piece of legislation early on. i think that's another positive development. the things i would like to see i have reservations about are some of the things supervisor brown talked about. definitely stronger tenant protections. it talks about in the legislation working with local community-based organizations and locality to expand the definition of sensitive communities. i think that's important for san francisco. i think talking about when there is development whether through sate density bonus rules or in contradiction to inclusionary rules to allow for an inlieu fee outside of san francisco is not a helpful part of the

conversation. there should be a conversation on the minimum size this applied to and people use the conversation of having a five-story building mid block in an rh1 or rh2 of a neighborhood and how do you progress not so dramatic it has an impact on the character of the neighborhood. those things are think are important to further the conversation. i have not taken a final position but i'm urging supervisor weiener to include te amendments but i will not support it as written today but am supportive of moving it forward and i appreciate supervisor mar moving it forward

in an aggressive manner. thank you, supervisor brown for your amendment. supervisor ronen. >> commissioner: supervisor haney. >> thank you for bringing this forward. i think one of the things and i'm sure supervisor mar will respond to this but with respect to the amendment, why we would be required to send it back to committee and what the goal of that would be. it seems like there was a pretty robust conversation in committee on this legislation and this resolution. i think i get as all of us, i received a lot of communication about s.b.50. and this resolution and i take a

particular position around it related to my role as the supervisor of the district that really has been building most of the housing for the city. and for me as the supervisor of that area and my constituents we want to see greater housing production across the city. one think i heard in the conversation is we in the board chamber are qualified and capable to figure out the best way to do that ourselves and one of the things that has concerned me about s.b.50 is we have a strong tradition and capacity and policy making in our city of when there is additional density or height that's afforded, that we have certain community benefits or increased affordable housing that comes with that. i want to make sure that as we move forward and put forward these very serious concerns that we have about s.b.50, which i

will support this resolution, i also want to commit myself and to work with you, supervisor mar and all my colleagues, to make sure we are moving forward increased housing production locally and doing it in a way that maximizes community benefits and maximizes affordable housing and also maximizes housing being built all over the city. i appreciate you bringing this forward, supervisor mar. i hope senator wiener hears the concerns. there's a letter from a statewide coalition of equity organizations that laid out significant amendments they requested i think lays the ground work for the changes we mate see in the legislation. but ultimately i want to see us step up and take leadership here to see more housing built and more affordable housing built all over the city.

>> commissioner: just a procedural correction here. in case we're going to be talking about any of the amendments, we shouldn't be talking about this it's been introduced and a motion made to that so would you like to make a notion supervisor brown for the to amend the further resolve clause to continue items 1 through 8 you read into the record? >> yes, please. i'll make a motion. >> commissioner: is there a second? >> point of clarification, mr. chair. the second on moving the amendment into her duplicated file? >> commissioner: yes. >> i'll second that. >> motion and seconded to make these amendments into the dup --

duplicate file. >> clerk: you can discuss it now, mr. president. >> and i want to make a point to the duplicated file. for the process at the board, i'm including an hour's long hearing we had at the g.a.o. committee last week, and with a lot public input in communications directed to the supervisors. it states our position as a board is that we're opposed to s.b.50 unless it's amended to address our concerns and then there's a separate resolve statement saying we are committed to working with our state legislative delegation to

develop and implement au -- maeme amendmented to address our concerns and it's been a public process in the last several weeks. i appreciate the work that supervisor brown has done to the also that's more specific about our concerns on s.b.50. i feel the resolution is very clear about it what our concerns are and what that s.b.50 would have a negative impact on the housing affordability crisis here in san francisco and undermine our ability as a city to plan for increased housing density in the most appropriate way for our neighborhoods and city. these amendments that were presented i literally got a copy of this, thanks to supervisor brown, an hour before the board

meeting. we're clearly not in a position to take action on these amendments, i feel. in glancing at them, there's some things i think are important amendments i would like to see made to s.b.50 not included in this list. so finally, my last point is i think there's an urgency for us as a board to move the resolution that's in front of us today forward and take action on it because s.b.50 is moving forward quickly in the state legislature and also at the first hearing on s.b.50 in the senate housing committee last week a representative of mayor breed spoke out in favor of s.b.50 indicating to the legislators in san francisco or implying the city and county of san francisco was supportive of s.b.50 without the kind of

amendments and at our g.a.o. committee hearing last week you indicated that in it's current form s.b.50 would be bad and would have a negative impact on san francisco not a positive impact. i have a motion to not approve it. >> through the president i was wondering if i can ask a question to supervisor brown because i'm having similar to supervisor mar, it feels confusing to me this procedural move because the resolution before us states that we all want to see more housing production happen. and s.b.50 as currently proposed

just doesn't get it right and that we want to work with supervisor wiener to get it right and by getting it right, i agree with the many bullet points you laid out recapturing the value that's added to the increased density in height. making sure the sensitive communities are protected. etcetera. i want to information the thought process more. what would be powerful to me is if we want to talk about this again after putting the initial opinion on record today through the resolution before us, which i think is lofty and well written, that we start fresh and

say these are the specific amendments we want to see and if we want to put in a resolution before the board of supervisors and have that debate and talk about it, fantastic or if we want to work through our city lobbyist and put it that way, fantastic, but i'm having a hard time seeing what the value added is with the amendments. if you could explain. >> and we're open as far as any legislation we bring forward is back and forth and amended. i wanted to say, look, we're not against housing. we're not against building housing but we want to make sure

we do it right. we want to make sure we protect tenants. we want to make sure that the kind of housing we build is the kind of housing we need in san francisco. and my district wants housing in their area because they want to live in their area. during the g.a.o., i voted no but what we had discussed with my colleagues which i appreciated, if i brought specific amendments forward, would i vote yes on it. that was, i felt, my task in four days. my staff and i had to dig deep and find out what these specific amendments we felt would be the appropriate ones going forward and a our concerns and what the are today. i feel unless we tell what our

concerns are and what we want to see, i don't feel like the resolution does that or digs deep and says these are the kinds of things we want to see like an area plan for the west side of the city. i think that needs to be done. and also give time to do that. give them maybe a moratorium until they're able to do that and look at what they need. so i just felt that i wanted to duplicate the file to really state that these are the specific things that we want to work on and we'd like to see. and understand in senator wiener's legislation. >> commissioner: do you have a follow-up? >> yes, if that's okay. >> president yee: go ahead. >> for me, personally, it confuse the issue even more.

i feel like the language of the legislation is making clear that we're opposing it if not amended and that we are committed to working with the state legislative delegation to get the necessary amendments to protect vulnerable communities and troe pro-tect citizens -- protect citizens. for me this is clear and having a duplicative version go back to committee muddies the waters and confuses the situation more. i can't support that but i would be after this passes, i would love to be involved in a process that gets to the legislative language and gives specific lack wath to senator wiener that we'd love to say meets the needs

we're talking about in a more general way in the resolution because we're committed to seeing more housing built that's affordable to san franciscans that isn't affordable to now and that's the task before us to start the trasting and work with -- drafting and work with senator wiener whereas having a duplicative version in in committee confuses that for me. i wanted to explain why i won't be supporting sending the duplicative version back to committee. i think i get to vote on that but i understand your intentions. it confuse the issue for me.

>> president yee: supervisor man d delman. >> thank you, supervisor yee. i oppose s.b.50 in it's current form and a co-sponsor in this resolution. i don't see a particular problem in having the conversation with the board of supervisors continue and having further work be done on a more specific set of recommendations that we would then pass out with more specific legislative changes we'd like to see. i'll be voting in favor of both supervisor brown's proposal and supervisor mar's. and a couple observations. one of the things that strikes me is the overheated nature of the rhetoric around s.b.50. to hear some of its proponents, you would assume by the passage of this law, lo and behold, the heavens will open and there be

housing for all and we will not have homeless people on our streets. i think that is not true. i think the impacts of s.b.50 will be felt over years and decades. what will be certain if power is taken from local governments to regulate zoning which is a quintessential governmental power will not be given back and the phenomenon of our constituents asking us to change things and solve every problem and sometimes feeling like we don't have the power to address it, in zoning that's not the case we can often change it and after s.b.50, we will not. it's a very significant controversy of authority from government to the state. -- from local government to the state. i want to express my sense this say vastly better bill than s.b.827 and the changes from

s.b.827 to s.b.50 is not from the issues that aprose but the opposition to -- that arose but this made it the better bill. it addresses housing needs in communities that have been historically bad actors that were not touched by s.b.827. it address the needs of sensitive communities to an extent and begins to deal with the equity issues i think are real concerns for members of this board. i think the advocates who stopped s.b.827 and have slowed down s.b.50 have caused the legislation to be improved. i think the reality is s.b.50 is likely to pass in some form and we're going to see in real time whether it generates the solution to our housing and the challenges it creates for us locally and we'll have to go to the state to try and address the challenges.

one is the concerns i have is if you look at the state's record of resolution around things like uber and lyft, landlord tenant law and city college, if you look at the state's record in taking control over local governmental functions and what happens after that, is not the statewide statewidely -- state widely addresses these so i'm concerned as the state becomes the zoner in chief for the state of california, we won't love the results. and again, we'll have no ability as this board to make changes to that. i guess the last thing is but again, i think this legislation is an improvement on 827. think senator wiener is to be commended for trying to make a contribution to addressing the

housing crisis and as we talk about the things i'd like to see in legislation the two most concerning to me are on s.b. the demolitions. we're working on a demolition ordinance. there's the concern of local governments currently to regulate demolitions at all. it's a little uncertain. and by significantly increasing the pressure to demolish existing housing stock, if we don't have the ability to protect that housing stock or some portion from demolition, we'll have real problems locally. i think working with senator wiener and the legislature to make sure localities can't say no to development but can say there's existing housing stock whether insensitive communities or historic properties or other interests we'll be able to regulate demolition.

and through community processes we've upzoned chunks of the city and it's allowed us to meet our market race housing production. you can say the process is screwed up and okay, then lets try to fix the rina process but we have significantly upzoned and are producing significant amount of upzoned housing. it's a loss to not have locality jurisdictions to have a way to produce community plans or zone for equivalent levels of density but maybe recognize we don't want to devastate the low-income neighborhood by clearing it out as we did with the fillmore and replacing it with luxury housing and maybe we have blocks where low-scale development makes sense but we'll make up for it with taller buildings. there needs to be the ability to

do that for cities to do that responsibly and i'm concerned s.b.50 still doesn't preserve that. when it does it will support s.b.50 but until it addresses those issues, i'm with supervisor mar and i want to thank you for drafting the resolution. >> president yee: supervisor fewer. >> i'm a sponsor also of supervisor mar's resolution but i also filled in for supervisor peskin last week i felt we needed a to have a deeper conversation to define what we think the amendments should be. a point of clarification for me and maybe, madam clerk, you can answer this for me.

today we can vote on what's before us today supervisor mar has brought forth. is that correct? >> clerk: that is correct? >> supervisor: in its original form. >> clerk: that's correct. >> supervisor: if we send it back for discussion for amendments we'd like to have in there, if we approve it, zit -- does it mean we're approving two resolutions and one's amended and does one supercede the other? >> clerk: the dupe -- duplicated item would be sent back to committee and the original would put to a vote by the board and be approved on a resolution that would be approved today. and the amendment would under go

review and i would ask the deputy city attorney what impact that would have on the original passed if the timing is right or not. thank you. >> deputy city attorney john gibb g-- gibner. if they do not veto it it will be the policy position of the city. fin two weeks the government audit and oversight committee send a duplicate back to the board and the board passes that version, then that resolution will become the policy position of the city after it passes. >> supervisor: okay. i have a more thorough understanding.

i'll be supporting the resolution because i do think we need to say that there needs to be amendments. however, i do think that it is imperative upon us as a board to bring forge those amendments we would like and not up to senator to do those. we have met our market rate housing goals. i know other jurisdictions haven't. i want to say about s.b.50, it's a statewide legislation. i said this on thursday. do we want them to meet their goals? yes. do you want cupertino to build? yes. do we want marin to build? yes. for my areas, we would need time to develop an area plan for my

district which we don't have now and i believe a lot of jurisdictions, we don't have an area plan. and so these are things i'd like to add in also to the list here and i am not saying -- so today for another clarification, mr. president, we are not voting on these amendments. today, we are voting to whether we have voted whether the amendments will be put in the duplicated file for discussion, is that correct? >> president yee: that's correct. if we choose to, we'll have two different votes. one on the original, and one on the duplicative file and there's been a motion to amend the duplicative file and so we have to vote the amendments for the duplicated file and if it passes then i will ask for people to vote on the duplicated file as amended and it would go to

committee for thorough discussions of those particular amendments and other amendments that other members of the board of supervisors would like to see in it. that's my understanding. and i want to make it clear, since this something i would support. i understand the urgency to get the statement out there in terms of how we feel about s.b.50. i think i was originally going to work closely with supervisor mar's office and i asked for mmentds at the time -- amendments at the time and not too many were made. in fact, one thing i'm in support of is the majority of the board of supervisors supports that that's the position of the board of

supervisors. i've gone to senator wiener and said these are things i'd like to see. they may not be what you want to see and i can't go to him and say i represent the board of supervisors. as much as i understand the intent and saying you represent the board of supervisors with the amendments, it's not true. you would be representing yourself but not the board of supervisors. that'sy think it's important we dig in deep and work diligently to get these amendments we can all agree with. we won't agree with everything but have a set of things we like to see, s.b.50 amended. so that's where i stand on it. supervisor -- >> supervisor: i'm sorry,

president yee may i condition -- continue a couple more seconds. thank you for the clarification everyone. i understand and want to thank supervisor mar for bringing this forward so that we actually have a statement in sacramento that states also to our lobbyists that the board of supervisors i think, i'm hoping will pass today, that will say that no, we're no to it unless it's amended. and then i want to thank supervisor brown for absolutely duplicating this file but starting us on the deep conversation that collectively as a board we can agree the amendments will be. i don't see some of the amendments i would like actually in this. but this is a starting point for us to bring to committee. and i think when this goes to committee, actually, every board members should be allowed to attend and so maybe we broaden

who can attend the meeting so we can add it and my office has already started some amendments concerning my direct and so we'd love to work on you with this and add to it. i feel though president yee is right. i can call senator wiener but i think collectively we need to let them know what we want for san francisco. my direct is 1 of 11. i wouldn't be so bold or arrogant saying what i say for my district, the rest of you guys must come along. i feel we need to make a full statement of the board to say these are the amendments that we would like to see in san francisco moving forward and i don't believe the resolution today that the supervisor brings

forward goes into enough detail but i do appreciate he brings it forward to put a stake in the ground as a board in san francisco. thank you to supervisor brown for duplicating the file and starting the conversation and pushing us to have a deeper conversation collectively as a board and as a body and not as individuals. thank you very much. >> president yee: before i call on the next speaker, i also want to add and this is not a response but to some of the concerns that supervisor ronen brought up. one reason it works better for me. i would support the duplicative file, we can act faster than trying to start with a new piece of legislation. we don't want to be waiting. we this is important as the

original legislation today. that's why i would support a duplicative file. supervisor walton. >> supervisor: thank you, president yee. i don't want to reiterate our concerns highlighted today but i want to say something in terms of what i would want to see in an amendment. and we would need language that provides in tentatives for those building affordable housing and housing like district 10 and more resources for communities and special affordable housing financing pot and transportation infrastructure resources for those communities. these components are important particularly for a city and an area building affordable housing and housing.

i'm very supportive of supervisor mar's resolution. and what we'll do with amendments will happen as a group and as a unit because i want the public to hear this loud and clear, i am done with the one-off conversations. i'm i've spoken with senator wiener and i've spoken with housing groups and we had discussions. moving forward, i'll inform everyone until we had the conversation as a body on what we want to see, those conversations with me are over with. thank you. >> president yee: thank you, before i call supervisor brown again, go ahead and i'd like to call supervisor stefani. >> supervisor: thank you, president yee. with regard to duplicating the

file, i want to be clear send ict -- sending it back to committee does not weaken the vote on the original resolution before us. i am for duplicating the file. i think as my colleague supervisor fewer said it continues the conversation for an important discussion. i had a community meeting on tis on sunday. the concerns outlined in supervisor brown's amendment are concerns that came up in my community meeting. there is no reason why i shouldn't condition to want to discuss -- shouldn't continue to want to discuss the files and by duplicating the file and taking the vote and sending it back to committee does not weaken the position on the main item on the underlying item, item 29. that's all i have on duplicating the file. >> president yee: supervisor brown. >> supervisor: yes, thank you.

this is the kind of conversation when we dig deeper they want to see. because when supervisor walton talked about transportation, that's another thing i think as we're building this city we're going to have to have better transportation and especially to the west side of the city and to areas of the southeast part of the city. and this is why and i'm so sorry if a lot of the amendments were not something that was put in here and i want to thank my staff, we worked over the weekend to bring something forward to start the conversation in three days. i agree with supervisor fewer, i don't do not want senator wiener or the state to decide what our amendments will be. i want to be very specific on what we like to see moving forward. i want to thank everyone and

hope to get your vote. >> president yee: supervisor ronen. >> i think it's great we'll have more conversation about this. i'm not taking issue with that at all, in fact i want to have that deeper conversation and think it will be -- the clearer we are the more detail oriented we are with the type of amendments we want to see. and the more we can agree on that together as a body, the better. and that puts us in a stronger position. i think it's weird to duplicate the same resolution instead of starting fresh but i can give that up. it's not that big of a deal. i do want to make clear in case my comments weren't clear, i think that's exactly the direction we need to go and the more public and unified we are on that conversation the better. >> president yee: okay. so procedurally, thank you. procedurally, i'll go ahead and there's a motion on the floor to amend the duplicated file.

so we'll have a roll call on that. roll call, please. >> clerk: for the record that was seconded by supervisora -- supervisor safai. >> president yee: yes. >> clerk: [roll call] . >> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: could i a motion to send the duplicated file as amended to the g.a.o. committee. a motion made by supervisor haney and a second? same house, same call? without objection it will be

send to g.a.o. committee. did i say that right? okay. now to take a vote on the original item. that was presented and authored by a bunch of people mainly authored by supervisor mar, thank you. do we need to take this roll call? roll call, please. >> clerk: item 29 as originally presented. [roll call]

>> clerk: there are nine ayes and two nos. >> president yee: this resolution is adopted. okay. i think we're way past our 3:00 special hearing. so madam clerk, can we go it our 3:00 p.m. special hearing. >> clerk: items 20 through 23 comprise the persons interested in community plan evaluation by the planning department under the california environmental quality act also known as ceqa. issued on december 11, 2018 for the proposed project at folsom street to demolish the existing buildings and merge lots and

construct a new building 59,000 square feet and mixed used dwelling and retail use. item 21 is the motion to affirm the department's determination that the proposed project is exempt from further environmental review under the community plan evaluation and item 22 conditionally reverses the determination subject to the adoption of written findings in support of the determination. item 23 is the motion to direct the appropriation of findings to reverse the community plan evaluation determination. item 24 through 27 were also continued from february 12, the appellant and sponsor agreed to waive the planning code as it pertains to items 24 through 27 specifically the hearing of persons interested in the

certification of a conditional use authorization thor -- for the proposed project as previously described and to approve the conditional use authorization and adopt the appropriate findings. item 26 is the motion to conditionally disapprove the department's decision to authorize the conditional use authorization and item 27 is the motion to direct the preparation of finding and support of the board's disapproval of the conditional use authorization. >> president yee: colleagues, before we have the two hearings, can i have a motion to excuse supervisor safai? motion by supervisor fewer. is there a second? seconded by supervisor brown.

>> clerk: on the motion to excuse supervisor safai -- >> supervisor: can i ask a question before we take a vote? >> >> president yee: supervisor ronen? >> they have to disclose information with the conflict. safai does not have a statutory legal conflict but i believe he mentioned last time this item was before the board based on his previous work connected to this project, he's seeking to be reused because of the adjudicatory nature of the hearing the board is holding today. >> supervisor: so the worked on the project? >> president yee: you have a question? >> through the president, so

supervisor, i don't remember this last time so supervisor safai worked on the project before becoming a supervisor? >> i'll let the supervisor reply. >> supervisor: for the record i worked with subcontractors on the project so i need to recuse myself. >> supervisor: okay. >> president yee:. okay, roll call, please. >> clerk: yee aye. brown, aye. fewer, aye. haney, aye. mandelman aye. peskin, aye. ronen, aye. stefani, aye. walton, aye. there are 10 ayes.

>> supervisor: supervisor safai is excused. we have a project at 1052, 1060 folsom and 194 ross street in district 6. they're related to planning department's determination of exception from environmental review and a conditional use authorization. we're going to hear the two appeals together. after the hearing, the board will vote on the planning department's determination of the exemption from environmental review first. it take six votes to affirm or reverse the planning commission's determination. if an environmental determination is rejected, the conditional use authorization becomes moot. no other approval action can take place and we will table

those items. if the environmental determination is upheld, we will then vote on the conditional use authorization. it requires eight votes to overturn the planning department's conditional use authorization or impose additional conditions. for this combined hearing, we will be considering whether to approve the planning commission's determination the project add 1052, 1060 folsom street and 194 ross street is exempt from environmental review. and the planning commission's conditional use authorizations. since we are combining appeals, we advise our normal hearing procedure to provide speakers with a bit more time. without objection we'll proceed

as follows. up to 15 minutes for an appellant or representative and two minutes in support of the appeals. up to 15 minutes for a presentation from city departments. up to 15 minutes for the project sponsor or the representative. two minutes per speaker in opposition to the appeal in support of the project. and finally, a five-minute instead of three, for rebuttal for appellants or appellant's representative. if you're here to speak on either appeals of the project for 1052 or 1062 folsom or 194 ross street now is the time to do so. colleagues, are there any objections to proceeding this way? seeing none, the public hearing is now open.

>> i'm the attorney -- >> president yee: hold on, please. supervisor haney do you have opening remarks you'd like to share? >> no, i'll save my comments for after the presentation and public comment. >> president yee: okay. seeing no name on the roster, i will ask the appellant or appellant's representative. >> i'll make a statement. good afternoon, supervisors. my name is angelica cabandin with the south market community action network. the park is truly a community park in every sense of the word. not only is the park heavily used by all members of the community, including residents, workers and visitors but the history of the park itself is the history of coming together

to demand for new public open space that will help enhance the quality of life in the south of market where children, youth, families, seniors, people with disabilities and everyone can live, grow and thrive. the first park we had in soma was south park which was built in 1855. it took close to over 150 years to get another park built which is now the victoria menola drapes park. however the city does not makt easy to get this mark -- make it easy to get the park. though the land was zed -- dedicated it took many years to funds to build it. we had to go add back in 2006 just so they could have the funds to build it.

and the following year after that we had to good back again for an add-back so the park could allocate staffing for it. the park is also located within both the soma filipino cultural heritage district. the youth and family s.u.d. was created to enhance the environment of youth and families in the soma and soma filipino was established to prevent the further displacement of the filipino community and to protect the cultural assets and landmarks such as the park. these two districts further highlights the importance of the park both to youth and families in this area as well as the filipino community who had this park named after a filipino

female american. [stand by]

>> as you enter the park you are greet by basketball court and adults playing one on one or full court. past the basketball court is a beloved community garden that people grow vegetables in and used by residents. if you keep walking past the garden there are two children's play areas. one play area for ages toddler to second grade see parents playing we are kids and children.

there are grassies area where you see people strolling, soaking up the sun in the grass and lounging and walking their dogs. grassy hill is heavily used by dog owners who walk their dogs there. beyond the children's play area and grassy hill is another sunny pathway the bathroom and a picnic area. the picnic area is used for birthdays, community events and has a lunch hour hang out for workers. the baseball area is utilizeds a soccer field and used by community members for various other activities such as aztec dance group.

every inch of the park is used because it is one only two full size parks in the market. >> good afternoon president yee and member of the board. i'm steve williams. i was recently contacted to review the ceqa analysis. i was presented a short brief. i think the striking and troublesome thing about the ceqa review was the failure it reconcile or mention the previous unanimous finding by the recreation and parks commission that smaller project on the portion of this same site proposed by the same developer, just three years ago, was found to have caught shadowing that would have significant adverse impact on the park. that resolution is exhibit 8 in your packet. when the same developer came

forward with this project, which is larger, closer to the park, it was found that the shadowing would not be a significant impact. that's exhibit 9 from the brief. the preliminary project assessment from the planning department specifically inform the developer that it was important to note this previous finding of significant adverse impacts on the park and there was a directive from the department in that memo that was not followed by the developer. no mention is made anywhere in any of the environmental documents or any of the development documents of the previous finding. case law has found this is a form of segmenting. that ceqa requires once a finding of significance adverse impacts or mitigation is made at

the same agency later cancels or nullifies that finding determination and mitigation, it must face the basis for that. failure to address or reconcile these clearly contrary findings, is a fatal flay for the ceqa plans. the failure to address these clearly contrary findings erodes the public trust in the system and fails to inform the public about the potential impacts of the project and creates lot of confusion. thank you. >> we are asking the board to pay attention to what happened

at the planning department. the planning department had no shadow study. had no information yet they adopted a shadow finding. without evidence. the planning department cannot do that. the planning commission cannot do that. section 295 which is prop k, requires the city to not consider approving a project until the shadow determination has been properly made by the rec park commission, they make a recommendation to the planning commission and planning commission has to determine there's no impact on the park. this project is right across the street from the park. because it shadows significant amounts of that park, they have

to make a balancing about what are the impacts on the committee that uses the park. the community that uses the park is low income people around that area south of market. predominantly, there's a lot of filipino community there. when the record was gone through at the planning department, there was no consideration of shadows. there was nothing that went to the planning commission. the planning commission was said, go look at the catdex. one shadow elimination is in the caddex. it's in exhibit 4. when the planning commission went back to the rec park commission on the same day, december 20th, the rec park

commission changed its position because the commission has changed. in the middle of it, commissioner allen got into a dialogue with his staff it was also just given to them -- everything is in the record since the filing deadline. when we compare the graphics, here's the graphic. which actually is more explain story because it explains all the areas in the park. here's the park and here's the park recreation centre on other side. when they had this issue, this

illustration, lot of testimony, rec park said unanimously, there's impacts on people using the park. because there's impacts qualitative impacts, we cannot make the necessary recommendations to the planning commission that they should consider approving the project. they said no. rec park said no. when they had information in december of last year, christmas, they had this information. they said it's okay. but it was a split vote. the people who had been on the commission voted against the due to rec park. what record went to the planning department to the planning

commission, nothing. they have shadow recommendation which is approved the shadow recommendation without any evidence. when they went to the planning commission for the hearing, part pardon me, commissioner lowe had a dialogue with the staff who compared the two shadow die grames. they said, the shadow increased. she admitted it really increased. why is it not explained in the rec park staff report? it wasn't explained. the same thing happened when it went to the planning commission. catherine moore had a dialogue the staff planner for planning department. what information do we have in the file? it's a dialogue that happened on