and vote, you need to acknowledge that you have actually viewed that video. and i want to disclose it and i had the opportunity to review, on the video through the sfgov tv and prepare to take action today. >> and i did the same. >> thank you, commissioners. >> and although i called the items up together and even though you had a hearing, and closed public comment because they appear on your calendar today. that does appear that the members of the public to speak to the item and i would encourage the members of the public to speak to the item only for new information and even though i called them up together i recommend that we take action separately. >> okay. >> good afternoon, president fong and commissioners planning department staff is joining me is joy, senior planner. and before you is an appeal of a preliminary negative declaration for the project that includes the 6th story mixed use building including 75

residential units and 970 square feet of retail use and 47 parking spaces after the july 18th hearing, commissioner sugaya raised the concerns about the vibration and the impacts on the club building which is a historic resource. and the concerns that you should have before you, and dated august first and the e-mail from the environmental review dated august 5th. >> and the tech report from the project sponsor. and the report offered several possible methods of and the vibration could be avoid.. construction is a common situation? san francisco. and the codes and regulations adequately address the situation and there is no evidence that the construction of the project would materially impair the adjacent building, the proposed project lies on the impact analysis of the

eastern neighbors eir and does not identify the damage to the historic resources of the significant had

arranging anything and we looked at the building, and one thing that, one diagram that i would like to show you if i may have the overhead. lighter gray is the approximately location of the

foundation. and this is where our building would go and we are hoping to put the foundation next to the club and as you can see we don't have substantial excavation and our driveway is where it is today and as the previous building was located. we have changes from the club and i am going to have brad talk to you more about that. and so, this changes that we have done on this has resulted in the loss of about 500 square feet and two levels.

and loss of two units and height, next to the club, and then, i want to talk to you more in depth. and in regards to that design aspect. >> my name is brad (inaudible) with the senior design staff. we prepared provision and we met with the planning staff and we met with them a couple of times to discuss the options and met with them in the ways for the design, it is a 6 story 58 foot high building on a lot, to the south and to the east on the courtyard and the building is organized by a 25 foot order

and is organized on that edge, and on the overhead and you can see the revised eladministration that we have prepared against what was presented the last time around. >> and let me go through a number of the alterations that were planned here. you can see it to the right of the page here. >> can you zoom out a little bit so we can see it. >> yes. >> to differentiate the

elevations and to address the relationships to the west, at the verde club there and with respect to the elevations we have a number of things happening on the building. and primarily on the potrero street elevation we have broken the building into two larger parts this way and organized adjacent buildings in that way, i want to make sure that is understood as a primary move in the way that the building was organized. and supporting that are two

block faces that are organized in a symmetrical fashion that way. and so a further announcement in the density and the window treatments and the lobby at the floor were made. and you may notice that there are a number of points and the walk up units and addressing in the neighborhood stimulations that way. and it is corner oriented. >> and this is the before picture for the elevation, on the south side, this is maraposa street and the questions with regard to the building volume and the relationship of that building to the adjacent structure were taken into account. and here you can see it has been adjusted on the elements projecting on the sand stone elevation and the bays were

reduced to two stories projecting and a number of in fact, three of these recessed boundaries and in to the of that way and complimenting that and we have done that on this elevation by creating a softening or a pause in the massing to or articulate the building more clearly and lastly what is more notably is we have given up the floors pulling that volume back six or so feet to the stepping that we mentioned before. and this is the proposed elevations here as noted. and if you would like to compare that precisely to the elevation that was prepared before. and we can draw your attention. >> and this volume here. and the building has been

increased and the openings and the bay is projecting which has been projecting. and this view presents, the down hill slope relative to some of the comments made. >> and this is the last hearing. >> and we have made an attempt to step out of the volume back. and this again and taylor the building and along the street elevation there. and lastly i just wanted to point up a few closer details and some of the concerns about the greening of the sidewalks, and the conditions and the particulars of the close up of the building. and we have looked at these carefully and we want to portray the building with the green spaces at the sidewalk and the announcements in the lobbies and the walk up conditions in accordance of the

plans. if you have questions, i would be happy to answer them. >> thank you. >> open it up for public comment, i do have three speaker cards, robert pully adam wingle and dianne wingle. good afternoon commissioners i am with the housing coalition and so we actually do not review this project but, on principal we do not believe that the projects comply with the neighborhood plans should the subject to the appeals and frankly any neighborhood plans for that matter. we don't believe that these are legitimate concerns and these worked for ten years and

delaying this further will cost the city more money and frankly the rules for this project that comply with the plan. and so we urge you to stand up to the integrity of the plan and that is all that i have to say take care. >> thank you. >> next speaker please? >> additional, if i called adam wringle or dianne? i am here with a number of people. push if you want to cue, up on this side that would be great >> my name is juan and i am a member of the mariposa utah street association and a member close on to this project. i am going to give you the big picture of what this group wants because on the public

comment and the moments that comes in in pieces. and the main thing that we are asking for is that you as a commission direct your staff to make this project follow the rules. and we spent months now trying to get the staff to make them follow the rules. and at this point, we really think what needs to happen is a full-blown eir to take care of the concerns that we have. i am just going to list these and other speakers will talk about them in greater details. >> could you hear me fine okay? >> so, the first thing that we wanted to talk about is from the very beginning, you know, the existing condition for this project upon which the negative declaration was defended, was wrong. it was listed as a vacant lot. and we had to point out to the planning staff, that it was a parking lot and that the owners were actually renting this lot. and one of the impacts that we see in this project is the 50 or so cars that were in this parking lot now are out, you

know, are going to be out in the neighborhood, in addition to the 50 or so cars that are going to be in the neighborhood because of the residents. and the second thing is there was no notice given to the mariposa gardens housing project right across the street. and it is an environmental justice community and there are a lot of children in there. and despite our repeated requests there has been no requirement that actual notice be given to those people so their voices could be heard and on the notice issue. there really has not even been proper notice for this hearing. and the last hearing, as soon as the hearing was over the signs were cut down and no signing put back on up on the property telling anybody in the neighborhood about this hearing, i don't know how many people would have liked to attended this hearing and be heard and had no idea that the hearing was occurring >> the second thing that we want to mention is that by law, all schools within a quarter mile of the project have to be

given notice of the project. downtown high school as well within a quarter of a mile on this project was given given me written notice and there is no complaints and we think that it makes this project effective. and we are going to have two more minutes? >> you have 30 seconds. >> the next thing that we want to talk about is the verde club. >> and it is eligible for the california, listing of historic places. and the report that we have heard about today that we have not been able to get a copy of and review the technical report it is best that we understand was based on a building that was smaller than this building, and on data from 2004. >> and we think that that project and that report needs to be updated >> thank you, sir your time is up. >> thank you.

>> good afternoon commissioners my name is dean and i am the president of the verde club and you have seen me here before. the club is totally against this building being built. and only because we are the verde club was started in 1916, the building was built in 1935, the verde oldest existing club, social club whose members are american italians and not as italian americans. and on august first application was sent to sacramento requesting a official landmark designation as the oldest existing italian social hall. and in the historical facade is ordained with the master plaster and surrounded by the club's name sake (inaudible) the inscription in 1935, for

several decades the club has been opened to the public and all for rent and all members are owners, however, membership is no longer exclusive to italian decents. the club is booked on weekly dance lessons on tuesday, swing, thursday is tango and one of the most important thing there is a children's rock band land. and they teach the kids music there. and also, the verde club directly employs about a dozen people there full time and when they have events and the other thing that i have here is this is a preliminary assessment letter, and it was dated july first, 2011, and this is eastern neighborhood final mitigation measures to the procedures and permit for the plan and involving new construction or alterations over 55 feet or 10 feet, taller than the adjacent building,

which the building will be substantially taller than ten feet next to the verde club. >> and not only on that matters, is also i think that this building will also these are the demise of the verde club and i know that parking is not an issue, and the members of the elderly and they don't get around as well. and our social dinners will fall off and there will not be any and the same thing with as far as the kid's school and you know, you know, it would be hectic around there and thank you commissioners and thank you. >> next speaker, please? >> and commissioners, my name is olga kids and we are requesting that a proper environmental impact review and speaker review be based on the existing conditions at the time that it was issued. and it was a parking lot and

not vacant lot as stated in by the proponent in the mba nd and there is a significant impact of moving an average of 50 cars per day into the neighborhood and shown in various pictures at various times that were submitted. a quote taken from the amd is the previous warehouse structure was demolished and the subject parcel is currently vacant and instead, it has been leased for at least 2 years, 2011, to just recently, and to the adjoining, and it was raised to the adjoining auto body shop as the parking lot, and the misstatement appears in the transportation study, the cpe and the air quality screening and the pmnd and once the bible is written apparently the truth cannot be substan ated even by pictures, the

applicants 30 states, the application clearly states that the pic is responsible to verify this statement, and in the application that are true, and to be true and each application is filled by or on behalf of one or more of the property owners, and it is signed under the penalty of perjury and that is willful and material misstatements for omissions in the application may result in the rejection of the application. the zoning administrator may reject the commission use or various application, as an accurate and ma and may require the applicant to refile the application, based on the base line condition. the zoning administrator's states that it is an illegal use and that we have for this issue with aau and included the existing illegal use as a base line condition, but not in this case. and don lewis states as for the

sequa documents i am stated that the project is vacant because there are no structures on the lot. when i visited this site a year ago there were a dozen cars parked. and as you know, we don't find the loss of parking on the impact of the entirement. but we do. and we are, we have two express ways that join south and east at the south end of potrero and the reason that people live and work in this neighborhood because of the easy access to the express way, there is predominantly commercial vehicles that do not provide parking and the club relies on the parking too, and when the neighborhood plan was formulated it was obvious that the traffic flow was not... >> thank you, ma'am. >> next speaker please?

>> good afternoon commissioners i am sorry my voice is going. thank you for giving us this opportunity to voice our opposition to potrero avenue and we find that i cannot talk, i am sorry. >> i am going to have to use... >> and the next speaker please. >> if you just place it and it will go on when you start to speak. >> my name is susan wong and i have been a home owner on potrero for the past seven years which is located across from the 480 project and this is not part of i am talking about the shadows which i thought was important and so hopefully people that have

heard it can bear with me. i will demonstrate how the height of the building will be taller than the surrounding buildings is that the new shadow will be considered substantial and the private residences and will cause a significant environmental impact. >> the first shadow shows the current analysis and one hour after sunrise and the maximum extend beyond and after the plans and this demonstrates the complete shattering of potrero and the west side and the partially shadowing and there are buildings that lie in the shadowed areas that include the units and the dwellings and the commercial. and the project and the careful character of the neighborhood is that it is sunny and, particularly the unique trait is why i chose to move to this neighborhood and this is why the people who live in this neighborhood chose to live there also and the loss is the

private residences should not be lost for the profit and the benefit of a few people, very few people. the 480 project will cause a significant and environmental impact. the direct sunlight, provides the sunlight and warmth from the early afternoon to the evening and the potrero block and beyond. there will be a market increase in use of lights and the ha shadows of the project, requiring 3 to 6 hours of energy produced per day and 21 units on potrero avenue alone and more units on utah street. >> so this is a, photo of just a 3:00 shadow in the winter and you can see that the shadows will actually encompass within the half hour to an hour later. the shadows will also cause and impact the landscaping of our neighborhood and currently the sunshine hours allow for the landscaping, sorry. but i wanted to mention that

was there be a market increase in the use of lights and heat and once the shadows before you cast the darkness and requiring at least 3 to 6 hours of increased energy use to the units on potrero avenue, they will also negatively impact the landscape of our neighborhood and the long sunshine hours of our neighborhood will allow for the landscaping in the front and the back yards and the potrero hills is the envy of the city my neighbors and i are able to grow the tomatoes and pepers and flowers, and organic flowers and flowers and trees which all require the sunlight areas. and all of that green and landscape will not survive the long hours of darkness. >> as an envier men... >> your time is up. >> okay. >> i am am and i leave and i

leave on potrero, i am here to talk about the sound, if you look on the overhead, the avenue basically has the same amount of sound as the freeway. it is hard to see, it is over 70 decibals and that is a very high number. the eastern neighborhoods significant impact to a significant development including the uses along the street with the noise levels above the daylight areas of 60 decibels. basically it was flawed and the noise report was not done by a professional and the person who had no special requirements claimed that he did not need any when he was asked by mother.

the report does not mention anything with the noise generators within 900 feet of line of site. and lewis says that it does in the mp d and for example, there is (inaudible) next door and a few nights ago i heard them testing the audio sound and so they are going to have noise at all hours of the day. the other problems with the report, the hourly noise reports show up from 11:30 to... from 11:30 p.m. to 11:30 on different days and the requirement should be that the measurements were taken every 15 minutes and this is not acceptable at all. i urge you to at least consider this when you are making your decision, thank you. >> thank you.

>> with the commission's permission, mary who could not speed is asking me to read the statement. >> we will afford that. >> my name is juan, and i am speaking for mary alisa. >> and i am going to just directly read her comments. >> we have the community has great concern about the fact that the subsurface evaluation of the geo technical evaluation for this project is inadequate and a threat to the verde club, the work depends on a july 17th, 2013, the report upon which their relying was a report by tread well and rolo that was prepared for a senior living facility and in 2004, such smaller facility and a different design and different,

facility. and what this community is asking, again, is an eir be done and they be required to do a thorough, technical, evaluation, for the current building, the current loads from that building so that the historic resources at the verde club are protected and that they also be required to develop a mitigated, mitigation plan for the work in and near the club to guarantee the club is not damaged or destroyed as a result of the construction.

>> this is a dinosaur going up in the neighborhood. can i turn on the overhead projecter please? >> this is what our neighborhood looks like from 16th street all the way down to 24th on the other side of potrero, and it is general hospital. and this is the character of our building, these are the commercial buildings that we have in our area. it is completely out of character with this neighborhood completely. and it is your job to protect our entire neighborhood, including potrero hill. when, last meeting you had said that all of the neighbors got a notice on the eastern neighborhoods and i was at that hearing two years ago and none of the people in the neighborhood got notice on eastern neighborhoods. i was in this room, and all of them were developers. and i opposed completely this project and it really needs to be compatibit