try to contribute to the community. i think you have a real opportunity with the gentleman who organized the talk to neighbors to make sure that development actually facilities what the community wants and needs. i would like to give the project sponsor and the community more time to have a conversation about what maybe acceptable retail space might be and what a design might look like that better fits with the community. >> commissioner moore: by the same token i like to get little bit more information about material, colors, window which is typical for these. i'm prepared to continue this project and ask for slightly more community discussion just to be good neighbors. there are no conditions we can attach to that discussion except i would like to ask that we

instruct the architect to hold the build back from the adjoining residential building. that was the notch that may not be the same size as existing laundromat. >> commissionr hillis: i was to ask the question about number of units. is it possible to do three units? >> in this case, the answer is no. it's a very small lot. you can't do an 80 unit new construction like this. >> commissionr hillis: thanks. >> commissioner johnson: last thing you want to suggest to the project sponsor. in some of the correspondents that came from the community, there was a concern about making

sure that there's translation services that people can be fully engaged in the conversation. i want to make sure as community conversations move forward, translation services is to support people and being part of community conversation. >> president melgar: commission? >> commissioner moore: no, i can. the idea is to continue the project applicant engage the community with provisions described by commissioner johnson and encourage the architect to also give us further insight into what potential retail arrangements will there be and window cross sections important. >> second.

>> commissioner moore: continue to date -- what do you have in mind? >> how much do you think you need? >> commissioner moore: it take about six weeks. >> that would place us around may 23rd. on that motion commissioners to continue this matter with direction from the commissioner to may 23rd. [roll call] that motion passes unanimously 6 6-0. that will place us on item 13. >> we'll continue to may 23rd. >> thank you. [agenda item read] >> good afternoon commissioners. the item before the planning commission is a large project

for planning construction 329 pursuant to planning code section 263.21. the project includes construction of two new buildings, new mixed use residential building at 344, 14th street and new small enterprise work space and fehr 1463 stevenson street. it's proposed with commercial approximately 78,825 square feet with 66 dwelling units services, uses and 42 below grade off street parking spaces. one car share parking space, in seven class 2 parking spaces.

it includes dwelling unit consist two to three bedroom units, 31 two bedroom units within the zoning district. 1463 stevenson, three story over basement 40-foot tall building is proposed with approximately 6240 square feet p.d.r. the project will include a lot merger lots '01 3 and 021 on blocks 3532. the project sponsor has elected to utilize the bonus law. to date, the department has received significant opposition to the project. the concerns are centred around

the proposed building height. since the publication of the report, a letter of support from the mission was forwarded to the planning commission that should have been included if the packet. additional lettered of opposition was forwarded today that included concern abouted c.p.e. analysis. regarding the design review, the project has changed in the following manner since the original submittal to the department. this is a split zone split height development lot. mayor's office of workforce department is support of the p.d.r. business plan.

under planning code, buildings must be review bid meowd. a memo has been included. regarding pending legislation board file number 181154 dependingedepending on legislatn supervisors would extend an requirement to pay the exclusionary fee to apply to all projects regardless when an environmental evaluation application was filed. if passed and signed in law, the ordinance would have the effect applying a fee to this project. since the previously scheduled public hearing on october 25, 2018, the project sponsor has updated the project as follows. they have increase the amount of the inclusionary housing rate from 16.4% to 19%.

the department finds that the project on balance consistent with the plans and objectives and policies of the general pl plan. it is more appropriate uses than the existing surface parking lot. the department does not find the exception for the vertical nonhabittable elements to be appropriate with the surrounding neighborhood and adjacent property vicinity. the department recommends denial of this exception under the l.p.a. that concludes staff's representation. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> president melgar: we'll hear from the project sponsor now. >> good afternoon commissioners. thanks for your time this

afternoon. we're excited to be here. this project has been five years in the works. we're very glad to be here today. we think it's a great project. it provides 56 new dwelling units, ground floor retail and p.d.r. space. it's a density bonus project. we are providing additional units. the project has been carefully designed to become compatible surrounding buildings. one aspect of the project, especially excited about the partnership with the learning shelter after the architecture team, you'll hear from executive director who will talk about how this space will allow that project to really get off the ground in a meaningful way. we're excited about the project. happy to be here today and i'll introduce the b.a.r. architect to show you the design. thank you.

>> good afternoon commissioners. i'm with b.a.r. architects of san francisco. very happy to be here talking about this project, exciting for us. we've been working on it for about four years. we're very happy to be here and hopefully advancing something that will bring housing to the city, retail to the neighborhood and p.d.r. and uses to the site. the site is on 14th street between stevenson and woodward. it's an l-shape site. zooming in little bit here you can see the existing site is completely surface parking. between 14th and stevenson and woodward on 14th the armory is just below the site to the south. some of the existing photos of the site itself, it is 100%

surface parking with 7 or8-foot around it. it's a really quite mix things here. 14th street itself is the armory. huge very unusual build, brick, characterized by long their skinny windows. there's another brick building to the right of that. there's a new 5-store residential building. woodward is a small charming alley. with corners of little bit larger. many the units have bay windows and the materials are characterized by plaster or horizontal siding. stevenson has some mix of buildings. there's probably a large church.

there's a new church annex and the five story residential building. it's really meant to be flexible and we'll set it up to be

flexible. the building you can see the u-shape residential. it's unusual units. it's not typical corridor. the units get light on two sides. pushes most of the bedrooms toward the courtyard where it's quieter. as you move up the building, the building steps back along the two alleys per the zoning regulations and steps down. by going through the program, we were able to make that woodward elevation smaller. here's perspective along stevenson, perspective along 14th and elevations. i'm going to let mark roth speak. >> let me say, i only got 10 seconds. this is the big bang for the learning shelter which is a project that started and funded by the city of san francisco by marley and gavin newsom. we're going to help people get jobs.

we will put tools on the floors that allow people to become service providers and maintenance technicians. >> president melgar: we will take now public comment. >> it item has been continued so many times. i neglected. we did agree to organize opposition. you have three speakers and you'll have 10 minutes. >> good afternoon commissioners. >> president melgar: are you part of the opposition. who are your other two folks?

>> scott weaver with the s.f. tenants unit and vickie, i dor forgot her last name. we're here in opposition to the project 344s. 344 14th street. project sponsor has been unwilling to engage with the community on this project. including meeting with the neighbors. the community is presented ideas from our equity tool box offering the work through scenarios that address community concerns and hoping to work on mitigations prior to coming to this commission. this project has serious infrastructure issues, design issues and unprecedented issues of hyper-gentrification.

we confirmed discussions with the local manufactures. we met with mark roth to learn more about his plan and see how he can better fit with the north mention. we carried community concerns to him about the proposed business nonprofit plan and mr.^roth

expressed he was focused on getting the project in place. mission area plan objective ###-###1.7it should promote then of opportunities for unskilled and semiskilled workers in the mission and p.d.r. should ensure the availability of jobs across economic sectors and protect against displacement of existing

existing. they are looking to see high-tech moving in the office space to support their business model. we have to ask, why are small enterprise spaces allowed in the mission if their purpose is to provide hypergentry if ing services. we appreciate learning shelter teaching these skills to student the. modification should be made to the business plan so that it doesn't result in the loss of p.d.r. jobs in the mission and others falling into homelessness. >> this project is not ready for

your consideration. the c.p.e. for this project claims to have an analysis and lists 1100 units in the immediate area of about eight blocks. then it compares those impacts to the impacts east neighborhoods wide. that's not only mission wide. it's central soma, central water front. doesn't make any sense at all. more importantly, it misses the point. we're looking here at intensive development in an eight-block area. it's not just about 56 units this project consist of. its impacts from over 1100 new units. department undercounted that. count like 1300 plus 300 that have been approved since easter

neighborhood plan was enacted. that's 1600. we have 50,000 square feet of office space right across the street proposed at the armory. 25,000 square feet of entertainment space, the madison square garden of the west at the armory. we have three blocks away, the market van ness hub which is proposed between 7300 and 9000 housing units. this is a very unique confluence of development. we're looking at an enormous shift in land use. we're looking at an enormous change from umu to residential. we're looking at a demographic change in this neighborhood as well. most of this stuff is coming in as market. i'm not saying this is a bad thing for the purposes of this discussion or it's a good thing.

it's inadequate from the standpoint providing cumulative analysis. you will hear unique nature of the traffic flow in the area. and e.i.r. mitigations in this project refers to the easter neighborhoods e.i.r. it's not one shoe fit all mitigation. public transit becoming less an less used by the gent if ing population.

i couldn't find anything that indicated that any of those recommendations in that report are part of your decision for mitigating its negative impacts. it's crucial that those mitigations be included in your decision. people have a tendency to forget after three or four years. it needs to be clear in the special restriction so that subsequently builder and developer and somebody who is monitoring all of this will know exactly what is responsible. there are too many unanswered questions from this. project isn't ready.

thank you. >> good afternoon. i want to talk about community impact and community input. this neighborhood historically was low income community of color neighborhood, black, broken and immigrants because it was industrial area. i know this because i grew up this neighborhood. i'm fortunate to live in the mission. the neighborhood is still characterized by low income families. now newly arrived immigrants working class and lot of s.r.o.s. this area in particular is still the most dense area compared to other pocketings of at-risk neighborhoods that have been gentrified out. this neighborhood experienced hard times. most recently 44 evictions within 300 radius from this project.

families torn from their home-base, children torn from their school-base. we've heard there's been issues immigrants being strong armed and bought out. that's concerning. we're here to advocate for this neighborhood so that more families won't be displaced. we're fighting for the people not for the profit. luxury and tech wants to be in this area. it should meet with community to see how they can work better and be a better fit. this developer chose not to. certainly this project will negatively impact the community not on the they will gentrify out more working class families, it's against the character and because they will take away the community feel. i like to use that word, it become more manhattannized. they should be listening to what

they feel can be issues to mediate. we're concerned with the massing especially as it is related to the woodward street frontage. we don't think the area was under the balcony should be counted as open space. open space is culturally significant. >> president melgar: sore are you your time is up. is there any other public comment. please line up on that side of the room and then come on up. >> good afternoon commissioners. i'm a 40-year resident of the mission district. for the past 20 years, i've been involved in trying to improve the quality of life in the

mission. i'm here to voice my support for the proposed project at 344 14th street and 1463 stevenson street. the mission needs more housing and businesses. p.d.r. space, small enterprise, work space and retail space exactly what we need. what's exciting is a small enterprisework space with a rerning centre and three to four full time instructors and employment positions and emphasis on hiring within the mission. ideally located in one the last large remaining buildable lots in the mission, now parking lot, the project just steps from bart and muni and the corridor.

5-story building is located in valencia. the project will deliver safety of the area especially given the proximity to the mission area. i'm the former president of mission deloris neighborhood association to preserve the north mission historic sources and weigh in on land use such as this one. in 2015, the owner and two representatives from architects made two presentations to board of directors. they were responsible and sensitive to our concerns. and suggestions after the

presentation and careful review of the project, they voted unanimously to lend full support to this project. i urge you to do the same. thank you. >> good afternoon. i'mal -- i'm a soccer coach at marshall elementary school. i work in the tech industry. i'm strongly against the current proposal at 344 14th street. over the last four years i connected with nearly 100 neighbors on my block. hosting breakfast and playing music with my neighbors and singing. i spend time with my neighbors listening to what's important to them and their lives inwhat's

important in our neighborhood. i knocked on doors on my single block multiple times on all the doors in my single block multiple times. helped activate my neighbor voices. in the last four months, owners have displaced nearly 50 residents on my single block alone across 14 units in two buildings. two of my spanish speakers from guatemala and mexico were displaced and lived in their car for two months, homeless. they finally found a room just a few weeks ago, couple of blocks ago. this is just one the many stories that is part of story in the mission in this neighborhood. i hope that we can work together with the city and developers and increase the affordability and the access for my low income

neighbors to utilize future housing on this land. this will help ease negative impact on gentrification. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. i'm a mission resident and i speak to you about this project. as a daily bicycle commuter in that neighborhood. biking has become very difficult in the mission and very dangerous despite some more like -- lik bike lanes. with all the ubers and lyfts the mission has become very difficultly to bike. i've lived there over 20 years.

my wife no longer rides her bike. when we built these buildings and put in more people that will be using uber and lyft, what does that do to us who are trying to basically survive and helping out what the city plan environmental plan to ride our bikes. this particular corner, you're going to have people coming out, uber and lyfts out of stevenson and clinton park. the bike lane on 14th street where this building is going to be is already almost nothing.

it's going to might it even more chaotic and it will have the effect of less people riding their bikes and possibly more deaths. this is like vision zero designated a high-risk area right there on 14th street. i would like to request also for the developer to go back and talk to the community and the people who are going to be affected by this to see how it can be mitigated. maybe there's loading docks or something. basically just to put i don't know how many more people in there who will be uber and lyfting out of that place. it's madness in my opinion.

>> good afternoon commissioners. my wife and live at 14th street. i've been advocating for the historic district for five years now. it's very hard to see how this massive 7-story contemporary project blends in with the 2-story historic building. this also goes for the residential design guidelines, etcetera. back in may 2016, during the environmental review for this project, i expressed two major infrastructure issues to justin hornerswith environmental planning. the woodward street sewer and ongoing traffic problems on woodward. the sewer backs up during rainstorms. especially if there's an event that the armory at the same

time, woodward street surfaces is patched and black and gray quilt and sinkholes suddenly. proposed project places additional demands on the sewer. it may undermine and harm nearby historical buildings. i reached out to jodie knight, tried to learn what mitigations are included in the plans. but, i have yet received no response. the neighborhood doesn't make the need for mitigations go away. we can't wait for the sewer to fail after construction. mitigations need to happen as part of in lock step with the proposed project. i don't see it described

anywhere. in 2016, i voiced concerns about the traffic on forwar woodward . i've close calls a i ride home on my bicycle. the traffic situation is already bad and it will get worse if traffic mitigations are not included in this project. mitigation needs to happen. i respectfully ask that the commission send this project back to work with the neighborhood on these necessary mitigations. yes, the mission needs more housing, this project is not ready for prime time. thank you. >> thank you sir.

>> good afternoon commissioners. i own a p.d.r. business two doors down on the site. on page 8 of 9 of the c.p.e. they dismissed public concerns about the adjacent impacts.

the site had a much different topography a large natural hill existed at the rear of the project site shown here with the pavilions. here's a sand born overlay of the site where you can see the water source naturally occurred. it's the blue element in the lower part of the site. it goes right through the project sponsor site. tremendous amount of grading changes have been made as well as none of the maps represent the historical watershed.

you can see here the red block shows exactly where the project site it. on page 10 of the report, the ground water level at the site is expected to fluctuate depending on the amount of rainfall. the readings represent lower end of the spectrum. therefore we feel true accuracy of the study is in question. the 2015 samplely of the report was for a building 14 feet. the design has now changed to 19.5 feet below grade on stevenson street where the historical water flow pass through. this is slamming even larger plug sp into the ground been on

page 16, it outlines as system is turned off, water can return and resume its own path outside the walls. we have a concern cumulative impacts of this slab and foundations that the water diverted to adjacent properties. you personally witnessed tremendous ground water during the construction on valencia. the existing sewer system has capacity projected growth to 2040. would not require expansion. thank you. >> president melgar: , next speaker please. >> good afternoon. i'm secretary of the redstone

tenants association. it's located at the corner of cap and 16th street. i'm a writer, journalist and like all the other tenants in the redstone building facing displacement due to the potential sale of our building. tenants in the redstone are artist and members of community groups and organizations ta based in the building. high price rentals from p.d.r. developments like this project under consideration creates price pressure on buildings like the redstone p.d.r. types. redstone building is sold to large company and charging excessive rent which might well happen, the individuals and

community in the red zone will have nowhere to go. there are consider number of artist renting off in the space who have been driven out of other building due to drastic wind increases. there's no way that any of the redstone tenants could forward p.d.r. space in building like the project under consideration. in conclusion, we need to preserve housing and office space for broad spectrum of san francisco's diverse populations. not to support the continuing spread of high income corporate culture. thank you. >> i want to thank you for your time and thank you for personally for serving. we know that the work that you do is tireless and thankless as times. i want to introduce myself as kevin ortiz.

normally i come in here as a an activist. today i'm coming as a neighbor. you live three doors down from this project. there's a lot of major concerns. the design does not fit in with the character of the neighborhood. one of the neighbors spoke about how this block is in the midst to becoming a historic district. you saw from the photos at one point, had a lot going on. we'vwe've lot of activist. there's major concerns. 56 luxury units is unacceptable. what i'm pushing for is to make these houses on the top fifth and sixth floor, to have one of them be b.m.r. it's three bedrooms and three baths. those are penthouses. let's be frank about it. the character of the

neighborhood has been changing rapidly. in the last six months, we've seen this neighborhood rapidly change. there's been over three buildings that have been evicted on this block. we need it make sure that this project fits in with the design of the neighborhood and right now the design, there's major concerns with it. for me, i don't drive. there's huge traffic congestion problem on this block. people use it all time to come in. they try to go down woodward for know it's a nightmare to get at ride share just on the block. it's not worth it to me. but at the same time, it's made the community really dangerous for folks ma are biking. i refuse it bike in the city i'm

terrified of doing so. i'm asking that we can reduce the size and height limit of of this building from seven stories to five stories so it fits with the character. you want to thank you again for your time. >> hi. this project is another step in turning north mission into solo with high-rises. this is a really nice little neighborhood with two-story, three-story buildings. you will put up a seven-story building. it goes against migraine when you get a developer waiving the

nonprofit flag and the nonprofit is in the local nonprofit. it's a natural nonprofit. to me, it doesn't mean anything. we have so many nonprofits here that actually do things that benefit people in our town. so, whatever. 42 parking places really. this is really congested area. every time i come to a hearing, i hear about, oh, this is a transit for the city. when are we going to be a transit first city? we can talk all we want about it. every single project come comesh a crap load of parking. down in that area it's already congested. now you're going toe add 42 ca

cars? can we please dial all this back and really build sensible projects that conform to the vision that is put forward in planning which is no cars, more affordable housing, projects that aren't butt ugly like this one. what's going on here? are we hiring the same architect for everything in town? there's some great architects out there. i haven't seen them lately. can we stop this and take a really big pause on this project and prioritize really what's happening in the neighborhood and listen to the neighbors and make the developer listen to the

neighborhood? thank you. >> i'm jack rice. i'm a neighbor i live on woodward 72 with two community organizers who grew up in the mission. i'm aware of the affordability crises. i know neighbors in the mission living in their cars. i watch my neighbors get priced out their home every month. there are new residential developments on my block. the proposed percentage of units is clearly insufficient of the neighborhood. acknowledging the likely contribution of business tenant to hypergentrification of the mission, the input of this project deeply concerns me. the developer must invite the

community to the table and keep us at the table for discussions that legitimately address our needs and concerns. this is not simply a parking lot or parcel of land or project, it is our community. as such, the developer must join our community. there are too many issues with this project as it currently exists. it is plausible to collaborate effectively on the best outcome. >> good afternoon commissioners. my name is andy gillis. i lived in the mission for 22 years. in that time, i seen this neighborhood dramatically change by the forces of gentrification, greed and basic lack of understanding of the people who live here. there's definitely a housing crises in san francisco. it has been grossly simplified

as lack of supply. we ned to build lots more housing. i agree we need more housing but this year, i think we've overbuilt luxury condos to the tune of 200%. we just built 18% low income housing we need. for me this is an issue about what kind of housing we build and whom. the government of san francisco embodies such as the planning commission supposed to represent the current residents of san francisco. not just affluent people who don't even live here why the and not wealthy developers. i feel the project proposed for 344 14th street exhibit all the symptom

this project will make my commute more dangerous. building projects like this will either housing crises. i know it's not the planning commission's mandate to single handled solve the housing crises. you play an important role in that process. i urge you to do everything

within your power to consider the neighbors. thank you. >> i'm born and raise in the mission district. i'm here to speak in opposition to project. for one thing, we've heard lot of issues here. things relatedded to public health, socioeconomic issues, transportation, infrastructure, sewage and the ability for this part of this building to be feeds believe o -- feasible on e site. this is highlighted by this

developer has completely stonewalled the entire community. all these things could have addressed ahead of time instead of wasting our time and your time. we go through this again and again. it's about hey, let's get them to the table. we have been here for long enough. we're not getting paid for this stuff we come here on our own times. you guys also are here not because of fame or glory, it's time to stop this whole let's get them to the table and get them to talk. we've been here for a long time. we've been very present. there's many channels and many people coming together to pull together a message to bring to the developers and they're acting like now they're hearing about this. too often this goes on that this is a whole message that should be brought up, getting them to the table. some sort of discussion happen. anything happens.

when everything is laid out clearly, simply over time, for lack of effort, people trying to get their messages out to these developers, it's tiring. i'm fed up. i know each one of you are fed up with this. let's not make it about this bill, keep about this dialogue keeping it open and listening to these demands. i think it's time to actually make an example of, ending this whole policy let's see them out. >> rick hall plaza continu -- pe

continue this project and encourage project sponsors to work with the community. we've been here many times. the communities worked with many projects and successfully come up with a better project that works for both the sponsor and the community. i don't understand what's up with this sponsor. the engagement vacuum around this project sucks. we need affordable housing but 14% here just digs the affordability hole deeper. in the mission, anything less than san francisco study 28% is bad for the mission. you guys don't have any control over that on this project. it's got to be considered particularly with regards to that we have gentrifying p.d.r. space as part of this project. the p.d.r. space plans do not meet the mission area plan

objectives of producing jobs for the working class neighbors. the rental expectations $6 a square foot on this project is like not affordable to the community businesses that we want to create jobs in the p.d.r. space that we create here. this tech training start-up i don't really understand -- right now sounds like an elevator pitch vapor ware for a v.c. please to continue in project. let's get something better than what's proposed now.

>> i want to speak against this project. what you heard already, the developer hasn't been willing to work with the community to mitigate these issues you've heard about and create a better project. there are affordable housing issues. we're in affordable housing crises, you know. this project doesn't include more affordable unit. 56 units in eight affordable -- that does not even approach solving the housing affordable crises if the mission. these work spaces totally are not being utilized by company running the computer training program that we heard about.

they are being offered three times the market rate. we heard $6 per square foot for p.d.r. this is not the kind of p.d.r. that is needed by the artist, the craft people and local manufactures who create the good jobs if the mission. there are design laws. seven stories? why do we need two penthouse units? this should be reduced to five stories. this is just among the many problems of this proposal. why include these unnecessary luxury apartments? open space should be utilized to

break up the massing to make it more scale with the buildings. the impact on traffic and congestion. you heard that bicyclist feel unsafe riding their bikes in this area because of the increase traffic. especially during commute hours. i like you to bring this back to the drawing table. thank you. >> president melgar: any other public comment on it item? public comment is closed. >> commissioner moore: i wanted to like this project. i looked at it without reading anything just looking at it. i thought it would be a possibility to get really local work space closer to real

neighborhood appropriate dwelling units. as i looked at it closer, that unfortunately started to unravel little bit. today's testimony, i think that's definitely reminds me of the commitments we made to look at projects in this particular area slightly more. one thing i said a number of weeks ago but apparently it was not heard or considered, we do not encourage residential buildings to be accessed by external corridors that become residential units. given the climate we have, given the fact that you stepped directly from an open corridor, we have your bedroom shades drawn all day, -- the second

thing, we talked about that in other projects and i'm critical about that. other issue which has been discussed many times and it was mentioned, the ground floor townhouses or ground floor dwelling units on woodward and stevenson are not set above grade in order to allow certain amount of privacy for the unit who are at the ground level. you want to give those people in those units the privacy. i'm concerned about the parking issue. 56 unit and four to six cars in this area seems very high. we might consider what we normally talk when we talk about -- when structure of units. that is a concern. the other thi