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 densities along the major transit avenues. it would allow that in as a balance then against keeping certain properties at a much lower density and which are predominantly industrial type uses. if that's the case, then i'm accept iv of this particular project and it's density and it's height. i have not heard anything that would dispel the height calculation on the sloping site or cause me to question that. at this point in time what is based upon what is relatively new zoning. i'm glad i wasn't at the planning commission when the eastern neighborhood started because it would have lasted forever. but

i am then prepared to support the permit, upholding the permit and denying the appeal. >> i think your comment are consistent with the way i have been thinking about this which is difficult because i understand the concerns raised by the people in the neighborhood who are going to be impacted by the large scale of this project, but i think it does, you know, stand and fall with the eastern neighborhoods plan and the standing because that's what the plan is compliant from the plan from the way it's been presented to us. so, i recognize that it's new and startling and definitely problematic for the people that have been in that neighborhood all these years

and want the community that they have decided to anchor themselves in, but it's where the city is moving apparently. i don't know if you have any? >> i echo the expressions of my colleague. >> so, that's where it's going. >> i will move. motion is to uphold the large project authorization and to deny the appeal. >> yes, there is two things: one, the basis for it. i don't know if you want to do it for the reasons stated in the motion. >> i accept that. >> we do need to adopt environmental findings. >> right. >> and i would adopt then the

findings that were confirmed by the planning commission. >> okay. mr. pacheco, if you can put quickly on the overhead, the draft set of findings that reflect the board of supervisors adoption of the planning commission environmental findings and including the mitigation monitoring and reporting program. okay. i think we'll have it in the record based on it being in the overhead. okay. so, the captions of these environmental findings displayed at the hearing. is that okay? >> yes. that's all right.

>> we have a motion from commissioner fung to uphold this large project authorization on the basis for the reasons stated in the planning commission's motion and with the adoption of environmental findings as displayed for the record on the overhead. on that motion to uphold, president hwang, aye, commissioner hurtado is recused. the motion is 3-0 on the basis of that findings. >> the only business in this is to wish the city attorney a

happy birthday. happy birthday. with that, we are adjourned. thank you. [ meeting is adjourned ] >> >>

>> (clapping) good morning. >> good morning. thank you, don for that introduction i'm glad to be here at the tonight center again. it's also great to be here. i was telling me our deputy secretary marie this this was one of the first when we went through the translation of that to use the arresting are a fund it was such an enlightening positive effort in the tenderloin to use the federal program that president obama gave us. i'm here to welcome you to san

francisco and thank you for being here for the home matters for health symposium. it is the right place to be because t n d c has been a powerful change and i'm glad their championinging the center between health. no one else can do that because you've got it it right here in the community. today's symposium is part of a commitment that our city is making. i wanted to let you know all the things we're going to continue the housing for everybody. last week, we you wanted up the

helen rogers and my good friend reverend hall was under its a public-private partnership that's now to just conclusions in the wonderful home for more than one hundred of our cities protecting and homeless seniors. 25 of those units are set aside for the seniors. and last month we broke ground to house youth that was formerly in foster he care we were in chinatown breaking ground for homeless families and protecting residents. all of those housing developments have supported services on site to make sure our residents live healthy lives. it won't stop there. let me repeat it will not stop

as a matter of fact, 25 percent of all the housing that's being built in san francisco 25 percent of them are affordable that continues a strong commitment from our city. last september of this year we annuity more resources to stop unlawfully evictions for our citizens and because of our cities careful planning we have to plan for the future and to understand the problems now not just to react to them our city it tripling the amounts of funds the human services provides which is nearly $8 million for the defense services for those who need it the most. some of those funds are coming from something we did last year the housing trust fund it was a

measure overwhelming passed and to the tune of $1.5 billion in the next thirty years. we are also in the midst of revigil our cities public housing and no more than do we want to be involved in poverty housing that is for isolated context. i've been working with deputy and hud here in washington to get off the treadmill and repair bag logs including elevators and i've asked our city administrator also the director of housing to partner with hud and to rebiological and expand

on the model that's the whole sf model. i'll proud of the process towards ending hopefullyness for our veterans. i want to thank you secretary john's and our local hud office veterans administration and for our partnership. since 2011 we've decreased homelessness among conveniences by thirty percent by opening the permanent housing for 75 conveniences with on site services and our two other successful homes for heroes. with the partnership from hud and the vouchers rapidy housing and the cities refunding of housing. all told over the last 9 years

we have some 10 thousand san franciscans have left the shelters for permanent housing including 3 had thousand units for affordable housing and housing first is my priority we'll continue to support emergency services particularly those with for those in needs. we're expanding our shelter for helping the lgbt folks and we've expanded our everyday connect. clearly our work is not finished. we've been talking about universal health care building on a world-class city and this our way to success. we're going to make sure that san francisco is a home for

>> here we are at the embarcadero. we are standing at one of locations for the street artists. can you tell me about this particular location, the program? >> this location is very significant. this was the very first and only location granted by the board of supervisors