>> welcome back, we are going

to go to 9 a. november, 13-109. mariposa utah neighborhood association, appellant(s) vs. planning commission, respondent 480 potrero avenue. protesting the issuance on august 08, 2013, to reza khoshnevisan @ sia consulting corp., sec. 329 adoption of findings - large project authorization (to allow construction of new six-story, 58-foot tall building with up to 75 dwelling units, approx. 970sf of retail, and up to 47 off-street parking spaces). case no. 2011.0430xe. motion no. 18945. for hearing today. >> >> this has to do with a planning motion, 198945 and i believe that before we begin, we have to hear from two commissioners. >> commissioners, i am recusing myself on the advice from the city attorney for a conflict of interest, financial. >> >> you are asking us? >> yes. >> we need to do it one at a time? >> no, there is no motion needed, this is a conflict under the code. and so. >> yeah. >> and okay, and i am declaring a conflict as well.

>> okay. >> thank you. >> okay. >> and i am extremely tired, but i am going to stick around because you all did too. >> so with that, we have three and that is all that we need for this type of an appeal. we still have a quorum. >> so they have asked him to go first and so you have 7 minutes. >> thank you. >> good evening, so, begin by speaking about the eastern neighborhood's plan, it increased the heights of most partials, and in the area to allow for the greater density and increased housing. and this parcel, the plan reduce the height from 65 feet to 58 feet so that the shadows would not be cast on the franklin square parks.

>> june 5, 1984, prop k was passed stating no building permit authorizing the construction of any structure that will cast any shade or shadow upon any property, in the parks. and the city planning commission shall conduct a hearing and shall disapprove the issuance of the permit. if it finds that the proposed project will have any adverse impact on the use of the property under the jurisdiction of for the parks, and to the city planning commission shall not make the determination, it had to be and it has to be referred to rec and park. and the zoning administrator will determine what application proposed structures that will cast a shade or a shadow on the property or jurisdiction of the rec and park. this is the shadow analysis

application. and on august, 30, 2012, the planning department conducted a shadow study and an impact letter was sent, stating that the project could not be approved because it would cast shadows on franklin square park. >> this only came to light after a sunshine complaint was filed with the task force and i had repeatedly asked the department for all files related to the proposed development. and for several months i have been told that i have been given everything that there was. and in june, two weeks prior to the planning commission hearing, i received this many more files, for the proposed project for 480 potrero avenue and this one is what the actual folder looks like and it is,...

and i will drag the rest of it and thank you. >> and hang on, thanks. >> this is scott sanchez's the zoning administrator's shadow case file. and for 480 potrero avenue and it says here, 830, 12/12. it cannot be approved and no shadows shall be cast on this park. >> the letter, the letter sent to the developer says that a more precise shadow analysis is required and the more precise analysis was to lower the scale for measurement from 75 feet to 68 feet, i think, in order to make the building pass. in between there have been no significant changes to the building. they just lord the scale of measurement. 58 feet is the base of the height of this building, plus it is measured from the mid point at grade which is three

feet and plus i was told that there is likely another three foot cornes at the top of the building and plus, 15 feet for two dual elevator shafts and plus, from the roof, from that measurement, ten feet for two stairwells. and any way, it is going to be 76 feet. and the shadow analysis, failed at 75 feet. and so, there is that problem. can i go back? >> this file was for the proposal of the former structure and that was going to be at 55 feet. and that was going to be the

absolute height of the building, one of the problems that we have with the application is that we have never been shown the measurements on any of the plan sets to the height of the finished elevation to the elevator penthouse because that is unusual because every other one has shown what the actual height is going to be, and so literally, this project will cast shadows on the franklin square park. >> and this was submitted to you in your briefs. and it includes, the side cut, you, looking on potrero avenue and these are the buildings on potrero and you can see that the building goes down, and the city guidelines say that the project should slope according to the hill, and doing the oragami i took this picture and folded it at the top of the elevator

penthouse and in fact, the building is the height of utah street which is a 20 percent slope from potrero avenue and so this is literally going to be a huge structure taller and the fan shows that it does not just effect our front yards, it effect our back yards. and on the back yards on utah and then into the homes on utah for the people who have the top decks or half of the skylights and so this is significant, and the fact that we don't actually know how tall this building is going to be is trouble some. >> i have, if i could pass out, and the alleged project application, i believe that there is a discrepancy in the code and this is from the large project application submitted and it is just one page if i could, but it shows that, the building for the large project exceptions and in the eastern neighborhoods are allowed to have either, all of the time. hold on. >> thank you.

>> yeah, i will accept it. >> the buildings in eastern neighborhoods are allowed to have either exposure requirements exceptions, or rear yard exposure exceptions, but not both. >> did you put the timer back on? >> sure. >> okay. >> keep going. >> thank you. >> we are also concerned about the trees, the tree disclosure statement says that there are no significant trees, there is a tree that meets the requirements on the property, and then one immediately next to the property. and also concerned that... okay. that is good for now, thank you. >> okay. can i see the picture of two? >> what is that? an illustration of? >> this is the illustration of the tree right here, on potrero

avenue. >> okay. >> and then another tree right here and then this tree in particular has i would have to look at the application but it has a... these trees should have been acknowledged on the tree, application submitted to the department. and they are not. and the new, landscaping, proposed for the building, does not include these trees, this one needs to be protected because of its height. >> okay. >> sxh this one needs to be retained because of its height. and so there is no indication that they are planning on doing that. >> understood, thanks. >> we can hear from the appellant, for the other appeal now. >> or whoever is going to represent them. >> my name is juan, and geonberg is the other presenter and we are going to split the

time. three and a half minutes. >> this is something that we just wanted to show. >> and you can put it up there. >> you can put it sideways, otherwise we can't see it. >> that way. >> and it depends on what you are going to do with it, i would not mind having it closer. and are you going to refer to it as you are talking? >> why don't you. >> and okay. lean it against the podium. and facing this way and you can still point to it, okay? >> but it is that... >> and now there is nothing. >> and is that okay with you? >> i think that it is... i am sorry i think that it is better on top. >> and thank you. >> so we will work with that. and we want to set the time,

three and a half and three and a half, if you could tell us >> we can't do that. i can give you a signal. >> there is a timer on the podium right there, you can see the time going. >> all right. thank you very much. >> starting the time now. >> okay. >> and i am here to this is jean, and i wanted to talk about the neighborhood character and so that is why we kind of wanted you to see a little bit about what was or how the neighborhood would be affected by this rather large building. and let's see. just... sometimes, the pictures that you get in the plans don't show exactly, like this guy over here is the mariposa gardens which is the low income housing that is right next to it and it is rather small compared to this. and the low income housing actually has a lot of

advantages that this large building doesn't and he has a lot of open space here and it is sort of set back from the street. and there is a lot of green that you don't see in this drawing. and right now, next to the building on two sides, we have sunnies auto here and on this side we have the verde club which are going to be dwarfed by this and the neighborhood, actually, is i have another little picture of it. and yeah. and it is, this is the low income housing. and this is where the 480 potrero will go, these are a lot of the two and three story houses on the hills with a lot of green and they are small and they are single and two family

houses. and the neighborhood has some problems. everybody has to perpendicular park and i think that they want to reduce the number of cars by reducing the amount of parking that is provided. and we don't find that to actually be realistic situation because the people put the cars on the street and that is going to be a problem because we have a lot of things in the city where the projects that are happening to put in the trees and putting the islands in, and reducing the parking to have the bike lanes and stuff like that and so adding this kind of density and this is only the beginning of the density that is planned to

be added, it, without, really increasing the transit opportunities, right now, you get on the number 9 bus, and it is totally crowded, and not only is it crowded but it is not safe. my daughter stood at the bus stop one time and was hit in the face just by some strange person, i would not, i don't want to take the bus because i am a little bit scared of it, sometimes it works fine. but we have we don't have wonderful transit there. and it is crowded, and we don't have great parking. so, this project does not really fit in the neighborhood, we have got, there will be adding 75 units and 46 parking spaces and it will change the feeling of the neighborhood and it will put shadows on people's gardens and that is something that and also the people who want to have solar panels, and that will, they will be discouraged from that because the shadows will be there and we think that there should be some more housing, and it is my

time is up. >> okay. >> thank you, commissioners, my name is juan, and i'm live on utah street up the hill from this project and we filed a brief and i am not going to through all of the points in the brief that show the issues but i think that it is suffice to say that we think that there are nine, you know, planning codes requirements that this project fails. it fails, it does not fit the neighborhood you can see from this model, it is grocery disproportionate to the other buildings in the neighborhood. it is next to a historical resource, the verde club and there is no protection for the club which we have raised. it, the, proponent keeps saying that well it is only 40 feet at the street but really the property is at least 58 feet with portions to go almost to 70 feet and it has only 48

percent of the units in this house don't comply with the planning code requirement for the open space and light. and it, also, it does not, safety the planning code requirements for a rear yard. so it is really a project that has been forced into a very small area, and it does not fit in the area and it is way too big for the area. and in order to make it fit, the planning department has agreed to all of these variances and the planning code that allow it not to have the proper backyard. and allow it to have, you know, 48 percent of the units open into a hallway and don't hope into an open space or either a win dowerer or a door and it is backyard, and it is the top of the parking garage. and so i mean that we really think that this project needs to be sent back to the planning department, and scaled down.

with the neighborhood, believes that the building no higher than 4 stories out to be allowed here. and that will allow that the design to be done in a way that won't require all of these variances in the planning code. and it will not overwhelm the neighborhood and will not threaten the club as much as this one does. and would, provide protection for the rest of the folks that have to live with this monster of a construction right in the middle of a very much residential neighborhood. we hope that you will take it back, and send it back to the planning department. and ask them to scale it back. and ask them to make it comply, and make it compliant with all of the protections that the planning code specifies and even under the eastern neighborhood, and new in the changed scenario, thank you. >> thank you.

>> thank you. >> okay. mr. keplyn. >> we, the motion holder has 14 minutes since there are two appeals. >> good evening, commissioners my name is sufy and i was born in san francisco and raised across the street from general hospital, just blocks away from the proposed project. in the potreor hill district. i am one of the owners. along with my mom, dad and brother, and we are proud to come back and invest in our community with my family started their construction business over 30 years ago.

there out an out reach project we made changes, we significantly increased the parking spaces from 38 to 49 and enlarged the bike spaces from 18 to 49 and decreased the number of residential units from 84 to 75, we agreed to install security cameras and motion lights to insure the safety of the neighborhood. we made revisions to the performer and on the comment including to but not limited to moving the main entrance south ward and centering it and providing set backs on the 5th and 6th floor that offer a build height of 40 feet and

made sure that no negative impact is imposed on the surrounding neighbors and we reached out and received support from the mariposa gardens and we got 24 signatures, the members came out and spoke out in support of our project and we have conducted significant community out reach and have worked with neighbors to craft a project that is appropriate for that neighborhood. we request that you deny the appellant's appeal, thank you. >> good evening, commissioners john, with the rose on behalf of the permit holder, the appeal before you is the planning commission approval of the new mixed development in the eastern neighborhoods, it is a decade long rezoning process and this project is the same time of development by that plan, it is consistent with the new zoning and because it ising in the district and the provides the higher amounts of districts resulting in 11 total. and it also provides 33 family

sized dwelling units more than is required by the code and now this is consistent with the existing surrounding neighborhood, and to be clear, it is 58 feet in height to the top of the building. and as he said the height limit was reduced to 58 feet and the top two floors are set back. and buildings across the avenue are roughly 51 and 48 feet high, just seven to ten feet shorter but eight to 12 feet taller than the wall. >> the mariposa street also has a steep slope. so the residential buildings to the east of the project, if i could get the projector, thank you. as you can see it is roughly the same height when you are looking at an elevation here, it is also a wide street and 100 feet and so there is significant separation between the buildings on the street and

also located a corner which is appropriate for a taller height and mapping to establish a strong corner presence, shadow surveyed conducted by the sponsor so limited impact on the surrounding properties, you take a look at the 4 p.m. shadow on the fall eqinox and the shadow is barely reaching the homes across the street, in the morning you are getting the shadows to the buildings not the homes. and now, in the brief they asked for an entire floor of commercial space, we don't think that is going to be supported by the neighborhood right now. this is still an industrial area, and any fear that potrero will change in the future are unfounded if you take's look at the zoning map from the area, here is the project site and the blue areas are pr and don't allow for the new development as well as these yellow areas which are low density development and so basically

you have the pink areas umu and here is the project site and these two are already residential and not expected to be redeveloped due to the planning codes and restrictions on the dwelling unit and demolitions this is the center and so basically you are just looking at this sight right here as a new development in the future, still the project does provide a smaller retail space suited for a small local business and as we stated in the brief, 24 nearby residents signed it in petition of the project. there are limited codes, and they are appropriate and this is exactly the purpose of the eastern neighborhoods there is a new section, 329 approval that was granted to this project that allows for a number of exceptions and the reason why they have the exceptions rather than having to get a variance, is because these are old lots and they are very large and there are not neighborhood patterns yet and the whole purpose of the neighborhood rezoning is to be able to apply to the zoning to each individual site.

and again, these exceptions are appropriate, and the rear yard and it is appropriate to have the interior rear yard up on a corner lot and the reason being that it avoids an open space along mariposa street, and it also provides a privacy and security to the residents that are using that yard and just to be clear, the modified yard is greater in depth than what it will be, it is 32 feet in depth and the requirement is for 25 percent of lot which will be 25 feet in depth, so the actual depth of the yard is greater and provided here and it provides an equal amount of open space as what a code compliant yard will be which is 3700 square feet and provides over 7,000 quair feet of open space on the roof and just to mention to the dwelling unit exception as well. the reason that this is required, is because, it is not technically a code compliant rear yard, but again, these units are facing on a rear yard that is as wide and her has more separation than the lots

than a typical rear yard. and i want to speak to the shadow study and the original study that was prepared by the department during the preapplication process was for a 75 foot building and the building that is proposed here today, is 58 feet to the top of the building and then a ten foot elevator penthouse so you have 68 feet of total height and the updated shadow it touches no parts and the shadow studies don't, take into account existing buildings in the neighborhood. thank you. >> before you take that last one off, the one with the colors. the next one. yeah. so what do those big gray squares? >> that is public zoning, so this, i believe is franklin square right there. and then, what is that? >> a muni yard. >> yeah, i know where that is, all right. >> okay. >> thank you.