so you can see here that - from the existing proposed rear views it's going to match the surrounding homes so it will be the same when viewed from the street. when viewed over castro street you can't see 23 from castro street the architect climbed a hill to see it but it's going to have basically no impact on the view. i want to note that the dr requester in the dr application only proposed one concession to limit construction after 8:00 a.m. and the project sponsors agreed to this and to make sure that the construction is between 8:00 a.m. and

5:00 p.m. and notifying their neighbors in advance. the dr requesters with the only one in the community that have complaints. this is a small community and that speaks to the overall support. the project is achieving the goal of making sdpo san francisco more friendly. the dr requester has not raised any enjoyed circumstances and i ask you approve this project. and the contractor are here if i have any questions for them >> thank you. calling speakers in support of the project sponsor

(calling names) >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm dr. frank mcglove. i've lived here 44 years. i'm speaking for neighbors who couldn't be here today. their jean of conquest court and others. we support the project of mr. and mrs. who sigh are excellent e excellent neighbors. their 16 the house houses and i have the mopping map to prove it. the project will maintain the architecture integrity of the court. the court was named after alfred

axiliary who built those family homes after world war two. on a small-scale you can think of them as a small homebuilder. it would be a significant lose if the family must leave the court for their 3 boys and themselves. they're a critical factor in the building and spirit of friendship and a goodwill in our small neighborhood. i urge you support this project and i'll accept the krerg discretionary review >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm jan gregory i live

directly across the street from this family. i've lived here since 1979 and have seen many families come and go and also sadly children when they move out of the neighborhood so it's wonderful having this family there and watching their children grew up. they've given a lot to the neighborhood. it's the way they've described bebeing at the end of a dead end street neighborhood congregate and we accept packages for one other. it's a community i want to support the families be able to raise their families in san francisco. they did discuss with neighbors their plans for expansion and

their ideas. after other construction projects we kind of have a thing in the neighborhood that the neighbors are invited in for a little party afterward wine and cheese is served and people see the changes that's been made and it has a nice community effort that they have. we live directly across the street from some of the construction projects and they've tried to take our needs into case. they offered to have our windows washed after one project. when some of the workman inadvertently blocks our derivative they offered a meal anti. so i think they've been very accommodating in trying to meet the needs of the neighbors and

they've been wonderful neighbors in terms of creating a community for our court. so i support their project and i urge the planning commission to decline to take discretionary review. thank you >> is there any additional public comment? >> hello commissioners. i'm i live there for thirty years. i'm representing page olsen and ron and others residents. and i've been the 27 court representative for years. and the neighborhood is trial

what we have here. the family is a crucial component. they've actively participated in block parties and events and have been sensitive and generous to the needs of us. i see their project having a relevant issue. accommodating the needs of they're growing family and housing the look and cult of our cul-de-sack by not chairngz e changing the outside. they're going through this in a authenticity fill manner. they have become good friends and i might never have met them. i wouldn't lose them as friends i don't want to lose them as

neighbors. thank you. is there any additional public comment? in support of the project sponsor? if not dr requester you have a two minute rebuttal >> in a period of seven years how many home construction is reasonable. their propping another year of construction this is an assessable amount of time. the house is a full time hobby. there's no support for the proposal. the sponsors have executed several large projects and some people have had enough. this proposed project is not consistent with the homes in the neighborhood. we can't speak for the other neighbors but neighbors came to

us complaining about another project and hypocritical they are spearheading the projects in the neighborhood. many feel this process given there was no notice on the merging housing unit so why waste their 7, 8, 9 coming down here. when we tried to execute an capitalization of our home the sponsors of the current sponsors said go buy one somewhere else in the city. they calibrated flyers and this wasn't neighborly. despite this we still had 6 out of 16 neighbors in support speaker we have two children and

3 sets of grandparents that's spending the majority of their time in san francisco. they've begin not been neighborly and reasonable in keeping the cheating the city of tax dollars. we ask you deny the request >> thank you, sir. >> time is up. >> project sponsor you have a two minute rebuttal. >> i'm going to speak quickly of too too. projects. those properties were purchased 8 years apart. we had one property that was purchased and renovated they were a young come up they couldn't upgrade all at once. so this necessitated you must not projects.

the project sponsors have done a lot of outreach. there's been plenty of opportunity for the awe butt neighbors to complain and if their fed up enough they haven't written a letter. they love the community and are committed to the well-being. i don't have to remind you of the resident they're under the age of 14 on or the other side of the spectrum a smaller amount is over 75 but this is a chance to make san francisco more friendly. it accommodates homes with children and it charters the needs of the housing over the generations.

again, i encourage you to follow the staff recommendation without taking discretionary review >> thank you okay. the public hearing is closed. commissioner antonini >> yeah. a couple of questions the first thing maybe for mr. 90 he will. this would have been approved for the merger because of the cost factor because the lowest cost unit is established at the 64 >> that's correct it was approved. >> so it's not before us as a mandatory. then the other part there's been some comment about noticing but sound like the addition is one

hundred and 45 square feet total and 10 feet vertical you don't have to notice those kinds of additions >> correct this is a 311 notice and it was noticed per excuse me. one second - . so that horizon rear estimation we did have to notice but - >> that didn't have to be

noticed. >> and then my final question is there's been some talk about not that it is a deciding factor but if those units are merged they'll be assessed at a new tax rate of a syrup i that single unit or b will the owners pay two taxes. >> commissioner antonini that's a great question i can't answer that question but i'll be happy to get back to you. >> yeah. that's an interesting point. we don't have many times when separate homes are merged so again so that's - thank you for your answers. you know, i think that this on

the one hand, wouldn't have been sent under the pending reform it wouldn't have been referred to us. i think for the reasons stated the fact that, you know, this isn't not an affordable unit and it's not subject to mandatory dr. dr it make sense because the other side of the coin and the dr pointed out another way to do this is to add editions to the unit and there would be a lot of people that wouldn't want the additions so it seems like they're doing something that make sense and the circumstance i don't see any reason why we should take dr on this >> commissioner moore. >> i want to take a moment and

step away about the specifics about what's in front of us but speak about policy. i'm concerned that this particular project comes forward at a time when some of the statutes have never been invoked for many, many years. the last time a residential property merger of consistent or largely compliant lot sis was define way back when when the gentleman in panicking heights bought the projecting property that was definitely before the time of any of the people sitting here. as i decide in my entire 7, 8, 9 sitting here about seven years

plus months section 317 under the provision which is being used here based on the division not on affordable has never been used. i'm asking modifying and i'm speaking outside of your particular case i'm speaking as a commissioner as a discussion item. we have basically never been able to define with what is affordable at all particularly when a heated upmarket affordable is something we can't put into reasonable numbers. i think by creating this for the first time as an argument to support not a not merger but to a building merger being moving

quickly into dangerous territory. this committee sent back an application where an owner was going to merge two units into one but because it was small in the 3 hundred square feet range we basically sent the project back because we were so concerned about the equity and affordability. i'm concerned that the time when we're doing this is very difficult in an indentured section of the code which speaks about what is not affordable. nothing is. i also have to say that unless

you have a third party independent judgment on lot valuation in this particular case it's a realtor submitting it you can't take the numbers it's not the number that matters you can't take the argument as stated to us. i'm concerned and i want to that with the commission. we're in case = and dooim and this case is huge and i have a hard time understanding it. i feel high pressed to support it based on the questions i'm raising here for what's left for us to do. i think us commission should look at the merger together with the department and looking ahead of the responsibilities of the

mayor's office is trying to do and treat it in a manner where it's equal to everybody else when we talk about mergers >> the commissioner raises some good points. to my knowledge there's been this level that's not been utilized in the past for mergers but it's been enforced and utilized many times for demolitions where the value exceeds a certain amount it's not a mandatory dr. those are 317 types of situations. it seems both things apply the same and i think that's the position the city has taken. so what really is before us is

not the issue of whether the merger is affordable because it's been established that's the number we're dealing with it may need to be revised but the only issue we should be considering is whether we agree with the dr requesters claims there's extraordinary conditions. but i would like to get some input from staff about the feelings of the affordability level that's been established here >> actually, the affordability number that's been established it ranks i think it is 1.35 million and to my knowledge that's not been adjusted or revised since 2009 but that's

the current number. >> and then it's been pointed out this value of the latest expensive unit is 1 point 64 i'm not sure where that came from. >> there is under the code it specifically states in order for an administrator approval of this type of application that the project sponsor committing submit on appropriately from someone who's certified and that has to be done within 6 months. >> it's not close to the 4 passenger door .35 it's more. it seems there's a discussion in the future as to whether we have to revises our policies but we're only going by the policies we've established >> i will say that i think in

my experience the zoning administrator probably approves about half a dozens of those annually at the administrator level. >> commissioner borden. >> i think single-family homes are not subject to rent control so the affordability doesn't apply here. the affordability you unit is a lot less because the home isn't considered affordable or protected in a way that the general plan had annoyed to protect rent control property so the conversation is about that. there's a whole other codifies whether those 3r06789s should be

merged. it's not usually for people to buy multiple properties on the same block. in fact, we saw a case i can't remember it was a case in laurel heights there was a similar situation but it happened to be a stacked foundation. it's usually if they were trying to annoyance the facades but the fact they're trying to combine the facades. in the past we've asked people to make it so they can be turned back to single-family homes later we could consider that if that's a conditioner if the project could be done in such a way to subdivide the property but on the street the structure

maintains the integrity. i remember the case the issue was a pattern of two-story buildings in the entire court and the dr requester proposed was going up and that's the issue open this court and it wasn't acceptable for people to go up vertically. so we made that decision we said the way to go is horizontal not vertical. i went this block and remember that case. so we have in some ways limited to a degree even though people can make improvements hon on this block we decided going up

was not acceptable. for us it's really about the building footprint and less about the use. two people - i mean somebody can own

vertical >> i think we may want to look at the two lots. are the lots being merged.

it seems bizarre that wouldn't come to us and being able to be approved administratorly. i think this case, you know, they raise some good points and i'm generally supportive but i organizational commissioner borden's comments i like the look of two separate buildings it would be annoys to say it would be sold as two buildings the case more reflects on their land use but keeping some colonel control on the look and feel it continues to look like two separate buildings i think is important >> just a clarification would the two lots be merged so there's one address. i'm getting into a different area but i'm curious if the

actual lots become one address >> there's an application for the merging of the two lots into one. >> commissioner antonini. yeah. i would move that we don't take dr and approve the project. with what's been brought before us the facades are not being k457kd and not make a stipulation about future uses. it would seem reasonable when circumstances changed if they want to put a kitchen back in they'll probably have to get approval to among it into two units again >> so if that were the situation in the future the future prosperity owner would basically split the lot.

>> do a lot split. >> in order to put in another kitchen this is rh zoned and that's my motion not to take the dr and approve that. it provides a large home but a lot of folks need larger homelands >> second. >> commissioner wu. >> thanks on this case in particular i do think the project sponsor has followed the rules and regulations. to commissioner moore's thought. we recently changed the criteria again for mergers even under the new mergers this exists. there are a number of working groups to work on the issue of affordability. maybe we