planning commission for hearing our proposal and in particular mr. burns. and as you've heard from ms. burns the department is recommending the proposed merger be disapproved failing below the financially or demonstratively unaffordable houses and it's not in keeping with the executive derivative so i think i want to speak to the criteria and to the recently adapted threshold of $1 million plus. first, the $1.5 million is appraised of single-family home, however, it's board and it's not clear to us as well as to our

clients how the single-family residents is not defined it's compared to not an apples to apples comparison as well as to the condo i'm wondering in consideration is giving to the hoa fees and the hoa fees are over $1,700 a month and on top of mortgage so a number of bathrooms and per skweer costs and a metric go as well as understanding of the hearing did planning commission has debated or questioned the dignifies of a single-family residence so the threshold of 3.2 it is a stretch

to say a one before the accident happened condo anothers 5 million is demonstratively affordable etc. as well the owners particularly interested in the inxhifbltcy among the appraisal and his property tax bill i have a copy of that if you want to see he's been tacked for his property at the 1 million 8 hundred thousand and that's above the threshold it is the average around 1.5 million it's confusing. i think we'd like some clarity on that. speaking of the unit itself it is housed in the four season residents that's a project that was conceived and approved the

san francisco nationals and services the hoa intent. again, it is a one bedroom 35er789 with a small square footage providing that as affordable is a stretch. the merger from the housing stock but merging it into a single unit creates a ding unit for a family of 4 with that so it adds to the housing stock in this particular building. so the planning department's report there's been three approvals in the tower and those mergers involve the unaccessible unit so when the tlerltdz is meeting met it makes the thoughtful and erotic threshold

and the realties of the unit. regarding the executive derivative i want to say that this is also, you know, you guys have seen this for several years he's lived there and it's never been available for rental or displacing any tenants it's reducing the number of bedrooms and that's the last point we did originally submit in the fall of 2013 and elected two resubmits and in that time the thresholds has changed and it's truly by a matter of weeks we had the appraisal february 13th and the new threshold was adapted in march >> thank you sir, your time is

up. >> okay is there any public comment on this item seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner borden >> i know this is obviously not on affordable unit but looking the hoa it sounds like the hoa are $1,700 a month is an rent for an apartment obviously it's not affordable i understand the conformity of the zoning issue but there's no way to rectify that situation in either direction and when a donation was made to build it back in the day but if there's a way to look at those cases this was clearly built as a luxury condo unit it's not subject to

rent control i don't know if people want to spend a lot of money on those unite i'll move to approve. second >> or not take dr approval. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i was a little bit curious from the project sponsor did you say that the taxed that are being paid on that unit are based on $1.5 million. >> they're based on $1.500 as of 2013. >> so it was accessed at a particular time but - >> yeah. 4 hundred or 5 hundred thousands. i agree with the motion and it is sort equal to what that

amount is in support of the motion it satisfies four or the 6 criteria and one doesn't apply but were the standards of the motion to measure it doesn't apply the standard to apply to it when is a hypothesis situation the same number of bedrooms and somewhat repetitive when that talks about the same number of bedrooms it's a reasonable request >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes. what year was that appraisal is that 2013. >> please come to the podium. >> yeah. by the assessors office. >> it's dated june of 2013. >> so it's a current tax bill

so he's appraising those say at 2 thousand a square foot. >> thank you. commissioner hillis >> just a clarification on the appraisal amount the tax bill is based on what you bought it for so somebody bought it for $1.5 million so it's ramped up and i'll agree with the speakers decision on this $1,700 will support $400,000 so we're going to get $2 million for our costs i'm in support. >> commissioner moore. >> i feel my case hand caught in the door. just a few weeks ago i asked for

metrics by which we can also address the dwelling unit mergers as looking at the preserving housing stock including within the range of definition of affordable housing for people who already live there and want to buy something. we asked the department to do so the fact that the numbers are being questioned is basically, not in my purview i have to building that the department is doing what we asked them to do to found numbers to gage the perimeters for approval or denial i believe what's been presented to me, i'm taking the information as being thoughtfully prepared but advised with the appropriate

people to sit here and deny something to which i wanted metrics. as to whether i can question the numbers of how they're together but nate's that's not what i - i am using the tools that were given to me that's been questioned by the other. the argument is clear and simple it can't be persuade by the mayors housing derivative so i can't support of the merger >> commissioner antonini. >> well, i think the derivative merely says that all mergers should come before the commission but it doesn't say i can't approve it, it's up for dr

we have discretion and we can exercise our discretion i still support the motion. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes. to staff on the $1.5 million is that can we get into a little bit of how that is arrived at. is it truly based on single-family housing in the city that's a weird kind of baseline to use >> sure corey for staff i can touch on that. the most current circulations or the code says it should be the 80th per actually including the land values. the updated figure was replicated and simple based on

data that was available in most recent years the sales data filtered to take out market tractions for single families regardless of the underlying zoning and the 80 per actually is the 1.06 is derived from that number is used solely to determine if we can approve that administratively not as a criteria that's considered for the merger itself that's a number to determine in the unit is demonstratively not affordable that we deem it affordable in any way it was simply a bar it is so unaffordable we can approve that

>> it's an aggregate figure it take into account the two bedroom or whenever there's you're not drill down into different types of single family and to follow up single families don't or does it include the condominium units. >> no, it and and the second question question it's overall the single families and the code is written in such a way that the figure is for the review determination whether it's single families or condominiums being merged. >> most of the mergers it seems like to be using a figure based

on a totally different housing type, you know, is an issue i think this needs to be looked at. i don't know whether or not we looked at the comparable one bedroom unit, you know, condominium units whether the price is lower or higher i suspect higher >> it's one of the things on the list to review the whole housing passage with the mayor's office to see if it needs changing. >> that's helpful. although the issue that's been raised by this isn't up for discussion we have a discussion scheduled for may 15 to talk about what should be

administratively reviewed so we'll not be talking about the one $.5 million barrier but we can go through the history of why those projects are coming to us now and how the commission presidents to interpret the executive derivative derivative >> commissioner moore. >> i'm prepared to continue this because i'm searching for metrics by which we can sit here and meet the larger objectives it's not about this particular family living in 75 hundred square foot or not but what we use to guide us to look at the merging of units we're getting

favorite away from this by reducing the number of homes by thirty thousand this is distracting and it's that reason i prop that we continue this after the discussion when we have a clear way of moving forward. we're not getting stuck with the current guidance but looking at this project are a boarder understanding among ourselves >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i would like to consider this today, i think my interpretation of the derivative and what we're looking at is to restraining order try to address not the sheer number of units because we're building tens of thousands of new unit under construction but the derivative is trying to keep units affordable and most particularly under rent control and adding

protections for this it doesn't say that but the exception and anything we find out under our discussion in a few weeks is not going to change the position where the values as stated by the discussion for xhopdz will probably be a lot of different on the single families for comparison. something that didn't fit the matrix of even vaguely affordable we're not going to spend time on so an individual trying to find a home and a lot more home someplace other than other than the four seasons so saving one house is not going to help the housing crunch

>> commissioners a motion and a second on the floor. commissioner antonini. commissioner borden arrest commissioner hillis. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya and commissioner fong and commissioner president wu that passed 6 to one with sxhovr voting against. commissioners, that places you under you under general public comment comment there are no speaker cards >> is there any jane kim seeing none, public comment is closed. and the meeting is

[gavel] >> this meeting will come to order. this is the regular meeting of the government and audit oversight committee, and thank you for joining us to