i realize that the dr requestor is undergoing chemotherapy. there is no guarantee that at the day we continue it to he will be available for that date either. >> you are correct in that assumption. we will endeavor to take his lucid moments and make the most of that. but it is unclear how successful that will be. the longer a time we have, the more opportunity we will have to work together. if you would like it to be two months or one month, that can work. six weeks perhaps? commissioner antonini: if that is enough time and there is a reasonable thought that he might be able to be here in six weeks and you can gather together his concerns and be ready in that time, i think it is fair to the project sponsor that we have the short continuance. >> understood. we will be here to represent him, whether or not he is able to participate. commissioner antonini: i will see what the other commissioners have to say. i am sympathetic to the continuance, but i think six weeks is fairer to the project sponsor. commissioner sugaya: 2 planning staff, mr. star

we will hear from the dr requestor at this time.

for the dr requestors, this was not enough. what they would really like is that we eliminate all the windows on the east side so all the would have is a blank wall. we felt that was an inappropriate response to the private -- to the privacy concerns. we felt that adding transom windows, where the window is horizontal at the top of the wall -- you cannot see out of it. that is inappropriate way to do with privacy concerns. lastly, we added an additional bedroom to the lower unit to make the lower unit a 3-bedroom unit. "we are proposing for you today are two 3-bedroom units. our architect says we can do a three story with two-units -- with two units using three- bedrooms, but this is not possible. we've been asked to create a light well of 30 feet. we do not think that is appropriate. we have matched the light well of the neighborhood by the amount the planning code requires and the planning department asked us to do. we do not block any windows with our building that are light ports. despite these concessions, we have not been

president miguel: speakers in favor of the dr requestors? >> good evening, members of the commission. my name is joseph butler and i represent the lloyd street neighbors. since the first hearing on october 14, we undertook to meet with the sponsors and their architect to study the issues that were of concern to your commission, specifically whether a three story building that would fit in this context could also accommodate two family- sized three-bedroom units without a variance. on this 25 by 100 foot standard size lot, nearly flat, although in san francisco is definitely considered a flat lot, it seemed to the commission and that a it seemed to the commission that a variants was difficult to justify it. this is the 12 foot pop out at the back. without a variance, it allows a 5 foot setback. when you combine that with an equal sized light well to 45 boyd's street by marion them together -- like welt to 45 lloyd street by -- light well to 45 lloyd street by marrying them together. mr. denuncio per person on the other side of the building. w

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 ne

vice president olague: second dr requestor? >> good evening. thanks for staying late. i filed my own separate dr because i felt that while an exceptional condition exists to affect the decision, this exceptional condition has not been addressed in the planning for the ortega street project. i want to show this picture. this indicates where my property is. when you look -- it looks like the specter is taken -- this picture is taken at high noon on a very sunny day. you can see this darkened corner here. this is facing west. this darkened corner -- this is my house. this darken the corner -- darkened corner will be further in closed, as indicated, up to 36% of this area. you can see here that this area will be further in closed. i would like to clarify that i am not opposed to the plant in its entirety, but would like modifications to accommodate this exceptional, already claustrophobic corner lot, lot 205b, to avoid a substandard situation. there are discrepancies in the planning agency regarding measurements of the property, including side elevations and measurements of

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 justi

i frankly in listening to the dr requestors feel they are disingenuous. they are basically saying they would like to micromanage this design to their specifications at the expense of pot and kevin moving this project forward. -- of todd and kevin moving this project forward. they have been over backwards to be reasonable. there are things they have done to accommodate neighbors' concerns. keep in mind they have remained within the code for everything they are doing. there is nothing unusual about this project. i took a walk around this neighborhood recently to refresh things in my mind. i notice there is a mishmash of building styles around here. it is not all victorian or arts and crafts. it is a mishmash, including a number of '60s buildings. this is a building at the end of the block that powers by -- that tower by 30 feet over the building next door to it. there is nothing unusual about the structure. i would ask you to work with the developer to finalize the design and get it going. get the jobs going. get money going that will result in a positive g

i do not know, dr requestor,s -- >> i have eight questions, is this something we would want the historic preservation committee to weigh in on? the centers around the historic nature. it seems like maybe having their input would be helpful. >> the motion failed. what does that mean in terms of the project? >> you have to take some action. you have to make an excuse to modify the project, continue the item. otherwise, the project is approved. >> in this case? that is what i wanted communication on. >> they wanted to continue the project with births -- specific direction to staff. that could further evaluate the project and address the historic nature of the building and how to minimize this additional impact on the character. that is one option. >> what are the implications of a 4-2 vote against? >> if the indication is to take dr. under the circumstances? >> the motion failed. there is no action. if be a commission took no action, then the project moves on. >> that is what i wanted people to be aware of. >> the project planner is actually in attendance. >> michael smith, planning departm