at my property to propose these plans. mr. morris has been open to my concerns. my property was moved to this location back in the 1930's. it was originally built at the palace of fine arts. while we appreciate the progress that has been made, we are concerned -- president olague: we have a copy of the letter to staff. thank you. it is sort of in between, i think. >> hello. courtney clarkson. i live in pacific heights. i am not a neighbor. however, i have been interested in what has happened to this property. i have to set a was upset and appalled about the so-called emergency demolition that happened to what was one of our oldest buildings in san

francisco. this is not something that just happened to somebody who bought a building and may be wanted to restore it. the original building was bought by people who are in the business of making sure that these old buildings fall down. they make sure they are not in any condition to be rehabilitated. i would like to see every creation of the building that should never have been torn down. i think the fact that the project sponsors, who do this sort of thing for a living, should not be rewarded for tearing down one of our most historic properties. i think you need to have them go back to the drawing board and come up with something that is far more appropriate for the site in a historic district, in a historic area. there are many of us in the

preservation community who are just appalled by what was allowed to happen. it seems to me there was a provision in either the planning code or the building code that if an illegal demolition occurs that the building has to either be rebuilt to the same square footage or cannot be built on for a number of years. i would like you to look at that. i hope the planning commission will do the right thing and send this back to the drawing board. let us get on a corporate project for a very -- let us get an appropriate project for this part of town. >> my name is mic tatnoavich. when i saw the project plan for

the new building, i was glad they would build something there, but not the way it is planned now. the structure they are proposing completely blocks the view where i live. it also blocks all the light in the dining room and the kitchen, and part of a bathroom. it completely darkens the whole top unit of the building. if you look at the whole proposal, the street curbs nicely. it slopes down. this project stands out more than any other building on the street. what i would like to see is a revised proposal, where the allied mobile allowed -- where the light would be allowed in 1262 lombard and it would not be higher. president olague: public comment

is closed. everyone has been handing in cards. if anyone who is going to speak to the project can stand up here, we can get to them. >> sorry, commissioners. if i could, the overhead, please fa. president olague: that line is blocking the door. for fire purposes, we would like people to stand on this side. please speak. your two minutes are running. >> grace shanahan. i would like to put on significant information regarding the contractual and easement agreements with the molinari partnership. regarding the easement, representing the partnership in the sale of 1268 lombard, i

would like to point out addendum 3. it states the buyer accepts the easement agreement attached. item four also references an agreement. that is signed by mr. molinari on october 7, 2007. the family retained the services of a qualified land purveyor. the purpose was to map and identify areas of concern for the form of easments. this is a copy of the map drawn by the surveyor, outlining the areas of concern expressed by the family. the suggested a vent hood easement, a bay window easment, and a structural easement. next, you will see the legal

descriptions of stair structure easements, bay window easements, and vent hood easements. all of these documents are recorded on the property. this is a direct quote from paragraph six. a complete on the purchase, they expect to develop at least three condominium units. from all of this documentation, it seems brazen that there would be a minimum of three units. president olague: thank you. is there any additional public comment? >> richie house, if i can get the overhead, please. i want to speak to -- some of the speaker spoke about the density. 1262 and 1266 lombard, 1873

square feet. that is three units. that is one unit per 624 square feet. the subject property at 1268 is 4726 square feet of lot area. the building next door, 1280, is the exact same square footage as the subject property. he has parking units on it. it is way dancer at 264 square feet. mr. cassidy is have the density of -- half the density. i would also like to point out that again we have a five-foot rear yard, which is 93% lot coverage.

1280 lombard street, 82% of their lot is covered. the have a 25 foot deep rear yard. mr. cassidy is only covering 73% of his lot. you have 20 -- you have the biggest rear guard of everybody here. i am not sure what the concern is about the density. i have been through the block. there is a 12 unit. there is a seven unit. as you can see, 1280 lombard is 13 units. that is the next-door building. there is a little bit of misinformation there. thank you, commissioners. president olague: thank you. >> my name is lou.

this building fits the neighborhood. the design makes it appear to be two stories over the garage in the front, so the appearance of the facade was kept in line with the whole block. the third story was set back. thank you. the third story was set back 15 feet at the front and cannot be seen from the street at all. the rear of the building is stepped down the hill to give visual relief to the neighbors in the rear. it also provides great outdoor space for tenants. the design is a clean, classical look with a level of detail that does not call attention to itself. it blends with the neighborhood. the placement of the stairs and elevators are not arbitrary. besides being a great design, this project will create jobs that are desperately needed in the city. please allow this project to proceed.

>> good evening. i support the project. a lot of people have not seen the whole papers of the project. i suggest for them to go back and look at them. there is something beautiful coming out to them. president olague: thank you. >> could inning, commissioners. my name is sandy denuto. i am a disabled person. i am limited in the buildings i can live in because there is no elevator access. i am happy they are taking into consideration ada regulations and that i would not be excluded from being able to enjoy the roof access the other tenants would because i am not able to use steps anymore. an elevator is becoming more and

more important to a lot of san francisco residents as we age. it is not possible to get up four flights of stairs without having an elevator. i think that is a great idea. president olague: thank you. >> my name is kieran buckley. i am here to support the project. do we have an overhead? if you look at this project, it is well in keeping with the neighborhood. this is the subject property here. this is the -- four consecutive buildings on the uphill side of lombard street have a roof decks and enable their residents to have the use of the bay and the golden gate bridge.

neighbors have called the proposed structure too tall. it has too many elevators. i think it is a good idea, the elevators. it is handicapped accessible. basically, i am in favor of the project. i think it is very well designed by the architect. i would urge moving forward with the project. thank you. >> and gus mccarthy, a member of the residential builders association. i knew the -- i knew that what would be in front of us today is people upset about the demolition, not the case in front of us today. there are a lot of comments that should not have been made here. what is in front of you is a building that is proposed. as far as design goes, many people feel it is a good design.

it is not a large project in the sense it only has four units. i wonder what passed supervisors of this district would think if you asked them not to build an elevator to the roof so she could enjoy it the deck like anyone else. that is why the elevator goes of instance that much higher. that is not designed. that is the code. people need to understand that. not everybody seems to completely get it. with regard to the four units, this project is designed to facilitate what the city is looking for right now. that is neighborhoods like this, with just enough units that it does not impact the community. you have 13 units next door. you have three the other side. this is a fit. focus on the facts. this design does work. this project has gone through the motions of historical view. this is a project to improve a badly needed area of town in

which no building is going on. president olague: thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. i want to speak in favor of the project. looking at the facts, the project's sponsors have addressed concerns of the neighbors. it is in keeping with the planning codes and regulations. the project has been held for a long time. i think the focus seems to be on the circumstances, not the design. it is in keeping with the planning codes. it would be good at keeping with the planning codes. any project would go ahead at

the moment -- that would go ahead at the moment would help the morale of the industry. a project like this suits and is in keeping with the neighborhood. i think we are all in favor and think it should go ahead. president olague: thank you. >> commissioners, i would like to address the demolition. from the time that there was an application to demolish the building, the director of the building department, the deputy director, the chief building inspector, the building inspection commissioners, and the deputy city attorney all visited the site. it was a lawful demolition. i would like to put that into the record. there are a lot of allegations here. just to take a quote from a historical evaluation -- the

project will no -- will not have an impact on the potential historic district in the vicinity of the project. as far as the project next door goes, the family meticulously drew up an agreement for easements for their property line treat issues, which was given here and recorded with the city and county. the issues were dealt with in this legal document. as far as the density, the density here is very low. it is one unit per 182 square feet. the building next door is one unit per 364 square feet. there have been numerous projects proposed and rejected by the neighbors, regarding the penthouse.

if it is an elevator building, the elevator is required to go to the roof. it is california building code. if it is a handicapped building, the elevator is required to go to the roof. you cannot discriminate against anybody. a lot of people have been saying you do not need the elevator. it is part of the building code. thank you for your time. >> i will start out by speaking to the easement. my family was represented by john molinari, a judge. you do not have legal descriptions drawn up by lawyers and you do not have surveyors map easement and miss things. your intentions were captured in the legal description and the

service. this plan does not conflict with any of the surveys that are recorded. the building to the right is one unit per 624 square feet. the building to the left is one unit per 364 square feet of dirt. the proposed project is one unit every 1182 square feet. it is far less dense than any of its immediate neighbors. if the project sponsor were to do a lot split, he would have two lots and could have six units on it. each lot would be 2363 square feet. the law to the right is only 1873 square feet. as far as the height those, the front of the building matches almost a identically the building to the left. after the setback, it matches the building to the right. the architect has a wonderful proposal for the rear

storehouse. it moves the penthouse and opens up the view for 1262 lombard street. that offer was rejected, and it is a good proposal. when 1262 went and applied for their roof deck, they faced much of the same opposition from the same neighbors as the project sponsor is facing now. finally, the comments about the holes in the roof -- i happened to be there one day, talking to commissioner deborah walker. she climbed up the stairs and booked for those holes in the roof and did not find them. president olague: thank you. is there additional public comment? anyone who has not spoken can speak for two minutes. >> i am a resident of san francisco. i am more like a fly on the wall. i do not live in the neighborhood, but i do walk through the area. i have to say that knowing --

looking at what you have projected here on screen, and having been in my own neighborhood, sometimes we have seen architectural designs that were going to be interested. someone is always going to be bruised somewhere along the way. it isal looking at this come up with my graphic knowledge and background of 30 years in design, i can at least said that when you put a building like this with a setback of 15 feet for the next levels up, it does not show an obtrusive as for the street. it fits very well among these other gems and treasures that we have along that avenue. the given consideration to the backside, where it tears itself down as opposed to the other buildings that have rectangular early taken up their space, i

think there is a lot of consideration. i know somebody is going to be bruised in the in here, but i have seen this kind of design work very well in the mission district and work very well in north beach. it is sad to see, historical ly, that a 175-year-old building is destroyed. it is not good to come back. i have to admit, from what i see here, having no background on this, i think this is a well thought out. i applaud it. president olague: is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini: i think this is a good project for a lot of the reasons that have already been stated. one is the size of the lot,

which is pretty big. i am very familiar with the building that was built close to me which is on a standard lot. they did three units. i have been in that and they did a good job with that. as was pointed out, given the amount of space you have, you certainly could add a fourth unit, and it is appropriate in terms of the size of units in the neighborhood. it still leaves a 37.5 deep regard. -- rear yard. the demolition has been mentioned. it was reviewed by the historic preservation commission on numerous occasions. i think there was a proposal to move some stairs around and do a few things to perhaps open up things a little bit for 1262. if it sounds like the project sponsor would be amenable to it, if there is a way to do modifications on the rear of the

project, i would not propose it as a condition. only that wherever you can work with to bring in what you have already proposed as an idea -- it might help everybody out. much of the other stuff has already been memorialized by these easements created many years ago. that deals with a lot of it. i think they are right, if i am not mistaken. if you have a fourth floor building, i believe you are required to have an elevator. i am not sure, but i believe that is the case. that is being" compliant. it is a nice unit makes -- mix. i think they will be good units that can be used for a variety of uses, hopefully for families. i like the architecture. i think it blends well with the houses in the neighborhood. the wood siding has a lot of the features. i think it is pretty even.

it even seems they are saving the tree. i am in support. i'll see what other commissioners have to say. commissioner sugaya: i was a little disappointed that we did not receive the historic preservation commission, the staff memo to the commission when they heard this item, which was on the new construction. there was an analysis by an architectural historian who has surveyed russian hill and is considered to be an expert on historic buildings in that part of town. we also did not receive -- i will ask stuff now.

in this memo from shelley, she says this is from may of 2010, the staff has not completed an analysis of the project. it seems they seek comments on compatibility of the new design. what were the comments? >> the architectural review committee thought the level appeared tumbled and would detract from the risque. -- appeared jumbled and would detract from the roofscape. they felt the project was graceless. at the july 17 hearing, 2010,

they had comments about the project lacking richness. they thought the building was to stripped-down. the building is balky. however, the projected not need to match the building next door. however, the plants were of a much more starke design. that caused the residential design team to modify the project to the state is in today. president olague: thank you. commissioner antonini: move to approve. >> commissioners, the motion on the floor is for approval.

commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: no. commissioner fong: aye. commissioner moore: no. commissioner sugaya: aye. vice president miguel: aye. president olague: no. >> that motion passes on a 4-3 vote. thank you. commissioners, you are now on item 15, for 45 grattan street. commissioner sugaya: i do have a conflict of interest on this one. we provided a supplemental historic resources evaluation directly to the client.

apparently, the client never submitted that to the department, to my knowledge. subsequently, mr. paul i think engaged a different architectural history firm to do a full historic resources evaluation, which is mentioned in the staff materials. but i feel that since we did actually have a contract and were paid for the original work that we did that that constitutes a conflict. vice president miguel: move to reduce commissioner sugaya. commissioner fong: aye. commissioner antonini: aye. president olague: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner borden: aye. >> commissioner sugaya is reduced. >> i would like to pass up some initial information submitted by

the applicant. it is provided in your packet. you do have these materials before you. the case before you is located in an rh-2 district. lombarin general, there are cons that the project is not in keeping with the neighborhood character and that the project would adversely impact like to access, particularly to the rear yard and mid blocked open space. there are