that will also happen on an annual basis. the idea behind the supervisor's thinking here was explained to us and we are trying to provide more economic incentives for the owners not to leave the buildings are vacant, which as everyone knows, can create a downward spiral in the neighbourhood and lead to illegal occupation and illicit crimes and often other elements. we will be working closely with the supervisor's office on this. we have been, in terms of the original drafting. there is a provision in here calling for a rebate if somebody comes in after they've committed to pay their fee, we may want to discuss that with the supervisor a bit further because i have a feeling that our inspection group will already have engaged the time that the original registration fee was designed to cover. so i don't know we want to get into an administrative process that is going to easily exceed the 711-dollar registration fee. if the supervisors are amenable to that, we will raise the fee if we can prevent that. but other than that, i am happy to take any questions. >> commissioner walker? >> i have a couple of issues on the demolition ordinance. we have spent a lot of time looking at this. we have major concerns about the illegal gemini -- demolitions happening. we are very supportive of finding solutions within our process. i am really concerned about the requirement of conditional use as a solution, primarily because of the backlog and -- that will stop a lot of alterations and other things. i really am interested in having our code advisory group really dig down on this and come and talk to us about it at a formal agenda item. and i hope that we can review it formally with a joint planning building commission meeting. it makes sense to do it in that process. i know we will be planning on doing that. so that is that one. the flexible store for the flexible retail space is a concern that we have around occupancy limits and egress. is that the most about doing the entertainment venues within these -- i mean, i'm curious. >> i don't know we have a specific. it was sort of depend on what the building situation is. >> occupancy would probably stay the same -- i mean the occupancy limits. >> i don't anticipate there will be many issues around that. i do think that every building varies, and sometimes there are things that go on in the building, even in a 12 month period. so to have any and all inspections waved because something happened 12 months before might be a little bit counterproductive. >> i see what you are saying. okay. the part about the vacancy process for vacant buildings, i agree -- i'm glad we will be inspecting sooner, and i really do agree that waving those initial fees might be problematic. the goal is to not have it vacant in the first place. once it is, i think that making sure that we avoid things like we heard earlier at the abatement appeals of not securing the promise, and having it become something of a problem in the neighbourhood is what we want to avoid spirit thank you, very much. >> just on supervisor peskin's legislation, let's say january, february march, whatever, and then once it is finalized and it will come in front of us here. >> a supervisor walker alluded to, there would be a code advisory review of the ordinance i think there may be some opportunity between now and the final version of this if we have some specific language that we would like to see modified. there will be an opportunity to meet. >> every year we deal with a lot of important pieces of legislation. this one might be top of the list, particularly because it affects us and where we have been for the last couple of years and dealing with this. i guess, would you recommend -- i know there are a few commissioners who feel strongly under talking to people who have strong opinions about this legislation and they have strong ideas that they would like to push into the fold. would it be okay through the commission to forward them to you that you would make sure they would go to planning or d.b.i. and make sure they are itemized and discussed with staff when they have it so we can get -- rather than them coming to a commission going over the same thing because i'm trying to be proactive. >> of course. we would be happy to take any ideas and suggestions that we can put into -- i know that the supervisor's office has already offered for d.b.i. staff to meet with them to discuss the specifics. >> okay. >> will it go to the code advisory committee as is? is a scheduled? >> it will only go to the code as its full form. >> not yet. it has literally just been introduced. that process -- it has not been sent out to the various departments including ours to have a review of it. we are at the beginning of the review process. >> it is a legislation that will happen. right now it is just in what format it will play out? and everybody is reading this and trying to figure out what it means and what is the unintended consequence. specifically from the construction site. it is pretty much bedtime reading right now. it impacts the industry. we understand the spirit of the legislation of why we have this in development. i guess what i am hearing with concerns as is we make sure that it is written and not with these unintended consequences. anyhow, it looks like it would be a big -- busy one for us. please keep that one on your radar and anything you feel that it might bring to us. >> on that, i think it kind of relates to bill's presentation on supervisor peskin's legislation. you had comments on it as well. >> yes. obviously we are all excited by the prospect of the peskin legislation coming forward. when we met, we said in the building department, as well as the planning department commission, we need to evaluate what role we have in abating the illegal demolition problem. so having this legislative element, which we recognize as a critical one moving forward for review and improvement evaluation, is certainly a very important and desired step. so getting those comments for review and getting our joint sessions scheduled in a timely manner when the final product is available to be evaluated, are all things that i think we would all very much look forward to and just as a personal comment on a very related issue, our colleagues in the planning commission recently took a very strong stand on 49 hopkins where a flagrant illegal demolition of a very significant building occurred, and i know i personally, and i believe and they want to be commended for taking a bold and forceful action to clearly send a message that we are all serious about these illegal demolitions and we will use all of our resources to discourage them from occurring in the future. in particular, i would like to thank the many people who have been before us many times in speaking to this point and all of their efforts to get this desirable conclusion, and thank our colleagues and the planning commission, and look forward to opportunities to input and improve the pending legislation and get our joint session with the planning commission scheduled and continue all of the building department's efforts to be sure that any things that come under our purview and problems that are being exploited through serial permitting or scrutiny to especially protect historic assets and to be as as possible. thank you. >> thank you commissioner. madam secretary? >> item nine c. is update on major projects. >> good morning. the last report period is the only cause of construction. roughly zero-point 1%. do you have any questions? >> next item is nine d. update on code enforcement. >> i'm the deputy director of inspection services. the numbers for november, 2018. complaints are received -- we received 412 complaints with first notice of violation sent. complaints received without n.o.v., 70, complaints received without an n.o.v. were 216. abatement complaints with the notice of violation, 52nd -- 57. house authority authority numbers, house inspections performed at 973, complaints received, 392. complaint response within 24-72 hours, 369, complaints of notice of violation issued, 140. abated complaints with n.o.v., 312 app number of cases sent you to direct or hearing pack fitting infections are 160. code enforcement and the number of cases sent to the director's hearing was 86. number of cases abated, 203. code enforcement inspections performed, 514. number of cases sent to b.i.c. was one. case referred to city attorney, zero. any questions? >> seeing none. >> his or any public comment on the director's report? seeing none, item ten. issue and approval of the minutes of november 21st, 2018 >> i moved to accept the minutes >> second. >> there is a motion and a second. is there any public comment on the minutes? are all commissioners in favour? >> and he opposed? the minutes are approved. next item is item 11 adjournment is there a motion to adjourn? >> moved to adjourn. >> second. >> all commissioners in favour? >> aye. >> we are now adjourned. >> commissioner mcdonald has an excused absence pick we welcome you but we ask you turn off any sound producing devices that may go off during the meeting, please. we would ask that you take any secondary conversations outside to. if you would like to speak on an item today, we request but do not require that you complete a blue card. how many minutes per each item today? >> how many people here intend to speak to the commission, by rays of hand? okay. we will do two minutes per. >> okay. each person will have two minutes to speak on each item today for public comment. please, some of you may not have been here before, but a couple of things when you speak, please speak into the microphone microphone. anyone who is speaking. anyone else should be able to hear. when you make public comments, you will hear two bells. the first one is just letting you know you have 30 seconds back in the second one means your time is up. so when you speak, if there is an item of interest that is not on the agenda and it is under the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission, you may speak under general public comment, and that is item four, and then continued on item eight. please put them down. please address your comments to the commission during public comment on items. in order to allow equal time for all, neither the commissioner his staff will respond to any questions during public comment. the commission may ask staff to respond once public comment is closed. very last, if the fire alarms activate, you must evacuate the building in an orderly fashion using any exit. please note that the elevators will immediately return to the first floor and are not available for use. if you need assistance out of the building, please make your way to the closest area of refuge, which is directly across the hall in the men's restroom. inside there is a speaker box. press it and city hall security will answer. let them know your location and they will assist you. we have one other announcement. that will be a change in order of the calendar today. the general manager's report will be heard out of order pack and it will follow item seven, the shadow item. with that, lets get started. president's report. >> in light of the number of people here, we will forgo a president's report. >> okay. is there any public comment on the item? being none, public comment is closed. i'm sorry? [indiscernible] >> okay. we are now on item four, which is general public comment up to 15 minutes. this item will be continued to item eight if need to be. at that time -- at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission, and that do not appear on calendar. with respect to agenda items, you will have the opportunity to address the commission on the item is reached in the meeting. is there anyone who wants to make general public comment? okay. with no public comment, this item is closed. we are now on item five, the consent calendar. is there anyone who would -- richard, come on up. >> good morning, commissioners. i want to make a quick comment over the ropes course. i spoke up, not totally in favor because i was looking at the public health issue of it. i would like to include, when they do do the ropes course, that the paramedics at the different firehouses be notified so they would have spinal training, spinal injury training and also have the ability to be ready for any major injury. thank you. >> thank you. >> is there anyone else who would like to make general public comment? okay. being none, public comment on the consent calendar. my apologies. okay. being none, this item is closed. commissioners, we need a motion. >> so moved simon moved and seconded. all those in favor? aye. >> we are on item six pack the san francisco zoo. >> good morning, commissioners. a quick wrap of the recent holiday events, first at, zoo lights started on december 14th . as you know, it is a very popular community event on the west side of the city. a lot of people who otherwise can't get to events in the city enjoy from pacifica, san mateo, and services throughout the city that was our opening. it goes through early january. please come. the next slide is opening night, despite the rain, we have nearly 2,000 people. we had a great celebration kickoff. please feel free to join us during the festivities. next up is the naming contest. we have a new six month old reindeer at the zoo. we have open to the public to offer naming him. it closed yesterday. tomorrow the top three names will go on our facebook page for a vote. i will give you a hint. the leading one right now is snowflake and that will be announced tomorrow. next up, we continue to be a great community resource for members of the community and our fellow city organizations. this past sunday, the local 798 posted 100 families for their mentoring program at the zoo. and just deserving families from across the community his paired with mentors. they had a toad -- toy drive and the theme was hawaiian winter wonderland. that was a great celebration this past sunday. on thanksgiving day,, our new chimpanzee opens, click this champions he is the oldest one we have in a facility in the country. it was built specifically to help geriatric animals. we open thanksgiving day to great fanfare. this is one of our favorite pictures. >> is there any public comment on this item? this item was discussion only. we are now on item seven. 1052-1060 folsom street and 190- 194 russ street shadow on victoria park. >> let me make a couple preliminary comments about this item before we hear it's. that is that while development in san francisco has generated lots of opinions by many residents and organizations, this commission is interested in and has a responsibility regarding the impact of a development shadow on a park. to the degree that it is possible, i would encourage anyone testifying on this to try and address their comments to the impact of the shadow on the park because while the planning commission takes into consideration many aspects of the development, we take into consideration the impact of a shadow on the park. thank you. >> thank you. good morning, commissioners. i am stacy bradley, the deputy director of the planning unit with a capital planning commission. i am doing today with the planning department. the item before you today is a shadow passed by 1052-1050 fulton in 190-194 russ street. review of the shadow cast by this project supports objective 1.2 in the strategic plan. it strengthens the quality of existing parks and facilities. as you know, your review of the recreation and park land is codified by planning section 295 in the 1989 memo. the proposed project is located at 1052-1060 folsom street and 190-194 russ street. from now on, i will further to the project as 1052 folsom. previously, this commission heard a project on one of the three parcels at 190 russ street and this project was reviewed by the commission on january 15th 2015, and found to have a significant impact. the area surrounding the project includes the park and a mix of residential and commercial uses with most buildings 2-4 stories in height. the proposed project would demolish four existing buildings on three parcels, and construct a new seven story mixed use building in their place. these are images of the proposed project on folsom and rest streets. doug will tell you for about the plot -- proposed project, his benefit, the public outreach project in the environmental review. thanks. >> good morning members of the commission. i'm with the planning department staff. so the projects that the department is considering is the demolition of five existing buildings that contain 10,000 square feet of commercial use and four dwelling units totaling 4,656 square feet. all located on three parcels. the project would merge these three parcels -- parcels and include the construction of a new seven-story 64 and a half foot tall 58,719 square-foot mixed-use building that would contain 2,832 square feet of ground floor commercial retail use, and 55,887 square feet of residential use that would contain 63 dwelling units which consists of three studios, 23 one-bedroom and 372 bedroom units. there would be private and common open space for the residents, and a 3,572 square foot ground floor level garage with access to a single driveway on russ street. it would contain 16 residential auto parking spaces as well as 63 class one bicycle parking spaces. under the california environmental quality act, the project is eligible to receive a community plant exemption under the eastern neighborhood's master e.i.r., and under that, the benefits of the project primarily include the addition of housing. the department is working under a mayoral mandate to basically approve 30,000 units of housing by 2020, so that includes 5,000 units of housing annually. this project will deliver a total of 63 dwelling units including the four replacement rent-controlled units. and within this total, the project will result in a net addition of 15 permanently affordable housing units to the city's housing stock. that totals to about 25% of the total units. it would break down to six one-bedroom units and eight bedroom units and an additional bonus unit that is above the city. it will determine with the project sponsor as to the unit type. other benefits of this project would be that the project would ultimately put into place the vision and planning controls for the residential enclave district as well as the south of market neighborhood commercial transit district. that being that they use would contain ground floor commercial retail which is required along this corridor, and the proposed dwelling units above the ground story. so that those would be the basic benefits of the project. i am available for questions if you have any questions. >> it is okay. we do need everyone to take a seat. if you have a card to, bring it on up, but there are seats available, and we cannot have that door blocked at all. please take a seat so we can continue. thank you. >> go ahead, stacy. >> thank you. it is 82.5 million acre park that includes -- 2.53-acre park. it includes children's play areas, a baseball court, and a ball field. the new shadow would fall along the northeastern corridor of the park. the new shadow would occur in late afternoon and evening hours and entering the park between 515 at 6:00 pm and through the remainder of the analysed afternoon and evening. the shadow would fall along the northeastern corner quarter of the park including the entry, the basketball court, the northern children's play area and some benches. new shadow would be present for up to 110 minutes with average daily duration of just over an hour and over 70 minutes. the largest new shadow would occur on june 21st at 7:36 pm. the shadow would occur from the end of february through mid october. this shows a full year shadow impact. the darker blue signifies frequent shadow, while the lighter blue signifies occasional shadow. this animation shows the shadow enter and leave the park on june 21st, which is the summer solstice in the day of maximum fading and square foot hours. the shadow can be seen in blue and the project itself is an orange. i will let it scroll one more time. for the quantitative analysis, as i mentioned, it is 2.53 acres in size. the existing shadow load is 7.4 1%. the proposed shadow would increase the load by 0.38% to a total of 7.7 9%. in 1989 memo provides sign -- signage with existing shadow load smaller than 20% are allowed a 1% increase in shadow load. finally, the shadow study analysed cumulative shadows cast by other nearby projects in the development pipeline. three projects would have shadow impact including 1075 and 1089 fulton street which is reviewed by the commission in october. combined with the proposed project at 1052 per folsom, these projects could increase the shadow load by 0.46 over existing levels. this concludes my presentation. i will leave you with the quantitative criteria slide. i'm available for questions, as is doug from the planning department. >> thank you. >> as a reminder, we do need you to focus your comments on the impact of the shadow on the park as that is what the commission is considering today. so with that, i will go ahead and call off names. if you could come up, we will get going. [calling names] >> please come up in every -- any order. remember it is two minutes. >> good morning, commissioners. my name is paul. i'm a born and raised san franciscan. i'm speaking today on behalf of golden properties. the owner of the project sponsor i would like to thank everybody in advance he will speak today about those who have voiced support for the project and those who express concerns over the shadow that is cast over the park. city parks are a valuable resource providing an opportunity for recreation and relaxation. we recognize that the treasured it is a treasured resource and also for the filipino cultural heritage community and the lgbtq cultural district. we also understand the importance of the park and the additional shadows. the first concern that some neighborhood groups have expressed pertains to the filings that have nothing to do with this project. in 2013, we began filings on five buildings. we have never previously filed this and soon realized it was a mistake to do so. what he 15, the filings were abandoned and no evictions occurred. i repeat, no evictions occurred. in a good faith effort to make amends with a city in the community and thanks to the guidance of our late mayor, ed lee and supervisor jane kim kathy's buildings were sold to the mayor's office of small sites acquisition program. selling these properties will keep the 19 units in the five buildings permanently affordable we are sorry the evictions started and we are doing our best to make -- to right a wrong this project was redesigned from 46 units 263 offering more housing to families, more rental stock to the city and above all, more below-market rate housing. by maximizing the density of the three lots, we were doing our part to help create a culture. >> you are at times. >> okay. >> thank you. >> elizabeth, please. >> you can drop it with the clerk. >> my name is elisabeth. >> speak right into the microphone. my name is elizabeth and i am here in support of the project. i want to say i understand the community's concern about the shadow hitting the park, however after reviewing the shadow study prepared for this project, i noticed that the new shadows would fall on the dock amount and not the designated children 's play area which will occur on late summer afternoon. this project would bring 63 units of much-needed house into the neighborhood, and i support this project. thank you. >> next speaker, please. and then i will read a few names before richard gets going. [calling names] >> good morning, commissioners. i am going to try and get it out early. i am one of the few in favor of this particular project over the shadow issue. it is within a project that should go ahead. i have already taken the liberty of speaking with the developer representatives. they've informed me that they are not going to be evicting through the act. i found it to be very important. the key point i wanted to bring in has to do with all of you here today, i have already brought in capturing the operational plan status period, the possibility of including this particular park for the equity. i believe you are a director -- of the filipinos. in her letter to the commission is in agreement with the equity parameter. i should like to see people constructively looking at this comment. we think we can get a whole lot more that would be in the best interest for the people regardless of what your race is, of the diversity requirements that he would be cordial enough to accept the equity proposal that has already been brought before the general manager in their operations committee. thank you. >> thank you. >> george? >> good morning, commissioners. i am here to speak directly into the microphone in support of this project. i am a born and raised san franciscan. i live and work here, and i frequent the park a couple times a year and speaking just to the benefit of this project to the park, if you have ever been there in the early evening, late evening, you will see there is not many people out there. however, there is a particular element that does arrive around sundown and it is not desirable. to have more units close by, more people, more eyes, more families that would frequent the park i think would provide a net benefit to the environment of the park. that is it. >> thank you. >> next speaker. >> good morning, commissioners. my name is heather phillips, and i work and have been a resident for the last 15 years. and while i appreciate folks coming out to share their observations attending the park 1-2 times a year, i am at the park all the date -- every day. the young people i serve play there every day. summer evenings, 6:00 pm, it is hard to imagine now when it is dark at five, but 6:00 as well into the late hours. it is not dark until 8:00 pm. these are valuable hours. we are here to talk about shadow and what the impact is. not the merits of the developer. the reality is this building will take away sunlight from a park that is public space that we will never get back. that has an impact. what the developer has done to mitigate that is the absolute minimum. what is required by planning code is all they are willing to give. today i would rather not be here we are preparing for a crisp -- christmas party for 200 kids tonight in selma at the recreation centre. you are all invited. they will be there with their families. they are the ones who use the park every day, and i would rather be there, but i need to be here, because i need to tell you how important it is to keep these spaces sacred. to make sure that there is sunlight and fresh air and places to play. we have the smallest amount of open space of anyone. please, i am begging you to protect it. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> next speaker. can we have the overhead please? >> our director and i will share these two minutes. i will be super brief. >> overhead, please. >> don't start my? yet. >> i haven't. >> sorry. >> all right. >> it is on. >> here we go. so i don't know -- it is on. okay. perfect. here we are. this commission unanimously rejected the shadow in 2015. this is where we are today. the city's housing balance will not live or die on this project. i understand the dire need, but this is serious. so i would hope that you would stick with the vote that you made in 2015 and honor this park , on our community. i will pass it on to you. >> happy every day, commissioners. on the executive director of united players of violence organization that is based in the south of market. right now, i am a block from the park. i lived there and raise my family there. she was a filipino diver that 14 olympic gold medals in her late days but they never acknowledged her as a filipino. now we have a porch named after a filipino in a heritage zone, it has a hundred years of filipinos. here we are again trying to knock her name. we said that three years ago that we did not want to know shadows on it. it was agreeable. we have buildings, we have the only part named after a filipino we have somebody here who has a batting cage named after them. and now you're trying to tear us over a shadow over this. it is about principal. it isn't about money. it is not about development, it is about principal to us in our community. let the filipinos that we have in the city right here be honored. thank you. >> i would hope that you would stick with your original vote. i could see how you could go backward from this shadow to this shadow, but i don't understand how you can go backward from the shadow to one that is five times larger. i want to share really quickly, i am not mad at them, but my friends in the back are getting paid $20 to be here. i can't paid people to be here. >> you are out of time. thank you for coming in the mass as opposed to speaking individually. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning. i'm kind of nervous. my name is carrie lena. i will be one of the affected persons. i live on 1054 folsom street across the street from the park, i wish i had taken pictures before to prove that it is true. there are not many kids from the park at 5:00 am or six -- at 5:00 pm or 6:00 pm. i live across the street from the park. even at 10:00, i see people and hear people playing basketball at 10:00 pm. this is adults. i don't see, i honestly do not think that this project will not benefit the kids. i live right across the street. i wish i had taken pictures to prove there are not many kids at on that park. i see them on the other side on harrison where they play baseball. there are batting cages. that area will be okay. but on the side of folsom street , i don't think that the building will be damaged -- that the shadow will -- how can i say this? >> impact. >> yeah,. sorry. i'm nervous. >> that's fine. don't be nervous. >> i do approve of this project. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> okay. betty and michael, and then i will read a few more names off. [calling names] >> go ahead. >> thank you very much. i am the coordinator of the friends of the park in the tenderloin. we look at the park as a treasure to our community, as victoria manolo drake park is to the south of market community. we are sensitive to any shadowing of a park. a neighborhood park in a section where there are very few, very little open space. and this particular shadowing includes the basketball courts, the children play area, lawns, benches, and i just can't imagine how this commission could permit this type of shadowing in a neighborhood park as someone said before me, this is a matter of principle. we have to stop the shadowing of our public parks. this is not a private park, this is a public park, and it is a needed park and recreation for the south of market community, and particularly the filipino community. i think it will be an insult to this commission to permit this building to shadow the park. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker. also kevin. go ahead. >> good morning. if i were to pour you a glass of water, would you see the glass as half full, or half empty? are you an optimist or a pessimist? the point of these questions is to demonstrate that any situation can be seen from multiple points of view as you have heard today. much like the negatives and the positives of this project. when you put the positives down on one side of the paper and the negatives down on the other side , it is overwhelmingly one-sided. the negatives, the sun hits dog mount centre park. no children are affected, and the sun is setting around dinner time. no good parent in the rightful mind is not to let their kid play after dark anyway. let's just call that true. no one here is tarnishing her name at all. the positives are $150,000 is being donated to the parks department to be used positively theirs improved commercial space so businesses can thrive. a boost in the job force and economic infrastructure, 63 new residents that house individuals and families so they can have a beautiful place to call home, and that is the short of it. this project benefits family as, the communities, the job force, in the housing community in the city of san francisco. everything being proposed is with the best interest in mind. think about the people it will help and in the happiness it will bring those who can one take all this building home. would you not want that? don't we want to give san francisco a better chance to improve their quality of life? please ask yourself these questions. thank you. >> next speaker, please. if i called your name, please be ready to come up and comment. >> good morning. my name is rudy. i am with the san francisco filipino-american chamber of commerce. for the record, i am not being paid to appear here. i'm here simply because i am prepared to appear before you because of our city's need for more housing, and what is happening with our filipino families is real -- really outrageous. my wife and i raised four children in the city from infancy until adulthood. and our first sun is now living -- i will first son is living in oregon, the second is living in lodi, our youngest daughter is living in oakland, and it is breaking up the families. these are the things that we value the most. i am a friend of victoria manolo graves. i advocated for the city to name the park after her. i work with our friend here, director ginsburg, to install a bronze plaque. a describes her remarkable experience during the 1948 london olympics. and she is dead now. if she were here today, ladies and gentlemen, she would tell you that the shadow that is being cast on the park is mitigated for our need for more housing, and on her behalf, i respectfully request that you approve this project. thank you for your time. >> thank you. i know we have been joined by supervisor jane kim and i want to give her an opportunity if she would like to address the commission. i know she has a busy schedule and an important work to do. >> thank you so much, mr president. i am not more busy than everyone else here in the room but i do appreciate the time to speak on the project. i did come before the commission three years ago to speak on the 1050 folsom project in opposition because of the increased shadow to our only multiuse park in the south of market. as you all know, district six has the smallest and fewest parts of any district in san francisco, and we have been working in conjunction with your staff, and with commission to activate the existing playgrounds and parks that we have, but also to increase the parks and playgrounds that we have. i want to think this commission over the last eight years and being strong advocates for the district and working so closely with community leaders. over the last few years, it has been very clear from our community residents and leaders that they continue to oppose this project as they did three years ago. the larger project cost more shadow onto the only multiuse park in the south of market, and while we have always supported growth and development, in fact our district his building 80% of all of the development in san francisco and 60% of all of san francisco housing, this is the one project that community leaders that i have worked with for a long time, with uniformly -- would uniformly oppose. i have not seen this before. as a representative of the neighborhood, i have to stand strong. we have to have balance development in the south of market. we want to build but make sure we are protecting the parks that we have worked so hard to activate here in the district. so we have asked for your opposition on the allocation of the additional shadow. it is again inconsistent with the commission's position three years ago where we did deny the shadow and i want to thank commissioners commissioners for that. the project is simply larger. we have not been able to work on a resolution. again so many of the community residents and leaders that you have worked so closely with over the last three years want this. thank you for your time after my last eight years. we'd really do have better parks and better activities for its. i look forward to the groundbreaking for sergeant mccauley playground. i hope i will be invited. i look forward to the completion of an important pregnant -- playground for our neighborhoods thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. if i called your name, come on up. >> sorry. good morning, commissioners. my name is katrina. i am the community organizer and campaign coordinator for it so much filipina. i wanted to start off my statement by asking this question. what is the difference between intention and impact. you can always have the best of intentions for a community, but if your impact is negatively affecting it, you have failed in your attempt -- intention. i can go on and on about the importance of this but a bunch of speakers that discuss this already. i wanted to talk about the so-called community meetings that have been convened between the developer and the community. there have been a number of times that dismissive comments have been given to the community members referring to staff, other c.b.o. his and residents as the people over there, opposing this project because of the shadow. there have been a number of times that they are referred to the shadow is not real, as opposed to these images, as you can see, is very real in the rendering that the shadow will be increased. a number of times there were also -- in the last hearing on december 5th, when a bunch of filipino migrant youth had made a video about the importance of the park, their fears in the shadow, as well as the importance of needing this park because a lot of our filipino youth are also considered homeless or under house. if this is the type of rapport that these developers want to make with the community and not acknowledge that this is the filipino cultural heritage district that is believed that the contradictions will simultaneously heighten and deepen. if they really wanted this to be for the community, they would have known that organizations are sharing space. up to 4-5 organizations. they would have known that b.m.r. is not affordable housing they would have known to consult us if we wanted to use that space, and they would have known to consult us if we wanted housing for our community members. i really ask you to consider them to edit the rendering, and i strongly oppose this project. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning, commissioners. my name is kevin. i'm a born and raised san franciscan. i'm raising my two children here in the city. we can all agree that parks are very important to have. i want to point out i think that the development of this project and adding to the additional housing stock should take precedent over the shadow that is currently there. a someone who takes my kids to all of the parks in the city, 5:30 pm or 6:00 we are wrapping up and heading home and having dinner and doing homework. it should not adversely affected the project design is compatible with the pattern and design of the neighborhood. additional shadow would not be adverse and not expected to introduce of the use of the park and the planning department also finds a project is necessary, desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. it should not be detrimental to the persons adjacent to the property. i encourage you to support this project is a need for additional housing stock is more important than the shadow, as well as the additional 15 units and the front for existing units which will be kept on site as well. thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> so i have angelica, i have jean, david, charles, and david also. >> i'm a family man who raised two children here. i am here to support the 190 brass project. i was in favor of california's prop ten. it is not another high-rise development. it is providing affordable and beautiful and thoughtful housing in the city. it is an improvement to the area and respectful of the open space , it is a major part of the city heritage. we need to encourage this kind of balance and change in the city. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good morning, commissioners. this comes down to housing versus sunlight for an hour. my name is charles turner. i i'm a native san franciscan. a realtor back a rental property owner, a catering -- catering to conventional and section eight tenants. in the past, they made an error in judgement which was offset by working with the city in preserving rental units for existing tenants. all of us have made an error in the past and asked for forgiveness. the focus should be on this project and additional housing as opposed to the developer. i ask you find it in your heart to forgive them for a past error , and allow the construction of these 63 much-needed rental housing units thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. good morning. i am a resident of san francisco since 2001, and i'm the current business owner at the property at 1052 folsom. i have been there since 2010, and i want to show my support for the project. i feel that the much-needed housing is going to outweigh the shadow. i live lived literally across the street from the park, and i don't think it is a deterrent. i don't think the shadow will get a deterrent for myself or any other people. want to go to the park and they think oh, i will not go to the park. i don't see children they are like a lot of other folks have said after 5:00 pm. that is when i open my business. i am here supporting the project and i hope you guys consider it. businesses are looking for more housing to get more people in the area. and to help the location thrive. it has come a long way since i've moved there. i would like to see it move forward as well. >> thank you. >> i will call a few more names off. if i have called your name, please call your name. [calling names] >> if i have called your name, come on up. >> good morning. i am an afterschool program team leader. is the only part that we have. -- it is the only park we have. it is an extension of the school playground this is a very important. the site is -- any shadow cast on this would be a significant adverse impact on the community. please do not approve this project. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good morning, commissioners. my name is jean. i am here to highlight the negative shadow impacts and they strongly oppose the proposed project on the site that would have on the park. soma continues to have the least amount of parks and open space per capita out with only 12-foot full-sized parks. and then it serves as a key element in some of our f. no tours that i host at least twice a month. it will affect the daily use among seniors, families, children, and folks who live in the soutf

Related Keywords

Philippines , Oakland , California , United States , Pacifica , San Mateo , Rizal , Drake Park , Hawaii , San Francisco , Filipino , Filipinos , Hawaiian , Heather Phillips , Stacy Bradley , Carrie Lena , Charles Turner , Jane Kim ,