The third floor primarily because of the fact that you had to walk through the lower floor unit to get to the third floor unit. There is no access to that unit. In regards to other issues raised by the appellant, i think those are primarily rent board issues for the rent board to properly adjudicate. One thing i will notice, maybe perhaps the appellant will enlighten us and maybe i missed this earlier. In the photos that are in the appellants brief, it showed the hood above that kitchen nook area where the wet bar is. Its my understanding from staff that when they did a site visit in december, that hood was not there. Perhaps the board might be interested in finding out who removed that vent hood, but that was not there when staff visited the site. I dont know the dates of their photo, but my assumption is that it was proved prior to our staff visit. It wouldnt make a difference on whether its an unauthorized dwelling unit because that see relying on the access. Our determination is al
The board requests that you turn off or silence all phones or other Electronic Devices so they will not disturb the meetings. Parties are given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes for rebuttals. Members of the public who are not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. For jurisdiction and rehearing requests, the parties shaf three minutes to present their case with no rebuttal. Four votes are required to grant an appeal or modify a permit. If you have questions about requesting a rehearing, please email board staff. This is broadcast on sfgov tv on channel 26. The video is also available on our website. Now we will swear in or affirm all those who intend to testify. Please note that any member of the public may speak without taking an oath. If you intend to testify at any of tonights proceedings and wish the board to give you evidentiary right. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will
Law you heard about oh we cant do anything about adus because the state says we cant. We cant do anything about this because the state says you cant. Youre 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. Youve got to find a way to push back on some of this stuff and particularly in the mission we cant 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 . Thats just false data. And its wrong. And it should be reexamined 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
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 19085. 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 sevenstory, 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 twobedroom, two bathroom units which would utilize the code section 6591565918 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 di
Clear, i mean, this is like eight affordable units out of 60. Okay . So its 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 cant do anything about adus because the state says we cant. We cant do anything about this because the state says you cant. Youre 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. Youve got to find a way to push back on some of this stuff and particularly in the mission we cant 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 . Thats just false data. And its wrong. And it should be reexamine