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 feet 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.

>> 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