building containing 77 residential units 947 units and 74 parking spaces and it is vacant with no structures and adjacent auto body shop has been using it as a illegal parking lot. and before you and the containing a executive summary and the response to the appeal letter. and published a focus and the exemption in 2012, on october 17th, the department received an appeal letter. the department received letters. the construction of the project

could cause. due to these changes, they appealed on april 15, 2013, and there are no changes to the conclusions and for the projects and plan areas such as this, the project is reviewed for the significant impacts that are not addressed in the ier, for this project it is the eastern neighborhoods and because the project would have a significant project specific impact, related to hazard, and this is in addition to the planning exemption, and response to the issue, and raised by the commenters and the department found that the phase one information to conduct the environmental review and subsequent to the pmd the sponsor obtained a new phase one and does not change

the findings. the department will require an updated report and review the project building application, pursuant with the implementation of the building code. the environmental review was noticed in the requirements of the san francisco administrative code and they have been met. and while implementation of the proposed project will result in a building that will be viewed as one of the larger buildings in the area, the project will not result in the substantial and negative change in the environment. the project is consistent with the development assumptions in the eastern neighborhoods and complies with the planning code. staff knows that there are no substantial evidence of the significant environmental effect that has been presented and warrant preparation of a

new eir. recommend to adopt the motion and holding the mmd, the commission will not restrict the ability that the uses or design are appropriate for the neighborhood and that will be discussed in the agenda item. and this concludes my presentation, and i am available if you have any questions thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners these items were called up together and if you so choose to up hold that preliminary negative declaration, there is a request for a large project operational to hear the presentation for now. >> a new building will contain 47 parking spaces and a one level basement parking garage and allow for exposure

(inaudible) and the urban mixed use zoning district and a 58 height designation, 10,000 square feet of total open space will be provided by an open courtyard. and the access will be from both the avenue and the street and it will have access to the parking garage (inaudible) and the project generally conforms for the development standards.

>> public comment will be taken on aand b at one time and so if you want to comment on iitem it is your opportunity. >> i have a number of speaker cards.

>> are you the first speaker? you can get started. >> i am jean (inaudible) and (inaudible) of the luna neighborhood organization and we have been working on looking and trying to understand this project for a while.

luna and the (inaudible) club appealed the deck and based on the community plan issues, a lot of different community plan issues aesthetics and actually some of the community plan issues that we were appealing against. some of them are explaining more of why we appealed the deck and some of them are telling you why we don't feel the project is really appropriate for a neighborhood. a lot of it has to do with parking and public transportation, there is not a lot that we know about to make

the public transportation any better, but we are going to have a lot more people using that planning department does have the idea that if you restrict the number of cars that a unit can have, that there will be more people using transportation, you know, the muni, and we don't see that really happening, what we see is the more units there are, the more people start parking perpendicular instead of parallel and the whole place becomes very car full. and we feel like we are told that construction is out of character with the neighborhood and we are also concerned about the club that is a historic resource and about the pace at which the phase at which some of the reports were given to you. but the folks here are going to tell you about each piece, okay?

my name is robin and i have been born and raised on the hill for the last 55 years and i have been on the same house on utah street. we are asking the commission to enforce and guarantee your policy 1.2.1 to insure that in those housing development is comparable, compatible with its surroundings. from 16th to 24th street, commercial one story buildings 9 commercial units. and two story buildings, commercial units nine. stour story 3. three stories we have 14, and the bottom floor garage is not counteds a story, a 6 unit department building is completely out of character with the existing residential and commercial buildings. here is a picture of our

resident area. and that has been there for many, many years. the other one, are commercial buildings that are on the avenue as they exist now. the planning department has listed as a two story building and they took down or must have gotten down to the second story. there is also letters written by miquel who worked in the commission department sent a letter on january 22nd. and the avenue is a wide major transit corridor, both sides of the avenue from 15th to 19th consistently primary a retail and commercial and minimal amount of res denial. none of the residential with

the exception of (inaudible) 530 potrero avenue. property lines are entirely gated. the recommendation and the ground floor and the commercial retail would be keeping in a mixed use stretch and preferred use and not residential. residential units count as possibly parking and should be mandatory from the site thank you for your time. >> we approved this project. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please? >> my name is olga gist and i

live at 467 potrero. the height of the building is not in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood. and the policy 311 of the mission plan states that a suitable building must adopt the heights at that are appropriate for the mission's location in this city. the per veiling streets and blocked pattern and the anticipated land uses while preserving the character of the neighborhood. the character of this neighborhood surrounding 480, would be changed radically with the addition of a mixed story building. the neighborhood connects with both the mission and the residentses in this mixed use setting and it is more suburb ban and much below the high-rise and it means that the

family pride of ownership and old, yet well maintained properties. directly across from the 480 potrero are the three story residential buildings and to the death of the gardens with its 2.5 story roof line, and it is set back from the sidewalk with a front yard and provides for ample open space compared to the proposed open space at 480 potrero. the 68 foot building will be the most prominent building along the entire potrero avenue from division 13th street to the end at 26th street. even at san francisco general hospital the only building of similar height is set back from the sidewalk. the club is 2.5 stories and auto body which is two buildings combined is two stories. the 58 foot, and i mean the 68

foot height of the proposed building is substantially taller than its neighbors. occupies more than 1 third of the blocked frontage and at 68 feet towers more than two-thirds above the neighbors and even more imposing from the west, since it rests on the top of the down sloping neighborhood. and that is a valley, between potrero hill and twin peaks. no views are blocked to the surrounding buildings. >> i have been a joint home owner at 459 potrero avenue and

which is directly near the project. the exemption states that the height would not be taller than the surrounding buildings and that the shadows would not be considered substantial and that the loss of the light of the private residents and would not cause the entire men shall impact and demonstrate that this is not the case. this slide and the next slide shows the analysis of the current proposed project one hour after sunrise and one hour prior to sunset. the shadows extend beyond the line shown after these times. and we can see the shadows are completely covering and the partial shades of utah and mariposa street. and to the neighborhood and the mission is that it is funny. this particular is why we can move to this neighborhood and as well as other people. and this created a 480 project would cause an impact and the

sunlight from the west provides warmth from the morning to the evening. and there will be a market increase in the use of light and heat and once the shadows of the project cast the darkness and at least 36 hours of increased use per day and for at least 21 units on the avenue alone and more units on utah street. also the 480 shadows will significantly negatively impact the greenry and the land scapes of the neighborhood. the long sunshine hours of the neighborhood in regard ans for the front and back yards. it is the sunshine and the other city and the neighbors are able to grow the pepers and flowers and trees on the hours that the neighborhood is privileged to have. all that have greenry will not survive the long hours, as a home owner and real and tangible goal is to have the panels installed in the near

future, my neighbor, has 20 panels installed on her house that feeds back to pg&e and a car that is powered by her panels this is the kind of clean energy that should be encouraged and promoted and not preventing. the cap of the 40 project will be preventing the option for the future. once the 400 potrero block as the other as well as the other shadowed areas. the san francisco general plan is also called a master plan recommends the following. the new project should establish the san francisco model for energy management. and encourage the that.

>> the people who want to respond to the project sponsor's presentation should be allowed to speak to that. >> apologize that we take a break now and ask the project sponsor to come up and continue the public comment after. >> you will have the opportunity to speak to this item. >> yes. >> this is ridiculous. >> we should just go ahead with the hearing and have the sponsor come up afterwards. >> can't do that. >> if you provide the public comment now and do not allow the public comment later, the public will not have an opportunity to comment on the information that the project sponsor provides to the commission and because that is

part of the presentation, the public needs to be given the opportunity to comment also on the comments on the presentation of the project sponsor. so in fact stopping public comment now and allowing it to proceed after the project sponsor gives his presentation, will provide for greater accountability to the public. >> i suggest that we split the two in half. >> and continue with the appeal hearing first and then take up the project afterwards. >> other commissioners? >> commissioner antonini? >> well, i think that what is happened is that many of the members of the public have been speaking on the project as they were advised to do. and you know, they are some what part and parcel and i would agree that what the city attorney is take a break and let the project sponsor present their part and then keep the same line and let the public speak in that order so we don't

have to go through two different hearings. >> to the city attorney, though, after the project sponsor gives their presentation, members of the public that have already spoken, do they have another opportunity to speak? >> the deputy city attorney, i would recommend that you would provide a brief opportunity for any members who have already spoken to address solely issues raised by the project sponsor and in their presentation and not to reiterate comments that they have already made but only if they have any brief additional comments to make about the project sponsors presentation and anyone who has not yet spoken would obviously. >> let's stop now and let's take the project sponsor's presentation and those members of the public that have already spoken can speak to information given in a presentation and then we will continue public

comment. >> we have been meeting and we have had different versions of this plan and this is the latest set that we have and so the first thing that we look at is the views and the neighbors, you know, these particular that are located on utah street and

are worried about the views and the size of the business. and so i will show you if i may have the overhead. if i can have the overhead available. this is us standing on top of the utah street and the sight is located here and this is the corner. and we are going to hit on the superimposed building and this is the previous version of the plan which had no set backs and this was mostly for the environmental study purpose. and as we can see if i could

have that overhead again. do you see how high the top floor of this building. and mostly for the most part all of those homes up there on utah street are lined up at that level and we will not have an impact in their view. we have an issue of (inaudible) the building is too big. so we looked at the neighborhood and how this fits on potrero and we asked our survey or to get out to the site and to shoot the elevations that the buildings across the street, and see what type of impact is it that we are going to have and on the homes across the street. and as we can see, either the two homes, the lower home is elevation that has 479 feet and

the and it is 410.4 and the roof top elevation is 115, and seven feet higher than the buildings across the street. one reason that we cannot come up with a compromise is that they are asking us to move the two floors off of the building and they will be with a building that could have been two stories shorter than the two or three unit buildings across the street and to move that street out. and then there was the concerns that the shadow

>> the block at the back of the building does not have a pattern of the mid block open space and the gardens and nobody is planting any trees or vegetable gardens or nothing that we are going to effect and so all buildings back there are covering in the lot and 100 percent. and so in the mornings that we figured that it is a non-issue. this is a shot of 3 p.m. march 21st, the same day in the afternoon. and actually my birthday, that day. so, we picked that day, at 3:00 p.m. and i want to point out to you that potrero is 100 feet wide and this is almost the highway. and as you can see there is the

shadows of this building that will go nowhere near the buildings across the street and when i go to the extreme and pick december 21st at 3:00 p.m. and now we are starting to cast a shadow at the front portions of the buildings or the lots across the street. that if you look at the block first and all of these buildings, they have a substantial set back. and there is a garage or a front yard and so we are not going to cast a shadow on the living rooms and i want to emphasize that we are only 7 feet above the top of the building across the street. and so then that means that we feel that you know, that there will be having an impact but the other thing that i would like to quickly emphasize is that you know buildings that came before you, at 55 foot

tall was approved for years ago which was (inaudible) and we are a few feet higher than that. it is a large building and in addition in regards to the and the rest of it, we looked at the relationship of this house to the vertical because we understand that you know the (inaudible) is a building and we want to see what kind of impact we have on this is the

fact that the picture that the attorney granted to us and you can see that the building was towering over the building any way and we are zoomed into what we generated for you and if i may have this for you again. >> we have set backs. >> we can't see. >> sorry. >> so again we are not really proposing anything that is substantially bigger than what was there before and what was once approved. >> i would like to pass this to my colleague that can tell you the rest of the architecture of the building.

>> good evening commissioners, my name is brad terel and i am a senior staff consultant and i just want to review the process by which we presented to you today and with the organization of the building and i will not waste any time there. and the easterly and southerly orientation and a corner lot with a courtyard and it is a four story building that has been employed to set back the building at the top stories. to help soften that relationship the building has in fact to the street and mitigate that impact and the relationship that it has to the context of the building there.. and that i can provide is the

aesthetics concerns that are of a finer grain that way. we worked hard over the last several months to make modifications and to come to terms with a design that we are both proud of and we think is successful. >> and so the architecture to follow the suite with the 25 foot module. and provided on the ground floor and above and we have a number of points of entry in terms of a substantial lobby and to the building and a modest commercial space and retail space provided on the corner appropriately so, and with the architecture above that and that is appropriate for the scale of that street there. >> and then the finer grain aesthetics on top of that larger move is something that we look at the proportion and size-openings, windows that allow the light into the space