>> yeah, right. on one level. >> and then the 78 spaces there that are taken away. replaced with 45 spaces. so i understand what you're a saying about three stories of underground parking and lot of excavation, but given what we're taking away and putting back in, i think it strikes the right balance. >> president hillis: ok. we don't typically allow raised hands and people to come up, but... go ahead. you have to come up to the mic, to the mic, to the mic. tell me who are you again? >> john burns. i live on sacramento street. and the parking, because i used to rent a space that exists now is not the kind of parking they're talk about. it's monthly long-term contract

parking. >> president hillis: is that the plan? public parking in the middle of sacramento. i think that's -- i could see this project losing a level of underground parking and trying to -- or even two and just park what is needed. i've gone up there during the afternoon and i don't think i've had a problem looking for parking. i don't think laurell village is busting at the seams, if anything, it's over. too much parking. i'd be supportive of losing a level of parking. i think it would help some of the construction impacts. i think it's not kind of where we're going as far as parking uses. >> so commissioners, just to jump in and flavor the discussion with how the department came to our position of support for the parking. and granted, this is unusual for us as you all know. gien a range of -- given a range

of policies. three things that are going on here that shaped our thought process. firstly, there is significant amount of used parking on the site right now. this is sort of makeup parking if you will for the neighborhood. secondly, the code, at least at face value does require this amount, this number of spaces for the uses proposed. and thirdly, the medical office component by its nature is a little different than typical uses. in that folks tend to drive rather than take transit or what have you. having said that, and at the same time, there are, as mr. teague can tell you, a number of ways through the planning code to not provide that parking be it through a waiver or bicycle parking. i would be remiss if i didn't mention that the board of supervisors is in the process of amending the planning code as mr. star said earlier to not

require parking anywhere in the city and county at all. so there is a delicate balance going on here. >> commissioner richards. >> commissioner richards: i feel like i'm in a bit of another world. you have an elephant and how much does it weigh. the first person says it's 1,000 pounds. one says 1100. another says 1050. the elephant weighs 10,000 pounds. why don't we look and say, you've got two lots, medical retail and housing, do two separate buildings, get the 18 units. have one building with housing and retail. and the other with the medical and retail and housing. we're not being creative here. you're self-inducing the need to create these issues we're faced with. go back and look at two separate buildings with the different

arrangements. >> president hillis: i think that gives you two staircase, two elevators. i think he did it with a design. from looking at this from the street frontage -- >> do you need that much medical? >> president hillis: i can see taking the medical out and putting housing. >> right. >> president hillis: i think there is a need for the offices. i don't mind the mixed use, i think it's overparked. >> you understand, right, this has been a multiyear process working with staff who wanted the parking the way it is based on the code numbers. who wanted the medical that we've got there. we didn't come up with this out of the blue, right? so this has been -- this project has been pending since 2007. the latest iteration of the project since 2014. we've been working intensely with staff on the issues that

you're talking about, so it's not -- we didn't come in and say we want 63 -- >> president hillis: what did you come in and say you wanted? >> to comply with the code. and working with staff -- >> president hillis: so how much parking? so you came in with the same amount of parking? how much parking did you initially want? >> 63 spaces. >> president hillis: so it hasn't changed much. i mean, you're saying you've been working with staff and this project changed over time. >> it has changed. >> president hillis: what did you ask for originally? >> one of the initial studies we submitted for 2007, had 78 parking spaces and we're trying 0 match the amount of parking. we did go through the process of trying to reduce the parking and we also did a massive lowering of the rear yard because of our variance application. previously, we had the yard higher by 4.5 feet.

there have been changes and we removed the six-foot wall. >> president hillis: but as far as the program -- so you came in with the same program and a little more parking and shaved back 10 or so. the existing dental, we're coming back with 999 square feet. the other thing, it's one per 800. >> again, i don't mind. i think you're fine what is above ground. i think it works. but i think we're taking a step back on the parking. >> maybe i can help you with this. [laughter] >> president hillis: just briefly. we've got to be brief here. >> look. jeff, how many parking places are in the building on the

corner of locust. >> president hillis: now you're inviting people up. this is not going to work. >> we're witnessing a reality here of too much parking underground. the neighborhood doesn't want it. if you walk around the corner, jeff has got all the parking you need in his other building. now, look, if you take a walk, it's good for you medically. [laughter]. >> president hillis: i'd be supportive of this project with one less subterranean level of parking. >> commissioners, i think there has been fear about the excavation and there is a sense that one less level of excavation has been thrown out. if that is a proposal, i think we could still try to get -- try to accommodate as much as of the park as we can. whatever directive you give us, to do -- >> president hillis: i mean, i would support something of the same footprint, just with one

less floor of parking. subterranean. so go to. commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: mr. teague, if we changed all the 18 spaces that are residential to bicycle, right, and you have these other 32 spaces. if i'm a renter, a tenant, can i rent that space monthly? it's just joe shah mo off the street? >> it would be each space dedicated to a unit. >> this is basically one floor. >> so you could get rid of one floor, keep the residential and split the rest of the parking garage. but if you got rid of all of the residential parking, for a public parking garage, that is required to be short-term. because that is intended to be turnover parking. not long-term parking.

in this scenario as proposed, if you basically said get rid of one floor and they chose to get rid of the residential floor and deal with that, there is another provision of the code, then people who lived in that building would not be able to rent the remaining parking spaces. >> i could support commissioner hillis' request to get rid of a floor of parking. however they want. >> i don't know how i feel about -- you know, what you're specifically proposing. what i had heard from the developer was that right now, he has parking on the site and it meets a neighborhood need. so to me, having short-term parking is not so much meet ago neighborhood need. it's not monthly parking. it's as you just described, a different use. it would be just for the medical offices, right?

so is that what we're doing? because we're -- we're ensconcing it. >> i think we're leaving it up to them, however they want do it. >> right now the garage is not public parking. it's monthly only, correct? the big white garage is now monthly parking only, not hourly? yeah, ok. so that's why you guys aren't seeing -- >> [inaudible] >> sorry, not really. [laughter] well, let me just -- come on. give me a second. come on, sir, sir, sir, just answer the question. we'll have to treat you like a hostile witness. >> we do have non-monthly parking in there.

an example is spruce. >> that's a separate contract at night after all the docks, the monthly docks have left -- docs have left and spruce takes over with a valet system? >> correct. >> and they take it over with the other one, too. >> right. >> they were glad to have the ability, that's all. >> i sort of feel the need to lift some of the parking away, but also to be clear, removing one level of parking, doesn't make construction go faster or really less dusty. you're still digging. so just give that a little bit of corporation. >> i agree -- consideration. >> it's not just the construction impact. it's kind of mid block on sacramento street. public parking garage of 50

spaces. commissioner? >> you summed it up, commissioner hillis. the board of supervisors not requiring parking. this is like taking a step back to the 1970s, putting a public parking garage in mid block doesn't feel right. >> 50s. >> 1950s. when christopher was mayor. >> the good 'ole days. >> it seems like we're stepping back. i mean, i'd fight one of these in my neighborhood. >> president hillis: is there a motion? i can't make one. >> i'm going to try to make a motion to approve as proposed. >> president hillis: you got moans. commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: motion to approve eliminating one level of parking. >> second.

>> commissioner richards: move to continue to have the project sponsor work with staff and the community on something that fits better. [applause] second or no. on my continuance. >> president hillis: motion to improve the project with one less level of parking. can we call the roll on that? >> there is a motion and a second to approve the project with conditions removing one floor of parking. commissioner fong? aye. commissioner johnson aye. koppel aye. richards no. melgar no. president? aye. so moved, that motion passes 4-2, with richards and melgar voting against. >> i will close the public hearing on the modification with the standard conditions.

item 17 a and b. adoption of findings and discretionary review. >> good evening, commissioners. the project before you today is the demolition of an existing industrial building and new construction of a six-story, 65-foot tall 25,756 square foot mixed use building. the building would consist of 48 single room occupancy sro residential units, approximately 350 square feet in size on the

first through six floors. a residential lobby, bicycle storage room for 48 class one bicycle parking spaces and approximately 1,000 square feet of commercial space are proposed on the ground floor. the project would provide approximately 1687 square feet of common open space in the rear yard and 1500 of private open space on 15 private decks or balconies on floors 2-6. under planning code section 295, a building permit application for a project exceeding a height of 40 feet cannot be approved if there is any shadow impact on the property under the jurisdiction of recreation and park department, unless the planning commission, upon recommendation from the general manager of the recreation and park department in consultation with the rec and park commission, makes a determination that the shadow impact will not be significant or adverse.

with the longest duration of 62 minutes on december 20 and 21. the project was heard by the recreation and park commission on october 18, 2018 under planning code section 295, shadow analysis. for victoria park. per resolution 1810-005, the recreation and park commission recommended that the shadow cast by the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the use of victoria grave park. for the project to move forward, the planning commission must determine that the shadow would not adversely affect the park.

they're on balance with the policies of the plan. it is fully code-complying project and is not seeking variances, waivers or exceptions from planning code requirements. in order to minimize the shadow, the project would need to be reduced by one story that is eliminating several dwelling units, which does not support the current housing goals of the city and the need for production of new housing. the project meets the department's design guidelines and has been determined to be compatible with design and the surrounding neighborhood. it would also provide inclusionary affordable rental housing, therefore a total of 12 units will be part of the city inclusionary affordable housing program. also, on balance, the project is consistent with the east soma area plan. the department recommends that

the planning commission determine that the shadow cast would not be adverse to the park. the proposal was subject to a 30-day notification of residents within a 150 feet of the project. the notice was issued. the d.r. requester opposition is two-fold, one for the shadow cast on victoria park, and second for the housing typeology as sro units being unsuitable in the soma youth and family sud. over, the s.u.d. does not prohibit sro.

therefore the department recommends that the commission not take dr and approve the project as proposed. thank you, commissioners, that concludes my presentation. i'm available for questions. >> president hillis: since this is d.r. and review of the shadow impact. let's hear from the shadow requester first. for five minutes. then the project sponsor, you've got also the shadow issue to talk about. >> we have two items, five minutes for the project sponsor. but we have adoption of findings for the shadow, which typically the project sponsor would have

five or ten minutes. normally, the project sponsor would have a five minute presentation or 10 minute and public comment would be three minutes. so i think this is appropriate. because we've got the dr and the shadow. >> hello, commissioners, south market community action network. the type of housing is out of character with the surrounding area that contains many multi-bedroom rent controlled buildings. it contains market rate sros which are unaffordable and is not the tape type of housing needed for children, youth and families. in this area, they make $50 through thousand or less and.

the park contributes to the neighborhood's character in that area. 1075 increases shadow on the park. this does not preserve or enhance. by containing 25%, this project is exacerbating the overproduction of market rate housing, further creating imbalance of the housing. the study shows that the creation of market rate housing creates the need for additional affordable housing according to the city 2007 residential analysis. this shows how the 75% market rate housing will create a need for affordable housing that is not addressed by the 25% affordability of the project. the project casts shadows on one of only two full public parks in the south of market with the other being south park. the south of market continues to be extremely underserved when it comes to basic neighborhood needs, such as access to public open space and parks. this is obvious in the city and

planning department's continued disrespect of the soma youth s.u dutch. there no is no complete neighborhood level planning occurring, which is obvious in attempts to shadow the park, that is supported by the park and rec, and the planning commission. the shadow impact should be assessed collectively, not on a project by project basis. there should be zero percent shadow tolerance for the park similar to other parks in high density neighborhoods with extremely limited open space. this is located in the soma youth district, adding sro development that shadows the park and important open space and violates the intent which is

to protect and the enhance the environment. this is the only park that is open early in the morning. they have recognized a strong need to enhance the help of environment and to expand affordable housing and family housing opportunities. this project goes against these goals. some have conducted observations last week to contrast the oaks done for the -- observations done for the developer and the results were significant. comparing the 2013 and 2018 data, we saw a doubling of users in the park during the afternoon. and 2018 data collected in autumn. this signals there has been a significant increase in the users of the park in this five-year period. data showed consistent use of the park by kids. this all points to the reality there are more people using the

park and this number will only increase as development continues in this area, including new childcare centers. the project should not cast any shadows on the park. we demand that the developer lessen the height of the building to eliminate shadow impacts and the type of housing should be with be the repurpose of the sud. in addition, the shadow impact should not be looked at as individual impact. as i stated before, but as a part of cumulative impacts. on the december agenda, you have the 190 russ street project in front of you that will also cast a shadow. all these will have adverse impact on the park that serves this densely populated area in the south of market. thank you.

>> public support of the dr? >> good evening, commissioners. my name is mary clare and i'm with south of market action network. we urge you to vote note on 1075, 1085 folsom street. the purpose is to expand the stock of affordable housing, as well as protect and enhance the health and environment of youth and families. sros are not the type of housing that sud intended to have. the project contains market rate sros which are unaffordable to the community and residents.

it is not the type of housing needed for children, youth and families. families need 2-4 bedroom units, not a 350-square foot home. the type housing proposed, by building small units that will be very expensive. this is the type of profit driven housing development that the south of market does not need more of. expensive, small housing aimed at highly paid demographics. the term affordable by design is extremely misleading. the phrase begs the question, affordable for who and designed for her? sro units are being rented for costs that are out of reach to existing residents in the neighborhood. 41% of households make $50 thousand or less. the park contributes to the neighborhood character in this immediate area and this project proposes increased shadows on

the park. again, we are urge you to vote no on 1075, 1089 folsom street. we demand that not cast any shadows on the park. further, the type of housing should be rethought to be consistent with the purpose of the sud in the youth and family sud, that is 2-4 units and this must be reflected in this project. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hello. good evening. i'm born and raised in the south of market. i currently live and i'm 21 years old and have been living in this neighborhood. we urge you to vote no as someone born and raised in the south of market i can speak to the importance of the park to everyone. the park is busy all year round with seniors, youth, children,

families and workers using every inch of that park. the basketball is used heavily. the school utilizes the park during school hours since the school courtyard is too small for the 200 students. also for people playing soccer or baseball. it is a big deals, because we will not have another full sized park for a long time. the project is in the soma youth and special use district which

was adopted by the board of supervisors in 2009. the sud purpose is to expand affordable housing and protect and enhance the health. families need 2-4 bedroom units, not 350 square feet home. we urge you to vote no. we demand the project not cast any shadows on the park. by lessening its height. also we want the project to provide affordable family sized housing that is consistent with the soma special youth district. in addition, the shadow should not be looked as a single impact. on the december agenda, you have 190 russ street project coming in front of you that will cast a shadow. all of those projects will have adverse effect to this only park that serves a densely populated area in the south of market.

we actually are youth group, that i work with, went through this meeting and it was kind of disappointing that the people -- representing that project made us feel like we had to choose either affordable housing or a park. and all honesty, why can't we have both? thank you. according to the district, to the district open space task force report, it has the least number of parks. the smallest parks and the least amount of open space per capita.

for the more than 30,000 residents, there are only two large sized parks. south park which was built in 1855 and victoria built in 2006. it took over a century to have the park built in our neighborhood and took the community's effort in making it a reality. the park was named after victoria, who despite facing many hurdles, showcase athletic prowess in the olympics. a student at car michael school. she was a daughter of a filipino father and english mother. she won two medals for platform diving for the united states. this is important legacy to honor. the park continues to provide an enjoyable space for the nearby residents.

the recommendation before you stayed at 1075 and 1085 folsom street will have impact on the park, but this impact should not be taken lightly. the beauty of this park will be impacted regardless of when and where the shadow hits. the shadow impact from 1075 folsom street should not be looked at as singular impact. on the december agenda, you have 190 russ street project in front of you that will cast a shadow. all of these projects cumulatively will have adverse effect to the only park that serves densely populated area in the soma. we urge you to vote no. we demand this project not cast shadows on parks by lessening its height. we want this project to provide affordable housing that is

consistent with the intent of the soma youth and family special. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional public comment? seeing none, project sponsor? >> good evening, commissioners. on behalf of the project sponsor, we will try to come in under ten minutes. i want to talk about shadow and then programming. on shadow, just numbers. probably k in the 1989 shadow memo set a 1% significant threshold for parks that are over two acres in size and shadowed less than 20% of the time. it's just north of 2.5 acres in size and shadowed 4.1% of the time.

the project is 25 times below the 1% significance threshold. as experienced by the park's users, the shadow impact would be felt even less. no single location will in be shadow for longer than 15 minutes. the net shadow will be cast on different parts of the park, depending on the season. there is a large bank of trees that don't get included in the technical analysis that will absorb a portion of the shadow. in particular on children's play area. this project is not asking for any code exceptions. we're not asking for any exceptions to increase horizontal massing and we're not asking for density bonus in additional height. notwithstanding all of that, through discussions with neighborhood groups, the sponsor came to understand that any additional shadow on vmd park no matter how much should be

acknowledged and the sponsor has made a binding commitment to provide $125,000 to the recreation and parks department to fund the construction of a dog park. it's our understanding that it's in early design stages of the dog park. even if for some reason the dog park was never built or the project is built before the dog park is constructed, this sponsors 120,000 obligation still stands. i would say it's consistent with the soma use and family sud. the purpose is to expand affordable housing opportunities in this project as a mixed income project does just that. it's 25% affordability level is the highest in the city.

you heard a lot of comment earlier about 18, 19 and 20%. this is 25%. that is 6% higher than what the new rental rate will be for projects with 25 or more units. would eliminate nine rental units, which would include 2-3 affordable units. in changing to traditional dwelling units would, in my mind undermine the purposes of the sud in a few different ways.

the unit count would drop significantly. please stand by. please stand

>> it is one of 478, i believe,

contributors so the loss of that building was not considered well less than significant. 109 is setback behind a fence and it was not considered historic. so the building is essentially nine units on a floor. five floors with three units on the ground level and they'll have private gardens within a bigger common rear yard. it is the south side of the building which is the backside of the building. all of the units on the backside of the building have private outdoor space o. on the front of the building the unit in the northeast, each one of those has private outdoor space. even though they are small units, that will increase the useability of those units.

this is the site plan now. the building on the ride is 1075. the smaller one with the yard in front of it is 1089. the new building spreads across the two lots. it leaves a substantial rear yard in the back of the building. we have not bulked the building out to the rear yard setback line. it's shaped and modeled and then each of the balcony levels gives shade to the unit because it does space south so we provide shading. there we go. so this is the first flor plan. i'm sorry, it turned. it's on the left side. the grey area is the commercial space. three units on the back face the year yard. this is the second floor. there are nine units. all of the units on the right side have sizable outdoor space. the unit in the upper-left is

the one that on each floor that faces folsom has an inset private balcony. that's a typical floor -- because we are taking down a building and it's brick and the base is concrete. a board-formed concrete with brick. and metal suroundings around the windows so it picks up an industrial character with the very regular windows. and the steel detailing on it. we have to work on this.

i'm going to skip that. so this slide on the left is sherman street. the west side of the park. the park is shown on the right. you can see along sherman street there are 13 very large trees that show fla throw shadow on te children's play area. you can see the green of the park. the grey is the shadow. the blue is the additional shadow. the orange in the middle is the building. that's the worst day of the year. november 22nd. the first day of summer the shadow, you can barely see it.

it happens at the end of the day. so between 7:00 p.m. and 7:36:0y shadow on the sidewalk and the street on sherman street. we do not, we barely effect the park, it's 0.4% over the area so we'll add a small amount. >> thank you. any public comment in support of the project? >> go ahead. >> sure. i'm totally in support of this project. i am the former executive director of west bay. i led the airport to install the bronze plaque that commemorates the victory and we installed it

in the front gate. he is a good friend of mine. in 2005 she was my grandp grande festival. and i must tell you, ladies and gentlemen, if she was a live today she would laugh at this notion that we are going to prevent housing because this shadows that are being found in her park. i watch the filipino community decimated because the lack of housing in san francisco. i tracked the senses from 1960 when we have 12,600 filipinos in san francisco and everything 10 years we were growing at the rate of 10,000 filipinos every census we were growing until the 2010. we nose-dived and we lost 4,000

filipinos. since then we still have filipinos because in 2017 we only have 33,000 filipinos left. we need some housing in this city of san francisco. i argue to approval this project immediately if not sooner. >> next speaker, please. >> you can leave them right there. thank you. >> my name is catherine wolf and i'm with the soma neighborhood resident coordinating council. we're newly formed. this is the mi'kmaw community association. we are in support of this project because yes, this district may be have a need for family and housing including

children but there is also seniors. there is people that are disabled. this housing will set fourth and be in accordance with that so what i would like to read is a letter that we sent to johnathan with pillar capital. it says dear johnathan and rex. thank you for meeting with community residents and organizations in the south of market last friday, november 2nd, 2018. to discuss pillar capital's project at 1075folsom street. mr. johnathan pearlman clearly explained that the project is for a six-storey residential building, a studio apartments. it was also clear to us that the impact of the shadows, building shadow on victoria park would be minimal. over all, we agreed that the building would benefit the community because it would add much needed housing in south of market and that it will be inclusive of low income people. as you indicated 25% of 12 units

would be below market rate. in your follow-up letter to us you specified these b.m.r. units will be tiered in the following manner. seven units and 55% a.m.i., three units and 80% a.m.i., two units and 110% a.m.i. at the meeting, residents raised several concerns and recommendation as follows. that one, that pillar capital higher residents from soma for jobs at the site such as maintenance and janitorial work. two, the priority be given to having community serving businesses occupy the commercial space in the building. some of the units have shower stalls that can accommodate the needs of persons with disabilities. that the developer collaborate with community residents on efforts to arts public safety and sanitation own sixth street

and the alleyway many of we appreciate you met with us to explain your project and ensure us you are allocating 25% of your units as below market rat rates. >> thank you, very much. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. i'm george mack nab. i'm a business owner no san ownn francisco. thank you for being here. i fully support this project. it's adding 48 48 entry level units. we need more housing. there's also 25% b.m.r.s and it's fantastic number. and also, the residents will add to the vitality of the neighborhood and support existing businesses. i urge you to support the project. thank you, very much.

>> next speaker, please. >> good evening, thank you for giving me the opportunities to address you. i'm a long-term residential tenant in san francisco. it's getting late. we need housing. the problem in this city is every year it gets worse and worse. i've lived here for 13 years. there are no rental apartments for people to live in. when you have a responsible project like this and this project is responsible, we have to advocate for this because we need the housing. i mean this project 25% b.m.r. as people said is outstanding. it's fantastic. the fact that these developers worked with the neighborhood and they're working with the park and they're doing all the right things. i think we just need to advocate for this type of development. it will improve the community. i think it will purse small

business in the community and i implore you to pass this project. it's what the city needs and it's what everyone who lives here is asking for. thank you, very much for your time. >> thank you. >> any additional public comments in support of the project? d.r. request, you have a two-minute rebuttle. >> it would only be fair to give another two minutes to the rebuttle since you gave 10 minutes to the other side. >> there's two things we're hearing. there's a d.r., right. >> we have to talk about, we at least talk to the shadow study as well in our rebuttle.

>> what are you asking for. >> four minutes for rebuttle so we can address both. >> go ahead. >> you are really only supposed to be the rebuttle for the d.r. we heard two items and normally they would have 15 minutes. so, we cut their time down to 10 minutes. but since it's late and we're going to be here late anyway, we'll go four minutes. >> david window and action network the project is a market rate s.r.o. development. this type of housing is not the housing that the south of market needs and it's not time of housing that meets the needs of children, youth and family. everybody knows and out of reach to existing community members. the project is casting a shadow on the park and that's the issue at hand. it's unacceptable for this park to be shadowed.

other high density neighborhoods with limited open space have 0% shadow budgets and this should be applied to v. m.d. and it should be treated the same. we demand it's consistent and meet the needs and families. section 295. this is the city document not mine. planning commission shall disapprove projects that have negative impacts on the park. it's prop k. it's not d.r. the d.r. standards are different from prop k. prop k is really strong measure. it was designed as such. the impacts you have to weigh are the impacts on the community

in the south of market. we have had really intense development in the south of market. existing residents from the filipino community and other communities south of market are- they have no office space where they live. they will have their own open spaces right outside on the balcony. how lovely for them. and they're going to have their open space private at the price of the loss of sunlight on the park. that is what we are asking for we've been asking for equity in communities all day. the last you had was sacramento street. the mission came up today and

you have have been dealing with equity between housing and neighborhood impacts. they don't have play spaces outdoors themselves and if it's the market rate condo will have these private decks outside. but what is the equity. how much are they marc rate s.r.o.s, 350 square feet. how much will they sell for or rent for the market rate? this project came through as condos. every step of the way the plans for three of 12 notice work for condos. now they're not saying they're not condos. so, you need to have two parks with sunlight on them. you are taking away sunlight every planning commission meet tag is considered the shadows on

jean france gives them up because it's a fence around it in the morning hours. the fence come down. but you allocate shadows all the time for the other side of folsom. and you are asked to allocate shadows today you got to be fair to the people from the community. and that means really step back and don't approve this shadow analysis. thank you. do approve the shadow motion, i'm sorry. >> thank you. you have two minutes, project sponsor. >> we'll try to keep this short. the discussion about prop k as i mentioned, the 1989 shadow memo sets an actual numerical

threshold and that is 25 times below the threshold. if you have questions about cumulative shadow impacts we can get into that and you can see what this project is doing compared to other projects. 25% affordability is significant. that's higher than just about any other project that this commission has seen in a long time except some of the large projects that get -- that have maybe a development agreement. finally, we're not here to say that ever project in this area should be s.r.o. dwelling units. that's not the case. this commission has approved one other project since 2015 within a quarter mile that either group has small dwelling units like. that's 345 sixth street. it's 25% of the units that have been approved and this type of housing is one part of the puzzle to address the housing shortage. just by being smaller, they will rent for less than new units

which means they'll browe brodee range. thank you for your time. >> thank you. so is that conclude this portion of the hearing. we open up it to commission comments and questions. moshe richards. >> if you've been watching the hearing all night, i was siding with the community in project after project after project. i really want to try to side with the community, however, as i look at the data, the amount of sunlight, where it falls and what time of year, and it's set by prop k, i can't get there. i really want to by can't. if had it an impact you have my ear. the data is the data.

the d.r. and the s.r. units, i completely get we're in the youth and family zone. we need different types of housing types as well and the 300 square foot just because it's called an s.r.o. we're getting hung up on the square footage of each unit. it is -- it may be a little less of a value but it will be more affordable to a lot of folks who are probably single or couples. 25% of affordability at these levels is pretty impressive. so, i move to not take the art and approve the project. >> we have to approve -- item 17-a. >> adoption of findings of the park and rec commission. >> commissioners, there's a motion and a second to adopt a shadow findings and not take d.r. and improve the project. on that motion --

that motion passes unanimously 6-0. [ please stand by ]

>>. >> the pronl has been modified to address concerns from the residential design advisory team. specifically, the proposed vertical addition has been set back 3 feet from the street wall and from the northern sidewall to mass the building with the topography of the site. the residential design team found the