francisco city build and her first question to me is, do i want to be a pile driver? i told her no. i said, you want to be a carpenter, you live in the city and you can learn so much more being a carpenter than playing in the mud like i do. and it is no a no brainer if it is a parking lot and you are missing residentials, units, why not put them in, maybe i could call and get sheraton in the union and help her get hooked up and maybe four years from now she can buy an apartment there, that is cool because ne girls just want a chance to get started with life and get their own place and start their own families and that is where it stands. they are waiting to go to work. and waiting for these buildings to get started. i support this project. any further public comment? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> the commissioners?

>> borden? >> yeah, i think that a few of us who sat through the eastern neighborhood zoning process and not everyone on the commission was actually able to be part of that or those hearings because of the way our code is and in terms of if you live in the area or have property in the area you cannot actually vote on those we spend a lot of time in the area of potrero and in fact we zoned the site where the safeway to be a mixed use project and we did contemplate along the corridor which is an extra wide street that is mentioned by many as a place where there is an opportunity for greater density for housing i think that some of the changes are an important part

of the project. this project sponsoring in relationship of the parking that we put forth. i know that it is difficult that they were not paying attention to the process that were on there while we are looking at the zoning changes but there was a lot of time in the deliberation on this topic and i know that does not make it easy for those being impacted. but there was a lot here. in terms of that process, there was an extensive review where we looked at the zoning of the laws and obviously additionally a review in this case as well. you know, i understand the change is difficult and the construction noise is difficult,

this is not something that they have any jurisdiction over. there has been a lot of out reach and the community is aware of this for a while and it sounds like there is a consensus of support because a some people re a lot less intense project and i understand that and it is difficult to have more density in the neighborhood and there was a place that would happen to me it seems like a logical location. >> commissioner antonini? >> yeah, i reviewed the literature and heard all of the commentary and i do share some

of the concerns by some of the opponents and particularly with regard to the parking, there could have been up to 57 parking spaces allowed under the evening under the eastern neighborhood zoning, they did bring it up to 47 which is a little better, but according to the deck it chose a demand for parking on this project is about 110 parking spaces so there is a deficit. that in and off itself is not a reason to not or to accept the appeal and it is spelled out here. but on balance, i think that the project does bring a lot of good things and it is too bad that it was not designed with more parking and maybe a couple of viewer units but i think that it does provide a lot of good things. it is going to provide a lot of housing for a lot of family sized units and it is an empty lot right now.

and issue such as you know, the rock formation there and that is the kind of rock there is in that part of san francisco. a lot of serpintine rock and a lot of members when you take when you are drawing into that and those are the things that are required of the builder when there is a lot of building that is going on there including general hospital. and a lot of smraises where they have done a lot of excavations and i don't see that as an issue and the views are not protected. and so i don't see any reason to support the appeal of the deck here. >> commissioner sugaya? >> yes. first i would like to thank the people who came out in opposition to the project for

having a well orchestrated presentation. we appreciate it when the points are made and people don't repeat themselves. i have a question for staff on the historic resources. the exemption from the environmental review on page 6 states that it has a treatment of the historic architectal resources and goes through some things with respect to the eastern neighborhood's plan and in the show place square north east mission and the survey and makes a conclusion that the subject property is a vacant lot. which it is. and it is not located within the bountries and identified or known historic district which is true. but then concludes that the subject property is not considered a historic resource for purposes of sequa which is true. but concludes that the proposed project would not result in the impacts on the historic resource. the club is immediately next

door to this proposed project. the club in the show place square survey if the chart that i have here is correct, show place square survey and san francisco, final. prepared by kelley and october 22, 2009. the club, as the 3 f, 3 c f which under the california and the state historic preservation system and it amines that they are eligible for the register as an individual property through the survey evaluation. how is it that the evaluation has concluded that there is no impact on the historic resource, when immediately next door, you have a resource and the report that was handed to me, not the report but the testimony that was handed to me with respect to the tread well

and rolo report concludes that the firm was extremely concerned about the potential damage from the vibrations to the nearby building. and including the club during the drilling and excavation. engineers considered the under pinning of the club to protect it from damage during the excavation phase when it was... etc. etc.. and in the evaluations that my firm does on historic resources, and we do an evaluation in the proposed project is not historic resource, but it is next door to the historic resource, there is always a question that has to be asked and that is during the construction activities will there be a potential impact to the adjacent historic resources. and in this case we have a geo, tech report which apparently has identified the potential for the damage to the verdi club itself. so i would think that unless i

have an explanation for this particular issue that the staff is going to have to back and redo this particular document. >> the building is adjacent to the site and the geo tech report and there is a lot of standard language in the report one thing that they are saying that the piles will not be sealed because of the difficulty of driving in the bed rock and driving the sheet piles that caused the vibrations with the damage to the buildings and it is reviewed by geo tech and the department of building inspection would require a geo tech and a new updated geo tech based on the foundation and the building plans, i don't see

that there is anything unusual about constructing the 6 story building adjacent to a historic building. >> there is, if there is excavation and according to the geo tech and the soils report indicate that the acceleration which is the vibration could result in damage to the building. therefore you have a significant and unavoidable impact. and therefore you have to do an eir. >> good evening, sa anterior jones, acting environmental review officer, the geo tech report was assessing the conditions around the site and making recommendations based on those conditions. those are issues that are addressed in the context of the building permit. they do not need to be applied as mitigations for the significant impacts because they are addressed through the

requirements of the building permit process and so there is not a significant impact requirement of mitigation was issued are addressed and the appropriate foundations and other actions such as under pinning on the adjacent sites are addressed through that process. >> and why in every other eir that we have worked on there are substantial and potential substantial and avoidable impacts associated with vibration? >> i would have to disagree. it is highly unusual to have substantial... >> the dirs that your department has prepared that has this language? >> that would be... that could be something to raise. that is can be something that is raised as an issue in

extraordinary circumstances. but, it is an action that is addressed through the building permit process, under pinning, is not an unusual step to take and it is a very common take and it is part of the building permit process. >> and we are talking about an impact to a historic resource. we are not talking about an excavation or whatever. and an historic resource is what we are talking about and the loss of that is a significant and unavoidable impact. >> vibration activity needs to meet a level. >> we have not analyzed what that is. >> the performance standard that is mried through the process is meant to protect... is meant to protect on the reinforcement of the historic becomes. >> that analysis has already been conducted as part of the environmental report. not left to the building

department. >> i am afraid that i have to disagree on that point. it is addressed in the standard way that it is addressed to all of the environmental documents. >> i disagree with that. commissioner moore? >> i want to speak to real life and what this building meets a number of objectivityives and the one thing that it does not do for any is fully understand the context surrounding the building. and while i think that on its own as an island on the large... which is the predominantly larger sites and and it does not understand the across the street with the smaller grain of residential and to respond to and i am speaking to the architecture of the building and i think that it is the same and i do think that the address is two different streets it needs to create the variety alongside of

those two frontages. and i'm not... i am talking about the height and i am talking about shadow and i am talking simply about how is the building rate? and if we are encouraging people to potentially in the future arrogate the height and put the buildings there which do not respond to the smaller surrounding grain we have a problem. this particular permit expresses itself of how it does not at all transition to the club. i would like to have the commissioners open the tab g. where under the shadow study and in the first picture, to can really see how the building has a blank wall through the significant alongside of the club. i do believe, and i see one

really bad example of how un(inaudible) at vaness, for building a very tall building where we thought it would be transitioning into a historic building which is on the east side of it. what is the building called? >> it is a small club. and looking at this building, now almost being finished i realized what a mistake we made not having a better transition between the small building, which is a historically... and the club, and in the long history of san francisco and the important building and this building is almost, and so i will be asking if we are considering to generally support the neighborhood and intend and it would be a greater attempt being made of having this building express itself as a significant amount of variety both on potrero as

well as on mariposa and take a very different step about how a transitions down with. i cannot accept it as it is proposed we might be using a unit and i have no idea how to do this, but in the form that it is proposed i cannot support the building. >> i will tend to agree with the comments about needing a step down, i believe that is on the mariposa side. what i want to ask about is the rear yard exception, so looking at what is in front of us, planning code wise, could you show us in the plan where the rear yard is, and what the need for the exception is?

>> in your packet, and exhibit k, and sheet a1.1. the highlighted area is the proposed rear yard. it usually requires an exception because this is not have the full and it is not extend to the full width of the property as a standard rear yard would be. and that therefore requires an exception for the rear yard. yes, if i may, commissioners, many of these projects take advantage of the exception and in this case basically what they have done is made the year yard deeper, but then shorten it off at the edge so it does not extend the full width as the staff is explaining. >> but does the square footage equal that of what the rear yard would have been?

>> it equals 25 percent of the rear yard. if we can include considerations on commissioner moore's step down, i could be supportive of the project. >> commissioner antonini? >> yeah, i was going to say that i would be in favor of a motion to approve, well, first of all, we have to probably move the environmental piece and i would be moved to not accept the appeal and approve the deck. >> second. >> and i think that we have to do that separately. >> i will recommend that you take up that item separately and obviously first. >> there is a motion to up hold the preliminary negative declaration and it has been seconded. >> okay. >> let's take commissioner comments? >> moore? >> that is the motion, because

my comment addressed itself more to continue... >> okay, commissioner sugaya. >> i just want to clarify, with the staff, so my understanding from what you said, is that in the case that a project is analyzed and the geo tech report is produced, and the geo tech report goes to the extent of predicting what the parcel acceleration will be, and if that then exceeds the standards that we know of, with respect to what kind of damage could be caused to.

and if you do not consider the vibration that could have damage as significant and unavidable,; is that correct?? >> in response, and again, sa anterior jones, the there was partnering level, and performance standards for the vibration levels at the property line, for a project. and with the geo technical report is doing is identifying the structural needs of the building and identifying the conditions of the site that might be or might need to be in place in order to accommodate the structural needs of the building. so it is not the purpose of the geo technical report to identify the particle velocity of the potential building methods, it is up to it to

create a situation in which the vibration or other geologic issues will not create a significant impact situation. and so, in the case of the geo technical report for this project, one of the things that it determined was that how the driving and a foundation, would not be most appropriate foundation for this project. particularly because of the presence of the bed rock and the existence of the building next door and therefore, the geo technical report recommended a different type of foundation that would not to create the situation, and the need in the case that the certain construction methods are chosen including piles that there might need to be under

pinning of the club and so the geotechnical report set out what measures might need to be taken and had recommendations for what types of building methods would be appropriate. and again, and measures for what needs to be taken in regard to each of the building types. but does not identify the specific particle velocity of the vibration. so, in the case of for the sequa purposes these are requirements that are applied through the required building permit process. and a significant unavoidable impact will occur if there was no way to reduce if there was no way to build the building without resulting in the vibration situation that would not achieve those standards or result in damage to the historic buildings, that was not the situation on the site

and this was not a situation on any site essentially and you can engineer out of the vibration and out of the vibration situation. and in, essentially all cases. >> but that puts off the decision and the analysis in the evaluation on to a whole other different process. that is since we don't know what the construction process is that there is an assumption in the document that it can be built without substantial impact. >> we do know, what the construction process is, the foundation that is proposed for the project is a mat foundation.

the conclusion is that there is not an impact and it does not identify that there is one next door or if there might be impacts and why they are not considered to be significant to discuss those in the document part of the document and rather than in the historic section is that there is material impairment, and by the project

to a historic resource. >> storing the materials next to the club that could damage the building and other activities such as excavation and whatnot that could have an impact. >> those, that type of activity, we were, it is no reason to presume that activity would be conducted in a way that it is having physical or causing physical blows or having the physical impacts to the neighboring buildings. >> and he is saying that the project is being constructed according to all applicable building codes. >> and then why are there

mitigations addressing that and eirs all over the place. >> they are typical measures that address the potential construction impacts. such as the construction manager and the company shall provide an educational program for the workers and with respect to the historic resource which is right next door. and the construction company will undertake and prepare a plan that shows that equipment and other things and protections will be put up on the building prior to construction activities starting etc., etc.. >> i can't really speak to other eirs. without having specifics. and those mitigation measures in general or in other eirs are

crafted. >> according to the specific of the pro-yekt and the project site and its setting and the particular of what is being done and so it, you know, there is nothing in this situation that warrants particular or unusual mitigation measures around those issues. >> thank you. >> i guess that i am in complete disagreement with that analysis. >> we have worked on many, many reports that have those particular impacts identified, and identified as potential substantial, impacts to a historic resource. and i am not talking about just any building. and they are identified in the eir and then they are mitigated through the various means that i just described. and you know, like, i can't

support the motion. that the eir, or that the environmental review is adequate. >> please call the question. >> on the motion to up hold the preliminary declaration, antonini. >> aye. >> borden >> aye. >> moore. >> no. >> commissioner sugaya. >> no. >> and wu. >> aye. >> that motion fails 3-2. >> is there alternate motion? >> maybe to continue? >> commissioner antonini? >> i would like to make a motion to continue the environmental neg deck appeal as well as the project itself to whatever available dates we have and probably going to be in september i would think. >> we could potentially commissioners place it on the august 8th calendar. it is not overly booked at this time.

>> okay. and my... and my charge to the staff would be to try to deal with some of the concerns that were brought up by the commissioner sugaya and also to project architect and staff to try to look at some of the concerns that were brought up by commissioner moore in regards to addressing the buildings to the adjacent to the property. >> and more contextual and if you want to summarize. >> what i am expecting and i would think that this is almost like a prototype for identification and the neighborhood is to find the buildings that were responsive to the scale and the surrounding buildings and which are all 25 foot lots as far as i can tell that the buildings and as they come out to the larger building don't look like massive area and space ships. and in addition to that, i want the building to be expressive on both sides and on the

mariposa street side and on the potrero street side and then transition down to the verdi club and that is an important thing and if the architect wants to step up? would you mind coming up? do you understand the discussion that we are having? >> i appreciate the concern and it is something that we discussed internally the relationship of the building that was proposed due to the existing verdi club there. and if i may speak to the condition of the variation from one to the other it is one building, obviously and many times in san francisco it will be an attempt... (inaudible) to to present a character of differentiation and in the valley and most recently a project