that was there. okay. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello, my name is michael hunter and i live across the street from this building project. one of my main problems with it is just because it is permanent, is it appropriate? >> and i think that the size is completely out of line with anything on the entire street of potrero except for general hospital which is the only other building that size on the street and the other thing is that the construction project of this size and type, could be at least a year. and, ambulances use the street every day, all day long for emergency routes, and a construction site can only load in on the potrero side of the street and that means that they will be blocking an entire lane for major parts of the day at all times of the day and there

is no other way that you can load in because of the grade. and so i think that it is, and without, in the afternoons it is a parking lot and the ambulances have a lot of trouble getting through that thing all day long as it is. and so having a year project on a building like that could cause problems for the emergency vehicles. thank you. >> thank you >> is there any other public comment? >> okay, seeing none, then we will start our rebuttal. three minutes. >> forgive me if i speak a little fast because the points that i would like to raise, laerry should not have been speaking.

>> we are not sure why. but it been submitted already. they are saying now $4 million is going to be the cost to build this building. as you all know, the buildings are charged based on the cost of permit. san francisco is being cheated out of a million dollars. and how can you go through triage with cbi without approving the project. most important is the commission hearing was pretty much in a legal hearing because it was not posted on-site. the date after the commission of july 18,th, said they had problems and come back until

august 8th. they had set downs. the day the project sponsor saw it. the day after the project sponsor sawed off the signs. it's funny because this sign, it only talks about the application. when they were put back up, 3 weeks later i sent an e-mail to the planning commission. it was with the date. it was not proper posting on sign. these signs now that they are up with the old date. people still look at them all the time. these are important because a lot of people weren't given proper notification with families at the mariposa gardens including the property owners. to conclude, right

here. land use attorney, sue hesser wrote the administrators. >> wrap it up please. >> this is from the project application, it says within 30 days it should be an appealed to the board of supervisors. thank you very much for your time. >> okay. we can hear from mr. -- >> before you sit down on that point on jurisdiction. what's your point that we don't have jurisdiction to hear all of this? speaker: it's that in the project application it says opportunities for appeals from other parties from large project authorizations are to the board of supervisors. we were told to appeal to you within 15 days. we were also told that you haven't had any other large projects authorization appeals. i don't know if that's why. i also know

the department treats these as conditional uses which go to the board of supervisors. >> can we have the citation please. >> yeahch thank you very much. >> this citation. okay. we are just looking at the submissive. it's nothing cited. it's someone's interpretation of something. >> as i understand it, that came from the department of planning website. >> thank you. okay. i only have

a few more comments. one of the things this board needs to understand is how really large this project is. i think the model shows somewhat. if you drive down the street and down to the general hospital, this will be the largest building on that whole path half way across san francisco thereby largest tallest building until you get to general hospital. it's only 1 story less at all than the new hospital building. it's really going to be a monolithic problem for our neighborhood. we also wanted to correct a few things. our understanding is that over 50 individual apartments of mariposa gardens were not given notification of

this project. we were sure nobody was going to be advised that there was going to be serpentine as best as asbestos an we also know the department failed to notify the downtown high school which is within a quarter mile of this project and bylaw they should have been notified and we heard various explanations from the planning department like the high school is not a facility or this construction site is not a facility. the high school should have been notified and given an opportunity to weigh in on this project and they were not. we again say as much as the planning department fits within and complies with all requirements, i would ask you to look at our briefs to nine ways that it does not comply. the fact that they had to give

variances that were very significant. 48 percent of the units in this house in this construction site will not have the required air and light access. it is, it really is a project that is way too big that's been squeezed on a site way too small. i would like to begin by the fact that 62 units go on the quarter block of mariposa gardens and put 50 units on that one small corner lot of potrero and mariposa. >> 6 minutes. >> thank you, again, commissioners. john, on behalf of the permit holder. i just want to respond to a couple issues that have come up. with respect to the height measurement there is no individual new height

measurement. this building is measured every way the buildings in san francisco is measured. i just want to make that clear. in addition the ground floor height of the commercial space. it's added to this project specifically in response to community request for such a space. other request were also to maximize the parking as much as possible because they were concerned about parking because of increasing amount, it would cut into parking spaces and we would lose parking spaces in the garage below or would start eating up the residential units and would leave a dead space above the retail space. we think it's appropriate that since we provided this in response to the neighborhood, that we do, we are eligible for that exception that the planning commission has granted. with respect to the height, i just want to make clear, the project sponsor

hired a licensed is you -- is survey or of the measurements across the street at 47 potrero, 8 feet lower. portrero, 10.8 feet lower. portrero,.8 inches higher and 459 potrero 9 feet lowerment we have our licensed is surveyor looking at the site. we are not quite sure that it reflects what the survey shows. with respect to how the example of the previous building, how they cast shadows before, this is actually an elevation of that

billion. -- building. it had this project which had bulk above that going taller than this building. i want to be clear that was a significantly sized building at the time and that wasn't going to be significantly larger. the issue of notices has been brought up. i just want to speak to that briefly. there was some confusion about the site posting. it was a unique situation where we had one planning commission hearing and one planning commission 3 weeks later and we worked with the planning commission to provide notice. they have power to determine whether or not notice was adequate. this was done at the planning commission and that note was provided. there

are at least five neighborhood meetings. there were several site postings due to the fact that we had now two planning commission hearings and now board of appeals. we haven't heard any example of anyone not getting notice and not being part of this process. with respect to downtown high school, there is a section of ceqa that does require special notice of schools within a quarter mile of the project, but they only require that when a project is anticipated to emit hazardous substance. this is a residential project so both ourselves and the planning department agree that it's not appropriate for this project. we are thrilled to have the opportunity to build these sites and manage these

apartments in the future. they have made numerous modifications based on the input. just to go through a couple of those changes shall they have reduced the account and increased the parking spaces and provided those set backs from the upper two floors in addition to the others. those are the main ones. this is the way we would want project sponsors to approach then advertisement process in san francisco. a lot of outreach and willingness to make project modifications based on the input they receive. the project is fully consistent with the eastern neighborhood plans of 2009 and therefore we request that you deny this appeal and allow the project to move forward. thank you. i'm available for questions. >> i do have a couple. i heard one. i don't know if it was one of the appellants or counsel or

representative. someone represented a height of 4 feet instead of six. >> my client had a property rezoned in 2009. their intent was to fulfill the intent of the plan. which is the height of 58 feet and 6 stories. in response to the concern about the height, there were those set backs as on the top. >> so, in recognition of the surroundings, we have a nice model there. is there anything even close to 6 stories as the next highest 3 stories? >> if you take a look at it. the building at the caddy corner here. it's four 4 stories at the street and then it immediately starts going up five and six 6 stories as you go up. that's comparable. >> he's got the floor, please.

you are saying it's four or 5? >> it's four floors at the street and starts increasing by a floor and another floor. >> wait. he has the floor. okay. let's see. those shadow studies of the -- i appreciated the public commenter who put them both up because that is what i wanted to understand. the distinction between your illustration with the shadow versus that angular spread that's on the other one. i need someone to help me out there. >> just to be clear, this is the shadow site that was prepared by the planning department. this was prepared to ensure it complies with prop k section 295. it doesn't create shadow impact on it.

>> tell me what goes into area that is outlined by the red? >> this is maximum extent of shadow. it assumes a building height of 68 feet but it does not take into account any of the build environment around the project >> as if there was nothing around it

>> so president hwang, this is a document prepared at the early stages of project. it's a very conservative view of what the shadow is. if this shadow shows that it it potentially has an impact on the park, they are the planning department has you do an entire shadow that cultivates the exact area. this is basically a clearance document. if it made the conscious -- conservative

view. >> your slide that you had? >> yes. these slides are prepared for illustrative purposes and not required. this is 4:00 on the fall elk new -- equinox. this is where the worst shadow is cast. you can see what it shows. >> so, just looking at that and the other, the one that you had up there. is it the case that at different times of the day, different times of the year it will have an impact of that broad spread impact, not with standing that there are structures in the earlier sort of basic illustration? i mean,

is that the worst impact of the shadow? >> i can't say it's the worst impact of the year. i chose equinox because it's the time of the year. >> the later in the day, it's going to be horizontal so the shadow would have opinion greater than that. >> we saw a picture of an earlier building that looks pretty significant. that looks like it spreads a lot more than visual. so you never did your, your client never did the study? >> this is something that my client prepared. >> but that's not a full blown anything. >> this is one of the number of slides at different times of the year. >> okay. and this is one on the slide. and this is 4:00 p.m.

and one of the shadows of the day. >> but not the worst? >> it's not the worst until it goes below the horizon. >> okay. another statement made was that 48 percent of the units or the, i don't know, 48 percent of the building will not -- will have their light and air steeply impacted because of the density. is that true? >> let me clarify exactly what that 48 percent is. it's 48 percent of the dwelling units. that's what we need for the dwelling unit exposure. the unit space at potrero and mariposa street. if you face a street or alley wide enough you can comply with it. you can also comply with it if it faces

a code compliance rear yard. we don't have a code compliant rear yard because we have this modified one. so due to the technical requirement of the code, you need to get an exception. but again this building is facing the rear yard that has more depth to it and more separation than a code compliant rear yard would. >> actually, let me illustrate it for you if you are interested in seeing that. >> sure. >> here is mariposa and portrero. a traditional rear yard would be 25 feet from here all the way across all the way to mariposa street. the modification is that the building wraps all the way around to meet the next

building over. so because this is technically not the 25 percent depth for the entire width of the lot rear yard, we needed an exception for the rear yard and also for the dwelling unit exposure because this faces technically not a rear yard. it's through the eastern neighborhoods large project authorization process. so, again, this is deeper than what a traditional rear yard would have, if we had just provided a traditional rear yard of the entire depth of the lot. >> necessary space that exceeds the standard rear yard of the lot, the additional space there, would that be equal to the space that the structure itself is taking up? it's not, right? you know my question, you have that rear yard and you

added space that you are not required to have. the space inaccessible that you are required to have if you put that together would that equal the space that's taken up that should be the rear yard? >> let me try to answer what i think you are getting at. this rear yard is the same area as if we provided the rear yard. >> you answered my question. thank you. >> yes. that's required that you still need to provide. >> i wanted to understand that. okay. that's it. >> any rebuttals? >> think. company #r -- thank you, corey tieg. the planning

meets the code requirement. the two houses that are included is a 10-12 feet. the planning code would allow you to go 60 feet above the height to allow for the elevator and the equipment which is somewhat lower. in terms of the zoning, the zoning is u mu, urban mixed use, one of our provision in the code that it actually permits. it does allow pdr industrial uses and also allows residential and retail and other types of uses. that ties into the issue of ground floor commercial or retail space. we don't require in this area that you have retail space on the ground floor. there are specific streets and blocks within each neighborhood where it is

required that you have ground floor space and usually those are more established commercial corridors but in the manuality -- majority of the neighborhood we don't require space. we don't have store fronts if there is blocks and blocks of empty commercial space. regarding the appeal language, we can check that. that's in the application itself. it may incorrectly state that you appeal to the board of supervisors. i will have to look that up. the motion approved by the planning commission states that the appeal is within 15 days. regarding the shadow, just to clarify again, that shadow that the applicant was showing, that is shown as almost like a worst case possible scenario for no

building if you are were the only building there. it does take topography into account and it does create shadows. there is a lot of shadows created by existing buildings. there is a lot of shadows created by existing buildings due to topography and other buildings. in terms of the building permit already being filed. it's not terribly uncommon. obviously we can't approve until the entitlement is approved. regarding the school notice, the applicant went in some detail, but that is a notice requirement for the environmental document. that is not a notification requirement for the large project

authorization. it's not necessary for tonight's hearing. regarding the posting, the planning code requires that you put posters for advertising for the public hearing and after that public hearing, regardless of the outcome whether they take action or continue it to a future date, we don't require the applicant to update that poster. with the understanding that people who were interested in that case went to the first hearing or saw it online. we are not required to post new information or mail notification or newspaper ads. this was addressed pretty thorough at the planning commission hearing. with that, i'm available for any questions you may have.

>> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> nobody else wants to start. i will start. i think the number of things that have been brought forth, i'm going to dispel or at least provide my take on some of the ones and then get to the heart of the matter as far as i'm concerned. with regard to notice, i think after all these number of hearings and appeals, i don't think notice was an issue. the question of shadow, i think the greatest shadow impact is probably on those properties that are north and to the northwest. in terms of what occurs at specific times of the day, the most useful times of

the day. some of the points that were made about the previous zoning and the land use, people should beware of that. there are certain industrial zoneings that allow residential use. it's in the pdr zoning that residential uses are not allowed. i would like to get resident be labor the comments because there can be many comments on what was presented by a lot of different voices. for me, the primary issue is this if you accept the tenants of the eastern neighborhoods plan, then you basically accept this project. the fact is that the tenants of the eastern neighborhood plan propose and established that you would have greater