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
Coming next year whose spirit is stream lined, stop obstructing, delaying, build more housing, and this is absolutely the time. We need the housing. As much as folks would like, its not possible to build a wall around the mission. Somehow thats going to help whats going on there. This is a citywide crisis that affects every neighborhood. Approve this project without delay. Thank you. President hillis thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi. My name is richard hack. Ive heard these are a lot of good arguments. Just a couple of things, the architecture of this project and the one before are hideous. I mean, they look like shopping bags or boxes. Our Architectural Commission created a lot of create buildings. I wonder here what happened to the architecture. The demand to live in San Francisco is almost infinite. Its absolutely impossible to build enough units to drive the rents down. Now and then theres a little dip, because markets fluctuate, but thats not a valid argument and should be reje
Again, this corner is highly, highly trafficked at most times of the night. Its not the kind of corner where people can stop and jump out and get back in. Its really challenging. Thats going to be it doesnt mean dont do the project, it just means theres a challenge. The last thing ill comment on in terms of affordability, i concur with the staff just to go further the project has a gray area with affordability. It gets the density decontrol it would have had with home sf which requires 30 but yet not there. Its also not at the inclusionary level that was passed this past summer or even the inclusionary level passed that was mandated temporarily through the last version of prop c. So i do think that theres some benefits being conferred here that are positive. We want to see more units but at the same time, its not giving the affordability we would have seen through home sf or if the project were subject to the affordability in the recently passed legislation so im supportive of the staf