some will be set back further. some will be set back less or more. the design guidelines say how it is supposed to comply. we are set back enough. we are not identical set back as other people are set back. that is one thing i can clarify. secondly, when we are talking about the mention things, my drawing is according to the latest dimensions. we take the survey map and the guidelines. i did not go next door to measure their house. the map is what we based upon. in terms of mrs. thompson's house, we used a map according to the surveyor. we did not survey around the block. on the avenue, we are using the dpw information to calculate.

ortega goes up to the third house. i do not know how 20% or 25% off. we did not survey on the avenue. that is how i would clarify the project. thank you. vice president olague: commissioner more? -- moore? commissioner moore: the project is code complying. is that correct? the rear yard setback is 15 feet, per requirement? >> could you repeat? commissioner moore: the rear yard setback is normally 15 feet? >> in this instance, no. the required rear yard should be 25%. commissioner moore: dissolution we're seeing here is 37%? -- the solution we are seeing

here is 37%. this is an unusually wide lot, wider than the typical san francisco lot. the building sits comfortably in it. if one wanted to be picky, one could say the deck six -- 6 6 feet further than the projection of the house -- -- sits six feet further than the projection of the house next door. i am not sure that rises to a serious concern on my house. the house is a comfortably design house. i think there is nothing one could qualify that is subject, anyway. unless an the other commissioners have any feeling that the buccaneers or debts -- or? proposed for the rear yard -- have the feeling that the

balcony'ies ories or decks are t appropriate, that would be my motion. commissioner antonini: i am unhappy with the plans. on 4a, there is not a good view of what the front of this is good to look like. there is no detailing as to materials or colors. i think that is something we should have in our reports, because once it is approved we want to note how it is being done and the quality of the construction. i have that same picture, and it is not clear what they are doing. with the plans, the lower floor, you have a family room, a bedroom, and a garage. you have sliding doors that go outside. i assume you can access that lower floor without having to go

to the rest of the house. is that true? >> you cannot have direct street access to the garage through the family room. that is an open stairwell that is accessing the family room from the primary living space on the second level. commissioner antonini: that is what i was trying to figure out. >> with direct street access through the garage -- because of the stairwell design, it is very open.

commissioner antonini: as long as it is meeting our rooms. what the project sponsor wants to do with all the rooms -- there is a lot of sitting rooms. i am not sure what these are. i guess that are in between the dining room and the living room. you have the kitchen and a sitting room. you have another one upstairs with the bedrooms. as long as the connection is clearly there -- it is an rh-1 district. it seems like it is probably ok. i would rather have seen more detailed plans. commissioner moore: the only comment that i wanted to mention that the commissioner made is that the plans given to us are only an example of what i encouraged the department not to put in front of us. the drawings are of different skill to the existing condition

-- different scale to the existing condition. we would like to look that is right next to each other. i told the department this is exactly what we do not want to do anymore going forward. she said the architect reissued the drawings. i told her that this is not acceptable anymore. i want to let you know i am asking for a higher standard of drawing reputation, including existing condition and proposed conditions. so in response to commissioner antonini's question, i hope that is readable. commissioner antonini: to follow up, even though i think we have talked about impact and we do not feel the impact is

significant enough to take any kind of dr, i think we also have to be responsible to what we have approved. we need it to be an improvement and some inappropriate for the size of the lot, appropriate for the neighborhood. -- and appropriate for the size of the lot, appropriate for the neighborhood. that is not something we can tell, looking at these plans. i would like to see the plants in the future that we can really tell what is happening. commissioner sugaya: you would say adding -- commissioner moore: you would say adding color, adding materials, things like that. commissioner antonini: it before and after in the drawings, and a little more understanding of what the layout of the house means. that would be helpful. >> commissioners, you have a motion and the second to not dr

and to take the commission as approved. [roll is called] that motion passes unanimously. you are on your last regularly calendar item, number 20, 4479 douglas street, a request for discretionary review -- for 479 douglas street, a request for discretionary review. >> i am the southwest team leader. my proposal is to raise the entire building approximately 2 feet to create a habitable area at the ground floor and a three- story addition at the rear of the building. it will be set back 16 feet 6 inches. the rear addition will be

partially set back in the corner. 15 feet of the addition will be one story, with a roof deck on the top, set back 3 feet 6 inches from the south side property line. the second-floor addition also will be set back 8 feet from the north side property line. in addition, it will have a modern vocabulary. there are two dr a quaestors -- requestors. one is next door. the other is located three properties to the north. their concern is that the addition does not comply with standards for an addition to a historic resource and will encroach into the mid-block open space, causing adverse impact to adjacent properties. to address their concerns, they recommend reducing the debt --

depth of the addition. the department has received 11 additional letters from neighbors, including a letter from the eureka valley neighborhood association in support of the dr request. the sponsor has an agreement with the adjacent neighbors north and south. they are not opposed to the project. the plans before you reflect that agreement. the residential design team reviewed the project and determined it is in line with the residential design guidelines because the additional debt is substantially set back -- additional depth is substantially set back. the one story portion that extends beyond the adjacent building's rear wall is neither and characteristically deep, being only 15 feet -- unchari

acteristically deep, being only 15 feet. we recommend you approve the project as proposed. vice president olague: thank you. we have two dr requestors. >> my name is lesley. i live at 455, three buildings north of 479 douglas. i lived there with my husband. i am here in defense of our neighborhood. this project has passed like a bulldozer through the neighborhood. the house served as two affordable housing units for decades. the residents were an active part of the neighborhood. steve fowler bought the property in november 2009 after an anonymous complaint called dbi to remove the second unit instead of legalizing it. the sale was not disclosed to

all potential buyers. it was determined and illegal apartment. the resident had been a tenant for 40 years. there was an appeal for the permit to remove the kitchen. he says that mr. hanmura left by choice. he did not. he was evicted. i have a copy of that notice here.

it is clear enough. i have a copy of it if you would like. this is fiction was an essential first step in the -- this eviction was an essential for step to rebuilding the property. the permits are connected to this project. stephen feller began negotiations with neighbors via a preapplication process. he initiated a meeting in february, before the formal pre- approval notice was distributed. it began with an 80 foot building, presented by an architect of record. i have an image of that, which was presented, more or less. the timeline is a little off. here is the building.

here is the property line. this 80 foot building is over 50 feet deeper than the neighbor to the north and over 25 feet deeper than the neighbor to the south. the neighbors spent several months of their time and money in opposing these plans, which were not legal. recently, mr. fowler admitted to no intention to build that original building. he stated that in a meeting with mr. dufty's assistant. when he refers to how many meetings he has had with neighbors, it is important to keep in mind it took great effort to move mr. fowler from a starting point that was grossly out of scale with the neighborhood, according to the planning department. the discussions involved concessions in inches, feet. yet come to this day, the drawings do not show those details.

the latest plans are still excessive and have caused grief to the neighbors to the north. in addition, there would be windows looking onto his property and into his rear windows. the project currently extends 40 feet beyond lisa's rear bay window. here is a drawing of the effects on the drawing that planning hon. -- had. david is 75 years old. he is different. he has had issues with health. he spent most of the savings to fight the earlier building. he felt he had no option snout than to design a document of no opposition. i believe mr. fowler, had the intention to buy it as high and wide as the code allowed.

there are other designs that have not imposed on neighbors or evicted long-term tenants. we ask the project the cent to its neighbors. we'll ask the sponsor to reduce the height of the new addition in the rear. thank you very much. vice president olague: the second dr requestor? >> hello, commissioners. i live directly behind the property. i am going to use my time to talk about the lack of historical treatment to the 100 for-year-old house end to the

neighborhood. -- 104-year-old house and to the neighborhood. 479 douglas is one of three residential projects in san francisco in 25 years where they have approved these changes. the project was exempted from review using statute code 305. the house has been determined to be eligible for being a potential contributor to a historic district. the department has received for argument from historians about the existence of the district. the district includes 16 contributors, 22 buildings. the department has named other contributors to the district in the past, including eureka.

the area was a identified as historically sensitive, but not treated as such. dr analysis states the project was exempted based on a different code, but that is incorrect, as you can see. it is circled. issue two -- there is protection against cumulative impact on the district. it requires that a leed agent assess environmental impacts the accumulative. cumulative effects are already evidence in the district. projects have been approved and are currently under way that undoubtedly cause a negative affect on the district. nea has not upheld its obligation to look but the

cumulative impact on the district. i'll show the project currently under construction at 445 douglas. this is a before and after pictures. this is the oldest house in the district. it is currently under construction. the project includes introducing a newly reconfigured front entrance. historian tim kelly, the consultant hired by the owners, acknowledges in various memos to the department that the project will ultimately negatively impact the district. the project was approved anyway. the second example i will show is 368 eureka street, a before and after pictures. 368 eureka is another example of a huge expansion in our very small area to a 1906 building. it was a 10 foot vertical edition. it was more like a 25 foot

vertical addition, as you can see in the before and after pictures. this is another example, at 376 eureka. the developer bought a small 1907 house, raising it, adding a large rear addition and a complex roofline that was visible from the public way. the same architect that stevenson -- stephen fowler is using for this project also deemed that compliant. basically, the board of supervisors overturned the environmental documents for the project. a more sensitive and respectful project was since completed their and is now occupied by great neighbors. it is the city's responsibility to body weight projects against cumulative impact. this is not happening in our district. so the word it acknowledged in a memo to the project sponsor --

sophie hayward acknowledged in a memo to the project sponsor that there needs to be an analysis of the boundaries and characteristics. the project was approved anyway. historical analysis for the project needs to be revisited, to answer the outstanding question from these observations. an exception was used for a project that specifically disallowed it in historical sensitive areas. -- historically sensitive areas, despite arguments from historians that cumulative effects will be caused. vice president olague: thank you. are there any speakers in support of the dr requestors? >> good evening.

my name is priscilla bottsford. i live at 382 eureka street. i talked to both steve and fowler and arnie lerner. during our discussions, i did not understand why the house had to be raised. the down-sloping site front to back. i did not understand why the garage had to be so big to accommodate just one car. other garages in the area are not nearly as large. rather than trying to capture garage space and converted into habitable space, as the planner told me was typical with these types of projects, mr. fowler is actually extending the garage, pushing the project further into the yard. arnie lerner explained to me that actually, the project

architect really meant to draw the two cars in the garage, and that required the extra space. i went back and looked at the 311 notice issued, and it shows a single car and says no change to the number of off street parking spaces, which is one. but then the plants we received in preparation for this hearing show two cars side-by-side. from what i understand, mr. fowler is adding an off street parking space. he should comply with the standards and relevant criteria. if the proposal has more than

one space per unit -- fowler has evicted the upstairs tenant. this proposal works completely contrary to the city's transit first policy by limiting housing and increasing parking. second, it specifically calls up the need for planners to consider whether a building is a historic resource when approving garage plans. it changed to a historic resource after these plans were approved and a 311 notice. raising the building seems gratuitous. why do it in an environmentally sensitive area? i ask the planning department to protect this designation. there are ways to make existing dry voice more comfortable -- driveways more comfortable.

>> good evening. my name is jeff levine. i live at 372 eureka street. i have lived in the area for more than 30 years. my current home was in the family for 12 years. this project is the third in as many years on this part of the block to super size or try to super size a modest home that has remained largely intact over 100 years. i know you have signatures in favor of this project. however, it is important to note that a representative of mr. fowler walked house-to-house to solicit those signatures. he misrepresented the project, saying it was a small addition, and provided a general statement

that lacked specifics. since then, several neighbors have revised their opinions as they became more informed. as one of the neighbors, i value the neighborhood character and our mid-block open space. i ask the commission to take dr on this project. it is out of scale with the house itself into a neighborhood. also, i have -- house itself, and to the neighborhood. also, i have a letter from vicki rosen, who is president of the upper noe neighbors association. she is still adamantly opposed to this project and asks that you grant dr. vice president olague: thank you. are there any additional speakers for the dr requestors?

>> this is a letter from the region valley neighborhood -- the eureka valley neighborhood association. we want to express our opposition to this project. i thought i was going to read the letter to you, but i am really wiped out at this point, to get through it in 3 minutes. i will kind of cherry pick through it. we had hoped originally that the 479 douglass project would be scaled back significantly to reduce its impact on the small- scaled block in which it is located. but after the early revisions that you heard about, because the original project was not legal, it is still out of scale with the block.

its impact on the small house to the west continues to be severe. it violates the secretary of the interiors standards for rehabilitation of historic resource. that is our opinion, of course. i will skip the next paragraph. we specifically object to the raising of the house by two the. we thought it was ostensibly because of the steep driveway, which we feel is not a sufficient justification for raising the house. the elevation raises the rear of the house to the level of the massive addition, and results in the original historic house being subordinated to the addition. that is not proper. the height of the addition, with its many windows along the west wall, will capture views for the project sponsor, but destroy the privacy of neighboring properties, and create shows

from 11:00 a.m. until noon. it moreover results in the loss of a gabled roof, a character- defining feature. that is another violation of the secretary of the interior's standards. if this project is improved, it may set a precedent for cumulative changes on the block that will change the integrity of a historic district that is not yet survey. we ask the commissioners take discretionary review and require a plan subordinate to the original building. that would not require raising the building or destroying characteristic features. it would eliminate needless additional materials. thank you. vice president olague: >>