22.5 and only 58 d. no parking out front. this creates some sort of deficiencies in the existing plan that they are trying to mitigate by merging the units and allowing them to take care of what their definition of family is which happens to be three generations, a mother -- mother-in-law, we talked about a number of ways to accomplish this but it seems the best way is to merge the units. additional a sense the building takes out the entire lot, front to back. there is no outdoor space that most lots in san francisco have. the lower level is combined with parking and structure that is

allowing them to have two cars. there is not a lot of room. when you get to the lot less than 25 feet deep, you get a lot of circulation. the square footage is might sound high. there is an elevator and stairs and several of the rooms do not have light and air. if you look on unity, unit 8, it has no windows. it had a window of opportunity that was taken up by an elevator that is providing the ability for the aging in place member of the family to participate in the family vertically. i think they have met four out of five criteria for merging of the dwelling unit and i ask you give them a positive consideration. thank you. president miguel: additional

speakers in favor? >> i live a couple of doors away at the corner of child treet -- street. it used to be known as the street of good children. when i first moved there in 1980, there were no children around. the families were far and few between. originally, the neighborhood was an italian family neighborhood. there were mostly single-family houses. over the years, this was built after the great disaster, people moved and it changed a lot. i moved there in 1980.

since then, we have been very fortunate to have families move in with children. real children running around and playing and crying and we hear them and see them. it has given wonderful stability. in some cases, units were combined. one of the best one is that there were three shanty shacks. they are turning this into a smashing place originally occupied by david ross. the entire place. when david left the house is occupied by another family with a daughter that is 5 years old. there are several others like that. it is giving us stability and

increasing the tax base and doing all sorts of wonderful things to the neighborhood which were not there before. that is the reason i support this. president miguel: thank you. >> good evening. i am antonia clark. i have been a long term dweller. we have become a family. we are slowly building a community and discovering new families. we have become friends, we support each other and i support this merger. this would allow our daughters to have a place to play and a place to convene. i myself live next to my mother so i know how important is to

have a network and a support system. this merger would allow for the grandparents and the three generational home. it is important to be raised by grandparents and therefore i support this merger. as a young family. i hope with this merger the young community can come together and gather and allowed child straight to become what the name describes. thank you. president miguel: is there additional speakers? -- are there additional speakers? ? >> my name is jim miller. i would like to see you approve this permit for this young

family and for their extended family. i think that is all i have to say. thank you. >> good evening. i was born in italy but was raised in telegraph hill. i am taking care of my mother in her 90's. that can be very difficult thing. having one structure being altogether, the family together is a great advantage for the family and the elderly people. i had to put my mother in assisted living.

she is not too happy. she calls me and cries. she wants to be with the family. for this -- she does not want to be cared for by strangers. it gives me a lot of grief, actually. i will hope that you will grant jeff and ann their request. thank you. president miguel: thank you. are there additional speakers? >> i am one of the owners. thank you for hearing our discussion. i wanted to add a few small points. we have been committed to living in this neighborhood, the telegraph hill neighborhood for nearly 10 years. we fell in love with that together back then. when we saw the home that we all now on child street, we fell in love with it and it has been our aspiration to live there.

and live with our extended family and build the block, build the community and neighborhood. most of our colleagues reecy fleeing the city, they have families, they want backyards, they want to be able to live in a home as the cheese. we have chosen to stay in the city. we want to stay in the city. we have no desire to move outside the city. approving our request would cement dess in san francisco on telegraph hill. -- cement us in san francisco on told graf heltelegraph hill. thank you. president miguel: is there additional speakers? commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i agree with the testimony we have heard for a number of reasons similar to what has been said. there was the one gentleman who is the contractor talking about

the fact that there are three criteria in favor in addition to owner occupied and no renters but the functionality of the unit that is being merged is questionable and it is fairly narrow. because of the way it is not quite as good a unit, it could be used but not the best. i agree there was a consideration of the rush and the square footage figures which looked to be more accurate with what the project sponsors have said. also the overwhelming support. 11 letters in support including dr. eileen [unintelligible] that is good to hear the support. they have stated the reasons, creating an opening. we're not talking about affordable housing here, either. we talked about units that are not helping us meet our needs

for affordable housing but they might help us meet the needs of a family that is growing and we have a shortage of homes that are big enough to accommodate growing families or families that are multigenerational, particularly in an area like telegraph hill. as has been pointed out, the few single-family homes that were fairly large during the second world war -- were marchemerged o smaller units. they do not meet the needs of larger families. i think we need vertical integration in the neighborhoods. it is possible the project sponsors could remain in san francisco and move into another neighborhood. probably further from where they're working. second, it would be nice if we do keep within neighborhoods of variety, not just people in smaller units but larger families in larger units. that is important if a neighborhood includes not just single people but includes families and larger families.

i think allowing for all these possibilities is important. what was not mentioned but pointed out in the staff report was the police report. the fact that it is safer, particularly the older generation does not have to go out into the street to come back in. it is better that the grandmother can communicate between the thing without having to go out. finally, my expectation when this was built in 19078 might have been a single unit. hard to say. it is not something we are supposed to consider but it is important. i would probably move to not take d.r. to approve the project. >> second. commissioner moore: i am personally very troubled by having to discuss this. here is a group of sensitive,

intelligent people, who if it was for the reason of liking people and wanting to do this this would be a three minute discussion. but it is not. i have to of knowledge staff and what staff needs to do. that is advising us on the legal implications of this d.r. in this unit merger, in reflecting what our rules and regulations are. this commission has said many times talking thoughtfully and spending lots of time and discussing unit mergers. it is the constant erosion of rentable housing and what it does to housing stock. i want to acknowledge mr. hollister for a thorough job in

the guidance he is providing and i feel hard-pressed not to take that guidance because that is why i am sitting here for. that guidance is what has to first clear how i look at this and as much as i would like to have these people basically take the home for themselves, i have instructions which keep me from doing that. commissioner borden: i want to thank him for his consideration because it is consistent. it was troubling there was a merger previously and now there is a merger being proposed again. i think what makes this challenging is this policy around how we create a city and on the one hand whether we like the people are not should not go into the factor, the reason we're wrecking policy is about

people and what we're trying to do, the city we're trying to create. it creates an interesting quandary in the sense the reason we have these policies is to help have the city of balance and diversity in the types of people who live here. and maintain different housing types and densities because we have a scarcity of housing. is an interesting conversation that you have when you are discussing this matter. we have on different occasions approved building unit mergers, usually when the case has been rh 3. you ar. you are going to rh 1 which is a big difference in the zoning. what is interesting, i will admit, is the lot is quite small. it is not your typical san francisco lot. it does create a whole new, in

terms of the definition of the exceptional and extraordinary, you could are you -- argue the situation is exceptional and extraordinary. through how you look at other properties. to that, it speaks -- this is a unique situation. one of the questions that came to mind for me is one time we had a case where the family wanted to merge the unit. we said they could do it but there would be an nsr. they would have to rejoin the property if they sold it. it was that greene street. we had said that the property they could miller -- merkt the unit. there were not taking out -- the >> if my memory is correct, and

had to be a situation where it could be restored without problem to the multiple units. commissioner borden: that seems to be the biggest change. i am putting this out there. maybe we could consider doing something similar where we put those -- the property and those restrictions. it is operating as rh1 and allow the merger to happen. they could return it back. it is a thought to put out there. commissioner antonini: i greatly appreciate commissioner moore's

comments and the department's work, i was thinking someone along the lines of commissioner borden on this one. my wife and i are in a situation where within family and many of our friends, we are running into situations where either of necessity or just because it is the best way to go, multigenerational dwellings are becoming much more invoked. i am literally running into them every month within people that i have known for years and would then family. the situations where they cannot -- become quite drastic at times as far as taking care of the younger and older generations. i am very amenable to the

situations. and encourage at times. the other thing is this is a very unusual block. it is small. smaller in with and smaller in length. not totally unusual in that section of town but as far as general. the idea of trying to expand in any of their way to satisfy your personal requirements is impossible. the previous merger administered a fleet of a housekeeping in it i do not honestly consider a merger. that is not unusual at all. it was not rentable by itself

anyway. if there is some way, however the department would want to put the restrictions allowing this to happen, in such a manner that it could be easily restored to two units, should yourselves or a future owner wish to do so, i would not oppose. commissioner antonini: we have discretion and the five criteria of which two are satisfied and maybe three is satisfyable. there is lots of good arguments. from what i am hearing it would seem even though we would approve this, it would be easy enough if that were desired to close at the door with that is

being opened up and perhaps you would leave the gas line in for the range and you could put a range in there, what ever other things you needed to do to restore the kitchen that would make sense not to put out the plumbing. that makes sense to me. the other thing about, we might have something like 21% of our units that have three or more bedrooms, our policies are in the wrong direction in some ways. this is not the day to discuss it. we have a shortage of multi- bedroom facilities. we have lots of small units. some that have questionable functionality. they're designed for singles that want to group together. when families come they're not interested in living in these units that make it difficult for family units -- living. not enough bathrooms and other problems. we do ourselves a service if we create larger units that allow families to say -- day.

i am in favor as stated. we would allow the possibility of reconversion in the future. >> is this a motion to not -- take d.r. and approve the project with the requirement that upon selling the property, it be converted back to two units? is it a motion to not take d.r. and approved and encouraged? >> mynas only to encourage. it would not necessarily have to be converted back. i would rather keep it as a suggestion to leave that availability there should future owners wish to do that. we were well served with a larger units. commissioner fong: i am going to pile on here. i understand what you are saying about us going against the housing element and the general

plan. i think this is something that is extraordinary and special. i am happy that you review any merger because there could be a serial development. someone tries to get a whole block. i am glad this comes before us. the idea that your family is expanding is fantastic. there will possibly be a day when you have to shrink down and downsize. adding these elements were you could converted back. that is a great investment idea. it adds value and at any given time you can return it back to two units and rent out one and live in the other, what ever. i want to respect that brush your opinions. i agree with that. but to leave the kitchen and bathroom stubbed, you could

leave that. if it becomes two units, it is not difficult to share that. i would put the doors like a hotel room where there is double suites and adjoining doors. it would take to separate keys to connect them or disconnect them. i do not know if there is more a want ad. or that is too much to add. commissioner moore: i wanted to clarify. the open ended ness the commissioner antonini described as part of this motion is not acceptable to me because that means we could go up or down depending on how we feel about it. i would be prepared to entertain the motion that there is a restriction on sales at this -- that this property has

to go back to its previous two units. in order to accommodate the particular needs of the family which i am very sympathetic to. however, in light of all the other things, i cannot see that we are starting to leave it optional as to whether or not it is r1 or r2. it remains on the condition they can be maintained. would you come to the desk and speak to us as to whether that is acceptable? >> i am not sure this. if you carefully look at the plans, the word reversible has not, but clearly what the other commissioners are talking about is the proposal that is before you is extremely reversible. you can put a kitchen in and you can cover up the door and you

have a unit back. i think that flexibility is where this needs to go. the existing owners, if there will be there for a long time, as the children leave, that children -- and, in my go back while they're there but to condition one on ceiling, i am not sure that is appropriate or that the commission has the power to do that. i will not tell you what your power and jurisdiction is but i would caution still triggers with respect to restrictions like this. commissioner moore: i would have to ask if he has any insight on that particular model -- thought. >> if i may. 311 does -- would be required if you are adding a dwelling unit again to the one unit. so that would be something to take into consideration as well.

>> may i add that if you are concerned about losing housing stock, if that is the primary concern, a sale may occur along time from now, maybe never. you have a chance of that second smaller unit if you do not true. to a sale. if that is a chief concern about losing housing stock, you have a better chance of it happening before a sale occurs then triggered by our sales. maybe 30 years from now. >> looking at the plants, the only thing is the door. you do not have to build out the kitchen in order to sell the unit. you can buy a unit that does not have a build out kitchen. there is nothing wrong with

that. that happens. so, as long as the stub is there, the plumbing is in the wall you do not have to have a bill out. literally the only thing is the door. i have no problem with that. commissioner antonini: i would like to leave my motion as is. as i stated earlier we're better off with the larger units because we have a shortage of those and we have plenty of small units in the city. we have plenty of old, barely functional small units which are often a problem. we're better off fixed up, retrofitted kamal larger units that are safe for families. we're better off with them that way. it is not a wholesale approval we're talking about. we're talking -- not talking about some big policy where everyone can go out and emerge in its for purposes of sale and a bunch of other things. it is one unit, one family and it will serve four other

families in the future. commissioner borden: there is a movement among the rest of us to have an alternate. i do not know of icahn -- if i can. >> you need to -- commissioner borden: have this motion failed first? the motion i i would like to make is we take d.r. and approve. this project can go forward. upon the time that they are selling, it would be represented as rh2. the building would remain rh2. >> the need to allow his motion to go forward. >> let's vote. president miguel: let's boad on

the original motion. >> to approve my understanding is that it is a bow to approve the d.r. request. commissioner antonini: make it possible by that to happen by a future owner but not have that required. >> is that -- commissioner antonini: that is pretty much it. >> if there is no further discussion, on the motion -- to not take d.r. and approve the project as proposed with the urging of the current project sponsors to turn the building back into two units