tv Government Access Programming SFGTV March 8, 2019 9:00pm-10:01pm PST
explore the idea of nighttime retail to expand the possibilities there. we do know that a number of our corridors that do have a strong night life and entertainment component, where night life is drawing people to the neighborhood -- those people go before the concert starts and they will walk the corridor and hopefully if there's some shops open, in addition before they do their dining or their drinking -- i don't thank we have enough data on these sort of hyper localized specific concepts. but that is something that i'm interested in because it seems that having a vibrant corridor is either having a cluster of businesses or specific anchor business that draws people there and then the opportunities that are there for the rest of the businesses to take advantage as part of that. and i don't have as good a data as we ought to but it's something worth further exploration. >> san francisco has a multiuse,
mixed use environment. it maybes it sometimes very difficult, particularly entertainment as a destination with certain hours of operations. if you leave stores open during that time they may stay empty during the time that the entertainment is happening and they may pick up a few customers afterwards. that may require a little bit more specific study in order to really -- to do that. and i share my fellow commissioners' concerns about the outdoor activities and the yards and rooftops. we're sitting here at the front line and speaking from real experience and i believe that the devil is in the details. because properly negotiated agreements have resulted in positive use of these spaces. but, again, it is how it's done and the mutuality by which these vendors are pursued. we have also seen very disruptive cases where ultimately i think that in one case we had to evoke the permit.
it involved also costly issues and constant monitoring of a tenant -- of visitors, etc. so it is more difficult to implement than to just give approval as a change in legislation. the issue when you explained it, but it's still a little bit difficult for me to understand, what is the reason to want to exempt any restaurant from the requirement of operating as a bobona fide business, if it bres with the consistency with the requirements? i'll leave that as a question -- if you can... >> absolutely. so the whole definition of a bona fide eating establishment is this idea of where their sales, their gross receipts, are
coming from. so that is defined in the state code and then we adopt that definition in our planning code, that that is more than 51% of your sales that are coming from food. unfortunately, the way that we define "bar" and the way that we define "restaurant" in the planning code that is the main differentiation. where is your 51% or more of sales coming from? is it coming from food sales? or coming from other things like alcohol? and so if you have both use permits you're operating as a nighttime entertainment and a restaurant, you want to be able to serve food and then all of a sudden you're forced to have 51% of your sales come from food and 51% of your sales not come from food. so it's that -- the contradictory aspect of that that we were trying to fix and understanding that if you perceive this for the more intent use which is the nighttime entertainment, that is a more intent use than a full
service restaurant. so when we're looking at which of these two uses we would care more about in terms of the impact to the neighborhood and which one we would to make sure that meets the definition, we looked at the more intense use which is the nighttime entertainment. >> the only thing that i would say is that given the incredible costs of food and it's a difficult percentage to achieve. you have to look more at quantitative rather than the 51%. i do believe that the presence of food in places of alcohol consumption is very important for all of the reasons why we as a city are concerned about and talk about it. it's just a question that the monetary metrics don't work. >> i always talked about support for extending limited nighttime entertainment and generally i think that there are many good points about it, i just have these questions.
>> thank you. commissioner richards. >> i mean, to drive the point home, i was the recipient of a rogue bar that kept me up every night and i called police and i called police and i called police. and it was only through me threatening them to have their conditional use permit revoked that i got anywhere with them. we've seen instances here very recently where literally the patio or the bar is right next to someone's bedroom window. to do a one-size-fits-all on something that would impact the citizen so greatly is something not warranted. each patio has a specific dynamic and sound and how it carries and where it's at. and one-size-fits-all was a process that really doesn't have a lot of teeth. i have been through this personally. you can call police all you want. you don't get anywhere, you know. call entertainment commission. you know, stand in the middle of
the street and hear the loudness of the music. and it just doesn't make sense to me, given how close we are in proximity to each other. >> commissioner moore. >> i would like to take that one step further, commissioner richards. we're also talking about different lot sizes and we're also talking about topography and many other issues that play into this, etc., etc. so i think that requires just a bit more careful analysis. >> commissioner hillis. >> sorry, just -- i mean, just on this -- on the outdoor use, because i think that we also go the other way and kind of make outdoor use -- it's just bars. and you're asking for outdoor use for almost any commercial space, right, a café, a restaurant, or a bar. >> that's right. and, actually, the opportunities for retailers to potentially to
take advantage of outdoor space, you know, again for the small folks that six months in the c.u., that's a barrier, that's a barrier they'll walk away from. >> right. i mean, to commissioner richard's point of one-size-fits-all, we do this one-size-fits-all, and right now in you're a café in coal valley, we all enjoy those outdoor spaces. would that require a c.u. currently? >> in the n.c.s, any outdoor is a c.u. yep. >> so maybe it's something where it's something that somebody with a liquor license -- a type 49 liquor license where you have beer and wine -- or i mean you have liquor also -- would require a c.u. but the others could be done through neighborhood notification? because, again, i think that it's a deterrent, the c.u.s so we have seen four but i think
that we see the ones where it's financially beneficial which are probably more of the bars, you know, that want to go outside. so we kind of self-select our problems almost by the fact that we have this c.u. in place, where we don't see cafés, necessarily, i don't know if they're not asking for it because it's a process to go through this, to get at it. so i don't know if that's one way to do it. commissioner moore kind of got at it where if it's over a third in size or it is a bar, that would require a c.u. >> i just wanted to point out in exhibit d in your packets which shows you the controls that we currently have, not only for outdoor activity areas in our m.c.s but also for the most typical uses to presume that would want these type of uses, the outdoor activity uses which is the bar and limited restaurant, though it's not limited to that. to give you an idea if there were a new establishment to come in wherein there might be a conditional use process anyway
for that establishment to come in and therefore, the outdoor activity area might be encompassed and that's not the case if the establishment is already there and they want to add the outdoor activity area. but i wanted to point to exhibit d if you have questions. >> i'm generally supportive of this. and we have seen the kind of -- you know, the craziness in our code about this, you know, small businesses coming in and getting permitted and we generally see them come in and they get approval first and then they want to expand to the outdoors. but we have seen these issues around bars in the back, so maybe if we can -- you know, keep a c.u. for a certain type of activity that we have known to be an issue like bars. that's a way to get at this. >> to just defer to clarity. a type 48 liquor license that is a beer and wine and spirits for a bar? >> right. which generally indicate a bar. because we have approved a wine, you know, bar that has things outside. i mean, generally i think we're a bit prudish on alcohol here that we don't allow restaurants
to serve, you know, cocktails and we generally limit it to these beer and wines, and i don't know the rationale behind this, but, anyway, we have it. and we have a hard and fast distinction between bars and eating streabments. so i'm -- establishments. so i'm supportive and maybe we can get at it that way, to require c.u.s still for outdoor use. >> the only other observation that i would offer is that this is -- we're focusing right now on the n.c.s but there's other districts where outdoor activity areas are permitted. and where the -- it's one of the districts where it was principally permitted and the hours of operation had no limit on them and through the liquor license process and the building permit appeal process and the business owner and the nearby residents and navigated a successful outcome to identify -- to identify limited hours.
to emphasize that there's other tools and other experiences that we don't see in these chambers. thank you. >> okay. so if i could, i am supportive of this legislation. i do also share the concern about the outdoor activity part, and i would concur with commissioner hillis that maybe we can refine it to those things thatrthingsthat have seen that a problem. i think that alcohol is really, yoyou know, because we know all around town that there are places that have outdoor activities that, you know, we never hear from. it seems to be that late night and, you know, the voices of folks after they have relaxed a bit from alcohol, that seems to be the problem with the neighbors. so just that as feedback. but, you know, generally i spend, you know, a chunk of my career supporting small businesses in the mission.
and i think that this is actually an equity issue. just from my professional experience, it's the folks who who are the small mom and pop who want to open up the businesses and don't have the capital or the access to capital to keep paying the rent for a year or a year and a half. without any income coming in. so i do support this. and i think that there are ways to work with the existing plans, you know, with the street corridor and the cultural corridors to make this work. while supporting and eliminating the barriers for businesses. so i'm very supportive of this with the caveat that we need to tweak it a bit to ensure success of those businesses because, you know, if all of your neighbors hate you because you can't, you
know, you're not letting them sleep, it's also a barrier to success. so with that i let commissioner richards comment again. >> i think that you are - on are right path. and those for a bar or brew pub, should come and get a conditional use so that we -- the neighbors have a venue to actually, you know, to have it enforced and there's a enforcement team. the worst thing to do in the name of streamlining is to throw enforcement on the neighbors. i mean, that's not where i want to go. we don't have cafés that come here and people say, oh, my god, they're having coffee in there too loud at midnight. it's the bars. it's where you have alcohol being served and predominantly with no food. so i'm open to all of these things except for that type of business. >> commissioner moore.
>> i'm to support this but forward it with comment, if at all possible, because i think that all of us have justified questions which i think that should be moved to the board which will discuss it because in a way each supervisor will have their own concerns regarding the district so we hear more generic on policy and we appreciate the subtlies expressed but for that reason i suggest that we approve, but with comment. >> second. >> was there a motion? >> the motion -- the motion is to approve -- recommend approval with the caveat that -- what is it, type 48 -- where alcohol served outdoors that the supervisors -- >> alcohol of any type? >> well, i mean -- i thought that i heard commissioner hillis -- >> alcohol without food is what i heard. >> predopredominantly alcohol.
>> that's type 48. >> sorry. if it's beer/wine, that's a 42. so really bar use is maybe a better way, like it's just in terms of the numbers have changed or just do 48, that makes sense too. >> i go to a wine bar called swirl and there's a backyard that we're not allowed to go in after a certain time because people live there. and we get just as drunk on wine as we do on gin, say. so i don't see a big difference. brew pubs too, it doesn't take many brews to get drunk. alcohol is alcohol. >> commissioner hillis. >> i think is a good recommendation if we just say bar. that would cover beer and wine bars and cover -- it would cover type 48 bars too. >> all right, commissioner moore. >> i personally sought more
comments that matter to me. there was a discussion on rear yards, open space use and venue space called outdoor activity space. so i had a question about non-amplified music on limited lifetime entertainment and food. there were quite a few others including the questions by the public. miss hillson asked a number of questions with specific uses under this legislation which you would not how it reads and what could be included or not. so i would actually like those questions to be part of what we're forwarding. >> so they're not part of the motion but you like the comments to be included in our feedback to go forward to the supervisors? >> yeah. >> i'm happy to answer all of those questions now if you want or later. but we do have answers now. >> yeah.
>> and for the comments for people who spoke. they were not reading the code correctly, so sending that to the board would not be effective. and audrey can talk about where to find those definitions because they're defined in the code and how to determine what use would be permitted. what i think that miss hillson asked for was a list of all possible combinations and we weren't able to give her that. but there is a chart in the code that tells you what uses are allowed in l.c.u.s and llcus. >> commissioner hillis. >> i would recognize that if we're going to make a motion that we should be clear and, again, i approve this with the recommendation that we maintain a c.u. for bar use and outdoor. >> seconded. >> i think that there was already a motion that d.u. accept that amendment to the motion? >> if you would extend it to have extended limited lifetime
entertainment address -- non-amplified performance. >> but i think that -- >> go ahead, commissioner hillis. >> sorry. i do think that is generally another purview of the entertainment commission. i mean, i think this is part of the problem is that we sometimes weigh in on things in the entertainment commission and we weigh in on it again so i'd like to stick to what we do which is a c.u. for at least, you know, the thing that we're debating here which is a c.u. for outdoor activity areas and we'll notice it for everything and we'll have a c.u. for a bar. >> i'm sorry, there was a motion on the floor. does your motion include all of those things, the entertainment and -- yes? and you seconded that motion. so perhaps we should have a vote on that motion. and then see how it goes. >> i missed the entertainment portion of your motion, commissioner moore. >> extend limited lifetime to
>> commissions hillis, koppel voted against. there was a subsequent motion to approve this planning code amendment. as amended to require conditional use for outdoor bar uses. on ma motion, commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner johnson? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> no. >> commissioner koppel? >> aye. >> and commission president melgar? >> so moved, commissioner. it passes 5-1 with commissioner moore voting against. that places us on item number 12, 0183 pca for the special-use districting code and zoning map
amendment. >> good afternoon, commissioners. today i'll be presenting an ordinance that proposes to create the district 11, special-use district. however, before i begin the presentation, i'd like to provide supervisors -- or his office with time to comment on that. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i think you might want to put a little chair up there for me today. we have three items in a row. [laughter] it just so happened to work out like that today. i appreciate your time. this is an item the special-use district, we had originally proposed when i was going door-to-door, campaigning and also being a longtime resident of district 11, heard over and over again of their being either new projects or existing projects that were put in for demolition, renovation, not
complete demolition, with you just renovation projects that were expanding single-family homes from, you know, a normal footprint or foot size, about, you know, four, five bedrooms, four, five baths. and if you all recall, when we were here last year with 274 monticello, it was a renovation proposal for four bedrooms, two battle, turn into a 14-bedroom, 11-bath mini dormitory. our district is bookended by city college and san francisco state. i think forever and a day, many students have always lived in that part of town. but recently as our housing crisis has gotten more pernicious, the only thing i can say is similar to the context of a speculator, someone coming in and taking advantage of that crisis and turning these homes into housing for students,
that's not really intended to or can absorb that. and so we talk about, in this legislation, some of the impacts of the quality of life, often times the students are coming in with their own cars. so a driveway that would have had two, three cars now has 10, 11 cars. the operations in terms of the way that, you know, lifestyle is very different. and that's fine in terms of parties and other things. generally the kind of public health and safety issues that are involved in that, having that many people living in that type of environment. so we put forward this legislation to say anything six bedrooms and above, which we think was more traditional of the four, five students living in a home, that's great. if it's an extended family, we take into consideration of that. we talk about if it's adding to the affordability or the ability for families or people to continue to live in san francisco. we also talk about the square footage size.
2500 square feet seemed to be the appropriate number for this part of town. not many homes -- very, very few, if any, are larger than that. it's more traditional housing stock for working families. originally in the proposal we had done the spire district. but working with planning staff, we shrunk it down to the area of impact that are more in the immediate environment of the two universities, which is traditionally the ocean, i thinkleside neighborhood and smaller parts of the outer mission. with regard to that, the map that we use was from the elections except, but i know that there's other maps that you all use. i just want to be clear, we tried to do the boundaries best we could, certainly want that to be a reason to come back and talk to you. so we did everything we could to define the boundaries, based on streets and using the -- what's the word i'm looking for, the
voting districts or the way that the -- the way -- the precincts, yes. how could i forget that word. [laughter] so we feel like this is a good piece of legislation. there was another example of this that we worked on a year and a half ago on arch street, where a property owner had an oversized lot. they proposed a 3100 square foot home or 3200 square foot home. it was eight batts -- excuse me, eight bedrooms, six baths. again it was pretty clear it was designed to be student housing. they were asking for a veterinarian on rear yard exposure. there's many examples of this, it's not just monti cello, which i'm sure planning staff will say it could be dealt with through the enforcement process. but we believe that setting this as a benchmark, setting this in the code, setting this as what we believe to be the right number and then allowing for there to be opportunity under
the cases that it makes sense. i know from looking at the data, there were -- we had the highest volume of calls that came in for complaints in the entire city, with regard to these illegal expansions and/or oversized bedroom homes. 27, it outpaced all other parts of san francisco, i think second was district 10. so again we think that there's a good compromise, it's what we look forward to your questions, comments and recommendations. and i know i have spoken to some of you as well before when this came up. >> thank you. >> president melgar: thank you. >> commissioners, the department is sympathetic with the intentions of the ordinance, preserving affordability, housing stock and assuring that dwelling units are being used for authorized purposes is a concern that the department does share with the supervisor. however, the department believes
that the ordinance is fraught with complications, unintended consequences and is unenforceable. for example, the c.e.u. requirements for additions in a home resulting in more than 2500 square feet, to -- in a similar vein, the proposed bedroom limit is easily circumvented and unenforceable. this regulation can also be a burden to family households, looking to add new members, be it grandparents or children. it is important to note no absolute link between bedroom count or dwelling unit, size an increase in public nuisance. maintaining the neighborhood quality of life often requires enforcing the city's other municipal and building codes. the department believes an approach to regulating residential uses should consider existing site conditions, encourage property owners to maximize residential density, and not unduly burden the production of new rental stock,
among other factors. i want to make one note, the supervisor, from what i understand, will be amending the boundaries of the s.u. it to match the city charter, boundaries for district 11. this concludes my presentation. and i'm available for questions. thank you. >> president melgar: thank you very much. we will now take public comment on this item. okay. thank you. we'll take public item -- comment of this item. >> i'm with the vice president triangle neighborhood association. i support that piece of legislation that the supervisor is mentioning. case in point, i'm here for 216 head street. but the properties at 208 and 212 head street did exactly
that. they're single-family homes. as soon as they were signed off, they became four-unit properties. and that's exactly -- and to date there's been investigations, but nobody has gone and done anything. and that's exactly what we're talking about. so i support that. thank you. >> president melgar: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> my name is lucy graham and i wasn't really planning to speak until just now. >> president melgar: can you speak into the mic, please, so we can all hear you. >> we have a family home in ingleside terrace and we have three generations living in that house. so all we want to do is expand it so everybody has space. so we feel that having this additional legislation is a burden for our family to do.
and i don't quite understand how this is different from the accessory dwelling unit requirement, because if -- like that gentleman said it's now a four-unit building. therefore, it's considered a multi-family dwelling and no longer a single-family dwelling. so i am voicing my i guess disapproval for this proposal. because it would just -- i don't think it's necessary. there are requirements for permit conditions that could be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. so if let's say somebody wants an eight-bedroom, eight-bathhouse in a 3,000 square feet in, you know, next to city college, i mean, that should raise some flags by the people who are reviewing the plans. so this is just an additional paperwork, red tape that we
don't think is necessary as a homeowner, who basically just wants enough space in their home. thank you. >> president melgar: thank you very much. any other public comment on this item? >> sue hesser. i don't think the planning codes should be a place that has boundaries like this. there are boundaries on planning districts. they belong in the planning code. the districts change. this district will be redistricted a year from now. when the census is completed. i would ask supervisor -- pardon
me, the supervisor, if you go through with this legislation, please make the boundaries real, so people don't have to really stand there with a map and draw it around bit by bit. planning codes should not have political boundaries, period. thank you. >> president melgar: thank you. any other public comment on this item? okay. public comment is now closed. commissioners. >> commissioner hillis? >> commissioner hillis: can i ask a couple of questions to staff on this. so there's rh1 and rh-2 on this. maybe the supervisor can help on this. how would this distinguish between those two? >> well, it would apply to both. >> it applies to rh-1 and 2. >> commissioner hillis: two. so i think there's some elements -- so if you go back when we did
the much-maligned residential expansion, i think it just came before its time. it was good legislation, which i think, supervisor, you are doing two things that are kind of coming from it. one, the one we're going to hear two items from now on, the a.d.u. and this. how does this compare to that? when we add limits by f.a.r.? most of the lots are the district, 25x100-foot lots. what did we say would trigger the f.a.r.? >> with respect to the red, i have to defer to aaron star. >> commissioner hillis: do you believe it was ahead of its time? [laughter] >> you may be seeing that again. i think it was 1.2 rh-1 or somewhere around there. >> commissioner hillis:
2500-foot lot would be somewhere closer to 3,000 for it? >> yeah. and those were based on trying to make homes within the city not noncomplying. so, you know, they were just proposed by staff. they weren't vetted through you or the political process. >> if you had a home that was over there already, there was some -- there was some ability to expand that beyond without getting the c.e.u.? >> i think there was probably a provision for c.e.u., but the idea to put a hard cap on, that had not quite been worked out. >> commissioner hillis: okay. i think you're a little bit ahead of your time, supervisor. and i just think we should bring that legislation back that we're kicking around about demo and try to merit it. i think two items from now, you're encouraging more units. here you're trying to keep kind of single-family homes at a reasonable size, you know. rh-1 kind of gets at what we
were -- what the staff was trying to do. yeah. i think did a lot of good things. but then i think there's just questions, like rh-2. are you kind of discouraging two units as part of that? >> no. no. through the chair, just respectfully to some of the comments, this does not impact ingleside terrace. we used for simplicity in the proposal the boundaries on the district maps. we are using the recommendations of the general plan and looking at the map that the planning department would use. so it would be permanent, it wouldn't be based on political boundaries. we're not discouraging in any way. we have very little rh-2 in our district, as it is. but in the situation there would be an rh-2, encouraging two separate units and this is what we were talking about in terms of the maximum size, without a conditional use. in fact, we're very cognizant of the fact that there's extended
families, we'll make allowances for it. because it talks about allowing for the affordability of folks being able to live here. it's merely to set a standard for a very smaller portion of the city, that's being, in my opinioning being overly impacted in a particular housing stock. that's not to say over at u.s.f. or ucsf where there's students and/or people that need to live more in a group housing type of environment. but there's a different type of housing stock over there. so when you see a monticello example, you know, print for a home like that to be able to have 14 bedrooms, 11 baths all ensuite with storage, so that to me -- it's not an extreme example. because multiple situations we've endon'terred talking to
neighbors and talking to d.b.i. once people are living there, we don't want to displace anyone once they're living in a home. that's a whole another conversation. we want to try to set a standard here, when there is new development and when there is an expansion proposal. i understand your suggestion in terms of the demolition. i think that they're trying to achieve two different goals. however, one is about preserving the integrity of buildings in a rudimentary sense. it's about preserving and not allowing for the over demolition of homes in our city. and this one is about trying to control for the size in an environment that is not really designed. the average home in our district is 700 to 1200 square feet. 1300 square feet. they were -- it was a housing stock that was built for working people. that's kind of at the most. they do have big garages, because people used to actually
drive homes -- drive cars direct to r.e.m. now we're discouraging that, you know. [laughter] now people are taking that garage space and turning it into living space. and we're okay with that, particularly when it's extended families and people trying to live in place intergenerational. when it's an egregious example, we wanted to set a threshold, six bedrooms or above, let's have a conversation about it. it doesn't mean to discourage it. it just means when there is the situation, we want to control it. i don't want to go on and on. >> president melgar: thank you. supervisor, commissioner richards. >> commissioner richards: so there's several wishes you're trying to get to, unlawful demo, that whole thing, evictions. group housing and student housing that doesn't belong in the neighborhood, completely get it. the affordability issue i think partnering up with supervisor
peskin legislation. demo and reno, supervisor is trying to get his arms around as well. the group student housing -- this is where i kind of go, i don't know, maybe this is the legislation that we need. but if you start using square footage and floor issue. like the building code, we have a development in my neighborhood that's using the building code minimums for bedrooms. so we've got a 750 square foot dwelling unit with five bedrooms. and 250 square feet are the bathroom and the little kitchenett. and i guess the building code allows so many unmarried adults to live there. you kind of edge to the student housing. and then you have to cross the line and you are in group housing. the building code and zone
intersect at somewhat. >> and aaron light? >> commissioner richards: absolu tely. they have to pass muster. we also have don, if we upzone the city s.b.330, what does it do here? can you do do 20 bedrooms? seriously. but the issue is the average square footage of the home. it's been a traditional thing. it's working class neighborhood. but there's a clash between the zoning will allow. so the height and the bulk. bigger buildings on it and people go, wow, i built a big building on it, i wouldn't get my money back. now the economics are there, because we're going to push the people out or have student housings. i'm still struggling with the group housing, student housing. you want to address that. i agree you need to address it. how do we address that? if you do do this, what will your findings be? bedrooms with morph into offices and other rooms, not all
en suite. we have the areas right near the city college. and projects and i'm going to have 20 relatives live with me. >> one of the things that we talked about, as i said in the code, in the legislation, is to say that are you adding to the affordability of the housing stock? this does not discourage a.d.u.s in any way. the a.d. touch would not be counted against the square footage size. some of the things that we said, does it promote housing affordability by increasing housing supply in does it main affordability, if there's existing housing within the housing stock. and is it compatible with the existing environment and development. rich i think you hit -- >> commissioner richards: i think you hit on it with compatible. we're blowing up home 1200 square foot to 5,000. square footage alone doesn't measure affordability. the higher the price for the
house, the lower per square footage price when you hit a certain point. you hit the top. i completely agree with you on the compatibility piece. that's where i really think you've got something. >> right. thank you. i mean, this is not an easy one to -- because we want to balance more housing, we want to balance affordability. the other thing i will tell you, for example, i mean, commissioner melgar, you know this firsthand, having worked with a lot of the same families that i have in that part of town. for a long time this was one of the last places to be able to afford to buy a home. and when you're competing against someone, who can get 1,000, 1,100 to $1,500 a bedroom, multiplied biotech or 12, you're generating $12,000 to $15,000 a month in rent. when you're going in to buy that home, i might be a first-time
homeowner, teacher, spouse. and i can only pay $750,000 for that home, which -- only, that's still a significant amount of money. but someone else is going to come in and say, well, if i can generate $15,000 a month in rent, i'll pay $1 million for that home. it also drives the cost of housing up. and it has done that. and it encourages displacement, because when you have lime railroad, extended families living there, we've had many families, and your own data has shown, we've had one of the highest increases of owner move-in evictions. and so the openers will move in and we've tightened those rules in terms of enforceability. and still an encouragement of desperationment -- displacement of longtime residents. i can renovate this home now and turn over $1,100 to $1,500 a room that's en suite.
that's exactly what happens. >> commissioner richards: perhap s commissioner hillis is back on the right back. maybe you ply, do a test run of the residential expansion threshold in the very small areas and see how it goes. >> i mean, the truth is that's why we shrunk, for your consideration, the entire district down to a smaller area. and so for us this is the test run. >> commissioner richards: yeah. >> the 2500 square feet, but doesn't mean that you can't go higher than that. and six bedrooms or more. let's see how it plays out. that's what i'm asking for your consideration. >> commissioner richards: i can support that. >> president melgar: thank you very much. director, did you want to? >> i think, you know, we have taken an unusual step here in recommending disapproval. it's not something we normally do with legislation and with respect to the supervisor, i wanted to acknowledge that because i think we all have the same goals here on these large house issues, right. i said the same thing to supervisor peskin with respect to his legislation. we share the goal of controlling these large houses in
neighborhoods where that has not typically been the pattern. what we are concerned about here is a couple of things. one is making it based on district boundaries. i understand a proposed separate boundary. i haven't seen that yet. but also that the criteria, for your consideration and the conditional use is so broad, it's going to be hard for us toking actually make the determinations. we have no way of determining affordability, right, in these units. so those are the reasons why we took the step we did. we do believe, i still believe that f.a.r. is a better way of controlling these things, as opposed to a maximum number on the side of the unit. we continue to believe that is the right way to go on this. we'd be happy to work with the supervisor if he wanted to kind of work in that direction on a kind of test pilot in your district. >> can you say a little bit more about what that means for the general public, that doesn't understand what f.a.r. is? >> that's a very good clarification. thank you. floor area ratio controls the
development on a site. it's a multiplier of the type of -- based on the size of the lot. so, for example, -- >> my average lot is $2,500. >> if the average lot is 2500 square feet, a floor area of one, you can build a house of 2500 square feet. >> it's same similar -- we had the conversation with the staff over a year and a half ago. >> whatever the number is. my only point is the f.a.r. in your district could be less than one, if that's the way you wanted to go. the point is to be .8, we were looking at 1.2. so 1.2 times 2500, it would be a control. and maybe that gives you. >> 3,000 square feet roughly. >> that sounds a little big. >> president melgar: okay. commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: i'm still trying to understand what started as a reaction to a nuisance problem, how this translates itself really into an effective way to control nuisance.
because behavior can happen in any type of building. you can have a limit on bedrooms, you can have a limit on size, economic and other intentions still drive illicit behavior, no matter where it is. >> that's true. >> commissioner moore: ultimately the issue of student -- too many students occupying one home an issue of enforcement. we're running again and again in the city against shortage and enforcement, trying to legislate in the police favor, but we're creating more rules and having fewer people to really follow up on implementing the rules. that's my concern here. really a lot of good thinking here. a lot of good intents. except it doesn't quite for me, given the drama on monticello, not quite meeting the goal or the intent of what you're trying to do. so i'm really torn here. >> i understand. and so that's why i gave the example of monticello and the example on arch street. arch street was -- it's a double
lot, but it wasn't a full double lot. the individual put in a proposal for a 3100 square foot home. no a.d.u., with all of the bedrooms that i told you and so on and so forth. that was the clear example that this legislation would control for. we do have still in that part of town many empty lots and/or there are proposals to come in and almosttant mount to demolition and expand, right. but, yes, the other piece was the enforcement. i think sometimes you set the threshold in policy and legislation ordinance that then also informs the ability on the enforcement side. i mean, an additional step would be working with san francisco state and city college, work wisconsin them to understand through a registry process, where they're living, where their addresses are. again i think this legislation can help to inform the additional steps that would follow with enforcement. >> commissioner moore: if i may, supervisor, i'd like to put
one other thought into your mind and that's the following. the problem of overcrowding is not just a phenomenon in single-family housing. >> that's right. >> commissioner moore: there are 500 studios and multi-unit buildings, in which one of three, four people living. is it nuisance to adjoining neighbors, no possibility to basically intervene and say, hey, there are too many people here because it's causing problems. this is kind of like on a different kind of scale. but we have that problem in different forms of more or less expressed nuisances throughout the city. because the lack of numbers of housing, we just don't have enough housing. and so people are making due with whatever they can. >> can i ask a question through the chair? >> president melgar: yes, please. >> director ram, you said you'd be willing to work with our office, potentially on f.a.r.? what's the difference between that and what we proposed? let's say we choose one as the
>> i do support the legislation and intent. it is importantna we preserve the neighborhood character and the buildings. it is one of the last workingslas housings that we have in the city. it is important to preserve it. commissioner richards. >> commissioner richards: i move to approve. on the affordability work with supervisor peskin. on the group housing student
housing we have you explore the far with the department and actually have far neighborhood contextual so you don't have a big limits in small neighborhoods. also work to do active enforcement versus complaint based enforcement. work with the university on some type of registry. >> i am sorry. i don't understand the first two items of your motion as it relates to this legislation. >> i was saying. we heard many different goals of the legislation. i think some of it is doilycative with supervisor peskin. i support where you are going here. you were willing to work with the department and everybody supports it. i think that is the answer. >> would that mean we would continue this item?
>> no. work with the department. >> we would approve it? we are discussed that they are and the suggests and we can proceed. >> let's do that. do i hear a second. >> ir second. >> to the chair. we may need to continue it to make general plan findings in the resolution for this. it is a recommendation of disapproval. we did not do that in there. with these modifications we could condition our approval and the general plan findings on that. >> we could send it back on consent. commissioner hillis. >> commissioner hillis: i would like to. i think we raised enough questions. i agree with the intent. there are issues like you have got two unit buildings in currently rh-1, you know, areas.
there are definitely. i mean i go there every week. there is two unit buildings in rh-1. what happens with a 2500 square foot and wants to expand? >> a.d.u.? >> no, there are two unit buildings, i would imagine in the rh-1 districts. there are some. the city came in and made a lot of areas rh-1 existing ones over 2500 square feet. what happens in that case? i think there are enough questions. this is actually good. this is legislation that could be expanded city wide, you know. it deserves a little more time. it sounds like you guys haven't had the discussion of far and things like that. >> back to where we started the
conversation. >> i wouldn't mind seeing it continued for a month to address those issues. >> did you say a month? >> that is light-years city time. >> how long would you like? >> commissioner johnson. >> commissioner johnson: i really appreciate the intent of the legislation. i do think the legislation will be best if we are all aligned from a department perspective and understanding other pieces of legislation. building something that could be expanded city wide in looking more closely at enforcement. it deserves a little more time. >> i am fine with that. as long as i get a date certain and month. i am just kidding. >> commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: you are the boss of what has happened here. aside from that boggs. >> we know that.
>> co-you tell me what is in front of us and what we got yesterday afternoon an amendment or further explanation of changes. we have everything here in terms what we would want. how do we have the three-pieces and make it a process to pursue within the constrains you have to move it along? >> thanks for the question. i think we haven't had time to analyze the reduced area. we would like to do that to show it to you. as far as this being a blueprint for a city wide ordinance, we are in conversation with supervisor peskin's office and supervisor mandelman's office about the demolition and expansion which this does overlap. that is city wide. from a planner's perspective we wouldn't have the time limit and
we could bring them to you at one time for a comprehensive look to pick the best pieces from them. if you want to vote on this one with the idea of the expansion threshold, if you, you know, however long you would be willing to do that we could discuss with him amendments that might work with that. >> would a month give you enough time to work on this? >> i mean it is up to the planning department staff. i think a month is fine. as i say, i am happy you all have made great suggestions today. i don't want to conflate the other issues, although there are some similarities, the intent and objectives are very different. i want to be clear. there might be over lap from the planning department. the objective is to control for