly the shadow it will cast and a significant adverse impact on the quality of life for the users of the park. the park is the only community park which has the lowest per capita open space in the whole city. the park is also historical and has a cultural significance for the community. she grew up in the 1920s and

had to overcome exclusionary discrimination and racism to go on to win two metals in the 1948 olympics. more recently, we approved the naming of the park and the batting cages, which is another neighbourhood hero who is a retired staff who has been well all generations of filipinos in we are not only fighting to prevent further displacement of our community, but to maintain and improve the quality of life for all residents, families, and communities. long before the market became the hot new neighbourhood in the city, it was a filipino community who led the fight to rebuild bessie carmichael school and to press a land swap so the park could be built. not only is vmd the only large gathering places for residents, it is an extension to the open space and playground for bessie carmichael school, which does not have sufficient outdoor space. this issue is a matter of equity

for a community and neighborhood that has long been in the shadows of city hall. every community and cultural asked that we have, we have had to fight for. to this day, we fight for new open space and for improvements. allowing a development to cast shadows on her only community park, especially in the most used areas such as the basketball court, the children playing area on the grassy hill would have a significant adverse impact on the quality of life of our children, families, neighbors and users of the park. we are counting on you to uphold equity and champion our efforts to protect the neighborhood and cultural assets. especially this park. i would like to end by asking if this development and the shadows were being proposed in your neighborhood category in a more affluent part of the city, with this be approved? thank you very much. >> thank you. neck speaker, please -- next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is lourdes and i am a

family case manager with the united families program. i will read a couple statements from the youth that weren't able to be here regarding the park, and we are in opposition of the proposed plan. the first one that i am reading is from nikki who is 16 years old and lives in the south of market, and goes to john o'connell high school. it means so much to me as a youth. >> please speak into the microphone. thank you. >> living here because of my friends, we play basketball there every summer which is important to them. i want to see my friends enjoy the sun in the park as we watch them play for fun. the park is important because we only have a few parks that we can go and enjoy the place without shadow blocking the sun. i also have a statement from a man who is 18 years old and lives in the south of market and is currently attending city college. he says i grew up playing on the

park and many other kids had the same experience. is the only park that soma has that is truly theirs. more shadows will limit the exposure to the sun, and the kids need it to develop their young bodies. more shadows will mean less vitamin d. more shadows can cause people, especially kids, do not come to the park is often because of the senate lack of sun. we all know this. this kind of development will not -- will only benefit a few. it will further deepen the destruction of a community that has existed in soma, and this community has made soma and the filipino community. it is unfortunate that developments and others that are occurring through the city are destroying our communities. they are pitting us for crumbs. there is something morally wrong with this entire process, and u.s. public servants are accountable for the most vulnerable of the vulnerable.

we need a structure. we need a system that will truly provide relief long term. yes, we need housing, but this is not the way. this will not fix the housing crisis, and take note, the public vacant properties that are around the city,, further, as a family case manager and district shapes, i have witnessed and walked with families. specifically the working class family. what i have seen is that inaccessibility of the affordable housing process and the b.m.r. the way it is all set up, the language is inaccessible, we need to stop seeing housing as a commodity. it is a right and a need to. >> thank you. neck speaker, please.

-- next speaker, please. >> i have been a resident in the south of market my whole life. the shadow that this project will create as a huge impact on to the park. a park that people have fought for. the shadow takes up most of the park and it covers the other half of the basketball court and sitting areas in which people utilize. families come to the park so often with their youth and afterschool programs and utilize the park because of the limited spaces they have in the program. before vmd when i was younger, i would attend west bay and there be plenty of us in a small space the park was vital to us. fridays where park days for us and after we do our homework, we would go to the park from 4-6 and sometime stay longer because we don't want to go home. our homes are really small. during the summer time, we will spend most of our days at the park. the shadow will also make the park look more depressing inside growing up, it has been a vital

part of my childhood. without us -- without it, a lot of us would have to travel from further away. people use every inch of the park. please do not vote for this project. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i am then native for the organization. as a population increases, 80% of the city's development is happening in district six, particularly in the selma. the park is very important to residents, and loss -- lots of families utilize the space throughout the day. there are only to watch a large full-size parks in the neighborhood. it is unacceptable that any new shadows be cast on the park. we would like to urge all of you to partner with us and protecting and preserving our very limited open space in the south of market. approval of this project will

set detrimental precedents for future projects that will totally and completely disregard the value of public open space to the most undeserved residents who affect -- actively use the park. take action today recognize in this project will have tremendous impact on the east of the park. thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners, i'm with senior disability and action. we are located in the south of market area. this is about the integrity of the park. there's been a lot of talk about seniors and families and youth that utilize the park. while that is true, there are seniors and people with disabilities that do frequent the park as well, and we can ill afford -- ill-afford to have shadows. somebody mentioned the shadows in themselves make for a depressing atmosphere, and we don't need that. things are depressing enough.

the park is one bright spot, one place that we can all feel we are at home, and a place that we can feel proud of in our community. golden properties has been involved in using this to evict. perhaps the evictions didn't go through, but those evictions were filed, and they did cause impacts on tenants that were in the buildings that were served. senior and disability action supports affordable housing but we do not support projects by the developer that negatively affect everyday quality of life for our families and seniors and people with disabilities. we are due to not approve this project. thank you. >> next speaker, please.

>> good afternoon commissioners. i have many fond memories of the park since it first opened in the mid to thousands. from community events, barbecues , picnics, playing basketball, walking my dogs and shooting a music video or getting fresh air during breaks at work. i love running into people i know and i love making new friends at the park. is one of the only places in the neighborhood where people from all walks of life can congregate harmoniously. the fact that it is named after a person who had to overcome racial barriers to become the first asian-american olympian to 2-inch water good metals is a source of pride for many. for all of these reasons and more, i'm opposed to the construction that would cast significant shadows on the most heavily used parts of the park. as you know, many people in district six live in s.r.o.s and doubled up housing or overcrowded living conditions. public open space has become even more important. it is a matter of public health

for families, seniors, people with disabilities, people living in isolation, developers will argue they are creating new housing, but as my colleague alluded to, it is not -- we are not in a housing shortage crisis , it is a housing accessibility and affordability crisis which developments like this only exacerbate. people are not replaceable. this project has been rejected over and over again. they did not recommend it. please listen to the voices of the community and oppose this project. thank you. >> thank you. i will call some more names. [calling names] >> good afternoon commissioners. i am a youth from psalm can. i am here in a position to the development. we all want affordable housing. but the real question is how affordable is it for us, due to

many families and individuals that live in our area, they are low income. not many of them can afford to stay here. due to the high cost of living, this development will only increase -- says it will include below-market rate, but even with this, not many families will be able to afford to live here. this type of project only encourages our people to live out of our homes and let people from big companies come in in the city. this project only worsens developments, and will increase the cost of living in the neighborhood. once again, please do not vote for this project. thank you. >> thank you.

>> good afternoon, commissioners i am the case manager at some can and i am here to share with you a video from our youth who could not be here because they are still in school. [speaking foreign language] >> i think the microphone is working, it is a computer volume

i'm not sure if there is any audio. >> it will fix. just a second. we will rewind it and start your time again. i don't know why it's not working. >> he tried that. >> i don't know.

>> there we go. >> the park is important to me because i met a lot of my friends here, and this is where we usually hang out. >> the park is important to me in the community because it gives us space for people to enjoy, and it is a safe space for children to form a unity and to bond together. >> the shadow impacts the people who are in this park because when people come to the park, usually little kids, they associate the park with the sun and it being bright and a really playful place pick without the sun, it feels dark and not empty , but just not how a park is supposed to be. the building shadow would impact a kid's perspective on what a park is supposed to look like.

[speaking foreign language] >> the shadow would impact because it impacts the community in the park because it creates a negative vibe around it. the sun gives a positive vibe for the children to enjoy and play. but instead the shadow gives a sad feeling for the children not to play outside and enjoy the atmosphere. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i will start with a fact. 30.7% of daylight hours in san francisco are cloudy, hazy,

foggy, as you all know because you live here, or low sun intensity. meaning no chance for shadows. hope, family, opportunity, home. please keep those four words in mind. if i were to pour you a glass of water, would you see the glass as half full, or see the glass is half empty quota are you an optimist or a pessimist, the point of these questions as to demonstrate that any demonstration can be seen from many points of view. when you put those positives down on one side of the paper and the negatives on the other, it is overwhelmingly one-sided. improved commercial spaces, so businesses can continue to thrive, a boost in the job force and economic infrastructure, 63 new residents to house individuals and families so they can have a beautiful place to call home for a long time. nineteen of the 63 units being built or for low income housing. higher than the city's requirement, and being built at

a time where the city his and one of its worst housing crisis ever. 10% of the population in the city he lives in affordable housing and there are people and families in need of homes every day. just last year through the mayor 's office and housing, and community development, there were 104 housing lotteries. 8,500,000 hot -- 85,000 households applied for 1210 units. that is a 1.4% chance of getting selected. one in 70. that means for every household selected, 69 families go home empty-handed. there simply isn't enough affordable housing inventory to go around. imagine the chance to live in a building like this. safe, secure, welcoming. the average person takes those words for granted but not some. some people dream of living in a building like this if they were given the chance, and i know i would as someone who would qualify for b.m.r. housing. this project benefits families, the community, the job force, in

and the housing community in san francisco. everything be proposed as what -- is with the city's best interest in mind. think about the people it will help in the happiness it will bring those who can one day call this building home. why would you not want that? don't we want to give san franciscans a chance to improve their quality of life? this project is beyond a shadow of a doubt a positive for the city. it is the only shadow that i am the city should be looking at. i urge you to be an optimist. look at the glass half full. >> thank you. i will call more names. [calling names] >> hello. we normally don't get involved in projects like this. when there are existing tenants while tearing down what is relatively sound housing, we

take a big step back. we like to focus development on parking lots, on single-story retail stuff, old malls. that is a great one. i was really hesitant to speak out in favor of this project. i have to be really convinced that the tenants were being treated well. that they liked the deal they were getting, that they were going to speak out in favor of this project. i did not want to be here speaking in favor of this project. it is actually very good. it is kind of a best case scenario of having a process where the tenants have a lot of ability to negotiate for a package that ends up really working for them, which means that they are going to be getting reduced rent elsewhere and then be able to come back at their old ranch to a rehab unit to. it seems like a really good package and it is a kind of thing that we should encourage.

when we are going to be cut talking about tearing down if you small buildings where there is a couple units of rental housing, we need to be damn sure that we are protecting those people and that they are getting a good deal. i do think that this project has qualified for that. we shouldn't do this regularly. we should be really careful when we do it. we should make sure the tenants are well represented. we should make sure there are standard processes for compensation so the tenants can make sure to be protected under circumstances like this. we have achieved that here and i am really impressed. i do not letting -- like getting involved in projects like this because they take a lot of research. i appreciate that a lot of work went into this package that you guys have a lot of paperwork a goat -- to go through. this is one of the few times without amount of paperwork is truly warranted and that amount of being sure is truly warranted

so i am speaking in favor of this project. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. do you all want to line up on that side? it just makes it easier. >> we sent a letter earlier that outlines the positives of this project. it is really quickly 63 total homes, four of which replace the homes that will be demoed. that is essentially 59 new homes that come to the city for san franciscans. it is not insignificant in the case of a housing shortage. that being said, the community that just spoke out to have legitimate concerns, and those deserve to be heard out. i want to be very clear with this commission that is important to remember that we live in a city where this type of housing is illegal to be built on the west side.

i think if folks in san francisco really wanted to get behind, let's build more housing equitably, i'm looking at you, west side of the city. that is all i have time for today. thank you and have a great holiday season. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners i am the former executive director of west bay filipino multiservice and i am really sorry that i am here on this side. however, she is a friend of mine i advocated for the city to name the park after her. i was responsible for having a plaque placed on the entrance of the park that describe her remarkable things that she did

during the 1948 -- in london. my sense is that if she were here today, she would tell you that a little shadow on her part is mitigated by our city's need for more housing. i am speaking on her behalf to please approve this project because a little shadow in the park is not going to impact the quality of the park, or its use. thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is david. i run an office by the park.

i want to thank everybody for being helpful and work with this project. i remember when somebody wanted to build the stadium. they keep knocking it down. why do they keep saying no? i want to point out another aspect of what someone said about the character, building character. is also a nightlife neighborhood there are places like the pizza place and fondue cowboys that serve that part of the business, including people who come into copyright and trademark. we need those kind of businesses even if we do talk about supply and demand, we are overbuilt. it is half empty. fifty%. earlier this year, it was 60% of the ironworks at eighth and harrison. you need to get out of this idea even if you were talking about supply and demand, we need them

to keep up with the supply. regulation or no innovation -- regulation, it takes time. the chapter on housing is excellent. i highly encourage it. there is a specialist in the bay area. those are my oppositions to it as a resident. shadow is a big part of it as well. it does not keep to the character of the neighborhood. i applaud everyone for going out of their way to move people who would be evicted and give them new housing, that is great, but we have plenty of housing. it is not an access problem, it is an affordability problem. if people complain about the regulations, the idea, the philosophy of no regulation was roundly defeated by the voters in district six. they got 17%. obviously the community does not support an approach like that. we actually like having

regulated business. if every -- if anything right now, the tech world needs more regulation. i think the voters have shown that we applaud you with regulations but i urge you to oppose this and not approve it. it is not within the character of the neighborhood and it is about making more money. they don't take into account the flippers, airbnb, across the street from the park is an empty condominium. five units. never had anyone living in it since the five years they built it. this is not the way to address the housing crisis. thank you very much for your time. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is katrina. i humbly urge you, a someone opposing to reflect beyond the shadow and truly answer what will this development due, and who is this housing for? according to the 2015 community survey, d6 is home to 12,000

seniors with more than 30 9% living below the federal poverty line. similar figures were projected for children where three in ten carmichael children are categorized below the poverty line and homeless. hundreds of families live in the alleyway units, and if they could afford one of these 15 units, let alone fit in a development like this, we would not be representing their opposition today. b.m.r. is not the same as low income housing and we must challenge this inaccessible and false language. with the mentality of st constructing buildings to the growing housing crisis, we have students living in their cars or couch surfing. as a university working student in san francisco state, this is an alarming fact of the low quality of life in san francisco i will not comment further on my strong opposition to the proven increased shadow cast, further agitating forage and continuous time of drought. i will comment on my discontent with the developer's constituents little to no effort to acknowledge me.

does this have the potential to be another corner with a statics and displacement reminiscent to the new valencia or another five m.? this is for the community? which one? i validate and empathize with their constituents because we truly have more in common when would -- with one another than we do with the reality of this development. we fight for affordable development without further displacement. for preservation of cultural assets, if you approve this project, it will expose a true class character and reset -- racial sentiment. it will expose the reality of women of color and working people who will fight for survival and we are convinced this is good when it is a hollow promise that had the audacity to divide community members i will increase vitamin d deficiency

and increase gentrification and increased traffic fatalities and wind speeds and the most dangerous district and more exclusionary character that will send the message to the migrant youth and families that the city cannot and will not hear them. i want it really badly to empathize with the developer but we need to acknowledge that this will set precedents for other developers to think they can keep bullying residents. it is about quality of life and the failed intention of these constituents due to their dismissive and deceiving message that 15 units will really represent the people of our demographics. not even a hundred $50,000 in cash will be treated for shadows >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> i'm a rental property owner catering to prove -- low income tenants. in the past, we made an error in judgement. this was offset it by them working with the city to preserve existing residents in their homes. >> the focus should be on this project and not on the developer i ask that you can open your hearts and forgive them and focus on approving this project -- excuse me, of 63 when childress rental housing units that are much-needed in san francisco. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners in looking at this project, one

really needs to look at the larger picture. i know we got really fixated on shadows, the recreation and parks commission, for your knowledge, you already have that from them. they voted to work earlier today and find that there is no significant impact on shadows. that the shadow only comes for a small part of the part that is not to the playground, nor any of them the more usable areas of the park. it is only in the evening from 6 -7:00 pm on certain evenings. in the bigger picture, we had a mandate in san francisco. this mayor wants to build 5,000 housing units per year. she wants to build 30,000 housing units. this is one of those projects that should go forward. there was this great -- of the agreement with the neighbors and the city for 25% below market rate plus four units of the

current renters coming back into their rent-controlled units, 30 2% affordable b.m.r. if you count those four. i sit on the treasure island development commission. we are looking far and wide for funding for affordable housing. this is -- there is a developer now who is willing to build 63 units, 30 2% of them to be below market rate. i don't know how they will do it the costs are so high. godspeed to them if they can do it. we should welcome them and say yes, please do it. this has 58% family housing units. our families are being driven out of san francisco. people have kids. they look around and can't have larger homes. they moved to the suburbs and moved to outside of san francisco. this has 58% family housing percentage. it is way above anything that the city mandates. we have a park next door, new

families will be utilizing the park next door. this is a win win for san francisco. it is a win-win for affordable housing. it is a win-win for south of market. please support this project. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon commissioners. i was lucky enough to be born in san francisco, and i'm a current resident. i support the project. as we all know in this room, there's a massive housing shortage and we need more housing. i also think the additional residents moving into this neighborhood can keep eyes on the children in the park and keep it safe. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> good afternoon, members of the commission and happy holidays. thank you for the opportunity to comment. i am fortunate to be a resident of san francisco for more than a decade. i am an advocate here today for affordable housing and responsible development. from that perspective, and speaking for myself, this project is a dream for the city. this project will add 59 additional dwellings, it is taking it from 4263. ninety-two additional rooms, that is eight to 100. this will add 15 new b.m.r. units. from the four current units to 19. this project provides for existing tenants during the development and it includes relocation assistance, it includes temporary housing for them. this project will be responsible for zero evictions. this project will be responsible -- responsible for zero displacements. this project is a dream for the safety. the current tenants supports this project.

if i can speak for a moment about the shadow earlier this morning, i attended that commission and they determined correctly. it was a 4-2 split, and this project does not significantly contribute to adverse enjoyment or use of the park. the study that was done, the shadow study that was done shows that this project will increase the shadow by 0.38% of additional shadow. this park is currently 2.5 acres , and falls with less than 20% current shadow coverage , meeting the guidelines that the city provides is 1% additional shadow for a development. this contributes 0.38. we have seen some photographs today that people have brought

showing the maximum shadow that this project will cast, and it does that on the summer solstice in the late, late evening after 6:00 pm. if i may have the projector. i'm sorry that this is small, but you can see the blue shadow here,. >> hold on. >> you can see the blue shadow here at 6:15 pm. the shadow barely casts on the park by 6:15 pm, and does not cast any shadow on the playground areas which are the rounded areas here. 7:00 pm, still nothing. here is 7:00 pm. still nothing on the playground area. keep in mind, this is the worst day of the year. here we see the maximum shadow. >> thank you. your time is up. >> thank you very much.

did you want to speak now? sorry about that. >> that sorry about that. good afternoon, commissioners. i am a representing supervisor for supervisor kim. thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the supervisor. i would like to summarize her opposition to the 190 rus project and why the supervisor thinks it should earn disapproval of this body. the supervisor does not come out against projects at the planning commission, but because of the community's unified reaction, she has decided to take a stand. to begin this development will displace local small businesses and currently the project has no plan for their return. we know how integral our local small businesses are to the larger community, and we must ensure that we are helping keep them intact. in addition to that, we must also ensure developments are not impeding on our valuable and scarce open spaces. vmd park is the only multi use park in the south of market, a

neighborhood that is absorbing the mass majority of growth in the city. 80% of all the commercial development is happening in 20% of our city. it is safe to say that much of that 20% is encompassed within the district six boundary lines and is focused primarily in the south of market area. district six is the fewest and smallest park in the city. we have on average .17 acres of open space per resident compared to districts like district two, which has close to 25.1 acres. the district district also represent some of the poorest residents of san francisco. we have the lowest average household income at roughly $37,000, and double the citywide average of residents living under the poverty level at roughly 20%. the community fought tooth and nail to get this park built in conjunction with betsy carmichael -- bessie carmichael elementary, families and seniors in our neighborhood.

this park is at the heart of the soma youth and family special use district, a plan that our residents advocated for to ensure families would be essential consideration for a portion of soma as we develop the entire neighborhood. in at this part was selected due to the school, vmd park, genie friend rec center, multiple affordable family housing developments and the concentration of youth programs ranging from united players to west bay filipino centre. soma has historically had fewer parks because it was originally more industrial and commercial. and s.f. needs to build in order to meet this demand. as san francisco dr san francisco continues to grow, has a potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by offering housing close to jobs.

>> hello. my name is ed and i am in support of this project. i'm not really sure what the gentleman just said before, with the park is not going away with the completion of the project, and if the planning commission decided to disapprove this project, you are excluding 59 additional households from enjoyment of the park that the current residence currently get use of. i came from phoenix about 12 years ago as a gay man. i wanted to be in a place that would accept me, and the idea being excluded from anything is really frustrating. this is emotional for me. the benefits of the park -- of the project are great. the developer has gone well out of his way to make sure the existing tenants are going to be

relocated and taken care of. so much of the tenants have even written letters supporting the projects themselves. additionally it is not as simple as supply and demand. the more supply really can't hurt to help with affordability factors. especially with 25% b.m.r. units i really hope you guys take that into consideration and approve this project. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i am a first-generation native san franciscan. i've lived here for over 60 years. my wife and i have raised two children here. i am here to support the project this project is not just a high-rise development. it is providing affordable thoughtful housing in the city within our environmental guidelines. it is an important -- it is an

improvement to the area and respectful in the guidelines of the open-air space that is a major part of the city heritage. >> thank you next speaker, please. i am john goldman. my architectural office is adjacent to this project. i live above it. i had been there over 20 years and i have been there since the park existed i use that park twice a day it was an oval shaped hill which was an un- formal dog park but will become a fenced in formal dog park.

therefore the area of greatest shade is not affecting human beings, and according to shamus, he has no problem with this shade stage. he said it was fine. it was -- i get the concern about the shade, and normally, i would be concerned myself. i am friends with a cute -- friends the community groups the dog park is being shaded primarily. secondly, i am all in favor of greater amounts of housing in the city. you have heard the arguments from everybody. i am an architect. i agree with all that. they are providing far more b.m.r. than would be required.

they are doing more than they are required to do. my building is 23-foot tall. i am delighted a 65-foot tall building is going next to me. i agree with great urban infill density and height, i support what they are saying about urban infill and greater housing densities. we have greater density, we have higher than required b.m.r. and we have shade on a park which is occurring on the dog park. shamus likes it cool so he will probably prefer the shade on his dog park. so i hope that you vote to approve this project. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> do you want to receive copies of this letter? >> hello. my name is paul. i work with the cultural heritage district. i live in the bayview.

it'll be nice for the people who do live here and what people's dogs think about this development. i encourage you to think about what the needs are of the people who already live there. so this is a letter. dear rpd and planning commissioners. my name is rudy. i am the founder of united players. i violence prevention leadership community providing youth positive role models and activities. i am writing this letter to express my opposition.

many people oppose the project by the developer in 2015 because of its 0.0 impact on the park. the original project was unanimously rejected. this new project has shadow in part almost five times larger at 0.38%. on its worst day, this the bull shadow half of the cart -- park. not only because of the impact it will have on the hard users. i strongly oppose this project as detrimental for only multiuse impact for our users. standing with the vote that you pass in 2015 and reject this project. thank you. >> thank you. if there is anyone else who would like to speak on this

project, line up on the screen side of the room. welcome. >> good afternoon, commissioners i am the tenant organizer for the south of market community action network. right now i want to read a statement by mary, she works for the equity centre. it is a nonprofit organization and the heart of selma kept serving seniors and adults and people with disability. i will add a couple of things. so she said, i am here today urging you to oppose the proposed development for this project for the people who live in the community, and use the park as a space together and play. according to the 2011-2015 american community service is home to more than 12,000 seniors , and residents age 60 years old and above. more than 30 1% of the district 16 years and above have income

or below the federal poverty level. with 64% of a.p.i. dissent. it provides public benefit for housing units and 50 units are at below market rate. who is this project benefiting? when the people who live in the district, seniors on fixed income, are income ineligible even for the b.m.r. units. so who are you building for? with the proposed project increasing the square footage hours of shadow by 0.38%, we are setting a precedent of other developments to push us little by little. the park is a cultural asset. not only for off -- for the district stakes of the filipino cultural heritage district, the park is an asset to the city of san francisco. we asked to do not take my sunshine away. thank you. that was from mary. for me,