assisting seniors and adults with disabilities. i'm in here in support of somcan appeal, seven tower attempts to shadow the people and community. according to san francisco age and adult services 2016 needs assessment, 20% of that the city's population is 60 years older. an elderly person in the city are more likely to be poorer. san francisco senior live in every neighborhood of this city with district 6 being home to the second largest population of verievery -- seniors living in property. these are individuals we assist on a daily basis. who seek affordable housing. we as their service providers are advocating for affordable housing and this development is not that.

this development claims to do good by adding housing but we must ask ourselves who is this project benefiting when the people that are native to this city and in this district, which includes these seniors on fixed income are income angel eve in-- ineligible for the b.m.r. unit. it is our responsibility to preserve the city and to protect the people in places that add value and light to this place that we call our home. thank you. >> good afternoon supervisors. i work at the equity centre. we are a nonprofit located here at south of market. we've been serving seniors for 20 years now. i'm not good although public speaking. it took me a lot of courage to

stand before you today. v.m.d. park is one of the only two public parks in soma that our clients and their families often go to. v.m.d. is only little over two acres and the sheriff' shadow wm heavily used area of the small park. on behalf of our seniors, clients who cannot attend hearing, a 70 years use the park everyday to exercise everyday.

>> good afternoon supervisors. live here in the tenderloin and work in south of market. i've been in this line of work for over 10 years. i'm here in support of somcan appeal's awork with families that live in s.r.o.s and overcrowded condition. we all know this and understand this. our families exist in one of the most dense areas of the city. open space specifically parks, healthy parks. they are vital to the growth of

our children. v.m.d. park is only full-size community park in soma. this development will create a bigger shadow. further displace our communities. importantly this park is part of a long history and struggle of brothers and sisters by approving this project, you are continuing to partake in the destruction of this community that has shaped and formed san francisco. first the housing crises and relying on this argument is false. it is a political statement rather than the truth. it is not about available housing because there's plenty of housing constructed, luxury housing and government housing that continues to sit empty, truly it is about the accessibility of housing. the process we have in place is paced on an system that bets our community of color. i will say this to you again, as public servants, you are

accountable for the most vulnerable. housing is a right so is a healthy and open environment. as human beings we need this. it is unjust that you are pitting the communities with this where you are telling us what is right for us. it's either this or nothing. you are allowing for luxury housing for the exchange of a small amount of affordable housing. >> good afternoon. i work in soma. i'm here in support of somcan appeal. i want to reemphasize that

v.m.d. is only multiused place park. there was already a project proposes that was smaller. why is it acceptable now for even larger project with a shadow five-times larger? 80% of san francisco development and 60% of the housing development occurs in soma. it's inequitable to harm this vital public space. >> good afternoon i'm a longtime district 6 resident.

i live and work in soma. i'm in support of somcan appeal. this project was denied in 2015 for shadow impact on v.m.d. and approved last year larger than the original. this appeal is not all anti-housing appeal it's anti-new shadow. members of our community are families, our kids the people who use this park are fully aware of the need for housing. luxury market rate housing is not the type of housing we need. district 6 built 80% of new development and 60% now housing if the city. many of which is not affordable for the people who need it most. do not pit the issues against each other. our community needs and deserves both of those things. our kids are growing. in a neighborhood where the sky is fille filled with sky scraped

cranes. the air in downtown is more polluted do you to the number of freeways and cars. this is a reality for us everyday and that's why we're fighting to protect all of the sun light and limited open space we have. our kids and families deserving the right to sun light and open space as any other child across the city. show them that the city is invested in prioritizing open space over luxury housing by supporting somcan appeal. >> [singing]

♪ >> good afternoon supervisors. i'm here to support somcan appeal on the 190 project because the shadow it will cast on the v.m.d. park. the v.m.d. park is important to the school children. our students use this park from

monday to friday during school time and after school. being exposed to the sun this park is essential for the physical and mental development. this is their only opportunity to be active where they can get their much needed vitamin d. please support somcan appeal, thank you. >> good afternoon supervisors. i live in the district 11 by but i work in soma. i work somcan appeal 190 russ street project. it is inequitable to build a seven-story luxury housing

project that will cast a sheriff'shadowon 40% of the par. not only plants and trees depend on the sun light and also local children and youth. the shadow study only focus on the summer hour and there's lack of study during winter hours. especially when the sun sets at 5:00 p.m. when the sun set early that mean the shadows will cast early in the afternoon. during rainy season, having the large shadow that deprive sun light will delay drying process of the wet ground.

please support somcan appeal of this inequitable development. thank you. >> good afternoon supervisors. i'm the arts and culture administrator and i'm an individual artist. my family has been residents of san francisco since the 1930s. i'm a former resident of d6. i want to talk about this woman here. she was born in san francisco. she was a soma resident who lived couple of plocks -- --

blocks away. she was the first asian-american woman to win a gold medal in the olympics in 1948. she won two. but the road to gold was not easy. time and time again, she was turned away from gyms and pools in san francisco because she was fill 15 know. she wa-- fill 15 filipino. this park is a place for residents, workers, youth, and family to gather and eat to be active and enjoy retrieve from the concrete and traffic to have a space that's open and sunny. we are continuing to the fight for equity. to utilize spaces and be active

and enjoy natural resources in a district that bears the weight of development for the entire city. we are asking you supervisors to join us in protecting this backyard. this basketball court. this outdoor living room, this playground, this cultural asset that the community has fought so hard for every step of the way. we urge you to support the appeal of this project and work developers to design a building that makes the existing communities needs appropriate.

>> this big huge shadow that's cast on the playground is a threat to the their health and to their livelihood and their future. let's not cast a dark shadow on the children of soma. let's give them the bright etcetera future that we can offer them. thank you. >> good afternoon. i'm the producer of undiscovered s.f. which is city-funded market here in soma.

as an event planner, where we spend thousands of dollars to literally create fake astroturf grass areas at events. it baffles we would consider taking away actual real park with real grass for people to enjoy at these events. last year, we partnered with doing a large closure on folsom in front the park. i urge you to support somcan appeal and keep v.m.d. sunny. thank you. >> good afternoogood afternoon . one of the guide principles is based on equity and dismantled

the systems that keep programs for black and brown youth under resourced. i taught a class called urban sketching. we learn drawing foundations and we took these scales to different parks within san francisco. some of them were public parks. it gave my students the opportunity to explore the city to see part of it they never seen before. each week they were excited to visit new part of the city. exploring the city came with challenges. imagine a group of 15 black and grown youth looking to enjoy the green spaces within the city. meanwhile, residents or workers

wearing their button-down shirts finished their lunches and ignored the discrimination happening if front of them. v.m.d. park was one of the few places where we were not kicked out. having spaces with they can enjoy the sun, tree and grass and flowers. it helps give them ownership of the city that is already increasingly reducing their access to equity education in the art. thank you. >> hello supervisors. i'm robert marquez. i work in south of market. i'm here to support somcan appeal the project. i used the park since it opened. i've been going there two or three times a week. my understanding of the bay that

at one point, one the solution of the housing in the bay area was to fill the bay up. they decided to say it's a off limits and protect it. my understanding representation is that, you're there to represent those who don't have the a voice. you're in charge of the city that's where it's all happening. i'm asking that you draw a line in the sand and look up and instead degrading small area that working folks have for themselves t look at a situations a place to enhance. i don't see the central soma plans 8000 units comingline.

there's going to be a ton of property and influence. i will ask you to leave this for the people. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker please. >> once again the planning department has made a mockery of the community replanning process. choosing to ignore the parts of the planning code they don't like and sticking with the ones they do. mr. president, i'm from district 6 community planners which is the land use portion of the tenderloin people's congress. it's home to some 36,000 people, rec and park has designated the park one of the recreational area for lot people. as you may know because i know your history, draves park was

considered adequate open space for the area. it's four-times larger than the current park. until they put the freeway in. i was up in a few stories up in another building. we were also talking about height limits. it happen to be the building they are now completing. it was planned for 14 stories and i ran into my friend steve conley up there who said, we can't have another shadow on bodecker park. why are you opposing this, the park is a hell hole. she said the same word trump used. we need the housing. you can see how long that person was. now six months later, he was dead. you want to know why we do this kind of work.

>> thank you, next speaker. >> i'm chair of the lgbtq culture district in soma and 21-year resident of the city. i'm here to support the appeal. while the city needs housing, the question is, at what price? in a building this tall that cast this much shadow on treasured park, the price is too high. please support the appeal. thank you. >> i'm david hyman. do i not -- i'm not a regular user of this park. i only been in this once. it is a beautiful park. it is loved by the people. it is used. it is needed. the sun light is important to the people who use it.

>> the park is a place we used to enjoy. there's another shadow will be casted is disappointing. what makes it worse this project was denied in 2015 because of the shadow impact and now it's being brought up again. reason why we are fighting hard against this project is because v.m.d. is one of the two parks in the soma. we want to protect our park from any more shadows. this is one of the spaces we can claim as our own.

lot of us live in homes that are rented. who knows when the next day we could be evicte evicted or disp. >> it's been a long afternoon, lot of listening from lot of very concerned neighbors. we're now nearing the end. i'm cynthia gomez. i came here to join in support with our neighbors and allies in support of somcan appeal. many of our members, live in soma. it's the neighborhood with a fewest per capita park space in the city. least amount of open space in the city. they are being asked to put up

more shadow impact in soma. this project will set a precedent we do not want to set. this project first came across my radar screen because i have been meeting with rage community allies, neighbor organizations who are concerned about another different project that's only a block away at 2025 howard street. that project is also is tote cast shadow on a different park. please don't allow more impacts on scarce resources not today, not in the future. uphold the spirit prop k and please support the somcan

appeal. thank you. >> i thought i read about this issue in the paper, i believe it was in a building community chinatown style. i seen lot of buildingsing that have major gaps between floors. i couldn't understand why. this kind of explains it. >> president yee: i want to thank the public for coming on. there was some people that came out to talk about supporting the appeal. any more comments? public comment on supporting the appeal is now closed. now we will have up to 15 minutes for representatives of the planning department to make

the presentation. >> good evening president yee. i'm liz white. also here is stacy bradley from the regular creation an -- recreation and park department. the decision is whether to deny environmental ceqa appeal by upholding the department determination that the proposed project is not subject to further environmental review or to overturn the department's determination and return the project to the department for additional environmental review pursuant to ceqa. the project includes demolition of existing buildings on the project site. lot merger and the construction

of a new seven-story approximately 80 feet with rooftop, mixed use building with 63 dwelling units including final affordable units. approximately 2800 square feet of ground floor retail use. the project would also include add great garage for 17 vehicles and 63 bicycle parking spaces. the easter program environmental impact report or e.i.r., disclose environmental impacts on a programmatic level. the department is mandated to only review peculiar impactings to the project which is site specific. that analysis was conducted. the project would not result in any new sites specific or

project specific impacts on the environment. therefore, the project was appropriately analyzed pursuant to ceqa. it is noted that a supplemental appeal packet was instituted. the a issue one of the project plans usedder review do not conform with planning code requirements on residential building of this scale. therefore, the department analysis is questionable due to the inaccurate information about the project. the plan was submitted as part of the environmental review of the application. as the project proceeded through the entitlement project process,

the project sponsor about provide the original plan. thus the version of the project that was analyzed was conservative for the purposes of shadow analysis. ceqa main dates a review for projects consistent with development density or general plan policies for which an environmental impact report was certified. issue two. the, -- the appellant is incorrect the programmatic

e.i.r. overshadows. the easter neighborhood neighborhood e.i.r. determined shadow impacts to be significant and did not identify any mitigation measures. as part of the project environmental review, the department working with the shadow consultant conducted additional shadow analysis that included both qualitative and quantitative analysis of the project's potential shadow impacts to the park. this analysis included 3d modeling and surveys of existing park use. the department concluded while the project would construct new shadow the amount of new shadow would not be considered new impact under ceqa. we understand the community has a concern about the shadow

impacts. we summarize the shadow findings. the project would result in .38% increase in shadow on the park. this increase is less than one-half of 1% of the current available sun light. the project would not contribute any new shadow on the park from october 18th to february 18th. the project will start to cast new shadow on the park on february 19th around 5:15 p.m. from early may until mid-august, the new shadow would not enter the park until 6:00 p.m. the day is maximum shading from the project will occur on june fun -- june 21st. new shadow would enter the park at 6:00 a.m. and largest new shadow will occur at 6:36 p.m. approximately 18% will be shaded at this point in time. the department also examines the

use of the area that will be shaded. during the worst shadow day, june 21st, the new shadow would cover a portion of the basketball court, the northern tip of the children's playground, the entrance path and a portion of the oval grass area. the vast majority of the children's playground, picnic area and ball field will not be impacted. the department determines the project shadow contract would not be significant. shadow would fall on lesser used areas of the park. the san francisco recreation of park commission concurred with this conclusion on december 20, 2018 when it adopted a resolution recommending to the planning commission that new shadow cast by the project at

1052 to 1060 folsom would not have impact only the v.m.d. we received a letter from the appellant this afternoon. it brings up an old project tonight the site located at 190 russ street which the department issued a community-planned evaluation in march of 2014. the project at 190 russ street was disapproved by the recreation and park commission in january 2015. the letter questions why the 190 russ street project was not discussed in this pc -- c.p.e. today. the recreation of park commission reviewed the shadow study and concurred with our determination that the new

shadow on the park will be less than significant. moreover, the c.p.e. issued for the project as we're discussing today, both concluded that project specific shadow impacts would be less than significant. the determinations were based on substantial evidence in the record. the department recognizes that the proposed project will result in new shadow on v.m.d. park. the amount of new shadow would be less than one-half of 1% and would not be considered a significant impact under ceqa. in conclusion, the appellant has not provided any substantial evidence to refute the department's conclusion. the planning department recommends that the board uphold the department's determination for the c.p.e. and deny the appeal. planning staff is available to answer any questions you may

have. >> thank you. good afternoon supervisors. current planning staff. before you suspect a decision whether to uphold or overturn the planning commission's approval of the conditional use authorization to develop on a lot greater than 10,000 square feet in the soma zoning district. in addition to planner write description, the project includes 63 dwelling units but before existing dwelling units are subject to the rent stabilization and arbitration ordinance and will be replaced and like wise be subject to the ordinance through an agreement with the project sponsor. in addition to the replacement

units, the project is required to provide 14 units in the inclusionary affordable housing program as well the project sponsor opted to voluntarily include one additional unit in the program for a total of 15. the appellant raised two main issues in the appeal. the first is that the appellant claims the planning commission was not provided with the complete shadow study. there was no qualitative evaluation of the shadows close. the appellant claims that the project mass is uncertain and the impacts are unknown. in response to the first issue, the planning commission adopted motion number 20362 and found it would not be adverse.

the project sponsor and planning department promotely undertook the evaluation of the net new shadow cast as was just outlined by planner white. as part of the environmental review, the sheriff's deputy --s analyzed. this document was included in the planning commission's packet as well as the initial study. which included qualitative findings for the shadow cast. the commission was also provided a summary of the findings in the draft motion. on december 20th, prior to the planning commission hearing, planning department staff attended the recreation and park hearing where the potential shadow cast was heard by that commission. there was to adverse back impacs

recommended to the planning commission. therefore the commission did appropriately review the study and did take findings on the project's net new shadow impact on the v.m.d. park. in response to the second issue, regarding the mass of the project on december 20th, the recreation and planning commission determined that the building mass as proposed in the project would not cast a net new shadow -- sorry net new shadow cast will not be detrimental to the use of the park. as outlined in the motions, 20360, 20361 and 20362.

at this time, the planning commission and planning department have not received any information from other city agencies to suggest that the exterior dimensions of the project would change. further, the project has already gone under interdepartmental project review which was held in july 31, 2018 to see if there would be an any other potential requirements from these departments that would affect the building mass. to conclude the commission, reviewed the proposed project and concluded that on proposed project meets the planning codes including findings under section

295. for these reasons the commission approved the project and now the question of the appeal is in the hands of the board. thank you very much. >> okay, colleague. >> president yee: are there any questions? >> supervisor mandelman: thank you. i would like some help thinking about shadowing understanding how the department think about shadow impacts from ceqa perspective. specifically what the significance threshold is. there was little unclear to me from the initial statement -- from the initial study what that threshold was. >> i believe planning department staff through the chair. under ceqa, the relevant question regarding shadow is what a project create new shadow

in a manner that substantially affects an outdoor recreational facility or public area. as part of that determination what we considered are the following. the amount of net new shadow on an annual basis. we consider the time of day that the shadow occurs, the time of year that the shadow would occur, the location where the shadow falls and how that effective location is used. there's no one size fits all answer that we apply to every park because parks come in all different shapes and sizes. the programming varies from one park it another. >> supervisor mandelman: that makes it little hard. it looks like from the initial

study, there was some notion that under 1% of the total available, less than 1% total available sun light was loss. you're saying there's no such threshold. we're flying blind -- >> there seem to be -- >> supervisor mandelman: discuss lost without a particular threshold >> we're looking at a 4-acre park. we allow certain amount of shadow on that park. we say that's not significant. if we were to apply that same standard to a much smaller park, then the impact would be larger on that smaller park. that's why we don't have a uniform standard that we can apply. >> supervisor mandelman: it's kind of a feel? we heard folks talking about the importance of this late

afternoon sun light and it means to lose that. is that a reasonable thing to look at, the quality of that sun light and that lost sun light from a ceqa perspective? >> yes, we did look at how that area of the park is used. we have -- our consultant did surveys to see how many people in the park and which areas they are using. all of that is considered in making our determination. >> supervisor mandelman: do you relate what's being lost to how much is already gone? it steams like here this increase from 7.41 to 7.7, is actually a 5% loss of sun light. oral 5% increase in the shadow. >> yes, we do consider the

qualitative sheriff's departmen. >> supervisor mandelman: we know there's significant amount of impact. we don't know what they are. we can't mitigate them and do statement of overriding of consideration. when you get to the project level like this, the individual project has a loss that's some amount. but i don't think here you're looking at cumulative analysis a particular building. >> an area plan e.i.r. is cumulative analysis. because it looks at the proposed development that's anticipated over a certain period of time. we looked at all of the development in the eastern

neighborhoods. >> supervisor mandelman: this concludes that the impacts couldn't be it's gait -- mitigated. so there wouldn't be analysis. >> that's correct. the easter neighborhood e.i.r. was a programmatic analysis. we didn't have specific building designs for specific development sites. the purpose of a c.p. "e" is to analyze a specific development project. then we compare that against -- we determine whether the individual project would result in any impacts that were not previously disclosed in the area planning e.i.r. or whether those impacts would be more severe than behalve -- disclosed.

>> supervisor mandelman: you're concluding there's not an impact? >> that's correct. >> supervisor mandelman: howehow does prior determination of the rec and park commission that a smaller project would have significant shadow impacts factor into a number -- >> there's some confusion about the two. ceqa discloses information. it's not a project approval. the section 295 process is essentially an entitlement. says that this project would be allowed to cast net new shadow on a park protected under section 295. as part that determination, recreation and park commission can consider the project's

public benefits. >> supervisor peskin: say the lath part begin. >> the recreation and park commission balance that against net new shadow that it would cast on a park. >> supervisor peskin: through the president to mr. lee, where in section 295 which is proposition k does it say that? >> it's in the 1989 memorandum -- >> supervisor peskin: you said, i'm not trying to try you, section 295 of the code which is proposition k, not the memo that

was subscribed to by the planning commission and the rec and park commission five years later. i don't see anything in section 2 focus of -- 295 of the code that says what you said. >> it's not in the text of the planning code section. section 295 directs the two commissions to establish procedures for evaluating shadow impacts. that's what led to that joint memorandum. >> president yee, colleagues, there are two matters that are before us. >> supervisor peskin: one is ceqa matter and one is conditional use matter and i would like to address the first matter because if we don't get pass it, we won't get to the

second matter. i understand that the -- let me read it to you. the park shadow ban ordinance of 1984 authored by a former member of this body, supervisor bill maher, which was very forever its time is not necessarily a ceqa indicat indicator or impac. it might be and i understand that there's a shadow fan analysis. but there's a bad existing fact. and the fact is that there was pursuant to section 295 of the

code which is proposition k which was wisconsin code at subsection c, what you just referenced which says simply, i have to sit down, i like to stand up when i do this. i'm old school. the planning commission and the rec and park commission after meeting shall adopt criteria for the implementation of provisions of this section. which is what happened pursuant to a study by gentleman named peter in 1989. what that provision actually meant, mr. maher would stand up and he's alive and well, would agree. that was supposed to happen one time. what that provision did not mean was that it could be changed again and again and again through joint meetings of the planning commission and the rec and park commission.

interestingly enough, in the first one, which we've heard hours of testimony about, those two commissions met with one fifth of shadow. they said, actually, that that shadow was, this is the operative term in section 295, substantial. you remember that? then the project sponsor came back. this is shades of eight washington. the sponsor came back with five times more shadow. the question for us is, is that a ceqa issue in the first part? we'll get to the c.u. issue later. i think that is the fundamental question which is a body which is, an expert body by the way we have testimony from one of its commissioners who sent us all email which is part of the record, which is an email from

former rec and park commissioners who served for 12 years on that body. who said that that body, which is i think for the pumicers purposes of ceqa came to the conclusion that the shadow was substantial. i think it is an ceqa issue. i don't know if i have the votes today to do that. i'm going to contend based on the fact that an expert body said that the shadow in the previous less impactful sheriff'shadowis a substantial a law substantial. that is what i like to pause it and have your respective response to. >> president yee: go ahead and

answer. >> you are correct. the recreation and park commission considered a previous project at this project site. then for the current project, the recreation commission it went back to the recreation and park commission. they made a different decision than several years ago. >> supervisor peskin: this is no my colleagues and people in this chamber and people who are watching. everything that mr. lee who i quite like and respect and known for many years, said it's true and correct. the composition of that body changed. what is before us is about having complete functional

neighborhoods. what's before us is about making sure that these parks continue to be vital, functional parts of our communities. in supervisor haney's district, there's not lot of open space. as a matter of fact, the amount of open space per person in his district is number one of the city and mine is number two. that's the reality and that's precisely why the rec and park commission by a unanimous vote came to the conclusion that this was substantial in the exact thing that behalves presented t- what was presented to voters is not what the recreation and park commission voted. the -- we have a different rec

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