here before, one on divisadero. the theaters i went to, they're all gone. one's a gym, one's a condo. they're all gone. to me, you know, bad players, good players, but could have such an iconic property in the heart of the mission just sit there and rot away, to me, it does not -- does not help this process. >> but we also don't have any guarantee that the work will get down know, as it is. it's almost been 20 years that the work has been started. we don't have any guarantee that this'll be resolved. >> commissioner honda: but if we condition the permit, they can't go forward unless that's done. >> they can go through the proper process. [applause] >> president fung: excuse us. come on. >> commissioner honda: rick, do

you have one? >> vice president swig: so my family's been in san francisco since 1945 in the real estate business, and it sickens me when i see real estate owners behaving with complete disregard for any community, and on behalf of the real estate industry, i'm really sor fee f y for the neighborhood -- sorry for the neighborhood. i'm still mourning for the fox theater where the city attorney has his office, so i'm very sensitive to historic resources. they should never have been demolished or treated badly. here's the -- i think commissioner honda really frames this.

it's a terrible thing what's happened to this community. it's a terrible thing what the land observer has subjected the community to through whatever, disregard, malicious intent, it doesn't matter. it is what it is. the problem is that -- that commissioner honda's right, you know? so what. we do the right -- "right" thing for the community here and require the landowner to do the right thing, which is to wipe the slate clean. i said this before and get on the right permit track, but this is -- this blight is going to be there for another five, six, seven years. so my question to you is -- you know, and it's too bad, it's really unfortunate, as you just commented on, that the community did not standup prior to this for notices of violations, for rats, facades

falling onto neighboring buildings, and folks don't understand their rights and they should standup and file notice of violations with d.b.i. that's really unfortunate in this case, but scott, what -- you know, what can be done -- what can be done if we -- if we take your advice and -- and -- and i'm not denying that you're giving us good advice, but if we take your advice, and it's another five, six years of rats, blight, falling facades, graffiti, etc., etc.? everybody continues to suffer. how do we prevent that? what steps can the city do to start penalizing this landowner for disregarding, abusing and acting inappropriately in their community? are there laws to protect the community? you know, i know what they're

doing because i've seen the bad act before. so we'll just sit around. we'll wait till the building's blighted. we'll wait until the building becomes beyond repair, and then, the city's going to red tag it and tear it down. they win. they win. that's -- that's what i see coming. it doesn't make me happy, but that's what i see coming. the right thing is to make them right and to get them to start the permit process all over again. i'd love to say that, but -- but be careful what you wish for because without the city having the teeth to bite into the landlord and making them act appropriately, the community will continue to suffer, and the landlord's going to win any way because there's going to be an earthquake, there's going to be

some fatal flaw in the building structure that's going to allow them to be red tagged, and it falls down any way. sad, sad, sad, but true. give me your comment on that. i mean, what's -- it's reality versus what i believe to be the right thing, which you're supporting. i believe reality may win here. it's sad, but give me some feedback on this, if you would. >> our solution is there's no good solutions here, but we've outlined what we believe is the best solution. >> vice president swig: why, if there's no plan. if we do what you're asking, and there's no plan -- i don't see a plan. i don't see a building, i don't see an entitlement to build a gym or a legalized situation right now. and we're at jump street right now. without a plan, this is really

a horrible thing. >> commissioner honda: you want to let him answer the question first? >> vice president swig: yeah. >> there are no good solutions. but whatever it built on this site, it will last for generations. whatever is built there, it needs to go through the proper process, input from the community. >> vice president swig: i agree. >> and this is the board's decision now. we've given the decision of the planning department which i've spoken multiple times with the director of this. this is the position of the department, which we believe is the appropriate path forward, and it's up to you whether you agree with it. >> vice president swig: thanks. >> commissioner honda: thank you. >> clerk: okay. commissioners, this matter is submitted, and as a reminder, the standard is error or abuse of discretion.

>> vice president swig: can i ask the city attorney. how far -- it was suggested that the conditions -- if we uphold the appeal and allow the permit as it stands, what conditions may be placed on this to -- to facilitate, to force completion, to facilitate the completion of the permit as it has been rendered? what -- where do the conditions have teeth? what can we do? >> what's before you is the planning department's request that d.b.i. revoke these permits. i think you have to find whether or not -- it's up to you find whether or not the

planning departmenter erred or abused its discretion. if you were to overturn the zoning administrator's decision, then, it would go back to d.b.i. and planning to -- for the project sponsor to come up with a solution.

[please stand by]

. >> -- very easy terms and conditions of support for that. there was abuse of the permit and the permit holder went well beyond the scope. that's easy. but if -- if we do -- if we do that, the community has to under that we -- there are no teeth. there are no teeth in this whatsoever. all we're doing is continuing the blight, is continuing the rats, is continuing the danger, and that's a very sad thing. if we don't, then, we give in my opinion undue license to the

property owner to continue down a path towards a situation where the building's going to disappear, so that's a loss. but i -- so understand the community, i would like to make a motion that we uphold the direction of the zoning administrator -- >> commissioner honda: i haven't spoken yet. would you like to -- >> vice president swig: yes. fine. but i would support the zoning administrator, even though it's a loss. >> commissioner honda: i agree with both my fellow commissioners. this is a really tough spot, and i think you as a community which will probably be at the mission high school hall tomorrow at 4:00 to 8:00 should be careful what you ask for. you know, this is a generational family that has done stuff for long times, and they probably have the ability to outwait you.

so by starting this process all over again, you're going to see blight there for quite sometime. even if it's approved in five or six years, then, it's another three to four to get built. so i will -- there's nothing decisive that would cause error or abuse myself, but again, be careful what you wish for. >> commissioner lazarus: i would just add i think there's been sufficient conversation to persuade the community, if there's health and safety violations they should be addressed aside from this. so i -- i will be supporting the zoning administrator. >> commissioner honda: and one last thing, sorry. i generally do not support vacancy controls, but in this particular case, i would wholeheartedly do so. >> president fung: is there a

motion? >> vice president swig: sure. motion to uphold the zoning administrator's recommendation and position based on the fact that the permit holder exceeded the scope of the -- of the permit. >> clerk: okay. so i think what you meant to say was you want to make a motion to deny the appeal and uphold the revocation request. >> vice president swig: absolutely. and also, i don't know how we can put this in, but i like commissioner honda's piece about a recommendation to the planning department to put on notice the health department and other related departments to -- to pay attention to this building -- for illegal acts or whatever. >> clerk: okay.

we can add that, i guess. >> commissioner honda: there's no teeth -- >> vice president swig: no, but we've done worse. >> clerk: they're on notice. so this is a motion from vice president swig to deny the app appeal and uphold the revocation request because the permit holder exceeded the scope of the permit and to request the zoning administrator put other city departments on notice of other violations. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. so that motion carries and that appeal >> clerk: welcome back to the february 6, 2019 meeting of the board of appeals. we are now on items 11-a and 11-b. thank you very much for your patience. this is -- these are appeal

numbers 18-162 and 18-163, carlos bocanegra versus the department of building inspection. subject property is 2435 to 2445 serveth street, protesting the issuance on december 5, 2018 to 2445 16th street l.l.c. of a site permit. the permit is to demolish an auto repair shop, and erect seven stories, one basement, type one, mixed use building. and before we begin -- >> vice president swig: i would like to disclose that i have engaged in the past with braun

and martel, but that would not inhibit my ability to make a fair judgment on this case. >> clerk: mr. boeing anegleca have 14 minutes. >> i'm going to start with several errors that were made by the planning department and d.b.i. as a result of issuing both these demolition and building permits. i'm going to be talking about shadows, so i wanted to talk about ceqa findings around environmental impacts. according to section 2101, there's the legislative intent of the ceqa guidelines is to maintain a high quality environment, now and in the future. and taking all actions necessary to protect,

rehabilitate and enhanced environment quality of the state, and to take all action necessary to provide the people of this state, which would be the people that are going to live in and around this neighborhood with enjoyment of the aesthetic natural scenic and historical environmental qualities that exist. and i'm going to contest that at least those historical qualities, and the environmental and nature scene -- natural, scenic, and environmental impacts exist. as well as to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony to fulfill the requirements of future generations. i believe the permit holder is going to say we're past the point of looking at this from an environmental review-ceqa standpoint, but according to section 21166, no subsequent or

supplemental environmental impact report shall be required by the lead agency or any responsible agency unless one or more of the following events occur. and the one that i think is most relevant here is definitely the subsection c which states that new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the environmental impact report was certified as completely becomes available. right next to this project, i'm not sure i can project it, but right next to the project is going to be a nine-story building coming up. the property address is 321 florida. it's at least double the width of the current proposed project that i'm appealing right now and would be casting a shadow on franklin park square. and now, they are putting their project forward, it is a foreseeable project that is moving forward, that this could have a detrimental effect upon

this park and more importantly, the children that attend this park and count on it to be a free and open space and with proper sun light. and just to add onto this, part of the section also states that the discussion should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness when reviewing these new impacts. and so i'm going to start real quick with the importance of open space and why it's so important. i notice that that was brought up by the appellant, and i think we have to make sure that we are very cognizant that this park is especially joyed by many kids -- enjoyed by many kids, a lot of low-income, colored children who do not have a lot of park space in the mission. we're one of the few spaces in spi san francisco to have park space that is publicly

available. public spaces whether playground, picnic fields or even just engaging fields can give neighbors a realm in which to get to know each other and giving children a place to play. it can help address environmental justice across communities by providing accessible and low cost opportunities to san franciscans regardless of income level. more importantly, the provision of open space in areas with high concentration of density, poverty, youth, or seniors can redress equity issues, and we definitely know that the mission district is one of the highest income inequality gaps with children and families facing displachl every day. if we look at these parks, there's going to be health impacts on them, as well. finally, open space provides

tangible economic effects to the park, as well. the more shade you put on the park, the less desirable it's going to be. just to keep track of time, you know, it's definitely integrated and multifupgsal major theme from the outreach process -- multifunctional major them from the outreach process was making the most of what we have, creating a sense of place, open spaces should aim to build on our city's values and reflect the values that we place on biodiversity and natural diversity. to me, what's very important with those next two is equity and accessibility. open space and recvational problems should be equally distributed and include all neighborhoods. and health and safety. open space should increase the city's capacity to be a safe

and healthy place to live. it should promote interaction and healthy lifestyle by providing opportunities for social, cultural and community activities and a connection to nature. so in the mission area plan that was created, it was noted already here when they talked about streets and open space that the mission has a deficiency of open spaces serving the neighborhood. many areas are not within walking distance to an existing park, and many areas lack adequate places to recreate and relax. almost 50% at the time this plan was created were families. this was the most distinctive family neighborhood that was in existence, yet, we had a deficiency of open space public parks because the people that existed there were low-income communities of color that the city did not seem to care much

about. a total of 4.3 acres of open space should be provided in this area to accommodate expected growth. so 4.3 acres were what were recommended for building. in the ten years that we've had this project, the only project to come out has been the project over at -- oh, i'm so sorry, but it was at folsom and shotwell streets. in looking at it, in total, one acre is 174 square feet that should -- 174,000 square feet of open space that should have been provided by now.

we're failing these children, and already there's a deficiency of open space overall in san francisco. this is a study that showed that open space totalled only 14% of san francisco. additionally, in the motion that was created, originally by planning, they did admit that the shadow cast by the proposed project has a numerically significant effect. i'm going to contest that i believe that scope was too broad. it'll be too broad, particularly taken into account that there's going to be a nine story unit constructed next to this one that is going to add to the shadow density shown on that park. the closest school that is nearby to this park is marshall elementary. marshall elementary gets out

usually around 2:40, but there are 120 students there that are part of their mission graduates program. those children gets out around 5:00 or 6:00, right around when this shadow is going to be cast. when they looked at the shadow cast, they looked at it in terms of solar years. children don't live in solar years. they're significantly reducing the amount of sunshine that they're going to get in the park. children like to run and pay, they like to play hide and go seek, and run and play tag. they utilize all of the park's surface area. i think the whole park should be viewed in a holistic context

and' picked apart. the average sunset is around 6:53 so the children getting out around 6:00 are only going to have 53 minutes of sun light. and the most important times in the report that was recorded for shadow impact were the majority of the times that the mark would be appeals, these are during school years, school hours, and that means for 44 minutes, there's going to be a shadow that these kids are going to have to be cast, in addition to the shadow that's going to be cast by this nine-story unit that's going to be constructed. the reason for the appeal on the demolition permit was because we're also in a crisis of p.d.r. right now that the permit holder minimalized and i

think did not look at as well as they should. so historically speaking, the area south of market were relegated to industrial uses. these industrial areas of the city have a special value given that less than 5% of the overall city land remains dedicated to industrial use. the limited supply of industrially zoned lands which means p.d.r.s cannot relocate anywhere else in the city. p.d.r., particularly for these working class low-income neighborhoods are very important because we're having an expes of commercial, tech, and -- excess of commercial, tech, and other jobs, but we're not providing jobs for those who may not have had the opportunity of formal educations. these people relay on p.d.r. -- rely on p.d.r.

there's been a huge loss of p.d.r. in and around this city. just this one, there's a 60 to 70% loss of p.d.r. in this area alone. i know in the report, they had mentioned a few other p.d.r. places that would still qualify, but i looked those up, and two of those had already gone out of business. there was a study done by the map 2020 business, a coordination of community groups and the planning department. they looked at dwelling units, loss and commercial development, including p.d.r. loss. the ones that i highlighted in total were -- if you look here, every other section and category has seen a net gain. p.d.r. has seen a net loss of over 479,000 square feet. we're losing something that

creates a diversity in this neighborhood. there was a target for 100,000 to 150,000 square feet of p.d.r., i don't think we're going to be getting there for a while with a deficit of over 1,000. and then, just another guiding principle from the mission area plan, just to go back to shadows really quick, it says that their parks and open space and access to open spaces and vistas be protected from development. finally, i would just like to start -- i'm going to quickly cover and say what's important here, too, is i think planning made an error in not doing a closer review of this property. it does have a historic and significant value. it was created by the same person that provided city hall.

he is a famous builder within the city, and i think that we want to make sure -- his name was -- george wagner, but definitely looking at this space, it should have been checked -- >> commissioner honda: excuse me. your time is up. you'll have time under rebuttal. what are you asking for? you've got a huge brief. you're talking about shadow impact and loss of p.d.r. space. so if the building's a story less, what does that -- what does that -- what shadow impact does that have? >> well, i recommended shadow impact that was done by the same company. >> what would that be? >> i think that's a 20-foot reduction. i was also looking over here at the mission area plan puts a

heavy emphasis on family housing. this project is -- >> commissioner honda: that was the question -- you answered my question. thank you. >> yeah. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from mr. vitel, attorney for the permit holder. >> good evening, good night. steven vitel on behalf of the permit holder. this project site was rezoned, the urban mixed use district in 2008 with the brzs. consistent with that, the planning commission approved the promg's large project authorization after two public hearings in 2016. the l.p.a. authorized development of a six-story building with 53 dwelling units and four ground floor p.d.r.

spaces. 17.5% of the units are on-site inclusionary units. the planning commission determined that the minor new shadow would not have a significant impact on the franklin square park. earlier this year, the planning department issued a finding that there were no ceqa impacts that were not covered by the neighborhood's eir. none of those 2016 findings were appealed. no appeals were filed and those entitlements were final in 2016. d.b.i. properly issued a site permit and a demolition permit in december 2018 to implement the 2016 land use approvals. it asks the board to revisit the discretionary land use

entitlements that were approved 2.5 years ago and never appealed at that time. appellant in his brief argues that the projects are inconsistent with the objectives of the eastern neighbor's rezoning and the mission area plan. to the contrary, the project is consistent with those city policies, conforms to the 68-foot height limit, it maximizes housing, includes 44% family sized two and three-bedroom units, and also incorporates ground floor p.d.r. space. it's specifically -- the project targets this area of the mission for mixed use housing development. the appellants also incorrection in his assertion, his brief that the missionary mandates more --

[inaudible] >>-a zone for housing, that policy was already implemented by the zoning when it approved the u.m.u. zoning in 2008. it includes a super inclusionary requirement, and that was increased to 17.5% by the prop c trailing legislation compared to 13.5% citywide. this project meets that super inclusionary percentage. in his brief, appellant asks the board to increase the number of inclusionary units in that project from 17.5% to 19%. the city attorney has previously advised missions like this one that you don't have the authority to increase or decrease inclusionary requirements on individual projects on a case-by-case

basis. in this case, the planning code is clear that the inclusionary requirement is 17.5%. project already meets that high bar, and there's nothing extraordinary about the project that would warrant this board violating that planning code standard. i'll return briefly to the p.d.r. issue. i'll submit that the project is also consistent with the p.d.r. land use. the city implemented that policy in 200 # by rezoning portions of the mission to p.d.r. 1 zoning district where housing is prohibited. however, the city chose to rezone this site in 2008 to the u.m.u. district. it calls for mixed use residential development and does not mandate the retention of existing p.d.r. buildings or

the inclusion of any new p.d.r. space in new buildings. kn now, in his brief, the appellant asks the project to be further revised to include two more p.d.r.s on the ground floor. let me now turn to the shadow issue. as you probably know, the planning code prohibits new structures that will cast shadow in any park from one hour after sunrise to one hour before sunset, unless the planning department determines that a shadow will be -- will not adversely affect the park.

this project increases the shadow impact to 5.86%. the macmum area covered by the new shadow would be.0 po 7% of the park. it would be cast from 5:45 p.m. from june to september in an area of the park that's shadowed by trees of the park right now. i do have -- per the overhead, i can show you the maximum shadow that would occur in -- i believe in august year-round. the dark blue is the amount of new shadow in this location after 5:45 p.m. it doesn't touch the soccer area, the pick knack area or the playground -- picnic area or the playground. based on this, the new shadow would not have a significant

impact on the use of frampg lynn square park. the commission took into consideration the park is among the sunniest in the city with a total shadow load less than 6 prs prgs. the areas of the park used by both adults and children would receive no new shadow. given these facts, neither the recreation and park commission nor the planning commission abused their discretion. i would note that 295 of the planning code, the shadow ordinance gives the planning code sole discretion to make these determinations, and those determinations are not appealable for these reasons, we request that the board not agree with the appellant. let me conclude my raising the

housing accountability act. as you know, the california legislature enacted and recently strengthened the housing accountability act. appellant asks this board to eliminate several units in the project by increasing the ground floor p.d.r. space and by reducing the height of the project by 22 feet, however, the appellant presents no evidence that the tiny amount of shadow on the park would cause a significant impact to public health and safety. for these reasons we submit that any reduction in fact number of units in the project would violate the housing accountability act, and we urge the board not to do that. to conclude, neither the planning commission nor d.b.i. abused its discretion in approving the land use requirements and shadow

determination or by issuing a conforming site permit and demolition permit. we request that you deny the appeal and uphold the demolition and site permits. let me just also briefly turn to the ceqa issues that the appellant raised at the hearing today. once a proper ceqa determination is issued which happened in 2016, the time to appeal that determination is after the first approval. the first approval was in 2016. the ceqa document was not appealed to the board of supervisors, it was not litigated. such an appeal of the ceqa document is not before this board in 2018. i would also note if there is a project on florida street next to this site that does propose a nine story building, it will go through its own ceqa process and section 295 shadow determination and could not be approved if it does cast a significant shadow on franklin square park.

but going backwards, not only is the ceqa issue not before this board, but there's no ceqa issue that's been shown by the appellant. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we'll now hear from the planning department. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. the subject property is located within the urban mixed use zoning district. the project began in 2014 and in august 2014, a p.p.a. or preliminary project assessment was filed with the planning department. the related entitlements and environmental review were submitted in 2015, and in 2016, the city first -- the rec-park commission held a shadow hearing on october 21, and prior to that, the planning commission held a hearing on

june 16 and approved the subject project. the environmental review was issued on march 27, 2016. no appeal was timely filed after the issuance of the planning commission of the large project authorization nor was there an appeal of the authorization itself that was approved by the planning commission. i believe their hearing date was june 23, 2016 when they took those actions on the shadow and the large project authorization. subsequent to that, i believe they actually did a general planner for a sidewalk bulb out which was part of satisfying the conditions of the project so of course after entitlements are granted, there's a lot of other work that goes in the permitting process as the site is developed and the project needs to show that it complies with the conditions of approval. so through that work, there had been extensive work by the

project sponsor to make arthur the project is in compliance with the relevant approvals. the demolition permit and zoning permit was approved by this board. i would note, again, that the rec-park commission and the planning commission did extensively consider that matter and found that the amount of additional shadow that was cast on the park would not create an adverse impact. and as such, they approved the shadow determination on it and approved the project itself. so with that, i am available for any questions. i think the proper process has been followed here in terms of the project sponsor moving forward with the application. you know, certainly, timely appeals on the environmental review or the large project

authorization would have brought this matter to light in this concerns at a much earlier time in the process. there's every right to file the appeal and the demolition permit and new construction permits, but we don't believe that the material that's been presented show that there's been any issues with the issuance of the subject permits. the viability has increased, first at 16%, and then subject to grandfathering at 17.5%. there have been legislation to fine-tune some of those requirements. just to show the designation of units has not occurred. >> commissioner honda: and that does not include all the

additional community benefits that the spop snsor makes. >> i can't speak to any other agreements. thank you. >> president fung: scott, the december 7 deadline was changing the affordability requirements, right? >> right. in order to qualify for the grandfathering provision, they had to complete it by december 7. this was issued on december 5. there was some recent ordinance which just became effective on january 7 which suddenly changed that language and we will ensure that the project when it cams to designation -- comes to designation, it is assessed the highest amount under proper law when it comes to the project.

>> clerk: thank you. mr. duffy? >> joe duffy, d.b.i. both the permitted were approved properly by d.b.i. thank you. >> commissioner honda: thank you. >> clerk: thank you. okay. and now we're onto public comment. how many people are here? okay. if you can please approach. you have three minutes. >> marisa petrucelli, united to save the mission. it was discovered that in the historical -- the review of the historical analysis and whether this building had any value as a historical resource that there were omissions that were

made. the survey omitted the fact that this building was connected to george wagner, and so subsequent review of this building omitted this completely. george wagner was one of our most famous builders in san francisco. we're right now in a building, the most famous building that he built. and he was prolific, and he built a lot of buildings, but he was also an architect and engineer, and as an architect and engineer, he built very few buildings, and there's one building that we've identified that's completely intact, and that's 2445 16th street, and so we feel that the demolition permit cannot go forward until this review has been made of this information.

and this information was completely omitted rn. information about him was called out in the soma survey, the soma industrial survey and page and turnbull called out a large section about him specifically because he was so famous for his work, and so important to san francisco. he also went onto build the paramount theater. he also went on with a partner to build stanford university. he is highly significant as a person of -- that's associated with the broad patterns of california history and also, you know this building is associated with the hievs of -- of this person important in our past, and so we feel like the demolition permit, this is j t

jujust just specific to that, cannot be issued until this issue has been reviewed sufficiently. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening again, board members. i do want to stress the importance of show place square historic district. there's only -- there's some amazing buildings left there. i think there should be a lot more care taken in reserving the resource -- preserving the resource that we have this. the building you just saw really characterizes the type of industrial building that you saw there. this is kind of a new finding. i think it does warrant some new review. george wagner had a prolific career. if you see the building that's proposed now, it's kind of out of place. it's a manhattanization of 16th street, the most contrary

building you're going to see on that street. valuing the historic character of neighborhoods can preserve economic diversity. i think this neighborhood can benefit from continuing to grow economic diversity. as things are changing there, we should grow ethnic diversity. we're concerned about -- in the nearby neighborhood, we've actually had better community benefits. there's zero community benefits agreed to here. nothing really came except for a meeting that was facility tated a couple of -- facilitated a couple of weeks. i don't think i've heard no

from a sponsor in the entire time working on the mission neighborhood. we wanted to make the building appeal to the neighborhood a little better. there are a lot of artists spaces that are in danger in the neighborhood. we've got to make sure we're going to build buildings that support that. if you drive that area at 8:00 in the morning, there are tons of kids walk that. and at 5:45 in the evening, there are people walking their dogs in that area. as far as the housing accountability act, that's an old law that's been dusted off by market rate developers. it's been used one time by a person in sausalito. it was used recently in dublin

for a 400-unit complex around transit. like i said, there's -- we wouldn't be here tonight if we'd had a little bit more of a community benefits thing worked out. i think this project is going to have higher impacts than others in the area, so we encourage you to take a look at this. >> commissioner honda: sir, you said earlier you were an architect? >> yes. >> commissioner honda: is that p.d.r. use aj? -- usage? >> i was trained as an architect, but i am in metal and woodworking. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker. >> thank you for your time tonight. the reason i wanted to make sure to stay on tonight was because these folks had

notified me i was involved early on in the process with this project. i do think it's significant if in fact what they're saying is correct, that this is really the only engineered and designed project impact that we're able to identify by him. that is something, and if that makes it, you know, a meaningful potential historic resource at this point, i do think it should be looked at before demolition permit is issued. as you know, developers, we're looking at these things ourselves. i do think it -- i don't know that means for you in terms of ruling, but it does seem to make sense to say hey, let's look at this new information that we just uncovered, that this may be a significant building historically before a demo -- making a ruling that

demolition can occur. >> clerk: okay. is there any further public comment? okay, seeing none, we'll move onto rebuttal. mr. bicycocanegra, you have si minutes. >> okay. so i just wanted to address a few issues that came up. first of all, when it comes to the timing of this, i was not in san francisco at the time that this came before the planning commission, so i would not have made the 30-day deadline of the ceqa deal. i was not aware of the fresh. i came in june of 2016, fresh to the city, so there was no way i could have known about this project. and then, just going back to this again, it's not just an error, and an error that we have to look at, but we have to look at one of these environmental factors that ceqa's allowed for this project, stating that new information which was not known

and could not have been known at the time the environmental impact report was certified as completely becomes available. we do have new information. there is a nine story building coming up that is going to be immediately adjacent to this project. the impacts for both buildings need to be looked at. the project sponsors had this building since 2016. these permits, i would want to know why they've taken so long for him to file them and get them through. i was looking at a permit, sitting there waiting for the fees to go filed for three months. when i found out that, i asked the project sponsor or owner to sit down for a meeting. i ask those e-mails starting in may, and i did not get a response until after december, and that was from the representative right now, steve

vitel. so for eight months, i was trying to bring them to the table to have a discussion. we have to develop and maintain a high quality environmention now and in the future, take all action necessary to provide the people of this state with enjoyment of aesthetic, natural and environmental qualities. i think it would be necessary to take this project and look at the accumulative impact that it's going to have with the other project coming up. special emphasis should be placed on environmental resources that are rare or unique to that region. i think both the nature of this

building being p.d.r. and how crucial and how distinctive that is for the mission neighborhood in alignment with parks that in this mission plan was noted are in scarcity in the mission district should elevate this project and the project going through right now that's going to be nine stories is reasonably foreseeable. and the court here stated on the side of the appellant saying that recently fory sabl prosecute wronls that were not just receiving entitlement but going through the process, as well. i think we have to ask ourselves an important question. do we value children and individuals that live here now or are we valuing the input of an individual or may or may not want to build here, who put this property up fore sail? we have to ask ourselves, housing is important, but the housing balance report that came out recently stated that in terms of housing affordability, prop k said that

we should be at 32% by 2020. we're nowhere near where we need to be in the mission. this project is going to bring us further behind. setting aside those affordability concerns, holistically, we have to look at the health and well-being of the entire community. having a job that's going to enable you to have a living wage is important, particularly right now, where even in the memorandum that they presented stated that these kind of buildings are going for $1200 a square foot at condos, and i -- as condos. i looked a month ago, the average apartment in the mission is $3600. children need sun light. it's critically important for them to play and to have an open space that t