Supervisors send Folsom/Russ development back to planning after critics say shadow will hurt Victoria Manalo Draves Park

After more than four hours of public testimony and expert comment, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted on April 9 to send the conditional use authorization for a proposed seven‑story, 63‑unit mixed‑use building at 1052–1060 Folsom Street and 190–194 Russ Street back to the Planning Department for further review.

The board first voted 8–2 to uphold the Planning Department’s community plan evaluation (CPE) that the project did not require additional environmental review under CEQA. Supervisors London Breed and Matt Haney were among those who said the CPE met state review requirements; Supervisors Ahsha Safaí and Katie Peskin dissented. After a separate, quasi‑judicial review of the Planning Commission’s conditional use authorization, the board voted 10–0 to withhold final project approval and return the matter to Planning for further analysis tied to park impacts and other local concerns.

The bulk of testimony focused on Victoria Manalo Draves Park (VMD Park), a 2.1‑acre community park adjacent to the site that residents say is one of the neighborhood’s few publicly accessible open‑spaces. Appellants, led by the nonprofit South of Market Community Action Network (SomCan), argued the project would cast new evening shadow on heavily used parts of the park — the basketball court, entrance paths and grassy areas — and that the shadow footprint is now larger than a prior, smaller proposal previously rejected by the Recreation and Park Commission.

“VMD Park is heavily used by all community members,” said Angelica Cabante of SomCan. “Every inch of VMD Park is used because it is one of only two full‑sized parks in South of Market.”

Independent environmental reviewer Steve Williams told supervisors the Planning Department and Planning Commission had not reconciled a 2015 Recreation and Park Commission finding that an earlier, smaller project would have a significant adverse shadow impact. “The failure to address or reconcile these clearly contrary findings is a fatal flaw for the CEQA analysis,” Williams said.

Planning Department staff, led by Liz White, said the department’s analysis relied on the Eastern Neighborhoods programmatic EIR and additional project‑level shadow modeling and surveys. The department concluded the new project would produce a modest net increase in annual shadow — described in staff materials as less than a half‑percent of the park’s theoretical annual sunlight — and that the timing and location (largely after 6 p.m. and concentrated on lesser‑used edges) did not meet the CEQA substantiality threshold for a significant adverse effect. White noted the Recreation and Park Commission concurred with the department’s conclusion on Dec. 20, 2018.

Project counsel, Alice Bakley, urged supervisors to consider the project’s community benefits: replacement of four rent‑stabilized units on‑site, 15 inclusionary affordable units, a 1:1 replacement of existing units subject to rent stabilization and roughly $900,000 in city impact fees and open‑space funding. Bakley also noted the department’s modeling excluded existing tree shade from calculations and that Rec and Park has funded new lighting for the park, which proponents said would expand safe evening use.

Supervisor Matt Haney, who represents the district, said he supported returning the matter to Planning so the department can work with the community to address remaining concerns. “The community in SoMa, particularly around this park, has been clear that they view the shadow as significant and adverse,” Haney said. “Ignoring their voices would be a tremendous mistake.”

What the board did: the supervisors kept the department’s CPE finding in place (8–2) — meaning no further CEQA study was required at the time — but then used their quasi‑judicial authority over conditional uses to require additional work before the project may proceed. The board’s action effectively pauses entitlements and sends the application back to the Planning Department and commissions for further analysis and possible redesign.

Implications: The decision preserves time and space for the neighborhood’s most heavily used park while leaving open a path for the developer to adjust the project. The board’s combined votes strike a procedural balance: they accepted the Planning Department’s technical environmental finding while signaling the need for more local analysis and possible mitigation or redesign to address park impacts and community concern.

Votes at a glance - Item 21 (CPE — Planning Department determination under CEQA): Approved 8–2 (Marr, Peskin dissenting). - Conditional use appeal (items 25–27): Board voted to table the authorization and return the project to Planning for further review, 10–0.

What’s next: The Planning Department will receive the board’s direction and is expected to coordinate follow‑up analysis with Recreation and Park, the project sponsor and community groups. The board’s conditional‑use action likely requires amended materials or new findings before a returning project can win final approval at the Planning Commission or the Board of Supervisors.