>> good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco planning commission regular hearing for thursday, june 13th, 2019. i will remind members of the public the commission does not tolerate our burst. silence your mobile devices during these proceedings. when speaking before the commission, if you care to state your name for the record. i'd like to take roll at this time. [ roll call ] >> first there were no items closed for continuance, however we have received a request from

the project sponsor for item 10 case 1016-300399 conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance through july 11th, 2019. i have no other items for continuance or speaker cards. >> does anyone want to comment about the continuance request? >> good afternoon, john here on behalf of the project sponsor. we have a sensitive neighborhood here. fortunately we're making good progress. president melgar, we have dtna on board with the project. a couple of the neighbors are asking for a continuance so we can have additional meetings before we come here and so we're hoping to be back here july 11to go. thank you for your consideration. >> president melgar: thank you. any other public comment? >> dade troop with the triangle neighborhood association just want to echo mr. kevlynn's

fronts but there's issues being worked out with the neighborhood. so we're appreciative of the willingness to accept a continuance so hopefully we can have that rare thing of everybody being in support of the project. thank you for your consideration. >> president melgar: thank you. any other public comment? with that, public comment is now closed. commissioner col notel koppel. i motion to move it to the date specified. >> thank you continuing to july 11th. commissioner fung. >> aye. >> hillis. >> aye. >> johnson. >> aye. >> moore. >> aye. >> koppel. >> aye. >> and president melgar. >> aye. >> that motion passes 6-0. that will place us on commission matters item 1, commissioner

comments and questions. >> president melgar: so i just had a question for staff and that was about the organizing that neighbors are doing to get green benefit district around the park and it's fairly large and encompasses valencia street up to market street and so it's not a commission use issue but it has land use issue. it would be great if we can have an informational and have discussion about it. thank you. >> seeing nothing further. we can move on to department matters. item 2, director's announcements. >> w. only one announcement. last week we had the honor of the department had the honor of getting a couple of awards from the northern california chapter of the american planning association. we received an award for the

central soma plan and we received an award for the recent policy change to eliminate parking requirements city wide, which you all supported and the board supported. and thirdly, one of our planners, veronica flores received award as a new emerging young planner for the city so we were proud of her and all the awardees in the department so we wanted to make that announcement and congratulate everyone. >> congratulations to you director. great achievement, thank you. >> item 3 review of events at the board of supervisors. there's no board of appeals or historic preservation commission report. >> good afternoon, aaron star, management of legislative affairs. a quick report. there were no items at the land use committee that planning department presented on. at the full board, the mills act applications requirement changes in the administrative code passed its second read. the landmark designation for the paper doll passed the first

read. and the changes to the regional commercial district and the full passed and that concludes my report. thank you. >> if there are no questions, commissioners, we can move on to general public comment. members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public. within the subject matter except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, it will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. i have several speaker cards. >> i just wanted to remind folks not to stand in front of the door. it's a hazard. find a seat, that would be great. >> you do need to find a seat to remain in the room. >> i have georgia, richard frisbee and mark bran on but if anyone else wants to come up you can lineup on the left wall.

thank you. >> good afternoon. i just want to highlight you 48 hills on the 11th. i don't know if you read the 48 hills. there were two good articles, one article about the jobs-housing linkage and one from the lawyer from los angeles about the state laws. if i can have the overhead, please. i would appreciate it. thank you. this is from -- this is across here you approved. i forgot t forgot to look it up. it wasn't a demolition. it was a remodel and there were two units. one on sanchez and one on die. i was standing will looking at it and a woman came by and said it's big i hate the fact it doesn't have more units in it but i said it was a demolition even though they said it wasn't. that's what they do all the time. i was taken back because she

accepted that fact that that's what goes on all the time. so it is big and just to remind you, if i may, here are the demo calcs for it and they're hard to see. this is one set and it's over one number and it's almost over the other number so in that group it almost made it and you know, the other numbers were somewhat more legitimate. just to further the discussion on the demo calcs, i was looking on the internet for stuff and i found and i'm going to give this to you for the record. i found this memo from ruben and this is from 2013 and it's interesting because the number for the rh1 at the time was $1.3 million and within six months it went up to 1.506 million. i just wanted to point it out

because it's hard to find numbers prior to march 2014 of what the value was for the rh1. one more thing interesting to me, which i've never seen before sbefore, is there were values fr two-family homes and a three-family home and i assume it's in the rh-1. i wanted to point out those. i commend those articles, especially mr. elbowing's article. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> hi, good afternoon. mark brennan. i am here to talk today again about the endless projects that are going on on everyson street. it's a cul-de-sac. the closest cross street is beacon. right now the neighbors have had to undergo about three and a half, four and a half years of constant construction.

there are three projects in particular. i'm going to get the overhead as well. it's not the best map that came from the map here in the city. so, you have 21 everson. and 2 everson. between 2 everson and 21 everson. the same owner of number two owns 43. he is a well-known venture capitalist. a billionaire. he bought two everson in 2011 and it's been under remodel and rebuilt about throw times since 2005. he started remodeling in 2012. he has another permit right now and he is doing extensive work. 43 everson came a year ago on discretionary review. this was a 4,000-foot six-bedroom home with two

entrances and there's an illegal unit and the venture capitalist turned it into a 6,000 square foot, one-bedroom home with a basketball court and swimming pool. # 3 everson is more or less undergoing a demolition. they've taken out tons of rock and poured multiple slabs and i'd like to show you what the construction looks like on this street. you literally cannot park on this street. they have big trucks. there's thro three projects. this one here and two everson down here. 2 everson i brought that up to this commission about six months ago, that was a 3,000 square foot home that had a remodel permit. it was clearly a demolition.

the house is now 10,000 square feet. you can see it there. when i brought this up to the planner she said no, 50% of the walls were kept it's not true. it was a facade really with the t-11 siding was laying against the wall and moved from time to time. brand new foundation. again, 10,700 square feet. even if it's not a demolition or even if it is a demolition it appraises out. this commission should have some standards. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners, corey smith on behalf of the san francisco action housing coalition. it was mentioned about a proposal for memo park that would put a moratorium on office and commercial space. we're still trying to figure out

what exactly that is going to develop into but talking with our allies at the housing leadership council and reading the resolution i got to push forward. also attempt to go put a moratorium on any projects that are 100 units or larger and a 100% affordable mid pen project and it's 150 units that is now a giant question mark. i don't think we should be applauding for what they're doing. the other thing they're looking to ban is mixed use. so there will be no opportunities to build residential properties above ground floor retail as we understand it if this is passed as proposed today. i think we're going to start seeing this more often from smaller cities around the bay area. i just want to make sure we're not supporting or advocating for stopping building housing in the cities with train stations. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'll need the overhead.

good afternoon, president melgar and commissioners. i'm dick frisbee. at 3333 california will be coming before you later this summer. i thought it would be beneficial to take some time and provide some background information. hopefully i can dispel some of the myths about the community's position regarding the projects. as the planning department has chosen to ignore any input from the community or to conduct a city wide community planning process to decide whether this 10.2-acre site should actually be rezoned. also, the developer and ucsf con sell -- and the eir process was begun, the community had the property listed on the

california register of historic resources. we have been faced with a developer who demanded rezoning of the site from the outset despite not providing us with all the available information. even though he acquired the site for far less than a fair market value. so let me show you and you have these on the packet i gave you. can i have the overhead. you have got it there. i just wanted, these are some of the myths that are being presented to us today. and they're all false. one is the community opposes a development. we don't oppose a development. we support development housing for this project for three years and we're on the public record in the supervisor's office. we oppose retail, commercial, and the wholesale destruction of a historically listed site. the second one is that we

propose the same number of units as the developer but the difference is we propose it in three years on the basis of san francisco action has a housing crisis and the developer has requested a seven to 15 year entitlement period so if we have a housing crisis, a seven to 15 year entitlement period is ludicrous. the third one is it's laid at the laurel heights improvement association is the problem here. it's not true. we have over 800 signatures on a petition opposing the developer schemes. there are less than 200 residents. not members but residents. to to make the argument that this is one small group is doing it is wrong. lastly, let me show you the 15-year period. that's what is coming from the california bay. the first one is just aren't

building fast enough. anyone who wants seven to 15 years it's immoral requirement in a period where we need housing. we want housing and we want it now. the developer wants housing when he can roll out the site and develop in a different way. thank you, very much. >> thank you, sir. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm here to bring up to your attention the projects that were here last week 135 hyde street. there was no one from the public who public comment on it and the fact a developer requested to go back and fee out instead of building these units. we're talking about somoslily units out of a project for 69 units in the tenderloin. how on earth are we supposed to

fix the affordability crisis in this city? will the developer show up next year and asking for feeling ou . we will not get affordable housing in this city at this rate. think about that particular neighborhood, tenderloin. this developer is going to be building 69 market rate luxury units complete with a roof deck. these are luxury units that are going to be fetching market rate prices and all we were asking for 10 units. we were settling for 10 units. 400 square feet for a one

bedroom. which to most of the homes that are being built in my neighborhood, that would be a walk-in closet. we were settling for that for low income person. and they weren't content with that. we are getting no value capture for the low income folks who currently live in the tenderloin. so i just wanted to bring this up to your attention because i think it's -- it wasn't ok to let the developer off the hook and it's too bad that there was no one here from the public to do public comment. on a lighter note, i am happy to report for once, i'm in agreement with mr. corey smith. yes, i don't think the parking k should be taken off the hook and the entire silicon valley, they don't build any affordable housing. never at market rate where they

kick and scream and they're not going to introduce anything. with affordable housing their record is even worse than their market race houses so yes, i agree with mr. smith, let's not let them off the hook. >> next speaker, please. >> commissioners, john. once again, addressing the prop m allocation process, especially for the central soma projects. last week, i presented to you a protection of how it is likely the staff recommended allocation process that would workout over the next 10 years or so and what projects could go when. here is a slight update of that but on the other side, it's a projection of how and instead the allocations might work if the phase 1 for the huge flower mart project were reduced if the

mark stays in central soma. of course the first question is why hasn't your staff not given you protections? i heard that the mayor's office says oh, eastbounder ling's numbers are wrong. what is yours? where is theirs? where are any numbers from anybody but me? and of course, the second question is not having any protection in front of you that comes from your own team, how can you make a decision to how to handle out $6 billion worth of development rights? how can you do that blindly? now i can summarize the the pact of the two alternatives. at least one project, the boston project is first stage was delayed two years. when there's uncertainty we don't know exactly how fast the pier 70 project and the mission rock will drop down their office allocation so depending on what

they have, because they take space off the top, we're not sure how much will be left for everybody else. the boston project is set up for two years. if you push the kill roy project up first, completion of four certainlessential projects is pd back four years. at least. now, our position is straight forward. we want to see them all get built so that their public benefits of them all can be realized. they have good community elements of one kind or another. that is what we believe would be the right thing for you to do. what no one can understand is why you said one developer is getting a sweet heart deal. the difference between the flower mart is worth $800 million. so why does one get an 800 million-dollar goodie and everybody else gets pushed back? i can't explain it.

the press asks me. they two. i can't explain it to the press. the members of the board are majority members ask me. i can't explain it to them. you explain it. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> public education. i think from the speakers we just seen, there's a problem here. the problem is corruption. systemic corruption of this planning commissioner and the planning department. we'll hear about it later as far as privatization in san francisco. what is going on is a great fraud on the people of san francisco. public lands being privatized for developer who are building condos for millionaires. so the hell with the working class, the poor people in san francisco, let them stay in tents and harass them by the police. you are improving more millionaire condos for whom? the billionaires. the profiterses. that's why you lie, you lie, you

lie about the development in san francisco. it's not for working people, it's not to help the people. it's to help the developer profits. there should be no privatization of public land in san francisco. no privatization. if any housing is built, it should be working-class housing. there should be a halt on development of condos these million dollar condos. if we need housing in san francisco it's for working people and poor people yet you continue to heed the developer, who put the mayor in office and that's the previous mayor in office. the developers run san francisco and other cities. what are they doing? they're making san francisco an impossible place to live. there's total gridlock. there's not mass transportation, free mass transportation and you say you throw up your hands and what can we do about it? you are responsible for it. because you are improving these billion dollar operations. you are approving them regardless of the people of san francisco. [ please stand by ]

>> public comment is now closed. >> i would like to take the opportunity to rind folks standing in front of the doors that you need to find a seat at the very least moved to the other side of the room for now. >> commissioner hillis? >> a couple people brought up issues surrounding the demolitions, and i know we have had a couple hearings on this, and ordinances were in the works , so at some point in the next couple of weeks, we would like to get an update on where things are, and if that ordinance isn't moving forward, maybe we will look at some of the things that we've done in the past. it would be good to have. >> and the demo calculation. >> supervisor peskin's ordinance

is in front of you next weekend. >> thanks. >> commissioner johnson? >> i just want to respond to a specific address that was brought up, 43 everson, just looking at the recent street view images. it looks like we are looking into what is happening on that property. >> so we have had a request from a supervisor to take number 5 out of order, as he needs to get to his kid's graduation. we will do that. i think it will be fast, and then we can get onto the other. >> along those lines, i would just advise members of the public that we will be, as the chair just stated, taking item five out of order. we will then move to item four, then we will be pulling item nine 4610 through 619 ran in

street out of order. that will place us under the regular calendar for item five. oceanview large residents special use district. the planning code and zoning map amendment. >> good afternoon, i'm here with department staff. i will be providing an ordinance that proposes to create the oceanview large residents special use district. this item was before you on march 7th where after providing feedback on the initial version of the ordinance , you moved to continue the hearing. since that hearing, -- >> thank you, commission. welcome commissioner fong, it is the first time i have seen you in that seat.

congratulations. thank you for taking us out of order. i have to get to the east bay for a graduation for a young person that i have known for a very long time. i really appreciate it. we will be fast. i wanted to say, i appreciate the conversation we had in march about this legislation. i think the suggestions were spot on. what we are presenting to you today, we moved away from the square footage and we consider f.a. are. we adjusted the boundary. somehow it was presented by mistake by our supervisorial district. we included them based on neighborhoods now. we reached out to district seven because there is a part of his district south of ocean and east of ingleside terrace that is -- mirrors, acts, and behaves in terms of the housing market just like district 11 in this area, and any three part of our district. it is the homes that you still see this type of action

happening in. we included that's. we proposed -- we think it is a good multiplier. we think that proposing that, and at the same time not penalizing anyone for including the a.d.u., this is a way to limit the size of the homes that are more manageable, but also encourage, in a very positive manner, a.d.u. construction. we think that is the right way to go about this. no way is this harming anyone that wants to live with their extended family, or have an opportunity for additional income or space. we also limit the size of the a.d.u. to say that it can be no smaller than one third so that there is equity in the distribution of the space. we think that was important. staff's recommendation about including a bathroom count. as you recall, with monticello there was 14 bedrooms and 12

baths. almost every single one of them was on sweet. saying no more than three bedrooms, you have to come in and make that argument. i think it was a really positive step. this is the one area we don't agree with staff. we still hold the maximum five bedrooms and we understand that a lot of that will be taking care of if it is violated through enforcement. it is hard sometimes. a lot of time times -- a lot of times plans will be presented as an entertainment room or library or any other things, but they can stay on the map. if you see a closet in the room, it will almost certainly be a bedroom. what we care more about is that being on the record so that when we are working with enforcement, that that is part of the goal, and also still driving people when there is a conversation of more than five bedrooms as has been proposed, if that does happen and we are still driving people towards a.d.u. and we want to have that is part of the conversation. we feel firmly about that, that it still helps in terms of the

overall enforcement, the overall picture. other than that, i think that pretty much summarizes it. we appreciate, since march 7th , we had multiple meetings with planning staff, speaking with some of the commissioners, and i know commissioner melgar talked about how being right on the cusp of this area and not seeing this happen in one neighborhood versus the other, has a lot to do with the type of homes. the other thing we're trying to protect, ultimately, is when you're competing in the market again someone who can turn something into a 12 or 14 bedroom home all on sweet, you are taking away an affordable first time home opportunity. the reason that is relevant right now is because we are in this conversation of affordable housing bond. we have a segment that is dedicated to down payment loan assistance. my district as the district that down payment loan assistance is utilized for first-time homeowners more than any other

part of san francisco, and when they are competing in the market where someone can overbid for a project, i thank you will hear from residents where they had homes that he legally pulled permits and turns them into very -- very similar into monticello. i think this is a good piece of legislation. i appreciate the time, i appreciate the work and the suggestions from the commission. if you have any questions, i would be happy to answer those. >> thank you. thank you for all the work. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> on record, stuff recommendation, i am greatly in support of the substitute ordinance. as mentioned, there is concern about district boundaries, methods for controlling size and as mentioned, we do maintain concern about the ability for us to enforce the bedroom count, as mentioned, they are very easily circumvented and unenforceable.

one last item, since publication of the stuff report, we received a couple of letters of correspondence, and these are here for your review. this concludes your presentation and we are here for questions. thank you. >> do we have any public comment on this item? come on up. >> good afternoon, commissioners commissioner fong, welcome. good to see you. my name is stephen courier. i am a former president of the outer mission resident's association. i have lived in district 11426 years, and i am so into this. if you read my letter that i just sent yesterday, the household next door to me, the price was 998, and it sold for $1.5 million. when i was in paris last may of 2018, a friend of mine was watching our house will be there e-mailed me and said, you need

to look at your cameras from outside. for someone who pulled a bathroom and a kitchen remodel permit and had gutted the whole house. i immediately sent an e-mail from paris to the planner and said, this is unacceptable, and i got a response from him saying i needed to go through the proper channels. the house close the day before he started construction. how he got an over-the-counter permit to remodel a bathroom and a bedroom is beyond me. anyway, after nine violations, he was shut down at $750,000. he reapplied for his permit and we sued him at the girl -- ord ward of appeals. we came in agreement between his attorney and myself and the neighbors that also sued. nine bedroom house, he was putting in additional bedrooms. it was a two and a half bedroom, one and a half bedroom --

bathroom. that is unbelievable. that is the same time -- my supervisor was telling me about monticello at the same time. people who don't know how to work the system, like the people in monticello, they are just homeowners. they don't know how to navigate the system. and fortunately, i did. i was able to get this down, and i was also was in agreement that he couldn't pave the front and the back yard, pave the side yard, had to keep the car in the garage and in the bathroom situation and the bedroom situation. i wish to put something in place these people -- if they want to build more housing or bigger housing, or more bedrooms, they do have to go through the conditional use process. the unfortunate thing with my neighbor next door, he never applied for the proper permit, which would probably take him a good year to do.

i totally support this. on the back of my letter you will see some neighbors names that i put in because of what we were dealing with, and also the senior building inspectors in the -- and the building inspectors that we see. i hope you will pass this ordinance. thank you. >> thank you. i also have mr. mark romero and mr. choi. >> thank you. my name is mark romero. i live on 435 ralston located between holloway and garfield. i am a native san franciscan, and i have owned my home since 1985. we have faced many challenges through the years, but neighbors have worked together to make it a great place to live. or block a single family homes no larger than three bedrooms, two bathrooms, except for homes on holloway which are part of the terrace subdivision.

it was expanded with the promise that the -- the owners never lived there. it has become a multiple family dwelling. i received miss address letters and parcels and there were multiple instances. we know there was at least four entrances and i'm confident there are four units. it has caused issues way -- well people parked on our driveway and participating in a rental lottery. the owner wasn't truthful about the intent and has taken advantage of the system and caused parking issues. 454 ralston was started in 2015 to replace an abandoned bungalow the first iteration plan i saw was 13 bedrooms, 11 bathrooms with no garage. i questioned the city planner about the scope of the project and said it was all within code and explained that it was moving the extended family to the new home.

the family included two daughters, parents, and him and his wife. when i asked why six people needed 13 bedrooms, 11 bathrooms and no garage, he said that growing up, he never had much room. when i mention that the design had multiple entrances to each of the levels and that the kitchen and plumbing had been set up as wet bars on each level , and it seems like a multiple dwelling -- multiple family dwelling, he said he would scale back the project to include a two car garage, remove doors and stair access, and remove the planning just the plumbing for the wet bar. he ensured me he needed to move and soon and would concede to these changes. he pretty much told me that he believed mr. chan and there was a lot that could be done about this. construction started in 2016 and is still in the progress. mr. chan built a one-car garage and applied for permits for wet bars on each level this year.

i do not trust that the access and use of multiple kitchen issues because i do not trust him. we also have a problem i 446, which is just now going to planning. these homes present a burden on the other residents with parking issues presented by their occupants and visitors. monster structures do not fit the scale of the block, and the causes detract -- distrust. they know how to skirt the rules , and it seems to me, with help from planning. they are too smart from me. i need your protection from this exploitation. >> thank you. we appreciate your comments. >> thank you. >> i also have mr. choi -- mrs. troy mrs. troy. is she still here? >> hello. i live in 447 ralston street

tween holloway and garfield, it is an older neighborhood. i want you all to know what is happening in my neighborhood. my block is very narrow. the contractor -- there have been several contracts to build houses and they turn into giant houses. one house has 11 bedrooms, ten bathrooms, one-car garage, and the next one, the house right next to me turned into a four unit apartment. so my block is very narrow, probably only a two-car garage and two cars per household. parking is a nightmare, also there is a safety issue here because one house has turned into childcare. the parents are double parking their cars, and it is dangerous.

i really think some kind of provision is needed. thank you very much. >> thank you. any other public comment on this issue? >> steve, department of public education. we have seen another example of the rampant corruption and flagrant violation of planning rules by this commission. you shake their heads, there is a problem. what are you doing about it? i think the executive director here should be terminating this because he certainly is not forcing off all. why have all of the code and why hasn't he enforced the code? he is controlled by the developers, that is why. the developers do what they want and so every day is treating health hazards, it is creating this is what is going on cisco

and you go along with it you approve these projects even though they are flagrant violations. so what is it says it has to be placed not representing the fliers who want to do their jobs you are representing the developers want to lie about what they will be building. it happened then and again and again, that is terrible, why did you keep happening? why away with that again and again and again? there is no enforcement. the director does not enforce his own rules, unless it comes to the developers that want something, then he bows down and does what they want. that is who they are bowing to two -- bowing down to. that is who this commission is representing. it has to end. the people here in this meeting should demand the termination of the executive director.

the enforcement of the code is not taking place in san francisco, and developers and builders think they can get away with ignoring the code, and they do get away with it. it is harming the people of san francisco and it is certainly not helping the homeless situation in san francisco. >> thank you, sir. next speaker, please.

>> people are going to make a buck and they are not going to do it straight. this effort to address the most egregious violations is necessary. this is all over town, there are different scenarios, whether you are on the mission, whether you are in north beach, whether you are in the excelsior, whether you are in oceanview, and i really, i think it would be a great idea if you passed it and supported it any other public comment on this item we -- >> any other public comment on this item? public comment is now closed. >> two questions.

one is, other districts which have looked for governors, if you will, to control the size of expansions and related to context and character of the neighborhood reduce height limits, you know, from 40 down to 30. was that discussed here? >> we did not discuss reducing height limits. we thought that we could control the size of buildings through sar. >> in san francisco, that has been applied to nonresidential units, but this is the first time ever for a residential unit >> that is correct. >> commissioner richards? >> i have heard a lot about this , and i was a fan until i saw a project proposed in my neighborhood on market street

between church and sanchez for a five bedroom unit at 750 square foot per unit. i am now in favor of actual bedroom counts rather than this because the building code minimum is about 100 square feet and if you have five bedrooms a 500, and the other 250 divided between the kitchen, bathroom, and hallway, and voilà, you have five bedroom scene 750 square feet. i do not support the planning department's recommendation, even though i supported that before. i think the real world example is over and over again, we have had people come before us in the name of multigenerational households to get in the system. we have seen it over and over. what is the appropriate size of unit, we have had commissioners appear that the 8,000 square feet was appropriate, we think more of the average of 1600 square feet is appropriate, which is the average dwelling size. the only way to get at this is through the legislation that the

supervisor proposes. i support it as is. >> thank you. commissioner hillis? i just wanted to point out that we, specifically, told this supervisor to go with it last time he was here. >> i know we did i change my mind, sorry. >> thank you for bringing this back to us and for the work you have done in the interim. thank you to the staff. this is more of a question on the bedroom count. does that include, if there was an accessory dwelling unit, does it include both or is it just for the main residence? >> the restriction -- the restrictions apply to the main home and encourages the a.d.u. >> okay. >> the five bedroom count, if he went over that, would just be for the main resident? >> that's right. for instance, we have someone -- that's why it took commissioner richard's point. we like the fir, but we also like the idea. we have heard these examples. there's one in the works right

now on ralston where staff has approved and said that it is okay to have 11 bedrooms, you know, and they are all en suite. eleven bedrooms, nine bathrooms. again, they are arguing extended family and all these other things. if it is in the appropriate environment, i am for it. but the majority of the lots that we have in this area are 2500 square feet. to put that many people in that small amount of space, that is why we want to keep the bedroom, but we will also want to encourage the a.d.u. as a way to trade off. we also had another person come subsequent for legislation and said, i have six bedrooms and six bathrooms, and i said, why do you need six bathrooms, and the argument was about potty training in and all these other things. i didn't want to question it. i honestly didn't because i saw her again at a groundbreaking and she said, here's my daughter , she is potty trained now i said great, then you don't need all the bathrooms anymore. [laughter]

>> is that you are all good, any more than three you have to make an argument and it can't be potty training. we get all kinds of arguments and we felt like this was the right balance and it does not count against the a.d.u. >> great, thank you. i think it is the first time we have heard the potty training argument. that is a good one. i get staff issues, it is a little hard to enforce. you get it. people but dining room or family room or whatever they want and they get that, but i think both of them combined will get at the issues. >> i guess my point is, people probably will begin to try and hide them. right now they are not. right now they are proposing 11 bedrooms and nine bathrooms. that is in front of us right now i think this legislation is going to impact that because it is in the process. we will have to have a conversation with that sponsor. and even when they do start to say media room, whatever they

want to say, at least we will then have it on the record when we are talking with and dealing with d.b.i. there is a point of reference. >> great. thank you. i am support of the legislation as proposed. i get the issue. >> are you making a motion? >> i will make a motion to approve. >> commissioner johnson? >> i want to echo that. i think, you know, i want to thank the supervisor and his office or working with the planning department and the planning director to really close this and create legislation that can help us in force when people violate the code, you know, i would just absolutely agree that i think there should be a balance between this and the bedrooms. while we can't enforce the bedrooms, it is a great way to bring people to the table. i means support of the legislation as proposed. >> commissioner moore? >> i am in support of the

bedroom count versus the other. i am support of controlling the number of bedrooms, but i do not believe that the numbers are substantiate -- substantiated. >> are you making an amendment? >> i am just saying, i am supporting it, but we focus legislation on bedroom count rather than space. i do not see any elaboration in the text in front of me that speaks to that. >> commissioner hillis mac we are hoping on the motion as proposed by the supervisor, which does include it has both that and the bedroom count. >> as i understand it, the staff is not comfortable with that part of it. >> we are not comfortable with

the bedroom count. the table is fine. >> we're we are voting on the motion as proposed, or the legislation as proposed in that his staff recommendation. >> correct. >> there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this planning code and zoning map amendment as proposed without staff modifications on that motion... [roll call] so moved. that motion passes unanimously. >> thank you, commissioners. thank you for all your work on this reviser. >> that will place on item four 400 through 444 divisadero street. this is a conditional use authorization. >> the afternoon, nurse. my mary hartman staff. this e.u. see you before you is

to allow unit development to demolish existing gas stations, a carwash and two residential buildings containing three units to relocate as a dental building approximately 49 see, to the east project side, and the action of a new three to six story mixed-use building 37 of which would be affordable units. 8100 square feet of commercial retail uses, 56 offstreet parking spaces, one loading space, one car space, 170 class one bicycle spaces, 16 class two bicycle spaces, totaling approximately 150,000 square feet, and 15,000 square feet of common open space. the project is located in two zoning districts, the divisive

-- the divisadero neighborhood commercial transit district, and the residential house three family district with 65 a and 40 x. high in oak districts. the project requires conditional use authorization for a large lots development size exceeding 9,999 square feet, conversion of an automotive service station, a bulk exception and demolition, and replacement of residential units. the project also requires unit development modification to provisions lit related to the rear yard requirement, bay window projections over the street, and increase the dwelling units in the r.h. three zoning district. the department finds that the project on balance is consistent with the planning code and the objectives and policies of the general plan. although the project results in the demolition of three

residential units, they would be replaced in the new mixed-use building. the project sponsor is working with the tenant on relocation systems and returning to the site upon completion of the project. the entertainment commission has reviewed the project and recommended noise conditions for adoption as part of this project since the package was last distributed to the commission, staff has received additional five letters in opposition to the project --

>> for these reasons, the site has called out for redevelopment , and that is what the sponsor team has been working on since 2015. it has not always been easy.

prior to 2015, the underlying density controls for the zoning only permitted 60 units on that frontage go think that in 2015, was sponsored legislation to change the zoning to a district, which eliminated the residential density limitations by retaining the existing 65-foot height limit. than last year, supervisor brown sponsored legislation to raise the on-site mac affordable housing requirement to 20%, significantly higher then the 12 % requirement that was in effect when the project was first proposed. the project before you which is the board action will put together the pedestrian orientation of the neighborhood and make a significant contribution to the city's housing goals. as has been previously mentioned the project includes 194 new rental apartments, 37 of which will be on site emr.

there are three rent-controlled units to replace the three main units that are being demolished and keep in mind, these are in addition to the on-site b.m.r. there is the renovation of the historic 1060 to 1062 oak street building. it contains two additional rent-controlled units that will remain on the broader project site. in addition, the sponsor has been working closely with the tenants of the existing rental units on the site and has offered to relocate them during the construction and to provide housing and rent-controlled units within the project after it is completed. the new units will offer approximately double the square footage compared to the units that the tenants are currently in, and they will be much nicer and newly constructed units. the project sponsor is working closely with supervisor brown and attorneys on behalf of the tenants at tenderloin housing clinic to ensure this process run smoothly and collaboratively

, and we would be happy to answer any further questions that you have about that later in the presentation. now i would like to turn it over to the project sponsor who will describe the community outreach that they have conducted and to -- and to will duncan, the project architect. >> madam president, commissioners, i am with genesis we have been developing housing in california since 1987. i have developed over 900 housing units in san francisco. for context, six months ago, you approved the divisadero and c.t. it would be the second project. my vision is twofold.

first, creating 186 rentals, not condos, rentals, and 20% affordable on-site, with supervisor brown provided tremendous leadership with for the feasibility study for the community meetings, and for the legislation, which got us to this milestone we are at today. second, is designing the site as the nexus connecting divisadero and the lower hate with neighborhood serving local retail, pedestrian-friendly streetscapes, a six-story mural on the north side, and a design that conveys a sense of place. i think we went to the wrong presentation. [laughter] that is okay. i am not doing the central soma open space. [laughter]