and then a rebuttal for up to five minutes. with that, i will turn it other to supervisor mar. >> i want to thank the residents near lincoln park for always have the intent to improve or neighborhoods especially in the outer richmond. this is a project that's very close to lincoln park. it's about a block away between 31st and 32 and across the street from fresh and easy and cvs. it's a project that's move through the planning department and commission. the ceu was not appealed and what wez're hearing thod is the appeal of the planning commission and the department of public works approval of the tentative parcel pap. i wanted to just ask my colleagues to think about the process that we're at right now and i'll have questions

for planning once they're done was the appeal is presented. >> thank you supervisor mar, and now our appellants, you have up to ten minutes for your presentation. . thank you. i live at my neighbors and iz oppose the project as it is designed for the oppose the project as it is designed for the four story buildings are the exception rather than the rule. this particular four story building it would dwarf the neighboring buildings. the quiet livability of the outer richmond district is due to its careful balance of

homes. this project will bring 16 new units and 15 new bedrooms to this block. if you look at the floor plans submitted you'll see the three rooms labeled as den are i den identical added to this block. our block has problem with noise and parking from the existing four story apartments nearby. while the building provides one off street parking space for each unit, i any it's one car per beds room. i see my neighbors going to their homes parked in the streets. i don't see them pulling their cars out of their garages . with this new building we can expect up to 12 cars competing for parking in the neighbor with no parking left on clement street we can expect more residents parking on the

adjacent blocks. this is starting at zero residents, if we reduce the number of units to four rather than six we'll still be far ahead. we applaud the mayor's drive to bring more affordable housing to san francisco, however, these units are not median income rental units. they'll be selling for about $1.5 million each. this is hardly affordable housing. the reerz yard modification variance that was granted presents problems to be the neighbors. this project as it is is not compliant with planning code section 134 #5shgs 1 that requires a rear yard equal to 25% of the lot depth. it is not compliant to section 134 ashs 15a which requires a yard at ground level. we understand that a variance is granted to exempt this building from the code. the first problem we have is

the patio for these second floor units is at the same height of the second floor bedroom of 380 avenue. so what that means is when the patio's pushed all the way to the fence line, a person or that rear deck will come just within feet of the bedroom window of 380 32 and avenue. a person leaning of that deck can touch that person's window. the owner of 380 32 and avalos. knew is upset about this.

that will further violate the 30 foot height limit. because the thirds and fourth floors are not set back the building rises up past the limit and will cast a dominated shadow over the much smaller neighboring homes here. they'll lose sunlight in the bedrooms earlier in the year and earlier in the day. one of our neighbors is a graphic artist who depends on our natural light to do work

and it will affect her livelihood. the rooftop mechanicals will expose the neighbors to excess noise 24 hours a day once the ac, elevator, commercial space go up on the roof the neighbors will have little opportunity to complain so we want to raise that issue right now. the details of this project were poorly communicated to the immediate neighbors. p i'm appealing this project at this late stage with these reasons because quite frapgly i was ignorant of the whole appeals process. i received notice of the february meeting but i couldn't make it. i'm not an attorney or architect. i work a full-time job and take care of my three children. my neighbors are just like me and can't take off work to come down to city hall to observe a process that they don't understand or they don't realize the impact on them.

when i saw the final appeals go up after the demolition of the store that's when i realized i had to take the opportunity to write in and at least take this last chance effort to state my case. i've been speaking with my neighbors and many of them -- or some of them said they saw and received a notice just a few days before the hearing and they couldn't make arrangements to come down. others saw the notice and they kind of ignored it because they didn't understand it. but a lot of the neighbors didn't receive any notice whatsoever. most of them have no idea what's going up in that lot, they have no idea how large the building's going to be and they didn't know there was any rear yard variance . they're shocked at the lack of outreach by this project. some of them have participated in construction projects of

their own and knew the importance of neighborhood outreach. there they may not have been any perceived opposition at the earlier meetings, we are now much more familiar with this project going up. we haven't had the time on the last few days to contact all of our neighbors, but we're pretty confident that if we do, we will get much more support because those we contacted gave us our support. there's a diagram of our neighborhood, this black being the store. the red boxes are those are wrote in e-mails or signed a petition against the building as it is planned. i want to emphasize that we're not in opposition to have a building or store at this location, we're just asking for more outreach and transparency with this project. those of us directly affected by the sheer size of this

building request it be scaled back a bit so it will have less of an impact on our duly lives. we all plan to stay in our homes for the rest of our lives. thank you for this opportunity. >> thank you. now at this time i'd like to invite any members of the public who wish to speak -- >> through the chair, can i just ask him if he has the petition because i don't have it in my feel. p i know there have been a couple e-mails that have come in. >> i have copies i can pass around. >> if you can give that to the clerk that would be helpful. thank you. >> any further questions for the appellant. seeing none, we'll now proceed to public comment from individuals who wish to speak in support of the appeal for the tentative map. you have up to two minutes each. . if you can please line up

by the podium. seeing none, then we will now proceed to our department representative, who will have a total of up to ten minutes for their presentation. >> good afternoon, supervisors. bruce, city and county surveyor. we received this application september 30, 2014, circulated it to other city agencies on october 3, gave a tentative approval on december 1 and we received a copy of the appeal letter on december 2. that's all i got for you. >> all right, planning department staff. >> good afternoon. i'm emery rogers, and i'm here to respond to the planning related issues raised by the appellant. first, i'd like to talk about the extensive review process,

as well as approvals already granted by both the planning commission and zoning administrator. opportunity for public review occurred throughout those sets. there was no opposition to the project. no appeals of these past decisions by either the commission or the va were taken. the scale, density, rear yard dimensions of the project were considered at a join commission of those bodies. if the board wishes i can go through the specific s of those decisions. i will suffice it to say these decisions were reviewed at a public hearing when the project was approved unanimously on the consent calendar and they were considered nearly a year ago. as it could have been and the zoning straz tors rear yard variance was not appealed to the board of appeals so all those materials are provided in your packet. the appellant should have been addressed by the

planning commission and the zoning administrator when they considered entitlements to the project. eight letters of support were submitted at the hearing. we urge the board to reject the appeal to consider issues at this late day that the department, the commission and zoning administrator consider permitses before the board at this time is my belief. >> supervisor wiener, is there a question? >> thank you madam president. just a procedural question for staff, maybe for the city attorney. not even commenting on the merits of the appeal. people are entitled to their view of what's appropriate for their neighborhood and i respect anyone's views on what should happen in a neighborhood. this were now a year past

when this was before the planning commission and the demolition has already occurred and of course we -- when we have an appeal process we want to make sure it's happening in a way that doesn't just fragment the appeals and doesn't have a situation where a building's been demolished already and you're challenging the project. i assume this is appropriately before us or it wouldn't have been allowed on to the agenda. you can appeal the map, even though the arguments are more pertinent to a discretionary review. was this timing typical? is that normally done as part of the entitlement or after the entitlements because i'd hate to see this become a pattern.

>> i can let [inaudible] i will say that in the of san francisco we do things differently. in much of the rest of california the subdivision appeals are the first step and that's where the significant issues are considered because it's open space that be's being subdivided. of the property, but rather through the entitlements so in this case we did go through the land use entitlements through the commission. there was a required notice posted on site with a large poster. there was notice that was mailed to all occupants within a certain distance and all owners of property within a larger distance. those occurred as well as newspaper ads so that's the typical way we do i.t. in san

francisco through those public notice hear the zoning administrators is the proper of body for those and he has a different appeal process. >> in terms of the timing of the subdivision map, is this -- when was that mappish shubed? i know it's in the -- >> you received the application in september. september 30. >> and was that after the demolition had occurred? >> i don't have that information on here. >> okay. >> hang on a second. >> i guess the other question is, are there project sfon sponsors who will submit their subdivision map while their entitlement process is ongoing or is always after the fact and is it -- obviously this is -- given that that was submitted a long time after the fact. >> it's often while the project is on goingz.

going. sometimes we don't see the application until very, very late in the process. it depends on the developer. >> could this project sponsor have submitted that application earlier or is our system set up that this is when they have to do it? >> as ms. rogers was saying, san francisco is different than other places in the state or country. usually the property would be subdivided before all of the other entitlements happen. it's just different in san francisco. it's not uncommon for us to get a map when the project is

virtually done. at 10th and market, whatever the building is across from twitter, that building was essentially done when we got the map. >> let's say if this appeal were to be granted, the map were overturned, what would the impact of that be of the project now that we have a demolished site? would they have to not build it? >> in this case they could still build it, they just couldn't subdivide it. sometimes the planning commission will see a development for a number of units and the separately owned condos. in this case the ownership is what you're considering -- are you going to allow the parcel sizes to change position and if reason why it makes sense to do it in san francisco with the commission entitlements

upfront is because dcw doesn't have the authority to make the decisions. with these hearings there's increased public process to be weigh in on the most important issues. >> i don't want to take up too much time, when is the earliest when this project sponsor could have gone in and asked for the map. obviously the appellant can't appeal the map until i want's been granted so ultimately it's within that timing the neighbors don't control that. the timing is controlled by the project sponsor and by the department of public works and what i'm asking is could this project sponsor have filed earlier? >> the short answer so that is yes, they can file any time they want. >> they can do it in tandem with their conditional use. ? >> it's my understanding is the conditions are routed after the building permit has

been issued, which is after the planning commission-i believe it typically does happen at the end. >> and i don't know what -- you know, again, maybe we should make a look at what the law is. it seems to me that we should not be having subdivision applications for these projects happening a year or whatever it is after the planning commission approval. it invites these fragmented types of appeals and appeal happening when you have a demolition or maybe construction done so that's not a conversation for today. >> we'd be happy to discuss that. i have a may 14, 2014 site survey that shows the building to be demolished. >> thank you. >> thank you supervisor mar. >> thank you colleagues. i don't want to drag out this decision and i want to thank planning staff for their presentation and department of public works.

i want to thank the resident for bringing these issues to this body, but you're challenging a very routine commission by dpw and planning commission. the time to do this would have been in the conditional use process to raise the concerns but right now our hands are tied in my opinion on how much can be done. i want to address the lack of noticing that is alleged by the residents. a number of the residents say they didn't receive the notice, but my understanding is some were renters, not the owners, but i'll ask, what's the proper notice and was there adequate notice a according to the rules of the neighborhood. >> yes. i believe this were concerned about not getting the notice, but there was ha newspaper advertisement, homes within 150 feet of the property t

proper advertise owners in a 300 feet radius and a 30 foot sign posted at the site. >> thank you. >> anymore questions for our department representatives. seeing none we will proceed to the project sponsor who will have up to ten minutes for the presentation. >> good morning president tang, supervisors in for the project sponsor at 3838 clement l lc. i want to talk about the chronology of the project. i don't want to repeat what planning staff has already discussed, but supervisor wiener, to answer your question, demolition took place after the subdivision map application was filed.

that motion took place in november. the building permit to demolish the building and the permit to begin construction of the new building were issued in october of this year and demolition commenced after that time. so i first just want to talk about how long this project has been pending. the project sponsor began the initial outreach program with a neighborhood meeting in 2012. the project sponsor then filed an entitlement application, which ms. rogers already discussed with you in 2012 and that began an 18 month process in working with planning department staff on design that began an 18 month process of neighborhood outreach and

the project sponsor conducted extensive neighborhood outreach and i want to briefly show a map of neighbors that issued letters of support at the conditional use hearing. so you can see that the project is marked with a star and red dots indicate each neighbor that submitted a letter of support. as ms. rogers mentioned there was no opposition at the entitlement hearing, no appeals filed and at that point the project was fully entitled and ready to enter the next phase of development, which was getting its building permit plans in order, which takes time.

supervisor wiener, to get to your question about the overall timing of the development of this, part of the issue for consideration is how long it can take for architects to develop the building permit plans to finally get them approved by a dbi staff. it's our experience that while sometimes subdivision applications can and are filed consistent with the entitlement application, some aspects of the subdivision map act, dependsing on the type of application you're applying for, you need to have them granted before you can apply for a subdivision. that's another consideration for why there's oftentimes a lag between when an entitlement is granted. back to the project at hand, i want to talk about the limited scope of this project. the top photo here represents

the current project sight and as has been mentioned, it has been demolished. it has been levelled, and before some of the rain that happened in the last week or so, the project sponsor intended to start doing foundation work, which is the first stage in building the structure so before i introduce the architect, i want to run through the highlights of the project. they replaced a single space retail building and it's adding 9000 square feet of ground floor retail and six multifamily units on floors two through four. it was granted a rear yard exception and the project's second floor rear yard is actually the same size as required by the planning codes. the units themselves are going to be two or three bedroom.

i'm not sure the distinction between a den is something that's ultimately that important here. what's germane is we are talking about constructing a multifamily housing building on a relatively busy street in the outer richmond where a project like this is appropriate and these units will be offered for new families to move into the district. i'll introduce the architect to run through the project design. thank you. >> good afternoon members of the board. as mentioned we have been at this project since 2012 and our firm has held a couple of neighborhood meetings and worked with the planning staff, environmental staff,

building, planning, dbi, fire department to get this plan through. some of the design background for this project, if i show you the ground floor, basically we ask for rear yard variance so that we can provide the adequate parking agency required at the back and still be able to be achieve neighborhood commercial unit. the floors above are pretty much identical. the building has been designed scarefully so the two stair shafts and elevator is buried in the belly of the building so they're not overwhelming to the street or rear yard. with that, itch want to take a bin. of your time on available [inaudible].

>> any questions for our project sponsors. seeing none, now we 'd like to proceed to public comment. for those who'd like to speak in support of the project sponsor you have two minutes. seeing none, now we have the appellant if you'd like to present a rebuttal for up to five minutes. >> i forgot to thank supervisor mar for introducing my appeal. >> please speak directly into the microphone. >> the architect's own drawing shows there a 40 foot wall going beyond the height limit. there are these structures additional on top of that. we have a stairwell, penthouse, as it's called,

another stairwell penthouse. we're already talking about 8 feet beyond the 40 foot limit. i don't see how this meets the height limit. beyond that, i apologize to the board for taking up your time on bringing this matter up at such a late date. again, we are not familiar with the process, we're just average citizens that go to work everyday, try to get to work, take care of our families so when we see these signs, we see them all over the city. and in speaking to the meeting that happen in the store earlier in 2012 one neighbor actually went and i believe that's the one person the project sponsor is speaking about. when he went he said that the

owner was there, there were no plans, there were no diagrams and he was told that the store was going to be torn down and condos were going to be put up. there was nothing beyond that. there were rumors going around that are it would only be four units, not six. i think most of the neighbors were just okay with that, but in addition to that, i think the notification is really a big deal. most of the renters within 150 feet, they claim that all occupants within 150 feet were notified, that's absolutely not true. the renters were not notified. i was watching my own mail during this whole process. the only opportunity i saw in the entire period was an appeal hearing in february