compliant with the neighborhood characteristics. there are many units in this block. as far as the parking that was brought up, we had a permit to at the parking garage. afterwards, we realized adding another unit is better for this building and more favorable for the neighborhood. we changed the plan and no longer are going to at the third unit. i hope that addresses the last gentlemans concern. after her name, i am sorry. we will restore the front, adding the original bay back so we can preserve the characteristic of the facade of the building. we do like the look of it. we are doing our best to preserve what is there. we're not adding anything

outside the envelope of the building. everything we're talking about is interior remodel. we are proposing a number of bathrooms. even that was opposed. our planner let them know we are allowed to add bathrooms. that is our -- we do have a right to do those things and to try to make the project more appealing to whoever will live there in the future. it could be us or a new person. i would like to address all the issues with all their neighbors. if they can allow us to at least move forward. it seems like it has been tied down this way many times in the past. that is why it is an eyesore.

with your blessing, i would like to move forward and do better for our neighbors here and answer all their concerns. i do not believe they have the latest drawings that we have. we would like to share that with them. we need to proceed forward. this building is in disrepair for so many years. so i asked for moving forward your rote approval to proceed. president miguel: thank you. speakers in favor of the project sponsor? >> my name is darren lee, valerie's husband that i represent several of the partners we have on this building. we would like to address all the concerns from all the neighbors

in regard to the plans that are not depicted as accurate. the senior building inspector joe duffy and i walked through. everything was -- worked in conjunction to plan at the scope of work. he has seen this building and the plans. we're trying to comply with everything that is required. on this application for the ground floor conversion into a habitable space we would like the commission to approve that. all the other project descriptions, we plan to bring everything up to code. what ever outstanding issues there are, i am sure the

building department, we will work in conjunction with the building department to bring everything up to code. there was an issue with the deck on the east property line. that was adjacent to her property. if we can, we would like to address that as well. we have removed the stairs. that portion of the work was never constructed by me or my partners. that was existing as we previously bought the building, that staircase was already there. we would like to remove that according to the plan, we will remove that and have the deck along with the firewall. it is frosted glass that we need to satisfy privacy issues. we will work with her to provide frosted glass which is what we will proceed forward with this project. it has been an eyesore for the neighbors for many years. it has gone through several owners, in disarray for several

years. we would like to commission -- like the commission to give us permission to proceed forward and go from there. president miguel: thank you. additional speakers? you have a two minute rebuttal. >> thank you. again, we are not opposing the project itself. we do think that discretionary review is warranted. i think we have highlighted the exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and there is still some disconnect. i will not be labor this point. i think there is a number of conditions. i would request respectfully that you take d.r. and approve with conditions some of the other conditions we're proposing that were left off the deck, the

project sponsor had promised they would remove it to well over a year ago. it looks into one of our bedrooms. it is illegal. condition no. 5 would be to construct the windows on the north side elevation to the scale in the drawings. no. 6 would be for the window should not be constructed in-that resio step over the windows themselves and use the roof of the legal structure, current legal structure as a makeshift desk. condition no. 7 would be to reduce the size of the illegal construction by four feet so there could be a passageway for purposes of fire access. the fire department came, i had to let them go through my property and they were shocked to find that there. they did not know it was there and they'd said this was a fire

hazard. you can only have 18 inches to be able to go through. condition no. 8 would be that the west side collation should be free of windows and the wood side would be restored. there is a fence that would be restored on the west elevation as well. also to a corporate the conditions that they have laid out. thank you. president miguel: thank you. project sponsor, you have two minutes. >> we're not adding any vertical or horizontal additions at all. we're doing everything within an envelope of our structure and we're doing everything up to code. we will do the best to make our neighbors happy but i do not know what else we can do. if we do not move forward, this will be delayed for another four or five years and continue that way.

i do not have anything further. accept we will do the best we can to appease and make sure that we work with whatever conditions they have. however, i think we can move forward with their blessing. not having to have a discussion review over this. that is it. thank you. president miguel: thank you. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: if -- i am going over these conditions. my understand me and staff, correct me if i am wrong, these things that were done absent permit and could possibly need to go through permitting process. we should let me be -- maybe we

should let them go through again. the removal of the window that was put to the west side and the siding restored. >> that was correct. commissioner antonini: there was some talk about the curb cut. >> replace the curb cut with the materials that would be seamless on the block. they had not destroyed it. it would be seamless. we want to make sure that the materials that are used would be seamless throughout bloc. >commissioner antonini: and not just poured concrete. >> they have been ordered to restore with proper materials. commissioner antonini: i am seeing removal of the dekema is that correct? >> it is two? . one on the north side. it is only half. they left calf.

and on the east side as well. >> i hear there was a stairway that needs removal. it is interfering behind the property line. >> from as far as you can see it goes about a foot. it is about 1 foot, 12 inches from their property. commissioner antonini: there is a fence to be restored. you'd have to first eliminate trim some of the addition so there is a proper space between the two houses. there is a legal amount of space you have to have, you talked about 4 foot off the addition. >> that is probably a tougher issue. my point and there is the exterior of the illegal is sole water damage, they will have to

put all new -- to redo it. it would be incredible for them to just pack it up when they are building a new unit. for resale value. it does not make any sense. my recommendation is that they take that opportunity to work with the fire department, whether it is 2 feet, 3 feet, or for free. to me is a safety concern for all the adjoining properties. >> there might be a legal definition. if there is to be an offset it would have to conform to whatever that is, i would think. >> are you talking about at the rear of the ground floor between the rear property and the subject property? >> i believe so. commissioner antonini: i think i have a good idea of what they conditions would be. it sounds like these are correcting things that were

done without permit and probably are not advisable. and not -- that being said we could approve them to go forward with the renovation they have proposed which is the rest of it but eliminate these problem areas. >> i had a couple of other points. the -- one of the conditions would be that the bay window be restored to the secretary of the interior standards. and obviously, we cannot demand they put the wood siding to make it back to its original luster. they do have the ability to do that. that is their prerogative but we would encourage them to consider doing that. again, it would add more value when they sell the unit.

that is their prerogative. it would be a recommendation. >> i have that sort of as condition 1. it would take out the window and restore the wood siding. it was in front. restore the wood siding on the front. >> they illegally took that off. >> that was 50 or 60 years ago. >> i will see with the other commissioners have to say and we may have a motion in the future. thank you. commissioner moore: the set of drawings in front of us is absolutely not sufficient to discuss the merits or the lack of merits of this project. the drawings are postage stamp size as, four floors on an 11 by 17 drying. lots of things have been

indicated that what is exactly existing and the starting point for us is not shown on this point. what was proposed is not shown either because we do not have the latest set of drawings. if i heard that correctly. somebody is welcome to correct me on that issue. as long as i do not have a properly sized set of drawings of the existing condition and its potential deficiencies and the drawing that shows me of what was intended, not in words but in drawing form, i will not be able to comment or take sides one where the other. there is a definite lack of communication. pala longstanding frustrations because of the history of this drawing, i do not want to use that to comment. this commission need a proper set of drawings including showing how the adjoining building currently is 18 or 14

or 13 inches away from the particular thing including how the new building or the building in question has approved and how it will affect the length of the sidewalk. that is called in the site plan that shows the adjoining building. i make a motion we continue this project until we have the proper set of drawings. the proper depiction of the depiction of the existing condition including adjoining properties, including the sidewalk to the straight with curb cuts or trees or whatever. that would be the discussion. we could properly understand and judge on what we need to approve or not. >> second. commissioner moore: this will take time. this is not easy to do. typically that is done for any major remodel we have. i will look for whoever is doing this work.

they need an architect or contractor. this needs to be depicted more properly and full disclosure in terms of what we will see when everything is said and done. there is no objection to support you in doing what you intend to do, but we need to have a starting point. we understand your problems, including those the d.r. requestor is are commenting on. -- requestors are commenting on. mr. lindsey could help us, i do not know. >> two months could be sufficient. commissioner moore: two months. >> march 12. commissioner moore: march 12. >> 15. commissioner fong: i hate to

continue on the item but more work needs to be done. i would like to add to the motion that the list of suggested conditions by the requestor be attached and if there is a new contractor brought on to the project that he or she have an understanding of what the items were that need to be addressed. just off the top, a good percentage of the 10 of them are thickset items that will be taken care of during the remodel itself. i think it is important that the architect has that list of suggested conditions. commissioner moore: could ask for clarification? i do not think we can condition our approval. all i would suggest, adding to what commissioner fong is saying, we have heard the

concerns by do not want to make them all and totally conditional. commissioner fong: i do not want to hear the same one again. commissioner sugaya: that is what i was going to say. president miguel: i am familiar with the block. i parked in that area. that building has been an eyesore for years. it is the type of thing if you sit on this commission long enough, you know that probably most of what was done is illegal. you just know it. just by looking at the front which i went out and looked at it again. and as commissioner moore said, one of the reasons i went out to look at it is i could not tell anything from the submission. i had to go try and look. even though -- even then i could not tell much.

i am for the continuance on this one. >> the motion on the floor is continuation of this item to march 15. with the suggestion that the request that fix its are forwarded to any new architect brought on board in this case. on the motion, commissioner antonini, aye, commissioner more, aye, commissioner sugaya, aye. thank you. the public hearing remains open on this item. thank you. you are now on item number 12. 19 child street. >> good evening, commissioners.

today is a mandatory discretionary review request. proposing the merger of existing dwelling units that would reduce the total number of dwelling units from two to one. and close above a garage with two parking spaces. in july 2010, the merger was approved. the merger reduced the units from three units to two units. the 2010 merger also included extensive remodels and -- that would bring them into compliance with city code. this has not generated any formal correspondence in opposition. the department has received 12 letters in support of the merger. staff on the proposed merger would mean to of the five units that must be considered by the planning commission and. the criteria related to owner

occupancy have been met. the remaining criteria do not appear to have been met. also, the removal is not necessary to correct design or functional deficiencies of the dwelling units. department staff has found the merger does not appear to promote objectives of the housing element as a relate to housing stock. -- they relate to housing stock. this has been cited as an area that needs to be addressed in the housing element. the merger does not appear to address this issue. the residential structure appears to contain ample room to accommodate two units. the department has concerns that

the project has used successful mergers as a piecemeal approach that should have been reviewed as a three to one unit dwelling proposal. whether or not the mergers were intentional, the project appears to be utilizing the serial permitting to achieve the overall goals and the project. do today's after mentioned issues, department staff recommends the commission take discretionary review and disapprove the proposed merger. this concludes my presentation. i will be available for questions. thank you. >> i should have done this earlier. dr. fung is my eye doctor. i have cause to believe that it

would be extremely difficult for me to be impartial in this particular case. it is not a matter of financial -- i have to pay her in the normal course of things. i think given the things that have occurred, it would be hard for me to be impartial, like i said. to be fair, i think to the project sponsor and the city, i think i should recuse myself. >> motion to recuse. >> second. >> on the mission to recuse -- motion to recuse. commissioner sugaya is recused. >> ok.

the department d.r. project sponsor. >> good evening, commissioners. this is my husband and our daughter. we are the owners of 19 child street. thank you for your time and consideration of our case today. as you are aware, we are asking for your help in merging our to unit building into one so that we may create 3 generation homes for a growing and aging family. we are asking to create an opening between the front entryway so that our family and sound can travel between the units. a single opening may seem like a small thing but it is important for three reasons. it would provide a safe passage way for children to go between the units, it would allow us to hear calls for help in

emergencies such as one of our parents falling down stairs and it would provide a sense of connectedness for that parent living downstairs. for the record, i would like to correct a statement in the analysis about the square footage. it has been overstated by 4683 square feet. the upper unit space is to thousand 57 square feet. the merger would allow us 3051 square feet without a grudge. to reinforce the point about affordability in the analysis, mr. hollister has written in -- that the units are not considered affordable housing. additionally, this may be considered neutral with regard to the housing stock. since my mother-in-law would be renting a unit elsewhere if she was not living with us in this merged property. regarding the suggestion that this is a serial murderer, we would like to provide some

background to support the fact that this is not. when we purchased our home in 2009, we were happy it was a two-unit building because we had planned on using the second unit for rental income. since then, our family situation has changed dramatically with the birth of sophie and this new situation with my mother-in-law that are compelling as to create a safe yet independent space for her. we plan for the first merger in 2010 to get the three r report. the planning code does not describe housekeeping in its and it did not have a third entrance, independent entrance to keep this third unit. it was merged from two units with housekeeping into two units. this second request for a merger is happening now because of sophie's arrival and my mother- in-law. we still need to justify unit merger from two to one and we can.

every family is not the same and that is the essence of diversity. our family has an infant and a grandparent hoping to aid in place. where try to respond to the needs of both without moving across the bridge or down the peninsula. since we do not have the ability to have a garden, we're hoping to use the living room for a play space and allowing us the opening in the wall would give my mother-in-law a sense of security and connectedness to us while maintaining some independence for her. we believe this merger is allowing the family to remain in san francisco by creating an extended family home that includes three generations. additionally, the other space can help us extend -- support our extended family. we both love to cook and we would likely become the home in which thanksgiving, christmas, and passover dinners are going to be held. we would like to tell you about

ourselves. i worked as an ophthalmologist at cpmc. jeff works as a general and colorectal surgeon and teaches residents at ucsf. many of our colleagues have had to move out of the city. both take emergency calls and when jeff is on call he is on duty from friday night until monday morning. hours are not 95 jobs and living close to the hospital allows us to be available to our patients. having family in our home, our mother, granddad, and his mom, allows us to have the flexibility we need to cover our children and our practices so when we run late, sophia still cared for. my roots are deep alliance and francisco. my grandfather was born here in chinatown and lived here until he passed away at 100. i was able to see him every day

going up when he would take the m.u.d. to our home or we would gather for sunday dinner. ift is my connection to my grandfather that made a passionate about doing so. thank you for your time. president miguel: thank you. are there any speakers in favor of the project? >> good evening, commissioners. i am an architect in the neighborhood and i am providing some boehner representation on this matter. i met the couple through some of their involvement in our community. i'm here to talk about criteria #five on the dwelling unit merger. if you are familiar with some of the standard sized lots in san francisco, a typical lot