san francisco than we desperately, desperately need. thank you very much for your time. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hello. i have been a resident of san francisco for approximately 12 years as well. i am not filipino. i have used this park on a number of occasions. for morning coffee, having a sandwich and hanging out during the day and having time to myself. and for me, the additional shadow here would really impact me minimally. so i just want to let you know that. and i reiterate what the gentleman said. there are standards for a reason. it is less than 1% additional shadow. this is .34. there is no reason for you guys to deny the additional housing that would be added to this

location. further, on behalf of the parks department, they would want to have additional families who would use the park more often. having the building across there -- ther there -- >> next speakers, please. >> i just want to say a couple of things just from experience. i have been in the neighbourhood since 1989.

one of the things i liked about how this was, -- you don't see too much sunlight. there are not many parks. number two, the sun, it is important for the kids. when i first started to work in the area, in the neighbourhood, they played basketball. they were in vacant lots. the vacant lots are no longer there. they are housing. we do need housing. there are other places to put the housing. put the housing in treasure island. you know. we have to preserve and protect the shadowing. i urge you guys to keep that in

mind. it is one of the few places that has sun in the city. >> thank you. >> next speaker. >> good morning, commissioners. i am michael stack. i am a resident and happen to be born in san francisco. i am in support of the project. believe it or not, i grew up playing basketball in a lot of the local parks in san francisco. i was on the way having dinner, after playing, if i did so, the shadow did not affect me. i am in support of the development to keep children safe and the community safe. >> next speaker, please. >> i am here to say the project should go on for affordable

housing. i think this should go on. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> next speaker. >> i lived here all my life. the shadow issue is the silliest issue i heard in my life. [indiscernible] there is a lot you can do. >> the housing, people really

need. you know. and come on, man, we are all adults. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker. >> i am donald gillis. i am in support of the project because of the housing. and i believe -- >> speak more into the mic. >> my family are pushed out and forced to move. they are being taken from the community they were born and raised in. and i am in support of doing more housing and maybe ending homelessness too. thank you. >> next speaker.

i am going to call more names. (reading names) >> i was born and raised here also. and i understand the importance of the parks. but the shadowing will not affect it as much as people that need housing. this will provide -- we need housing, we need 15 units. i think it is really important versus the shadow thing. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning. i just would like to ask you to consider, you know, what it communicates, the project was rejected on account of the

shadow. thank you. >> thank you. >> the next speaker. >> hello. goldman architects. i am adjacent to the project. i have a large dog. a greyhound. i use the park twice a day. i asked seamus if it would bother him. he was fine. i totally get the concerns from the community groups. many of whom are my friends. i spend time with them. i think that the mitigating circumstances here actually, one of the biggest ones is the fact that on the hill there will be a

dog park. the people don't use the hill now. it is informally used as a dog park. some do not pick up after the dogs. it is used for dogs. no one uses it. the dogs are not concerned about the shadows. the dogs will use the hill. that is the greatest impact of the shadow. it is a strong mitigating factor. normally i am not in favour of shadows on the park. the biggest shadow is the dog park and the other area the entrance to the park and nobody spends time in that area. the other area, the northeast corner is all shaded. but in the afternoons. that does not affect playing basketball. additional housing is very important. as architect i am in support.

i think in this specific shadow, it is very acceptable because of the dog park which is the greatest shadow. thank you. >> next speaker. >> i am kingston will, i was born and raced in tised in bay . i am surprised by the amount of passion that erupted in this, both in favour of the dog park and the favour of the park and housing. i myself am a business owner that is located half a block aw aw away in the area. i walk by the park on the way to work. the greatest concern with my

business is having neighbours in the area that like to go out and kind of frequent my business. my biggest concern as a business owner as side from the customers and the employees, i have 20 of them, and quite a few can -- none of them live in the area. they come from other areas of the city. i think the project provides an invaluable resource in affordable housing in the area. i am surprised, i don't know if it is rule, 25%, of the 63 units are below market rates which seems like an incredible feature to have. i have heard there are $150,000 donated to the park could be applied to producing a spotlight to offset the shadow. prior to starting the restaurant, i was an accountant. i looked at the numbers. the park is 2 acres large and .5% increase in the amount of shadow to me computes to be 435

feet. i imagine that a large tree planted in the park would cast a 435 square feet shadow. it doesn't seem like a large sacrifice for the creation of housing in the area. and so i like to vote in favour of the project. thank you. >> next speaker. john larry leroy. if i call your name, come up, please. (calling names) >> welcome. >> thank you. i am leroy staples. i am in support of the project because we need a lot of housing here.

we can get by with the shadows. so i hope you guys approve this. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good morning, commissioners. i am with the equity centre. a low profit location. i am here to urge you to oppose the development. i think it is a disservice to the people that live in the community and for the people that use the park as a space to gather and play. so according to the report from 2011 to 2015, district 6, there are many seniors in the area. many have an income in the poverty level. really who is the park

benefiting is the people that live in the district, the seniors on fixed income, they do not qualify for the units. they are way below to qualify for. increasing the shadow, you are setting a precedent for other developments to push little by little. the park is a cultural aspect for district 6 and the filipino heritage district. this park is an asset to the city of san francisco and we ask that you don't take our sunshine away. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. if i called your name, come on up. >> hi, commissioners. the video earlier are some of the people that i work with. the park is the only park that they know. some of them just moved here, two, three years ago. that is the first place they go

to. and they feel at home. they can be themselves in the park. district 6 has a population higher than any district in the city. the population increases, 80% of the city development is happening in district 6, particularly. there are only two large parks in the neighbourhood. it is unacceptable that any shadow be cast on the park. we like you to partner with us to keep the open space. it will completely disregard the open space to the residents. please take action to recognize that the project will impact the parks. thank you for your time. >> thank you. next speaker.

>> hello. [indiscernible] and this is where my friends hang out. this park is not just a regular park to us. this is basically our -- like our second home to us because when we came here in america, we are not welcome by -- people. basically in a way, this park kind of like gave us a way to be with the people that actually are with us. we meet new people in the park

too. please do not vote on this project, thank you. >> next speaker, please. i will read all the names. that is all the cards i have. if you want to speak and your name has not been called, come on up. (names being called) go ahead. >> good morning commissioners. happy solstice. i am here today in opposition of the projects. as the only multi-use park. the only public school in district 6. a park that is named after the woman who grew up a couple of blocks away from the site.

it houses the batting cage. in the district, we take the development of our community and the impact of the development very seriously. affordable housing, is important. it can be done in a way that is accountable to the community. this decision will set a precedent for future developments that can encroach on the little space we have. depriving our area of sunlight. supporters have been paid by the developers here today that have not been advised of the effects of shadows. we are fighting for elements here. in new york, they are paying for airspace. this is what we are setting

precedent for, in san francisco. we are fighting for elements. depriving our community of sunlight. depriving our community of vitamin d. that has a direct correlation to depression. this is because of the limited space. we humbly ask that you repeat the position that you made four years ago for this project that has more of an impact and oppose this project. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker. if there is anyone else who wants to speak, i need you to come on up. thank you. >> good morning. >> i need you to speak into the microphone. >> [indiscernible] i was born in this city.

and the shadow is not a problem. it is about housing. not just educating the -- the rich that can afford [indiscernible] but this is about our home. family, kids who can't afford to be players [indiscernible] the sun is the day. we have to think about the long-term goal. you know, 30% of the country is

now living in tents. in 10-15 years, what is that going to do? you know what i mean for unity in the country. not just in san francisco. there are tents all over the country. we are worried about a shadow. you know what i am saying? thank you all for listening. happy holidays everyone. thank you. >> the next speaker. over here, please. that's fine. >> i want to get this --

>> you need to get started. >> the planning commission is to approve in a couple of hours. this is the shadow. the report has been made -- the recommendation of the general manager of the department, not of the commission. the commission doesn't have a position yet. it was consulted and so the planning commission is going to approve the project, is slated to approve the project because you haven't said no. you must say no because we can't

do this shadow in the park. when you drafted conditions, limiting the shadow after 1989 when passed, you didn't have any park [indiscernible] and there is a 0% increase. your commission, your staff has been saying you don't have area, because it is not accessible until open. there is a 0% limit. with the consultation of this commission and the planning department, bit by bit, by bit, you need to have -- go back and do a shadow analysis.

what you would have done. the market is important because it is a low income community and really dependent on open space. if you don't stop and say we have to do an evaluation of both parks, is 0% appropriate for the park like it is for all the parks in the area. you have a real obligation today to look at -- as well as other parks. >> thank you. >> is there anyone else who wants to make public comment? if you do, please come up now. go ahead if you want to make it. make it. we will not call anymore cards.

keep going please. >> i would like to focus on the shadow if you have a building and what happens to the shadow. first of all, the shadow -- there were guidelines issued for parks all over the city. one of the guidelines is parks larger than 2 acres. this park is one of these parks. and for those parks, it is recommended that they would be allowed a 1% additional shadow on the park to accommodate new construction. in this case, what i would like to show you is a comparison of

this project, and also what happened if you have only a 40 foot high building which as the commission knows, has no limit on the amount of shadow they can have. so right now, we are talking about 30% of the shadow. it is not 30%. rather, the new shadow in total for the project -- for 15 minutes a day this is the percent. the colour of dark blue is the shadow [indiscernible]

>> good afternoon. i am part of the design team. i have been part of the projects over the past 25 years. i would like to point out the fact that this developer is providing 25% of housing and the four units. they are going to be rent control. if you do the math, you will see that this is over 30% non-market rate units. i have been a developer for years in this town, i have not seen that many developers that can digest 30% affordable

housing. this developer not only is giving the 150,000 approval of the park. at 30%, non-market rate units. and to deprive the city from this great development, i think it would do disservice to this great city of ours. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker. >> good morning, commissioners. (please stand by)

>> we don't always agree on things, and for us to all say we oppose this project, is huge. the question now is, are you

going to de- prioritize our voice again that you have been doing on and on -- on and on for the south of market quaff if this shadow is in another part, like the marine or golden gate, will you vote the same way because there is a real question of equity and whose voice matters most. i hope you will use your leadership and really listen to the community. thank you. >> thank you. >> is there anyone else who would like to make public comment quaff ? public comment is closed. >> thank you. commissioner low quaff. >> i want to first say where the first -- where the first recreation and park commission on the matter that is before us is whether this shadow poses a significant and adverse impact.

it is just a shadow. it is only a recommendation. and to both sides, it is not about for or against the project it is just the impact of the shadow on the park. i think the decision of whether we choose housing versus parks, that is for the colleagues on the planning commission to make that decision. i'm sure it will be repeated again this afternoon, but our focus is just the impact of the shadow on the park there are some impacts to certain evictions and that is of no concern in our decision and deliberation, and we should have a blind eye to whatever deals or evictions may have occurred in

the past, and attempts to resolve it. this is the second time we have heard of a hundred 50,000 dollar contribution to the recreation and parks department. our city attorneys in the office is here with us and he will advise us that we cannot accept cash foreshadows. so that should be eliminated from any decision that we may make here and should not weigh on our decision. and the slide referencing what appeared to be a planning commission agenda item, i think that is a typo. certainly they spelled recreation wrong. i think that is a typo and i don't think the general manager would have made the recommendation without our authority. i believe that is the case.

>> you can confirm that? [laughter] >> i just want to lay that out and clear it so that we kind of focus the discussion on the shadow on the park. thank you. >> first i would like to have stacy come up. that is the shadow that we rejected in 2016. it shaded the basketball court which was an active recreation and to the entrance to the park. that was unanimously rejected in 2015. the finding being that it was significant and adverse. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> now let me show you at the

same time, this is june 20 thursday 7:36 pm. if you put them side-by-side, isn't that a greater impact on the park? encapsulates the entire basketball court, not just a portion. and the oval area which is an unsanctioned dog play area. is at the shadow greater than what we had -- rejected in 2015? >> that is correct. >> i think that is some precedent. don't you think? >> yes. >> i think that should be considered in our deliberations. i understand the need of the public served -- public good

served by the shadow caster. is how it relates to the quantitative analysis of how you allocate shadow within the absolute limit, but i don't think it eviscerates our analysis as it relates to the qualitative nature, and certainly we have heard from the community and those who use the park that the shadow would have a significant adverse impact on the park and then who use it. >> i very much appreciate all the passion that is behind this. i lead a labour union and an intimately familiar with community organizing and how important it is to have a voice. their other voices here too of people who live in the area and work in the area, and people who are friends with her, and people who knew her, and we have to consider all those voices together i looked at the shadow

analysis and i am particularly drawn to page 16 of the vision design document, because my children are born and raised in san francisco and i have raised cumulative years in our parks with children and i am a program manager myself with youth. so the observations were that the park's picnic benches which are community gathering spaces, community gardens, ballfield, and southern children play area would receive no new shadow any time throughout the year with this project. the greatest impact of the shadows on that day in june begins at about 6:15 pm, and maximizes about 7:15 pm.

my children and i are usually trying to make our way home to have dinner around that time. at 7:15 pm, part of a basketball court, a walkway, and a portion of a corner with no playground is what gets those shadows. which to me it is not really a shadow because the sun is going down anyway. it is not a barrier to youth, it will may be just have you walk in a different or use a different part of the park if you happen to be there between 6:15 pm and 7:15 pm. by the way, i work in the neighborhood and i don't want to be there between 6:15 pm and 7:15 pm, now the way it is, but i do feel like if that project goes forward, it will bring a hundred 50-180 new residents who want to use our parks and will

use our parks which will help shed light in that park. we build homes and then we build parks for the enjoyment of the people in the homes. we don't use parks to have people from being in homes. >> i appreciate those comments from my colleagues. i still believe that our findings in 2015 have some precedent and that this shadow that will be cast on the park will have a significant and adverse impact. i would like to move to direct our general manager, which you will have to do very quickly since planning is hearing this this afternoon. i would like to move to direct the general manager to advise the planning commission that the

shadow cast by this project will have a significant and adverse impact. before i ask for a second, i will recognize one of our commissioners. >> thank you for stating our situation here so clearly, and speaking to the heart of the matter. the question that i have has to do with the some total of the use of this park. i presume, and correct me if i am wrong, i am sure that staff will correct me if i am wrong at this, but i presume that the use that the park has is from 9:00 am to approximately 8:00 pm

or 9:00 pm at the latest. is that correct? >> sunrise and sunset. >> i believe the park closes at sundown right now. >> at least until we install light. >> actually, i was just going to raise that. let's just not talk about lights >> i am just speaking to the active use of the park and those hours. what would those consists of. >> beginning with any programming, whether it be starting up at nine or 930 and going on throughout the day. how many -- what would be the

some total of the hours that is spent in the park by the community? utilizing. >> the park is used throughout the day. there is a variety of activities it is a well used and much used park. the community garden is a great asset for the community. there is the restrooms, the ball field, the basketball courts gets a lot of use, there is the children's play area, there is a variety of activities throughout the day. >> i understand that. what i am trying to get at is i am trying to see, what is the some total of the hours that are

impacted here? >> the park opens -- >> from the time that the park opens to when it closes? >> let me see if i can help. >> let me get the hours. >> 6-10. the park commissioner is open to , if my meth eight -- if my math are correct, 16 hours a day the shadow obviously changes throughout the year, and the scope of the shadow changes throughout the year. i understand that the period of shadow was between february and october. and usually the shadow stays around 6:00 pm. >> that's right. it comes in around 5:00 pm or 6:00 pm. >> how many minutes a day? >> on average it is just over an hour.

the longest time is 110 minutes. >> the average shower -- shadow is about an hour a day from february to october. nine months a year of an average shadow of an hour a day. it's about 270 hours of average shadow. >> about 270 hours of average shadow out of a total park usage between -- it is 16 times 365. if anyone has a calculator, we can figure it out. >> rather than do this in our head to, may be we should have adam noble to prepare the shadow report to present those figures.

>> it is about 5% of the total hours would be shadowed by this project. >> about 5% of the total hours. >> i think that is significance. i think this is in the sense that i do not feel there is any intent whatsoever to take away from the leisure activities that we are providing at this park. i believe we would be fulfilling our responsibility to the community. we would continue to fulfil responsibility to the community,

even if we supported and approved this project. the way i see it is there is ample opportunity for involvement, engagement, whatever in our park, but there is minimal opportunity, the way i see it now in terms of the overall city politics and the struggles that we are having in many different neighborhoods, especially the mission district and the bayview district in san francisco, to have any housing. it is a constant struggle. it is such a critical need. i believe that as a citizen of

san francisco i have to defend the rights for individuals to have shelter, as well as defend the rights for them to have leisure activities. so i feel that there has to be a compromise here, and the compromise is that for all those individuals who participate in leisure activities, for a sacrifice to be made so that there could be other benefits such as the rights for people to have a home to live in, so it becomes a win when all across the board. we need to make things better all the way around, not just in

terms of leisure activities, but in terms of housing, jobs, transportation, there are so many responsibilities that we have. we would be remiss in fulfilling this responsibility of having additional housing. >> i respect the comments, but is that our decision to make on prioritizing housing over a shadow in the park? our question before us is a recommendation of whether the shadow has a significant and adverse impact, it is only a recommendation that goes to the planning commission who will accept our recommendation or reject it and will weigh in and make the decision of whether the shadow, regardless of it as a

significant adverse impact outweighs the need for housing. >> the questions that i raised had to do with -- for me to discern how much impact there would be, the question that i raised in terms of overall use from that perspective, i do not see there would be an adverse impact, and that is the interpretation that i am making to this. >> this is within acceptable limits with the numbers. am i correct to assume that? it is within acceptable limits? >> it is within the limits from the 1989 memo. >> so we wouldn't even have to be making a decision here that we will depart from that we would be in compliance? >> it satisfies the quantitative respect.

>> thank you. >> seeing no other comments, let me say something before we seek a second of the motion. this really gets down to trying to prioritize between housing and recreation and park facilities. as the commissioner accurately pointed out, and i think was echoed by commissioner anderson, it is the work of this commission to look at the recreation facilities. at the very act of increasing a multi- -- the multifamily units in the neighborhood, none of which will have a backyard of their own, is to place further demands on the parks. in a place of the city with a price of the land makes it impossible to consider larger or better parks talk so what do we look at? we look at the quality of the parks we have and protecting them. so with that, i have to make

this other observation. to begin to deviate from that priority is simply to encourage other developers in other places to think that they can come here and haul the -- have all the best intentions and best design and best product, but if it infringes on the quality of the park, we have to weigh that in our consideration. it is a serious one. i am a long-standing proponent of high-density development in cities. i think it is part of the solution for a whole host of reasons that he won't bother you with now. having said that, i will second the motion and call for a vote and a roll call vote. >> okay. [roll call] >> i just want to make sure i am voting correctly here. >> yes means no. [laughter] >> i respectfully oppose the motion. >> okay [roll call]

>> likewise. >> commissioner harrison? >> opposing. >> so all three of you are opposing his motion? >> that means that we are saying -- >> that is what you heard. >> it does not? >> he is saying it does. >> write. >> remember, yes means no. >> i told you that. >> can i ask a question before i vote? >> absolutely. >> i wasn't here in 2015 when this got turned down by the board, but was the only reason because of the shadow? >> actually it never went to the

board or the planning commission in 2015 when it became before the recreation and parks commission, the recommendation was unanimous that it did pose a significant and adverse impact. since then, different things developed, and the project sponsor went back to develop a new project. as you heard in a reference, i think by the project sponsor, there was another agreement reached with the city. a lot of things happened in between when in 2015 to today where the project that was proposed in 2015 stalled out and was withdrawn, and this new project was resubmitted. i looked to my mentor to make sure i got the procedure correctly. >> okay.

i've heard testimony on both sides this morning, and both have swayed me. i think the fact that from what i've read in our documents that the planning department has found no additional shadow and that it would not have an adverse effect, and that we are still below the allotted shadow threshold, if you said it right earlier. i think that would lead me to vote against your motion. >> no vote? >> no vote. >> commissioner low? >> yes. >> commissioner buell while. >> yes. >> the motion fails 4-2. >> does not require that we have

a motion in the other direction? >> that is completely up to you. >> heavily sufficiently given them instructions to go to the planning commission? >> i thank you have to make a motion so that a general manager has clear instructions. >> i would like to move that we find that this project has no significant adverse impact on the park. >> i will second that. >> it has been moved and seconded. please call the role. [roll call] >> that motion passes 4-2. >> thank you all. we will take just a minute to let everybody exit that came for this item and then we will ask the general manager for his most valuable general manager's

report. and thank him for postponing this in order to have this business of the commission. [laughter]

>> some holiday announcements. we are very proud to help start a new holiday tradition at the park on tuesday night as we joined the mayor, the tenderloin people's congress, community members, supervisor kim, supervisor elect matt heaney,

and many other partners and community members for the inaugural tree lighting event. since the renovation in 2014, the city has been committed to activating the park and finding partners to share the vision. the event on tuesday was a testament to all of the love and attention we have received recently. i'm proud of our work together. we made it a clean and safe place for kids and residents to enjoy. it made the park look great. it was a really happy place and you should all be really proud of the renovation work, and the subsequent programming commitments that we have made in partnership with the neighborhood. more, tis the season for ice-skating. the graceful -- for the graceful and not so graceful to celebrate the holidays. the civic centre, union square, they are all open daily until january.

featuring some really breathtaking views of city hall, particularly at night. the plaza looks beautiful. and downtown along the waterfront, you can log on to our website for more information winter registration is happening now. you can spend your winter with us. winter classes is going on online and at 14 registration sites across the city. as we do every season, we have something for everyone. it is the best place to start to browse our catalogue. will be hosting three city job fairs on saturdays in january. january 5th at the recreation centre in january 26 of the county fair building. information on job opportunities will be listed.

we will also have job-training resources and application assistance. more information is available on our website. if winter has you down and we are just starting, let's talk about summer for a second. it is the middle of december and we are talking about ice-skating of course, let's think about summer. the 2019 lottery is open now through january 13th. due to the effects of the ferguson fire and subsequent fires of the camp last summer, families whose reservations were counselled were given the early opportunity to book spots next summer. because of that, there are fewer spots available this year, but still plenty. the lottery will be as lottery like as ever -- it will be as lottery -like as ever. you can find more information on our website. and very briefly, it is also the official kickoff of budget season. while we will be back with a

generalized items in january and february to give you updates on the development of our budget process, and ultimately ask for you to support our budget recommendation at the full commission meeting in february. i have asked our director of finance and administration to come up and present a very brief overview on the mayor's budget instructions and where we are headed when we come back from break in the budget conversations. >> all right. commissioners, i am the general manager. i'm the director of admin and finance for the recreation and parks department. the office released them budget instructions and outlook for the upcoming fiscal year. briefly, not much has changed. there is still a structural deficit. the mayor's office is still projecting budget deficits in the next five years. cost pressures continue along the salary and fringe benefit and pension increases.

labour negotiations, 28 new mo use will be sent set by june 30 th of the coming year. they are not in that group. there are currently affairs of a recession, as well as state and federal budget legislative changes that could affect revenues coming to the city. the mayor has set her priorities , building more affordable and low income housing, reducing homelessness, providing behavioural health services and cleaning up our streets and making them safer, creating equitable opportunities for everyone in making -- and making government more accountable. specific instructions to our department and other departments in the city are focusing on accountability and equitable outcomes and reprioritizing funding and budgets for highest and best use. new positions may be considered if they align with the mayor's priorities. she has also asked for departments