and park commission commission composition about that body. that does not change their finding is a ceqa impact. if approved we'll get to the c.e. matter where we have a lot more discretion.

>> president yee: any other question or comments? i'll say it now. when the prop k pass in '84, i was around. i know the reasoning behind it. it was the basically, a financial district. it's almost duplicate issue we're seeing south of market now that we saw in the '70s and '80s. they were building more high-rises and realizing that it was going to cast more shadows. that's one the reasons why this

proposition was passed in the sunshine ordinance. we made the application through buildings that were put up then. the community fought like crazy. if you haven't gone through this battle, you don't understand how important sunshine is. what you heard today was there was no additional sunshine cast on this particular park in the winter months basically. whets it's going -- when it's going to rain. it doesn't cast anything until february. that's great. it cast largest shadow during the months where kids will be out there playing in the

evenings. when you consider what's the impact. i think the impact is much larger than the analysis. supervisor peskin thank you for raising that issue. i know there was some explanation during the presentation. when it comes on to plain english of how does this happen that it was determined -- it was much smaller project. not desirable for the community for sure. i'm glad to see this community stepping up saying -- i leave it at that. supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: you want to read into the record for one

reason only. which is that it is amazing to me that 35 years later, the arguments in favor of proposition k were written by the counselor for that is representing the appellant in this matter, ms. hestor we received testimony from committee better park recreation in chinatown who were the proponents of that 35 years ago which leads me to believe that we still have a great city. >> supervisor mandelman: i guess i sort of approach the point that supervisor peskin was making. off strong desire not to force the planning department to deal with unworkable precedence around ceqa.

it does seem here there's not a new her calnumerical standard. whether or not there's a significant shadow impact. in this case, sort of the peskin doctrine, if there's a prior determination by an expert body that particular amount of shadow would have an impact that may be substantial evidence that there's an impact there. this is significantly greater impact. i imagine we weren't going to spending lot of time on the ceqa here. i'm actually kind of wondering if the peskin rule make some sense here. i'm not sure how many projects there will be out there where the recreation and park commission found substantial negative impact on shadow.

>> president yee: was that a question or comment? >> supervisor mandelman: i don't know if anybody wants to respond or if it makes sense. >> president yee: there's no response. >> what bill maher meant in subsection c295 of the code, was one meeting, not multiple meetings. i contend you can answer this or not, this is not what's before us today. i contend that the continued joint meetings to change shadow budgets for parks that did not exist, who are not in the 198 9/19/11 memorandum -- 1989 memo that includes v.m.d., it was not

intend bid bill maher and voters when they adopted that in jun june 1984. >> i guess i are answer it. i don't know what bill maher meant when interpreting the text of a ballot measure, what the sponsoring supervisor meant at the time is generally not a fact of the question. it's what is the tex and if the text -- and if the text is ambiguous, what does the voters contend. >> supervisor peskin: ly tell you what the park shadow ban proposition k june 1984 said.

this is if you didn't read all of the ordinance, here's what you read when you voted. shall an ordinance be adopted prohibiting building permits from certain structures which could cast a substantial shadow on recreation and park department property, except on prior approval of the city planning commission pursuant to the ordinance. prior approval of the city planning commission. that means before 1984, june. if i voted on that, that's what i would think it meant. >> what we look at when we're advising rec park commission, planning commission, this body and other city departments on the meaning of prop k is the tex text of that measure. planning commission and rec park will jointly adopt standards that when there's shadow on a

park, the planning commission will determine whether that shadow cause an adverse impact on the use of the park and the planning commission -- if it does, whether that impacted insignificant. in making that determination, the planning commission must solicit input from rec park. >> president yee: i think you made your point. there's nobody else on the roster for this. right now, i would like to call up the project sponsor or representatives to speak for up to 15 minutes.

>> i agree with you that the commissions cannot keep editing. however, this case is different. what happened in this case is this. that memorandum established with how much shadow it can be increased. which park with the shadow. it goes into defining what kind of

shadow for a park with two acres and parkers with larger than two acres. that is an allowance of 1%. in this case, the cumulative impact on it park and the cumulative list is provided by the planning commission. it hes that even under the cumulative, increase is only 0.41%. it's clearly fits in the allowable increase. number two, the 1989 memo also provides that the project has to be the benefit has to be balanced against the type of shadow. how it is and how long it is so

there's a balance between the competing public benefits. in this case, you're correct. in 2015, there was a decision by the recreation commission that the shadow for much smaller project is significant. however, that project only went before the park rec commission, it did not go before the planning commission. moreover, it is a nine unit building with zero benefits. namely no affordable housing and it has no other community benefit that was given. in this case, i won't go through all of it because i have submitted it in my brief. this project provides 25%

affordable housing. it also replace so there's zero deductions on the city's rent control units. when you look at this project, it has 50 acres and two bedroom unit. the commission consider the benefit the project versus the shadow. let me now focus on where the shadow actually occur and what is the benefit versus the balancing. this board needs to understand when a shadow study is prepared, it is all the trees. the shadow from anything in the park existing.

in september, the shadow will start -- will not reach the park at 5:00 p.m. >> this is a recurring theme. please stop the time and acknowledge me. >> president yee: i will right now acknowledge you. >> supervisor mandelman: i do not see in the actually very short text of proposition k where this notion of trading shadow impact for benefit is

expressed. this only two paragraphs. it's on page 63 of the voter information pamphlet of june 1984. i don't see where that is. >> the section 295, as you pointed out supervisor peskin, allowed the commission in joint meeting between rec and park and the planning commission, to determine the methodology and the criteria in determining the significant impact. when they adopt the memo, they put in a balancing. when we looked at proposition k proposition k already build in a balancing.

because any building that's under 40 feet high, does not have to do a shadow study centred from prop k. this is what i would like to go by. i would like to do through the specific shadow. >> supervisor peskin: ly reserve my comments. >> president yee: start the time again. please start the time. >> in june, which is the longest day that park largest shadow. at 6:00 p.m., it barely reaches the edge of the park. at 6:00 final, it barely reaches the park. in 6:30, it started to come to a

little bit of the park. however, i would like to show you a comparison between the shadow and what happened when you have a 40-foot building. the 40-foot building start to reach into the edge of the park at 645. the building, the 65-foot building is this area of shadow. by 7:00, the shadow of a 40-foot building into the edge of the basketball court. by 7:15, the shadow is almost

covering more than two thirds of the basketball court. that is a 40-foot building. by 7:30, 40-foot building pretty much cover the entire northern end of the basketball court and then a lot of the other grass area. as you can also see, the rest of the park including the children's area, is not really impacted by this project. when the planning department determines there's no significant impact, they're looking at a number of criteria in addition to what was the 1%

and criteria. also, if i mentioned before, trees -- you do not see any trees -- shadows by the tree. you can see the trees already cast shadow on the basketball court. this is the area as you coming in and even that grass area have shadows. this is part of the lawn that is

oval in shape. this one shows this area is already in shape. in the previous one shows that the basketball court is in shape. when you start to look at all of the combination of what actually is happening in the park in terms of shadow, the conclusion has to be that unless the city cut off all the trees around the park in that area, there's actually no new shadow on the basketball. very minimum on the rest of the area that the neighbors talked about. most suddenly, because the shadow doesn't get into the park until 6:00. it does not affect the use of

the school of the park throughout the year. in addition to that, this board has provided and allocated $2.6 million for this park for the purpose of lighting project so that the children and the young people can use that park, basketball court and the baseball field in the rest of the area lath late into the eve. that project has been funded and construction is supposed to start this winter. actually, the use of this park will be extended as far as the

young people are concerned. they can now actually see what they are doing when they play baseball at night. >> president yee: i guess that's end of your presentation. any questions? >> supervisor peskin: i do have a comment. i want to thank them. former deputies to the attorney, ms. barkley, who was then working in the office of then city attorney george agnost concurs seb section c which is the planning code provision that allowed in my opinion, i think that respectfully your office has given tortured advice on this, was a onetime deal. i like to note that ms. barkley

agrees with that. which has under her argument, no impact on this case as a matter of c.e. application or ceqa application. we are kind of litigating the history of proposition k, i would like to note that for the record. by the way, there are a number of city attorney written opinions that were published under city-attorney agnost that you could not trade shadow for money. that has been ignored. i was the only member of this board on the oceanwide project actually said that we were not going trade shadow for money. i respectfully submit that the city attorney should have advised board of supervisors that it was not appropriately or legally before us because of

agnost's memo of 1986, pursuant to request from then supervisor bill maher that said you could not trade shadow for cash. i'm delighted that thi this appl before us just so we can 35 years later talk about what was before the voter and what the voters voted on relative to proposition k. some of that impacts this appe appeal. lot of this is something that the 11 of us need to think about as we continue to build more and more buildings. we're not creating lot of new any new open face in -- space in town. let's preserve the best of the rest. >> president yee: any other -- i don't see anybody else. thank you. at this point i like to invite

members public who wish to speak in opposition of the view. please come forward. you have two minutes. come up first speaker. >> i would like to speak in support for this project moving forward. in other words, denying the appeal. this project as you know, is just outside the central soma plan area where 32,000 new jobs are proposed while only 8800 housing community units are proposed. this would further exeexesexace. there are many studies which

sites that the production of housing is directly responsible for the lessening was pressure in this city. i think this is why you're seeing action on the state level to address the needs of california as a whole. let's build more housing to prevent displacement. additionally, no housing will be lost at the site. there will be one oone replacement of existing housing on this site. we are simply proposing or the project sponsor is proposing to create more density in the location which is as you know, very well served by transit. in fact, as part of the central soma plan, $500 million has been allocated for transit in this

area. san francisco residents want more housing. the poll came out suggested that 74% favored higher density near transit. this is not an issue of gentrification. it's an issue of responsible urban planning which cannot be done on a project by project basis. >> president yee: next speaker. >> my name is mike stack. i grew up playing in the public parks. i'm here to support the project. for me, the shadow impacts sometime after 6:00 when it's growing up playing basketball in the park, dinner time around 6:30, for that reason, i think the new residents living if this building will give supervision to the children playing in the

park. i think it would be a great impact. >> president yee: next speaker. >> thank you supervisor for your time. i'm am fourth generation san francisco native. i believe development is in line with the character of the neighborhood and projects close by. the developers have gone above and beyond the work with the neighborhood groups to voluntarily increase the amount of rent control units to 15. not to mention impact fees paying directly to the city coiffures. i think the need to add more rent controlled units should supersede the need for additional casting of shadows on this park in the late afternoon when my kids are home having dinner time and bath time.

please support this project especially rent controlled housing in dense urban environment. >> president yee: next speaker. >> i'm john goebelman. i live adjacent to this project. i have my architecture office also at 172 russ street. i have a greyhound i walk two or three times a day in that park. i lived there 20 years. well before the park existed. i walk my dog there two or three times a day. that oval-shaped mound that is the area most impacted by in the shadow, i agree with alice, it's north really impacted because there's lot of shadows and trees. [please stand by]

it's unacceptable and these are in quotes. it's unacceptable that anyone is

talking about this project being shut down because of a shadow that the park and rec commission and planning commission found to be insignificant, breed said. we can't keep delaying and obstructing new housing if we want to meet our housing goals so people can afford to live in the city. we're in danger of being priced out because primarily the housing stock is shrinking in relation to the numbers of people moving in. and now is not the time to constrict housing. >> next speaker. >> good evening, my name is james and i'm speaking in support of the project. i've been following these proceedings very closely. and i think that notwithstanding the rhetoric, the project should definitely go forward. hearings were conducted and the planning commission approved the project. the commissioners who voted to

approve the project reached the conclusion that the new shadow cast by the building is insignificant based on both quantitative and qualitative criteria. and the impact from the small shadow cast early in the evening is outweighed by the enormous benefit of creating a large number of affordable housing units. i believe the appeals in front of you are completely without merit and i sincerely hope you will base your decision on the facts, not on rhetoric. thank you. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors, tim on behalf of the 400 members of the san francisco housing action coalition. for those of us who support sb50 this hearing is helpful in that it provides testimony in how badly intervention policy is needed and why so many housing

bills are moving forward in sacramento. i've been coming to these hearings over 50 years, that a project this good, with this many benefit, affordable housing, that doesn't cost the city a nickel, cannot be approved easily or ministerially is deeply frustrating. it's more evidence of why local jurisdictions are failing so badly to deliver the housing the city needs to address the affordability and displacement crisis. if the board upholds the appeal and kills this proposal, are you willing to gamble that the city will get a better deal on the next one? whenever that might happen to be. if the board were to support a resolution opposing sb50 as i heard might happen and upholds the appeal of this project, you're likely to demonstrate the very reason why sb50 was drafted in the first place. the city's housing crisis will

not abate unless and until we dramatically increase production of housing of projects like this. i urge you support this project. thank you. >> next speaker. >> hello. my name is ed. i support this project for all of the reasons that you've heard a myriad of times before. 25% below market rate units. 15 -- that's 15 new affordable units plus the keeping the four existing rent-controlled units. these are all rental units so they're not going to be sold as luxury condos. the actual design of the building and the layout of the building is consistent with more affordable newer apartment, so this is not some glass tower in the sky kind of building that we're seeing everywhere.

and that is just kind of shocking to me, though, there is no transparency in this process to get something entitled in the city. it's crazy. you have a planning department that has voiced its approval of the project. and you've got am other -- some other city people trying to litigate the obscure 35-year-old piece of the planning code. i don't know. i don't know how anyone can do business in the city if everything is so obscure and not transparent and there is no rhyme or reason or logic put into any of this. we're faced with a really great project, with a developer willing to go above and beyond the call of duty. $900,000 of impact fees paid to the city. you have the housing of the existing tenants. you have two new commercial units that are going to be modern, glass-faced, beautiful

addressing the store front, unlike the old bars there now. i urge you to deny that appeal and move forward with this project. >> next speaker. >> obscure. was approved by the voters. >> i'm a native san franciscan as well as property owner who has rented to both low-income and conventional tenants for over 30 years. san francisco needs additional rental units which this developer is providing as he has in the past. we need these units to stabilize our rent. we need an oversupply of rental units to stabilize our rents and decrease them to make them more affordable to san franciscans. thank you. >> good evening. my name is xavier and i'm first generation native san franciscan. i've lived here over 60 years,

family man, raised two children. i'm here to support the project. this project is not a typical high rise, but a thoughtful addition and within allowable limits. this improvement is respectful of the open space and considerate of this neighborhood. it's providing more affordable housing to the city. we need to encourage this kind of development in the city. thank you very much. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon, my name is bree. i'm a resident at 1056 folsom street. my family and i have been living there over 37 years. so we approve this project. we do live across the street, right across the street from the park and we do not see kids playing there after 4:30 it's more adults on the basketball court. we do see adults playing around 8:30, 9:00 at night.

so i don't think the sun is a problem with the shadow, it's not a problem with it. but i just want people to understand that my family and i do approve this project. and with the shadow, i don't think it's really big of an impact. i do not see kids or families going through much, because of the homeless people sleeping there and the people using drugs. so i'm sure with the building being built, it could take out a lot of the homeless people away from the park. and a lot of the people who are using drugs, but i do see more dog walkers and kids playing. my mom actually works at bessie car michael school, she's been working there 32 years and they do take the kids to the park during school. of course, i don't think the shadow is going to be a problem with that. school is over at 2:45 and kids go home. but i wanted to let you know that i don't believe the shadow

is that big of an impact. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> good evening, supervisors. i know you've all had a long day and i have too. i'm a lawyer with the tinned tenderloin housing clinic. i represent all of the long-term tenants at the project. i want to start out by giving a little background. normally i spent my time in court defending evictions and trying to get people back into their homes after they're displaced when a developer wants to develop a project. in this case, the developer came straight up and said, you tenants have rights, let's figure out how i can temporarily relocate you all, pay for your relocation, make sure you're able to come back in a rent controlled tenancy that is

somewhat better than you've been living in the last 30 years. i have to say, first of all, in terms of my context and i'm a tenant advocate, this developer has shown sensitivity in dealing with the needs of the existing affordable tenancies. beyond that, i see a lot of positives with this project. i mean, we all agree that this city needs more housing. 63 units here. 15 are affordable. i mean, that, to me, is music to my ears. i think that achieves some of the goals that i try to do every day, day in, day out, as a lawyer with the tenderloin housing clinic. so, i want to leave you with

just this question. if an incremental enapproachment to light -- encroachment to light or shadow -- [bell ringing] >> thank you, sir. your time is up. >> i have one question, what is the name of the councillor from the tenderloin? >> stephen booth. >> thank you, mr. booth. >> next speaker. >> i just want to say i support this project. i this is a well designed project that will provide 25% bmr units. i want to ask for you guys to please not shut down a project that would help address housing issues, support local businesses and bring safety and foot traffic to the neighborhood. >> next speaker. >> good evening. i have been a resident of san francisco for the past 45 years. i've known the city quite well. we have heard both arguments

about this project. i am fully aware of the park in the community. and i am aware of housing, especially affordable units in san francisco. this proposed project has 15 units scheduled for affordable housing, plus four more to control at the current rent amount. that is over100 people that will enjoy 365 days a year of comfortable housing in affordable units. the shadowing late in the evening, when the park is barely used and the city is probably blanketed by fog anyway. the amount of sunlight loss is negligible. we need to do a balancing act when it comes to housing in the city as we need to provide the greater good for the greatest number of people. with this, we need housing in san francisco. i strongly urge you to deny the appeal and support this project. thank you.

>> my name is michael. the politics of no has plagued our city for far too long. not on my block, not in my backyard. we have made mistakes in the past by not moving housing forward all over the city. i plan to change the politics of no to the politics of yes. london breed our mayor said that less than a year ago. now is the chance to move that promise forward with a great project that goes above and beyond the city of san francisco's requirements. i've lived in san francisco for 10 years. i have roommates. i worked in the soma for about 8 of those years and driven past that park. this city is in one of the worst housing crisis ever. 10% of the city's population lives in affordable housing and there are people and families in need of homes every day in the

city. this project benefits families, the community, the job force and the housing community in the city of san francisco. already being proposed is with the city's best interest in mind and in addition this project has already been approved by the parks and rec department and the planning commission. i hope everyone on this panel trusts those members that voted previously. please think about this project and what and who it is going to help. you in charge of san francisco is giving san franciscans a chance to improve the quality of their life. it's in your hands. please don't let us down. >> hello, i'm a resident of the city. i asked to please support the project and reject the appeal. we are in housing crisis and you have a great project before you. the shadow is only after 6 p.m.

and i would like to quote what everybody else i saying about the shadow. it is only 0.38, less than one half of 1%. we do a lot of high rise in china and san francisco. and we do the shadow study. i can understand the concern of the neighborhoods, but if they are in the practice, they would understand this is very insignificant. i hope you support the project. thank you. >> okay. i think -- no, you've spoken. any other person want to make comment that haven't made it yet? okay. then i will -- i see nobody. public comment is now closed. >> president yee: we'll invite

the appellant to present a rebuttal argument. you have up to five minutes. >> president, members of the board, steve williams again. as you heard from the planning representative, the previous project from 2015 by the same developer is a portion of the present proposed project. ms. white denotes and stated that the recreation and park commission found no adverse impact from the 2016 project. i refer to the -- if i can have the overhead. it says this was the resolution from 2015. it will adverse impact on the part of the shadowing. it's just incorrect on the facts. the appellant's point, this is impermissible form of segmenting. they reconfigure the project and

resubmit it and that's what happened here. no explanation. no reconciliation of supply to resolve the earlier finding of adverse impact from an earlier smaller project. so the environmental analysis does not address or answer the question. there is in in this record, this document for this site. it's a previous finding by a city agency of a significant adverse impact and the developer comes with a new project, incorporating the same site and the same city agency reverses or nullifies that earlier finding. to do that, the agency must explain or refer to substantial evidence that justifies the reversal or the nullification. so this is the new and site-specific fact. exclusively applicable to this site. i wanted to answer a question earlier that supervisor mandelman had. the standard is found on page 5 of my brief and it's from the

california public resources code. the standard is a proposed project has a significant impact if it casts shadows that substantially impair the beneficial use of any public or quasi public park, lawn, garden or open space. it's on page 5. thank you. i'll turn it over to the rest of the time. >> supervisors, you've had total housing today. a lot of it. and you've heard in this case from residents of a working class community that feel very threatened. they're losing their open space and they can feel it. they're losing their housing as well. and they can feel it. what you've got today is a project that needs to be sent back to the planning commission

to do a proper shadow evaluation and resolution. the one that they signed off on, they had no -- nothing. they had no evidence of that. because the planning staff didn't give them the tool to have a shadow evaluation. the planning department should not be the determining factor. the planning commission should be. because i was sitting here listening to the testimony from the users, much of whom are young women, and i really noticed the difference. i think young women may save the world. but one of the other things you have to do, is to tell the planning department they can't do this, this way. they threw away an evaluation that was done by rec park on the

site. they actually said in their ppa, there was these issues and then no one opened the file again in the planning department. neither environmental review or the planners. they didn't go back and figure out they should at least report that there had been a determination by rec park exactly on the site, by this developer in part of this project. nothing. they didn't give any information at the planning commission or even at the rec park commission. it had to be extracted by supervisor -- [bell ringing] -- commissioner lowe and supervisor moore at the various commissions. we're not saying no new housing. my clients are perfectly willing

to accept housing on the site without additional shadowing of the park. a good architect can do that. send it back, get an architect that pays attention to this -- [bell ringing]. >> president yee: thank you very much, your time is up. this public hearing for items 20 and 24 and from -- the rest of it? for up to 27. has been held and closed. we will now reconvene as the board of supervisors. as previously discussed, we'll take up the items related to the exemption from environmental review first. those will be items 21, 22, and 23.

yes. i'm sorry. i called for the last speaker and nobody came up and i closed it. >> rueben, rueben -- [interjections] >> president yee: okay. so that is what is before us first. we'll bring -- we'll be making analysis of the adequacy, sufficiency and completeness of the report provided by the planning commission's determination. that the project at 1052-1060 folsom and 190-194 russ street is exempt from environmental review. again, this will require six votes of the board of supervisors. do we have a motion on this 21, 22, 23? supervisor haney.

>> supervisor haney: thank you, president yee. first i want to say thank you to the project sponsor and the appellant and to everyone from the community who came out to speak today and shared their views with me directly. i also want to thank both sides who worked with my office and engaged with me to see if we could seek an agreement that might have prevented us from holding this hearing today. i also want to thank everyone in the audience who sat through the hearing and for their patience as well and my colleagues for actively engaging in this houring. as you heard, versions of this proposed development have been discussed for years and i'm disappointed this is where we find ourselves today. as you heard in 2015, a smaller version of this project was rejected by the rec and park commission in the unanimous vote because of the impact on the park. at the time, there was no question as to the significance of the impact.

in fact, one commissioner recently wrote to us called it one of the easiest votes they made as a commission. more recently the park and rec commission and planning commission supported a much larger version of this project, but in contested votes, with the planning commission voting 4-3. in each of these hearings for the last five years, the community that helped to get the park built, that uses the park on a daily basis, has been clear they view the shadow significant and adverse and they're opposed to it. the project sponsor was aware of that fact throughout the process and that continues to be the issue today. we absolutely do need more housing. and more affordable housing in particular. a lot more of it and i will support development that provides needed housing, but i want to recognize the community in soma, particularly around this park, is doing its share.

for anyone who said not in my backyard or not accepted housing in their area is ridiculous and counterfactual on its face. take a walk through soma, look all around you, you will see large residential developments, many of them new and all through the area. this is more than anecdotal. in fact over the last 10 years, soma has built more housing than the rest of the city combined. i'll say that again. soma, particularly around this park, has built more housing rest than the city combined. despite this development and density, our city has not built a commensurate amount of open space. this is a massive failure. they're the only multiuse public park in the area. and it saddens me that anyone would seek to minimize or mock

the real concern this community has about the impact on the park. a community that has fought to hang on, that struggles every day against displace am, that has been there for decades and is fighting to keep a soma where their family and kids can continue to thrive. this is a shadow that falls on the only multiuse public park anywhere in soma, one of the most dense areas in our city. it's a shadow that is on a public park that is used on a daily basis by low-income school children, family, seniors and dog owners. this project is also within the boundaries of both the soma filipino district and the family zone. the filipino community showed up today and stated where they stand. ignoring their voices would be a tremendous mistake as we continue to build a san francisco that respects all of our diverse communities, their

needs and their experiences. i want to recognize the representatives from the lgbtq community, including the leather cultural district. they also have a longstanding home along folsom street. san franciscans passed prop k to protect public parks from shadows. this is a principle that voters have recognized and other areas of the city found needed protection under. it's a principle that should be extended to protect a community and park that is only one of open spaces in the area where the residents have been clear to us that they find the shadow to be significant to trigger prop k conditions. onto the conditional use issue, i'm asking for item 21, for us to vote to approve the cpe and table item 22-23. and then i have a different

motion on the conditional use. >> president yee: so there is a motion. is there a second? seconded by supervisor ronen. supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, president yee. i would like to concur with many of the things that the district supervisor who represents the part of the city where this project is taking place just stated. he referenced -- and i will say her name, because she and i were in the same contest in the year 2000 when i first ran for supervisor and that is meagan levitan, who did indeed in her e-mail say it was one of the easiest votes that they took. and i would point all of you to the letter or the document that mr. williams on behalf of the ceqa appeal put on the overhead, which said this is an adverse

impact. and i want us all to do this based on policy. yes, we are elected officials, so we are de facto politicians, but when there is something in the record that says this is adverse, that it is an impact, i don't think that we can say it's not an impact under ceqa. so i completely respect what supervisor haney has put forth relative to approving item 21 and tabling items 22 and 23. and i don't know how many of you were on this board, but it was not that many months ago when supervisor stefani and i reversed, with all due respect to the environmental review function in the planning department, not for the first time, because that happened when mark farrell was district supervisor, but for the second time, a project that we said was not c