twoo feet five. >> 22 inches and bring that back to the y -- brings it back to the raear yard? >> yreah. >> 22 inches. the ridge line will match the existing ridge line. it will be a little small projection, but that there is going to -- >> approximately three feet. commissioner moore: yes. i would like to make it, goes

beyond what is in front of us. i hope we don't see anything like this again. i think it sets a bad precedent. if we have architects, they should know the code well enough thought to put any of us into this situation. how would hope that people that are building in a complex and city with clear rules, and they don't expect legalization of [unintelligible] not because we don't like you, but we are setting a precedent to permit things that should not have come in front of us in the first place. i think there was a valid comment. i want to say that even with the

residential design review team. commissioner miguel: i wasn't going to speak, but -- commissioner moore echoes my thoughts. i am looking at something that started in 2010. and just keeping going back and forth, complicating our calendar and totally unnecessary. if there had been professionalism all along the line that i consider professionalism between the contractors, people could have

gotten together. it is as simple as anything. you can't tell 1 foot from another. it is just a shame that this comes to us in this manner and complicates for different calendars. >> what i was on the board of appeals, we were faced with more of these because people can appeal in the building permit. a lot of times, the homeowners are not aware because they are trusting their contractors to get the correct permits.

or work was being done -- there are a lot of excuses always given, but i'd want to take it as far as the homeowner was involved with any of that. i think they were surprised that they were caught in this kind of situation. commissioner moore: i think -- [feedback] i don't think there will be as much uncertainty anymore. >> it will all be fixed. commissioner moore: i'm glad you're saying that. >> the motion is to approve this

project, allowing the foundation that has already been poured to remain as is and that the overhang could create the landing of the upper level at the stairs can come down from that? >> with 22 inches setback at teh second -- the second floor. >> the proposed ridge line will match the existing ridge line of the property. >> on that motion? [roll call vote] [unanimous vote] >> on the variance? >> no variance allowed at the second level only to extend the requirement for the building code for the blending of the stairs. and i believe our staff suggested a compromise to the

parties when discretionary review was filed as adopted by the commission today that was not taken. sometimes it takes action by the commission. >> you are now on item number 13, 42347for 2347 -- >> i'm christine from planning department staff. the proposal is to merge two ie unit, changing the building in an account from three units to two units. it also includes construction of a minor horizontal edition. the ground floor of the existing eastern light well in

the installation of a roof thatch and skylights. various interior alterations are also proposed. the project site is located on the street and the marina neighborhood. as the kitten 1926, it has approximately 25 feet with the depth of approximately 137 feet. the existing building is comprised of a garage and a one- bedroom unit of approximately 550 square feet in size on the ground floor. a 2-bedroom flat of approximately 1700 square feet on the second floor and an identical 2-bedroom flat on the third floor. on the completion, it will be approximately 850 square feet while the upper unit will be approximately 3600 square feet. the surrounding neighborhood consists of two-four story

buildings as well as larger apartment buildings. the subject lot, properties to the west on baker street, while corner properties are zoned rn3. they are 3, 2, and four-unit buildings respectively. the project meets criteria #1 that states removal of the unit would only eliminate owner occupied housing. according to the project sponsor, the subject property was purchased in 2007. a of three of the units have been owner occupied. the property owners reside on

the ground floor yet while they occupied the upper unit. the project meets criteria #2 that states removal of the and it had the merger with another is intended for owner occupancy. the property will continue to be occupied by the property owner and family members. there is no intention for either unit to be rented for the public. the project meets criteria #three, removal of the unit will bring the building closer to conformance with the density and immediate area and zoning. prevailing density is mixed. in the immediate area, the prevailing density is two-unit buildings accounting for the total. single-family home building is accounted for 24% of the total. the project does not meet criteria #4 that states removal of the unit will bring building

closer into conformance. the subject property is zoned rh3. the project does not meet criteria #5 that states removal of the and it is necessary to correct a design or functional efficiencies that cannot be corrected through interior operation. there are no functional deficiencies. the department has exchanged phone calls with a neighbor of the exchanging property with privacy concerns and how positions for the one-story -- and the neighbor is not opposed to the merger. they are revising the project for the proposed addition. have the overhead?

and the illustration shows the originally proposed elevation with windows. and then be revised elevation of of showing the windows removed. originally, the department recommended the commission did not take dr and approved for the following reasons. it meets a majority of the criteria of the project is an area of mixed density and will bring the building closer to conformance with the prevailing density with the district. it is the recommendation to take with removing the windows at the proposed horizontal addition. >> because it is mandatory, we asked the project sponsor, please. >> good evening, commissioners.

because it is late, which have had no neighborhood opposition to it other than the windows which we have previously addressed, we're helping to provide a home for a family that hopes to stay in their house for an extended time. the daughter is within walking distance to their elementary school. please follow staff's recommendation and i am available for questions. >> is their public comment? -- there public comment? commissioner antonini: i think the staff did an excellent job presenting and i agree that it should be the case. it usually doesn't even come to

us, but i would move to take dr. inclu, inclue removal of the windows. i guess we have to have that. >>commissioner miguel: second. commissioner borden: i will support this, but this is on the border, i will say. if it weren't a neighborhood where everything is grossly unaffordable, how we would be having a very different conversation because the zoning is th3 -- rh3. having the bedroom and the larger unit makes a lot more sense.

we don't like to see building unit mergers to go in defiance of zoning. commissioner moore: i look at the usefulness of the units as they are. 700 square foot unit -- [unintelligible] it is a very nice sized unit, even the 550 studio, when we look at the more contemporary buildings for smaller units of between 300 and 2480, they are very nice studio apartments. i am a little bit hesitant to jump in here. we talk about intensification,

eliminating units. i say that because we need to stay on target. commissioner miguel: i don't see it as the mega mansion. it turns into a very nice family home, you have the rest of the living space on the other and you add to the size of the space and make it much more lovable -- livable. it is not unusual or extraordinary. a unit was added, i think it will lower unit. it would make more sense that the unit was a lower yet it legally. again, we have to draw the line where we don't interfere with people's ability to meet their needs.

we have of lot of units and not the 1700 square feet. a number of children, they have the adults, only 21% of the and that -- of the units have three bedrooms or more. we want to keep families in san francisco. >> i would like to support the comment and i have a real reluctance to see the loss of a unit knowing that there is a limited supply in the city. got to take the discretionary review and approve the project requiring the removal of the

windows. on that motion. [ roroll call vote] that motion passed 4-3 with moore, sugaya, and wu voting against. item 14a and b. 14a is 2011.0221d. 14b is 2011.1438d for 551 22nd avenue. mandatory discretionary reviews on the demolition. >> it is new construction of a

three-story two-unit building. i will keep my presentation short and correct the record. on the second page of the report, it should read 120 feet, not 100 feet. also, just for the commission does the information, this product originally started as a four-story building. working with staff and the neighbors, have the staff is more compatible with this. at this time, staff recommends that lead the -- that we approve the demolition. >> a project sponsored? -- project sponsor?

>> my naem ime is chester fong. the process started about 20 months ago with of the planning department. i was born and raised in san francisco, but this is actually my first project. i am telling you it was a daunting and at times, a tortured process revising the many required to submit goals. we started with a four-story building and we have quite a bit of dialogue with the neighbors and the project before you. in reference to the last project, i am not sure how the minor -- i am not sure what is required.

this process has been really daunting. we applied for a permit months ago. i never got response from that agency until two days ago when they denied our appeal. i was advised that typically when you do constructions, as long as he replaced it, you are normally granted that appeal. we weren't granted it, and i am not sure. it is a relatively minor change to the plans that you have before you where we have to shift our brought over to the right to you can maintain the existing trees and not fight city hall. we were working on that scheme this morning, it can be approved at a staff level. i wanted to present that situation to you guys. i apologize, i'd just had -- you

could see the difference between the elevations, they are relatively minor. >> you want to put them on the overhead? if you can pull the microphone towards you. >> you can see it. of the planting is on the left side of the garages as opposed to the right. that is the only significant difference. the entry now becomes symmetrical as opposed to being offset before. by doing this, we're able to save a street tree and not fight city hall. we are tired. that is all i have to say. >> any public comment? commissioner antonini: i think

you did a really good job. the rendering here will not be anything different than what we have here. the way you treated it is extremely sensitive and very well done with the neighborhood and designs within having the one unit on the upper floor and the lower yet taking an advantage of the town house concept. i think this is your first project, anything involving trees or bicycles, you have to be careful but i think you will be fine. >> a wheels, wings -- but we are

concerned about last balcony, whatever you call these things. >> before you is a motion cannot take the discretionary review and approve the project. [roll call vote] [unanimous vote] thank you, commissioners. i'm assuming that is one motio n for both demolition and new construction. item 15. 4324 anza street. >> the case is a request for a

discretionary review of a project that proposes vertical and horizontal additions to a certain 1922 two-story single- family house. the project will also add a second dwelling. the subject property is one of four on the block face. the d.r. requestor's property, the office consists of 52-story residential buildings. of five two-story residential buildings. -- the unit would occupied the

bedroom floor. it is consistent with a residential design guidelines. immediately west of the subject property, according to the application, his concerns with the project are the potential damage to his property that could be caused by the project was the construction in the vicinity. the department's position is the geotechnical issues. it would be addressed during that agency's review. we recommend that the commission not take the dr and approve as proposed. >> project sponsor? oh, sorry. d d.r. requester, please.

>> good evening, members from planning commission. i understand it is late and you are tired, but nevertheless, this issue is very important to me. my name is boris, i'm a discretionary review an applicant and owner of anza street location for 28 years. i've observed continued deterioration of the property. it has cost me a lot of money. i would like to mention to you that i also have a master's degree and i am associate

member, and let me explain the region'asons i oppose this. the buildings alongside the street are build over loose sand deposits with an up-flow toward the boulevard. it is still moving and selling. it is a different time. i included in my hand out to you, the evidence and my experience during my of ownership of that. in 1996, it is the exhibit one,

picture one. i think it is a poor service water drainage so i build some sort of drainage have the base of the foundation. it cost me about $9,000. the very next year i had flooding again. instead of the slab and the foundation, i remove all the existing floor is and completely rebuild it. it is called a floating floor. you can see a sample of the floor.

there is 1-inch plywood. the damage cost me $35,000. the floors, when those, -- windows, the house, you can find san francisco department of public works right in front of the house. and you can see settlements, almost 2 inches in the sidewalk. i have consulted with five licensed professional engineer is.