Theyre being driven out. There is a way of having public working class housing. Very mysterous ways. Guess whats you make the billionaires pay for it. San francisco has more billionaires than any other city. The mayor of San Francisco and the politicians are not interested in going after the billionaires. Now there is a city that solved the problem, vienna. If people want to google how vienna solved its housing crisis they had a housing crisis worse than San Francisco in 1919 and they did build working class housing. They built 200,000 units in vienna by taxing the wealth i. But that seems to be off the table. 20 is more gentrification. Thats what that is. Only 20 and those affordable units, im sure, that poor working class students at city college and other places are not going to be able to have get into those affordable units. Affordability by your standards excludes poor, working class people. There are a lot of signs up in San Francisco for workers. Workers are needed. But theyre not able to get them. Why is that . They cant afford to live here. Were not talking about highpaid workers, were talking about regular, working people. Service workers, hotel workers, they cant afford to live here so theyre forced to commute. You are forcing people to commute to live in San Francisco because they cant afford to live here. This had been rejected. We should demand 100 affordability and say the billions should pay for it and it should be Public Housing and not developed on the developers who want to make a large profit in San Francisco. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Calvin. Steering committee of affordable divisadero. Im very concerned about the process or the lack of process that the Planning Department went through in evaluating this project. In evaluating the initial rezoning that more than doubled the allowable density with no recommendation for increased affordability. All of the pressure for increased affordability came from the community. Now were being told enough is enough. 20 is fine. Shut up. Step aside. No, its not fine. We cant imagine Something Better and we should get something berrien and it should start with your staff. How can you possibly consider giving not one, not two, not throw but five continual use permits which are predicated upon the notion that they are necessary and beneficial to a community when your staff has not addressed or analyzed a legitimate Community Plan that lays out a comprehensive development. No one is talking about not developing this site. No one is talking about not building housing on this site. Thats horse cookie. Were all about housing. Were all about creating communities that work. Were all about dealing with Climate Change. Building more market rate housing to add to the 70,000 units we have approved but not been built because most people cant afford them is not a solution. Its a slogan. Its a narrative. Were about solutions. You should have addressed a legitimate concern on the part of 500 residents of this part of the world who want housing able to be accessed by them. Next speaker, please. Thank you, good afternoon, commissioners. My name is cheryl brinkman. I serve on the sfmta board of directors but im here as a private citizen and neighbor to speak in approval. The live in a fantastic neighborhood. I agree with the gentleman who owns the bar de barbershop its friendly. Were transit rich. Wore walkable, bike able. Theres so many neighborhoods serving businesses. I am quite confident that the new neighbors that will welcome in arent going to be driving a lot because you can really accomplish so much of your life without getting into a car in our neighborhood. So i just want to say im totally in support of this project and i look forward to the gas station which is a big cara tractor going away and to welcoming new neighbors to our neighborhood and thank you so much for your service because i know serving on a commission is a labor of love and it takes a lot of time and it is frequently very thank less so thank you all for doing this and we look forward to more neighbors in our neighborhood. Thank you. Im lawrence lee i serve on the board of the merchants and neighborhood association. We work towards inclusive and a great place to live and enjoy which she just mentioned. We also support diversity in our neighborhoods as well as affordability. So the current experience at the project site is extremely bad. Its hazardous to pedestrians and people who bicycle. Its just frankly unpleasant. It really does hurt our merchants corridor. We find that this project is a valuable solution to these problems. In 2015, the ncp zoning for this area, we support that increase of density and especially commercial corridors like this that are well served by transit and we do support the 186 units that will be going in as well as going the height limits so maximizing new residents that can move into our neighborhoods and we support and in 2018, Valerie Brown extended the prolonged Community Process and required 20 on site Affordable Housing units with the community and we support this percentage as well as as well as the parking ratios acceptable so i want to note that the developer has been an active participant in our Community Since 2015 and we believe that the current design emigrates as well and we feel the Community Process up to this point has been extensive and exhaustive and solid and we ask for no more delay on approving this project. Thank you, next speaker, please. Thank you for take up this opportunity today. Im in support of the proposal in front of you and david met with me a couple of years ago and he had become aware of museum of future sports and what we were doing with kids and drone education and introducing me to Charles Davis at the Human Rights Commission who has become a Founding Partner of the museum of futures and it showed her appreciation for how kids in Stem Education can make a difference in equity. David support us with multiple c. B. O. S including the hamilton Families Community center and collective impact and players Filipino Center and some others and i just wanted to say that they have done a job of putting the Community First and showing their support for an inclusive environment that can really make a difference here in San Francisco. I absolutely support this project and while theres differences of opinion about how many below market rates make sense more than zero is what were all over here and moving this project forward is imperative. Thank you so much. Good afternoon, president and commissioners. My name is julia and i am a mother of two children and my husband and i have lived on oak street for 25 years. And we are thrilled about this project because we walk daily to get our kids and if you are not walking were bikeing and were taking the 24 or scooting from mckinley so my first grader now and takes them to my preschooler. Both schools are on the divisadero corridor and we are daily walking by this gas station and the development. Were really excited to see it change something good for climate and the neighborhood. And im also president of the lower hate merchants and neighborhood association. We are in support of this project and weve been asking tough questions and trying to work with the developer and the community to get it to the next step. Were really excited about how this is going to present a wonderful image of replacing a gas station thats part of Climate Change with housing and the affordability of the housing is great. Its a good first step as a lot of colleagues have mentioned earlier. We can do more but theres a lot of benefit to this project. It will do a lot for the city and the community, looking forward to walking by it and taking my kids to the community and continuing to be part of the merchants and the art and the activities and the group. Thank you very much. I want to support this project and all the work thats been done behind it. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, commissioners. Todd david on behalf of the San FranciscoHousing Action coalition. So i just want to point out that the b. M. R. Rate was set through a really rebust Community Process led by supervisor brown and it was passed by the board of supervisors unanimously. So the rate was a pretty good process and ive been sitting in the audience and listening to Public Comment and this pitting of Affordable Housing versus market rate housing. Ok, well, somehow market rate housing means unAffordable Housing. You know what, if you were a teacher, if you were a construction worker, if you were a firefighters, or if you were a first responder, and you live in San Francisco, you live in market rate housing. You earn too much money to support subsidized Affordable Housing. To qualify for subsidized Affordable Housing. When we say we have market rate housing, plenty, what were saying, what that really is saying is you know what, we dont need anymore teachers to live here. We dont need firefighters to live here. We dont need construction workers to live here or anymore first responders. Market rate housing is any housing above subsidized affordable. When we as an organization say we need housing at all levels of affordable, thats what were talking about. We have not built enough housing at any level over the last 30 years in San Francisco. And the groups that have squeezed out are the middle income workers. The firefighters, the teachers, the first responders. Thank you. Thank you. Any other Public Comment on this item . With that, Public Comment is now closed. Commissioner hillis. Excuse me. Thank you all for coming. To give my district 5 credentials i have lived in district 5 for 25 plus years and ive lived four blocks from this site for the last 12 years. Its a great neighborhood. It isnt affordable. Unfortunately, its one of those neighborhoods that is being gentrified rapidly. Not by development. We havent seen any development to tell you the truth along divisadero or in this neighborhood. Affordable or otherwise. So its good to see, i think, all neighbors agree that this site, as well as hopefully the two gas stations that are to the north of this and some under utilized sites on divisadero, should and could be used for housing. I would certainly support this project. 50 affordable and 100 affordable and unfortunately we dont see those projects that have that level of affordability unless this city is involved. If the city owns the property or the city is providing some benefits to the project. This project much like market in octavia went threw a rezoning where density controls were lifted the same that happened along market street. In many places along market octavia. We got up to 15 affordable level so here were doing better and its great. We do need housing. We need housing at all levels. I would certainly support Affordable Housing here but thats not what were looking at. Were looking a the a project thats significant in the amount of housing its going to produce. Were at the highest levels we see in market rate projects. If we want to get to 50 i would support developing other sites like the gas stations or mcdonalds in the hate that would give us the ability to do that and we need to have a serious conversation about how we finance things like prop 13 to give us more revenue to build more Affordable Housing. I agree with the speakers who talked about additional taxation to suppose sort Affordable Housing. I appreciate all the debate. Im glad most people believe this is a good site for housing. I certainly believe it is at the levels and the density is being proposed. Its great that the neighborhood groups, the divisadero merchants in lower hate agree and endorse this project. Its not often we have a project along this corridor. We had a yoga studio that got a lot of debate and disagreement amongst those groups all grow this is a good project. I cant endorse it more and im very supportive. Commissioner fung. Im accepting of the 20 in terms of the affordable units. Im also accept tive of many of the exceptions that have been proposed. I disagree with the exception for both limits. I also disagree to a lesser extent with the exception for the bay window expansion. The bay expansion. Can you elaborate more on those two items . The more important one of course is driving the density of this project. The explanation that were used within the materials provided addresses the only very little in terms of if you didnt give them the boat exception then along divisadero they need to have two buildings with a separation. In my opinion, that is not necessarily bad depending on how they really want to design it instead of a cartoon they used to demonstrate that particular item. The problem with the bulk exception here is you create something that is extreme will he large and the context is not reflective of that. So im hesitant to support a Housing Project which i think everybody wants and i am concurrent with. But yet creating a visual issue which down the line is something im not supportive of. Commissioner richards. Commissioner moore. Commissioner moore. I am sensitive to the question as to whether or not the planning process itself created the basic appropriate to the large size when we have a change from land use from gas station to housing, we have the opportunity to take a very deep look at how we zone and what we geget in return for zoning. Im not sure we have crossed all is and the ts. Theres the issue of quantity and quality. Looking through the plans, im concerned about what i see to be the two bedroom category which in this particular case is a very sensitive spot for me because they are bedrooms using interior core doers for access to light. I wanted to ask ms. Wood as to whether or not the department reviewed it and came across this particular issue . I know there have been over the years d. B. I. Not catching this. Would you mind answering my question with respect to that . Thank you, commissioner moore. Yes, we came across this issue at the very, very early stage of the design and we brought it up to the project sponsor and i mean, the department, we are concerned about quality of living spaces. We have conveyed the departments comments to the sponsor and the architects. While Building Departments they regulate the rooms and how they should function and they should be designed. Accordingly, the sponsor and the architect have met with Billing Department and have tried to have all the rooms comply with the Building Department standards. At this cant have the architect explain a little bit more of how the rooms are laid out. Perhaps that would be a good idea. Again, quantity and quality and equity is extremely important. If any of us would have lived in a building of this size with second bedroom facing an interior hallway and the light in that hallway was on all night shining into your bedroom i wonder how you feel about that. Perhaps the architect could explain that to us. Can you get into the detail of that if you dont mind . Thank you for the question. We have found over the last 15 years starting around 20082009 that a lot of projects in the city the units are getting smaller and with the requirement of a two bed rooms, a number of buildings have been built and theyve been received very well on the market and they rent well and theyre very livable and popular. However, we do understand the California Building code requirement for Natural Light. So 50 of the wall that separates the bedroom from the living area needs to be open to the passing of Natural Light so glass walls and doors and you can see many of those units on the market. Certainly the site permit has not been submitted and all the details of the plans are not complete. In review of the plans theres ample space to reconfigure things to improve those areas. Not all the details of the construction documents can be completed at this early time. Were very confident that on other projects in the city with similar lay outs they have Natural Light and air however we do acknowledge that not all twobedroom units face an ex ter year wall and have windows that is part of the reality of most if not all of the projects that are coming before the commissioner and growth approved. I just like to respond that this commission has been bringing the subject up frequently and if the department has brought it to your attention i would have hoped that you perhaps would have addressed that today or have an answer other than that you may be able to revise those plans. Theres one architect in the city that has done rooms successfully. Thats david baker whose units we have approved. In this case, i am wondering, because you are exposing them to a double interior bedrooms that it has not ban achieved. As you know, its a matter of preportion width to depth and this case i see windows being narrow to the street sides and deeper to the core of the building. Which goes in the direction of what mr. Fung said about one building was two buildings but i am concerned about that and i wanted the commission to be aware of it. I am concerned, as we always are, that the ove