and used to be a member -- there was a senior center there, and we danced there in the victoria manalo draves park. if there were any activities in south of market, we always hold them in victoria manalo draves park because it's a big space. so if there are buildings there, more people, more pollution, more traffic and they emit carbon dioxide, which is bad for our health. so we oppose the tall building there, where people that live there and we don't want that. so please vote no, no and no. >> thank you. >> i will be translating. thank you. >> good morning, commissioners. >> translator: i will be translating really quickly. so mr. juanita said he doesn't want the victoria manalo draves park to be shrouded with shadows because it's the one and only park in their community. it's the only place where they have a space to walk around, to rest and to get sunlight. so he is saying that if there is a shadow cast coming from this one development -- proposed development, others may soon follow and this park may soon be totally in the dark. so he is asking that you don't allow the proposed development at 1

go ahead. >> victoria manalo draves park say newer park opened in 2006. and it has a full basketball court and baseball field. it has two children's play structures. a small community garden. two large grassy areas. walkways, picnic tables and benches. this rendering shows the proposed scale and design of the 190 russ street project. the building height is 64' 9" and has a small elevator structure that extends to a high of 78' 9". a summary of the qualitative aspects of new shadow that would be cast by the building, the shadow appears from early april through early september. and would occur in the late afternoon and evening within the last hour of the solar day, which is defined in the 1989 memo as "one hour before sunset." the duration of the new shadow would range from 16 minutes to 42 minutes. and the location of the shadow on the park is in the northern corner. i have an image of this in just a minute. the northern corner of the park and it would cover certain park elements including a portion of the basketball courts, the park entrance, and walkway,

developer and stakeholders and really emphasized and informed me about the importance of victoria manalo draves park the history of it, and the shadow impact of it. he has repeatedly emphasized this only .07%, less than 1% of the shadow impact will be impacted on the victoria manalo draves park and we repeatedly told him even though it's less than 1%, but there also are issues about other developments that are coming in around victoria manalo draves park. and that is what we are scared of; that this development will cause precedent for victoria manalo draves and he appears to have a bmr unit and if it's going to have a bmr unit, that is another one unit and it's only one bmr unit in a very gentrified community. so please say no to 190 russ street development. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker and i'm going to keep calling names. [ reading speakers' names ] one more, go ahead and i will call this afterwards >> my name is theresa. and i have lived here in the south of market in district 6 for almost all of my life. i have three children who happen to actually love and look at south of market as

and used to be a member -- there was a senior center there, and we danced there in the victoria manalo draves park. if there were any activities in south of market, we always hold them in victoria manalo draves park because it's a big space. so if there are buildings there, more people, more pollution, more traffic and they emit carbon dioxide, which is bad for our health. so we oppose the tall building there, where people that live there and we don't want that. so

i think that emphasizes the importance of victoria manalo draves park and as stewards how we have to protect that park and increase the accessibility in high-needs neighborhoods such as district 6. now we're guided by the 1989 shadow memo in order to evaluate the impact of this park. there are two standards with two criteria that we have to follow: quantitative criteria and qualitative criteria. while the shadow -- additional shadow cast is 0.07%, we have heard before at this commission and debated whether there should be a cumulative shadow analysis comparing to the other three projects that are in the pipeline? again, i feel like i am yelling into a hole, because not too many people followed me down that hole, but i still want to emphasize, when we take a look at significant cumulative shadow impact of all projects, do we just accept the first one in line, because that developer had put the application in earlier, or should we look at it aas as a whole? second, i'm not sure we're applying the correct quantitative criterion. i'm going criticize the 1989 memo again, where there is a r