of 2013 to amend their efforts again to get the permit issued. and then, also, as pointed out by the tenants they themselves did a lot of the damage to the building. and there was some i think that it is the side wall was removed which caused more of the movement in the building, and i think that john can adjust this better. >> yeah, i came in to do the expiration on the property and the kind of sent in a bunch of cowboys and just tore a lot of the sheer wall and the siding and where the wall was and there was a siding on it that was actually holding it in and since that was removed there is major movement in the wall and so the safety issue, they talk about you know, they have, they have left it, and i don't know, what i am trying to say. but the damage that they did, and work has contributed to the state of the building and the deteration of the moment.

>> and we don't have anything further to add. >> i have a question. my understanding is that your issues are really more about the tenantcies than they are about the work that is being done, in that the how is the work going to impact their current tenant and their future and their right to return? >> in essence, yes, but there is a concern about the scope of the work because it seems to be a changing target, they have now added in the plumbing and electrical, yesterday, for the first time. today, for the first time, there is this statement that the tenants all need to move so that they can conduct the electrical, so, what is exactly the scope of the work? >> but really it relate to how long the tenants feel they are going to be displaced? is that not the case. >> it all goes back to the tenants yes. >> thank you.

>> thank you, commissioners. >> i think that there are a few discreet issues that need to be cleared up. firstly, i think that it is important to note that this is a new owner of the building and what happened in the last 11 years, is a different issue. this owner has come in and is trying to fix a very dangerous situation. i can address the issue, of notices posting, and i have photos and i can share and talk about all of that. but, i think that it has been noted that this is really an issue of the tenantcies and the rent board. and if more time is needed than the 2 and a half months than we forecast if they need more time in the three months, that is under the rent board jurisdiction and they will have to ask the rent board for permission to do that so there is a whole other process that will have a hearing that is just not an issue at this point. and we really do think that it is going to be two and a half

months of relocation, and then, a 6-month, total time period for this project. and the issue of the poor communication with the system has been raised and i am new to this and what i offered to miss fox was to have a meeting with all of the tenants that i would facilitate with the engineering team and the consultants and so that they can complain exactly what is happening and what the issues are and answer the questions and i am happy to do that and improve the communication going forward. >> and the, there is some confusion, i think, among the tenants perhaps, about the scope of this work. and the permit before you, is a define scope of work, for structural repairs. and the tenants asked for it to be combined with the soft story retrofit and so we filed those plans with the board. and so, you can choose, if you would like to up hold the

permit that is before you,, if you like to up hold what before you and you also have that, that is vetted by dbi and by planning, but the thing that should not be done is to revoke this permit because that is going to create a one year moratorium and they can't apply for a permit and these dangerous conditions can't be fixed. and there will be a need for plumbing and electrical permits but that is something separate and i am sure that the tenants are going to have their tount to appeal those too. but in terms of the structural work, this is urgent, and i have 30 more seconds that i would like to turn it over to the electrician who saw this yesterday and has sparked some concerns. >> my name is trevor, and i went by the job yesterday and found that the service was totally inadequate. and the wires that needs to be changed out. and not to the code and i believe that if we get the

electrical inspector out there to pull the permit and get the electrical inspector out there, he will probably shut it down any way. and make us change the service. >> thank you. >> i have a question for the attorney. >> sure. >> question for the attorney. >> yes, sure. >> and as you mentioned this is new ownership? >> yes, sir. >> so, as mentioned by the commissioner fung, this property has been before us many several, several many times. and so, you are telling me and because you are also telling me that the condition of the building is some what of a surprise to the new ownership. >> no. but the extent of the danger. >> okay. >> yesterday, we discovered a serious gas leak. >> so, for the record is there any commonalities in the previous ownership and the current ownership? as far as partner and ownership. >> that i don't know. i am happy to look into it for

you. the reason that i am asking is that because what we are saying is that there are all of these issues to the property if there is a common ownership at which point it should have been aware of it and since we have new ownership a different story. >> so the general council of the ownership. >> the general council, there is no commonality with the group. and this was purchased in a portfolio of buildings and my understanding that we have been trying to get the permit for a long time. and pretty soon after ownership we have applied for that. >> when you purchased this group of properties were there prior inspections done prior to purchasing them? >> yes.

>> and so, the inspections indicate that the amount of... >> yes. and that is why this permit is that is why we are choosing to try to get the permit to repair it. it is taking a long time. >> okay. >> for the record the tenants have fought and fought and fought and we have been here as you mentioned a number of times. >> okay. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> can we get the general council's name for the record? >> michael capelus. >> before you sit down, perhaps i did not quite hear what you were saying, should this run over the some type of a threshold time wise? with the rent board, what are the consequences? >> is it the three month threshold? >> we, expect it will be two and a half months, but if is ends up running more than 3 months, we have to go to the rent board with a petition, and the tenants will have a hearing that they can argue that they

should not have to relocate for more than 3 months and a rent board administrative judge will decide that. >> okay. >> and i guarantee that you are over three months. >> well, we are looking for every way possible including multiple teams, different phasing. >> understood. >> but you also have sequencing because it has to come in before you can do any electrical and plumbing. >> if you like i have a construction. >> it is okay, i understand what is necessary for this. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you. >> anything further from the department? >> mr. duffy? >> it is going to be similar to the umb program that they had for the buildings and i know that there is a lot of meetings and i know that dbi staff

definitely went to the many buildings and met with the tenants with the building owners and the contractors to coordinate the work and this is appears to be similar to that and they are going to pop the soft story and they are looking on the website for that, and i don't have it with me tonight and if there is a process for having the meetings with the tenants and giving them a time line and i think that this one is not far off. in this case. okay? >> excellent. >> great. >> one of the things that mr. duffy is that i looked at the drawings but i did not look at it real extensively. but it appears that most of it is required work verses work that may be done to torment some type of an issue. >> i agree with you. i think that it is required work in this case but they want to put in the soft story stuff work on to it. >> it does make sense to combine the two. >> i agree, yes. >> okay. >> commissioners the matter is

submitted. >> i will start. and it seems to me that there is no dispute that the work needs to be done and i think that the statements by inspector duffy at the end sort of addressed the issues and as well as the proposal, by the permit holders attorney to extend sort of out to the tenants to have meetings to discuss what in fact the impacts will be. and coordinate that. and i, to whatever extent the work does exceed the three months, threshold, i think that there are remedies in a different form available to the appellant. and my leaning really is to up

hold the permit >> i concur. >> i would too, although i would say that you know, i think that hopefully, they actually have some time to be able to create a smoother transition for the tenants to leave. and the reason is that if they want any chance of doing this under three months, then the logistical will be important otherwise they will never make it. >> comments? >> we are going to move to up hold the permit, and deny the appeal on the grounds that the permit is code compliant. >> and yes, the question that i am asking is whether or not you intend it amend the permit to incorporate the additional soft story work or do you want them to apply for a separate permit? >> i think that incorporate. >> okay. >> we heard, testimony and interest in having it done all

in one permit. zme. so that motion will be then to grant the appeal, and amend the permit. >> okay. >> and issue the permit on the condition that it be amended to incorporate these plans that were submitted and i believe that i just want to confirm with mr. patterson that this is for the plans dated 11-4, 13. and; is that correct?? >> yeah. >> and dated 11, 4, our stamp is 11, 7, but the architect or the engineer's date is 11, 4. >> that is correct. >> and so is that... >> yes. >> thank you. >> so we have a motion from the president, to up hold this permit, with the adoption of these revised plans, dated november 14, 2013, and it was

on the basis that it is code compliant. >> correct. >> >> on that motion to up hold with revised plans. >> commissioner fung? >> aye. >> commissioner hurtado? >> aye. >> vice president lazarus? >> aye. >> commissioner honda. >> aye. >> thank you. >> the vote is 5-0 and the permit is up hold with the revised plans, thank you. >> could we have a five-m

>> 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 p