the roof-deck to stay you'll come up with a nice structure with the penthouse eliminated and supportive of a motion that had that effect basically to remove the penthouse and leave the roof-deck not visible from the street. >> commissioner sugaya. >> i'm going to make a motion and allowing the roof-deck shall be pulled back the staff can work with the developer and there will be an appropriate stair penthouse structure as minimal as it can be and that also will be set back as far as we can get it from the front of

the building. >> second. >> commissioners there is a motion and a second to take dr to eliminate the penthouse and provide for a minimal stair penthouse to access - a roof-deck. commissioner antonini. commissioner hillis. commissioner johnson. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya. commissioner fong and commissioner president wu. so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero. and places you on our final calendar - >> i image we also need another motion on the dr and for the may or may not dr. >> move to approve the demolition and the construction. >> yes. >> may having i have a second. >> thank you. on that may or may not demolition and new construction. commissioner antonini.

commissioner hillis. commissioner johnson. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya. commissioner fong. commissioner president wu. so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously have to zero supervisors that places you on item 16 at 334 a may or may not discretionary review. i'm david lindsey of department staff and presenting that on behalf of the sharon who couldn't be here today. the project is to merge the two existing passenger seat approximately 8 hundred units to create a 3 bedroom single-family on third avenue in the inner richmond neighborhood does not include the expansion and

exempts from second from the category class one exemption. the property zoning allows one dwelling unit for the per square footage of the area it is located in the area of clement street. there is no known opposition to the project and multiple letters of project support have been simpleminded by neighbors and other. i want to clarify some of the letters of support this is some additional information that was provided to me by the applicant. the staff we have letters of support from two from adjacent neighbors allen and elizabeth and 5 from other neighbors on the block directly across the street and 4 additional letters from outside the immediate area.

planning code section states that the planning commission shall consider 5 criteria in pits criteria the commission must consider the promoted mergers consistent doubtcy with the policies of the planning code. the commission should review the project take into account the miser december 2013 directive on housing production and preservation of housing stock the proposed merger with respect to the general plan and the mayor's office executive directive is included september to the commission last week. i want to reference one point that is included in the analysis

this this is having to do with criteria f on page 3 of the analysis that talks about the number of bedrooms in the merged unit i'm sorry in the separate units versus the marked unit. the accessories record has an error. the correct count for bedroom count for the each of the exist single units is one bedroom per unit the proposed bedroom is two bedrooms so the project provides more bedrooms in each individual units. based on the staff review it's anothers departments recommendation that the commission take discretionary review and disapprove the property merger. the project will result in a net

loss of one dwelling unit from the city's housing stock and replies them with a less affordable house and the r m-1 allows 3 zoning units and the proposed loss of the dwelling unit is contrary to the mayor inclusive including the naturally affordable unify u units and the housing affordability creates a exceptional circumstance such that existing dwelling units should be preserved that concludes my presentation. if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them >> thank you project sponsor. >> good evening. i'm aaron he miller owner jennifer johnson i

have printouts of the supplemental memory we've printed you should have received digitally. and jennifer will speak. good afternoon. i'm jennifer johnson this is my husband of 8 years and he is a nacht of san francisco. we have a family here. appealing to the commission to approve the merger of who junior one bedroom units our which don't 30th not provide first name heirs to create a modest size 16 hundred plus 3 bedroom home that appraise housing for our expanding family we got married in 2006 and purchased this property in 2007.

the two units were vacant for approximately one year before we purchased the property and after that we moved into the bottom unit attending to renovate the property and rent out the property in 2009 we become pregnant and in order to occupy our expanding family we used the top floor for oblg spaces neither those unit have been rented out and in total none of those units have been rented out and there's no history are eviction we want to create a family sized home to raise our daughter who is 4 in all that san francisco offers to have here close to our uncles and family to help with the

caregiver we have relationships with our neighbors we want to maximum our family and be in the richmond and grow old here we submitted a plan for the policies that mangles specific prerogatives for our merger request to create family sized housing pr the project as proposed is on balance consistent with the general plan and r m woshgs one zoning with low density one to 3 unit and single-family homes are the independent representing 23 of our property. we ask you approve our merger to create family sized housing approval with about consistent with the mayors administrative goal as evidenced by you mayor

on his page for housing which states creating for housing for our families at every income level is a critical appropriate of my administration i creating housing through merging is priority for in the general plan so we ask you to please help and families to stay in san francisco to continue to raise a third generation san franciscan surrounded by families and friends in this home and city thank you. thank you. >> thank you. is there public comment. >> yes.. hi i wanted to say i've known them for 25 years. i have to say if you granted what you just did when i was here and explicit deal with the

foonlt in the section 317 you have to give them they're very modest family sized unite it's 16 hundred secret they've laid out a case they're in the ellis act anyone and building a mega home they're not a crazy developer who brings 40 in crazy people to promote the project. i think they are trying to create what is the relatively affordable home they intend to live in with their children or child anyway so i support them i don't i don't think them and absolute them >> thank you. thank you >> any public comment on that item? >> commissioner antonini. >> i agree what the speaker that just spoke i made a note no one in the entire discussion

what the expectation of the woman that spoke ever brought of situation it was zoned rh2 to theoretically that project could have had two units that on the lot that question never came up just because this particular area is american people rh1 which is confusing it really means tests based on the number of square foot afternoon the number of units loud so you could have as many as 3 unit. that doesn't makes sense. because as was pointed out by the project sponsor mayor ed lee says you housing for families of all income levels we have two-thirds of our units rental and 80 percent of the ones rental have under rent control as far as i, subtle closely to the 75 to percent of the units

only 20 percent have 3 bedroom unit we're not providing the multiple units for children and they're getting by using both units that's not a family home and trying to use the other bedroom as a bedroom at the time not really the way you want to live. and realistically i'm not going to try to suggest what the project sponsors are going to do comba but if not allowed to have the merger they'll continue to use both unit this is not going to be affordable rentals if one is ever sold one b will buy is and sell the two units above what the sellers were able to

make because one of the premiums is single units that are vacant and you know people will buy them single people that can only use a single-space but not a two family homes their good small this was originally a two family home breakdown in 189572 into two units they satisfy the first two its owner occupied nobody it being displace placed and intended for fore owner occupied and staff is correct they're adding now up to 3 bedrooms somehow they had it wrong and the density in the area tlarts

there's a variety but single families was stated 25 percent and the remaining 75 percent are split within the apartment buildings further done down and some that have two bedrooms so a case could go made tyler certainly within the allowed density and probably a lot of the units in the area with single families i'm supportive of the merger and not take dr and, in fact, i'm going to move not to take dr and approve the project and i'd like agree you ail recognize i'm sure you're aware of you've watched them before we don't want to lose unites and have a disposition not allowed unit to be merged

this is different. one you're going to go back to the uses of the single-family homes and this is a mankind 16 hundred science naturally affordable home it's a unique thing to see that we've not seen that usually i'm supportive and commissioner moore. ms. lindsey i assume you've given us the correct interpretation of the mayor derivative. i believe you did to that pits us in a walked situation the unit 16 hundred square feet are in the range of what he want to

protect we've heard seen a family standing in front of united states with who small unit and asked us that's fine you can't live will live in a 22 hundred square feet but everyone worked that out but with a child we're supposed to support family heirs i feel backing between a rock and hard place i've supportive of the mayors directive we'll asked how to with work the directive and in this case and i and i'm looking for help from commissioner president wu there is the emotional side of obviously wanting to supportive them but the directive is really a clear

hindering block to make a decision to go outside the directive to support n this family i want to spell that out that's the reality. commissioner fong >> i surely agree with a fine balance while the the hot topic but try to keep families in san francisco and to me in this particular case this super soedz they're not changing the continues but i absolutely see your point and agree with you while we come across hairs but i'm going to take a position and defend the small family and keeping them in san francisco in this case. >> commissioner hillis. >> i would agree with commissioner moore we're between a rock and hard place i think at mayor and other policymakers

wanted to say no mergers we should say no mergers we should pass that as kind of in the planning code by we've approved some you know it's kind of things presented themselves this case is different we're getting 4 thousand square feet homes and this arising to the expectation that's why i'm supportive. the conversation as laid down out the challenge for me there is clearly a family that appears to be well meaning it's a modest house not to use others to get their single-family home they've bought in 2007 the downturn of the market the housing crisis we

weren't talking about that in that way but in the situation we're in now if anyone wants to watch this tape i want to discourage this as a way for people to buy property to accommodate their single-family homes >> yeah. in terms of dealing with the mayors directive there's discretion, you know, housing for families of low income levels and families of requirements for different sizes depending on the number of children there are situation we as a commission are allowed to have discretion as most of the commissioner have pointed out we have to use your discretion in a sensitive way and realize this is not a case of a developer who is trying to sell this as a

profit and receiving if they had to sell this place and try to buy something comparable they're going to pay a lot more when they first bought this and it may not be economically feasible to do that because it above the $1 million if we had to buy something in the inner richmond i'm supportive. >> commissioner moore. >> i want to add one other thought to what commissioner president wu said together with the residential design team and his group take the discussion forward as to whether or not having you have a small size unit recycle this one that at least to recommend or consider a merger is something different when you have two 16 hundred

square feet units and all of a sudden you say i'm going to expand this for my family. there's wisdom and this is still a small house it's sizeable but still small i want to take the thought in memory further to reflect on what is in the permissible range to support a merger no right in order to prevent encouraging others to do the same we don't want the mayors directive might be fine tuned but i want you to take this further because you realize where we are >> commissioner sugaya. >> well, i think to continue on commissioner president wu's thought. i don't think this commission

has ever taken an action and considered it to be a precedent. i think we consider everything on its merits we have all the examples of the unit mergers why we approved some and not others i think the commission has pretty much acted independently and considered everything on its own merits i'm not going to add to the tape if you watch the unit merger oh, there was one and it got approved they'll realize they're on their own when they come here i have another thought but i can't remember it >> commissioner fong. >> i wanted to speak so we can

stretch this until 8 o'clock. >> laura. >>. i hundred percent agree with commissioner president wu's thoughts not to get the real estate value having this is a may or may not dr absolutely works we're sitting here close to 8 o'clock but this works to the situation and we have, you know, disapproved mergers before i that we had denied a couple in the arrange a if the same house where for two occupant

representing the upper and lower and evict on and try to mooring we would deny that but that's not a means to gain value >> commissioner johnson. >> this is really quick i support the motion, however, i will support commissioner moore's suggestion that we look at ways to put a little bit more detail behind the mayors directive i say that but the project sponsors own mission to rent the upper unit and they decided they were not going to be able because the bottom unit was not enough space so i almost feel like i'm sure their gathering we would have been in

the situation they got pregnant one year later and i'm supportive but i echo commissioner moore's comments to guide. >> decision but the may or may not discretionary review looks like it works. >> commissioner moore. >> for ms. jocelyn and memory lane we had a project on filbert around washington square about a year ago it was a young doctor from ucsf she was expecting a think child too flats and we conditioned the merger by leaving the ability to stay as two unit so the illustrate hookups we allowed an internal connection for the life they

would be in the building how have it retained it's as a two unit building because once it's a meerlgd you can't use it for two again, we left it for two out changing the structure outlet i like to go forward that would still allow for changes over time with this young family the house you might come back to the market and i as two. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes. in defense of the staff they made the correct evaluation based on the career and the mayors diversify but i know that's the beauty of the commission so to speak in that we take what staff as recommended and factor in other

things and make the decision that way so it's not like we're rubber stamping the staff understands that that's why we have a discretionary process. >> was there a motion. >> there was a motion so commissioners, if there's nothing further there's a motion to not take doctor commissioner antonini. commissioner hillis. commissioner johnson. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya. commissioner fong commissioner president wu no >> so that passed 6 to one and commissioners that places you on general public comment there are no speaker cards. >> thank you. such a nice couple. >> i think your concern about the merger the people who are

going to do it aren't going to come before i i can think of four or five around noah valley people do it piecemeal maybe that's the staff or other departments issue that goes on people are going to come before i are going to be honest this is my story and situation it's kind of like the all the remodels that are actually brand new buildings like the $4.5 million in noah valley that's the way it goes. . with that, general comment is closed thank you, again commissioner sugaya >> thank you commissioner sugaya. >> colleagues at least for two meetings. >> okay meeting

>> all right. thank you. everyone welcome to our regularly scheduled rules committee meeting. i'm katie tang and we have david campos