a substandard situation. there are discrepancies in the planning agency regarding measurements of the property, including side elevations and measurements of the rear window of 1885, the lower portion of the house from the grade level. i can show you a small picture of that as well, here. this is the western facing window. this measurement, as indicated by a project planner, is around 25% higher than it actually is. this will impact the open space, privacy intrusion, rear yard intrusion, and light, air, and space. i am concerned that these

measurements downplay the direct impact of proposed projects. this has been conveyed in limiting discussions -- limited discussions with planning architects. the rear yard intrusion restrictions -- it is my belief minimum requirements are at maximum limits and do not conform to sections 134, 136, and other guidelines for backyard where extensions. -- backyard rear extensions. i believe the situation exists within this small, already tight corner. the diagrams in sections 130 poor, 136, and guidance for rear extensions do not anticipate corner lots and alleys. therefore, an exceptional condition. i would like to request in kind

the modification of the project that takes into account these relevant sections with respect to this condition, already eight compromised open space -- already at a compromise to open space -- already a compromised open space. i would like to respond to specific references from the planning department documents other than not accepting the dr request. i have lived in this unit. i have lived here. and i know that the level will affect this property, and not conform to the planning documents. in addition, the residential design team has concluded that the addition will not result in the unusual impact on privacy to

neighboring interior living spaces. i am the one most impacted here by this renovation. again, i am open to modification and compromise. thank you. vice president olague: thank you. are there other speakers in support of the dr requestors? we have a couple of cards. leonard pond, you spoke. tracy thompson was the second one. francis short? >> i am the owner of 1850 and 1891. vice president olague: can you pull the microphone down a little? >> sorry. my property has extremely limited access to open space.

the rear yard extension will cut off sunlight. i am scared it will become dark. i will have more hardship if the topi walls lose the little like they have. i feel this project will impact me greatly, and no one notified me. thank you. vice president olague: thank you. are there any additional speakers in support of the dr request? seeing none, project sponsor.

commissioner moore: she has a picture. vice president olague: ok. >> [inaudible] vice president olague: thank you. commissioner antonini: i don't think it makes any difference. vice president olague: project sponsor. >> i am the project architect. the property owners, and jake and donna, are also here. it has been a long night. i am not trying to talk about the end inches -- about the to and inches. as an architect, i follow the planning code and the

residential design guidelines. we have a project planner. we have an entire design team to review the project. i believe the project meets every section of the planning code. in terms of the design guidelines, it is a guideline. the interpretation of the guideline is very objective. everybody has a different way of looking at it. but the project has been revised according to the planner and the design review team recommendations. i believe that if they understood the intention of the planning code and what is expected by the city -- we accepted and we honor it. that is all i need to say. if you have any questions, you

can ask. but i believe the project respect every act and -- every aspect of the planning code. vice president olague: thank you. are there any speakers in support of the project sponsor? >> this is a tough job you got here. we bought this house in december, 2006. my wife and i were going to move beein. we lived in the sunset district since 1976. i work just down the street. the fellow that owned the house next to us told me, "maybe you want to buy this house." i went and looked at it. we bought the house.

immediately, we were going to remodel it and move in, because we really like the neighborhood. it is a little more quiet than 28 avenue, where i have a bus pass by my house every day. we raised a family there. then we found that the house is in really poor condition. we would need to tear the whole thing down. we decided maybe we did need to. anyway, we have been working on this project since 2007, january. we worked with the planning department. we did a lot of work to accommodate where the height, the length of two houses next to

us. originally, they were the same height, one story above the basement. both houses were built up to be pretty big. our house is kind of dwarfed in between the two. especially sloping down, looking up at mr. pond's house -- it is way above us. when we finish, we will be the same height with mr. chanen on the oceanside, and still six or 7 feet below mr. pond's house. we are also lined up with mr. chen. but could not be blocking any more, because we will just be lined up with him. i am not sure that we are including. i've looked at my yard. we are sloping down. as you know, we are slipping

down. so we can not be obstructing anybody from down below. it has been a long time, since 2011 -- it is been a long time. this is 2011, january. this has been dragged on for a long time. this is our so-called day in court. anyway, thank you. vice president olague: you both get two minutes for a bottle. -- rebuttal. i forgot to ask if there are any more speakers from the public? ok. sorry about that. >> i would like to respond to the response to the discretionary review. i received a copy of this. the project architect was given

certain dimensions in trying to determine what the setbacks were. after having seen this, i went back to my original plans. i also have the plans for the adjacent property. can i possibly submit this at this time? i would also like to say that on august 23 i had a meeting with ms. elisabeth waddy at the planning commission. i had questions and did present my concerns to her. i had concerns about the front setback, etc. i told her i had this information. she told me that everything had been met -- all codes. it had been through review. she was not interested in seeing the information i had, which showed proof. i did not think much about it until later, in august.

that was when we receive the original plans. -- received the original plans. i would just like to say this is only a small copy of the large original plans. vice president olague: thank you. >> there is a very slight slope, but not significant enough to say that anything built downhill will not intrude on a property that is almost ground level. i do not know the exact measurement, but --

vice president olague: thank you. project sponsor, you have a couple of minutes. >> i believe what mr. pond is getting at is the top floor setback. he probably believes that he has a set back more than we do. but not everybody has to comply with the same set back. 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: