tv Government Access Programming SFGTV October 20, 2019 1:00am-2:01am PDT
alternative to renting a studio in this town for $3200 and it's an alternative to renting a bedroom and renting on craig's list. >> commissioner richards. >> one other comment. i think it's from the ruben and rose and we talk about no other exceptions or this project requires no other exceptions. you kind of get to chose your own planning zoning code when you get these waivers and incentives and to say well beyond this, we don't want anything else. you are getting everything that you want. i just want to do, on record, it's a little bit of a misnomer. >> thank you. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you. >> so i think in general in this town we need to be as creative as possible about housing and all times of housing and dcns reminding in units in japan and
are more compact for folks to use in a variety of ways. i certainly understand the desire to make sure that there's continued community space for meetings for the community and i think the unique nature of this building means the common space needs to be used for residents and so over all, an unbalanced this is a good project and i support it and i make a motion to approve. >> i second. >> thank you, commissioners. to adopt findings for requested waivers. commissioner fung. >> aye. >> commissioner johnson. >> aye. >> moore. >> aye. >> richards. >> no. >> president melgar. >> aye. >> so moved. the motion passes 4-1 with
grocery store special use district this is a planning code amendment. >> good afternoon, commissioners. the item before you is proposed legislation regarding the flton greece respecial use. it's by adviser brown. >> good afternoon, commissioners. president melgar. and our fellow planning commissioners. i'm a legislative aid for supervisor vallie brown who represents district 5. i'm here to allow form lar retail grocery store to be
permitted within the fulton street grocery store special use district known as the sud. this specific location in question is at 555fulton at laguna in the hayes valley border. before i present, i'd like to note to our commissioners that we have representatives from the property developer as well as leadership from the potential grocery tenants in the audience for any specific questions. and secondly, i'd like to submit into the public record that we have 37 letters of support from the western edition and hayes valley community and these letters are in support of supervisor brown's legislation and of the potential retailers, trader joes, coming into the neighbourhood. i'd like to submit these with the commission secretary. i'll introduce to move quickly. our community members in the western addition of hayes valley neighbourhood have been agitating for full-service,
affordable and fresh grocery store for years. in fact, it has sfgov overhead projector -- one of our communities have found a newspaper clipping from 1881 that promised a new produce store at that very corner and this is a heck of a long time to wait for a grocery store. so, supervisor brown has spent over a decade actually working to bring a full service grocery store to 505fulton and it was when mayor breed was supervisor. it's been a struggle to find a grocery tenant that can maintain and fill up that space and keep prices affordable for the community. we know that the property developer has reached out to a number of local boutique grocery retailers but many of those owners over the past several years decline as an opportunity due to their higher price point for groceries. the developer had to look for
larger companies. supervisor brown was close to negotiating with portland based new seasons market into the space but the company pulled out suddenly of the bay area entirely. it's been several years since the new season deal has fallen through and the grocery store still does not have a full service grocery store. now, there's light at the end of the tunnel. we have an interested tenant, trader joes. this is not a done deal. they're still in the process of doing their due diligence and exploring the viability of opening a store in the neighbourhood. hayes valley has a formative retail ban. we have to make a special exemption to allow former retail grocery stores. the exemption only applies to the potentially grocery store and the retailer still has to go through a conditional use authorization which will include time to discuss community concerns. it is not an open door.
it does not repeal the entire form of retail ban in hayes valley. that will remain intact. the legislation does not allow certain uses such as medical cannabis dispensaries, hospitals, non-profit or office space and it does allow for general retail services and sales, pharmacies, and hardware stores and the like. we also know that the property developer has out reached 80 non formally retail businesses to occupy the two other retail spaces at the site. but securing a major tenant would help in securing additional co tenants in that development space. as you know, under supervisor brown's ordinance a potential grocery retailer is subject to affordability requirements to make sure the western edition and haze valley has access to a fresh affordable and healthy food and what today is a food desert. this is important because the medium household income on the north side of fulton across the street is around $24,000 a year
and over one-third of the residents live below the poverty rate. the new developments incluse hayes valley north and south, public housing, freedom west co oppositco-ops and the last bit f affordable housing stock in the city that serves low income, african american and asian-pacific islander residents and they deserve better. existing retail options in the neighbourhood are too expensive, don't accept wic or cal fresh and they have a terrible representation in the community for the quality and fresness of their food. they treat community members poorly or racially profile them. it's a real problem and we need to address this. like i said, we have a viable option, our residentses are better. this is only the first step. trader joes has to go through a c.u. and entitlement process and supervisor brown is committed to the following. number one,.
>> we think the mitigation measures we have a potential to delay or derail a project that would bring a low cost affordable grocery store to a community that's been waiting far too long as i stressed and then also, any sort of transportation measures should be vetted by actual traffic engineers and sfmta and supervisor brown's preference is we keep flexibility to adjust any conditions at that site as a change horry involve. so, moving forward, we'll continue to work the tenant and the developer to make this a reality and we want to avoid a huge gaping vacancy on fulton
and bring a good neighbourhood. trader joes has been in san francisco for 25 years and they've been a good neighbour in different parts of the city and we will press on them to do the same in the western edition. we saw that market research shows that local residents in the shops at convenience stores and full service grow restores and we can sustain smaller mom and pop shops and larger grocery stores. supervisor brown, i'd like to thank that planning staff for their hard work and recommendations they put forward for this ordinance and she is incorporating said suggested changes into her ordinance and we thank you for helping us try to ensure that the western hayes valley can meet the diverse needs of our constituents and i'm available for any specific questions for the commissioners. thank you kindly. >> thank you. thank you to supervisor brown and ms. simile, thank you for presenting on this. this is your life-long work also. i really appreciate it.
>> veronica flores planning department staff. she gave a very thorough overview of the neighbourhood and project history but i'll take a few moments to highlight the amendments from the ordinance. so the ordinance in front of you will amend the planning code to allow a formula retail grocery store with conditional use authorization and the fulton store sud. the ordinance also includes further changes including number one, removing the building high exception, number two, eliminating square footage requirements for commercial uses in the district other than a grocery store and for subsequent uses in a location previously approved for a grocery store. number three, in addition to the standard continual use authorization finding any proposed formula retail grocery store will need to provide information regarding food affordability projections at the time of the application. this information will also be required every five years.
upon the change of ownership of the grocery store site, or upon the change of operations of a new grocery store at the project site. which is earliest. lastly, the ordinance will extend the time period for effectiveness of controls for the district to five years from effective date of the ordinance. the department recommends a few modifications as follows -- the first recommendation is to remove the periodic reporting requirement and instead staff recommends that new subsequent grocery stores provide affordability information to the commission at the time of the application review. the second recommendation relates to removing the sunset clause based on two primary reasons. the first reason is after the effectiveness of the controls sunsets only grocery stores with fewer worldwide locations would be permitted since they would be considered a less intensive use at the project site. and the second concern relates
to the grocery store if down the road if it's successful tenants they can vacate the property there's a concern of a vacancy at this primary project site. and the last recommended modification relates to clerical amendments to amend the lot references and correct the board number listed in the ordinance. to state the department has received six letters of support citing support for an affordable grocery store in the neighbourhood. the department supports a proposed ordinance because it alliance with a commerce and industry elements to strengthen neighbourhood serving goods. it also allows an opportunity for a familiar retail grocery store and more affordable goods within these neighbourhoods. the department recommends approval of the ordinance with modifications as discussed and this concludes staff presentation. thank you. >> thank you. we will now take public comment on this item. do we have speaker cards?
anyone who wishes to comment on this item can do so now. >> good afternoon. my name is stephanie and this is daryl with trader joes. we opened our first store in san francisco 25 years ago on ninth and bryant. we have six locations and the city from north beach to stone town and we love the chair and we hope to be a benefit a neighbourhood store and our first commitment is to offer value in the form of great products at great prices with great service to our customers and we are also committed to being a neighbourhood store and we'll work closely with the community through our donations programmes and we will also work closely with the local neighbourhood organizations and
we will higher 100 people and it's a practise of ours to focus on local hiring and we have reached out to establish local organizations to promote hiring within the community and we are committed to listening to our neighbourhoods and have participated in many community meetings and we have been fortunate to hear feedback from several community leaders and members and are working to come up with the plan to address communities concerns that does involve hiring, traffic, and general community involvement. we're still very early in the process but we look forward to strengthening our relationships with the organizations to create as much of a benefit as possible as their future neighbourhood store. thank you. >> thank you, very much. >> any other public comment on this item?
>> i thank you for allowing me to speak on this. my name is bob anderson and i'm a member of the hayes building neighbourhood association. and, i think the idea of a trader joes is is great. it's very much an asset to the community hopefully. they were kind enough to meet with us and the transportation planning board with hayes valley the other night which is very nice. they are something that people are thinking about and are the issues of parking and traffic and fulton street is a bicycle route that goes down fulton street and there are concerns about left turns and out of the parking lot and left turns off of fulton into the building itself and we would like and the number of parking spaces is 70
which they have zero and 30 that function very well and the idea of decreasing parking is not i don't think unreasonable. i think the idea, the local neighbourhood hiring is important and they don't have numbers or percentages and i know supervisor brown is talking and working on that and we would like to see something solid and something very memorialized within the agreement to make sure these things happen. thank you. >> thank you. >> any other public comment on this item? >> good afternoon. i'm a member of the hayes valley transportation and planning group and speaking for myself. i think it's a little premature to approve this right now until we get some of these agreements made. the concerns that bob raised are
common to the members of the group about traffic patterns, the number of parking spaces, and also, charges that met that gives them at least a few months that we can get these agreements made about local hire about traffic patterns and so on. the delays on this project getting a grocery store here are due to the developer and we shouldn't russia head just because let's get these things ironed out now. thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment on this item? >> public comment is closed. commissioner johnson. >> thank you.
>> i just want to take supervisor brown for that passionate presentation about the project and the issue that were trying to adjust them by opening up the possibility of a grocery store being there by approving it s.u.d. the issue of food justice, which i know she's been working on forever is very historic to the bern edition black and brown communities and now we have an opportunity to right that wrong. i think i really also appreciate i have one question for ms. simile which is staff has recommended some modifications and i'm curious if the
supervisor is supportive of those. what do you think? >> thank you for your comments, commissioner johnson. yes, supervisor brown is supportive of the recommended modifications put fourth by staff and plans on incorporating changes into the ordinance. i know there's another comment but with that i make a motion to approve with modifications. >> second. >> commissioner richards. >> so, i believe every neighbourhood should have its own say and its own termination and i'm going to support this s.u.d. however, i do want to let folks i've had and i have not had any conversations with trader joes in eight years but they tried to come into debowes triangle at the corner of 15th and sanchez and market and oey and the community needs to demand a traffic and parking study. planning oversaw one for the 2011 one at 2278 market street
and it found that it was a 15,000 square foot store and 36 parking spaces. the store would have generated between $2100 and 2500 vehicle trips to day to the store. trader joes is a store where you load up on stuff and i know uber and lyft but you load up on stuff and you can get it home somehow and there has to be creative in what they do and i know the project that we were looking at at 15,000 feet created a demand from 1,050 to 1250 parking spaces per typical weekday. this was done by wilber smith associate with the overseeing of the planning department. in the end, we tried to work with trader joes on some mitigation measures and i know there was traffic calming at the
corner of market and oey street in the end, trader joes only said they provide carts at a reduced rate. i hope that in 2019, trader joes has changed and that you don't want to retro fit your suburban model into an urban environment since you have several stores that do have parking. i'll go ahead and approve it but you have to have a traffic study. you would be crazy not to do it given what we saw what it would do to our neighbourhood. there's food and justice and i agree and everybody should deserve to have food at a reasonable price within reach. but there's also 2,000 cars idling a day at a parking lot creates pollution and justice.
>> there's a motion seconded to approve this staff with modifications on that motion. commissioner fung. >> aye. >> commissioner johnson. >> aye. >> moore. >> aye. >> richard. >> aye. >> president melgar. >> aye. >> so moved. that motion passes unanimously 5-0. bringing us back to item 9, for case number 2019-014525pca parking requirements. >> good afternoon. deago owe sanchez with the planning department staff. i'm present an ordinance that proposed the planning code to modify parking regulations, street signage controls and
update outdated references and make other clarifications, however, before i provide the staff recommendations, i with like to provide supervisor mandelman office with time to present to you. i'd like to take the time to provide context to this effort. earlier this year, supervisor mandelman introduced a resolution for a state of climate emergency which was passed unanimously at the board. as part of the resolution, we requested the department of environment to produce a technical report examining the source of carbon emissions in our city. the report published in july found that the transportation sector was responsible for 46% of city wide emissions. with most 71%, coming from private cars and trucks that also cause traffic congestion,
safety hazards and negative tax impact on the quality of life. we must reduce our reliance on private vehicles if we meet our reductions goals and the ordinance is an effort to modify off-street parking priorments to achieve those goals. we believe modifying off street parking standards is one of the most effective strategies for reducing auto traffic and pollution. encouraging a shift towards sustainable modes of traffi trad meeting our climate protection goals. this ordinance follows efforts last year led by jane kim to eliminate minimum parking requirements city wide. this will clean up, clarify and better organize the parking related provisions of the code and rational eyes and simplify the planning code's existing parking code requirements. standards and freight loading requirements. it simplifies parking maximums acknowledging uses in buildings change frequently and making
enforcements's easier. it requires above ground parking for housing and retail. it's lowered the maximum amount of residential parking permitted in the densist and transit corridors. it reduces the ability to add excess residential parking through the conditional use process in transit rich zoning districts and standardizes the conditional use procedure and criteria for adding excess parking. in addition, the ordinance expands requirement to add bicycle parking to uses that did not previously have such requirements. this is an attempt to promote more sustainable modes of transportation and the use of private vehicles that actively harm our environment. turning now to the staff report, i want to start by thanking the planning department for their analysis of the ordinance as well as the thoughtful recommendations made in the
report. staff has a number of recommendations. we agree with several of them and in the interest of time, i will focus on the recommendation with which we most strongly disagree. recommendations 3 concerns process use for requesting off-street parking above permitted amounts. a request for excess parking can the folded into a larger entitlement practices that can be considered together before this commission. our ordinance would require separate condition at using authorization to obtain permission to add parking in excess of what is prince plea permitted. staff recommends against this provision on the grounds that requests for modifications from the planning code should be made as streamlined as possible. we believe additional scrutiny and light of the imperative to move away from private vehicle usage is warranted when the requested issue is to add more parking than what is normally allowed. there is precedent for switching from design review to c.u. for access parking.
the board in 2014 moved to c.u. for excess parking in c3 zoning districts and follows suit in 2018. we believe this good public policy should be extended in accordance with the legislation before you. in closing, i want to reiterate our appreciation to planning staff on their work including deago owdediego sanchez and cres to illustrate the parking changes by zoning district which i would be happy to distribute to the commissioners as helpful. i also want to thank tom from livable city for his help in crafting this legislation and the san francisco bicycle coalition for endorsing this effort. thank you to the commission for your consideration, i would be happy to answer any questions. thank you. >> thank you. so, commissioners, the department supports the ordinance before you on balance the proposed amendment and move the city closer to meeting
policy goals including those in a climate action strategy vision zero and many goals in the general plan. the department is recommending half a dozen modifications to help further align the ordinance with planning policies and to help improve implementations, those are listed in the case report for time sake. i will just refer you to those. and let you know that this concludes the presentation and i'm here for questions. thank you. >> thank you. >> do we have any public comment on this item? i have one speaker card and. >> good afternoon, director of livable city. i don't know if you are doing the same thing but i'm just kind of obsessed with the climate crisis and greta thunberg is my hero. she's telling us grow ups that we're not doing enough and it's
a big world and so many things are going wrong in it. we look at changes to parking and transportation here in the city level as the most effective thing that we can do as a city lever. the research i talked about for the tdm ordinance we know the amount of parking that is built into buildings, when you think of this it's like building a power plant, right. a parking spot is a traffic factory and it will benefit traffic just like a coal-burning power plant will generate emissions. so the less we build the better future we're creating. we have enough to create a sustainability multi modal transportation system to dialing
it down, especially in the most transit-rich quarters in the city makes sense. i wanted to talk about who areas where we disagree. wore glad that they have taken so much care and time really doing a thorough report and they're supporting so much in this ordinance. one is the streamlining excess parking in soma that kyle talked about. we think it's not great to be streamlining excess parking in seem a soma. if you want to streamline something in soma, streamline arts, streamline entertainment, streamline non-profits, streamline housing, i look at the soma zoning and we're in soma and we have been looking at this from the queer cultural centre district perspective. so much of what we want to preserve in soma is banned. it's required at the c.u. or something so if you want to streamline something let's streamline uses not the process of getting access parking. the other is glen park. a year ago, you had a ordinance before you saying let's take one
of the only big develop able sites in glen park and allow a parking lot and you recommended against that and your staff said don't recommend this. it was inconsistent. there's only three big sites in glen park and you banned multi family sites. we're saying don't streamline parking lots. streamline housing. if you are going to do anything today, direct staff to work with stakeholders to make it easier to build housing on the site not land bank them in perpetuity as parking. thank you, very much. >> thank you. any other public comment on this item? public comment is closed. >> a question for staff.
they're required to get large project authorization. in that entitlement you can add for modifications for the parking and any parking requirements up to what is allowed to the maximum. those are considered by you as part of the project and i understand that not all the times to those existing and certain c.u. findings to increase additional scrutiny. it was done before in the case
of under 155. that deals with protecting pedestrian street front ages and it's precedent for what we are proposing as well. >> >> that's the reason why wore making that recommendation and just so you know, with respect, with the parking, the other thing to think about is if we like to look at those exceptions when they do come forward in the
context of the actual project. rather than as a separate entity so i would argue it's part of the reason for the staff recommendation as well. >> thank you. so, ok, commissioner moore. >> i just wanted to comment on the intent of the particular piece being very noble so i agree with all the concerns about climate. the work itself is rather heavy duty with 186 pages is almost impossible and i would raise my finger as a first one to fully verify that i understand everything that has been done here and has staff been able to check every cross reverence and really done the fine-tooth comb and work that would be required to fully support it. on the other hand, it takes broad brush and again we have this before and we have particular situations in particular neighbourhoods and
and it's a planning commission comments on where it comes to legislative changes. i would at least for myself reserve the right it was a little bit much. i want to leave it with that. i trust planning so i think this is coming a little bit too fast and too much and i would have liked to have understand and have it presented in a little bit more detail because normally the type of work that comes out of planning is more thorough and more diligent and the bits and pieces of how i evolved the discussion around these things. a complex piece well intentioned and a little bit too heavy for me. >> commissioner fung. >> i had a similar thought as commissioner moore did. mine was a little bit different in the sense that if you look at the wide number of changes and issues before us, i try to guess
what is the potential impact in the future of some of these things. it was not so easy for me to project that in a number of these instances. >> i support this and i support it as written by the supervisor. thank you very much for the explanation, directour and mr. sanchez. i just think it should be an extra entitlement. i think that we need to start treating the climate crisis as a crisis and that there should be an extra step and an extra effort and also extra stuff. if wore going to be going above and beyond and what we have, we should treat it as that because it's harming our world and so i
will support this as written. >> i'm sorry. commissioner. >> you will support it as written. what about the other staff? modifications not related to th- >> i will support it as written. all of it. >> without the amendments. >> i can't make a motion. commissioner fung. >> i would support it but with all six amendments. proposed. >> commissioner johnson. >> i make a motion to approve
with modification except for modification 2. >> did you want to say something? >> to be clear, the issue that i brought up was recommendation number three to make sure. >> got it. >> thank you for clarifying. with the exception of modification three. >> commissioner richards. >> i grow. >> that a second. >> yes. >> ok. >> >> there's a motion that has been seconds to approve this proposed legislation with staff's recommended modifications with exception to number three on that motion commissioner fung. >> can i have one more second?
i'm looking at recommendation readings for the detail. page 15. >> >> commissioner johnson aye. >> commissioner moore. >> no. >> commissioner richards. >> aye. >> president melgar. >> aye. >> that months passions 4-1 with commissioner moore voting against. >> thank you. >> that will place us on item 1 case 2016-013312gpa542-550.
mixed use project this is a general plan amendment initiation. >> good afternoon, president melgar and members of the commission. i am nick with the department staff. this item before you is a request to initiate a general plan amendment for the proposed mixed use project looked at 542 to 550 howard street known as the parcel f. the construction of a new 61-storey mixed use building reaching the height of 750 feet. 800 feet exclusive many of with 165 dwelling units and 189 hotel rooms, 274,000 square feet of office use, 79,000 floor, 9,000 square feet of retail space and 20,000 square feet of open space for residential and office use. project includes 177 class 1 and 39 class 2 bike parking spaces in the garage levels and 183,
183 vehicle parking spaces. project would conduct a pedestrian bridge providing public access to the sales force park located on the roof of the adjacent sales force transit centre which is a unique element that serves as a public benefit. it would revice figure 1 of the plan subarea map and maps 1 and 5 to the land use and height designations for the parcel f project site thus facilitating the project. it would achieve two goals. effectively resulting in a height and bulb swap between lot 16 and 136 with lots 138 on a sensor block 3721 and rezone 135 and 138 on the block 3721 which is an area of 2,000 square feet from p to c30 i30sd. in addition, the project would
require additional commission action to be considered at a future hearing date scheduled for november 21st of this year. the department has received one letter in opposition to the proposed project by the proposed project and the department recommends that the commission adopt the attached draft resolution and initiating the general plan amendment so that the commission may consider the approval of the ordinance on or after november 21st of this year that concludes my presentation and i do believe procedurally project sponsor does not have anna lotted time to speak but they're available for a q&a and make informational presentation as well. >> thank you. even though procedurally they don't i would appreciate a presentation and my fellow commissioners would as well. it's a project sponsor is available to do that we would appreciate if you could come up.
>> thank you, members of the commission. my name is c.j. hicly. land use council to the project sponsors for the parcel f project. so, before i get started, i will let you know that this is the first in what will be many steps to get this project over the finish line. we intend to be back for a hearing on the merit in about a month. we're tentatively scheduled for november 21st and we'll be happy to take a deeper dive then.
as nick said, the project is a unique project. it's a mixed use project that enclouds a hotel at the base of the building with 189 guest rooms. 165 dwelling units, condominiums at the top of the tower in the reduced footprint portion. and the middle portion of the tower includes 274,000 square feet of office for which we will also be requesting a prop allocation when we see you in november. the project includes a public-pedestrian passageway connecting howard street to the new transit centre. it will provide a district public access to sales force park via a sky bridge from the fifth level of the tower to the new transit centre and i'll show you some additional images on that in a minute. as well as a public elevator
from the pedestrian area up to that sky bridge. so here is a site plan. you can see at the bottom of the image that is the howard street front age at the top of the image, where you have the vertical stripes, that is what is currently natoma street and what will be -- well it still be natoma street but it will be a plaza blocked to vehicular traffic. you can see in the upper right hand corner of the image, that's where the hotel drop-off area will be. they can circle around and drop off and exit. at the lower-left corner that swoops around, that's the bus ramp that goes across howard
street into the new tranc transy terminal. i don't know if you can see it. it's in small type. adjacent to the bus ramp is the pedestrian passageway that will connect from howard street to natoma street and allow people to go from howard street across the parcel f property and into the pedestrian area and from there they can go to the transit centre and they can also take the public elevator up from parcel f to the sky bridge. this is an image from howard street looking east. you can sort of barely see at the bowel of th bottom of the is ramp that comes across. and again, this public
pedestrian passages through and this shows the natoma facade looking west towards second street and from the hotel drop off area and at the right is obviously that's the lattice facade and you can see the glass elevator and unfortunately i can't point to those things. you can see the glass elevator at the left side of the image that will go up to the sky bridge. this is also looking the opposite direction back towards first street and this is the natoma retail area on the right with the red canopy.
that's the single--storey retail area from natoma street. and immediately across that area is the retail of the centre that fronts natoma street. we think this will be a favourite spot in the neighbourhood. it's close to the vehicular traffic and retail areas on both sides. >> that's your time. >> i have one more image. >> one more image and we'll wrap it up. >> so this image is from the top of -- from sales force park. from the top of the transit centre looking towards parcel f across the pedestrian bridge. you can see that there will be a districadirect connection.
you are looking at level 5. and this portion of the project will be publicly accessible and there will be retail and food and beverage uses that we think will be a great amenity to amplify the really extraordinary public resource that the park is already provided. so that is kind of an overview. if you have specific questions i'm happy to get into it. if you would like more of an overview of the entitlement, horizon, what all you are going to get into the next month happy to do that as well but that's the overview. >> thank you, very much. i appreciate the presentation. we will now take public comment on this item. i have several speaker cards but anyone who wishes to comment, please, you can do so now. ying yang yu. amanda rupp and phil chin and gordon chin. please come up.
>> [voice of translator]: it's miserable especially for children in development. many of these hard-working families are low-income immigrants and it's difficult to move out under the housing crisis. >> [voice of translator]: with limited air circulation, they are places where parents can bring their children to play and get fish air. parks to them are like a living room. a luck re they don't have. many families are looking to the new park, full of sunlight for
our children and seniors. if a park is covered by shadow it's meaningless to us. we have concerns about the shadow casting from parcel f so we oppose this project. >> [voice of translator]: the urge the commissioners to help us build a park that would not be covered by any shadows. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon commissioner. i'm gordan chin. i'm here to support the position of the chinatown community against this project and ask you not to approve it until the it's redesigned to eliminate any shadow on the playground. i'm not going to get into the details. i think phil will in a bit.
they sent a thorough letter on october 14th outlining all of their concerns. i make particular note to the fact that the shadow analysis for this project did not even consider the redesign of the chinese playground which your sister department, the park rec department is underway as we speak. this is a new playground. and it will be shadow on that playground. you know, one of my relatives are retired and put some historical context to contemporary issues. you may not have been around but i was in 1981 when there was a development proposal in chinatown. i know frank remembers the project which parked the shadow issue in this city. that project was approved in 1983 and one year later, this city unanimously, overwhelmly approved the proposition k shadow cor dinnanc ordinance.
poor and very poor. you heard from one of the residents of the sros. we have 400 sr os occupied by families. it's really, really difficult. and they need to get as much park space and sunloo sunlight,s possible. so we oppose this project and we hope that you will force the propospropertoproposepropepropod resign. >> i'm amanda rupp representing brightline defense. this establishes the willie woo-woo playgroun playground asa
cornerstone of san francisco chinatown. the playground itself symbolizes the high environmental needs of chinatown residents who enjoy less open space per capita than any other san francisco neighborhood. over $10 million is dedicated to build a new playground. after a participatory design process, park users wanted a course for senior access, bad badminton, pickleball and tai chi. this is all essential aspects of environmentalism and without understanding local environment needs, we will struggle to overcome larger environmental challenges. we subsequently urge your support for a quality chinatown environment. thank you. >> thank you.
next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm the executive director of louable city anlivable city. i wanted to raise two issues and one is parking. what we try to do as a city, the most congested and not transit rich, you have the most allowable and those would step up. half a space per use knit in downtown and then soma and the neighborhoods and 7.5 and then 1.5. trans-base is the highest because it's subject to d for d by the redevelopment commissioner. there's a provision which says when you ajusts the parking