tv Government Access Programming SFGTV June 16, 2019 4:00am-5:01am PDT
both of them are native -- raising native san franciscan daughters in the outer richmond. the equity program goes well beyond me as a c.e.o. we will hire other equity applicant his staff, carry equity owned product, and are committed to donating $500 a month to local organizations that further the goals and spirit of the equity program. now i will turn it over to my partner, duncan, to discuss security and community outreach. >> thank you, commissioners. this is in a very -- a very impressive young man we have here. i'm proud to call my friend and a business partner. do i have 30 seconds? i will make it very quick. my name is duncan, i have owned and operated businesses in san francisco for over a decade, controlled substances, and have also worked in the cannabis industry. we are -- we have presented our
security plan which is very robust. i think he details very much how we will take care of our neighborhood community. i think the most important thing is the community outreach. we have been significant. i will hopefully answer more questions about that. >> thank you. okay. with that, we'll take public comment on this item. come on up. i do have two speaker cards. [calling names] >> i am andrea. i sat here since 1:00 p.m. i will be very quick. i have reached out to dray and duncan. i find this story very charming and important, however, i am a
26 year resident, less than 200 feet from the proposed site, and we follow through a crack between district three and district one. i had to even ask aaron if it is actually in our district, and the reading elementary school is less than 600 feet from this proposed site. i know it is probably a done deal, and i have to live with it , and i'm not against pot being legalized, i'm not against any of that, when i have gone online to express my other concerns, i have been coloured as a narrowminded name be, but i do want to express that, in my other life, i'm a writer, but i am also a pizza lady, and i serve people all day long in the streets between all the alleys, and i have seen what the dispensary has done on post and
poke. they have armed guards and long lines, and a bad smell right across from the shelter where a lot of people are really struggling to turn their lives around. i know nobody really cares about knob hill, we don't even have an association except for one that does barbecues in huntington park, but i thought i would -- i would have been disappointed if i didn't go on record as saying that i am somebody would like to see anything else. i find that space a microcosm of what has gone on in the city. the rent was tripled. as a result, they were forced out. now the only people who can move into all these anti- storefronts are high or -- i would love to see anything go in there, a soup
kitchen, a doggy daycare center, anything, but my biggest concern is that they didn't actually -- it is actually within 600 feet. the last thing, i would like to say is when i have approached them at meetings about what they want to give back to the community, i said, yeah, that is great, and they said, it won't be an empty storefront for high-end retail. and i said great. anything else and they said, yeah, people your age and 70 -year-olds will have closer access to buying their dope. is already do one bar and across the street from another. okay. >> thank you. any other public comment on this item? >> my name is ray. i am a business owner and i've had the great fortune of working alongside duncan and his colleagues for a long time.
as the previous gentleman was earlier for the last around, he said it could be great, they could not be great, the difference is the ownership. i am here to say that this ownership is excellent and i think it should be approved for all the great things that they do for the community all the time. thank you. >> thank you. next public comment, please. >> good evening, commissioners. i am the long-term resident of san francisco in the castro neighborhood, and i'm currently the president of the democratic club of san francisco of cannabis policy advocacy organization. i'm confident after having talked to terence allen, who ran the san francisco cannabis legalization task force, that the leadership team of california street cannabis company will provide an excellent dispensary from the upper polk area of san francisco , which currently does not have a brick-and-mortar dispensary. i urge you to support his
application. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is kenneth michael, and i am a longtime resident and homeowner of san francisco of over 30 years. i let used to live in that area over there. i do not have a car, and i realize that when you have access to things that you need and you can walk, particularly as a senior, it is a big difference in a person's life. i urge you to approve this application. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, commissioners. i am the current g.m. >> into the microphone, please. >> i am over in mission. without duncan's help and his team, we would not have been
able to get through it. their knowledge in staffing, in h.r., in ordering, in everything , we could not have gotten through without them, and we have nothing but positivity when it comes to our interactions with them over the last few years. when the opportunity came to speak on their behalf, there was zero hesitation. we couldn't be happier for them to actually open their own dispensary and we really want them, we want you guys to approve it. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker place -- please. >> name is mitchell. i'm here to express my support for the approval on the conditional use 41398 california street. i have been a resident business owner for over 25 years.
they are people i have worked with for years on community projects. they invest in their community and care about all stakeholders, not just their own agenda. any community would be lucky to have them and their involvement in maintaining or creating healthy, safe, and vibrant spheres. a few days ago, i went into a store on polk street. it was two doors away from bullet, and the woman who owns it has been by herself, running her store all the time, i asked her how things are going, and she said she mentioned that she feels extra- secure and good because she has such a great neighbor looking out for everyone on the street. she was referring to duncan, bend, and drapy or that is a pretty good indication of what you can expect from these guys opening shop in your neighborhood. they are present, they are engaged, in the care about their community. you couldn't ask for a better operator. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please.
>> good evening. my name is elizabeth and i am the mother -- i am a mother. i have never done this before. it is a little nerve-racking. my son was raised by me, a single mother at the time. he comes from an immigrant family, and immigrant family with financial disadvantages. he is the eldest of four siblings. growing up, he has managed to persevere through a lot of obstacles, and he has learned to value hard work and dedication. bypassing this condition, you are not only investing in the neighborhood, you are investing in a person of color and investing in the future of his
siblings. thank you and i hope you can approve it. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. i am a san francisco resident. i met your colleague -- i met him when in 2014 at the san francisco playground. we always got along great, as he did with everyone else. i think it is because he always made sure everyone came and was accounted for. he made sure we were pushing ourselves to be better and helping those who maybe struggling. when i see him now, he brings those same qualities do his work he is an example of hard work, determination, compassion. he is respected and respectful. i am happy to call him a friend. thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment on this item? >> hello. my name is alexa.
i am a cannabis educator and an activist and got introduced to duncan by a friend. i wanted to get into the industry after having a life-threatening injury that cannabis really helped me through. i appreciate what the neighbor was saying. i feel like we need to have more community outreach and education around cannabis, which is why i am excited about this project because i think it is missing from a lot of dispensaries. i work closely with duncan. he has been a great mentor of mine. i'm excited to be part of this space because i think it is really needed to have a more community focused space. i hope you give us that opportunity. >> thank you, any other public comment on this item? with that, public comment is now closed. >> could you please clarify the question about the school?
>> on page 2 of the executive summary, you will see i noted in terms of the 600-foot radius, there were receptor sites starting with number 1. it is 692 feet from the subject property. i analyse this using our database. it is very much on the cusp. by definition -- the other sites are 84, 923 and 1300. i would also add that the school his to the southwest of the subject property and it is behind a very large trader joe's there was a large amount of massing between the subject property and the subject school. >> thank you for saying that. i knew you would have found the work. reading it into public record acknowledges the public comment.
i hope the person who mentioned it is satisfied with the answer provided. i live in the neighborhood, i know the location quite well, i am delighted to see you without much with that much strength and that much support, and i commend you for speaking as openly and as trustingly about your own background. i look forward to seeing you when i walked down the street that is a motion. >> i moved to approve this condition. >> second. >> i'm sorry. i just want to echo everything commissioner moore said. it is clear that you have worked really hard to garner community support, and i also can't not
take the opportunity to think the pizza lady for what you have done in the neighborhood. i actually think there is some sort of creative way to give back to the community. thank you. >> commissioner fong? >> i will bring up the same issue of consumption on site. what is steph saying about that here? they did not ask for it. >> consumption has not been requested at this time. the conditions of approval would not prohibit them from adding that later to the building permit. staff has recognized that staff has a lot more residential units above it. it is somewhat less of a national destination then the caster would be. we did not feel the condition was necessary based on the process for reviewing this. it certainly could be added by
the commission. >> i would like to add that so we don't create a potential problem later. >> commissioner richards? >> i'm open to adding that. the question is, don't we need the approval of the health department? >> if the condition isn't added then, if the sponsor were wanting to add consumption on sight in the future, they can file a burling permit and it would be reviewed with consistency for their standards. if the condition was added by the commission, they would be prevented from doing so unless they came back to the commission to amend the conditions of approval. >> what are you feeling in the neighborhood? >> i would like to ask the applicant, in terms of his business model, that would be, for me, the right level of dialogue here. >> we are not seeking it at this time, but this industry changes so rapidly. consumers are different now that
they were a while ago. we would like to not have that precluded from the application, but literally right now, we don't see it happening, but just as the industry changes, i would like to leave the option open. we would seek it and giving people a safe place to consume would be something, down the road, if available, we would seek, but at this time, it is not part of our business model or plan. again, they change the regulations in this business daily. >> in this particular location, if i may, we do not have the same situation. this is not a plaza, is a very busy intersection, a very wide street. california is very wide at that particular location. across the street is trader joe's, and it is very heavily granted -- very heavily
frequented. there are two additional bars which try tried to corral their clientele to stay inside. every so often when you walk by, you see some kind of standing in the doorway, but the bar owner is pulling them back in because they can't stand on the street consuming alcohol. further down the street, there two locations with corner restaurants with outdoor seen him. so if it is not in the business model, they will figure out what they need to do. at this moment, i -- i would say it is not a location for on-site consumption, given it is heavily residential in all directions. i have to assume that they will know what to do when that situation arises. i just have trust that they need to figure out what to do, even if the industry changes in the next couple of years. i just have to leave that up to
>> 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
>> 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