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 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 sponsors 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 wasnt possible due to hitting solid. Thats 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. Its 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 infilled 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 firsthand recent nondrought era construction of the buildings in the visit vicinity. Weve 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 thats flowing around thats 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 dont just break for no reason. It was likely caused by shifting soil and these things keep occurring at the site. The sponsors 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 twofoot deep slab. So there will be excavation and sizable footings placed against Historic Buildings. How could the department claim no impacts when they dont 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 workingclass 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 onethird 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 doesnt 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 didnt 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 higherinjury 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. Thats 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 appellants 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 Commissions 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 wellrespected 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 theres 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 thats 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 theres been a lot of discussion about flooding. Right now its a surface parking lot, its 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 onsite . Onsite. 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 its 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. Its 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 its 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 onsite so thats 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 its something unique to eastern neighborhoods. And it was an approval project developed specifically for eastern neighborhoods thats 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 its 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 dont 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. Im the next postal address. Ive been there for over 15 years and i dont remember receiving notices for the prior hearings. I just received one for this hearing so forgive me if i havent 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. Its 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. Theres a few trees left from woodward garden which was called the central park of the pacific. And as you know its a historic block on woodward. These trees being taken down removes any trees from within a twoblock area. So i dont 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. Thats irrelevant to the trees that are permanently there. Thats how crows so i dont appreciate the other trees these trees on 14th street. Thank you. Next speaker please. Welcome. Hello. My name is neil. Im the managing director at the impact of San Francisco on 15th and mission, the old rainbow grocery. Ive 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 Hunters Point in bayview, 50 years ago and since then, this