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.

>> okay. mr. tea gues? >> good evening, again, planning department, staff, i believe that this is the first large project authorization that has been appealed in the board of appeals and so it may be good to just kind of give a brief on... the second one. >> it is the second one. >> corrected then. but still briefly, just for the other people in the room, so the large project authorization is a relatively new process and authorization within the planning code it was born out of the eastern neighborhoods planning process and rezoning, that happened and was finalized in 2008 and took effect in 2009. and it has specific thresholds and only applies in the eastern neighborhood, and it only applies to large projects as the name would indicate. and that is measured by any

project that is going to be greater than 75 feet in height which this project does not meet or any project that is going to be a net, new addition of 25,000 square feet or more, which is what triggered this project to a large authorization. and it functions very much like a planned unit development functions in the code and those typically apply in our residential districts in a sense that it is really a recognition that the planning code a lot of the dimensional requirements are geared to your typical 25 by 100 foot lot in the city and you often have the larger development sites that have and they need to be looked at in a larger context and these are modifications are possible to be granted by the planning commission and in each neighborhood, this process was created to allow a little bit more certainty for these projects as long as they didn't

meet the code rerequirements and that is why it was developed in a way to get the board of appeals instead of the board of supervisors like a conditional use and it is also different from the conditional use in the sense that the conditional use requires the very specific findings about whether or not the project is necessary or desirable and those type of findings are not required for this type of project. and it was really designed and it is written to the code that this is very much, about design review. and again, these exceptions that can be granted are really based on whether or not the project meets the intent of those code sections, but, the large project size, and good design, makes it okay, to grant those exceptions. so, with that behind us, just in the background about the specific project that you notif

requirement for the large project are the same as the conditional use and that means that you must meet the notice by mail and the owners or property within 300 feet of the project site and this also

requires 312 notification and also created and that requireds notification, and no notification to owners and to the occupants within 150 feet. and this did include, the mariposa gardens to the south and the documents in our files do indicate that all of the occupants were included on the mailing list, regarding how it has been mentioned that as part of the eastern neighborhoods, some properties were very specifically up zoned in terms of height and some were down zoned, this project and this property was down zoned from 65 to 58 feet and there is no bulk restrictions on the site. the 58 feet, for the code is measured from the mid point of the project site along potrero avenue and as it was mentioned the fifth and sixth floors have been set back 5 to 7 feet so it

does create a wall along potrero and mariposa and they were moved at some point to help to minimize the impact on the streets as well >> regarding parking, they are providing 47 off street parking space and a basement level garage for the dwelling units that is a ratio of 0.63 per unit, under the code requirements. maximum that they could have approved was 57 and so ten additional parking spaces and the garage will also include one car share space which is required by the planning code for this project. >> addressing the exceptions, again, the idea here is that these exceptions are granted with the understanding that the project is still meeting the intent of those code section and so i will address each one that was issue specifically. regarding the rear yard, in this district, it is required to be 25 percent of the lot

depth and it is required to be at the lowest story containing a dwelling unit. and so this property the project does include ground floor dwelling units and so per the code the rear yard will be required at the ground level and as was mentioned per the code you will have to pick a frontage and the rear yard will have to run the entire length of rear. >> and it is common in projects like this to have the rear yard instead, the second floor, usually a ground floor commercial space and or the ground floor parking garages and where you cannot or is not practical to do a single strip, of the lot depth, instead, you provide a 25 percent area in the kind of interior corner which this project does and it is actually larger in that area than the co-compliant rear yard would be, in terms of the exposures they are required to look on to

a required rear yard or the street. and the units look on to an area that is as larger as a co-compliant rear yard and the height exception was for the space that was added after the last minute but later in the project, and per the suggestions from the neighbors and the other consultations and it does not meet the minimum requirement of 17 feet which is the minimum requirement because of the fact that pdr space, is encouraged to be putting in there when it is possible and higher ground floor heights are used there, in this situation, it is a small space that is not likely that pdr space is go into that space. is that my time or do i have more? >> your time is up. >> okay. >> i am available if you have questions. >> he does get 14 minutes. >> yeah. >> sorry. >> there are two appeals.

>> thank you, for the clarification. so moving on from the exceptions, there was concern about the potential impacts to the verde club next door on mariposa and the impacts to a historical resource are the environmental issue and those are addressed by the negative declaration and there are no property line windows either existing on the property line, on the verde club or proposed in the new building, and the closest to that would be some windows, to that property line, and at the fifth and sixth floor which are set back and well above the existing verde club building and regarding shadow, just to be clear, the docket that was shown, with the sanchez is diego who was the project planner, not scott sanchez, and although it is

correct that the zoning administrator has the final if it is need to be reviewed by rec and park it was determined that this project would not cast the shadow on the square and so that review is not required. and additionally, the shadow determination is not the subject of the appeal today. and regarding shadows on neighbors, the planning code, and the general plan, do not protect or really address, shadows on private properties it is more of an issue of the public owned and public owned spaces such as rec and park or public plaza and regarding the design, there is a built form chapter, to the mission area, plan. and where that this project falls in the mission area, plan as part of the eastern neighborhood and it was deemed to be consistent with that chapter of the area plan. by the mrning department and the commission and i will be happy to answer the questions

if they come up in conclusion, the project is consistent with the planning code and the general plan and this project is very much a product of the eastern neighborhood plan. and the planning department position is that the large project authorization was appropriate granted. and i am available for any questions that you may have. >> thank you. >> we can take public comment, and i would like to see a show of hands. okay. >> if you have not done so if you come up and you are willing to have us accurately reflect your name in the minutes, it will help to fill out a card or present a business card, and if you could line up on the far side of the room. to get everybody going. and the first person can come up to speak, and we are going to go with two minutes at most. >> it is set at 7 instead of

the 14, i don't know if they wanted tra time. >> it should have been 14. >> yeah. >> you can just give the card to him when he come up to speak. >> okay. >> yeah, both of them, yeah. victor, both of them spoke. not a combined, seven. >> i don't think that i ever changed it to 14. because it was 7 for him and 7. >> no but, both individuals, there spoke representing. >> but i think that they used combined times. >> they did? >> you are fine. >> okay. >> so the first person can come up to the podium and also i want to make it clear. >> that we are doing two minutes. >> because fp the late hour. the number of speakers. >> right. >> and just want to make it clear since one of the appellants is a community

organization, or an organization that the rules also say that board members and officers of the organization should not speak their time to speak is under the time given to the party. just to make that clear. >> thank you, commissioners. my name is jr, and i am the president of the boosters neighborhood association and i am also a resident of 400 and utah street and so i am living in the close proximity to this project. we have identified a few problems with the eastern neighborhood plan and certain loop holes and way around the general ideas that were proposed and things that need to be fixed and the things that this project unfortunately demonstrates to the maximum capacity possible. first of all it is the height

exception and while the mid point time on this project may be within the zone height and that roof is a useful roof and it has people on it and it has, the elevator shafts on top of it and the building is higher than the actual zone height and that may be in the permitting as it currently is, but we feel that it is outside of what the plan was supposed to represent. and there is concern about the amount of commercial space in this project and the exception that has been granted with respect to that space.

>> they decided not to put that in there and as a result they are not supporting the neighborhood. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please? >>j to tell you about the

process that the developer did the out reach to us at mission housing and we were able to provide our community space

within mariposa gardens to have the neighborhood meetings and we invited the residents, and the surrounding residents and business owners and the developer was very gracious, to come, to a number of meetings, four or five meetings that we had. and answered, lots of questions, that residents had, and showed us, that, at meetings, that changes were made to the development, concerns were being listened to, and everything from the size of the building to the number of units to the amount of affordable housing and all of those questions were dealt with the developer answered the questions and made the changes and i want to say one more thing and i was there when we developed mariposa gardens and it is interesting that some of the complaints that i have her

in this project were similar to the other project and that is 100 percent affordable housing 63 units we support this project. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please? >> good evening, commissioners. mr. sanchez with the carpenter's union and first of all i want to say that san francisco is growing. and we need housing. and this building has all of the provisions of the general plan which is housing, and also, this project was approved by the board of supervisors and also by the planning commission. and so those folks they know what they are approving. also, if i am not mistaken, the objectives of the eastern neighborhood plan is to maintain a nice mix of neighborhood, and commercial. and this project has given us.

and i think that the developer's goal is to improve the area. and make it a more friendly, so please, deny the appeal. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please? >> mira, aliza and i am here to support the appeal for the project. and we are primarily concerned about precedent setting high limit ex-exception and shadows and traffic and parking in the area, potrero, avenue is incredibly crowded now and with the amount of development coming it is going to get worse and for anyone to say that there is no environmental impacts on the park and traffic, restrictions that are coming to the neighborhood, are really not looking at the situation, and realistic fashion, the fact that people are going to stop driving cars has not panned out and the traffic is bad all over the

city and getting worse. the shadows from the higher buildings will have a number of negative effects on the neighborhood. and i did a search on the... production in the area, buildings over 5 stories require more electricity per unit and while the roof storage per unit shrinks has the height goes up. >> the more high-rises we build and the denser the population, the more dependant that we will be on the electric grid. they can cancel each other out and there is a limit of the scale at which the production can pull fill the needs of the building and that limit is four to five stories and based on the square footage needed to produce enough power to make the system viable and the major requirement other than the

scale that there be no shadows on the roof and most in the immediate neighborhood can be solely independent so we do not buy into the theory that the it is the most efficient way to house people, thank you. >> next speaker, please? >> and thank you, my name is jeff, and i am the owner of a property at 485 potrero across from the proposed development and i am here to oppose or to support the appeal and while the developers have offered a lot of engagement with the community, ultimately what is at issue here is the shadows that have been cast on my building and property that i have worked so hard to own here in san francisco, but the rest of my neighborhood that is on the opposite side of this development, the hard fact is that we are going to be dwarfed

by a giant shadow of this building at six stories and it is going to effect not only my personal heating, and energy costs, and supporting my family and my young son, but also, just casting an entire shadow on my backyard during a good part of the day. so, this project largely just puts my whole building in the dark. and for a considerable portion of the day, and i think that it is out of character with the neighborhood, there is no other building that is this size, and i think that it sets a very bad press did precedent for the development in the area and i think that it can be dense that does not have to be six stories, this is very co-henive where they have a lot of resource and condensed the amount of effort to build this development so there is plenty of room for profit and as they have stated on numerous occasions they do not intent to

sell many, and i would maintain that we can having affordable housing and a development there without having such a structure dwarfing the neighborhood out of character. thank you. >> i have been living there for 27 years. and i know that it is late, so i am going to give you just three letters. tfb, too freaken big and there are too few parking spaces thanks. >> next speaker, please? >> thanks, commissioners for hearing us. i know that it is past everybody's bedtime most likely, my name is dean and i am the president of the verde club and i am a third generation san franciscan and my family the tory that my

mom's maiden name and i have lived on utah street for 18 years and i know that does not give me special rights, but this building that they are putting in, i have been with this since the beginning and it has been rubber stamped all wait through planning because the verde club is the historical and all that they have to do is a study on it but it did not have to be approved and then there is the sequa and the eir and all of these things and one report was ten years old. you know, i just think that we are being run over by this big building and it is going to be huge. >> the developers have been nice and tried to accommodate us and they say that it is born and raised there, but they don't live there any more and with the, and you know, what they are getting out of it is rent. and they are making money off of this, which there is nothing wrong with that. but it is just too big, and

potrero avenue is constantly fire engine and ambulances and to add more cars and who got the great idea of putting a residential property when it is zoned industrial. those do not go together, do they? to put that many people and any way, thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker please? >> hi, my name is benny and impart of the ownership of the body shop next door and i want to point out a couple of things before i go with my spiel they said that they were enthuse enthuse when they got 24 signatures we got over 100. i love the fact that the mission housing authority, owner and talked about his project, 62 units and no higher than two floors and spread

across on the higher square block. and they are talking about 75 in the tiny corner of our block. and now, on my spiel, i am at the body shop next door and like i said we have been there 16 years and i am going to be there for another 20 and we just extended our lease and we are in the m1 industrial use zone, behind me block is a plumber, and is a furniture construction, and there is the artist studio that paints, and we paint all day. i have got neighbors across the street that don't like me because they can smell my paint in the afternoon and i have neighbors on the block behind me that come over and say that they have a newborn that can smell my paint in the afternoon, luckily the fire department and the bay area agree with me thatvy been there well before and that i have grandfather rights that we have the right to spew paint out of our exhaust that is properly filtered. >> okay if you want to put a 7

story building right next to me and have my paint reach up on to their roof deck open space, and reach down into their recessed backyard, where they are kids are playing? i think that i don't think that you guys have any right to be poisoning people or to approve a plan without thinking clearly which she did not considered industrial applications around the block that have been there for ages that are not leaving any time soon. >> thank you. >> thanks. >> okay. >> hold it please, that is okay. >> my name is olga, >> please use the mic. >> i live at 467 potrero avenue and that is across the street

>> we bring up the shadow and because it is so far-reaching and it even is, it gets, even the morning shadow that is on the other side of it, and it is even father, reaching. and we have a picture here where the developer had made this, and this is a shadow that they say would cast, this is the shadow, that was cast by the previous building. and this was the penthouse and it was actually, two and a half and it was two stories plus the penthouse and this is the outline of the penthouse, and this photo was taken in 1997

and even the appendages on top of the building will cast a shadow and maybe even a longer shadow and when they are talking about the height of the building they often would mention like, even in this picture, that these are, it is a similar to the one across the street. and it is actually two and a half stories. and three stories here that is three and a half stories and then, add another story for this, for the back side. and then, on utah street, across the street, that is five and a half stories, and you actually have the six story building that is taller than the tallest building that is on the top of the hill. and, we just feel that this street cannot... sorry, this street... is what we are talking about. that is mariposa gardens and this is the former building

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 e