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 fe 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. >> 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.