tenants and neighbors hopefully. so on that motion commissioner santacana. >> aye. >> vice president. >> that motion carries 5-0. and i will -- so we have -- there is no rehearing period for this. so i will contact the permit holder tomorrow regarding sending information on the decision as well as instructions on how to submit revised plans for special conditions permit. thank you. will you get a copy? >> the new plan, new foundation plan. >> that's not what they are submitted at this point. they are going to be the revised plans that were submitted this evening are adopted and that will include a letter from the engineer. so we will be sending that out once we get the letter from the engineer on the plan set. >> got it. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> we'll have a 15-minute break. we'll

about back here about 7:45, please. >> thank you >> we are ready. okay. please be seated. welcome back to the november 6, 2019 meeting of the san francisco board of appealing. we are now on item number 7. this is appeal number 19-085. our mission no eviction versus the planning commission subject property is 344 shortstop 14th street, appealing the issuance to mm stevenson llc of planning code section 329 large project

authorization. adopting findings relating to a large project authorization for the project proposing new construction of a seven-story, 78 feet at all mixed use residential building measuring 84,630 square feet with 5,890 square feet of ground floor retail use and 606 dwelling units consisting of four studio units, 25 two-bedroom, two bathroom units which would utilize the code section 65915-65918 and invoke waivers from the development standards for rear yard pursuant to section 134 usable open space 135 and height, planning code 268. record number 2014.0948. >> i need to make a disclosure. i am a partner in a project that hired ruben as our

legal counsel. their appearance this evening will not have an effect on my decision. >> thank you. we will hear from appellants first. you have seven minutes. >> thank you. good evening. this is kelly and la ris is a with our mission no eviction. we have major concerns over the validity of the cte provided. the project sponsor's response as exhibit d the engineer claims all four corners of the project site were soil tested. the reality based on the original report is an attempted test wasn't possible due to hitting solid. that's too large of a margin of error. this untested section is the closest point to the street and historic district is on top of where historic bodies of water existed including the natural ponds of wood ridge gardens. it's on top of the old foundations of the college of physicians and surgeons.

it was originally built in 1907 with a brick foundation and partial shallow basement. nine years later the foundation was abandoned and a new foundation was built, elevating the building 6 feet above grade. it is our assertion this was done because of water infiltration. it is in-filled soil and based on the ground obstructions we expect previous first down foundations and debris from the original demolition to be present and will need to be excavated and removed with heavy machinery. because the slight slopes there will be deeper areas of excavation to account for level changes and there will be excavations for elevator pits and mechanical work. that said deeper excavation claimed by the project sponsor is likely and will expose considerable groundwater. the report performed after a period of extreme drought, we now have observed first-hand recent

nondrought era construction of the buildings in the visit vicinity. we've seen how much water continues to exist in the ground areas much closer than what the project sponsor is saying. we have a couple of images of sinkholes that have been forming on the street adjacent to the property. these are pretty large sinkholes because of the water that's flowing around that's existed there for years. this is also sinkholes on stevenson street. they continue to pop up adjacent to recent foundations that were built between each other. as well as everyone around this project is concerned about the impacts of the outdated infrastructure three weeks ago there was a major water main break a few feet from the site. water mains don't just break for no reason. it was likely caused by shifting soil and these things keep occurring at the site. the sponsor's response as exhibit

e lisa writes on page 10 that no excavation will occur within ten feet of the historic buildings to the north. that is incorrect and impossible. now that the project sponsor changed the foundation long before her letter, there is no way that a section of a four story building off only a two-foot deep slab. so there will be excavation and sizable footings placed against historic buildings. how could the department claim no impacts when they don't have the current facts right. >> so we are here today because projects like this are being forced on the residents of the mission without adequate study and misrepresentation of the level of investigation into the harmful impacts to the detriment of this working-class community of color. the segregation and disenfranchisement of red lining had not ended. it just shape shifted to a new form, established

guidelines based on gated studies assessed only one-third of the recommended fees and mitigations, ensuring the infrastructure is lagging in community investment is perpetually handicapped to the benefit of the gentry. and when the community raises alarm we shut them out by claiming that this is dated and incomplete data meets the requirements of the mission area plan and general plan and doesn't bear out our experience. our neighbors are being evicted in droves. many of them in tents on the street of the same neighborhood where they were housed and increased deliveries and tmc use is increasing the rates of injury and death of our neighbors. we are being gaslighted by a planning department and city officials that expect us to accept their line that everything is fine. you just heard kelly state that several facts are incorrect in the project documentation. why are the sinkholes

occurring? did the soil shift under the water main on wood ridge street? what are the actual soil conditions on the project site? how will the potential debris of previous foundations at the site be addressed if it was never mentioned in the documentation? does it need to be excavated? we are told the dbi will take care of this but how well did that work out for the tower residents? and arkansas which has sat for months continually be watering while engineering revisions and new permits are being processed. will the foundation work affect this historic resources in proximity? geotechnical engineers said they didn't notice the pumps were functioning properly or their capacity. then they said that it was fine. and does that mean that they are now willing to accept liability if there are issues during or after construction of the project? why are there no recommendations

for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure or sufficient loading zones for the project in a higher-injury corridor? a pedestrian was just killed in the mission. and a bicyclist was just hit on this corridor a few weeks ago. and are we going to just keep honoring the victims? it just seems like this is the same equivalent of thoughts and prayers and nothing is being done. and to date all these is entities have failed the mission in regard to this type of project that goes before us and refusing to consider our request for additional study. we have given you a list of the study that we have asked for. and we ask you to uphold this appeal and condition this permit condition this project to include that study which is essential to knowing what is actually going on at the site. so that they can make adequate engineering decisions. thank

you. >> thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from the determination holders. >> thank you. that's you. welcome. >> thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. john here on behalf of the project sponsor. the project before you on appeal is a 60 unit project with retail proposed on a surface parking lot on 14th street. the appellant's briefing has been focused on environmental review issues. the ceqa appeal, the jurisdiction of the board of supervisors, the board did hear an appeal on cte on october 8, had a vigorous discussion with planning department staff, environmental review staff and unanimously denied that appeal. considering that background, we are limiting our comments to a discussion of the project and project approval. but we are happy to discuss any of the environmental

issues if the board has any questions. the project was granted a large project authorization on july 25. the project was approved pursuant to the state density bonus which is in the planning code. per the planning code, the board of appeals standard of review for considering a large project authorization on appeal is either one an error in the interpretation of the planning code or, two, an abuse of discretion by the planning commission. no error in planning code interpretation is being asserted by the appellant that we are aware of. with respect to the planning commission's potential use of discretion the policy sited in their brief are met by the project. the first policies that are cited have to do with the adequate study of geotechnical concerns. we had a well-respected engineer prepare a study for the project. that engineer also has represented the armory across the street for many

years. so very familiar with this site. issues with the groundwater level have been raised and about a potential dewatering. the geotechnical study found the water table was between 12 and 21 feet below grade surface. they were dry years so there's a conservative assumption made that typically the water table would be at 8 feet below grade surface. i think an important thing the board should be aware of is that the project has no basement and at max will be i think up to 4 feet below grade surface because all that is being constructed is a mass slab foundation which is only 2 feet thick so really 4 feet is we are unlikely to go that deep but even if we did that's 4 feet above where the water table is on a conservative assumption of where it might be today. the last thing i want to point

out on this issue is that there's been a lot of discussion about flooding. right now it's a surface parking lot, it's the worst thing for stormwater because it does not get absorbed. the project is subject to the high standards for stormwater control guidelines. this building will be absorbing way more water and dealing with it properly than the current surface parking lot. another group of general plan policies that was pointed out was having to do with affordable housing. it provides 18 percent of base units at affordable housing levels. this is not subject to grandfathering despite the length of time this project has been in the process it is subject to the current rules affordable housing rules in the city and is not subject to grandfathering. and in fact this comes as no surprise but the levels required today are even greater than they required when the eastern

neighborhoods plan was passed so we are providing greater levels of affordable housing than the plan contemplated in 2008. the other policy cited by the on appellants air pollutants from traffic this includes updated guidelines and increased loading from deliveries such as amazon. all of this is included and a more conservative study with current conditions with what uber and amazon. and then the last set of policies the appellant points out are impact fees going towards community benefits the neighborhood. the project has $3.5 million in fees that will go to a childcare park and tree scape scaping. we urge

the board to deny this appeal. thank you. >> just a few questions. the $3.5 million does that include the inclusionary housing? are you doing it on-site? >> on-site. >> and then they had mentioned that the test was 25 percent that were not completed. do you have any knowledge on that? >> yeah. there is one location on the site where they started digging a test hole, and there was some surface that was shallow and assumed to be the old foundation that kelly pointed out. not uncommon for a site like this. and again, we are only going down 4 feet. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from mr. sanchez. >> thank you. planning department. the appeal is

appeal on planning for 344 14th street. the subject project originated in 2014 with a pta preliminary project assessment and the review was december 2510. and the select project authorization case in june 2016. the project was quite significantly revised and it's my understanding the beginning of last year it was to a project seeking authorization under the state density bonus. i think this is the first appeal the state density project that the board of appeals has heard. so under the state density bonus they are allowed to seek concessions or waivers. they are not seeking any concessions or incentives but they are seeking waivers from rear yard height and usable open space. there is no separate entitlement that is needed for a density bonus project. it's wrapped into whatever

authorization, in this case large project authorization. as the permit holder stated the requirements for affordable housing are 18 percent. that works out to 19 percent for this project. additionally, there is a fee that is paid for additional square footage under the density bonus provision. but they are seeking there. so under the planning code, there are additional fees, my understanding from staff it's approximately a million dollars for affordable housing fees on top of the units. and given that the state density project bonus, the units are required to be on-site so that's not something that can be modified for this project. the majority of the issues that have been raised by the appellants relate to the environmental determination. and that was appealed to the board of supervisors and the board of supervisors up held the environmental determination for the subject project available for any questions that the board may have.

>> pardon my ignorance what constitutes a large project that then requires an authorization? >> so under planning code section 329. for the threshold it might be 25,000 square feet. i can confirm that exactly. but they are larger projects in eastern neighborhoods it's something unique to eastern neighborhoods. and it was an approval project developed specifically for eastern neighborhoods that's similar to the downtown exception process that we have or pud process that we have elsewhere. so dealing with larger projects which often seek exceptions because of unique -- when getting a large lot it may not meet the rear yard requirement or other requirements. so it's a way for the commission to hear the project in its entirety. >> standing by the door, can you move out of the way? we need that clear for fire exit reasons. thank you. okay. next, we are on public

comment. is there anyone here for public comment? how many people? can you raise your hand? okay. given the volume please line up against the wall and public comment will be limited to two minutes, given the volume of speakers and number of items we have on our agenda. so someone can stay at the podium. sir, why don't you go ahead and start? >> sure. >> thank you. >> welcome. hi. my name is matthew. i live at 324 14th street the corner unit at woodward and 14th which is the closest dwelling to the parking lot, which is much less than 150 feet away from the building. i'm the next postal address. i've been there for over 15 years and i don't remember receiving notices for the prior hearings. i just received one for this hearing so forgive me if i haven't been here earlier which would have been better. i register my strong objection to the three waivers. this is not to mention

the environmental concerns that were raised. okay, so in the last five or so years within two blocks of my house literally dozens of construction projects, new ones almost every day. this particular part of the mission, we should all know is the epicentre of gentrification in the world. it's unbelievable what happened here. there are almost no parks or open space anywhere near me. there was, as you know a park constructed a state park and dog park two weeks away. we have no open space. so please explain to me why there would be a waiver for usable open space an area that has major problems with open space. so let me talk about trees. there's a few trees left from woodward garden which was called the central park of the pacific. and as you know it's a historic block on woodward. these trees being

taken down removes any trees from within a two-block area. so i don't understand why there would be waivers for backyard usable open space in an area that has no open space that is an urban area being invaded by the wealthy. so please please reconsider. thank you. >> sir, just so you know, the church behind it had a bunch of trees. we allowed them to remove the trees. they were supposed to plant new trees and those trees have all been knocked down. >> that's irrelevant to the trees that are permanently there. that's how crows -- so i don't appreciate the other trees -- these trees on 14th street. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> welcome. >> hello. my name is neil. i'm the managing director at the impact of san francisco on 15th and mission, the old rainbow grocery. i've lived in the bay area for 16 years. i live at 20th and

florida. the impact is a new rule for me. we have a community benefit agreement with the community. and we are a place for activism organizing social entrepreneurs. we are trying to reverse some of the things that i think happened over the last year and a half and bringing more cultural migration. as a community activist i will say i organized against the hub last year on behalf of latino immigrant community. and this proposed project, let me put this in context because i think we get caught up in the environmental impact is very important, it reminds me of hunter's point in bayview, 50 years ago and since then, this gentleman is talking about technicalities and it's up to code and there's 18 percent or 13 percent, let's put this in context what we are talking about here and what this board is designed to do. this board can make a statement with this as a solution. you are going to hear a lot of anger from the people behind me and the

anger is because their displacement, gentrification and there has to be a statement made that cultural preservation is going to come first. these communities need to be in here. we have a man that has a tent that's attached to the side of our building. david. for 20 years he's been on the street. and i've worked with the homeless and low-income communities. and a block away from where this project is proposed if that is happening like she was saying with the millennial towers, imagine what happens to a community that can't afford to lose any more land, to lose any more to special interests. please, please make a statement and deny this project. thank you. >> thank you. please fill out a speaker card. can we have your name? the last speaker the speaker card is there. please proceed. >> thank you. my name is taylor, resident at 14th

street about 150-meters away from the site. of 344 14th street. i'm a member of walk sf, the bike coalition and latino democratic club. i'm here to encourage the stopping of the advancement of the 14th street development to review the impact from a pedestrian and bicycle safety perspective. the division zero high injury network is in this area. it includes 14th street. it includes mission street and valencia street all right around the building site and goes down all the way to south and full. they have seen too many pedestrian deaths over the course of the last number of years. the last area plan

was mission area plan in 2008. it's out of date. and it wasn't created with the recognizing the impact of ride share like lyft and uber and bike share and scooter share which is changing the way we think about public space and the way we support people from moving from one place to another. i have witnessed crashes at 14th and south and 14th and foal so many infolsom in the last three months. crashes are happening every two weeks right at 14th. to talk about our homelessness issues i witnessed police stealing the items tents and suitcases of homeless people. my friend right against the building site, and to be putting in

a luxury development like this puts a slap in the face to our community. thank you. >> thank you. >> fill out a speaker card. and there is another speaker card on the podium from the previous speaker. >> welcome. next speaker. >> actually it's still there. but we'll get it later. okay. >> good evening. mary here. i would like to speak on behalf, even though i'm a resident and represent people in the mission. we feel the appeal should be up held until a new soil analysis is completed to determine the current conditions of the soil, given the recent codes in the area and the water main break. the present soil test was done in 2009 and a lot of changes on the ground may not have been taken into account. the nearby property owners should at least be assured that their property will not be damaged or in construction. and they should be compensated

if any damage occurs to their property. the trust in the system does not uphold structural integrity by requiring up to date geotechnical reports. thank you. >> thank you. >> you can hand your speaker card to ms. sullivan. >> next speaker please. >> next speaker please. >> good evening and welcome. >> you have two minutes. >> thank you. my name is ben carol. i'm a secretary at the resident labor temple association. it's a building that's been in the mission at 16th since the early 20th century. and i've been there for 15 years. and we have in our building a number of nonprofits latino community groups, labor groups that serve the local community and many of these people in the local community are very ten use positions

with their housing and they feel it's very clear that market rate housing is going up all over the city. there's not enough not only affordable housing but low-income housing. and 18 percent may sound like a lot to some people. it doesn't to me. the 18 percent affordable housing. and i think it's pretty clear that ever since the '80s we've had evidence the rising tide doesn't lift all boats. i'm concerned it will be more people displaced from their houses their apartments. it's such a project continues to go through at the alarming rates they have been. i urge anything that can be done to limit the amount of housing that goes up. thank you. >> thank you. give the speaker card

to ms. sullivan. thank you. >> welcome back. i recognize you. >> cultural action network. i just want to clarify. we keep hearing 18 percent affordable housing whereas a mission threshold should be 25 percent or above. but this is not 18 percent. this is an aberration of a state density bonus project where they calculate the percentage on the base before they add all the units. so to be clear, i mean, this is like eight affordable units out of 60. okay? so it's not 18 percent. and even 18 percent is way lower than the mission needs. these large state projects that come under state law you heard about -- oh we can't do anything about adus because the state says

we can't. we can't do anything about this because the state says you can't. you're widening authority is being constantly narrowed by these state projects that are, these state laws that are one size fits all. and that one size does not fit san francisco. you've got to find a way to push back on some of this stuff and particularly in the mission we can't have, you know projects that are done with such low affordability and false data. this project assumes their traffic studies or whatever 7 deliveries per day. seven deliveries per day for 60 units. i get at least one a day myself. you know. seven deliveries a day. and having adequate accommodation for

that? that's just false data. and it's wrong. and it should be re-examined and some changes made to this project if it goes forward. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> speaker sir with the black shirt i need a speaker card from you. thank you. >> welcome. >> hi. good evening. peter with the mission economic development agency. i want to pick up on a few of those points and move quickly through them. can i have the overhead, please? . >> you can zoom out on the top there. katie. okay. perfect. >> okay. so what we see here in the mission just to look at where are we in this mission area plant? preferred number is yellow, 1700 units. kind of high. we are up to 4100 i

believe at this point. so just to get an idea how ridiculously outdated this plan is, let's start there. as far as even with it being outdated. can i have the overhead again please? even this plan itself is not comfortable with this outcome here. if you look at one of the policies. and we can cite many of them to ensure the significant percentage of new housing units created in the mission is affordable to people with a wide variety of incomes. this project does not do that. it's only 13 percent affordable on-site so i'm not sure why they are representing it as 18. yes, there are other affordable fees. those don't come back here. we know this will directly harm low-income renters nearby. this data has been vetted and it holds up.

it is expected to harm neighbors who are low income within 300-meters around the project. mission pipeline here's what it looks like. blue. already entitled. explosive amount of units. many of them already built, many around this project already built. red is new tidal wave that's coming right now. this is one of them. we are a growing housing civil rights issue. and you have to address it at this time. uphold the appeal. >> i have a question. so when projects like this go up in the mission, do they contribute or donate to your organization? >> absolutely not. and i'm not sure why that was inaccurately represented. we've asked for the media to make corrections. we run a fund called the mission community loan fund which has nothing to do with the new mission which was no part of this whatsoever. >> okay. thank you. >> so we hope they make those corrections. thanks. >> thank you. if you could give the speaker card

to ms. sullivan please. thank you. >> next speaker. welcome back. i recognize you as well. how are you? >> doing well. how are you? good evening board, my name is carlos. i'm a resident of 72 woodward street. i'm immediately adjacent to 80 woodward and this project is directly behind my home. i want to go ahead and echo all the facts that were mentioned and do emphasize to you that your scope of review here is to review these things. you don't have to take the finding of facts by the decision-maybing body and accept them as fact. the fact is there was a lot of work that was done here and research that should have been done that was not done. number one leading with excavation. as i mentioned before, missing 25 percent and not looking in and seeing what is happening in those -- in what is happening below ground is extremely dangerous. not just for the construction of the project but for the people that are living

immediately adjacent and where there's going to be such a large area of excavation being done. i'm worried about my housing and i'm worried about my life. not just myself but everybody living down the street. with regard to tnc i live on woodward street. it's used as a thorough fair to cut across 14th to get down to the boat. i hate to imagine the amount of traffic coming down my street once this building is constructed. and seven deliveries a day i would say is definitely very, very conservative on the street i live in i know there's probably 60 or less if we are counting total units of the houses that are there i see at least ten delivery trucks coming down my street every day. let alone that used to be a very largely latino community of color neighborhood. we are seeing it now i'm seeing all the families moving out and a lot of single upscale largely white individuals are the ones moving in. i would say please make sure they do their

job and their due diligence in reviewing and going through the environmental report and making sure their project and the lives and housing of the neighbors adjacent are properly protected and look at what the impact is going to be because that's just not right. >> thank you. okay. >> another repeat speaker. >> my name is fernandez. i'm with our mission no eviction. somebody brought it up, 10,000 plus people have been evicted from the mission. 8,000 of them. >> sir that organization because they are the appellants. this is public comment time. what's your role at our mission no eviction? >> my role? >> yes what do you do there? >> i'm a volunteer. >> you don't work there. >> no, i don't work there. i'm a volunteer. >> you're not an officer or do you just volunteer

for them? >> yeah. >> okay. i apologize for interrupting. >> can we start over? for my time. >> she stopped the clock. >> now you threw me off. >> okay. >> start all over, brother. >> yeah. you ask me after i'm done questions. i'm like. >> you said you're from our mission no eviction, they're the appellant so they wouldn't be allowed to comment during public comment. >> i'm just a resident. i'm born and raised in the mission district. you know that. okay. let me -- all right. let's start again. okay. so 10,000 people have been evicted from our neighborhood. 8,000 of them latino. no other neighborhood in san francisco or across the country has been vehemently affected by gentryification like the

mission we don't need anymore luxury housing in our neighborhood. beyond that we have more luxury built in our neighborhood than any other neighborhood. the sunset bay do not allow it. the sunset residents fight it every time, and they win every time. the access is a developer, are you familiar with access? axis bought this land. and axis sold it to them because axis knew of all the problems with this particular property. and let's talk about across the street the mission armory. the mission armory has a creek going -- have any of you been to the armory? they have a creek running through the bottom basement of the armory. it's real. the water is real. and then on top of that when the armory has events, they have to have public outdoor potty chairs toilets,

because the sewer gets backed up. the city has failed to do anything. the board of supervisors approved this project based on the fact that off an old plan of 2008. now my question to you has there been any changes in the city of san francisco in the mission since 2008? in the last 11 years? there has they need to reject this project. >> thank you. is there any other public comment? seeing none, we'll move onto rebuttal. we'll hear from the appellants. you have three minutes. >> thank you. the general plan does require the adequate study is done. this isn't just something for ceqa. mission area plan has its own requirements as well. you heard about

the housing. and you read our brief. it's listed in the brief. but regarding this foundation, potential foundation work, commissioner honda, you would know, if there's an existing foundation that is 8 feet deep and has been abandoned is there a possibility that that's going to need to be excavated? this is not been addressed in any of the documentation that has been provided. so there are grave concerns that they are going to get in there, they are going to find debris and they are going to need to keep digging and they are going to need to do water to get the work done to remediate the soil, even if they are only doing the slab. a two-foot mass slab for a building of this size after seeing all the work at the adjacent buildings that have been done at the greek church everything else, i don't think that's going to be the case when they get in there. and a lot of the neighbors don't. and they are very concerned. and this whole

idea of this affordable housing being 18 percent this isn't -- this is all one building. the base project is not a separate building. eight affordable units out of 60 is 13.3 percent. it is not 18 percent. and the community is tired of having these things pushed forward without what we feel is adequate study for the mitigations needed to stop the harms within this within a half a block radius of this project already 70 neighbors have been evicted under the table. these are immigrant neighbors that are terrified even if they do have legal protections and rights, they are terrified to meet with a lawyer. they are terrified to do anything. and so they leave, and they are living in their cars, and they are living in tents. they are staying gnat neighborhood, stay close by they

can't keep their jobs because the police take their stuff. the people that taylor referenced, junior and her boyfriend, they were evicted. they've been living on the street for the last year. he grew up in the mission. and his parents can't take him in without risking eviction. and we need to have proper study done. we need to have amendments made so these harms don't continue to be inflicted on our community. thank you. >> i would like to add our mission no eviction, no one gets paid there. this whole community saw it's part of united to save the mission. we are here as a volunteer organization. we put in long hours. compared to these two lawyers who submit nasty letters calling us names the supervisors pointed that out. i just want you guys to. >> thank you. we will hear from the determination holder. >> thank you commissioners. john on

behalf of the project sponsor. the number of additional ceqa issues brought up in public comment i'm happy to talk to you about any of them if there are any questions. all of this was discussed quite a bit at the board of supervisors including tncs ubers lyfts, including amazon loading, including expected growth in the eastern neighborhoods. if there are questions, let me know. to respond to a couple other points street trees of course the project is going to be lined with street trees every 20 feet for the entire project frontage on three streets. we also worked with a group of neighbors on woodward street to agree to additional street improvements. there's going to be a raised crosswalk across the woodward street. we are also going to do special paving up the street add additional trees on woodward street. so these are the things that we have discussed in

some detail and committed to. the project is also going to be removing significant number of curb cuts around this site. again, reducing the amount of conflict between automobiles and pedestrian. thank you. and if you have any question please let us know. >> of course i do. >> i think all three of us have questions over here. >> a lot of people from the members of the public -- so you're at 18 percent affordable so how many units and how many are affordable and does it come up to 18 percent? >> per the state density bonus law you get your base project which is what is principally permitted under the planning code. you subject it -- the state law only requires 11 percent so qualify for the density bonus. san san francisco's current rule's 18 percent. so that 18 percent applies to the base project. the project the density bonus above that of 35 percent those

units are subjected to inclusionary housing fee because per state law the city is not able to apply its affordable housing requirements upon the density bump. those units are subject to the inclusionary housing fee. >> okay. i wanted that explained. >> thank you. >> my question is around the deliveries and curb cuts. it looks like from page r1.0, driveway onto stevenson street. there's a gate. is that for bike parking? can you explain that the delivery parking, trash, et cetera, situation is on property? >> can you mention that sheet number again? >> r1.0 site survey. that's the first place in the plans that show a driveway and a roll gate, i believe onto stevenson street. so i'm trying to understand. there was a comment about pedestrian

safety. i think removing curb cuts is great having limited parking, we can argue if it's great or not great but i want to understand how deliveries and trash is imagined to be coming in and out of that site and what that driveway is used to service. >> thank you commissioner. currently we've got two curb cuts on the site. one is on. >> do you want to use the overhead? >> yeah. thank you. >> the overhead please. >> we've got a 22-foot wide curb cut on 14th street and an 18-foot wide curb cut on stevenson street. those are both used for access to the current parking lot on-site. >> leaf that up there for a second. >> sure, yeah. >> i just wanted to.

>> thank you. >> can i move on to the next? >> picture is a thousand words. >> so the project proposes no off-street parking. so there's no curb cuts along either stevenson or 14th street. the project is going to be seeking a commercial loading zone along 14th street, which is a separate process, of course this commission -- it's something we have to pursue after approval. so the loading will take place off of 14th street pursuant to that process. >> thank you. and then can you explain a little bit, and i'm going to ask mr. sanchez about the waiver for the usable open space, how you are providing open space for the residents of the proposed building? >> sure thing. the project actually meets the numerical requirement of open space and in fact exceeds it. i don't have the number off the top of

my head but it exceeds the square footage. it's provided in an interior courtyard where the rear yard is now. thank you. great. so it's provided at this interior courtyard and in the upper levels there are some groove deckses. the reason we needed a waiver is the courtyard, the sun angle is such that it doesn't meet the standards for the planning code. so while it's actual open space it doesn't have a 45-degree sun angle on i believe it's three sides that's required so therefore it doesn't technically count toward the planning code requirement and that's why we sought the waiver. >> the last area of the questioning is around this slab excavation, et cetera. you know we heard cases tonight where people are concerned about excavation and what that does to surrounding buildings. there's sinkholes that have been illustrated in neighboring area. how do you plan to assess and deal with potential

changes? you dig up the asphalt that's there you find something else, it's deeper than you thought. is there a company that is prepared to address those issues? >> thank you for mentioning it. this isn't even their description despite the fact they want to deal with this properly i was hoping inspector duffy would still be here because it's not an uncommon condition to be in field doing work and something comes up that's not totally expected. there are provisions in place where we work with the building department it's really a building department issue. the building department can make sure we deal with any unique situation adequately. and again not even at the discretion of the project sponsor, overseen by the city. thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from the planning department. >> it feels like we're at the planning commission doesn't it? >> would you really want to be there? >> no. no.

>> you guys? come on. >> the planning department, just to clarify a couple issues that were raised and the comments. and i think they can represent how they are calculated under the code. they have the 18 percent code applied to the project. but with the ultimate project under the state density bonus it dillutes that requirement. it is effectively 13 percent. but under the planning code we have a provision that we will assess a fee and that's what i said previously was approximately $1 million for the additional units that is gained. the state density bonus law is not new. it dates back to 1979 burr we are seeing -- but we are seeing more of these projects now than before. the standard review as stated by the

attorney is not d e novo for the review. it is improper application of the planning code so that is a slight nuance there. in regards to off-street loading the section does not require off-street loading. this is less than 100,000 square feet of use. there is no requirement of the planning code for that. and although this project has been around since 2014 and the first application actually looking at the history i think more than a decade ago in the mid-2000s, there was another application i think for more, even 80 dwelling units. this was before the eastern neighborhoods rezoning. and actually part of the site is the rear portion which is being maintained as parking is a pdr zoning district which doesn't

allow housing but back 15 years ago when that previous project was sought and i don't have any details of what happened to that. obviously didn't move forward. but the whole site would have been allowed to be developed as residential but less can be developed under the eastern neighborhoods plan. although it has been around for a while i don't believe any building permit application has been filed for that so there will be substantial processing in going through the approvals for that. i'm available for any questions. >> i have two questions. can you talk about the difference of waiver in terms of the density bonus law. >> i'll do my west -- my best. it's getting late. so the waiver is the quantitative requirements where the concessions in that term is used interchangeably with more of a zoning or use change like they would be allowed to do a mixed use zoning the higher densities. there is no density limit here, per se, in this

district. but the base project is calculated on a feasible code compliant project. >> with the rear yard waiver that has been approved i'm assuming it allows a certain height less than 78 feet. with the rear yard waiver, how do you evaluate that and determine it is justifiable and would be beneficial to the project and the neighborhood or how do you? >> shows it's necessary to achieve what's allowed under the bonus density and also the standard for denying the waiver is quite high. so under the state law, you have to show -- let me find the language there. that you could only, in acore dance with the state density bonus -- in acore within the permitted envelope unless the city finds the requested waiver without a specific

adverse impact upon health safety, with a physical environment or have an adverse impact on any property registered in the california register of historical resources. the planning commission didn't find this was something that met those standards. >> thank you. >> yep. >> thank you. commissioners, this matter is submitted. and as a reminder the standard is error, abuse of discretion. and only a simple majority of three votes is required to overturn the department's action. >> commissioners. >> i'll let you start this one. >> i find nothing wrong with the project so i would deny the appeal on the basis that the permit was properly issued. that's probably too simple. or maybe it's not. >> i would support that. >> as in the previous cases our job

here is to determine if this project was issued in error. when people talk about affordability in this city, affordability is really a myth. 18 percent and 13 percent 24 percent and then the units that are there are they really affordable to the people that actually are there? no. and as the public has said, the hit zone is really the mission. the bad thing about having great weather and solid ground is that's where everyone wants to live now. i know this block pretty intimately. my daughter attended school there for nine years there around the corner four years ago. to me, it was that ally was terrible. it was a rotten, rotten ally. i made several requests to dpw as well as the city and county, because it felt

unsafe to me. whereas now the ally is kind of cleaned up. does it help with the gentryification of our city? no, it doesn't. but what is a parking lot doing any good for our city? i don't think a parking lot is actually doing our city any benefit. so unfortunately i am going to support this project. >> that was a motion. >> okay. i would just suggest you add language that the planning commission did not ere or abuse it's discretion. >> the department did not ere. >> we have a motion to deny the appeal and uphold the section 29 large project authorization on the basis the planning commission did not ere or abuse its discretion and it was properly issued. on that

motion [roll call] okay. so that motion carries 5-0 and the appeal is denied. so we are now moving onto item numbers 8a and 8b. these are appeal numbers 19-098 and 19-013 joshua klipp and susan cieutat versus san francisco public works urban forestry. the subject property located various locations in the hayes valley 501 508 515, 523, 534, 550 to 560, 600, 601 octavia, 430 hayes street, 499 grove street, 380 and 426 ivy street, appealing the issuance on august 28, 2019 the san francisco public works urban forestry

works order to remove 28 street trees with replacement unless otherwise neated due to utility conflicts. the necessary sidewalk repairs shall be completed within three months after removal. this is order 2017-97. we will hear from mr. klipp first. >> welcome back. >> good to see you again. my name is josh klipp. this past year, san francisco declared it is in a climate emergency. the effect was to instruct our department of the environment to draft and revise climate action plan. we had a plan. but our situation is so dire that we needed a new one if we want our city to be livable. so the department environment made that plan. the only difference was this plan acknowledged our desperate need to sequester more carbon. we have a lot of

initiatives around carbon mitigation as i know this board is aware. if we don't sequester carbon we will fail in our climate goals and climate change will reach the point of no return in ten years. so let's talk about ten years of carbon sequestering in relation to the trees in this appeal. these trees are in horrible condition barely alive. practically dead. so far, they have already sequestered around 40,000 pounds of co2 and even in their current state, around the next ten years they would sequester another 40,000 pounds. now let's assume the trees that would be replaced by red maples and gingkos. let's assume the trees are all in excellent health for the next ten years. pretty big assumption. they would only miss the 40,000-pound benchmark by a

few thousand pounds. however, based on a joint survey, street trees in areas with this level of usage from an estimated mortality rate around 12 to 15 percent so now we are several tons behind the projected rate of the existing trees not to mention cost involved in replanting and maintenance. while we are on the subject of tree mortality in health, no hayes valley a recent tree planting resulted in 100 percent mortality after a row of trees was vandalized. what's disappointing is the failure of the city to meet the goals. you've heard a statistic that our city gained a total of one single tree in one year. you take out a 12-inch tree, you put in a one and a half inch tree that's replacement. i don't know if you've heard the latest knews that is in 2019 our city lost 2,507