were also single family houses. and if that is going to show up. there you go. there was a little purple dots were the ones that in the immediate vicinty are all single family dwellings, most of which told are still single family, this is the point that goes back to the sand born and there have been six added over the hun years since the buildings were built, and 6 added to the two units and so the point that i would like to make is in fact if you crunch the numbers differently, and the two dwellings which have been in the category of a single family home and separate out the very large units that skew the average and there is a

53 unit >> and they will use the discretion in deciding, in fact it is a benine reduction of one unit and if you look at the density in the arrogate in the whole area that is looked at, there is like 100, or in other words, there is off, it is over the density right now. and so, we are actually using non-conforming properties to determine if this conforming with a two family dwelling, so i find the discrepancy in that in the non-, internally inconsistent logic and i hope that the commission agrees that

it is a border line. you can ask the questions later. >> yeah. >> okay. my husband wrote a letter that he wanted me to read to you. he was born and raised and is native to san francisco and it was also in the bay view areas as you are aware, he purchased this house, 1855, green wood street in 2007 and would like

to turn this building into a single family dwelling. the building itself is in need of many structural up grades which were never done by the previous owners. we also plan on installing an elevator for my husband as he has hip and we have no plans of renting any portion of the building, and we also have met with several of our neighbors and they are in favor of our plans to maintain our home as a single family dwelling. i gathered the petition and my husband has a family of

daughter and grandchildren that and the additional space would enhance our family's needs. a very nice name, his name is raymond and he saw the notice on our door and said that he was going to write a letter and i was going to read to you what he said and i also have provided the copies of the other folks in the neighborhood that signed the approval form. i grew up across the street, at

1855, 57 green wood street and i own and occupy at the same building, previously owned by my late family from the year 1937, i can tell you that 1855, 1857 green witch was originally built as a one dwelling house. i am delighted that the current owner wants to restore the building back to a one unit house and his plans are beautiful and a compliment to the neighborhood. and since and we have so many for the american dream and that is defined as owning your own american home. with all of the wars to protect the american dream, please allow this family to live in the cat castle by their own space. >> your time is up. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item.

>> okay, seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini? >> thank you. >> i have some questions staff had reported at least a way that i read the staff report that they thought it was originally contained two dwelling units but mr. marteli who should know has lived there his whole life and he says that it is a single family dwelling until, you know, for quite some time. so, i know that that is not one of our criteria but it is important to me that this house was restored to what it originally was. >> well as far as the information provided to the staff, i mean based on the permit records appear to be a two-family dwelling based on the 3 r reports and such. and there is no clarity as far as that previously that was a single family dwelling. >> well your reports only go back so far probably. i am not sure if it goes back

to the original building the particular structure. >> the structure? >> yeah. >> well, thank you. >> but, you know, i think that this is a situation where the project sponsor has made it very clear that this is not going to be a rental unit again, it is their home and they intend to keep it and pass on to their children and their family to continue their use. and so, i think that we should respect that and we should allow them to create a home that meets their requirements and it may be more than some people feel it is too large. but i think that families have different needs. and one of the big criticisms that has been spoken, many about san francisco's housing stock is you go in and you look at some of the units and they are pretty dysfunctional and they may have technically two bedrooms and a bath but the bedrooms are lined up wrong and it is not high enough criteria to qualify this as a

non-functional situation but often times many of the units even though they have fairly large square footage don't meet the needs of families that well and we are building tons of smaller units all over the place, for those who want smaller units but we have very few larger units in san francisco, and we are not building any new ones, and the only way that we are going to create more family housing that meets the needs of people with large families is to allow the mergers on the selective basis and you know it is owner occupied and it has been since 2007 and it is going to continue to be that way and all that we are doing by disallowing this is inconvenienting the owners when they have to go down stairs and through the door and instead of allowing to use the property in the way that they choose to use it. my support is not taking the dr and approving this application. >> i would join that support.

commissioner moore? >> for the building and zoning it means that indeed the existing building is reflecting of the intent of what was supposed to be build and occupied in this area and if that guiding spot is larger than the depreciation of the owner wanting to live there for the rest of their lives and future generations, that is a personal statement which has not at all, influence the decision that i am asked we have been asked to make and in that sense, i believe that the department accurately analyzed the situation, as described and what the city needs to do relative to the future intensefiation and maintenance and the units on their own is sufficiently large to at least have a family with one or two children and the square footage is in that direction, 1500 square feet and even in newer

construction, they are already labeled as two unit, or two bedroom, family unit. so, in light of that, i will support the department's decision for the denial and i will make a motion to disapprove. >> second. >> do you have further comment? >> no. >> commissioner antonini? >> well, i just you wanted to say, yes, if this happens to be rh 2, there is a lot of even though there is some question about the kol you lacings of the areas, knowing that neighborhood very well, my office is in there and i know the houses that are single family and those that are duplexes and it is pretty much of a wash and that depends on where you draw the lines or whether you allow for as project sponsor has pointed out where the units were added without the permit and just existing two units but they are not legally two units and it screws the whole statistics in the wrong direction, so i am

not in favor of the motion and i will hope that we can allow this family to go ahead with this property. >> commissioners there is a motion and a second on the floor. >> are you gathering information that will effect your voting decision? >> no. >> i like to make another comment. >> sure. >> we will continuously be thrown into this as a planning commission, we are being thrown against the intensefiation and the bay region and the burden that san francisco is to carry, here is what we are doing, taking large enough family units and making it single family and we cannot accommodate someplace else. i suggest that we need to take time out as a commission relative to unit mergers and have the department work with

us intensely to figure out of how we can retain existing density which is not even meeting the projections and still find ways to intensify, we are basically as a commission pulling in two directions that is impossible for me to up hold. >> i understand your position and it has been said already that the zoning here does allow the two units while it could be reduced to one they could add it back in the future, however the important thing to note there is the existing unit would be subject to rent control and any new units added and the future would not be subject to it. that is not a criteria here in the decision making. as a discussion about the changes about these criteria and we wanted to put that out there for the submission. >> commission sugaya? >> i have a question about the motion, and either to the secretary or to the staff, the motion is to take dr and disapprove the project. i believe that there are not enough votes to disapprove the

project. >> if that takes place, then the project then automatically approved? >> and would there have to be a separate motion for approval? >> if that motion fails, there will have to be a subsequent motion to either not take the dr and approve the projector to continue the matter. those would be the options if the motion fails and there is no subsequent motion and then the project is approved as proposed. >> i believe that either motion will fail 3-2. >> and therefore, i am going to make a motion to continue the item until there is a full commission. >> is that a second? >> yes, that is a second. >> procedurally, the motion to continue will take precedence over the motion on the floor. and do you propose a specific date? >> no. i think that... if we would have at least 6 people here, i think that the matter can get resolved. >> okay. >> the next hearing date is a

week from today. on july 18th. the only commissioner hillis is schedule to be out. and august 1. >> commissioner borden is coming back on the 3:00 plane, she is landing at 3:00 and that pushes her arrival into a very kind of questionable time and so i ask that we take it beyond next week. >> okay. >> july 25th, both commissioners fong and hillis are schedule to be out. >> august first is a very full calendar. it is closed on my advanced calendar. you can clearly, if you wish, put it on august first, but it is a very full calendar, and august 8th, is still available. >> and there are no schedule absences. >> the 8th is. >> if i may just add some and i appreciate you offering continuance and i think that you are right. but, i fully hear you guys about losing units and how san

francisco needs to protect these units and but, i also want to be clear that i think that we need to have a larger discussion as commissioner moore suggests that we are going through the battle of ones and twos and i would rather take that energy and get the projects and get the units through the bigger ones and in this, i am trying to take a motion out of it but it is an older san francisco family. that i have no reason to think that they don't, you know, they are going to occupy this and they are not going to put them into brb units or anything like that. and so i just, you know, i want to just reserve that i understand where you guys want to go with this and i want to try to help out as far as preserving units but tackling this kind of a small project one at a time is not going to get us where we need to be. >> commissioner antonini, i agree entirely with president fong, because the families that

intent to occupy them for their own uses and the global picture about our needs to build your density and we are building new units and most of these are very small units and there is a considerable portion of the population that for their own reasons want to have larger units and they will either merge the units or they will move out of the city or they will, you know, try to perhaps, find someplace and compete with the other families for the few larger homes that exist. and they have every much the right of housing as do the people with the other housing needs so that is why i think that we do have to discuss this policy at greater length. but i think that it is a small policy, it has a lot to do with the rent controlled nature, which is not really what we should be looking at. we should be looking at what is best for the occupants of it and what kind of housing needs do we have? because i know that a lot of people who just have a hard time finding a larger home around in san francisco.

and the competition for those is very great. so if we could create some out of some smaller units it is a good move. >> commissioner moore? >> without taking sides for the particular viewpoints expressed which i don't agree with the latest one presented i think that we need to look at this in the broader manner and the problem of the smaller units like the one and twos all wait up to the big ones. because the issue of affordable and rent control remains an extremely important issue. which i feel all of us are obligated to address and even if we might for the individual, fortune and not fall into the category of needing the units and that does not relief us from the obligation of having to think about it. i would greatly appreciate some additional guidance, or some more philosophical under pinning from the department before we move on the 18th of august to hear it on the 8th of august to hear this particular

item again. >> i don't know if we have time to do that. >> we can do some work and i don't know if we can do a thorough analysis. >> trends at what you are thinking at and etc. and there are many interesting discussion points that i will forward you an article, tonight that might be interesting to read. >> i am glad that you share that thought and we are never going to get there with these little projects. >> and i fully agree with you on the other end, we cannot basically, ignore them, >> no. >> we are basically stripping away unprotected units thinking that we are resolving the bigger issue and all to speak about the affordbility and the retaining of affordbility in the larger issue. >> we might be able to did that in broader strokes, and commissioner sugaya? >> well, the public hearing is over. so..., >> okay. >> in any case, if we are

talking about trying to get more affordable, i mean we just went backwards from 15 to 12 percent and so i don't think that... i think that it is backwards, despite what happened earlier today in the developers, agreement to put them in the units, at least you would have had more units maybe they would not have been in the units but you would have had more units. in any case, i think that the discussion is going to evolve passed the commission if we really get serious about this discussion because it is going to end up at the board of supervisors. so it is a larger much larger issue, than we are going to resolve by ourselves. it is just a caution there. >> i understand. >> i am glad to have the discussion. >> yes. >> commissioner wu? >> thanks. >> i am glad to have the discussion too, this is actually what i wish that we would spend our time on. >> so, i think that i am sorry for the project sponsor to get caught up in this and you probably wondering why this is

happening. you know, new units in the city i read that they cost, $550,000 just to build a new unit, to me that states that you cannot sell a new unit for less than that or rent it for less than what that is worth. i think that the old housing stock is really important in preserving affordbility. and i know that you don't intend to rent it. if we are going to talk about affordbility. you cannot replacing the older housing stock under any circumstances. and to build more, we are at 12 percent now for inclusionary and it would involve some huge cash pot that we just don't know where that is right now. and so, i think that it would be great to have this thinking from the department on this and probably outside of this case. for us to consider. >> thank you. >> commissioner antonini? >> yeah, this is interesting discussion. i know with the demolitions we look at the value and if it

exceeds a certain amount, then you know, we do not have to have the mandatory dr. if the property is deemed to be beyond affordable. and that may be something that we may want to look at because this particular situation, the rents are probably going to be every much as great of a new unit would rent or sell for if these units were split off as two condo units. so i think that is something that we have to consider. and my other question is not this policy under the province of the planning commission not the board of supervisors? i think that we have always been the one to set the dr policy? >> this is in section 317s of the planning code and so we are aplowing those which were reviewed and adopted by the board of supervisors so this is a legislative matter that the board of supervisors does have purview on and they would have the ability to make further modification to this section as well. to make other changes and i mean that is part of the

discussion that the commission can have at a future date if there are changes proposed for section 317. >> okay. >> thank you. >> commissioner, there is a motion to continue to august 8th, on that motion, commissioner antonini? >> no. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu. >> aye. >> and fong. >> aye. >> so moved, that motion passes 4.1 with sugaya decenting. >> that places you under public comment. >> is there any general public this evening? >> no. >> seeing none, the meeting is adjourned. >> i love living here and my husband and i are very nice people and we have a great big family. and we love where we are living. and we can't do anything to it right now. and we are going to grow old there like i said and what really makes me sad is that i

would really love it if you would consider saying yes to all of this because i feel like maybe are we running other families out of here? i mean do we not want some homes for people to live? and in a single family dwelling? i mean i have been driving around and i have seen a lot of new apartment buildings going up and i have not, you know i have not been counting how many apartments there are in the area but it looks to me like an auful lot of new ones are coming in here. and so, you know, as you can tell, i am very emotional about this. i mean this is a huge deal to us. we need an elevator, my husband needs it more than i do. and i am sure when i get older i am going to need it too. so, and not to mention our kids that some day are going to be living in this house. so, that is all that i have to say and i am hoping that some of you will change your mind. i mean, that is all.

thank you. >> is there any additional public comment? >> okay. seeing none, the meeting is adjourned.