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: >> 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 building practices incorporating into an eventual project would