hi, i am john. i move to my place in 1992. i just wanted to take a second to paint a picture of the quality of life on our block, which is unusual. this is bounded by 21st. it is an unusual st. we have a 10-foot wall. that separates the two sides of the street. that makes our backyards remarkably valuable because of the green space. the backyard on that block has a bunch of trees and gardens. it is a wonderful block. the threats to its card developers who found it economically advantageous to build out to the four corners of the lot.

they did that to all four corners and they did not spend enough money. they came up with a sack of money and import it into the houses. i have a steep driveway underneath my house. it works just fine. i do not think i could get a ferrari into my garage. my car works well. the green space behind my house is quite extraordinary. >> any additional speakers? >> good evening, commissioner president and members of the commission. i am an excepted expert by the secretary of the interior qualification accepted by the evaluation of historic

buildings. it is an exceptional that for the third time in five years that the historic preservation office chimed in to change the determination on the something issued by the planning department. very little happened to the design of the building in the change of the status in terms of how it was treated. we have a building which was being overlooked as a resource. when pointed out that a historic district was present here, noted in many different areas, they did not change how they treated the building. further, sophie was mentioning in staff reports that if this building was a resource because it contributes to a potential

historic district, then we need to know the dates of significance for the district. we need to know the features of the district that are to be preserved. none of that was done. we moved on to the next step, which was the e2 classification for the historic exemption. when there is a historic district, that is an environmental classification. if you look at the brief that i submitted on the 12th of january, 2011, you will see some photographs of the house. before we get to photographs of the house, his drawings show this portion of the existing roof to be removed on the one side of the building and this portion of the roof to be removed on the other side. if you but the other drawings in

the same set, you will see different lines where the roof starts and stops. you can pick which drawing is wrong. if you look at the house itself, the historic district is to be characterized by bable roofs. from that split on the upper portion of douglass street, this goes all of the way back to the end wall of the building. that will no longer be the case with the vertical wall halfway up the roof. he says that it can be removed. if it is removed, half the building is gone. >> the project sponsored? -- sponsor?

>> president and commissioners, can you hear me ok? thank you for your time. we came to an agreement with the tenants under which they are voluntarily vacated the illegal unit. the dangerous aspect has since been removed. this received significant support from neighbors on the block including paying -- an agreement with neighbors. he is an architect. there are no extraordinary circumstances. i would like to address the neighborhood character. the east side of 400 douglass shows no consistency. the west side of the block shows a significant mix of styles. we are planning to maintain and repair the side of the house and

razing the house two feet has no impact on the character. it is hard to tell the difference between these two because nobody is going to notice it. this is not possible with the current slump of more than 34%. this is what we are trying to do currently. the neighborhood character will be maintained. this will maintain its relationship to its neighbors. i would like to address privacy. we -- in a comprehensive and lengthy process with the neighbors, we have addressed this. in blue, some of the changes were requested. in red -- some were requested by the neighbor to the north. in green, the changes were just made. this incorporates into our

agreement. the extension of the roof to preserve the front and the dropping of the rear addition to two feet. as part of these negotiations, the neighbors agreed to this modest pop-out, which is 10 feet, not 15 feet. many other changes in exchange for this. there are simply no material impact. this is the view. her home is further than anyone else's. half of the request is not even in the picture. this is about 147 feet away from the first and second floor of the rear addition.

that is how far away they are. they asked us to put up these poles. when she and i met in early october, she asked when we were going to put those up. she was completely unaware that the next door neighbor and i put them up eight days earlier. the larger issues have been addressed. both neighbors have signed a legal agreement to that effect. i would like to address building scale reform. here is a 3 d rendering from across the street on the the higher level. that is about 6 feet over. you look at the rear addition. it is not visible at all. the right front is barely visible. we have gone to great lengths that we could see this from the street. here is the satellite view.

you can see this. this extends further than anybody else except to the rear cottage. another request has the rare cottage right at the back of her lot. the rear yard is full of multiple structures. it is extremely regular space. it can be also seen, the depth of the home at the rear is consistent with neighboring buildings. we had to sign the project over many months and made numerous reductions and modifications. the project is consistent with a design standard. we have the majority of neighbors on the block.

they have signed a legal agreement. we request that you do this project. >> thank you. arnie, william, michael. >> good evening, everyone. my name is arnie, i am a preservation architect. i have been practicing for about 27 years. i wanted to briefly talk about some of the comments from mr. butler. what is exceptional is the degree to which they're trying to distort the information that you are being presented. the biggest one is using the historic preservation and the letters from the planner, from the historian that were based on partial information and

ignoring information. what they failed to provide for you is the final letter of the preservation officer who said our concerns raised on our august 9, 2010 letter have been addressed. it is interesting that they left all of that out and they tried to use the previous letters to find the position of the state office of preservation. we have dueling experts. joe says it does not meet the secretary standards. i think you should believe the state officer that is the head

of the historic preservation. he says that the project is just fine. >> i am the project architect. that has been a while. i have done about 1200 projects in san francisco. i have lived in san francisco since 1986. i have raised my family and three kids in this city. i really just want to emphasize a few things. i think there was a need for family housing. i do not think this is a monster house at all. it is a family room in terms of the family arrangement. families do really need this and want this in this house. i think it is a badly needed facility. as far as the garage goes, it is

a one-car legal barack for planning standards. -- garage for planning standards. i cannot say it is a two-car garage because they think it would be two cars independently. the garage really would not have access to any windows. the idea of putting this space in a garage does not seem like a good idea. i would really like to say that as i understand it, the dr was supposed to be based on the impact of light and ventilation on the neighbors. we have heard of all sorts of properties. the two adjacent neighbors are not here tonight. they have signed letters of agreement.

i have worked with david for a number of years and worked for him as the architect on rehabilitating. i do not think that david would like the idea that he is so incapacitated that he could not make up his own mind and was coerced into framing the letter of agreement. i would like to reemphasize what a great job that steve has done. in the project we have seen down here, there was a lot of miscommunication between neighbors. to get the neighbors to sign off is just terrific. >> my name is michael. i am a licensed architect with 31 years of experience. i live right around the corner from the subject property. i was consulted to consult on

green building practices to incorporate into the eventual project and creepy 3d documentation that you see in the packets. there was a misrepresentation that i represented the project as a small addition when i went around for support. i have the drawings and i was more than willing to go into detail with the neighbors should they have requested it. all of the signatures that you saw, they were in full agreement with the project and they were in support. a little bit of his experience, he had one of the first sustainable business courses in the united states. the currently teaches in san francisco. he has published various

academic papers on sustainability. previously, it was a nonprofit. he used to work in a solar industry and installed solar on his last house. some of the example for breen building practices incorporating into an eventual project would be negotiations with the general contractor to require at least a 75% construction waste reduction, so it does not go to a landfill. the water catching system for use in irrigation, the house water regulation and the irrigation system. non-toxic pest control. the drought resistant plants. the certified that wood. building reused from the

existing house portion. this is to reclaim the building materials from the existing house. the solar system, which they had on their previous home. this is throughout the project. there was more added to the project in consideration of the northern neighbor. the content material, co2 monitors and other materials. there is a comprehensive plan. thank you. >> thank you. >> joe, raphael, rene stevens. >> good evening. i live in eureka valley, it two blocks from the proposed

project. i have reviewed the plan and it is within the guidelines of the planning department and also aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood. i was impressed with those stephen m. renee's willingness to work with the neighbors as a -- have a great expense to them. i was going to read a letter from another neighbor that is in support. i do not want to spend your time doing that. i approve the project standing before you. >> good evening. i have been arrested hud -- a resident of both eureka valley for the last 10 years. i am in favor of the plan for

479 douglass street. this would be a considerable improvement over the existing accounts -- house, and enhanced the neighborhood. it would complement the houses within the bloc. i encourage you to approve the project and thank you for your time. >> i am renee stephens. i am the co-owner of the subject property and and mother of two. we have lived in san francisco since 1993. i want to thank you for being here, commissioners. especially at this late hour. we love san francisco and we love this neighborhood. we have been in the area since

1997. when we bought this property, it was in quite a state of dangerous disrepair and neglect. as far as we can tell, the last thing that was done to this property was the illegal installation of a kitchen in one of the bedrooms upstairs many years ago. that part of the property -- there was somebody living there when we bought it. through a process of care -- careful listening to his concerns and understanding of his situation, we were able to come to an ethical -- amicable agreement with him to leave the property. there are deep emotional wounds. my highest values are to listen carefully with compassion and respect. it is of utmost importance to us

that we honor those values and listen carefully. we had meetings with the neighbors, even before we had plans and listened carefully to their concerns. they mentioned some things like they would prefer a flat roof over a gabled roof. in the plans, we incorporated a flat roof. now the objection is to the flat roof. they want more of a gabled roof. we continued our conversations with the dr request errors. they were talking with the next- door neighbor, who we also listened to very carefully. we made extensive modifications to our plans resulting in their agreement. both of our next-door neighbors have an agreement with us. we were delighted that we were able to reach that kind of

agreement. you can imagine our surprise. that agreement was made with both neighbors that at the last minute, instead of dr signing the agreement, we thought that we took into account everything, she came down and filed an dr request. she did not voice any concerns at the beginning except for those of the next-door neighbor. the next-door neighbor has signed an agreement. we did not hear anything from her until the dr request. thank you very much for your time. >> any additional speakers in support of the project sponsored pacs -- sponsor? >> i did want to rebut a couple

of things that were said. first, the use of the driveway with a bottoming out. there are a few things that have not been explored which >> could be minor encroachments. i think that would be important given that the alternative is to raise the historic resource and we could actually look into some of those things. the point that was brought up about the poles that were not visible from our house, they were not for the first floor. there was a lot of talk about the settlement. we did not sign because it was clear that if there were not plans produced, to this day there are not plans that meet the settlement. we actually have confirmation of that from the two people who

could not be here today and their lawyers who included us on that. we were originally involved. the agreement is probably not want to hold up. --going to hold up. the letter that she showed, the office of historic preservation, they are not around to comment for approval on any project, but only the process. they have okayed this process. this is a letter that you all have a copy of. you can look at it. in summary, we have two neighborhood groups that are supporting our need to protect the neighborhood against cumulative impact. we hope that you take our concerns. thank you. >> thank you.

>> i would like to address the issue of the neighborhood support for our property and plan. this actually distributed signatures for the plan. please support the project at 479 douglass. we want to support those who want to stay in san francisco and will do an improvement. that was a fairly vague letter that people signed in support of this. they have distributed this to you, citing crewcut supported this in green. some of this is actually neutral. they could not object with a

non-objection. after having seen the letter and found out the number of people that have supported this project, based on that letter, i would have supported it as well. you ask them where they still stand on the plans. the green are the ones that are in support. the gray are the ones that are neutral. these two people cannot do anything except being neutral. the people directly across from this property are also directly impacted. it is not just on my block. these three houses here, they are directly across from the property being developed, have opposed this project and the plan. they oppose it.

in this area, those who are opposed. there are a number of people i could not reach. there are two other things i would like to say. >> thank you. you get two minutes only. >> thank you very much. >> very briefly, there are copies in the package. i sent multiple letters around to the neighbors with copies of the plan. what she is saying is not true. in dr request number one package, she put this confused diagram in her she has criticized the whole project. she has the lines and the shading. that is the way the house looks

now. that is the way the house looks now. she does not even realize what she is looking at. i am sorry, but it is true. we have a look into alternatives. can you see these? i talked to the department of public works. we talked about encroachment. they said that there is not a chance you can do it. there is not a chance it can be done. the size of the property, in good building areas of some of this land, this property is very similar in size to many of these. i think that is it. thank you.

>> thank you. commissioner. >> thank you. i do not find it unusual, extraordinary circumstances for the following reasons. i do not see any significant impact to any of the neighbors. we have the huge mid-blocked open space. most of the neighbors are quite some distance beyond or across from the mid space from the proposed rewrite edition. --rear addition. you can see that the deaths of therear addition is about the same depth as all of the other structures. i do not feel that is an intrusion. there is no visual change to the historic facade. it is tastefully done. there is a