okay. you can approach somebody, go up to the microphone. [ please stand by ] revision looks like. in a two-bedroom

unit. it was created into a two-bedroom unit. she's lived in a two-bedroom unit the entire time she's lived there. and the coincidences i'm talking about i've probably been in more homes in the bayview district than pretty much any other person in san francisco as a housing attorney serving the neighborhood i've never seen a third bathroom in any house in the entire neighborhood. there are no three-bathroom houses in the bayview district. and certainly it doesn't make sense to have a three-bathroom and two-bedroom unit for this single mother and her young daughter. it doesn't make sense. which leaves the only logical conclusion in my mind that the property owner is intending to make this two short term rentals. the upstairs bedroom has been siphoned into units. the

planning website reflects. the property owner told me this isn't planned but i have a hard time seeing any other possible reality that can occur here. no one believes in the maintaining the affordable housing more than i do. but in this case this isn't the hypothetical. somebody is actually living there with her daughter. and this is potentially lowering her ability to live there in the she's lived there for the past many years. finally i'm sorry. i lost my train of thought. the unit -- oh the lease that she signed at the request of the

property owner was for a studio apartment which does not currently exist meaning the only possible outcome is they are planning to move her into a studio apartment. >> thank you. we have a question for you. do you have evidence that there is currently a short-term rental operation in the upper unit? >> apart from the fact that it's a bunch of students living up there. >> evidence of the short-term rental would be evidence of it listing on air bnb or other sites. and you state your client signed a lease that is for a studio unit at the same address? >> that's correct. >> okay. and do you have the date of that lease that it was signed? >> i don't have a copy of the lease in front of me. >> june of last year. >> i'm sorry? can you speak into the microphone and identify yourself? >> my name is carhartt. my previous lease was for $700 and now it's $1,750.

>> but for a lease that doesn't exist? >> it says it's for a studio but i'm occupying a two-bedroom. >> it's for your current residence? i just wanted to understand. it's for your current rental. >> i don't understand how my current space can be labeled as a studio, which is what my lease says. >> unfortunately that's not a matter that could be for us but just to understand the totality of what's before us. is there any concern they have not offered to relocate you and have you move back into the unit? >> i've been told verbally i will be and i've been told it's in my lease but i'm not sure if it is. >> has your attorney looked at your lease? >> i've gone through several different people and he hasn't seen it. >> so you have a concern it's a verbal agreement but we don't know. okay. thank you very much. >> fill out a speaker card, please. who else is

here for public comment? you can approach. >> good evening, everybody. i'm the neighbor. i'm on 1506 newcomb avenue. i speak to the integrity of the situation here right now. someone who moved here from a third world country, i believe in america we follow laws and rules. we operate a legal airbnb and pay taxes on it. you asked a question on whether -- i'm sorry. >> can you see it? >> this is an add from craigs list where there are three people living in the apartment upstairs. we don't understand how they get an apartment signed signed off when none has been cleared. it's already been rented. it's a short term lease with three people living upstairs. i find it to be extremely disgusting where we follow the law and someone next door doesn't. we were told a family is going to be moving in. we find out there

are more people abusing the system rather than contributing to it. this is all i have to say. i'm very angry about this. my neighbor amy is a righteous person talking about the foundation. we are also concerned about our foundation because if their house falls, we are next in line. i strongly urge the committee to please disregard the permit at this point in time. >> thank you. is there any other public comment? we'll move onto rebuttal. public comment sir? okay. >> i live in 1544. i am the next door the next house from it. i'm concerned about my foundation too. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> fill out a speaker card, please. your name sir? can we get your name on a speaker card? thanks so much. is there any other public comment? okay. we are moving onto rebuttal.

we'll hear from appellant. >> i have to go back to the comment made that the studio is a master bedroom. i can see plainly here the master bedroom. and here is the area that aligns with the studio. so i'm very confused by their argument stating that that studio is the master bedroom because it clearly is not according to their own plans. secondly you were asking about the excavation calculations. and on page a1 i have here if you look at all the calculations come from the existing structure the addition would be over here as would the deck so their calculations don't include that at all. with regard to the cleaning up of the house and the man in the van and that dirty laundry, anybody who bought that house would have taken care of that, cleaned up the house. but they probably wouldn't have divided it up into separate rentals as these

guys plan to do. and for the concerns about my parties which i find very odd and amusing, of a statement sure there's privacy concerns. but not nearly as concerning as things we discussed here today. so i encourage you to please look at the full picture of the inconsistencies and the realities and take that into consideration. thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from the permit holders. you have three minutes. >> first of all we don't do any short term rental. we have rental agreement to show it's not short term rental. you will not find our rental in any short term rental website so that's not true. never happened. again based on assumption, no truths. and it proves it's not short term rental

it's long-term rental, first of all. second, i think there's a complaint saying the plan you have on hand was just submitted two days ago. so they had no time to review. i think you do review the plan we already submitted six months ago. and the plan we updated a few days ago there's only one difference. that is the down stairs, according to claimant division we need to showdown is it fair to say. so we have not -- downstairs. we have not changed anything on the new plan we want to do. the plan has been there since day one. that means last year of this year. when we post it outside. and that has been there. so saying that the plan that you have on your hand is there for only two days is not correct. and that mrs.

sanchez testified to that. okay. >> also we think that we are not here prepared to deal with the landlord tenant situation. maybe whenever we need to deal with that we will deal in the future. what we are going to do right now is go to our permit to renovate the home. that's it. >> are you done sir? >> two questions for you. i don't know if you both want to stay and answer. the gentleman produced an ad i couldn't see where it was from but it was indicating it was a short term rental. the person at the bottom. >> 4b. >> the person at the bottom i'm not sure if the gentleman is listed as the holder of that permit, if that is one of you or a member of your party or organization. >> that's a previous description we were trying to rent. we erased the short term because

we knew it was not appropriate. >> you erased that? >> yes erased that. currently we have leases that we can provide showing that we don't have short term rentals. >> the assertion from ms. carhartt she was offered a lease for a studio do you care to expound upon that? you said the tenant landlord are not before the board but the integrity of the people before us, we have to understand the testimony you are giving is truthful so is it on accurate statement she's making that she has a lease for a studio apartment in her current apartment. >> we can check the lease agreement and get back to you on that. i think she doesn't remember the lease agreement. and we don't have the lease agreement with us. so i don't think we know what is in the lease agreement. >> can i answer the question? i think the problem

here is, is that the description of what you're giving your current tenant and the description that is before this body and that was submitted to the building department it looks like there's monkey business here. it looks like you are going to split the bottom floor up. because if you had given her a lease that indicates that you have a studio apartment that you are giving her and they evidently have a copy of what you showed them what it looks like. and here all five of us are looking at -- wait a second. all five of us are looking at this plan here. and even myself who does building and looking at this and why are there three bathrooms? so it looks like you are going to split this up. and again we are not trying to convict you over social media or anything. and we are not doing assumptions but this body is going to make sure that does not happen. >> we have no plan to do that. and i don't think the lease agreement says studio.

>> okay. thank you. >> sir who lives upstairs? >> we have three tenants long-term lease. >> you have three different tenants upstairs? >> yes. >> and you rent it out to three bedrooms? >> yes. >> separately. >> separate. >> as long as there's not more than five, it's not illegal. yeah. >> we've been trying to rent it to a family. but this san francisco, really anyone can afford it so that's the reason we rent it long-term lease. >> what's the total rent you're collecting for upstairs? >> i would say $4,000. >> $1,300 per room. >> i saw $1,500 in the exhibit. >> oh did you? okay. why does the excavation page include the addition? >> that i don't know. the reason i say i don't know is we are following the code

required by planning. if they come back to say we need to have that without it, they won't give us a permit or approval then we'll go hire an engineer to do that. the engineer will generate documents and will submit to the department. >> this is a site permit. when the site when after you get the site permit the next one comes with all the detail. >> all right. so we are following the procedure. >> thank you. >> thank you. mr. sanchez. >> a follow-up to that one scott? >> any questions? >> i have two, which is. >> we'll try to go for my memory here. so regarding section 311 notification it is not required for adus approved under 207c6 so that

change of scope, there's no reason that the correct plans couldn't or shouldn't have been submitted on day one. shouldn't have taken an appeal to get the permit holder to submit plans that reflect what's there. existing conditions means what is existing, not what you would like it to be. but so that is an issue. but i think it's not defeating of this permit, because just the project, the scope there does not require a 311 neighborhood notification. regards to the excavation, and i agree, that the excavation should be shown for that portion at the rear. that said, even if it goes over 49 cubic yards, it's unlikely to have any serious impacts here, because it's not at a land -- the cubic yard threshold is for additional environmental review when certain

things exist such as hazardous soil that you could be digging up, that you can be -- and this is not in that area, so it wouldn't trigger that review. it's not in a landslide zone or a lot that has more than 20 percent slope. so had they been -- i'm trying to be cute and do 49 when there's actually more. i don't know -- it doesn't seem like doing 51 or 55 would have made a difference in the process. one comment generally is when you have a standard, people will build to the standard and that's why we get a lot of projects that come in. we have office cap allocations. and people come in at 24,999 square feet so they don't have to get an office allocation. people will build to the requirements to avoid what they think or maybe as additional process. also looking at the plan, there is not a substantial amount of excavation here. and the plans from what they

do show which doesn't show the horizontal expansion at the rear it does seem to be accurate. i mean, you can look at the section on sheet a 3.0, you can see there's not really a significant amount of excavation. they are showing new foundation and flat. but it's not an extensive amount of excavation given this is san francisco and we have hilly terrain and we have seen projects where you see the iceburg houses and they are excavating rooms and basketball courts under the houses. not significant excavation there. in regards to short term rental we don't have any active complaints on short term rental. but there is nothing against the law of having three people or five people living unrelated in the home. that's my time. if you have other questions i can answer

them. >> sorry. on the subject given this is our last bite at the apple because once we -- if we were to approve this permit tonight, that's all, folks unless it was a major change in scope. given the fact that plans, the final plans whatever that is, were presented to you only two days ago. >> i received them last week. they were given to the appellant last week, i think last wednesday. >> and were not given to us in time for this hearing as far as a brief. and given some of the concerns that have been raised here tonight what should this body be concerned with and what should we be questioning, given the inconsistency ies that have been observed here tonight, including,

for example, three bathrooms, two bedrooms and three bathrooms that if a wall was put up would make a lovely separation into an additional unit? >> i would say in terms of plans or floor plans that are easily manipulated to add additional units, this is not the most easily manipulated i would say. on the ground level, they would have to dissect that living space, separate the dining and living room, have on one side, an avenue door where the driveway is and then -- but that's not what's on the plans. the plans don't show that. so we have to go by what's on the plans not what may happen in the future. if they do that in the future if they add another unit if they do illegal work, there are remedies for that. we have to go by what's on the plans. has the permit holder helped themselves through this process by

not accurately representing the plans from the beginning? no, they have not helped themselves. and just even hearing the interactions with the tenant, there's a reason that there's not trust here. we have permits all the time in san francisco. and there are varying levels of trust. it's based on the interactions that that happens. we have to go with what's on the plans. and while someone may have exhibited behavior that's not the most trust worthy maybe they were honest errors, maybe they weren't but we have to go by what's on the plans. we can't make judgment calls on whether someone is a liar or that one day they are going to do a violation. we have to go by what's on the plans. dbi will ensure the plans. we'll get a complaint if a door pops up in the front. the separation of those the ground floor space, i think would be pretty apparent. there's no side yards here. so there's no independent

access from the rear yard as i understand it so right now there's only one entrance on the front and that's in such a way that has access to both bedrooms why are there three bathrooms if there's no rule in the planning code says you can't have two bedrooms and three baths. is it standard? more plumbing and more fixtures than usual. i mean, i would assume that is so they can probably rent out those bedrooms. but that could still be done in compliance with the planning code. >> so all that being said, do you advise us, if we were to move forward and approve this permit or uphold the appellant and approve the permit with conditions, are there any other than just approving the -- denying the appeal, are there any conditions that you might advise to

rest the fears of the appellant in the moving forward of this development? >> i mean in terms of issues that were raised of the foundation i would defer to joe duffy in building inspection. but in terms of a lot of the issues i heard were concerned about this is a single family district and there shouldn't be multiple units. the law allows that. so i don't know what condition we could do that would allay those concerns about too much density. i know this is a single family district an hr1 district but we have a housing crisis, and state law does allow for these accessory dwelling units and it does not have discretion there. the discretion would be including additional conditions that on the permit. so i don't see anything that needs to be done other than adopting the revised plans and if illegal work is done in the future, complaints are

made, and they are brought to justice. >> right. and a notice of violation and here we are again. >> i hate to bring up this possibility but i just am wondering what you make of the rear room not being featured in the excavation plans, if that is because the professionals say they don't need it, but i imagine they do need to remove some soil to create a foundation. do you feel these plans are accurate and complete or do they need further revision to show that on the excavation? >> it is shown on the section on sheet a3.0 a somewhat down-sloping lot. so in terms of whether or not there's excavation needed by that extension it may not be required. but if we are going to be after it and thorough here, i think it's very reasonable to have them submit a revised plan with that showing whether or not there's any excavation needed for that. and if

it is, it goes over 49 cubic yards, we can have that discussion with our environmental review staff. on my initial review based on the records it wouldn't trigger additional review. >> on 3.0 it shows new concrete slab for the rear addition? >> correct. so there is work. but whether that slab is on grade or whether there's excavation required, they are showing on their excavation counts, which is sheet a1.0, excavation of about .7. so about half a foot for most of that ground floor area where the existing illegal unit is. but, you know they're more thorough calculation there, we can review that and in the future make sure everything is properly shown on the plans.

>> properly, properly. >> very proper. >> that's very proper. thank you. >> thank you. we will hear from the department of building inspection. >> joe duffy, dbi. i think what's listed here is they didn't bring an engineer with them. if they would have brought their engineer, we could have answered a lot of the questions. whether there is excavation. it's typical i see on these types that when you get up here to defend your permit if you have a design professional with you they're doing their best but they never addressed the concerns of three people got up for public comment and said they are worried about thundershower foundations. first down -- about their foundations. i'm not the one doing the foundation work. i know the code well our building inspector well and if they say there's something going on with the property,

they are welcome to call our department but the appellants, the permit holders, it's a typical project. it will get done. there is a way to do it. but they do need to do better at alleviating the neighbors' concerns on the foundation. there is a new days ago on a new slab looking at the drawings. we don't have details of that because they are in the addenda. you could ask for a letter from the engineer on the sequence and operation of how they are going to excavate next to the neighbors and what that entails and that's pretty typical as well. it's a flat lot and they're not going that deep we don't usually ask for a report but certainly from a structural engineer as to how they are going to do that project is something that's not unreasonable to ask for. how you ask for that is up to yourselves. but as i say it would put everybody's mind at ease,

including mine. >> so that would be your recommended condition if there would be a condition? >> yeah. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> i'll start. so as in the prior case with the cellular mobile tower, what is before us is a project. and our job is to determine whether this project was approved correctly from the building department. now granted, there is some other minutia here things here but that is not before us. if a wall goes up that is not supposed to be there you call 311. during that period, although the permit is not appealable, you can ask this body to take jurisdiction. the warning has been given to the developers already that they need to follow

the line. but as far as what was -- what was on the plans and the permit that they have requested i don't see a problem with it. i would on a suggestion of the department grant the appeal and condition it that, one the sequence and detail of the foundation be given. and, you know you as developers you have neighbors here that are not so happy that you should probably work with them. they are concerned about the foundation of their homes. but considering that this is a 1907 home with probably a brick foundation by them doing their foundation, it is actually improving and helping your neighboring properties, to be honest. and, you know, if there is some underpinning, make sure that they are marked in sequence and you as property owners next door have the ability to contact or get your own engineer or geo to make sure that is followed. and it is going

to be inspected by the departments here. >> so is that your motion?. >> sure. >> for clarity, where would you want that letter to be submitted? part of the plan? >> part of the plan and also we have to actually condition that. >> adopt the revised plan submitted today? >> correct. >> and then so on that plan today would be the letter from the permit holder's engineer. >> yes going forward. because that way -- the reason for it is it -- because their plans were submitted in the way they were and there's some question here that it would help the neighbors feel better about the construction. >> almost getting up. would you like to take my motion? help us along with -- thank you. >> yes. it's a sequence in operation for the excavation of the installation of

the new foundation. >> isn't that what he said? >> said something else. >> can you say that one more time. >> sequence of operation for the excavation and new foundation work. >> thank you. >> basically it's like looking at a set of directions on how to aassemble something. it's basically number one number two, number three this is how you are going to do it. >> thank you. >> commissioner honda, on what basis would you be making this motion? >> the project is code compliant. >> it is code compliant. >> information to the tenants. >> yes. >> regarding the excavation. we have a motion from. >> any other commissioner comments? moving forward? okay. thanks. >> we have a motion from commissioner honda to grant the appeal and issue the permit on the condition it be revised to require the adoption of the plans submitted at the hearing today and on the condition that the plan set contain

a letter from the permit holder's engineer which provides the sequence in operation for the excavation and new foundation work on the plan set. and that letter also be provided to the appellants. on the basis that the project is code compliant and the letter will allay the concerns of the 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